This case study critically reflects on my professional practice by focusing on how I approached the establishment of the Advance HE’s Aurora Leadership Development Programme for women and those who identify as women, as a key academic development initiative in the University of the Highlands and Island from 2018. It aims to illustrate how the SEDA SLEC programme supported a critical evaluation of this aspect of my professional practice as an academic developer and how it supported me to identify potential areas of development in my future practice.
The choice of case study, with its focus on developing leadership capabilities and capacity in the university, also provided an opportunity to critically reflect on my scholarship, professional knowledge and practice in leadership development and learning and development. Structured around the five SEDA specialist outcomes (listed below) the case study explores my approach to integrating the Advance HE’s Aurora Leadership Development Programme within the wider academic development opportunities provided by the LTA.
The five SEDA Specialist Outcomes
- identifying the academic development goals;
- planning and leading the development processes to embed the programme;
- facilitating and leading learning activities for participants on the programme;
- monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the initiative;
- identifying follow-up processes and enhancements for subsequent programmes.
Using the five SEDA specialist outcomes as both a structure and a critical lens to review my practice, I found that I was able to go beyond exploring the standard metrics of levels of engagement; approaches to facilitation and methods of evaluation and delve deeper into the underpinning approaches in academic development which inform my practice and how these sit, sometimes comfortably and sometimes uncomfortably within the wider context of the university.
1. Identifying the academic development goals
On 8 March 2018, at the university’s first international women’s day conference, delegates strongly advocated engagement with the Aurora Programme to address the gender imbalance at a senior level in some parts of the university. This proposition was considered, in June 2018, by the University’s Partnership Council[1] who approved funding for ten participants on the programme at a cost of £15,000. This was a significant decision given that all previous attempts to secure funding for the programme had been unsuccessful.
The stated aim of the investment was to encourage colleagues, who identified as women, to apply for more senior roles within the institution and in doing so contribute to the building of educational leadership capacity. Recognising the potential benefits of embedding the programme within the wider context of learning and teaching professional development initiatives, I submitted a paper, to the University’s Senior Management Team, proposing that the LTA took responsibility for the implement the programme. This paper highlighted the value of linking the programme to other academic development initiatives and aligning it with the strategic aims of the learning and teaching enhancement strategy. The paper was approved and the LTA became the home for the Aurora Programme from 2018.
Neame & Forsyth highlight the importance of “careful identification of needs and opportunities” (2016: 26) to inform the rationale of an academic development initiative. Although this is ideal, my experience is that, in practice, this is often less clear. Already, at this early stage in the initiative, two goals for the programme had emerged: to increase the number of women in senior management positions and to enhance learning and teaching through building educational leadership capacity – not necessarily related to colleagues securing senior positions. These were not the only ‘needs and opportunities’ in this case; there were also my own ‘needs’, the LTA’s ‘needs’ and institution’s.
1.1 My own ‘need’
I had championed the benefits of the Aurora Programme from its inception in 2013 and through direct participation as an Aurora role model in 2017. For me, the programme presented an opportunity to develop an aspect of my own scholarship, as my Master’s dissertation has focused on the effective mechanisms necessary to embed learning from a leadership development programme. The findings of the study in 2015 indicated that a framework of institutional support measures following the programme of study was a significant indicator of successful investment for an academic development initiative. I was keen to test out this finding by providing development opportunities for Aurora Programme participants to support them to applying their learning to practice and continue their leadership learning beyond the programme end date. A key aspect of this testing would be to carry out a rigorous evaluation of the impact of such an approach to an academic development programme.
1.2 The LTA’s ‘need’
Beyond my own ‘needs’ the LTA regarded the Aurora Programme as an opportunity to build educational leadership capacity within the university and to build a network of leadership learners across the university. This was a strong driver in an institution where colleagues can feel a sense of isolation due to their geographical location and/or belonging to small, dispersed teaching or professional teams. Interestingly the outcomes of the Aurora Programme resonated with four out of the five “intangible asset themes” highlighted by Robertson, Cleaver & Smart (2019): a sense of belonging; building effective relationships; the wider transformational impact of university education and the wellbeing of students and staff. In addition, the programme offered an opportunity for inclusive approaches to collaboration bringing together colleagues in teaching; research and professional services roles, bringing a rich diversity in leadership experiences and aspirations.
