The Idea of Educational Development: An Historical Perspective

Abstract

This essay examines the idea of educational development, inspired both in content and approach by John Henry Newman’s influential 19th century work on the idea of a university.

Keywords: organizational development, values, faculty development, John Henry Newman

In the mid 19th century, a time of considerable social and political upheaval, Cardinal John Henry Newman penned a seminal lecture series entitled “The Idea of a University” in which he provided a profound reflection on the history of (western) universities, not as institutions that arose from a particular national context, but rather as the evocation of a specific form of organizational culture.

Newman’s implicit purpose in creating the lectures was reconciliation of the conflicting forces acting within and upon 19th century universities; he avers that it is possible to cultivate a culture in which seemingly diametrically opposed forces such as religion and science; idealism and pragmatism; and freedom and duty; may peacefully and constructively co exist. Newman’s work distilled the organizational form of a university as one in which ambiguity, diversity, and originality are defining features; qualities that many would argue, for good or for ill, persist in 21st century higher education. As a field, educational development came into being in the late 20th century, so perhaps now we have sufficient history to begin to contemplate “the idea of educational development” and its evolving role in navigating—and shaping—the multivalent intellectual culture of Newman’s archetype, the university.

Newman’s model was classical education, and so naturally he refers often to the teachings of ancient Greeks and Romans, but he also borrows from Greek philosophy in his conception of the University as an ideal (MacIntyre, 2009; McCluskey & Winter, 2012; Tierney, 2016; Winterer, 2004). He proposes the university as a platonic form; one whose features will persist through infinite variations in appearance, time, or space. If we are to do the same with the idea of educational development, the exercise requires us to look beyond the shadows on the cave walls (e.g. our current practice) and to think both deeply, critically, and perhaps a little uncomfortably, about what serves as the essence of our work. It is possible we can even trace our institutional history back to those Greek academies, in which those seeking the higher ground of truth sought to challenge each other through now familiar teaching methods, such as discussion, debate, and dialogue; a function now being provided by this special issue of To Improve the Academy. To enter that dialogue, let us ask ourselves, how do we begin to discern the idea of educational development?

It would appear logical to start by articulating a set of established definitions for the field. This is far easier said than done, however, as not only is there no widespread consensus on its name—current candidates include educational development, academic development, faculty development, and more—but there are some who even argue that it should not even be described as a field or discipline (Little, 2014). These definitional issues are compounded when the exercise is expanded to include related terms such as teaching, learning, education, and development; these terms are not just various and complex, but their meanings are often contentious and contested in multiple arenas. To evoke the spirit of theorist Thomas Kuhn, our profession could be described as highly non paradigmatic (Kuhn, 1970).

This inability—or perhaps cultivated disinterest—to achieve consensus is reflected in the organizational culture of higher education, which some theorists have described as “organized anarchy,” an institutional type which is characterized by a lack of consistency on priorities, methods, and participants (Cohen & March, 1986; DiBella, 1992; Hanson, 2001; Ruscio, 2016). This anarchic disposition and configuration are not surprising, given that universities in the medieval world originated outside of formal political structures, fully part of neither church nor state, and often navigating between the two entities. Early universities devolved decision making towards semi autonomous bodies, from guilds to corporations to colleges (de Ridder Symoens, 2003). Given this history, the modern American model of strong executive power appears as an historical aberration; and the current trend towards distributed leadership may be seen as a return to form rather than a radical departure (Jones, Harvey, Lefoe, & Ryland, 2014: Stensaker & Vabø, 2013; Taylor, 2013). Over their history, educational developers have proven themselves to be adept at splitting identities and navigating these liminal spaces, whether between research and practice, teaching and learning, or faculty and administration/institution (Billot, 2010; Gravett & Bernhagen, 2015; Green & Little, 2012; Green & Little, 2013; Henkel, 2005; Winter, 2009). The return to distributed governance is proving to be fertile ground, with expanding opportunities for boundary crossers like us to increase not only our presence, but both formal and informal influence (Shinn, 2014).

