


































Global Research in Higher Education 
ISSN 2576-196X (Print) ISSN 2576-1951 (Online) 

Vol. 3, No. 1, 2020 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe 

1 
 

Original Paper 

Strategic Approaches to SoEL Inquiry Within and Across 

Disciplines: Twenty-year Impact of an International Faculty 

Development Program in Diverse University Contexts 

Andrea S. Webb
1*

, Harry T. Hubball
1
,
 
Anthony Clarke

1
 & Simon Ellis

2
 

1
 Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada  

2
 Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada 

*
 Andrea S. Webb, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada 

 

Received: December 18, 2019   Accepted: January 15, 2020   Online Published: February 14, 2020 

doi:10.22158/grhe.v3n1p1             URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/grhe.v3n1p1 

 

Abstract 

Educational leaders on university campuses around the world are increasingly required to account for 

the effectiveness, efficiency and quality of their undergraduate and graduate degree programs. The S 

Scholarship of Educational Leadership (SoEL) in higher education is a distinctive form of strategic 

inquiry for educational leaders with an explicit transformational agenda of educational practices 

within and across the disciplines in diverse university contexts. This paper examines complex 

institutional challenges and strategic approaches to SoEL inquiry. In an international faculty 

development context, data suggests that educational leaders from a variety of disciplines face 

significant challenges when undertaking SoEL inquiry. Strategic institutional supports and customised 

professional development are key to facilitating SoEL inquiry in higher education. Further, SoEL is 

inherently situated, socially mediated, and responsive to the professional learning needs and 

circumstances of educational leaders within and across the disciplines in diverse university contexts. 

Keywords 

international faculty development, scholarship of educational leadership, scholarship of teaching, 

research methods, appreciative inquiry 

 

1. Introduction 

In a global higher education environment of unprecedented competition, rapid technological change, 

increasingly diminishing resources, increasing student diversity, and demands for local and 

internationally-responsive undergraduate and graduate degree programs, the quality of higher education 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 1, 2020 

2 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

practices is being scrutinized as never before. Educational leaders around the world across a variety of 

university campuses are increasingly required to account for effectiveness and efficiency of their 

practices. However, ad-hoc faculty development initiatives (often with neither specialist leadership 

expertise nor track-record of published research in higher education) aimed at enhancing teaching, 

curriculum practice, and/or educational leadership, have often paid scant attention to educational 

research, dissemination and implementation (Hubball, Clarke, Chng, & Grimmett, 2015; Myatt et al., 

2018). For example, the Scholarship of Educational Leadership (SoEL) is a distinctive form of strategic 

inquiry for educational leaders with an explicit transformational agenda of educational practices within 

and across the disciplines in diverse higher education contexts (including colleges and 

Research-Intensive Universities (RIUs)). Thus, SoEL has unique benefits for universities and 

educational 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 in such contexts. Clearly, the strength of educational leaders lies in their 

understanding of the complexity of their teaching and learning contexts; their vested interest with 

practice-based issues under investigation; and their related experience is critical to assess change in 

these settings (Alexander & Hjortsø, 2019; Hubball, Clarke, & Pearson, 2016; Putman & Rock, 2017). 

More often than not, however, educational leaders from a variety of disciplines, especially those 

unfamiliar to social science research methodologies and methods, do not have the appropriate 

methodological expertise or strategic support and thus find it significantly challenging to conduct SoEL 

research in complex institutional/curricula/classroom settings (D‟Andrea, 2006; Hubball & Clarke, 

2010). This paper examines strategic challenges and approaches for facilitating SoEL inquiry for 

educational leaders within and across diverse disciplinary settings. The following insights are grounded 

in the SoEL literature and twenty years of experience in facilitating and guiding a specific international 

faculty leadership development program, focussing on SoEL (https://international.educ.ubc.ca/soel) 

with over 550 cross-disciplinary and multi-institutional faculty member graduates. 

1.1 Theoretical Underpinnings of Institutional SoEL Inquiry 

Best practice for educational leadership typically refers to non-context-specific educational leadership 

with general criteria or principles for effectiveness that are largely based upon experience in leadership 

contexts. While a useful guide and starting point for many novice educational leaders with 

responsibilities for quality assurance and enhancement, these “What Works” tips do not necessarily 

align well with distinct research cultures, disciplinary complexities, strategic institutional initiatives, or 

rapid changes in the use of technology that occur in current university settings. In contrast, the 

educational leadership research literature in higher education is more nuanced and enlightening, and 

makes useful theoretical and practical distinctions between scholarly approaches to teaching and 

learning, the scholarship of teaching and learning, and the scholarship of educational leadership (Boyer, 

1990; Hutchings, Huber, & Ciccone, 2011; Hubball, Clarke, & Pearson, 2017). Figure 1 illustrates an 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 1, 2020 

3 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

institutional model for these unique and overlapping processes with implications for customised faculty 

development initiatives and strategic supports. 

