This article was downloaded by: [University of Saskatchewan Library]On: 27 July 2012, At: 10:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal for AcademicDevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rija20

Perceptions of neutrality througha post-colonial lens: institutionalpositioning in Canadian academicdevelopmentBrad Wuetherick a & Tereigh Ewert-Bauer aa Gwenna Moss Centre for Teaching Effectiveness, University ofSaskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

Version of record first published: 27 Jul 2012

To cite this article: Brad Wuetherick & Tereigh Ewert-Bauer (2012): Perceptions of neutralitythrough a post-colonial lens: institutional positioning in Canadian academic development,International Journal for Academic Development, 17:3, 217-229

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2012.700896

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Perceptions of neutrality through a post-colonial lens: institutionalpositioning in Canadian academic development

Brad Wuetherick* and Tereigh Ewert-Bauer

Gwenna Moss Centre for Teaching Effectiveness, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon,Canada

(Received 13 October 2011; final version received 24 May 2012)

The question of whether neutrality is possible in academic development invitesus to explore the particular place of academic development in our institutionsand how academic development is positioned in our particular national andinstitutional environments. This paper, which reports on a small pilot study ofhow Canadian academic development is positioned institutionally, will usepost-colonial metaphors of development to demonstrate the impossibility of neu-trality in academic development work. It will also explore how academic devel-opers might move forward in a decolonizing manner that acknowledges ournon-neutrality, respecting the expertise and experience of our disciplinarycolleagues, while at the same time ensuring a collaborative teaching andlearning environment.

Keywords: academic development; Canada; decolonization; institutionalpositioning; neutrality; post-colonial

Introduction

Indeed, it is impossible to be neutral. In a world already moving in certain directions,where wealth and power are already distributed in certain ways, neutrality meansaccepting the way things are now. It is a world of clashing interests – war againstpeace, nationalism against internationalism, equality against greed, and democracyagainst elitism – and it seems to me both impossible and undesirable to be neutral inthose conflicts. (Zinn, 1991, p. 7)

While Zinn refers specifically to issues arising from American foreign and domesticpolicy, the quotation is helpful for exploring neutrality in the context of academicdevelopment. Rather than ‘war against peace, nationalism against internationalism,equality against greed, and democracy against elitism’, we can instead substitute theconflicts that arise in higher education institutions, whether they be faculty or stu-dents against administration, ‘have’ departments against ‘have not’ departments, artsagainst sciences or corporate interests against the public good.

A group of academic developers came together in a symposium at the 2010International Consortium for Educational Development (ICED) Conference todiscuss how we might conceptualize neutrality (or non-neutrality) in academicdevelopment, which was preceded by a symposium at the 2010 Educational

*Corresponding author. Email: brad.wuetherick@usask.ca

International Journal for Academic DevelopmentVol. 17, No. 3, September 2012, 217–229

ISSN 1360-144X print/ISSN 1470-1324 online� 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2012.700896http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:00

27

July

201

2

Developers Caucus (EDC) in Canada (Holmes, Ewert-Bauer, Hamilton, Potter, &Wuetherick, 2010; Manathunga et al., 2010). In both cases, the issue of neutralityand how we position our academic development work in the context of our institu-tions arose as a focal point of conversation and debate. Several participants in eachsymposium had experience with a colleague who emphasized the importance ofneutrality (or perceived neutrality) as something to strive for in our work. Whilethis experience may be predominantly restricted to North America – based on anec-dotal experiences of symposia participants – the question of neutrality in academicdevelopment nevertheless invites us to explore the particular place of academicdevelopment in our institutions, and, even if we believe that we are not neutral, toexplore how we position ourselves in our particular institutional culture and poli-tics.

After the two symposia, we began to delve deeper into the question as to whyCentres (hereafter referring to Centres for Teaching and Learning or their equiva-lent) in Canada seemed to embrace the notion of neutrality, or at least perceivedneutrality, to describe how they are positioned on their respective campuses. Thisbrought us back to the question of what we mean by neutrality. The Oxford EnglishDictionary Online defines ‘neutral’, among the many more technical aspects of thedefinition, as:

(1) Esp. of persons: not taking sides in a controversy, dispute, disagreement, etc.; notinclining toward any party, view, etc.; impartial, unbiased.

(2) a. In relation to … conflict: not assisting, or actively taking the side of, any bellig-erent party, … remaining inactive in relation to belligerent powers.