1.3 The university’s ‘need’
Beyond the ‘needs’ of the LTA, the Aurora Programme had the potential to contribute to the University’s wider enhancement agenda. The university’s Enhancement-led Institutional Review (ELIR)[2] report in 2015 included the need for ongoing staff development activities including leadership development (ELIR 2015). Moreover, in 2019, the Update to Equality Outcomes and Mainstreaming Report reported that the University had a mean gender pay gap of 22% in favour of men. It noted that through “support for women on the Aurora Leadership Programme, we hope to encourage more female applicants to senior posts” (Hall 2019:51). Building on this statement Hall noted that the University would; “continue to focus on professional and personal development with increased emphasis on women’s leadership development, working both within the UHI network and with external partners such as Advance HE” (Hall 2019:55).
In addition, the university could contribute to the sector agenda aimed at addressing the persistent gender inequality in the senior ranks of universities highlighted initially by Morley’s research on the number of senior leadership roles in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) which highlighted that, “although 44% of academics were women, only 19% were in professorial roles, and only 28% were in senior management roles” (Morley 2013: 15). Through sharing the experience of participating in the programme and by contributing as an institutional Aurora Champion, the University took a seat at the sector wide table and engaged in the way ahead.
So, although the main ‘need’ of implementing the Aurora Programme was to encourage women to apply for senior roles and build educational leadership capacity within the university, other ‘needs’ contributed to the aspirations for the programme and had an impact on the planning and implementation of the initiative in the university.
2. Planning and leading academic development processes and activities
Planning and leading the Aurora Programme brought together my knowledge and experience in leadership development, learning and development and learning and teaching and these separate fields of study informed my professional practice. Planning focused on developing learning activities which would build momentum during the programme and support programme participants to continue their learning journey following programme completion. This was particularly relevant given the findings of the Advance HE’s Longitudinal Study of the Aurora Programme and the leadership development research literature. These studies indicated that a lack of development opportunities to support embedding learning limited the investment in and the benefits of leadership development programmes (Avolio et al (2009), Gentle (2014), and Bamber & Stephani (2016).
To address these limitations I planned to create several learning activities to support participants to take forward their learning. As part of this planning phase, I revisited the research findings from my Master’s dissertation; reviewed recent literature on leadership development; researched the approaches taken by other universities to embed the Aurora Programme and produced an implementation plan based on my findings. I used mind mapping software for this task as I have found it a highly effective approach when planning a non-linear, and multi-layered plan. Drawing on the literature and my knowledge of the university, four key elements informed the plan:
2.1. Establishing trust
To build respect and credibility for the programme across the university, I designed an application and selection process which was transparent and open, with clear guidance for applicants and selection panel members. This design supported an inclusive approach aimed at attracting colleagues aspiring to leadership roles from all parts of the university. As this was a new initiative and places were likely to be highly sought-after, it was particularly important to me, to be able to demonstrate a fair and equitable selection approach which supported robust decision-making and effective feedback for successful and unsuccessful applicants. Future funding for the programme was likely to depend on the credibility and effectiveness of the programme and as such, the implementation plan included mechanisms to provide progress and evaluation reports to the senior management team and to engage the university’s Aurora Champion in key parts of the implementation plan including being invited to Chair the first selection panel.
2.2. Providing opportunities for collaboration and networking within the university
As King (2004) highlighted, the value of collaboration is a key component of professional development for academics, arguing that
educational developers work with academic staff to support their curriculum and professional development – CPD should not be something that is ‘done’ to one group HE staff to another … but that they work with them to help them support themselves”(2004: 28).
A key element of the implementation of the Aurora Programme was to incorporate opportunities to collaborate and network as part of the professional development activities. This was particularly valuable for participants who may have experienced professional isolation in their role, due to the geographically distributed context of the university. Professional teams, whether they are teaching or professional services, are often distributed across university academic partner colleges, so this sense of isolation can be multi-layered. Feedback from university professional development events had consistently reported the added-value of networking afforded through attending face to face events. Although unseen and informal, I would suggest these networks and collaborations provide a vital sense of belonging and an invisible ‘glue’ to hold the university together. Creating opportunities for programme participants to build their own networks and to become part of a UHI Auroran network was therefore a key part of the implementation plan.
