Gary Hawkins and Brian Smentkowski, Editors

January 2018

Dear Readers,

The one thing that drives our stewardship of this journal is our commitment to the diverse perspectives and practices that inform and define the field of educational development. As articulated in our Strategic Goals, To Improve the Academy endeavors to:

  • reflect the diverse community of faculty, staff, and administrators who contribute to the rigor and improvement of teaching and learning in higher education;

  • shape the conversation and drive inquiry regarding the scholarship of educational development; and

  • support innovation in scholarship, research, practice, and the discipline of educational development itself.

This special issue is a testament to that commitment.

After a conversation in the halls of the POD Network conference in San Francisco in 2016, we invited an essay, that, when it arrived, led us to pause and open our approach. This manuscript—“Is SoTL a Signature Pedagogy of Educational Development?”—raised a profound question and did so in a way that inspired us to think less about the answer than about the nature of the question itself. Peter Felten and Nancy Chick invited us, and now all of you, to participate in a thought exercise: invoking the concept of signature pedagogies, they proposed the practices of SoTL as key reflections of the identity and world view of the field of educational development. In asking us to consider SoTL as a—but not necessarily the— signature pedagogy in this context, they reminded us that SoTL is not the only “arrow in the quiver of educational developers.” Their approach made us wonder about other arrows—and even other quivers. Given the opportunity, how would others define the field and situate themselves within it?

So, in May 2017, TIA issued a call for articles addressing “The One Thing: Perspectives on Educational Development.” We invited authors to consider—broadly and freely—“the one thing” that characterizes, inspires, challenges, or guides their work. We did not seek the definitive answer, but rather to represent the broad array of diverse practitioners, motivations, and perspectives on how we can view, illuminate, and advance the field. We hoped our call would stimulate scholarly essays that would illustrate the diversity of the field, and we are thrilled that the strong response gives us this opportunity to amplify these many voices on a common theme.

In the table of contents, you will see clusters of topics engaging in multiple perspectives. Some of the articles strike themes that might be familiar to you—but that might be less known to those newer to the field. At the same time, other articles present novel positions, many for the first time. This is particularly true of the articles addressing diversity, inclusion, identity, and justice. We had hoped justice would enter more prominently into the vocabulary of our published work, and it has. We had wanted to demonstrate our inclusive values, and we are able to do so. In short, our call elicited authentic responses to the question of what really matters to a broad array of readers, writers, and practitioners in the field.

This issue opens with the original, invited essay by Felten and Chick, “Is SoTL a Signature Pedagogy of Educational Development,” which sets the stage for and invites readers to think creatively and critically about the field of educational development. This is followed by six articles that examine Ways of Doing, mainly through the integration of theory and in the context of diversity, inclusion, identity, and justice. Here Gravett and Bernhagen articulate a feminist theory of educational development in “Ways of Doing: Feminist Educational Development”; Ateze Vega and Jacobson each forward justice in “Toward Learning and Justice, through Love” and “Seeking and Doing Justice through Educational Development”; Haynie and also Haynes, Tuitt, and Stewart separately promote equity mindedness and racial and cultural awareness in “Equity Minded Faculty Development” and “Transforming the Classroom at Traditionally White Institutions to Make Black Lives Matter”; and Linda Nilson considers the equity of principles of learning as she explores “One Thing for all Learners.”

The next cluster of topics, Invitations and Identities, shares experiences and insights that span from the personal to the professional; the singular to the community; the idiosyncratic to the disciplinary. DiPietro opens the section with applied yoga in “The Chakra System as a Framework for Holistic Educational Development,” and Kearns, Hatcher, Bollard, DiPietro, Donohue Bergeler, et al. round out this segment by leveraging their own disciplinary flexibilities in “‘Once a scientist…:’ Disciplinary Approaches and Intellectual Dexterity in Educational Development.” In between, Smith uses invitiation theory as her guide in “Invitations and Expeditions, but Hardly Ever Destinations”; and Kalu, Dyjur, Berenson, Grant, Jeffs et al. describe how many perspectives can unify around one goal and define a CTL in “Seven Voices, Seven Developers, Seven One Things that Guide Our Practice.”

The issue closes with three articles that focus on The Big Picture and challenge readers, practicioners, and leaders in the field. Ellis asks us to engage in actively “Changing the Lens” in the course of our work. Kelley borrows from from business leadership to move us from “Good to Great in Educational Development.” Finally, Cruz brings us back to “The Idea of Educational Development,” with an historian’s eye that invites readers to look backwards, forwards, and into the field of educational development.

We hope that the articles curated for this Special Issue inspire and provoke, that they raise questions and generate discussion. Even more, we hope that this issue encourages you the reader to become you the writer; to speak through your practice and your scholarship. This issue forms an invitation: we invite you, our readers, to explore, sustain, and challenge the lines of inquiry included herein or to draw new lines. We hope this issue gives you something to think about and write about and to join us in exploring what Pat Hutchings has called the “vision of the possible.”

Gary Hawkins and Brian Smentkowski, Editors

January 2018

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the many individuals who helped us develop, refine, and curate the ideas and articles of this Special Issue.

Thank you to our editorial board—Danilo Baylen, Laura Cruz, Donna Ellis, Emily O. Gravett, and Michael Reder—for helping us conceive of the Special Issue, ever mindful of the past, present, and future of the field, the journal, and the POD Network.

We sincerely thank our reviewers, who provided critical feedback on a tight timeline and ensured the quality of this issue:

Lindsay Bernhagen, Lance Buhl, Anne Canale, Amy Chan Hilton, Nancy Chick, Eli Collins Brown, Laura Cruz, Laura Cruz, Martha Diede, Michele DiPietro, Joshua Eyler, Peter Felten, Peter Felten, Devon Fisher, De Gallow, Kevin Gannon, Chris Garrett, Emily Gravett, Molly Hatcher, Linda Hodges, Krista Hoffmann Longtin, Cassandra Horii, Teresa Johnson, Kathleen Kane, Katherine Kearns, Ania Kowalik, Virginia Lee, Deandra Little, Emily Magruder, Edward Maloney, Amanda McGrew, Deborah Meizlish, Gina Merys, Karen Miner Romanoff, Patricia Payette, Stephanie Richter, Megan Schmid, Hilary Schuldt, Adriana Streifer, Kimberly Van Orman, Kristi Verbeke, Katie Walsh, Jennifer Weaver, Kimberly Whiter, and Mary Wright.