(4) Belonging to, or falling under, neither of two specified, implied, or usual catego-ries; occupying a middle position with regard to two extremes.

(6) a. Exciting no emotional response; provoking no strong reaction; innocuous, inof-fensive. (OED Online)

It is possible to take these varied definitions and see how people might attributethem to how we collectively position our Centres’ work, especially considering thepotential vulnerability of Centres and individual academic developers in many insti-tutional environments and the marginal places we occupy (Green & Little, 2011).Would Centres want to knowingly take part in a dispute or conflict (whetherbetween departments and faculties or between academic staff and administration) ona campus or would Centres want to provide assistance to any party in such a dis-pute or conflict? Would Centres want to knowingly or publicly align with or sup-port a controversial position on a campus, especially one that might pit academicstaff versus administration, or a particular department against another department?Would Centres not want to be a neutral state or territory to which different institu-tional players might come to discuss teaching and learning? Would Centres notwant to make sure they are inoffensive in how they work with different faculty,from across the disciplines, as well as administration?

Yet, academic development favours one ‘party’ (teaching and learning) over themany competing demands placed on our institutions and the individuals therein. Weinevitably fail to remain impartial and unbiased (and rightly so) when it comes to

218 B. Wuetherick and T. Ewert-Bauer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:00

27

July

201

2

whether or not we support initiatives to improve teaching and learning. Given thatacademic development work involves advocating for teaching and learning andchampioning initiatives to improve the effectiveness of the teaching and learningenvironment on our campus, we hope to inspire passionate responses in favour ofimproving students’ experiences of higher education. So, when the above definitionof neutrality is considered as part of what we do, we find it very difficult to con-ceive of how academic developers could (or would want to) remain neutral in howthey approach their work. As Zinn (1991) said, in the quote that opened this paper,‘neutrality means accepting the way things are now’ (p. 7), something very few aca-demic developers would accept if applied to the current place of teaching and learn-ing in higher education.

This paper explores Canadian academic developers’ perceptions of their institu-tional position. In light of the results of this pilot study, the paper will then usepost-colonial metaphors of development to demonstrate the impossibility of neutral-ity in academic development work, and further examine how academic developersmight move forward in a decolonizing manner that acknowledges our non-neutralityas champions of teaching and learning, while respecting the pedagogical expertiseand experience of our disciplinary colleagues.

Why a post-colonial lens?

Post-colonialism is far from a single system of thought and, rather, is betterdescribed as a collective body of diverse thought that can be quite famous for itscomplexity. Conscious of Green’s warnings (2010) that language use can serve as adistinct barrier to understanding for many academics in the work that we do in aca-demic development, we believe post-colonial discourse can be a useful tool forexploring academic development, and that a post-colonial lens is particularly usefulin exploring issues of identity and the place of academic development work. Post-colonialism provides a theoretical framework that, ‘attempts to shift the dominantways in which the relations between western and non-western people and theirworlds are viewed’ (Young, 2003, p. 2), involving ‘a conceptual reorientationtowards the perspective of knowledges, as well as needs, developed outside of thewest’ (Young, 2003, p. 5). It:

starts from the premise that those in the west … should take other knowledges, otherperspectives, as seriously as those of the west. Postcolonialism … is a general namefor these insurgent knowledges that come from the subaltern, the dispossessed (or the‘Other’), and seek to change the terms under which we all live. (Young, 2003, p. 20)

Several scholars have previously explored the ‘fondness for colonial approacheswithin educational development’ (Manathunga, 2006, p. 20), where generalizableknowledge and pedagogy, narrated in a manner that is progressivist and celebratory,is privileged over disciplinary, ‘local’ academic knowledge and pedagogy(McWilliam, 2002; Manathunga, 2006, 2007). To further develop our metaphor, the‘western’ view in academic development is that teaching and learning in highereducation is a generalizable body of knowledge, where ‘best practices’ associatedwith particular teaching strategies, and ways of understanding how students bestlearn, can be applied to all contexts within higher education (Manathunga, 2006).While this is clearly an over-simplification of the reality of academic development

International Journal for Academic Development 219

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:00

27

July

201

2

work, the colonial tendencies of academic developers trying to ‘develop’ our disci-plinary academic ‘Other’, with the tips, tricks and techniques, or ‘best practices’,from our ‘western’ world-view strike a chord with many working in academicdevelopment (Manathunga, 2006, p. 24). The ‘non-western’ or Indigenous knowl-edges that we must take seriously are represented by the local academic knowledgeand signature pedagogies arising from different disciplines.

