Strategic leadership development in research intensive higher education contextsthe scholarship of educational leadership

1

Chapter 1

Strategic Leadership
Development in ResearchIntensive Higher
Education Contexts:

The Scholarship of Educational Leadership
Harry T. Hubball
The University of British Columbia, Canada
Anthony Clarke
The University of British Columbia, Canada
Marion L. Pearson
The University of British Columbia, Canada

ABSTRACT
This chapter draws on 17 years of research and mentoring experience with hundreds of academic leaders
in diverse research-intensive university (RIU) environments around the world. The authors argue that
scholarship should be central to academic leadership initiatives in RIUs. The scholarship of educational
leadership (SoEL) has significant benefits for RIUs and academic leaders with educational roles and
responsibilities at various institutional levels: SoEL provides a strategic foundation for educational
reform and other quality assurance and quality enhancement activities; SoEL is strategically aligned
with RIU mandates for sustained and productive scholarly activity; SoEL fosters an institutional culture
of educational scholarship aimed at enhancing effective and efficient practices in undergraduate and
graduate programs; and RIUs become better known for valuing educational excellence through SoEL
and its strategic contribution to enhance regional, national, or international rankings. This chapter
examines theory-practice applications of SoEL in diverse RIU contexts.

INTRODUCTION
In an environment of unprecedented global competition, rapid technological change, limited resources,

diversity in the student body, and demands for internationally-responsive undergraduate and graduate
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0672-0.ch001

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.



Strategic Leadership Development in Research-Intensive Higher Education Contexts

degree programs, the quality of higher education practices is being scrutinized as never before. Academic
leaders around the world on research-intensive university (RIU)1 campuses are increasingly required
to account for effectiveness and efficiency of their practices. While RIUs have long recognized the importance and complexity of academic leadership, the enactment of strategic and localized scholarship
directed at these leadership practices remains very much in its infancy (Bryman, 2007; de la Harpe &
Mason, 2014; Hubball, Clarke, Chng, & Grimmett, 2015; Mohrman, Ma, & Baker, 2008; Quinlan, 2014).
The argument put forth in this chapter is that scholarship should be central to academic leadership in
RIU contexts in order to sustain and enhance high quality, strategically-aligned, research-informed, and
evidence-based practices. The scholarship of educational leadership (SoEL) has unique benefits for RIUs
and academic leaders (e.g., senior administrators, Associate Deans, program directors, curriculum leaders, program and teaching evaluators, teaching award winners, and tenured instructors and professors)
with particular roles and responsibilities for quality assurance, educational reform, and curriculum and
pedagogical leadership at various institutional levels within and across diverse disciplinary contexts.
This chapter draws on 17 years of research and experience with academic leaders in multinational
research-intensive university (RIU) environments. The authors are academic leaders at The University of
British Columbia who have served in various educational capacities, including as directors of programs
and as members of Faculty and/or institutional promotion and tenure committees. All are teaching prize
winners, and two are National Teaching Fellows who have mentored hundreds of academic leaders from
around the world with respect to SoEL.
Different acronyms are used in different institutional contexts to describe the scholarship of educational
leadership (SoEL), including scholarship of leadership in education (SoLE), scholarship of teaching and
learning leadership (SoTL leadership), and teaching and learning leadership (TLL). In this chapter, the
term SoEL is defined as a distinctive form of educational scholarship with an explicit transformational

and strategic agenda that is directed at academic leaders in RIU settings. Issues addressed in this chapter
focus on effective ways for RIUs to engage in SoEL. Attention is given to a rationale for SoEL in global
RIU contexts; a theoretical framework for SoEL; practical examples for strategic use of SoEL by academic
leaders within diverse institutional settings; and key institutional challenges and supports. Readers are
encouraged to consider the following core questions in their own institutional context:
•
•

To what extent are strategic educational initiatives (e.g., quality assurance/quality enhancement,
program-level student learning outcomes, learning technology, educational reform) supported
through research-informed and evidence-based practice within and across the disciplines?
To what extent are institutional supports (e.g., strategic professional development, alignment of
promotion and tenure criteria) adequate for academic leaders to engage in SoEL in order to sustain
and enhance high quality, strategically-aligned, research-informed, and evidence-based undergraduate and graduate level degree programs, teaching, and student learning experiences?

CONTEXT FOR THE SCHOLARSHIP OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP (SoEL)
In the global context of higher education reforms, the increasing attention to student experiences in both
undergraduate and graduate programs (as judged by the students themselves) has resulted in highly publicized “league tables” on which some RIUs, to their dismay, find themselves on lower rungs than they
might have anticipated. Despite controversy and methodological concerns, world university rankings do
2



Strategic Leadership Development in Research-Intensive Higher Education Contexts

have an impact and carry significant weight for diverse stakeholders on university campuses (Tamburri,
2013; Times Higher Education, 2015). Further, increasing pressure by governments on higher education
institutions to better serve students has forced RIUs to develop specific mission statements that address
the quality of undergraduate and graduate student learning experiences. This widespread public scrutiny
and government pressure has resulted in academic leaders being increasingly required to account for

