Sharon Thomas

Narrative inquiry: embracing the possibilities

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to promote narrative inquiry as a legitimate and rich research approach for academics undertaking postgraduate studies in higher education learning and teaching.Design/methodology/approach – This paper is framed within a personal narrative – one that draws upon the authors personal experience as an academic developer. It draws heavily on narrative theory to support its claims.Findings – It is argued that when narrative inquiry is presented as a complement to, rather than a replacement for, other research approaches, uptake amongst diverse groups of academics is strong. Furthermore, it is suggested that when accompanied by personal engagement with narrative inquiry and presented within a theoretical framework that honours its history, its robust literature and highlights its fundamental purpose and unique qualities, the possibilities offered by narrative are more likely to be understood and embraced.Research limitations/implications – This paper is based upon the exp...

Expert versus novice users: Power rules in virtual space

This study sought knowledge of the decision-making used by learners when interacting with multi-media environments. Mounting evidence on related thinking processes appeared to expose a gap in the prior knowledge, vocabularies and values used when entering cyberspace. We were curious to know about the decision making judgements made by learners and any associated rules or strategies they had developed to interact with new and emerging information technology environments. How decisions are undertaken are considered major issues for educational institutions at local, national and global levels with ramifications for civic and community life. In a sample drawn from a senior high school and university we investigated students’ responses to different questions including: What ways of knowing are used by learners? What codes of behaviour apply? Are they age and gender related? The responses provide a rich and fascinating insight to the ways in which people are interacting with the new media environments. ‘Experts’ versus ‘novices’ appeared to provide the major distinction.

The ‘messy’ business of academic developers leading other academic developers: critical reflection on a curriculum realignment exercise

Little has been written about academic developers (ADs) working in teams leading other ADs. This paper chronicles the experience of a group of ADs in one Australian university working on a curriculum realignment exercise. Unexpectedly the dominant theme in participants’ reflections was group dynamics, not the process. We were confronted by unstated assumptions about ADs working collaboratively and shocked to realise that ADs, like academics, resist change. Our interpretation of that ‘resistance’ was a salutary reminder of the extent to which academic development work reflects broader social, political, and institutional contexts and discourses. Parallels between this context and ADs working with academics are drawn.

Do labels matter when implementing change? Implications of labelling an academic as a champion − results from a case study

Organisational change literature is littered with labels for those who instigate, support, resist, or implement change. Absent is research into the perspectives of those who are given these labels. This paper reports findings from a literature search, journal scan and a case study of an Australian university where change agents were labelled ‘School Champions’. Data analysis of the authors suggests that labels do matter, not only to change agents, but also other academics who interacted with them such as Associate Deans. The authors found that, because a label implies an identity, when the choice of labels is unexamined, unintended consequences can result. These include ridicule, derision, and serious or light-hearted teasing, plus dismissive and cynical attitudes towards senior management’s endorsement of buzz words as labels. The authors suggest strategies to ensure that a label or identity badge suits academe, has minimal potential to cause emotional or professional harm, and is embraced rather than renounced.