Previous work exploring post-colonial metaphors in academic developmentintroduced concepts such as ‘marginality’, ‘unhomeliness’, ‘liminality’ and ‘hybrid-ity’, and the colonial discourse of the ‘Other’ (whether referring to individuals ordisciplines) and invited us to think creatively and critically about the place of aca-demic development in our institutions, and in particular how we build our identi-ties as academic developers towards a more holistic academic developmentpractice (Manathunga, 2006, 2007). These post-colonial metaphors resonatestrongly for the authors in our own personal academic development practice. Orig-inally from the humanities, where we were exposed regularly to post-colonial dis-course, both of us have found ourselves in the ‘unhomely’ place of migrants intoacademic development (Manathunga, 2007). We have personally experienced mov-ing through the ‘liminal space’ arising from our ongoing development as scholarsin a new field (the in-between space between our previous and current disciplines)and the ‘hybridity’ arising from a dual identity as, for example, an historian/aca-demic developer (Manathunga, 2006). We have also experienced the ‘marginalspaces’ occupied by academic developers, responding to the needs of faculty andgraduate students in often different ways depending on the disciplines they comefrom, while championing institutional priorities identified by administration (Green& Little, 2011; Manathunga, 2006). And the post-colonial metaphors previouslyexplored in the literature invite further conversations about ways in which post-colonial metaphors might enhance our understanding of academic developmentpractice.

Wareing’s recent work (2009) provides an important caveat to the use of this par-ticular post-colonial lens – one previously acknowledged by Manathunga (2006) –when she argues that academic development is the marginalized ‘Other’ withinhigher education institutions, where it lacks power as evidenced by the marginalbudgets and staffing of academic development units in comparison to academicdepartments. Wareing argues that:

A discourse which asserts the right of discipline communities to continue to constructthemselves as coherent and discrete, and privileges the idea of disciplinary pedagogyover generic principles despite the apparent absence of literature supporting discipline-specific pedagogic principles, will see generic principles of learning and teaching as athreat, representing as they do a challenge to disciplinary ‘nation states’. (Wareing,2009, p. 925)

This flips the post-colonial metaphor, where academic developers become the voiceof non-western or Indigenous knowledges trying to be heard among our colonialdisciplinary colleagues. While this inverted metaphor warrants further exploration, itgoes beyond the purview of this particular paper. It serves, however, as an impor-tant reminder about the marginal place in which many academic developers andCentres find themselves, or at least perceive themselves, within their institutionalcontext (Green & Little, 2011).

220 B. Wuetherick and T. Ewert-Bauer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:00

27

July

201

2

Perceptions of the institutional position of academic development in Canada

Two of the questions underpinning the symposia at EDC and ICED were, what per-ception do academic developers have of the institutional position of themselves andtheir Centres and how pervasive is the perception that academic development mustremain neutral? The importance of these questions was reinforced for us at the2011 Canadian Educational Developers’ Institute, where the facilitators posed acontroversial case to the institute’s participants (Dawson & Mighty, 2011). The caseasked participants to respond to a situation where the Provost (or equivalent) askedthe Centre to champion a process exploring student evaluations of teaching on cam-pus, including the recommendation of a possible instrument for student evaluations,and to administer the evaluations from the Centre. Several participants immediatelyemphasized that they would not want to see their Centre involved in this type ofsituation, concerned that the possibility of being seen as being complicit in the eval-uation of teaching would compromise their ability to work with faculty across theirinstitutions. These sentiments were reinforced by several comments that Centresneeded to remain safe spaces for faculty, with one person explicitly commenting,when asked why helping lead such a process would mean the Centre was not a safeplace for faculty, that being seen as neutral by everyone on campus is key and thatthis type of request would violate that neutrality.

Following these experiences, we felt that it would be useful to further explorethe perceptions of academic development’s institutional positioning in Canada andthe possibility of neutrality in academic development work. After seeking ethicsapproval from our institution, we administered a short pilot survey that was distrib-uted to the Canadian academic development community over the EDC listserv. Themethodology we used for this pilot study was a blended approach of quantitative(particularly for demographic data) and qualitative questions to explore the respon-dents’ views of how academic development is positioned institutionally and the roleof neutrality in that positioning. While only 22 responses were received, we weresatisfied that the respondents accurately represented the diversity of opinions anddemographics we might expect in the Canadian higher education context.