high quality, effective, and efficient educational practices in RIUs, with their social, political, economic,
organizational, cultural, and disciplinary complexities.
In this environment, scholarship is central to effective leadership. In particular, SoEL is intended to
address many of the historical shortcomings of academic leadership in RIUs. SoEL offers a unique and
transformational practice-based research strategy for academic leaders who work with faculty members,
administrators, students, and key stakeholder representatives at various levels of educational reform (i.e.,
within and beyond classrooms, programs, Faculties, and campuses). SoEL is aimed at sustaining high
quality, strategically-aligned, research-informed, and evidence-based educational practices. Specifically,
SoEL provides a strategic foundation for both quality assurance and quality enhancement activities;
SoEL is strategically aligned with RIU mandates for sustained and productive scholarly activity; SoEL
fosters an institutional culture of educational scholarship aimed at enhancing undergraduate and graduate level degree programs, teaching, student learning experiences, and faculty development; and SoEL
provides an avenue for RIUs to become better known for valuing educational excellence and its strategic
contribution to regional, national, or international rankings.
As an example, The University of British Columbia (UBC), is routinely ranked among the top 40
universities in the world and is among the top 3 universities in Canada (Times Higher Education, 2015).
UBC educates a student population of 50,000 and offers over 250 graduate degree programs through 12
Faculties, 1 College, and multiple Schools (see The University’s Place and Promise
2020 visioning document professes a commitment to student learning and the application of new research
on education to the review and revision of curricula and pedagogical practices (The University of British
Columbia, 2012). SoEL (or SoTL Leadership, as it is often referred to in this institutional context) has
made a significant contribution at UBC to a wide range of academic leadership policies, programs, and
practices (e.g., quality assurance; undergraduate and graduate degree program reform; and program,
curriculum, and pedagogical leadership) within and across disciplinary settings. In particular, strategic
institutional supports, including customized professional learning experiences for nominated academic
leaders and strategically-aligned promotion and tenure criteria, have enabled academic leaders, at various institutional levels, to engage in SoEL since 1998.

THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS FOR SoEL
The higher education literature makes useful distinctions between best practices for, scholarly approaches
to, and the scholarship of educational leadership (Bryman, 2007; Hubball, Clarke, Webb, & Johnson,
2015Quinlan, 2014). Best practices for educational leadership often refer to non-context-specific educational leadership practices with criteria or general principles for effectiveness that are grounded in

expert experience. While a useful guide and starting point for many novice educational leaders, these
tips and principles don’t necessarily align well with institutional research cultures, disciplinary complexities, or rapid practice changes (e.g., use of technology) that occur within educational communities
situated in RIUs.
3



Strategic Leadership Development in Research-Intensive Higher Education Contexts

Scholarly approaches to educational leadership are part of a larger process of current institutional
and educational reforms within RIU contexts (Ambrose et al., 2010; Boyer, 1990; Richlin & Cox, 2004).
Grounded in reflective inquiry and/or professional development, scholarly approaches to educational
leadership seek ongoing improvements to practice. A scholarly approach to educational leadership, as
with many forms of inquiry, is based on three underlying assumptions about knowledge: (1) it is personally constructed, (2) it is socially mediated, and (3) it is inherently situated (Hubball, Clarke, & Pratt,
2013). Each of these assumptions provides directions and cautions. For example, the first assumption
cautions that individual conceptions of the “good” in educational leadership will always be part of how
educational leadership is constructed and understood. Therefore, academic leaders need to make explicit
their own assumptions, beliefs, and expectations about effective educational leadership as a first step to
an authentic, inclusive, and productive conversation and reflection about their roles and responsibilities. The socially mediated dimension of knowledge construction speaks to that conversation/reflection
and the importance of arriving at a shared understanding of effective educational leadership and how
it might be implemented and continually developed. Coming to a shared understanding requires open
dialogue and active participation by all stakeholders involved (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002).
The co-constructed knowledge that arises from such engagement is essential to educational leadership
practices that uphold and honour knowledge as being always complex, dynamic, and contested (Stacey,
2000). This co-construction of knowledge must also take into account institutional structures and local
cultures of educational leadership. Finally, because educational leadership is inherently situated within
the disciplinary traditions, learning environments, and political landscapes that frame the particular
context in which the educational leadership takes place, scholarly approaches to educational leadership
must attend to the historical, political, and other factors that characterize local practices. That is, the
educational leadership and the context are inextricably linked and determine each other in significant

ways. Honouring the situated nature of knowledge is, therefore, a recognition that individual communities
exist within broader communities of scholarly and professional practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Stake
& Cisneros-Cohernour, 2000). Taken together, these three characteristics of knowledge construction
underpin scholarly approaches to educational leadership within RIU contexts.
SoEL builds on scholarly approaches to educational leadership and combines effective leadership with
practice-based research for academic leaders in RIU contexts. In order to sustain and enhance high quality,
strategically-aligned, research-informed, and evidence-based educational practices, SoEL emphasizes
a familiarity with the research literature, practice-based inquiry, diverse research methodologies, and
venues for peer reviewed dissemination, as well as the expectations for strategic organizational impact
(Arthur, Waring, Coe, & Hedges, 2012; Cousin, 2009; Hubball, Lamberson, & Kindler, 2012). Thus,
“educational leadership” takes the form of scholarship through the introduction of systematic rigorous
inquiry; networked improvement communities; symbolic and cultural changes to the normative context
that governs academic work; and dissemination of theory and practice in peer reviewed fora (Bryk, Gomez, & Grunow, 2011; Bryman, 2007; de la Harpe & Mason, 2014; Friedman, 2006; Grimmett, 2015a;
Quinlan, 2014; Sorcinelli & Yun, 2007). Diverse perspectives of SoEL are shaped by particular cultural
(i.e., global, regional), institutional (i.e., university-specific), disciplinary (i.e., signature practices), epistemological (i.e., how we know what we know), methodological (i.e., alignment of the approach with
the conditions), and ethical (i.e., confidentiality and anonymity) considerations (Hutchings, Huber, &
Ciccone, 2011). Further, knowledge construction is ontologically complex and draws upon appropriate
context-specific frameworks (Davis & Sumara, 2006).

4



Strategic Leadership Development in Research-Intensive Higher Education Contexts

In complex RIU contexts with diverse stakeholders and challenges, and varying levels of support
(e.g., availability of strategic resources and expertise), SoEL assists academic leaders to ensure that “the
whole” far exceeds the sum of the individual parts while seeking to better understand, examine, improve,
and disseminate evidence-based practice in peer reviewed fora (Green, 2008; Marshall, Orrell, Cameron,
Bosanquet, & Thomas, 2011). Thus, SoEL offers significant benefits for RIUs and academic leaders with

particular roles and responsibilities at various institutional levels. The imperative for SoEL is compelling, especially when one considers that academic leaders are expected to respond to and enhance RIU
profiles within and beyond the communities they serve.

