Academic Development: A Space, But Is It an Identity?

Abstract

Academic development has been described as a fragmented enterprise (Rowland 2002; Webb 1992; Lee et al. 2008) as a means of recognizing the messy discursive terrain navigated by its subjects. These subjects are those persons commonly referred to as academic or educational developers, and they work under a banner which is conceived institutionally in response to the change agendas which have been assigned to the role(s) (Gibbs 2013). Given that academic development roles are typically associated with change, its fragmented status is a reflection of the multitude of discursive sites that academic development subjects must navigate in their everyday practice. I will be using Rowland’s (2002) metaphor “fault lines” to describe common discursive binaries where academic development subjects are positioned through interaction with other members of the institution (e.g., teachers, management, students, educational development colleagues). I will be arguing that academic development pedagogy can be reconceptualized as subject’s (individual academic developer’s) tactical responses to their discursive positioning(s). The chapter will explore the concept of fragmentation in the form of a composite literature review and auto-ethnographic narrative. The literature review will be interrupted by a series of auto-ethnographic vignettes (Richardson and St. Pierre 2005) written from the perspective of an academic development subject who has worked in a variety of academic development positions at three Australian higher education institutions. These vignettes will recount instances of everyday practice performed under the banner of academic development; performed at various binary fault lines. For the intended readership of academic managers, academic teaching staff and persons employed as academic/educational developers; this proposed chapter seeks to provide a perspective of academic development pedagogy as an identity performed navigating discursive fault lines.