2.3. Developing a collaborative approach to leadership
The implementation plan sought to develop participants’ the leadership skills, regardless of their status or position within the university. This approach recognised the concept of distributed leadership – “leadership as an emergent property of a group or network” (Bennett et al 2003:7) and was underpinned by the perspective that
much leadership, management and governance within higher education are conceived around formal roles and responsibilities … these are not always the people looked to for leadership by supposed ‘followers’” (Bolden et al 2012: 48).
In addition, the design of the learning activities recognised that leadership was almost always a collaborative undertaking (Hernez-Broome & Hughes, 2010). As Kivipõld and Vadi argued, “examining leadership on an individual level [wa]s not sufficient at all” (2010: 18). Practitioner-based research also highlighted a growing emphasis on collaborative working as a key element of successful leadership – the “collective wisdom of a great team is a critical element of innovation” (Prather 2010: xi). This emphasis on collaboration was echoed by Gratton who noted that “academics are beginning to realise that leadership is really about how people collaborate across multiple networks” (Gratton 2011: 9).
2.4. Building professional networks
McGrath highlights the potential opportunities of refocusing academic development away from the individual and towards a group noting that “change initiatives rarely occur in isolation” (2019:3) and highlights the potential “value and importance of people in clusters or working groups” (2019: 10). Informed by the writings of Peterson, who suggests that “the power of professional networks for peer learning and support can make a strong contribution to our own growth as leaders and scholars” (Peterson 2013: 181) and drawing on my own experience of collaborative leadership the implementation plan included opportunities to support and build professional networks.
3. Facilitating and leading learning sessions
At the start of the academic year 2018/19, I formally launched the Aurora Programme which included the following four learning sessions. To accommodate the participants’ already busy workloads and their geographical location the sessions were designed to be effective whether participants joined remotely by videoconference or in-person. To facilitate the sharing of feedback, I created online bulletin boards for participants to post their reflections and plans both synchronously and asynchronously. This flexible approach enabled all of the participants to contribute and supported longitudinal reflection as they could return to the bulletin boards over time and share their thoughts.
Table 1 Development session title, date and description
| Session title & documents links | Date | Session outcomes |
| Welcome and orientation | Nov 2018 | To introduce the participants to each other and the members of the selection panel and to start to create a sense of belonging. |
| Becoming a mentee | Dec 2018 | To build participants’ knowledge of the University Mentoring Scheme and to explore how mentoring could support embedding learning from the Aurora Programme. |
| Aurora Programme Gathering | Apr 2019 | To capture participants’ reflections on the programme individually and as a cohort to inform the evaluation report. |
| Aurora Programme Gathering | Nov 2019 | To build on the first ‘gathering’ and identify opportunities to embed the learning and identify future development opportunities. |
Of the ten successful participants, five held teaching roles; three held professional services roles and two held research posts. They brought their subject expertise, the experience of their own academic partner college as shown in the Location map, and participation in the university as well as their perspective on leadership and the HE sector.
In facilitating each of the learning sessions I applied active and collaborative learning techniques to provide engaging and effective learning experiences for the participants (Laurillard 2002) to create a sense of shared learning, particularly in a diverse and distributed university. Bringing programme participants together, building trust through shared learning experiences provided a sound basis for participants to build their own collaborations. My role as an academic developer, applying Land’s orientations of academic development was ‘facilitator’ (Land (2001:6). I was supporting the building of a new network of colleagues, building trust and encouraging mutual support.
The design of the development sessions also aimed to support participants’ personal development and skills enhancement in ways that were contextualised to their own needs, interests and aspirations and given the diversity of needs this was challenging. The sessions, therefore, provided an opportunity for participants to share their learning from the Aurora programme and explore both the similarities and differences in their experiences. This proved to be a hugely valuable aspect of their learning and in this instance, my academic development role reflects Land’s ‘interpretive- hermeneutic’ orientation where,
a dialectic approach of ‘intelligent conversation with colleagues in which balancing of different views, relations of local to wider perspectives … leads to critical synthesis and production of new shared insights and practice” (Land 2001:6)
Although the programme participants were familiar with videoconferencing tools, a key challenge was to encourage them to use unfamiliar technology within the sessions, such as the online bulletin board. Addressing the challenge of an unfamiliar learning context reflected the findings of Panciroli et al’s study based on the University of the Highlands and Islands which highlighted that,
changes in learning and teaching that result from increasingly integrated technology in blended delivery are a challenge for both students and staff” (2015: 45).
