Holistic Educational Development

Holistic educational development, which forges the study’s conceptual framework, supports facets of the faculty career that span beyond teaching and learning, like research, service, leadership, and career planning. Zahorski (2002) wrote of the capacity of centers to support, nurture, and amplify faculty scholarship through synergistic means linked to other facets of the faculty career. Doing so fosters a gestalt, “the almost magical effect of the whole becoming greater than the sum of its parts, that really makes the difference, creating a transformative energy that permeates a campus culture” (p. 30). To achieve this aim, efforts transcend focus on instructional development, leveraging opportunities for personal and organizational growth. Herein, interinstitutional liaisons and partnerships are key. Holistic approaches, particularly when collaborative, have the potential to affect change not only in individual faculty members but also cross-institutionally (Zahorski, 2002).

Educational development did not always prioritize instructional effectiveness over holistic initiatives; the earliest faculty development initiatives, typified by Sorcinelli et al. (2006) under the auspices of Age of the Scholar, “were largely focused on improving scholarly and creative performance” (p. 16). Though the ensuing Age of the Teacher emphasized teaching, scholars such as Bergquist and Phillips (1975) suggested during that period three dimensions around which development efforts should optimally center: instructional, organizational, and personal development. Through the 1980s and 1990s, the respective Ages of the Developer and the Learner (Sorcinelli et al., 2006), holistic initiatives multiplied (Gaff & Simpson, 1994), though most centers focused on teaching and learning.

In the ensuing timeframe, the literature alluded lightly to holistic development. Sugrue et al. (2018), in a systematic review of over 100 peer-reviewed studies across 20 years (i.e., 1995–2015), sought to understand how the roles and responsibilities of academic developers evolved. Their analysis confirmed a focus in the empirical literature on instructional development, yet they also arrived at themes related to developers’ identity formation and influence as institutional leaders. The contributions of developers to change initiatives grew vaster in a two-decade course, hearkening a call for more holistic foci. As responsibilities grow in complexity—with tighter alignment to institutional priorities—emphasis on more traditional provisions of educational development would be met with scrutiny (Sugrue et al., 2018).

Sorcinelli et al. (2006), the first to investigate what guides the work of educational developers, homed in on an overarching goal for the field: to improve student learning. Second was the goal of responding to faculty members’ needs and interests, pointing to a holistic future for educational development. Boundary-blurring between research and teaching, increased costs associated with doing research, a need for balance among facets of the faculty role, calls for community-engaged work, and other factors required educational developers to think differently about their work (Sorcinelli et al., 2006). Of mention was the call “for a renewed commitment to helping faculty achieve a sense of wholeness and integration in their work” (p. 106).

Holistic support is further traced by Sutherland (2018), who recalled Leibowitz’s (2014) earlier exhortation of academic development as a field, albeit “a hard term to pin down” (Sutherland, 2018, p. 261), that is focused on the improvement of teaching. Still, nascent pushes to expand educational development lurked as “prominent academic developers and scholars internationally were also calling for a more holistic approach” (p. 266). While Sutherland did not discourage teaching and learning’s prominence, she articulated three areas around which holistic opportunities ought to be arrayed: the whole of the academic role, the whole institution, and the whole person. Sutherland argued for integration of teaching and learning with organizational development, researcher development, leadership development, and career development.

To return to Zahorski (2002), we are reminded of the centrality of holistic efforts: faculty roles and responsibilities are inherently intertwined; research and teaching, for instance, are often inseparable acts. Recent contributions to the literature by faculty affiliated with HEDCs demonstrate the agility of this integration. Brantmeier et al. (2017) described the impact of an off-site, overnight writing program that blends contemplative practices, scholarship productivity, and well-being. Relatedly, Kipps-Vaughan et al. (2018) detailed the role of an HEDC, alongside other partners, in advancing a campus-wide initiative for contemplative practices.

Strategic and Operational Planning

Across the literature, strategic planning (SP) is depicted as “an intentional leadership tool for setting future organizational directions in a dynamic environment that takes account of—and ideally engages—key stakeholders” (Immordino et al., 2016, p. 35). Generally, SP entails determining what an organization purports to accomplish and how organizational stakeholders will direct goals and resources toward stated aims (Barry, 1997; Mintzberg, 1994). While SP models abound (Trainer, 2004), three major steps constitute most processes: forming a strategy, implementing it, and evaluating results (Gordon & Fischer, 2015). A strategic plan differs from an operational plan, which details annual goals and objectives (Barry, 1997).