The respondents had a range of experience working in academic development,though the trend was towards being relatively new to academic development (with36% serving less than five years in academic development and 41% serving 5–10years). There was also a range in terms of the current role the respondent held, with46% holding a position as educational or instructional developer/designer and 32%serving as director or associate director of the Centre. There was a relatively evensplit between the category of institution the respondents worked at (medical/doctoral– 36%, comprehensive – 27% or undergraduate – 36%), and a similar variabilitybetween the number of staff in the academic development unit, with 32% havingfewer than five staff and 27% having 20 + staff. Over 41% of the respondents camefrom an institution with less than 500 academic staff, while 36% had between 500and 1500 academic staff on their campus. As well, 41% came from institutions withless than 10,000 students, while 32% came from an institution with 20,000 or morestudents. The demographics indicated that the respondents were proportionally repre-sentative of the diversity of institutions within the Canadian higher education system(Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada [AUCC], 2011).

The richness of the qualitative data received as part of this pilot study is muchmore relevant in the context of this paper. First, participants in the study were asked

International Journal for Academic Development 221

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:00

27

July

201

2

whether they saw themselves and their Centres as advocates. Going back to the def-inition of neutrality, we were trying to explore the ways in which academic devel-opers positioned themselves and their units on issues related to teaching andlearning. All but one of the respondents indicated that they felt they were personallyan advocate for various aspects of teaching and learning on their respective cam-puses. Here is a representative comment about how individuals felt they were advo-cates:

Yes, in several respects: for faculty … (helping to have their perspectives, challengesand achievements recognized and rewarded appropriately), for students … (encourag-ing those instructors who don’t care about teaching and/or tend to devalue the studentperspective to rethink), and for teaching and learning generally within a research-cen-tred university community. (R9)

In addition, there were almost uniform responses that Centres served an importantadvocacy role, though a few respondents indicated concerns that the size of theCentre impacted on how well it might advocate for teaching and learning on theirrespective campuses:

I see our centre as being a liaison between faculty and administration and between stu-dents and faculty – working among the stakeholders to develop effective yet efficientapproaches to teaching. (R7)

The survey also presented two case studies where the Centre might be in an uncom-fortable situation politically on campus. In one case, drawn from the example usedat the Educational Developers’ Institute (mentioned above), the Provost asked theCentre to lead a process to identify a new tool for student evaluations of teaching,as well as to administer the tool after a decision had been made on which instru-ment to use. In the other case, drawn from a situation currently happening at oneparticular Canadian institution, the Centre was given a significant new investmentof money and staff from central administration to lead curriculum innovation forthe campus, while at the same time individual academic units were facing reducedbudgets, potential staff layoffs and cuts to both graduate student and contract ses-sional funding. These cases were presented in such a way as to ask respondents toidentify how they might position the initiative institutionally and to identify howthey might handle potential criticism of the initiative.

In both cases, several respondents indicated not only a willingness to participate,but also some concrete examples of how they would position and move forwardsuch an initiative. Indeed, some even gave specific situations where they had faceda very similar situation on their respective campuses.

Referring to Case 1:

1) I would accept the challenge of leading the process to determine an appropriateinstrument, which I would ask the team to research and debate. 2) I would decline thechallenge of overseeing the implementation and administration of the instrument, butwould recommend instead that we create a team of faculty members, administrators,educational developers and students to perform this task. 3) I would recommend thatthe instrument be used as one source of information among many in a multi-facetedformative and summative evaluation strategy … with the purpose of enhancing profes-sional development and continually refining student learning experiences. 4) I would

222 B. Wuetherick and T. Ewert-Bauer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:00

27

July

201

2

anticipate the usual criticisms … and meet them with research, agree with them whenappropriate, disagree when appropriate, and invite people to offer suggestions forimprovement. (R1)

Referring to Case 2:

I would focus the reasoning for the reallocation on senior administration and advisethat they attend the first few meetings where the new initiative is introduced to explainhow it fits into the larger picture. The message to focus on would be how the curricu-lum innovation will help the institution achieve larger-picture goals so that depart-ments can function more efficiently with the resources they have. (R6)

In each of the cases, however, there were several respondents who would engageonly reluctantly in the initiative as presented in the case and some explicitly statedthat they would either only accept part of the responsibility indicated in the case orwould actively resist such a situation should it arise on their campus. Respondentsalso expressed concern about how their Centres would be perceived on their cam-pus, including specific concerns related to neutrality.