DEVELOPING INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY FOR SoEL
Deliberate effort is required to develop institutional capacity and individual capability for SoEL. The
authors’ research and leadership experiences suggest that effective strategies include (1) creating an
institutional vision for SoEL, (2) strategically aligning promotion and tenure criteria with expectations
for SoEL, and (3) providing customized institution-level professional development support to enable
academic leaders to engage in SoEL.

Institutional Visioning
Institutional visioning for SoEL should be considered in the broad context of supporting teaching and
learning excellence. The integrated top-down and bottom-up model in Figure 1 illustrates the strategic
role of SoEL in an RIU.
Figure 1. Situating SoEL to support teaching and learning excellence in an RIU context

5



Strategic Leadership Development in Research-Intensive Higher Education Contexts

Higher Education/RIU Context
This element at the top of Figure 1 represents the internal and external RIU forces which impact SoEL.
For example, regional, national, and/or professional accreditation agencies in many areas of the world
are working more closely than ever with RIUs to anchor their activities in institutional mandates to better
support educational practices, leadership, and scholarship. In addition, leadership-based scholarly organizations such as the International Consortium for Educational Development (ICED) and the International
Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (ISSOTL) attest to the increasing receptivity of
academic conferences, journals, and granting organizations to SoEL submissions. For example, the
Canadian Council of 3M National Teaching Fellows (2014) provided a national grant funding program

to support, mobilize, and celebrate the strategic development of the scholarship of leadership in education and the efforts of academic leaders in higher education. Government initiatives, such as the United
Arab Emirates (UAE) National Innovation Strategy, have also had an impact on strategic educational
and leadership priorities within research-intensive universities (United Arab Emirates Cabinet, 2016).

Strategic Institutional-Level/Discipline-Specific SoEL
This element in Figure 1 reflects strategically trained academic leaders (e.g., Associate Deans, program
directors, curriculum leaders, teaching evaluators, teaching award winners, and tenured instructors and
professors) with SoEL expertise. As an example, during the past two decades, the authors have observed
many restructuring and visioning efforts to support excellence for teaching and learning at their own
RIU, within which strategically trained academic leaders with SoEL expertise have played a critical
role in implementation of quality assurance or enhancement, degree program renewal, scholarship of
teaching and learning (SoTL), and faculty development at various institutional levels (Hubball et al.,
2012). Examples of institution-level SoEL initiatives from the authors’ experiences with academic
leaders around the world include programme renewal at the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa
involving the Vice-President Teaching & Learning, Senior Advisor for Teaching & Learning, selected
Vice-Deans from across six Faculties; and institutional Quality Assurance, Educational Development
and Academic Program Directors; institutional capacity building for educational scholarship through the
Teaching Academy Fellows at the National University of Singapore; and involvement of senior professors, curriculum leaders, program directors, and institutional quality assurance faculty in scholarship
of teaching and learning efforts related to innovations at the United Arab Emirates University (UAEU)
supported by the aforementioned National Innovation Strategy.

Project-Based SoTL Initiatives
The central stars in Figure 1 refer to strategically coordinated SoTL initiatives and projects related to
curricula and pedagogical approaches. For example, various SoTL projects related to curricula and pedagogical innovations have been initiated in one health sciences undergraduate program at UBC, including an examination of students’ attitudes and responses to the use of narrative pedagogy and a study of
student and faculty usage patterns and perceptions of digital recordings of lectures (Marchand, Pearson,
& Albon, 2014; Pearson & Hubball, 2012). Academic leaders with SoEL expertise play a critical role
in initiating, supporting, and implementing these types of faculty-driven and project-based initiatives.

6


Strategic Leadership Development in Research-Intensive Higher Education Contexts

Scholarly Approaches to Teaching and Learning
The broad horizontal arrow in Figure 1 reflects a foundational institutional expectation for high quality
teaching and student learning experiences. For example, at UBC, grounded in reflective inquiry, best
practice, and ongoing improvements to pedagogical strategies, the collective agreements for all teaching
faculty (including graduate teaching assistants, instructional librarians, faculty development staff, etc.)
include an expectation to engage in scholarly approaches to teaching and learning. Professional development support for scholarly approaches to teaching and learning primarily exists within the disciplines
(e.g., program-based mentoring and internal teaching and learning units), though support is also available
through a centralized service unit.

Strategically-Aligned Promotion and Tenure Criteria
Clearly, institutional visioning for SoEL in RIU contexts has institutional implications for strategicallyaligned promotion and tenure (P&T) criteria, as well as customized professional development support
in order to enable academic leaders to engage in SoEL. As part of institutional reform around the world,
many RIUs are reconsidering their criteria for merit, promotion, and tenure. These efforts are not necessarily occurring at the same pace or ideally synchronized. However, there is a move towards strategic
alignment of career progress criteria with issues of educational leadership and its related scholarship
within and across the disciplines and at various levels of academic rank at RIUs. Selected examples
of institutions where this is occurring include the University of Toronto in Canada, the University of
Birmingham in the UK, and the National University of Singapore in the Republic of Singapore (Hubball et al., 2015). Furthermore, on such campuses, department heads, Deans, and senior appointments
committees are seeking better data on SoEL so they can more responsibly carry out their respective
oversight and evaluation functions related to promotion and tenure.
Consistent with many RIUs, progress through the academic ranks of Assistant, Associate, and Full
Professor at UBC requires appropriate evidence for scholarly activity, teaching excellence, and service
(The University of British Columbia, 2014). According to UBC’s P&T guidelines, and relevant to SoEL,
the criteria for the scholarship of teaching and for professional contributions are weighted equally with
traditional scholarly research in career progression for the professorial stream. Criteria for evaluating
the scholarship of teaching include factors such as originality or innovation, demonstrable impact in a
particular field or discipline, peer reviews of scholarly contributions to teaching, dissemination in the

