Strategic leadership development in research intensive higher education contextsthe scholarship of educational leadership

The scholarship of educational leadership SoEL has significant benefits for RIUs and academic leaders with educational roles and responsibilities at various institutional levels: SoEL pr

Chapter 1

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0672-0.ch001

ABSTRACT

This chapter draws on 17 years of research and mentoring experience with hundreds of academic leaders

in diverse research-intensive university (RIU) environments around the world The authors argue that scholarship should be central to academic leadership initiatives in RIUs The scholarship of educational leadership (SoEL) has significant benefits for RIUs and academic leaders with educational roles and responsibilities at various institutional levels: SoEL provides a strategic foundation for educational reform and other quality assurance and quality enhancement activities; SoEL is strategically aligned with RIU mandates for sustained and productive scholarly activity; SoEL fosters an institutional culture

of educational scholarship aimed at enhancing effective and efficient practices in undergraduate and graduate programs; and RIUs become better known for valuing educational excellence through SoEL and its strategic contribution to enhance regional, national, or international rankings This chapter examines theory-practice applications of SoEL in diverse RIU contexts.

INTRODUCTION

In an environment of unprecedented global competition, rapid technological change, limited resources, diversity in the student body, and demands for internationally-responsive undergraduate and graduate

Strategic Leadership Development in

Research-Intensive Higher Education Contexts:

The Scholarship of Educational Leadership

Harry T Hubball

The University of British Columbia, Canada

Anthony Clarke

The University of British Columbia, Canada

Marion L Pearson

The University of British Columbia, Canada

degree programs, the quality of higher education practices is being scrutinized as never before Academic leaders around the world on research-intensive university (RIU)1 campuses are increasingly required

to account for effectiveness and efficiency of their practices While RIUs have long recognized the im-portance and complexity of academic leadership, the enactment of strategic and localized scholarship directed at these leadership practices remains very much in its infancy (Bryman, 2007; de la Harpe & Mason, 2014; Hubball, Clarke, Chng, & Grimmett, 2015; Mohrman, Ma, & Baker, 2008; Quinlan, 2014) The argument put forth in this chapter is that scholarship should be central to academic leadership in RIU contexts in order to sustain and enhance high quality, strategically-aligned, research-informed, and evidence-based practices The scholarship of educational leadership (SoEL) has unique benefits for RIUs and academic leaders (e.g., senior administrators, Associate Deans, program directors, curriculum lead-ers, program and teaching evaluators, teaching award winnlead-ers, and tenured instructors and professors) with particular roles and responsibilities for quality assurance, educational reform, and curriculum and pedagogical leadership at various institutional levels within and across diverse disciplinary contexts This chapter draws on 17 years of research and experience with academic leaders in multinational research-intensive university (RIU) environments The authors are academic leaders at The University of British Columbia who have served in various educational capacities, including as directors of programs and as members of Faculty and/or institutional promotion and tenure committees All are teaching prize winners, and two are National Teaching Fellows who have mentored hundreds of academic leaders from around the world with respect to SoEL

Different acronyms are used in different institutional contexts to describe the scholarship of educational leadership (SoEL), including scholarship of leadership in education (SoLE), scholarship of teaching and learning leadership (SoTL leadership), and teaching and learning leadership (TLL) In this chapter, the

term SoEL is defined as a distinctive form of educational scholarship with an explicit transformational

and strategic agenda that is directed at academic leaders in RIU settings Issues addressed in this chapter focus on effective ways for RIUs to engage in SoEL Attention is given to a rationale for SoEL in global RIU contexts; a theoretical framework for SoEL; practical examples for strategic use of SoEL by academic leaders within diverse institutional settings; and key institutional challenges and supports Readers are encouraged to consider the following core questions in their own institutional context:

• To what extent are strategic educational initiatives (e.g., quality assurance/quality enhancement, program-level student learning outcomes, learning technology, educational reform) supported through research-informed and evidence-based practice within and across the disciplines?

• To what extent are institutional supports (e.g., strategic professional development, alignment of promotion and tenure criteria) adequate for academic leaders to engage in SoEL in order to sustain and enhance high quality, strategically-aligned, research-informed, and evidence-based under-graduate and under-graduate level degree programs, teaching, and student learning experiences?