To support their learning, I invited them to practice using the online bulletin board by first posting informal messages to the rest of the participants. This built confidence and ensured effective engagement during the learning session.
4. Monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness and acceptability of the development processes and activities.
There is significant research in learning and development (Fielden 2009; Bryman et al 2011; CIPD 2014) and in academic development literature of the importance of stating, at the outset, the intended achievement of development interventions and that this clarity “provides a secure basis for monitoring … and evaluating … the venture” (Stefani and Baume 2016:157). However, achieving this clarity is not a simple matter, and this case study highlights some of the inherent difficulties of evaluating an academic development initiative where the intended achievement was somewhat unclear from the outset.
As mentioned, the goal for the Aurora Programme was set by the senior management team and aimed at encouraging those who identified as women to apply for more senior posts within the university and, by doing so, contribute to the building of educational leadership capacity across the institution. Reflecting Stefani and Baume’s (2016) view of the role of academic developers, I hoped the programme would spearhead change through building new collaborations and alliances within the institution. Setting the initiative in the context of academic development, I added learning and teaching objectives including the creation of new networks, challenging existing silos and extending the mentoring scheme. In addition, the programme participants brought their own individual goals. This multiplicity of objectives made the evaluation a more challenging process but highlighted my responsibility to maintain a clear line of sight between academic development initiatives and organisational enhancements in the evaluation methodology and approach.
To monitor the effectiveness of the development initiatives, I ensured that those involved, including the mentors, trusted me with their thoughts and reflections. This allowed me to check progress, issues and identify potential areas for development during the programme. My academic development role in this instance reflects Land’s romantic orientation, “concerned with the personal development, growth and well-being of individual practitioners” (Land 2001:6). The table below summaries the key findings of the evaluation of the development initiatives.
Table 2 Table 1 Development session title, monitoring and evaluation
| Session title | Monitoring and evaluation |
| Welcome and orientation
|
This introductory session proved an excellent starting point to build a sense of togetherness with one of the participants organising a group communication tool and the selection panel members identifying dates to take part in the programme as Aurora Programme role models. |
| Making the most of your mentor | This one-hour virtual drop-in session was designed to provide participants with an overview of the mentoring scheme, what it means to be a mentee as part of the Aurora Programme. Although, it was redesigned in advance of the 2019/20 cohort as the mentoring was only successful for some of the programme participants. This was primarily due to a lack of available, briefed mentors at the outset of the programme. The redesigned session included the participation of mentors who were also previous Aurora participants. |
| Aurora Programme Gathering | Reflections on the programme were captured from individual participants and reflected upon as a cohort. The session provided highly valuable feedback and was captured on the ‘Aurora Programme Gathering’ online bulletin board. The feedback informed the design of further development opportunities for the participants and the programme implementation. |
| Being a UHI Auroran | This session was specifically aimed at identifying opportunities to embed the learning from the programme with feedback and evaluation being captured on the ‘Being a UHI Auroran’ online bulletin board. Key actions to take forward from the session was to establish an action learning for the cohort within the University and to explore developing action learning sets as an approach to leadership development. |
In addition to evaluating each development session separately, I also produced an Aurora Programme Evaluation Report which aimed to
articulate more clearly … both the tangible and intangible outcomes and effects of an investment in a leadership development programme” (Bamber & Stefani: 2016:243).
By focussing on the perceived outcomes of the programme, the evaluation encompassed changes in participants’ outlooks, behaviours and practices shortly after completion of the programme. This was particularly appropriate for a leadership development programme where the effects are likely to be indirect, occurring over time and “be messy and difficult to capture in a demonstrable cause-effect’ manner” (Jarvis et al 2013:33).
