Lots of interesting ideas - I do believe that context is important and
that informal communications are also vital, through close
relationships with academics, SMT, SU etc. When I arrived at Victoria
University of Wellington, the centre was criticised for not being
visible, so we needed to work on that. That was mainly through
refreshing working relationships across the univeristy, including on
relevant committees where my team ensured that we were updating
colleagues on what the centre was doing (including all those kinds of
cross-cutting initiatives mentioned by Dilly). It also meant we were
abreast of developments and could inform at a level other than the
main L&T Committee etc. We also produced an Annual Report, prefaced
with a lovely wordle - an idea I'd got from Susannah Quinsee at a HEDG
meeting. We created a 'sunshine folder' of unsolicited feedback so the
wordle was full of words like 'thanks', 'learning', 'help', 'support',
'ideas'. We ensured the short report included lots of infographics,
balanced with evidence of activiites and pictures, including of all
the team. We also provided updated short bios, including research and
scholarship to ensure credibility and to help colleagues knew our
specialisms. As a research-intensive univeristy, that was very
important.
Here at Bucks New University, I continue to try and balance formal and
informal communications. We also ensure we include research and
scholarship as part of our practice, all aligned with both our L&T and
Research Strategies for coherence.
best wishes
barbara


On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Boyd, Pete <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Colleagues…
>
> it is great to see this passionate debate unfolding and I cannot resist
> putting in my penny’s worth J
>
>
>
> It is true that academic development units tend to come and go within a
> university, or at least grow then shrink, at the whim of the latest Pro Vice
> Chancellor to be appointed. For me one practical consequence that Dilly
> mentions is important…as head of a unit do not grow your empire because
> before long you will be making redundancies…better to use secondments and
> fractional appointments using colleagues from each faculty.
>
>
>
> Meanwhile on the bigger debate about the positioning of the unit…my
> background is teaching and teacher education and so it is not surprising
> that practitioner inquiry and research are a central element to my approach.
> In my work with school teachers and with academics I position myself as a
> research mentor and help them to investigate their practice using systematic
> practitioner research.
>
>
>
> Therefore, in agreement I think particularly with Carmel, I would always
> want to position my academic development unit as an academic department and
> never as part of HR or staff development. I would want the academic
> development team to fully own at least one taught programme and be involved
> in PhD supervision of research into higher education. I would want the
> academic development team to be publishing research into higher education
> and helping colleagues in the faculties to publish their pedagogical
> research. This means that at least some of the academic development team
> need to be experienced higher education lecturers with a background in a
> subject discipline or field and this means it is expensive. Hence the need
> to use secondment for some of the staffing of the team. It produces research
> reports and papers that provide appropriate evidence of impact of the unit.
> As Michael Eraut points out in relation to our attempts to measure impact of
> professional development…‘Tidy maps of knowledge and learning are usually
> deceptive’ (2000: 133).
>
>
>
> Pete
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development Association
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Fung, Dilly
> Sent: 17 February 2015 08:42
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> Subject: Re: Development of Communications Strategies and Tactics
>
>
>
> Dear Panos
>
>
>
> Thanks for your passionate reply! I'd just like to clarify what I had meant
> to say, which I think will show that our positions are not so far apart.
>
>
>
> I'm not arguing that we should be quietly humble and lack systematic
> professionalism; on the contrary, my view is that we need to focus on
> promoting systematically and very publicly our clearly identified frameworks
> for 'good' education, along with a suite of engaging events and initiatives,
> and make the case for these to become part of institutional policy and
> practice. If we take this approach, rather than looking to publicise the
> centre itself explicitly, then the centre becomes much more effective and,
> ironically, better known. We also have a detailed strategic plan, and the
> centre's name is written into many a corporate document; but we focus our
> considerable communications strategy on the ideas and initiatives themselves
> rather than directly promoting the name of the centre per se. This way, the
> working relationship with colleagues across the institution really does
> present itself as more of a partnership opportunity than a service-client
> relationship.