Referring to Case 1:

I think this a common concern of Centres across the country. We’ve chosen not tolead this kind of initiative because it is not our job to say what constitutes ‘goodteaching’. That can only be decided in the local, disciplinary context by the facultyand student. Political quagmire … (R3)

I would anticipate that people might no longer see our centre as neutral. I would nothave the centre oversee the implementation or administration of the instrument … thecentre could help with determining the instrument, but the staff overseeing the imple-mentation could work out of the provost’s office. (R8)

Referring to Case 2:

This would not happen at my institution, thankfully. I believe in collaborative designand planning of teaching and learning innovation, and would not be comfortable lead-ing such an initiative, especially since my position is not an academic one. Withoutthe active support of [senior administration] … I would not be able to move forwardat all. I would focus my attention on changing the parameters of the project. (R13)

Finally, the survey explicitly asked respondents how important it was for their Cen-tres to be seen as neutral on campus and why. One third of the respondents indicatedthat neutrality is important, although in many cases the way neutrality is conceptual-ized is as a safe place for academic staff and graduate students. Indeed, most of therespondents who argue that neutrality is important indicate in their responses thatthey are not being ‘neutral’ by their actions as advocates for academic staff:

I never thought about this much. At this moment, I think this is important. Individual fac-ulty members come to our centre to get support for their needs … We educational devel-opers should focus most of our energy on helping individual faculty members. (R14)

Extremely. We are Switzerland. Faculty and graduate students need to be able to cometo us as a safe place. (R8)

International Journal for Academic Development 223

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:00

27

July

201

2

VERY important. I am an advocate for faculty. I am not a ‘tool’ of administration. Iam not the ‘fix-it’ shop for ‘bad’ teachers. (R5)

On the other hand, almost two-thirds of the respondents, when explicitly askedabout neutrality, indicated that neutrality was not important. Many of those tendedto focus on how being neutral is not possible while advocating for teaching andlearning, and that we should be using different language to describe what it is thatwe aspire to in our Centres:

We aren’t at all neutral and don’t pretend to be. … We exist to promote excellence inteaching and learning … and we make no bones about our biases in that regard. Ithink some in admin might be more comfortable with feigned neutrality, but that isn’tterribly relevant to us. (R1)

It is important that faculty members have confidence that centres maintain their focuson the improvement of teaching and learning and NOT remain neutral. In fact, somefaculty members have voiced the opinion that Centres might better achieve their goalsfor improving teaching and learning if they were independent agencies apart from theuniversity they serve. (R7)

We need to be seen as understanding all sides of every argument, which isn’t the sameas neutral. We often have language skills that help interpret the various perspectiveson an issue to each other. Beyond that though, the administrative perspective has hadthe upper hand in this environment for most of the university’s history, and it’s timeto advocate for the faculty and students with those who don’t understand what teach-ing and learning is like. (R16)

As you can see from the breadth of responses, the landscape of how academicdevelopers conceptualize their institutional position, and the perception of neutralityin their role, is far from homogenous. This complex landscape, however, demon-strates some key issues that need to be addressed in how Centres are positioned,including the Centre’s role as a safe place for faculty and graduate students (even ifthis is mistakenly equated with neutrality), the Centre’s role as a champion for uni-versal ‘best practice’ in teaching and learning (even when recognizing the impor-tance of disciplinary perspectives) and the balance of the Centre serving faculty andinstitutional interests (without being a ‘tool’ of either).

Moving forward post-colonially

As we look at the ways in which academic development is positioned institution-ally, it is possible to see how we might conceptualize neutrality in a manner thatneglects to recognize the realities of academic development work as advocating forteaching and learning. Neutrality, in post-colonial terms, is considered to be animpossibility, as attempts to be neutral inevitably deny history, deny structure anddeny the positioning of subjects (Spivak, 1990). Conceptualizing how academicdevelopment is positioned institutionally is far from straightforward, as attested toby the great variability in perceptions among the respondents in our pilot study. Toprovide a single way forward using a post-colonial lens is particularly difficult, asthe diverse ways in which post-colonial scholars have come to understandoppression from colonial educational practices ‘are mired in discourses ofdifference’ (Battiste, 2008, p. 177):