Strategic planning can be traced to the 1950s, entering higher education in the 1960s through the founding of the Society for College and University Planning (Dooris et al., 2002). Initial foci were space and facilities, expanding in subsequent decades. Therein, linear and systematic approaches dominated the scene: craft mission, vision, and values statements; involve key stakeholders; conduct varied environmental scans; set concrete goals and objectives; and evaluate progress. Evident in the 1990s were departures from typical conceptions (Dooris et al., 2002). The formulaic approach grew “tempered with a cultural-environmental-political perspective” (p. 7), debunking staged approaches to planning. Relatedly, planning amplified creativity, dynamism, fluidity, and imagination (Dooris et al., 2002). Finally, focus was directed to doing over planning.

Today, SP reigns with ubiquity in higher education, often synonymous with the intersected accreditation, compliance, and assessment movements. Though SP is common, with many units touting their plans as goalposts, the methodologies used are vast, diverse, and interdisciplinary (Trainer, 2004)—some grounded in evidence-based procedures and others arriving from experience and instinct. Reminiscent of Mintzberg (1994), who referred to SP as oxymoronic, many now see plans as malleable, necessitating a posture open to change. Across approaches, broad-based engagement, particularly from faculty, is key. Thompson (2017) asserted, “unless there is system-wide faculty involvement in the strategic planning exercise then the plans that emanate from the exercise are likely to be ineffective or even stillborn” (p. 11). Correspondingly, faculty are prone to engage when there is clear value, collective ownership is ensured, contributions are welcomed, and past planning informs the future (Thompson, 2017).

An array of institution-specific studies showcases fixed to flexible planning methods. The balanced scorecard (BSC) approach employed by Brigham Young University linked short-term actions with long-term strategy, focusing on four perspectives: customer, financial, internal processes, and organizational capacity (Spackman et al., 2015). Cleveland State University embraced a communicative planning methodology; though structured, “the use of a bottom-up, collaborative model maximized participation” (Kogler Hill et al., 2009, p. 25). Philadelphia University’s participatory process was guided by an action research orientation and grounded in Eckel and Kezar’s (2003) markers of transformative change (Antheil & Spinelli, 2011).

Cordeiro and Vaidya (2002) detailed California State University’s two distinct approaches to strategic planning, one more effective than the other. An early model focused on crafting key performance indicators (KPIs), which over-emphasized data collection at granular levels. A new model, introduced in the mid-1990s, deemphasized tactical planning and privileged the alignment between strategy and the university’s environment (Cordeiro & Vaidya, 2002). The planning process emphasized flexibility in response to internal and external flux.

SP in higher education has room for development. Gordon and Fischer (2015) found that few institutions follow precepts, many lose momentum, and not all embrace continuous improvement. Many plans “contain elegant and platitude-like statements with little or no ability to measure results” (p. 15). Immordino et al. (2016) underscored the importance of assessment; this reengages stakeholders and improves future planning. Law Snyder (2015) denoted pertinent action items to mitigate planning perils, like consulting broadly, utilizing a qualified consultant, privileging all voices, establishing a daring vision, creating a small number of spotlight initiatives, setting a timeline that is revised annually, tying efforts to budget and development efforts, recognizing needed resources, and allowing failures to influence future planning.

Planning in Centers for Teaching and Learning (CTLs)

The literature on planning in educational development arises from CTLs in the United States and abroad. Most contributions focus on methodologies used by developers to plan strategically or on conditions influencing planning. The term strategic educational development is used frequently, speaking to practices and conditions that influence teaching and learning initiatives and guide change. As editor to a special issue on strategic educational development, Bolander Laksov (2008) highlighted challenges that developers surmount. To plan strategically is to embrace an action research approach, which establishes an intersubjective positionality for the developer. Per Bolander Laksov, this “can be an important vehicle for bringing the profession of educational developers closer to the academics and the organization of the university by situating them within the community of practice of researchers, rather than outside” (p. 91).

Within the same issue, Stigmar (2008) brought an action research method to the fore, which operated across three facets of a Swedish institution: at the university level, where it guided faculty development plans; at the program level, where developers integrated the program into university activities; and at the unit level, wherein each department infused educational development into its work. Through cycles of action research, Stigmar found it integral to achieve support from “high-status informants” (p. 112) like heads and deans. Achieving a balance between top-down edicts and faculty needs was paramount. Also, Stigmar discovered inadequate knowledge among faculty of the worth of educational development, signaling a broader need for strategic connection to instructors’ professional development aims.