With governance diffused throughout the institution, it is perhaps not surprising that higher education struggles with efficient decision making. The “garbage can” theory suggests that the various decision making bodies dump all kinds of problems and solutions together into a big container, and these then collide in largely random fashion (Cohen, March, & Olsen, 1972; March & Olsen, 1986; Olsen, 2001). To some, the garbage can is a problem to be fixed; i.e. a process that needs to be replaced so that institutions can respond to outside pressures more nimbly and move forward in clear directions. To others, however, the garbage can presents an intriguing alternative. Rather than emphasize efficiency as the end goal, the various governance structures within higher education produce deeper meaning, a form of symbolic production and reproduction of teaching, learning, service, and research, as new members join the ranks. Medieval universities were masters of such symbolism, and their iconographic legacy is still highly evident within higher education, from the colors of academic regalia to the ranks of the professorate (Cohn, Fantoni, Franceschi, & Ricciardelli, 2013; Pedersen, 1997). Each of these serve to communicate status; an implicit message of what actions or activities are considered more significant than others. Educational development, particularly in the physical form of centers for teaching and learning (CTL), also provide an explicitly symbolic function; they stake a claim for the central significance of teaching and learning to the university community, even in the midst of a “garbage can” of constituents, agendas, and challenges.

If one were to deconstruct the external symbolism of CTL, the perceptive anthropologist might uncover an implicit belief about organizational culture. Starting with the splintering of universities during the Protestant Reformation (de Ridder Symoens, 1997; Grendler, 2004; Scott, 2006), historians and theorists have generally described academic culture as diverse, consisting of various, often competing, nations (in the medieval sense), tribes, modes, or frames (Becher & Trowler, 2001; Bolman & Gallos, 2010; Schön, 1992). While educational development acknowledges and occasionally indulges this multiplicity, the field is founded on the belief that teaching and learning have universal value, regardless of these pre existing differences. This is why our standard programming (workshops, retreats, learning communities, etc.) is ecumenical in composition and why much of the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) is transcendent in orientation (Davis, 2017; Huber, 2013). The recognition of this universal value then underscores the aspiration to create a unified or shared university culture in the midst of its diversity, a greater community of teaching and learning (Condon, Iverson, Manduca, Rutz, & Willett, 2016; Felten, Kalish, Pingree, & Plank, 2007).

If the ultimate goal is the cultivation of community, then it stands to reason that much of what an educational developer does is to foster a sense of shared purpose and belonging. In many ways, our events and programs serve an inherently social function; they are an opportunity for people across campus to get together and talk about a subject of shared interest—teaching and learning as lingua franca. As one scholar puts it, what we do provides an “excuse for interaction” that might not otherwise take place (Birnbaum, 1989). This level of interaction positions the CTL as not simply a hive of social activity; but also a collaborative hub through which problems, solutions, and participants flow. Because of this distinctive role, savvy educational developers are poised to take advantage of what one theorist calls “stream politics” or the ability to channel various different flows of people and information in intentional and meaningful ways (Jones et al., 2016; Kauko, 2013; Kezar & Lester, 2009; Kingdon & Thurber, 1984; Zahariadis, 2014).

If this this metaphor describes our work, then we might ask, towards what body of water do we channel these streams? In other words, we have recognized that organized anarchies do not function well as producers of concrete consequences; so what would constitute appropriate long term goals for our work? In the 19th century, Wilhelm von Humboldt articulated the ultimate aim of higher education not as a product, but as an intellectual process, one in which how one mastered one’s fate was far more important than one’s fate itself. The process rests on a foundation of open and active inquiry; in which participants were free to challenge received wisdom and create new knowledge. Whether or not one agrees with Humboldt’s views, they have had undeniable influence on the values of modern day academia and, by extension, the field of educational development (Anderson, 2010; Krull, 2005; Smith & Webster, 1997). As microcosmic Humboldtian spaces, CTL are intended to provide safe havens for the exploration of teaching and learning practice (Lee, DeZure, Debowski, Ho, & Li, 2013); to emphasize teaching and learning as ongoing—and very much intellectual—processes; and to recognize and reward multiple pathways of development.