224 B. Wuetherick and T. Ewert-Bauer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:00

27

July

201

2

Regardless of the complexity of moving forward post-colonially, we must recognizethat [f]rom a sociological perspective, all peoples have knowledge; the transformationof knowledge into a political power base has been built on controlling the meaningsand diffusion of knowledge. Different groups in society use knowledge, and control ofknowledge, and its meanings, in order to exercise their power and privilege overothers. (Battiste, 2008, p. 187)

To bring this back to academic development, this means that academic developersought not to believe that we control knowledge about teaching and learning inhigher education even as we embrace our expertise; a balancing act was evidentin some of the responses in our survey. As academic developers work with ourdisciplinary ‘Others’ to ‘modernize’ and adopt ‘best practices’ in teaching andlearning (particularly those we believe are evidence-based), it is important to bemindful that we do not use the control of this knowledge to exercise power andprivilege over others. We must recognize there are ‘local’, disciplinary academicknowledges that the disciplinary ‘Other’ brings to bear on any potential teachingand learning situation that may be just as, or more, appropriate to the specific dis-ciplinary context.

Using this post-colonial lens to explore the move to ‘modernize’ teaching andlearning practices in our institutions, it is possible to see how academic developersmight succumb to the allure of a colonial approach to working with our disciplinarycolleagues. The discourse of modernization theory posits development, ‘as a stateof being that is objectively good and universally desirable … [and thus does] notseem culturally biased’ (Ake, 2005, p. 10). Ake (2005) further argues, however, thatwithout exception this schema regards the ideal characteristics of the West (a gener-alizable form of teaching and learning knowledge) as ‘the end of social evolution’achieved through modernization (p. 10). Battiste (2008) argues that the: ‘universal-ity [claimed in Eurocentric educational thought and practice] is the underpinning ofcultural and cognitive imperialism, which establishes a dominant group’s knowl-edge, experience, culture and language as the universal norm’ (p. 184).

Abdi (2009) spoke specifically to how we might move forward collectively interms of international educational development (for which we can substitute aca-demic development) in a manner conscious of the post-colonial realities. He asksthe following questions:

[W]ho defines social development and whose life systems should be presented, indeed,derided as underdevelopment? What are the historical constructions of developmentand underdevelopment, and how are the dominant discourses in the area responsiblefor the construction of the now globally diffused categories of development, withouttaking into account the histories, the cultures as well as the needs and aspirations ofthe to-be officially developed? (Abdi, 2009, p. 6)

Abdi makes the case that international educational development work must be his-torically affirming, culturally not alienating, philosophically localized, linguisticallyinclusive, epistemically and epistemologically validating and developmentally sensi-tive and responsive. These key reminders can easily be considered analogous tohow we might begin working inclusively and respectfully with the diversedisciplines that make up our institutional environments, and in doing so addressmany of the tensions represented in the diverse perspectives of the respondents ofour survey.

International Journal for Academic Development 225

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:00

27

July

201

2

Bringing this analogy to academic development, in order to be historicallyaffirming, we must endeavour to learn about how the discipline has historically con-ceptualized and enacted its teaching and learning practices, whether these be signa-ture pedagogies specific to that discipline or not (Gurung, Chick, & Haynie, 2009).This allows academic developers to ensure that we are culturally not alienating bytaking the time to learn the culture of the department and discipline with which weare engaging to ensure that we do not inadvertently alienate them. It directly fol-lows that our work should be philosophically localized, whereby we ensure the edu-cational philosophies we advocate for match the local disciplinary ways ofconceptualizing teaching and learning. Keeping in mind Green’s research (2009)that one of the biggest barriers for academics across the disciplines accessing teach-ing and learning literature is the educational jargon that often permeates academicwriting in higher education, it is important to ensure that we are being linguisticallyinclusive. Each discipline has what Perkins (2006) has called an ‘episteme’, or anunderlying hidden game, which is the disciplinary ‘manners of justifying, explain-ing, solving problems, conducting enquiries, and designing and validating variouskinds of products or outcomes’ (p. 42). It is therefore important that we be episte-mically and epistemologically validating with respect to the ways of thinking andpracticing in the disciplines, or, in other words, the ways in which each disciplineconstructs and understands knowledge and reflects that knowledge in practice(McCune & Hounsell, 2005).

