ABSTRACT
In the complex and differentiated spaces of modern universities perhaps one of the most problematic identities is that of the academic developer. The four ‘positions’ noted by Taylor earlier in this volume as likely to distinguish identities resonate in interesting ways with the forty or so interviews with academic developers on which this chapter draws. The first position which is ‘“taken on” through shared practices that demonstrate faithful acceptance of given truths’ immediately brings into view the concern, anxiety even, that many developers feel in relation to the evidence base of their practice, and the question of its robustness. Is their warrant for practice to act in the interest of students and enhance the quality of their learning? If so, does this immediately imply there is an existing ‘problem’, a deficiency of some sort, in the practice of their academic colleagues? Would such an assumption position them awkwardly in terms of possible collaborative endeavour? Or does their warrant reside in a body of pedagogical research evidence which they expect their colleagues, and managers, to acknowledge and respect? But how likely is it that these colleagues, in the light of such evidence, would subsequently adapt their practice, particularly when they might hold radically different disciplinary understandings of what constitutes reliable knowledge? Those engaged in different knowledge practices might feel cast in the role of followers under (in their terms) questionable leadership.