public domain, and substantial and/or sustained use by others. Similarly, the evaluation of professional
contributions takes into account evidence that might be viewed as demonstrating leadership, rare expertise, or outstanding stature within a field or discipline. In parallel with the tenure-track professorial
stream, UBC also has a tenure-track instructional stream with the academic ranks of Instructor, Senior
Instructor, and Professor of Teaching, within which there are expectations for educational leadership, as
well as teaching excellence and service contributions. For example, relevant to educational leadership,
the Professor of Teaching rank established at UBC in 2011 requires evidence of outstanding achievement in leadership provided within the university and elsewhere to advance innovation and excellence
in teaching; contributions to curriculum development and renewal within the unit or Faculty; scholarly
teaching with impact inside and outside the unit; and applications of and contributions to the scholarship
of teaching and learning (The University of British Columbia, 2014, Sections 3.1.6 to 3.2.6, 3.4.1, and
4.4). However, although contested in UBC’s RIU context and unlike RIUs offering a similar rank, the
7



Strategic Leadership Development in Research-Intensive Higher Education Contexts

criteria for promotion to Professor of Teaching do not include an explicit requirement for scholarship.
Nonetheless, aspiring candidates in the instructional stream for the Professor of Teaching rank are often
strategically nominated and supported by their Dean to voluntarily undertake the customized institutionlevel SoTL Leadership Program available at UBC.

Customized Professional Development for Academic Leaders
Academic leadership training programs at RIUs tend to be led by recognized senior administrators with
a successful track record in institution-level governance and typically focus on related functions such as
strategic visioning, management skills, budgeting, conflict resolution, fostering research communities,
and facilitating career progress. However, there is often very little emphasis placed on fostering scholarship pertaining to these practices.
At UBC, academic leaders with specific roles and responsibilities to support excellence in teaching
and learning at various institutional levels within and across the disciplines have an opportunity to be
nominated by their Dean to participate in the International Faculty SoTL Leadership Program. This
UBC program provides customised professional development support that enables academic leaders to
engage in SoEL. Since its initiation in 1998, the program has evolved to place increasing emphasis on

scholarship, and now regards the scholarship of teaching and learning leadership (SoTL leadership) as
of the same order as the scholarship of educational leadership (SoEL).

Professional Development Framework for Academic Leaders
Traditionally, there has been a lack of systematic preparation and strategic professional development
for SoEL on RIU campuses. Where such opportunities are available, there is often a reliance on wellintentioned but ad hoc and generic educational leadership best practice workshops for academic leaders.
Figure 2 provides a useful professional development framework that integrates theory with practice and
invites institutional and discipline-specific academic leaders to engage in SoEL through iterative phases
of planning, implementation, and assessment (Hubball & Burt, 2004). This framework has been adapted
for academic leaders at RIUs from around the world (e.g., Australia, Bahrain, Canada, China, England,
Japan, New Zealand, Qatar, South Africa, Scotland, Singapore, Spain, Thailand, UAE, USA, and The
West Indies). This framework takes into account diverse ontological, epistemological, methodological,
and ethical considerations for SoEL and invites institutional leaders to draw upon appropriate contextspecific models to develop, implement, and/or assess the impact of educational practices.

Context
The context element in Figure 2 takes into account relevant SoEL literature and the “big picture” factors that support optimal environments for educational practices in RIU settings. At a macro level,
these factors include situated higher education agencies, institutional and discipline-specific strategic
planning goals, political structures, promotion and tenure expectations, and prioritized resources available for educational reform. At a meso level, professional development for institution- or Faculty-level
SoEL that focuses on engaging networked improvement communities grounded in inquiry is needed in
order to sustain and enhance effective, efficient, and high quality educational practices, as well as peer
reviewed dissemination.
8



Strategic Leadership Development in Research-Intensive Higher Education Contexts

Figure 2. A professional development heuristic to enhance SoEL for academic leaders

Planning

The planning element in Figure 2 takes into account all components of the conceptual framework to
develop strategic long-term, intermediate, and short-term SoEL goals. For example, academic leaders
have different starting points for SoEL and different goals, opportunities for quality enhancement, and
targets. Thus, they should be actively engaged in mapping their own SoEL professional development,
as well as contributing to the culture of SoEL excellence within their disciplinary context.

Implementation
The implementation element in Figure 2 takes into account all components of the conceptual framework
to implement progressive and strategically-aligned educational practices that respond to the diverse
needs and circumstances of the RIU context, including strategic priorities for excellence in student
learning. These include engaging networked improvement communities, offering technology-enabled
professional learning experiences, and providing mentoring opportunities for faculty members that can
support progressive SoEL development and impacts.

Assessment
The assessment element of Figure 2 takes into account all components of the conceptual framework to
focus on strategic and authentic assessment of SoEL. These include formative and summative assessments. Drawing on the scholarly literature, formative assessment may take the form of self-assessment or
feedback from administrators, peers, faculty groups, and students. Summative assessment is more formal
and evaluative in nature. For example, in the case of career progress decisions, assessment strategies

9



Strategic Leadership Development in Research-Intensive Higher Education Contexts

may include external reviews of the impact of an academic leader’s SoEL. Individuals participating in
this assessment should be knowledgeable and informed by specific P&T guidelines and have expertise
in SoEL and peer review methodology in order to make informed judgements.
At UBC, this iterative framework has guided the development and implementation of customised

professional development initiatives for academic leaders since 1998. The diversity of offerings has included the International Faculty SoTL Leadership Program; the UBC Peer Review of Teaching Leaders
Program; the UBC Curriculum Scholarship Leaders Program; the UBC Seconded Teachers Program;
and UBC’s Graduate Supervision Leaders Program. As a further example, the International Faculty SoTL
Leadership Program (see is available in a range of customised
face-to-face, online, and blended formats to UBC leaders and through invitation to partner universities
internationally (Hubball & Clarke, 2010; Hubball et al., 2015; Hubball, Clarke, & Poole, 2010; Hubball,
Clarke, & Pratt, 2013; Hubball, Clarke, Webb, et al., 2015; Hubball & Edwards-Henry, 2011; Hubball
& Pearson, 2009; Hubball, Pearson, & Clarke, 2013; Wang, Peng, Pearson, & Hubball, 2011).