CONTEXT FOR THE SCHOLARSHIP OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP (SoEL)

In the global context of higher education reforms, the increasing attention to student experiences in both undergraduate and graduate programs (as judged by the students themselves) has resulted in highly pub-licized “league tables” on which some RIUs, to their dismay, find themselves on lower rungs than they might have anticipated Despite controversy and methodological concerns, world university rankings do

have an impact and carry significant weight for diverse stakeholders on university campuses (Tamburri, 2013; Times Higher Education, 2015) Further, increasing pressure by governments on higher education institutions to better serve students has forced RIUs to develop specific mission statements that address the quality of undergraduate and graduate student learning experiences This widespread public scrutiny and government pressure has resulted in academic leaders being increasingly required to account for high quality, effective, and efficient educational practices in RIUs, with their social, political, economic, organizational, cultural, and disciplinary complexities

In this environment, scholarship is central to effective leadership In particular, SoEL is intended to address many of the historical shortcomings of academic leadership in RIUs SoEL offers a unique and transformational practice-based research strategy for academic leaders who work with faculty members, administrators, students, and key stakeholder representatives at various levels of educational reform (i.e., within and beyond classrooms, programs, Faculties, and campuses) SoEL is aimed at sustaining high quality, strategically-aligned, research-informed, and evidence-based educational practices Specifically, SoEL provides a strategic foundation for both quality assurance and quality enhancement activities; SoEL is strategically aligned with RIU mandates for sustained and productive scholarly activity; SoEL fosters an institutional culture of educational scholarship aimed at enhancing undergraduate and gradu-ate level degree programs, teaching, student learning experiences, and faculty development; and SoEL provides an avenue for RIUs to become better known for valuing educational excellence and its strategic contribution to regional, national, or international rankings

As an example, The University of British Columbia (UBC), is routinely ranked among the top 40 universities in the world and is among the top 3 universities in Canada (Times Higher Education, 2015) UBC educates a student population of 50,000 and offers over 250 graduate degree programs through 12

Faculties, 1 College, and multiple Schools (see http://www.ubc.ca/) The University’s Place and Promise

2020 visioning document professes a commitment to student learning and the application of new research

on education to the review and revision of curricula and pedagogical practices (The University of British

Columbia, 2012) SoEL (or SoTL Leadership, as it is often referred to in this institutional context) has

made a significant contribution at UBC to a wide range of academic leadership policies, programs, and practices (e.g., quality assurance; undergraduate and graduate degree program reform; and program, curriculum, and pedagogical leadership) within and across disciplinary settings In particular, strategic institutional supports, including customized professional learning experiences for nominated academic leaders and strategically-aligned promotion and tenure criteria, have enabled academic leaders, at vari-ous institutional levels, to engage in SoEL since 1998

THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS FOR SoEL

The higher education literature makes useful distinctions between best practices for, scholarly approaches

to, and the scholarship of educational leadership (Bryman, 2007; Hubball, Clarke, Webb, & Johnson,

2015Quinlan, 2014) Best practices for educational leadership often refer to non-context-specific

edu-cational leadership practices with criteria or general principles for effectiveness that are grounded in expert experience While a useful guide and starting point for many novice educational leaders, these tips and principles don’t necessarily align well with institutional research cultures, disciplinary com-plexities, or rapid practice changes (e.g., use of technology) that occur within educational communities situated in RIUs

Scholarly approaches to educational leadership are part of a larger process of current institutional

and educational reforms within RIU contexts (Ambrose et al., 2010; Boyer, 1990; Richlin & Cox, 2004) Grounded in reflective inquiry and/or professional development, scholarly approaches to educational leadership seek ongoing improvements to practice A scholarly approach to educational leadership, as with many forms of inquiry, is based on three underlying assumptions about knowledge: (1) it is person-ally constructed, (2) it is sociperson-ally mediated, and (3) it is inherently situated (Hubball, Clarke, & Pratt, 2013) Each of these assumptions provides directions and cautions For example, the first assumption cautions that individual conceptions of the “good” in educational leadership will always be part of how educational leadership is constructed and understood Therefore, academic leaders need to make explicit their own assumptions, beliefs, and expectations about effective educational leadership as a first step to