Finally, we need to live, observe, work and share with disciplinary colleagues inorder to be developmentally sensitive and responsive to their particular needs anddesires as part of the relationship that we form with them:

[A]boriginal knowledge [in this case disciplinary or departmental knowledge] is notgained as a feature of being ‘native’ or living in a particular community or from hav-ing an interest in the topic, but is gained by living, observing, working and sharingwith Aboriginal peoples. (Battiste, 2008, p. 180)

Being continuously mindful of the fine line we are walking, and building in feed-back mechanisms to ensure that we are not missing cues that might enlighten us tohow our work is being received, should allow us to respond more respectfully andauthentically to the particular needs of those with whom we are working.

We do not mean to argue that academic development turn its back on evidence-based practices. Indeed, as was identified by many of the responses from our surveyparticipants, a key strength academic developers bring to their institutional contextsis a deep understanding and engagement with the robust literature dealing withhigher education teaching and learning. What we are arguing for is an inclusiveacademic development practice that acknowledges and respects ‘local’ disciplinaryknowledge, while at the same time bringing to bear the vast research literature onteaching and learning in higher education. Decolonization in this context is aboutcentring disciplinary academics’ concerns and world views, and then helping themcome to know and understand the higher education teaching and learning theoryand research from their own perspectives and for their own purposes (Smith, 1999).Decolonization is: ‘not a movement to reject all theory or research of Westernknowledge, but [intends] to create a new space in which Indigenous peoples’knowledge, identity, and future is factored into a global and contemporary equation’and allowed to flourish (Battiste, 2008, p. 182). In advocating for the best possible

226 B. Wuetherick and T. Ewert-Bauer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:00

27

July

201

2

teaching and learning environment for all academic staff and students, academicdevelopers who use a post-colonial lens to examine their practice and identity arevery well placed to help academic staff find that ‘new space’ between the local, dis-ciplinary knowledge and the generalizable knowledge in the higher education litera-ture that might allow the disciplinary teaching and learning environment to flourish.

While throughout the discussion of moving forward post-colonially, we havealluded to what it might mean to embed decolonizing practices into our academicdevelopment work, perhaps one final analogy might be useful for academic devel-opers considering how we move forward with our academic development practiceinclusively, respectfully and authentically. Albert Marshall, an Eskasoni Mi’kmaqElder from Cape Breton Island in Canada, has suggested that in order to bringtogether different ways of knowing, different knowledges, we might use ‘two-eyedseeing’ (Hatcher, Bartlett, Marshall, & Marshall, 2009). ‘Two-eyed seeing’ refers tohow we might use one eye to learn with the strengths of Indigenous knowledgesand ways of knowing (in our context ‘local’, disciplinary academic knowledges andpedagogies), and use the other eye to learn with the strengths of Western knowledgeand ways of knowing (in our context, a generalizable knowledge of teaching andlearning) and then begin using both eyes together for the benefit of all (Hatcheret al., 2009). In the context of academic development practice, it would acknowl-edge the importance and necessity of structures that are permeable to, and receptiveof, new understandings and opportunities of teaching and learning practice. ‘Two-eyed seeing’ is considered to be a weaving of the perspectives represented (Indige-nous and Western) and not a domination or assimilation by either perspective, whilealso retaining the ability to gaze out of only one eye if desired (Hatcher et al.,2009). This would allow us to embrace the tension identified by the respondents inour pilot study, and use the strength of both local and global perspectives for theimprovement of the teaching and learning environment.

Conclusion

As we conclude this exploration of how we might perceive of neutrality in the con-text of academic development, it seems poignant to return to where we began. Zinn(1991) argued that: ‘[i]ndeed, it is impossible to be neutral. … It is a world ofclashing interests … and it seems to me both impossible and undesirable to be neu-tral in those conflicts’ (p. 7). The impossibility of neutrality in academic develop-ment practice becomes clear when we consider our role as advocates, championsand facilitators of teaching and learning on our respective campuses. If we are tomove forward with a more holistic academic development practice and authenticinstitutional position, then a decolonizing approach is critical; an approach thatacknowledges our non-neutrality, respects the expertise and experience of our disci-plinary colleagues, and engages in ‘two-eyed seeing’ that weaves together our gen-eralizable knowledges about teaching and learning with ‘local’ disciplinaryknowledges. Academic development work, it has been argued, requires us to remaincognizant of how we are historically affirming, culturally not alienating, philosophi-cally localized, linguistically inclusive, epistemically and epistemologically validat-ing and developmentally sensitive and responsive in all that we do.