It should be noted, however, that the Humboldtian University does not exist; reality has never been able to match his ideals. In the same century in which he wrote, however, others were able to implement new models of higher education that served more pragmatic ends. At approximately the same time as Napoleon insisted upon the foundation of technical schools in France, in the United States, senator Justin Smith Morrell introduced a bill calling for the creation of land grant colleges (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). Both movements shared the belief that higher education could be seen as a public good, one the government was obliged to support because it led to the creation of a stronger, and more democratic, citizenry. On the one hand, public support led to the proliferation of access; and participation in higher education increased steadily, at times exponentially, across the 20th century (Lucas, 2006). On the other hand, public support also meant an increased burden of accountability, one which academia has not always born readily or easily. Educational development shares this burden of accountability. Even CTL at private institutions are obligated to show that the resources invested in their activities constitute time and money well spent (Schumann, Peters, & Olsen, 2013); and this, too, is not always an argument that is easily or readily made, especially to the extent that a CTL work embraces Humboldtian more than practical ideals.

Still, it is possible to view accountability not as a burden, but rather as means of legitimization and professionalization. Assessment serves to provide a rich body of evidence to support changes in teaching and learning practice, from the individual to the institutional level (Beach, Sorcinelli, Austin, & Rivard, 2016). Synthesizing and integrating that body of evidence requires time and expertise, the cultivation of which led to the creation of the first CTL in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s (Ortquist Ahrens, 2016). From there, the field continued to evolve, with an emphasis on growing the body of knowledge through on going scholarly practice (Austin & Sorcinelli, 2013), whether as SoTL or the emerging field of the Scholarship of Educational Development. In their delineation of the various stages of faculty development, Sorcinelli, Austin, and Eddy (2006) articulated a clear progression from that of focused on the scholar (1960s); the teacher (1970s); and the developer (1980s). The latter stage recognized the permanency of the field, both as an established body of knowledge and as a professional career path (Lee & McWilliam, 2008), one which has extended to include multiple institutions across the world.

During this period of the 1980s, William Bergquist, the then head of the POD Network, the leading professional society for educational developers in the United States, suggested that the historical path of higher education had led to the creation of intermingled cultures, ranging from the negotiated culture of the medieval university to the disciplinary collegiality of early modern institutions, to the professional, managerial mindset of the modern day (Bergquist, 1994). In addition to these types, he posited the existence of a developmental culture, one in which the primary emphasis was on learning. His intention was not to focus on student learning, but rather the learning that occurs throughout an institution; and he viewed educational developers as the progenitors for this form of generative organizational culture, connected via a common attention across the many layers of the university. Just as we coach faculty through changes in teaching and learning practice; so might department chairs coach faculty through tenure; and so might chief academic officers coach others towards meeting the strategic goals of the institution; and so on (Condon et al., 2016; Little & Palmer, 2011).

Rather than viewing these practices as a subculture, organizational theorists have suggested that learning permeates across an entire institution; and via this view it is possible to think strategically beyond the level of individuals or groups to consider collective means for creating and organizing knowledge (Boyce, 2003; Huber, 1991; Yorks & Marsick, 2000. Organizational learning is closely related to systems thinking, which emphasizes that the whole is often more than the sum of its parts. If you want to change a complex entity such as a university, in other words, it can be beneficial to consider the patterns of interdependency that exist within it. These patterns are the result of many, many adaptations to distinctive environments conducted by distinctive individuals; and so organizational learning can look very different from institution to institution (Blaschke, Frost, & Hattke, 2014, Land, 2001). As educational developers and CTL become more aware of their role within these systems, so do their adaptations become more tailored to the institutions in which they work. In other words, our practices are beginning to diverge and specialize as our field matures. The educational development programs and strategies that work at a small, liberal arts college in the rural mid west may not work for a large, public, doctoral granting university in the urban south. Twenty years ago, it might have been possible to travel across the United States and find significant commonalities in the work that CTL do; but that is becoming less and less the case (Kelley, Cruz, & Fire, 2017; Schroeder, 2015).

This divergence is also a reflection of an emerging trend away from isomorphic or memetic tendencies within higher education. In other words there is a growing realization that it is not always the best path to follow what others have done before you, particularly in light of rapid advances in technology, communication, and related fields (Birnbaum, 2004; McCluskey & Winter, 2012; Morphew & Huisman, 2002). As the marketplace demands graduates who have stronger adaptive and creative problem solving skills (Azzam, 2009), universities are attempting to pivot and become more responsive, even nimble, within their own increasingly competitive environments. This leads to practices that have been variously described as agility, bricolage, punk, or even hack (Braun, Peus, Frey, & Knipfer, 2016; Starr Glass, 2010; Välimaa & Hoffman, 2008; Zeichhardt, 2014); all are part of what is being described as the entrepreneurial university (Etzkowitz, Webster, Gebhardt, & Terra, 2000; Leih & Teece, 2016). Educational development has always possessed an improvisational aspect (Albon, Iqbal, & Pearson, 2016), a consequence of our inherent liminality, as well as our focus on fostering innovation and creativity in teaching and, by extension, learning across the institution (Rossing & Hoffmann Longtin, 2016).