an authentic, inclusive, and productive conversation and reflection about their roles and responsibili-ties The socially mediated dimension of knowledge construction speaks to that conversation/reflection and the importance of arriving at a shared understanding of effective educational leadership and how

it might be implemented and continually developed Coming to a shared understanding requires open dialogue and active participation by all stakeholders involved (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002) The co-constructed knowledge that arises from such engagement is essential to educational leadership practices that uphold and honour knowledge as being always complex, dynamic, and contested (Stacey, 2000) This co-construction of knowledge must also take into account institutional structures and local cultures of educational leadership Finally, because educational leadership is inherently situated within the disciplinary traditions, learning environments, and political landscapes that frame the particular context in which the educational leadership takes place, scholarly approaches to educational leadership must attend to the historical, political, and other factors that characterize local practices That is, the educational leadership and the context are inextricably linked and determine each other in significant ways Honouring the situated nature of knowledge is, therefore, a recognition that individual communities exist within broader communities of scholarly and professional practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Stake

& Cisneros-Cohernour, 2000) Taken together, these three characteristics of knowledge construction underpin scholarly approaches to educational leadership within RIU contexts

SoEL builds on scholarly approaches to educational leadership and combines effective leadership with practice-based research for academic leaders in RIU contexts In order to sustain and enhance high quality, strategically-aligned, research-informed, and evidence-based educational practices, SoEL emphasizes

a familiarity with the research literature, practice-based inquiry, diverse research methodologies, and venues for peer reviewed dissemination, as well as the expectations for strategic organizational impact (Arthur, Waring, Coe, & Hedges, 2012; Cousin, 2009; Hubball, Lamberson, & Kindler, 2012) Thus,

“educational leadership” takes the form of scholarship through the introduction of systematic rigorous inquiry; networked improvement communities; symbolic and cultural changes to the normative context that governs academic work; and dissemination of theory and practice in peer reviewed fora (Bryk, Go-mez, & Grunow, 2011; Bryman, 2007; de la Harpe & Mason, 2014; Friedman, 2006; Grimmett, 2015a; Quinlan, 2014; Sorcinelli & Yun, 2007) Diverse perspectives of SoEL are shaped by particular cultural (i.e., global, regional), institutional (i.e., university-specific), disciplinary (i.e., signature practices), epis-temological (i.e., how we know what we know), methodological (i.e., alignment of the approach with the conditions), and ethical (i.e., confidentiality and anonymity) considerations (Hutchings, Huber, & Ciccone, 2011) Further, knowledge construction is ontologically complex and draws upon appropriate context-specific frameworks (Davis & Sumara, 2006)

In complex RIU contexts with diverse stakeholders and challenges, and varying levels of support (e.g., availability of strategic resources and expertise), SoEL assists academic leaders to ensure that “the whole” far exceeds the sum of the individual parts while seeking to better understand, examine, improve, and disseminate evidence-based practice in peer reviewed fora (Green, 2008; Marshall, Orrell, Cameron, Bosanquet, & Thomas, 2011) Thus, SoEL offers significant benefits for RIUs and academic leaders with particular roles and responsibilities at various institutional levels The imperative for SoEL is compel-ling, especially when one considers that academic leaders are expected to respond to and enhance RIU profiles within and beyond the communities they serve

DEVELOPING INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY FOR SoEL

Deliberate effort is required to develop institutional capacity and individual capability for SoEL The authors’ research and leadership experiences suggest that effective strategies include (1) creating an institutional vision for SoEL, (2) strategically aligning promotion and tenure criteria with expectations for SoEL, and (3) providing customized institution-level professional development support to enable academic leaders to engage in SoEL

Institutional Visioning

Institutional visioning for SoEL should be considered in the broad context of supporting teaching and learning excellence The integrated top-down and bottom-up model in Figure 1 illustrates the strategic role of SoEL in an RIU

Figure 1 Situating SoEL to support teaching and learning excellence in an RIU context