Customised Program Design
Program-Level Learning Outcomes
On completion of the International Faculty SoTL Leadership program, academic leaders are to:
1. Think critically about SoTL leadership literature and its implications for educational leadership in
diverse contexts (including issues such as curricular and pedagogical leadership, communities of
practice, educational technologies, student engagement and inclusion, authentic assessment and
evaluation, and research methods);
2. Integrate SoTL leadership research skills in complex educational practice settings (including the
ability to access, retrieve, and evaluate relevant literature; define SoTL leadership research problems
and apply research methods; demonstrate responsible use of ethical principles; and dissemination);
3. Demonstrate a critically reflective practice (including the ability to articulate a scholarly philosophy
of teaching/curriculum practice and provide an evidence-based educational leadership dossier);
4. Conduct formative peer review of teaching/curriculum reports that are grounded in the scholarly
literature, methodological rigour, and authentic methods of assessment and evaluation; and,
5. Demonstrate effective leadership, collaboration, and communication skills when initiating, engaging in, and disseminating SoTL leadership in peer reviewed contexts.
Program Content
The program content focuses on two core themes and two thematic scholarship specializations:
Core Program Themes
1. SoTL Leadership Contexts: Global/national/regional/institutional/technological/discipline-specific
initiatives to enhance research-informed, evidence-based, effective, and strategically-aligned educational leadership practices in diverse higher education settings; implementation challenges and
strategic institutional supports.

2. SoTL Leadership Research Design: Ontological, epistemological, methodological and ethical
considerations in complex educational leadership settings; developing and refining practice-based

10



Strategic Leadership Development in Research-Intensive Higher Education Contexts

SoTL leadership inquiry; research design and methodology; data collection and analysis methods;
dissemination in peer reviewed contexts.
Thematic Program and Scholarship Specializations
3. Pedagogical Leadership: SoTL Leadership Implications – Theories of student learning in
higher education; teaching perspectives in higher education; technology-enhanced learning-centred
teaching practices; authentic assessment and evaluation of teaching and student learning in higher
education; practice-based SoTL Leadership research methodology
4. Curriculum Leadership: SoTL Leadership Implications – The scholarship of undergraduate/
graduate degree program reform; curriculum contexts and communities of practice; technologyenhanced learning-centred curriculum practices; curriculum development, renewal, implementation,
and evaluation; practice-based SoTL Leadership research methodology
Program Completion
As the International Faculty SoTL Leadership Program is a formal UBC program, graduates of receive
a certificate upon successful completion of the program.
Authentic assessment and evaluation of SoTL leadership is an integral component of the International
Faculty SoTL Leadership Program. Three methods incorporating formative and summative assessment
processes that are employed include instructor feedback, self-reflection, and peer review. Furthermore,
graduates are required to complete an external peer review and oral interview based on their graduation
e-portfolio, which is assessed on pass/fail criteria for each of the following components:
1. A scholarly educational leadership dossier (e.g., research-informed and evidence-based synthesis
statements pertaining to practice context, reflective methodology, and impact);
2. A thematic review of SoTL leadership literature in higher education;

3. Formative peer review reports (e.g., on-site analysis and dissemination of effective educational
leadership practices);
4. A capstone SoTL leadership proposal (e.g., a practice-driven independent or collaborative educational
leadership paper that includes literature review, research questions, methodology, data collection
and analysis, and bibliography); and
5. A SoTL leadership presentation (e.g., a scholarly conference-ready presentation to peer academic
leaders pertaining to the SoTL leadership proposal).

Program Implementation
Program Administration
The multidisciplinary advisory board and the instructional and assessment team for the program includes
Canadian National Teaching Fellows, UBC Killam Teaching Prize winners, and professors and scholars
with experience mentoring hundreds of academic leaders engaged in diverse SoTL Leadership programs.
A number also serve on Faculty-level or institutional-level promotion and tenure committees.
At UBC, the customized SoTL Leadership Program is designed to engage ten to fifteen selected
academic leaders from diverse disciplinary contexts annually. Academic leaders are defined as tenured

11



Strategic Leadership Development in Research-Intensive Higher Education Contexts

faculty members (e.g., Associate Deans, program leaders, and pedagogical leaders) and are strategically
selected by Deans as Faculty representatives. Through a formal application process, and further incentivised
with opportunities for outcomes-based scholarship support, selection is based on the following criteria:
1. Recognized excellence in educational leadership practices;
2. Potential to lead Faculty peers with regards to effective teaching, curriculum, mentoring, and professional development;
3. Commitment to program meetings and completion of the graduation e-portfolio; and
4. Dedication to supporting research on student learning experiences and outcomes.