In Sweden, Roxå and Mårtensson (2008) explored what it meant for developers to engage in “far-reaching, long-term change” (p. 156). The Swedish Network for Educational Development in Higher Education had earlier implored colleagues to act more strategically; this eventuated in a national course. Operating as a community of practice, the course, with 34 participants, met full-time for 5 weeks; together, 26 SP projects were completed. Roxå and Mårtensson found that the course buffered developers’ initial tendencies to take unscholarly approaches. The notion of strategy as militaristic was debunked in favor of a transformational perspective steeped in motivation, engagement, conviction, and inspiration (Roxå & Mårtensson, 2008). Furthermore, developers interpreted strategic work as “supporting communication between and within different levels in the institutions” (p. 163). Being strategic also meant “[opposing] an instrumental interpretation of being strategic sometimes put forward by institutions and management” (p. 166).

Albon et al. (2016) relayed their experiences of SP for a new center in British Columbia. The team recounted a timeline of planning activities, denoting challenges incurred by time, competing tasks, and loss of momentum. Citing a “non-linear and messy” (p. 208) experience, they offered recommendations. They implored colleges to “write about their processes in order to contribute to the strategic planning literature” (p. 216). Accepting strategic planning as an iterative process is integral (Albon et al., 2016), as is setting boundaries around planning time. Furthermore, external facilitators can serve impartially and provide valuable insight. To add, Albon et al. recommended conducting environmental scans of faculty to inform planning and engaging diverse stakeholders, particularly senior administrators.

Inclusive and participatory SP processes invite opportunities to get ahead of external challenges, such as changes in government policy and declines in public funding (Shah, 2013). Within educational development, tools that can be utilized for participatory planning are emerging. For instance, A Center for Teaching and Learning Matrix (POD Network and American Council on Education, 2018) invites centers to identify their developmental level across three broad domains of practice: organizational structure, resource allocation and infrastructure, and programs and services. The matrix can be adapted as “a frame for goal-setting, strategic planning, prioritizing and scaling efforts, benchmarking, self-study, program review, and/or reflection” (p. 3).

Methodology

This study addressed the following question: What are the lived experiences of educational developers who have led HEDCs in planning processes ranging from informal to established? The methodology, reliant upon semi-structured interviewing through an online interface, invited insight into how and with whom planning transpires. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board; all participants consented to recording.

Analysis

I applied Schatzman’s (1991) dimensional analysis (DA) to code, analyze, and interpret the data. DA is a grounded theory framework for making meaning of dense data through three phases. First is dimensionalizing, wherein data are designated to abstract representations called codes. I coded the first seven interviews not in accord with my interpretations, but through actionable words describing the participants’ experiences. In the second phase, differentiation, coding focused on constant comparative analysis within and across interviews (Charmaz, 2014). The goal of ensuing interviews, in addition to gathering insight into lived experiences, evolved to explore what emerged through dimensionalizing. The final stage, integration, entailed the sorting of codes into categorical representations (i.e., themes, subthemes) (Schatzman, 1991).

Results

In the section that follows, I first showcase how participants typified holistic educational development—in terms of their respective centers’ evolutions and programming areas offered. Thereafter, I reveal the principal results of the study, which illuminate how and with whom planning is manifest. The latter are best understood under an organizing perspective titled constantly in flux; this served to focalize four themes: centering the faculty voice, leveraging disciplinary identity, trying methodologies on for size, and adapting agilely.

Trustworthiness, Integrity, and Limitations

I sought to ensure trustworthiness and methodological integrity (see Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) throughout data collection, analysis, and interpretation. To achieve credibility, transcripts were “member checked” by study participants. Dependability is manifest in an audit trail and reflexive journal, which methodically logged strategies, analytical choices, and questions. To invite transferability, I utilized thick description, using participants’ own quotations to elucidate themes associated with lived experience. Inherent limitations of the study include a convenience sample and lack of overall generalizability, yet these standards are atypically associated with qualitative inquiry. Nevertheless, the results and discussion provide anchors for additional, ongoing inquiry into not only planning but also HEDC evolution.

Discussion

The results showcase how directors described multifaceted, collaborative planning efforts for HEDCs. Such initiatives, organized under constantly in flux, are typified by four themes: centering the faculty voice, leveraging disciplinary identity, trying methodologies on for size, and adapting agilely. Importantly, directors viewed operational (i.e., short-term) and strategic (i.e., long-term) planning as interchangeable or inseparable. This section discusses implications and recommendations not only for staff working within or developing HEDCs but also for the systems of support encompassing educational development work.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The author has no conflict of interest.

Data Availability

The data reported in this manuscript are available on request by contacting the corresponding author.