Higher Education/RIU Context

This element at the top of Figure 1 represents the internal and external RIU forces which impact SoEL For example, regional, national, and/or professional accreditation agencies in many areas of the world are working more closely than ever with RIUs to anchor their activities in institutional mandates to better support educational practices, leadership, and scholarship In addition, leadership-based scholarly organi-zations such as the International Consortium for Educational Development (ICED) and the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (ISSOTL) attest to the increasing receptivity of academic conferences, journals, and granting organizations to SoEL submissions For example, the Canadian Council of 3M National Teaching Fellows (2014) provided a national grant funding program

to support, mobilize, and celebrate the strategic development of the scholarship of leadership in educa-tion and the efforts of academic leaders in higher educaeduca-tion Government initiatives, such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE) National Innovation Strategy, have also had an impact on strategic educational and leadership priorities within research-intensive universities (United Arab Emirates Cabinet, 2016)

Strategic Institutional-Level/Discipline-Specific SoEL

This element in Figure 1 reflects strategically trained academic leaders (e.g., Associate Deans, program directors, curriculum leaders, teaching evaluators, teaching award winners, and tenured instructors and professors) with SoEL expertise As an example, during the past two decades, the authors have observed many restructuring and visioning efforts to support excellence for teaching and learning at their own RIU, within which strategically trained academic leaders with SoEL expertise have played a critical role in implementation of quality assurance or enhancement, degree program renewal, scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL), and faculty development at various institutional levels (Hubball et al., 2012) Examples of institution-level SoEL initiatives from the authors’ experiences with academic leaders around the world include programme renewal at the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa involving the Vice-President Teaching & Learning, Senior Advisor for Teaching & Learning, selected Vice-Deans from across six Faculties; and institutional Quality Assurance, Educational Development and Academic Program Directors; institutional capacity building for educational scholarship through the Teaching Academy Fellows at the National University of Singapore; and involvement of senior profes-sors, curriculum leaders, program directors, and institutional quality assurance faculty in scholarship

of teaching and learning efforts related to innovations at the United Arab Emirates University (UAEU) supported by the aforementioned National Innovation Strategy

Project-Based SoTL Initiatives

The central stars in Figure 1 refer to strategically coordinated SoTL initiatives and projects related to curricula and pedagogical approaches For example, various SoTL projects related to curricula and peda-gogical innovations have been initiated in one health sciences undergraduate program at UBC, includ-ing an examination of students’ attitudes and responses to the use of narrative pedagogy and a study of student and faculty usage patterns and perceptions of digital recordings of lectures (Marchand, Pearson,

& Albon, 2014; Pearson & Hubball, 2012) Academic leaders with SoEL expertise play a critical role

in initiating, supporting, and implementing these types of faculty-driven and project-based initiatives

Scholarly Approaches to Teaching and Learning

The broad horizontal arrow in Figure 1 reflects a foundational institutional expectation for high quality teaching and student learning experiences For example, at UBC, grounded in reflective inquiry, best practice, and ongoing improvements to pedagogical strategies, the collective agreements for all teaching faculty (including graduate teaching assistants, instructional librarians, faculty development staff, etc.) include an expectation to engage in scholarly approaches to teaching and learning Professional develop-ment support for scholarly approaches to teaching and learning primarily exists within the disciplines (e.g., program-based mentoring and internal teaching and learning units), though support is also available through a centralized service unit

Strategically-Aligned Promotion and Tenure Criteria

Clearly, institutional visioning for SoEL in RIU contexts has institutional implications for strategically-aligned promotion and tenure (P&T) criteria, as well as customized professional development support

in order to enable academic leaders to engage in SoEL As part of institutional reform around the world, many RIUs are reconsidering their criteria for merit, promotion, and tenure These efforts are not neces-sarily occurring at the same pace or ideally synchronized However, there is a move towards strategic alignment of career progress criteria with issues of educational leadership and its related scholarship within and across the disciplines and at various levels of academic rank at RIUs Selected examples

of institutions where this is occurring include the University of Toronto in Canada, the University of Birmingham in the UK, and the National University of Singapore in the Republic of Singapore (Hub-ball et al., 2015) Furthermore, on such campuses, department heads, Deans, and senior appointments committees are seeking better data on SoEL so they can more responsibly carry out their respective oversight and evaluation functions related to promotion and tenure