Program Engagement Process
The program includes 150 hours of learning experiences that combine practice-based research, an online
learning management system providing access to scholarly literature and graduation e-portfolio materials,
and interactive face-to-face theory-based modular seminars that are customised with respect to frequency
of meetings and program completion times. Since SoTL leadership involves networked improvement
communities, the program employs a cohort model and a blended mode of delivery, whereby emphasis
is placed on collaboration, inquiry, communication technologies, and peer review as integral and developmental aspects of SoTL leadership. Moreover, the blended cohort model provides academic leaders
with a unique forum in which to debate, practice, and evaluate philosophies, issues, and applications of
SoEL in higher education. Through the program’s learning management system and its comprehensive
SoTL leadership bibliography and e-learning activities, supervision and feedback is provided to assist
academic leaders in their progress toward completion of their graduation e-portfolio. Thus, the program pedagogies, including strategically coordinated video-conference meetings that are appropriately
scheduled to synchronize across time zones, are designed to meet diverse needs and circumstances of
program participants. For example, consistent with “flipped classroom” methodologies and drawing
upon comprehensive online program resource materials, cohort video-conference meetings for academic
leaders from multinational settings primarily focus on context-specific issues and strategies pertaining
to theoretical and practical insights within each program theme. In order to enhance the online community of academic leaders, important 3-day face-to-face on-site institutes are geographically distributed
(e.g., in Vancouver, Singapore, and Dubai) and scheduled toward the start and the end of the program.
Program Impact
Ongoing research and continuous program improvements to enhance SoTL leadership focus on responsive
learning technologies (e.g., video-conferencing platform, integrated learning management systems) and
effective program design and implementation methodologies (e.g., threshold concepts for SoTL leadership) as appropriate in specific institutional settings. The authors’ experience with academic leaders from
multinational and multi-institutional RIU settings suggests that it typically takes at least two or more
highly strategic institutional leadership cohort offerings to enhance the sustainability of SoTL leadership
of this nature, with the proviso that adequate and strategically-aligned institutional supports are available.
Although academic leaders tend to engage in SoTL leadership inquiry to examine common issues
pertaining to strategic development, implementation, and impact of educational initiatives, they engage
in such inquiry from diverse ontological, epistemological, and ethical perspectives. For example, based
largely on institutional leadership roles and priorities, SoTL leadership inquiries focus on organizational

12


Strategic Leadership Development in Research-Intensive Higher Education Contexts

(e.g., fostering an institutional culture for educational scholarship within and across multidisciplinary
contexts), programmatic (e.g., innovative graduate program development, program-level outcomes assessment, and curricula integration), or pedagogical (effective faculty development, flexible learning,
and evaluation of teaching) practices. Furthermore, strategic SoTL leadership inquiries are situated in
particular context, process, impact, or outcome phases of an educational initiative (Hubball & Pearson,
2011). Participants, therefore, select specific research methodologies that best align with a specific SoTL
leadership inquiry and practice-based context (Hubball & Clark, 2010). For example, action research,
appreciative inquiry, self-study, and case study methodologies are particularly prevalent across diverse
SoTL leadership projects (Pearson, Albon, & Hubball, 2015). Emerging technology-enabled inquiry
methods such as curriculum analytics are increasingly being used to mine data and support effective
decision-making for quality enhancement and curriculum renewal (Dawson & Hubball, 2014; Wagner
& Ice, 2012).
Since 1998, over 400 academic leaders at UBC and at RIUs in 20 different countries with significant
SoTL leadership experience and expertise have graduated from this program. Program alumni have
made significant leadership and research contributions to scholarly approaches to and the scholarship
of curriculum and pedagogical practices. More than 40 peer reviewed articles have been published and
an equal number of invited international presentations have been given on SoTL Leadership Program
processes and impacts at RIUs around the world. Indeed, it is the scale and combination of high levels
of multinational and multidisciplinary collaborations, networked improvement communities, creativity, professionalism, and sustained impact and program-level scholarship that are the hallmarks of the
International Faculty SoTL Leadership Program.

CHALLENGES HINDERING ENGAGEMENT IN SoEL
While there is growing institutional support and attention to SoEL at many RIUs around the world, there
are substantive challenges that can result in a “management” (versus scholarship) orientation to educational
leadership (Grimmett, 2015b). This may undermine the credibility and status of educational leadership
within the academy, similar to “pre-Boyer” scholarship of teaching practices in North America, rather

than yield significant benefits of SoEL as outlined earlier in this chapter.
Substantive challenges to SoEL on RIU campuses include inadequate strategic vision for SoEL;
lack of expertise and role models to lead institutional and discipline-specific supports for SoEL; and
misaligned P&T criteria that hinder academic leaders from engaging in SoEL. For example, at UBC,
changes in senior administration, including significant growth of middle-management, and funding
priorities in recent years have revealed competing institutional priorities (e.g., technology, service units,
and optional scholarship expectations for educational leadership) and budget allocations which often
constrain efforts to adequately support SoEL.
While there is no shortage of generic literature and criteria to describe educational leadership (e.g.,
pedagogical innovation and excellence, and contributions to curriculum development), there are minimal and often inappropriate discipline-specific and criteria-based descriptors or standards (e.g., does
not meet expectations, meets expectations, exceeds expectations) that define expected levels for SoEL
contributions in a specific RIU setting (e.g., evidence for high quality, effective, and efficient educational
practice plus one journal article and one invited SoEL presentation per year). As with other forms of
scholarship in RIU contexts, for example, at the Professor level in a particular discipline, an expectation
13



Strategic Leadership Development in Research-Intensive Higher Education Contexts

to demonstrate “outstanding” impact within and beyond the host university might include dissemination
of SoEL in local (e.g., program-level leadership, evaluation of teaching reports, campus-wide faculty
development), national, and international peer reviewed contexts.
In addition, and exacerbated by already-heavy workloads, notable challenges for many academic
leaders to fully engage in SoEL include the time and effort to develop a new form of inquiry in higher
education. This may involve overcoming disciplinary biases for particular research methodologies, and
related scholarship issues such as quality, quantity, authorship contributions, and sustained dissemination. Despite significant challenges and barriers to SoEL at the authors’ institution and on RIU campuses
around the world, increasing institutional support is testimony to the growing value placed on SoEL at
these campuses.