AcknowledgementsWe would like to acknowledge our RA, John Dickinson, as well as the participants andpresenters of the EDC and ICED symposia, who helped shape the ideas in this paper.

International Journal for Academic Development 227

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:00

27

July

201

2

Notes on contributorsBrad Wuetherick is the program director of the Gwenna Moss Centre for TeachingEffectiveness at the University of Saskatchewan. His research interests are primarily in theintegration of research, teaching and learning, experiential and community-service learning,threshold concepts and academic development practice.

Tereigh Ewert-Bauer has been working in the field of educational development at theUniversity of Saskatchewan since 2000. Her research areas include the study of Canadianwhiteness, identity, anti-oppressive education, Aboriginal education and Indigenizing theuniversity.

References

Abdi, A. (2009). Presidential address – education and social development: Globalperspectives. Canadian and International Education Journal, 38(2), 1–22.

Ake, C. (2005). Democracy and development in Africa. Washington, DC: The BrookingsInstitute.

Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC). (2011). Enrolment by univer-sity. Retrieved December 11, 2011, from http://www.aucc.ca/canadian-universities/facts-and-stats/enrolment-by-university/

Battiste, M. (2008). The decolonization of aboriginal education: Dialogue, reflection andaction in Canada. In P. Dasen & A. Akkari (Eds.), Educational theories and practicesfrom the majority world (pp. 168–195). London: Sage.

Dawson, T., & Mighty, J. (2011, February). EDC professional development institute.Preconference workshop presented at the Annual Conference of the EducationalDevelopers Caucus, Sault Ste. Marie, ON.

Green, D.A. (2009). New academics’ perceptions of the language of teaching and learning:Identifying and overcoming linguistic barriers. International Journal for AcademicDevelopment, 14(1), 33–45.

Green, D.A. (2010). Words fail us: How academics view language and ideas in highereducation research. International Journal for Academic Development, 15(1), 47–59.

Green, D.A., & Little, D. (2011). Academic development on the margins. Studies in HigherEducation. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.583640.

Gurung, R., Chick, N., & Haynie, A. (2009). Exploring signature pedagogies: Approachesto teaching disciplinary habits of mind. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Hatcher, A., Bartlett, C., Marshall, A., & Marshall, M. (2009). Two-eyed seeing in the class-room environment: Concepts, approaches, and challenges. Canadian Journal of Science,Mathematics, and Technology Education, 9(3), 141–153.

Holmes, T., Ewert-Bauer, T., Hamilton, B., Potter, M., & Wuetherick, B. (2010, February).Metaphors of nation in the construction of Canadian developer identities. Workshop pre-sented at the Annual Conference of the Educational Developers Caucus, Kamloops, BC.

Manathunga, C. (2006). Doing educational development ambivalently: Applyingpost-colonial metaphors to educational development? International Journal for AcademicDevelopment, 11(1), 19–29.

Manathunga, C. (2007). ‘Unhomely’ academic developer identities: More post-colonialexplorations. International Journal for Academic Development, 12(1), 25–34.

Manathunga, C., Holmes, T., Wuetherick, B., Turner, N., Rathbun, G., Green, D., & Little,D. (2010, June). The political geographies of academic development: Neutral,non-neutral and/or marginal? Symposium presented at the International Consortium forEducational Development Conference, Barcelona, Spain.

McCune, V., & Hounsell, D. (2005). The development of students’ ways of thinking andpracticing in three final-year biology courses. Higher Education, 49(3), 255–289.

McWilliam, E. (2002). Against professional development. Journal of Educational Philosophyand Theory, 34(3), 289–299.

Perkins, D. (2006). Constructivism and troublesome knowledge. In J. Meyer & R. Land(Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts andtroublesome knowledge (pp. 33–47). New York, NY: Routledge.

228 B. Wuetherick and T. Ewert-Bauer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:00

27

July

201

2

Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Indigenous peoples and research. London:Zed Books.

Spivak, G.C. (1990). The post-colonial critic: Interviews, strategies, and dialogues. NewYork, NY: Routledge.

Wareing, S. (2009). Disciplines, discourse and orientalism: The implications for postgraduatecertificates in learning and teaching in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 34(8), 917–928.

Young, R. (2003). Postcolonialism: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Zinn, H. (1991). Declarations of independence: Cross-examining American ideology.Toronto, ON: HarperCollins Canada.

International Journal for Academic Development 229

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:00

27

July

201

2