 

 

Figure 1. Situating SoEL to Support Teaching and Learning Excellence in Diverse University 

Contexts 

 

This integrated bidirectional (top-down and bottom-up) model illustrates the strategic role of SoEL in 

diverse university contexts. 

1.1.1 Higher Education/Institutional Context 

This element at the top of Figure 1 represents both internal (e.g., institutional strategic planning 

documents, collective agreement expectations, criteria for promotion and tenure) and external forces 

that impact SoEL. For example, regional, national, and/or professional accreditation agencies in many 

areas of the world are working more closely than ever with universities to anchor their activities in 

institutional mandates that better support educational practices, leadership, and scholarship. Scholarly 

organizations in higher education 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 towards SoEL submissions in such forums as academic conferences, 

peer-reviewed journals, and granting organizations.  

Scholarly approaches to teaching and learning. The broad horizontal arrow in Figure 1 reflects a 

foundational institutional expectation that high-quality teaching and student learning experiences are 

grounded in reflective inquiry and/or professional development in order for continual improvements to 

curriculum and pedagogical practices. 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 1, 2020 

4 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). The central stars in Figure 1 refer to strategically 

coordinated SoTL initiatives and projects related to curricula and pedagogical approaches. Essentially, 

SoTL builds on scholarly approaches to teaching and learning, however, greater attention is placed on 

grounding best practices in the scholarly literature, methodological rigour, evidence-based monitoring 

and dissemination in peer reviewed contexts such as disciplinary journals and also extends to funding 

organizations and conference presentations (Hubball & Gold, 2007; Hutchings, Huber, & Ciccione, 

2011).  

Scholarship of Educational Leadership (SoEL). This element in Figure 1 reflects professionally 

prepared educational leaders (e.g., associate deans, program directors, curriculum leaders, teaching 

evaluators, teaching award winners, and tenured instructors and professors) with SoEL expertise. SoEL 

builds on and extends SoTL whereby professionally prepared educational leaders play a critical role in 

implementation of quality assurance or enhancement, program renewal, Scholarship of Teaching and 

Learning (SoTL) activities, and faculty development across various levels, as well as dissemination of 

these educational leadership practices in peer reviewed contexts.  

In diverse faculty development contexts, the term SoEL is defined as a distinctive form of strategic 

inquiry for educational leaders with an explicit transformational agenda of educational practices within 

and across the disciplines in diverse university contexts. Essentially, SoEL 

1) is grounded in networked improvement communities; 

2) situates educational practice within the research literature and focuses on systematic rigorous inquiry 

(e.g., clear rationale and objectives/goals for SoEL inquiry, ethical considerations and aligned data 

collection methods and analysis methods for leadership, adequate preparation and reflective critique);  

3) is symbolic of the normative context that governs educational leadership work; and  

4) disseminates theory and practice in this domain in appropriate peer reviewed settings (Bryk et al., 

2011; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2004; Glassick, Huber, & Maefoff, 1997; Green, 2008). In sum, diverse 

perspectives of SoEL inquiry are shaped by context-specific frameworks, including ontological (e.g., 

constructivist, post-positivist, pragmatist, critical perspectives), cultural (i.e., global, regional), 

institutional (i.e., university-specific), disciplinary (i.e., signature practices), epistemological (i.e., how 

we know what we know), and ethical (i.e., confidentiality, professionalism) considerations.  

We argue that SoEL inquiry is based on three underlying assumptions about knowledge: (1) it is 

inherently situated, (2) it is socially and culturally mediated, and (3) it is responsive to the diverse 

(local and international) needs and circumstances of learners (Hubball, Clarke, & Pearson, 2017). 

These principles are interconnected and dependent on the unique context to which they are associated. 