The evaluation adopted a mixed-methods approach which combined quantitative and qualitative data gathered from an online survey and the focus group. The online survey was informed by the methodology adopted by Advance HE’s longitudinal study to allow for data comparison. I used an appreciative inquiry approach for the focus group to enable participants to co-create their feedback through discussion and reflection using the online working space.
There were weaknesses in the evaluation approach including my involvement as an “embedded evaluator” (Stefani & Baume 2016: 169) as I was both implementor and evaluator. In addition, data was only gathered from successful participants and only at the end of the programme. The perceptions of unsuccessful applicants and a comparison of perceived capability and confidence before and after the programme of successful participants would have provided additional valuable insights.
Despite these weaknesses, the evaluation found that the stated ‘needs’ had been achieved to some extent, shortly after the programme had been completed:
- For senior managers, two of the participants had been promoted to more senior roles – one within the university and one to another university.
- For me, the positive feedback from participants highlighted that the framework of professional development activities built to support the programme had been successful.
- For the LTA, the first step towards academic development initiatives aimed at building educational leadership capacity had established a small but motivated cohort of leadership learners ready to share the benefits of the programme.
- For the wider institution, engagement with the programme provided positive evidence of enhancement and equality outcomes and provided an opportunity to actively engage and contribute to the Advance HE Aurora Programme.
The findings of the evaluation also highlighted the intangible benefits reported by participants’ including a ‘growth in self-confidence’ and a ‘growing sense of belonging’. The learning opportunities provided by the LTA, the creation of an internal network of trusted colleagues and the mentoring relationships were also highly valued by participants’ as contributing to the development of their leadership capabilities and confidence.
Key to their development was a greater understanding of the ‘business’ of the university – its structures, decision-making processes and culture. This knowledge was co-created by the cohort through sharing their knowledge and expertise from a range of roles within the university. This resulted in new perspectives and a growth of connections beyond the traditional networks. As programme participants continue their involvement in these networks and in the mentoring scheme, transitioning from mentees to mentors, a lasting impact of the Aurora Programme is being established within the university.
5. Identifying follow-up developments
In May 2019, I used the findings of the evaluation report to bid for and successfully secure funding for five places for the 2019/20 Aurora Programme. The evaluation also informed revisions to the process included changes to promotion and selection of participants; enhancements to the mentoring arrangements and improved briefing sessions for mentors and mentees. However, through undertaking the SEDA SLEC programme I have added new lenses to reflect on my professional practice. Using these lenses I have identified further enhancements which I will implement for future Aurora Programmes in the university. These enhancements can be seen through Van Maanen’s three different lenses described by Mårtensson and Roxå (2016:175).
- Strategic: I will anchor the 2020/21 Aurora Programme with learning and teaching enhancement strategy’s 12 values. I will also identify opportunities to share the positive impact of the programme at a strategic level within the university through presentations at senior management meetings; sharing blog posts directly with senior colleagues. Equally, I will encourage programme participants to do likewise within their own academic partner college, to influence their strategic plans.
- Political: I will make more use of the alliances and networks I have created over time, through building credibility and supporting other colleagues. Similarly, I will rely less on the alliances of other colleagues to promote and develop the programme. This avoids the pitfalls of associating with the agendas of others, arising from long-established alliances which are often unrelated to current roles and responsibilities. These alliances form a significant part of the political landscape of the university and influence what and how decisions are made.
- Cultural: I will continue to develop the Aurora Programme as a conduit for organisational culture change, by supporting the participants to work across the distinct cultures of each academic partner college. The cultural lens has brought to my attention an aspect of my professional practice which aims to confront existing norms and habits. All too often it’s the same voices, allegiances and traditions which dominate the dialogue around learning and teaching. I will aim to develop the programme to support participants to add their voices to the dialogues in learning and teaching. In addition, supporting the building of new networks within and beyond the university to enable participants to view the culture of the university within the wider context of the sector and by doing so build their confidence to challenge unhelpful aspects of the dominant culture of the university.
Reflections on case study writing
[1] Made up of the principals and directors of academic partner colleges and research institutions it is chaired by the university principal and vice-chancellor and is subject to overall authority and approval of the University Court.
[2] ELIR is QAA Scotland’s review method for universities and other higher education institutions in Scotland
Learning portfolio by Ann Tilbury 