Consistent with many RIUs, progress through the academic ranks of Assistant, Associate, and Full Professor at UBC requires appropriate evidence for scholarly activity, teaching excellence, and service (The University of British Columbia, 2014) According to UBC’s P&T guidelines, and relevant to SoEL, the criteria for the scholarship of teaching and for professional contributions are weighted equally with traditional scholarly research in career progression for the professorial stream Criteria for evaluating the scholarship of teaching include factors such as originality or innovation, demonstrable impact in a particular field or discipline, peer reviews of scholarly contributions to teaching, dissemination in the public domain, and substantial and/or sustained use by others Similarly, the evaluation of professional contributions takes into account evidence that might be viewed as demonstrating leadership, rare ex-pertise, or outstanding stature within a field or discipline In parallel with the tenure-track professorial stream, UBC also has a tenure-track instructional stream with the academic ranks of Instructor, Senior Instructor, and Professor of Teaching, within which there are expectations for educational leadership, as well as teaching excellence and service contributions For example, relevant to educational leadership, the Professor of Teaching rank established at UBC in 2011 requires evidence of outstanding achieve-ment in leadership provided within the university and elsewhere to advance innovation and excellence

in teaching; contributions to curriculum development and renewal within the unit or Faculty; scholarly teaching with impact inside and outside the unit; and applications of and contributions to the scholarship

of teaching and learning (The University of British Columbia, 2014, Sections 3.1.6 to 3.2.6, 3.4.1, and 4.4) However, although contested in UBC’s RIU context and unlike RIUs offering a similar rank, the

criteria for promotion to Professor of Teaching do not include an explicit requirement for scholarship Nonetheless, aspiring candidates in the instructional stream for the Professor of Teaching rank are often strategically nominated and supported by their Dean to voluntarily undertake the customized institution-level SoTL Leadership Program available at UBC

Customized Professional Development for Academic Leaders

Academic leadership training programs at RIUs tend to be led by recognized senior administrators with

a successful track record in institution-level governance and typically focus on related functions such as strategic visioning, management skills, budgeting, conflict resolution, fostering research communities, and facilitating career progress However, there is often very little emphasis placed on fostering scholar-ship pertaining to these practices

At UBC, academic leaders with specific roles and responsibilities to support excellence in teaching and learning at various institutional levels within and across the disciplines have an opportunity to be nominated by their Dean to participate in the International Faculty SoTL Leadership Program This UBC program provides customised professional development support that enables academic leaders to engage in SoEL Since its initiation in 1998, the program has evolved to place increasing emphasis on

scholarship, and now regards the scholarship of teaching and learning leadership (SoTL leadership) as

of the same order as the scholarship of educational leadership (SoEL).

Professional Development Framework for Academic Leaders

Traditionally, there has been a lack of systematic preparation and strategic professional development for SoEL on RIU campuses Where such opportunities are available, there is often a reliance on well-intentioned but ad hoc and generic educational leadership best practice workshops for academic leaders Figure 2 provides a useful professional development framework that integrates theory with practice and invites institutional and discipline-specific academic leaders to engage in SoEL through iterative phases

of planning, implementation, and assessment (Hubball & Burt, 2004) This framework has been adapted for academic leaders at RIUs from around the world (e.g., Australia, Bahrain, Canada, China, England, Japan, New Zealand, Qatar, South Africa, Scotland, Singapore, Spain, Thailand, UAE, USA, and The West Indies) This framework takes into account diverse ontological, epistemological, methodological, and ethical considerations for SoEL and invites institutional leaders to draw upon appropriate context-specific models to develop, implement, and/or assess the impact of educational practices

Context

The context element in Figure 2 takes into account relevant SoEL literature and the “big picture” fac-tors that support optimal environments for educational practices in RIU settings At a macro level, these factors include situated higher education agencies, institutional and discipline-specific strategic planning goals, political structures, promotion and tenure expectations, and prioritized resources avail-able for educational reform At a meso level, professional development for institution- or Faculty-level SoEL that focuses on engaging networked improvement communities grounded in inquiry is needed in order to sustain and enhance effective, efficient, and high quality educational practices, as well as peer reviewed dissemination