This divergence in practice should not necessarily be interpreted as a sign of disintegration. Rather, the idea of educational development continues in the shared scholarly and practical interest in the inter and trans disciplinary tools and perspectives of organizational learning and development (Cruz, 2014; Fletcher & Patrick, 1998; Gibbs, 2013; Gosling, 2009; Manning, 2013; Schroeder, 2012). To navigate liminal spaces successfully requires the intentional cultivation of reciprocal networks (Biancani, McFarland, & Dahlander, 2014). To foster a community of teaching and learning implies the production of social capital (Carpenter, Coughlin, Morgan, & Price, 2010). To create new knowledge means the conduct of careful experimentation. To organize a field involves building consensus. To mobilize momentum assumes the ability to manage change. To build trust necessitates deliberate application of human and social psychology. To understand teaching and learning, experience and expertise matter. What we do matters.

Not only does what we do matters, but we can prove that it does, because above all else we have become increasingly effective advocates for what we do. Bergquist (1994) suggested that educational developers tend to “cool the mark,” meaning that we gravitate towards collaboration and consensus versus confrontation, making us perhaps less effective in situations calling for stronger measures. Our persistence and growth as a field somewhat belies the latter part of this assertion, suggesting instead that the idea of educational development might just prove to be a means to reach out and grasp the distinctive organizational legacy of higher education, including our ability to harness a culture replete with intractable ambiguity, complex diversity, and daring intellectual feats.