CONCLUSION
Scholarship should be central to academic leadership in RIU contexts. Drawing on the authors’ research
and experiences over a 17-year period at UBC and with strategic institutional partners at 20 universities
around the world, this chapter provides examples of SoEL for academic leaders with particular roles and
responsibilities pertaining to educational reform and curricular and pedagogical leadership at various
institutional levels within and across diverse disciplinary contexts. SoEL combines effective leadership
and research for academic leaders in RIUs. As a strategic form of academic leadership, however, SoEL
is still very much in its infancy, both theoretically and practically, on RIU campuses worldwide.
The authors’ research and experience also suggests that to maximize the institutional impact of SoEL,
attention must be given to the art, science, and politics of implementation. For example, there is a need for:
•
•
•

Strategic institutional vision for SoEL that includes strategically-aligned professional development for academic leaders in SoEL, as well as workload expectations and P&T criteria, and that
is consistent with institutional priorities and resources;
Strategic engagement and mobilization of key leaders, stakeholder representation, and critical
mass in order to foster networked improvement communities (e.g., through iterative phases of
needs assessment, planning, implementation, and evaluation) around rigorous educational inquiry;
Strategic visible communications (e.g., noticeboards, unit meetings, publications, data analytics,
newsletters, and/or websites) and dissemination of SoEL progress, challenges, and goals in peer
reviewed contexts.

If SoEL is not adequately supported, implementation issues can present significant challenges for
academic leaders, the magnitude of which may well be a significant deterrent to engage in SoEL, and
thus both institutions and individuals fail to reap its benefits such as a strategic foundation for educational
reform and other quality assurance and quality enhancement activities. Even under supportive institutional conditions, however, it is far from easy for many academic leaders to engage in SoEL. Nonetheless, SoEL or other dimensions of scholarship for academic leadership practice within the academy is
more likely to be taken up in substantial ways if senior administrators within and across the disciplines
are similarly engaged in the scholarship of institutional practices such as implementation of strategic
planning goals, strategic hiring practices, strategic program budgeting, or effective faculty supervision

for promotion and tenure.
14



Strategic Leadership Development in Research-Intensive Higher Education Contexts

Despite various challenges and areas for improvement, there are encouraging signs of progress around
the world. Higher education leadership recognition awards are increasingly requiring evidence of scholarship, collaborations and expertise are growing at RIUs on a global scale, and strategic attention is being
paid to institutional supports that enable academic leaders to engage in SoEL. An RIU commitment to
SoEL, therefore, can be publicly engaged as the basis for sustaining high quality, strategically-aligned,
research-informed, and evidence-based educational practices.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to institution-level academic leaders from multinational and multi-institutional RIU contexts who participated in the International Faculty SoTL Leadership
Program and who have provided key insights for this Chapter.

REFERENCES
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., Norman, M. K., & Mayer, R. E. (2010). How
learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Arthur, J., Waring, M., Coe, R., & Hedges, L. (2012). Research methods and methodologies in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., & Grunow, A. (2011). Getting ideas into action: Building networked improvement communities in education. In M. T. Hallinan (Ed.), Frontiers in Sociology of Education (pp.
127–162). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1576-9_7
Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review. Studies in Higher
Education, 32(6), 693–710. doi:10.1080/03075070701685114
Council of 3M National Teaching Fellows. (2014). 3M Fellows leadership in education grant program.
Retrieved from />Cousin, G. (2009). Strategies for researching learning in higher education: An introduction to contemporary methods and approaches. London, UK: Routledge.
Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: inquiries into learning, teaching, and research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dawson, S., & Hubball, H. T. (2014). Curriculum analytics: Application of social network analysis for
improving strategic curriculum decision-making in a research-intensive university. Teaching and Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 2(2), 59–74. doi:10.20343/teachlearninqu.2.2.59
de la Harpe, B., & Mason, T. (2014). Leadership of learning and teaching in the creative arts. Higher
Education Research & Development, 33(1), 129–143. doi:10.1080/07294360.2013.870982

15



Strategic Leadership Development in Research-Intensive Higher Education Contexts

Friedman, V. J. (2006). Action science: Creating communities of inquiry in communities of practice.
In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: The concise paperback edition (pp.
131–143). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Green, L. W. (2008). Making research relevant: If it is an evidence-based practice, where’s the practicebased evidence? Family Practice, 25(Suppl. 1), 20–24. doi:10.1093/fampra/cmn055 PMID:18794201
Grimmett, P. P. (2015a). Academic leadership: Careerism with a sense of calling. In R. T. Clift, J.
Loughran, G. E. Mills, & C. J. Craig (Eds.), Inside the role of Dean: International perspectives on leading in higher education (pp. 81–96). New York, NY: Routledge.
Grimmett, P. P. (2015b). Revisioning decision making in educational leadership. In S. Chitpin & C.
W. Evers (Eds.), Decision making in educational leadership: Principles, policies, and practices (pp.
110–128). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hubball, H., & Burt, H. (2004). An integrated approach to developing and implementing
learning-centred curricula. The International Journal for Academic Development, 9(1), 51–65.
doi:10.1080/1360144042000296053
Hubball, H., & Clarke, A. (2010). Diverse methodological approaches and considerations for SoTL in
higher education. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(1). doi:10.5206/
cjsotl-rcacea.2010.1.2
Hubball, H., Clarke, A., Chng, H. H., & Grimmett, P. (2015). Developing the scholarship of educational
leadership in research-intensive university contexts: Implications for promotion and tenure supervision.
Asian Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(2). Retrieved from />Hubball, H., Clarke, A., & Poole, G. (2010). Ten-year reflections on mentoring SoTL research in a
research-intensive university. The International Journal for Academic Development, 15(2), 117–129.