The planning element in Figure 2 takes into account all components of the conceptual framework to develop strategic long-term, intermediate, and short-term SoEL goals For example, academic leaders have different starting points for SoEL and different goals, opportunities for quality enhancement, and targets Thus, they should be actively engaged in mapping their own SoEL professional development,

as well as contributing to the culture of SoEL excellence within their disciplinary context

Implementation

The implementation element in Figure 2 takes into account all components of the conceptual framework

to implement progressive and strategically-aligned educational practices that respond to the diverse needs and circumstances of the RIU context, including strategic priorities for excellence in student learning These include engaging networked improvement communities, offering technology-enabled professional learning experiences, and providing mentoring opportunities for faculty members that can support progressive SoEL development and impacts

Assessment

The assessment element of Figure 2 takes into account all components of the conceptual framework to focus on strategic and authentic assessment of SoEL These include formative and summative assess-ments Drawing on the scholarly literature, formative assessment may take the form of self-assessment or feedback from administrators, peers, faculty groups, and students Summative assessment is more formal and evaluative in nature For example, in the case of career progress decisions, assessment strategies

Figure 2 A professional development heuristic to enhance SoEL for academic leaders

may include external reviews of the impact of an academic leader’s SoEL Individuals participating in this assessment should be knowledgeable and informed by specific P&T guidelines and have expertise

in SoEL and peer review methodology in order to make informed judgements

At UBC, this iterative framework has guided the development and implementation of customised professional development initiatives for academic leaders since 1998 The diversity of offerings has in-cluded the International Faculty SoTL Leadership Program; the UBC Peer Review of Teaching Leaders Program; the UBC Curriculum Scholarship Leaders Program; the UBC Seconded Teachers Program; and UBC’s Graduate Supervision Leaders Program As a further example, the International Faculty SoTL Leadership Program (see http://international.educ.ubc.ca/SOTL/) is available in a range of customised face-to-face, online, and blended formats to UBC leaders and through invitation to partner universities internationally (Hubball & Clarke, 2010; Hubball et al., 2015; Hubball, Clarke, & Poole, 2010; Hubball, Clarke, & Pratt, 2013; Hubball, Clarke, Webb, et al., 2015; Hubball & Edwards-Henry, 2011; Hubball

& Pearson, 2009; Hubball, Pearson, & Clarke, 2013; Wang, Peng, Pearson, & Hubball, 2011)

Customised Program Design

Program-Level Learning Outcomes

On completion of the International Faculty SoTL Leadership program, academic leaders are to:

1 Think critically about SoTL leadership literature and its implications for educational leadership in diverse contexts (including issues such as curricular and pedagogical leadership, communities of practice, educational technologies, student engagement and inclusion, authentic assessment and evaluation, and research methods);

2 Integrate SoTL leadership research skills in complex educational practice settings (including the ability to access, retrieve, and evaluate relevant literature; define SoTL leadership research problems and apply research methods; demonstrate responsible use of ethical principles; and dissemination);

3 Demonstrate a critically reflective practice (including the ability to articulate a scholarly philosophy

of teaching/curriculum practice and provide an evidence-based educational leadership dossier);

4 Conduct formative peer review of teaching/curriculum reports that are grounded in the scholarly literature, methodological rigour, and authentic methods of assessment and evaluation; and,

5 Demonstrate effective leadership, collaboration, and communication skills when initiating, engag-ing in, and disseminatengag-ing SoTL leadership in peer reviewed contexts

Program Content

The program content focuses on two core themes and two thematic scholarship specializations:

Core Program Themes

1 SoTL Leadership Contexts: Global/national/regional/institutional/technological/discipline-specific

initiatives to enhance research-informed, evidence-based, effective, and strategically-aligned edu-cational leadership practices in diverse higher education settings; implementation challenges and strategic institutional supports

2 SoTL Leadership Research Design: Ontological, epistemological, methodological and ethical

considerations in complex educational leadership settings; developing and refining practice-based