References

• Albon, S. P., Iqbal, I., & Pearson, M. L. (2016). Strategic planning in an educational development Centre: Motivation, management, and messiness. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 9, 207–226.
• Anderson, R. (2010). The ‘idea of a university’ today. History & Policy, 1. 22–26.
• Austin, A. E., & Sorcinelli, M. D. (2013). The future of faculty development: Where are we going? New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2013(133), 85–97.
• Azzam, A. M. (2009). Why creativity now? A conversation with sir ken Robinson. Educational Leadership, 67(1), 22–26.
• Beach, A. L., Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., & Rivard, J. K. (2016). Faculty development in the age of evidence: Current practices, future imperatives. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing LLC.
• Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. New York: McGraw Hill Education.
• Bergquist, W. (1994). Unconscious values within four academic cultures. To Improve the Academy, 13, 349–372.
• Berquist, W. H. (1992). The four cultures of the academy: Insights and strategies for improving leadership in collegiate organizations. San Francisco, California: Jossey Bass.
• Biancani, S., McFarland, D. A., & Dahlander, L. (2014). The semiformal organization. Organization Science, 25(5), 1306–1324.
• Billot, J. (2010). The imagined and the real: Identifying the tensions for academic identity. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(6), 709–721.
• Birnbaum, R. (1989). The latent organizational functions of the academic senate: Why senates do not work but will not go away. The Journal of Higher Education, 60(4), 423–443.
• Birnbaum, R. (2004). Management fads in higher education: Where they come from, what they do, why they fail. San Francisco, California: Jossey Bass.
• Blaschke, S., Frost, J., & Hattke, F. (2014). Towards a micro foundation of leadership, governance, and management in universities. Higher Education, 68(5), 711–732.
• Bolman, L. G., & Gallos, J. V. (2010). Reframing academic leadership. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
• Boyce, M. E. (2003). Organizational learning is essential to achieving and sustaining change in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 28(2), 119–136.
• Braun, S., Peus, C., Frey, D., & Knipfer, K. (2016). Leadership in academia: Individual and collective approaches to the quest for creativity and innovation. In Berson, Y Leadership lessons from compelling contexts (pp. 349–365). Bingley, West Yorkshire, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Brubacher, J. S., & Rudy, W. (1997). Higher education in transition: A history of American colleges and universities. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
• Carpenter, A. N., Coughlin, L., Morgan, S., & Price, C. (2010). Social capital and the campus community. To Improve the Academy, 29(1), 201–215.
• Cohen, M. D., & March, J. G. (1986). Leadership in an organized anarchy. In Brown, M. C. (Ed.), Organization and governance in higher education. London, UK: Pearson Custom (pp. 16–35).
• Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1–25.
• Cohn, S., Fantoni, M., Franceschi, F., & Ricciardelli, F. (2013). Late medieval and early modern ritual: Studies in Italian urban culture (Vol. 7). Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols.
• Condon, W., Iverson, E. R., Manduca, C. A., Rutz, C., & Willett, G. (2016). Faculty development and student learning: Assessing the connections. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.
• Cruz, L. (2014). Opposing forces: Institutional theory and second generation SoTL. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(1), 1.
• Davis, C. L. (2017). Working in corners, spaces, bends and turns: How Transdisciplinary approaches and attitudes might challenge and shape the practices of educational developers and early career academics. In Transdisciplinary higher education>. Gibbs, P. (Ed.). (pp. 137–152). New York, NY: Springer International Publishing.
• de Ridder Symoens, H. (Ed.) (2003). A history of the university in Europe: Universities in the middle ages (Vol. 1). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• de Ridder Symoens, H. D. (1997). A history of the university in Europe, Universities in early modern Europe (1500–1800) (Vol. 2). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• DiBella, A. J. (1992). Planned change in an organized anarchy: Support for a postmodernist perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 5(3), 55–65.
• Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313–330.
• Felten, P., Kalish, A., Pingree, A., & Plank, K. M. (2007). Toward a scholarship of teaching and learning in educational development. To Improve the Academy, 25, 93–108.
• Fletcher, J. J., & Patrick, S. K. (1998). Not just workshops any more: The role of faculty development in reframing academic priorities. International Journal for Academic Development, 3(1), 39–46.
• Gibbs, G. (2013). Reflections on the changing nature of educational development. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(1), 4–14.
• Gosling, D. (2009). Educational development in the UK: A complex and contradictory reality. International Journal for Academic Development, 14(1), 5–18.
• Gravett, E. O., & Bernhagen, L. (2015). A view from the margins: Situating CTL staff in organizational development. To Improve the Academy, 34(1–2), 63–90.
• Green, D. A., & Little, D. (2012). Betwixt and between: Academic developers in the margins. International Journal for Academic Development, 17(3), 203–215.
• Green, D. A., & Little, D. (2013). Academic development on the margins. Studies in Higher Education, 38(4), 523–537.
• Grendler, P. F. (2004). The universities of the renaissance and reformation. Renaissance Quarterly, 57(1), 1–42.
• Hanson, M. (2001). Institutional theory and educational change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 637–661.
• Henkel, M. (2005). Academic identity and autonomy in a changing policy environment. Higher Education, 49(1), 155–176.
• Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115.
• Huber, M. T. (2013). The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in and across the disciplines. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.
• Jones, M. D., Peterson, H. L., Pierce, J. J., Herweg, N., Bernal, A., Lamberta Raney, H., & Zahariadis, N. (2016). A river runs through it: A multiple streams meta review. Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 13–36.