doi:10.1080/13601441003737758
Hubball, H., Clarke, A., & Pratt, D. D. (2013). Fostering scholarly approaches to peer review of teaching in a research intensive university. In D. J. Salter (Ed.), Cases on quality teaching practices in higher
education (pp. 191–211). Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-3661-3.ch012
Hubball, H., Clarke, A., Webb, A., & Johnson, B. (2015). Developing institutional leadership for the
scholarship of teaching and learning: Lessons learned with senior educational leaders in multinational
research-intensive university settings. International Journal of University Teaching and Faculty Development, 4(4), 237–253.
Hubball, H., & Edwards-Henry, A.-M. (2011). International collaboration to align institutional teaching development, learning-centred curricula, and the scholarship of curriculum and pedagogy in higher
education. Caribbean Teaching Scholar, 1(1), 35-47. Retrieved from />ojs/index.php/cts/article/view/4
Hubball, H., Lamberson, M., & Kindler, A. M. (2012). Strategic restructuring of a centre for teaching
and learning in a research-intensive university: Institutional engagement in scholarly approaches to curriculum renewal and pedagogical practices. International Journal of University Teaching and Faculty
Development, 3(2), 95–110. Retrieved from />
16



Strategic Leadership Development in Research-Intensive Higher Education Contexts

Hubball, H., & Pearson, M. L. (2009). Curriculum leadership portfolios: Enhancing scholarly approaches
to undergraduate program reform. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching and Learning Journal, 3(2),
1-16. Retrieved from />Hubball, H., & Pearson, M. L. (2011). Scholarly approaches to curriculum evaluation: Critical contributions for undergraduate degree program reform in a Canadian context. In M. Saunders, P. Trowler, &
V. Bamber (Eds.), Reconceptualising evaluation in higher education: The practice turn. Maidenhead,
UK: Open University Press/SRHE.
Hubball, H., Pearson, M. L., & Clarke, A. (2013). SoTL inquiry in broader curricular and institutional
contexts: Theoretical underpinnings and emerging trends. Teaching and Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL
Journal, 1(1), 41–57. doi:10.1353/iss.2013.0009
Hutchings, P., Huber, M. T., & Ciccone, A. (2011). The scholarship of teaching and learning reconsidered: Institutional integration and impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Marchand, J.-P., Pearson, M. L., & Albon, S. P. (2014). Student and faculty member perspectives on
lecture capture in pharmacy education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 78(4), 74.

doi:10.5688/ajpe78474 PMID:24850936
Marshall, S. J., Orrell, J., Cameron, A., Bosanquet, A., & Thomas, S. (2011). Leading and managing
learning and teaching in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(2), 87–103.
doi:10.1080/07294360.2010.512631
Mohrman, K., Ma, W., & Baker, D. (2008). The research university in transition: The emerging global
model. Higher Education Policy, 21(1), 5–27. doi:10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300175
Pearson, M. L., Albon, S. P., & Hubball, H. (2015). Case study methodology: Flexibility, rigour, and
ethical considerations for the scholarship of teaching and learning. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(3), Article 12. doi: />Pearson, M. L., & Hubball, H. T. (2012). Curricular integration in pharmacy education. American Journal
of Pharmaceutical Education, 76(10), 204. doi:10.5688/ajpe7610204 PMID:23275669
Quinlan, K. M. (2014). Leadership of teaching for student learning in higher education: What is needed?
Higher Education Research & Development, 33(1), 32–45. doi:10.1080/07294360.2013.864609
Richlin, L., & Cox, M. D. (2004). Developing scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching and
learning through faculty learning communities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(97),
127–136. doi:10.1002/tl.139
Sorcinelli, M. D., & Yun, J. (2007). From mentor to mentoring networks: Mentoring in the new academy.
Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 39(6), 58–61. doi:10.3200/CHNG.39.6.58-C4
Stacey, R. D. (2000). The emergence of knowledge in organizations. Emergence, 2(4), 23–39. doi:10.1207/
S15327000EM0204_05

17



Strategic Leadership Development in Research-Intensive Higher Education Contexts

Stake, R. E., & Cisneros-Cohernour, E. J. (2000). Situational evaluation of teaching on campus. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(83), 51–72. doi:10.1002/tl.8305
Tamburri, R. (2013). University rankings gain influence, despite obvious drawbacks. University Affairs.
Retrieved from www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/university-rankings-gain-influence-despiteobvious-drawbacks/
The University of British Columbia. (2012). Place and promise: The UBC plan. Retrieved from http://

strategicplan.ubc.ca/
The University of British Columbia. (2014). Guide to reappointment, promotion and tenure procedures
at UBC 2014/15. Retrieved from />Times Higher Education. (2015). World university rankings 2014-2015. Retrieved from https://www.
timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2015/world-ranking
United Arab Emirates Cabinet. (2016). The national strategy for innovation. Retrieved from http://www.
uaecabinet.ae/en/the-national-strategy-for-innovation
Wagner, E., & Ice, P. (2012). Data changes everything: Delivering on the promise of learning analytics
in higher education. EDUCAUSE Review, 47(4). Retrieved from />Wang, B., Peng, J., Pearson, M. L., & Hubball, H. (2011). Internationalization of a faculty SoTL program:
Immersion experiences of Beijing professors in a Canadian research-intensive university. International
Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(2), 23. Retrieved doi:10.20429/ijsotl.2011.050223
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide
to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Authentic Assessment: A broad and long perspective pertaining to relevant data/evidence to gather
on an educational leader’s practice.
Authentic Evaluation: Judgements by fully trained internal and external reviewers (based on evidence, criteria, and standards) about the quality of an educational leader’s practice.
External Reviewer: A fully trained and experienced peer reviewer who is situated at arm’s length
from the educational leader’s department or area of specialization.
Research Intensive University (RIU): Higher education institution with research mandates within
and across diverse disciplines for faculty and undergraduate and graduate students.
Scholarship of Educational Leadership (SoEL): A distinctive form of educational scholarship
with an explicit transformational and strategic agenda that is directed at academic leaders in RIU settings. SoEL focuses on engaging networked improvement communities grounded in systematic rigorous
educational inquiry, evidence-based practice, and dissemination in peer reviewed fora.

18



Strategic Leadership Development in Research-Intensive Higher Education Contexts

ENDNOTE


1

Three acronyms are used throughout this chapter: RIU = Research Intensive University; SoEL =
Scholarship of Educational Leadership; SoTL = Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

19