>
>
>
> Carmel rightly picks up the need for the clear evidence base. We are
> developing this, and our main focus is on evidence for the success of the
> partnership activities we have instigated (e.g. our UCL Arena 'menu of
> opportunities' with its 'Exchange Seminars' series led by academics from
> right across UCL, and our whole-institutional Connected Curriculum
> initiative) rather than on the success of the centre. If we do the former
> first, the latter becomes pretty straightforward -as does answering the
> question, 'What does your centre do?' In our still quite traditional,
> devolved and research-intensive culture at UCL, this really does seem to be
> the way to go.
>
>
>
> I wish you every success in gathering ideas for developing communication
> strategies and tactics from colleagues across the sector - it will be very
> interesting indeed to find out about them.
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
>
>
> Dilly
>
>
>
> Dr Dilly Fung PFHEA
>
> Director of the Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching (CALT)
>
> University College London
>
> 1-19 Torrington Place,
>
> London, WC1E 7HB
>
>
>
> Web: www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning; www.ucl.ac.uk/calt
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> On 17 Feb 2015, at 05:21, "Panos Vlachopoulos"
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Thanks Carmel,
>
>
>
> Yes, I am aware that my use of 'corporate' may be seen as perhaps too
> 'business' like, which has implications for the role of being an active
> member of the academic community. I agree. I suppose what I was trying to
> convey is the need for a business like structure that includes all the
> things you mentioned plus a partnership ethos. Most of my successful stories
> as an academic developer have been with teams or individual with whom we
> agreed and delivered together based on empathetic discussions, plans and
> deliverable...I just feel that the idea of partnership although  often
> mentioned, it's not utilised enough. Same story  with approaches like design
> thinking in development of new initiatives etc. People refer to them but
> when we actually try it few are willing to support them till their
> implementation and evaluation.
>
>
>
> all best wishes
>
>
>
> Panos
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Carmel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear Panos and all
>
> Just a few thoughts from someone with decades working in T&L, mostly in
> Australia and Hong Kong. I don't think a overt marketing approach is valued
> in higher education. However, providing a clear evidence base about
> activities and outcomes is. In my view, all T&L centres need a detailed
> strategic plan with clear goals and deliverables/ outcomes/ KPIs - whatever
> terminology you want to use. Scholarly evaluation of all activities and
> projects (more than 'like-it' questionnaires) is essential. Dissemination of
> outcomes - e.g. evidence-based reports to the institutional community and a
> robust collection of academic papers for the wider academic community will
> show a centre's value in a way that is consonant with normal academic
> processes. Being 'corporate' does not fit well with me as a member of an
> academic community (both local and global); but being rigorous and scholarly
> does.
>
> Best regards, Carmel
>
> --
>
> Carmel McNaught, PhD, FAACE
>
> Emeritus Professor of Learning Enhancement
>
> The Chinese University of Hong Kong
>
>
>
> [log in to unmask] (preferred contact method)
>
> http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/clear/people/Carmel.html
>
>
> On 2/17/2015 10:51 AM, Panos Vlachopoulos wrote:
>
> Dear Dilly , Ian and fellow members of SEDA,
>
> Apologies for the wordy reply…..but I think I feel passionate about this
> topic as I consider myself an academic developer as a professional (on the
> top of my academic role in the School of Education)!
>
> It seems that visibility of Academic or Educational Development work is a
> double-edged sword. If we accept that Academic Development is an agent of
> change for every institution most of the frustrations are around
> establishing a link between the agency’s activities and the subsequent
> improvement of organisational practice- and proof of it. We can do that with
> ‘humility’, being satisfied and proud that a few words we said or an example
> we showed or a workshop we ran became in the hands of academics something
> useful for the students and the university! Or we can do it ‘loudly’, making
> sure that activities are always acknowledged and that we communicate to each
> stakeholder how useful we can be (or we are!).. Where does this leave us? I
> suppose it’s a decision based on the ‘ethos’ of each institution and the
> identity of each Learning and Teaching Centre within an institution.  First
> and foremost we must be and look like Professionals whether we are a service
> or a leadership entity or both.