• Jones, S., Harvey, M., Lefoe, G., & Ryland, K. (2014). Synthesising theory and practice: Distributed leadership in higher education. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(5), 603–619.
• Kauko, J. (2013). Dynamics in higher education politics: A theoretical model. Higher Education, 65(2), 193–206.
• Kelley, B., Cruz, L., & Fire, N. (2017). Moving toward the center: The integration of educational development in an era of historic change in higher education. To Improve the Academy, 36(1), 1–8.
• Kezar, A., & Lester, J. (2009). Organizing higher education for collaboration: A guide for campus leaders. San Francisco, California: Jossey Bass.
• Kingdon, J. W., & Thurber, J. A. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston, Massachusetts: Little, Brown.
• Krull, W. (2005). Exporting the Humboldtian university. Minerva, 43(1), 99–102.
• Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Land, R. (2001). Agency, context and change in academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 6(1), 4–20.
• Lee, A., & McWilliam, E. (2008). What game are we in? Living with academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 13(1), 67–77.
• Lee, V. S., DeZure, D., Debowski, S., Ho, A., & Li, K. (2013). Enhancing international collaboration among academic developers in established and emerging contexts: Moving toward a post colonial perspective. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(1), 89–103.
• Leih, S., & Teece, D. (2016). Campus leadership and the entrepreneurial university: A dynamic capabilities perspective. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(2), 182–210.
• Little, D. (2014). Reflections on the state of the scholarship of educational development. To Improve the Academy, 33(1), 1–13.
• Little, D., & Palmer, M. (2011). A coaching based framework for individual consultations. To Improve the Academy, 29, 102–115.
• Lucas, C. J. (2006). American higher education: A history. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
• MacIntyre, A. (2009). The very idea of a university: Aristotle, Newman, and us. British Journal of Educational Studies, 57(4), 347–362.
• Manning, K. (2013). Organizational theory in higher education. New York, NY: Routledge.
• March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1986). Garbage can models of decision making in organizations. Ambiguity and Command, 10, 11–35.
• McCluskey, F. B., & Winter, M. L. (2012). The idea of the digital university: Ancient traditions, disruptive technologies and the battle for the soul of higher education. Washington, DC: Westphalia Press.
• Morphew, C. C., & Huisman, J. (2002). Using institutional theory to reframe research on academic drift. Higher Education in Europe, 27(4), 491–506.
• Newman, J. H. C. (1992). The idea of a university. Terre Haute, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Olsen, J. P. (2001). Garbage cans, new institutionalism, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 1912–1998.
• Ortquist Ahrens, L. (2016). Beyond survival: Educational development and the maturing of the POD Network. To Improve the Academy, 35(1), 1–34.
• Pedersen, O. (1997). The first universities: Studium generale and the origins of university education in Europe. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• Rossing, J. P., & Hoffmann Longtin, K. (2016). Improv(ing) the academy: Applied improvisation as a strategy for educational development. To Improve the Academy, 35(2), 303–325.
• Ruscio, K. P. (2016). Leadership in organized anarchy. Public Administration Review, 76(2), 219–220.
• Schön, D. A. (1992). The crisis of professional knowledge and the pursuit of an epistemology of practice. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 6(1), 49–63.
• Schroeder, C. (2012). Coming in from the margins: Faculty development’s emerging organizational development role in institutional change. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing LLC.
• Schroeder, C. (2015). Unpacking and communicating the multidimensional mission of educational development: A mission matrix tool for centers of teaching and learning. To Improve the Academy, 34(1–2), 20–62.
• Schumann, D. W., Peters, J., & Olsen, T. (2013). Cocreating value in teaching and learning centers. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2013(133), 21–32.
• Scott, J. C. (2006). The mission of the university: Medieval to postmodern transformations. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(1), 1–39.
• Shinn, L. D. (2014). Top down or bottom up? Leadership and shared governance on campus. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 46(4), 52–55.
• Smith, A., & Webster, F. (1997). The postmodern university? Contested visions of higher education in society. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
• Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., & Eddy, P. L. (2006). Creating the future of faculty development: Learning from the past, understanding the present (Vol. 59). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
• Starr Glass, D. B. (2010). Wild pansies, trojan horses, and others: International teaching and learning as bricolage. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and learning, 4(2), 24.
• Stensaker, B., & Vabø, A. (2013). Re inventing shared governance: Implications for organisational culture and institutional leadership. Higher Education Quarterly, 67(3), 256–274.
• Taylor, M. (2013). Shared governance in the modern university. Higher Education Quarterly, 67(1), 80–94.
• Tierney, W. G. (2016). Portrait of higher education in the twenty first century: John Henry Newman’s ‘the idea of a university. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 19(1), 5–16.
• Välimaa, J., & Hoffman, D. (2008). Knowledge society discourse and higher education. Higher Education, 56(3), 265–285.
• Winter, R. (2009). Academic manager or managed academic? Academic identity schisms in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 31(2), 121–131.
• Winterer, C. (2004). The culture of classicism: Ancient Greece and Rome in American intellectual life, 1780–1910. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Yorks, L., & Marsick, V. J. (2000). Organizational learning and transformation. In Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 253–281). San Francisco, California: Jossey Bass.
• Zahariadis, N. (2014). Ambiguity and multiple streams. Theories of the Policy Process, 3, 25–59.
• Zeichhardt, R. (2014). Management and punk: Business outside the box. Gestalt Theory, 36(3), 289–300.