>
>  Over the last 13 years I have been in 4 LT Centres in 4 countries. What
> they all had in common in terms of their communications was an attempt to
> win the hearts and minds of the everyday academic, practitioner. We simply
> get our professional satisfaction when we see things happening around us
> because of us. What do we do? How do we do it? How well do we do and how
> else could we do it, are just some of the questions that we should be
> constantly asking-and we do ask ourselves!. At the same time a lot of the
> Senior Management teams simply cannot answer the question “ What do you LT
> Centres actually do’? .  when redundancies and even complete shut downs of
> centres are common, we need to make sure that this question is answered. Not
> only for the sake of saving our jobs but primarily for the sake of having a
> voice in times of changes such as deregulation of HE, global competition,
> lose of local and community focus...the list is so big here!!
>
> I would offer here just a personal view, for whatever it’s worth! I would
> argue for a more modern (almost corporate) approach to academic development
> where there is true partnership between the faculties or departments and the
> LTC s . When Faculties and/or Departments Schools etc are getting a
> consultancy team (often at a high fee) they usually know what they want from
> them, what the consultancy team can do for them, and they know when they
> have been satisfied from their services. Yes? Similarly the other partners
> (the LTC), demonstrates a true empathetic approach to meetings and actions,
> listening and acting accordingly within agreed roles timelines and capacity
> to support s etc. That’s not humility…..it’s actually professional attitude!
> Normally there is at the end an agreement that the task has been completed
> to the satisfaction of the client. All communications are recorded and all
> the outcomes reported to the stakeholders. This requires of course personnel
> who are skilled in  area of human capability development and leadership BUT
> also good and effective communicators! I can see that this is an area for
> development for many of us academic developers I wonder how many of us
> actually received any development in the area of human communications,
> organisational change, project management etc….So, humility and low profile
> may had been the way to do thing (and to some extent it’s our instinct for
> doing things) but a modern dynamic and highly professional outlook of
> academic developers is perhaps what is required to stay aligned with current
> developments in HE.  In many ways we are the eyes and ears and the arms and
> legs of Universities when it comes to  understanding the changes in HE. We
> keep ourselves up to date with research in the field, with political
> developments, societal changes etc and we should be in the front line of the
> implementation of strategies as agents of change supporting our DVCs and
> PVCs. We need to put in place processes and structures that go beyond the
> ‘seminars and woskshops’ models and this include modern communication
> processes.
>
> I would love to see the googledoc being developed further with ideas from
> people in our diverse and highly experienced network
>
> https://docs.google.com/a/mq.edu.au/document/d/1cIma7m4JTYAsJA1YzTgk73GCw_pjRuGKPbjHGYBsaAw/edit
>
> all best wishes
>
> Panos
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Giles I.G. <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear Dilly and Panos,
>
> Dilly makes some very important observations in her reply, which match my
> own experiences. A central learning and teaching unit very often has to
> ‘take a back seat’ for an initiative to be adopted and owned across an
> organisation, however, without the unit there would be no traction for the
> initiative. As the initiatives come from a number of points, including
> senior managers, this can then lead to some less informed senior managers
> wondering what is the point of the unit. They don’t put their name, or
> originate, anything! It is the better informed senior managers who realise
> that they need the support of a well placed, respected and TRUSTED unit to
> deliver the every more demanding agenda they are expected to deliver.
>
> I do wonder if this is why there is some much flux in the size and location
> of Educational Development units within any one university, particularly
> when there are changes in the senior management teams.
>
> Best wishes,
> Ian
> ______________
> Dr Ian G. Giles PFHEA
> Emeritus Fellow, Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine
> Previously Director of the Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit
> University of Southampton
>
> e-mail:    [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> web:       http://www.southampton.ac.uk/medicine/about/staff/igg.page
>                http://about.me/iggiles
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/iggiles
>
> "The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled" - Plutarch
>
>
> From: <Fung>, Dilly Fung
> Reply-To: Dilly Fung
> Date: Monday, 16 February 2015 17:10
> To: "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>"
> Subject: Re: Development of Communications Strategies and Tactics
>
>
> Dear Panos
>
> This is a really interesting question. In my experience centres like ours
> can do better to develop cross-cutting initiatives which have their own
> names and profiles and to promote these, rather than promote the centre
> itself. In fact we go out of our way not to name our centre on a lot of the
> things we produce: the initiatives themselves (e.g. 'UCL Arena', or 'UCL
> Connected Curriculum') then take on a life of their own, and feel like (in
> fact, are) whole institutional activities. They're run by Steering Groups
> with representation from right across the institution.
>
> We also deliberately blur the boundaries of the centre itself as a unit -
> for example in terms of staffing, by having fractionally seconded academics
> from a range of subject areas working in partnership with us on initiatives
> (e.g. Connected Curriculum Fellows), and also by having students and
> professional colleagues working with us closely. The more we dissolve the
> centre into the fabric of the institutional community, the stronger the
> fabric of both the community and the centre seems to become: the educational
> developments take root in many places and become embedded in all kinds of
> projects and strategies. From a resourcing point of view, this approach has
> made us stronger as a centre - our work is evident in many areas of
> institutional life, and we can demonstrate impact. (Of course we're always
> looking to improve, and we're currently working to create better evaluation
> strategies to that end.)
>
> I'd be very interested to know what you and others think about the tensions
> between T&L centres being effective and being visible - perhaps those
> tensions are just not there in other institutions?
>
> All good wishes
>
> Dilly
>
> Dr Dilly Fung PFHEA
> Director, Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching (CALT)
> UCL
> 020 7679 5939 (Internal ext. 45939)
> 1-19 Torrington Place
> London
> WC1E 7HB
>
>
> On 16 Feb 2015, at 02:40, Panos Vlachopoulos wrote:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> greetings from Sydney. At MQ University Learning and Teaching Centre we are
> revisiting some of our communications strategies with an overall aim to
> achieve a  high 'visibility' of our teams  with key stakeholders within our
> institution (from Senior Management to all academic and professional staff).
> I am writing to ask for any ideas you can possibly offer us on this matter.
> To do so, I prepared a googldoc table. If you are doing something in your
> academic or educational development teams that you feel it works well in
> terms of communications and you are willing to share it with all of us,
> please edit the document. Of course you can all keep a copy of the final
> document....
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cIma7m4JTYAsJA1YzTgk73GCw_pjRuGKPbjHGYBsaAw/edit?usp=sharing
>
> I look forward to your contributions,
>
> all best wishes
>
> Panos
>
> --
>
> Dr Panos Vlachopoulos,
> Senior Lecturer in Higher Education Development
> Learning and Teaching Centre
> Building C3B 412
> Macquarie University
> NSW 2109 Australia
> T: +61 2 9850 9677
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dr Panos Vlachopoulos,
> Senior Lecturer in Higher Education Development
> Learning and Teaching Centre
> Building C3B 412
> Macquarie University
> NSW 2109 Australia
> T: +61 2 9850 9677
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> Check out my professional profile and connect with me on LinkedIn.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> University of Cumbria is a Company Limited by Guarantee, Registered in
> England & Wales No. 06033238. Registered Office: University of Cumbria,
> Fusehill Street, Carlisle, CA1 2HH. Telephone 01228 616234.
>
> Confidentiality: This email and its attachments are intended for the above
> named only and may be confidential. If they have come to you in error you
> must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone;
> please reply to this email and highlight the error.
>
> Security Warning: Please note that this email has been created in the
> knowledge that Internet email is not a 100% secure communications medium. We
> advise that you understand and observe this lack of security when emailing
> us.
>
> Viruses: Although we have taken steps to ensure that this email and
> attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good
> computing practice the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free.
>