Each assumption provides directions and cautions for facilitating SoEL inquiry in diverse university 

contexts. For example, the first assumption cautions that SoEL inquiry is inherently situated within 

disciplinary traditions, learning environments, and political landscapes that frame the particular 

institutional contexts in which pedagogy takes place. For example, strategic institutional supports are 

key to effectively supporting SoEL inquiry on university campuses. Thus, facilitating institutional 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 1, 2020 

5 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

SoEL inquiry must have regard for the historical, political, and social factors that characterize SoEL 

inquiry. In short, SoEL inquiries and contexts are inter-linked and determine each other in significant 

ways. Honouring the situated nature of knowledge is, therefore, a recognition that SoEL inquiry exists 

within broader communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Davis & Sumara, 2006). The socially 

and culturally mediated dimension of knowledge construction speaks to the importance of arriving at a 

shared understanding and values of SoEL inquiry that are pivotal in fostering a culture of educational 

scholarship in higher education (Houston & Lebeau, 2006; Hutchings, 2002). Coming to a shared 

understanding of values and beliefs, as part of a networked improvement community that is grounded 

in inquiry, requires open dialogue and active participation by key stakeholder representatives. The 

co-constructed knowledge that arises from such engagement is essential to implementing SoEL that 

upholds and honours knowledge as being always complex and dynamic. For example, strategic 

engagement of administrators, faculty members and students in opportunities for discourse and 

peer-review activities, which critique common teaching and learning issues, goes a long way to 

enhance issues of validity, reliability, and practicality of SoEL research. Finally, conceptions of 

„responsiveness‟ of SoEL inquiry within and across diverse disciplines will always be part of its 

perceived impact and how it is framed and supported within university contexts. In sum, these three 

interconnected characteristics of knowledge construction are essential to facilitate SoEL inquiry for 

educational leaders in their specific contexts.  

In complex university contexts with diverse stakeholders, and varying levels of support, 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 university mandates for sustained and 

productive scholarly activity; SoEL fosters an institutional culture of educational scholarship aimed at 

enhancing undergraduate and graduate level degree programs; and SoEL provides an avenue for 

universities to become better known for valuing educational excellence and its strategic contribution to 

such markers as regional, national, or international rankings. Thus, the importance of SoEL in diverse 

university settings is compelling, especially when one considers that educational leaders are expected 

to respond to strategic priorities with evidence-based curricula and pedagogical practices within and 

beyond the communities they serve. Very little research has examined the strategic impact of 

institutional SoEL inquiry in diverse university settings. The following research question was designed 

to guide this investigation in a specific international faculty development program which has been 

implemented annually since 1998 at The University of British Columbia, Canada. 

Within the context of an international faculty development program:  

(1) What is the strategic impact of institutional SoEL inquiry in UBCs diverse research-intensive 

university context? 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 1, 2020 

6 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

2. Methodology 

2.1 Appreciative Inquiry 

In order to gather evidence for the above research questions, our investigation employed Appreciative 

Inquiry (AI) research methodology over a ten-month period to gather relevant program impact 

assessment data which included a review of historical program data (1998-2019), as well as current 

SoEL cohort data (May 2018-August 2019). AI is a systematic form of practice-based research 

methodology with an explicit transformational agenda (Breslow, Crowell, Francis, & Stephen, 2015). 

Traditionally AI has been used to identify good practice and we are using it to begin with good practice, 

then evaluate a program and suggest ways forward (Shuayb, Sharp, Judkins, & Hetherington, 2009), 

For example, AI research methodology places emphases on the strategic engagement of key 

stakeholder representatives (administrators, curriculum and pedagogical leaders, educational 

developers, faculty members, instructors) within and across the disciplines related to specific 

educational issues under investigation and change. In this context, appreciating and valuing one‟s 

practice include appreciating the context which allows this investigation to take place.  

AI begins with the identification of current best practices and then connects those attributes with the 

community‟s vision and action for change (Cockell & MacArthur-Blair, 2012). Thus, AI research 

methodology is highly generative in nature and consists of four phases (commonly known as the 

4D-Cycle): Discovery, Dream, Design and Destiny or delivery.  

 Discovery: appreciating, valuing the best of SoEL inquiry in the organization; strengths, best 

practices, and peak experiences.  

 Dream: envisioning what the ideal future might be for SoEL inquiry, and what the organization 

may look like in its fullest level of potential.  

 Design: dialoguing about what processes and pedagogical experiences would enhance SoEL 

inquiry and deciding about the desired changes moving forward. 

 Destiny or delivery: innovative pedagogies and how SoEL inquiry can be taught, assessed and 

implemented. 

2.2 Data Collection 

A purposeful sample of contextually-bound program data sources (including current program cohort 

data 2018-2019, and historical program data 1998-2019) were gathered from key program stakeholder 

representatives in order to address each specific research question: 

 Relevant documentation from UBC strategic planning documentation (Place & Promise, 2010; 

Strategic Plan 2018-2028);  

 Samples of blended program (online and face-to-face) materials including syllabi, podcasts, 

video recordings, guest speaker sessions, worksheets; 

 Reflective field notes from the program instructional team; 

 Review of samples of cohort SoEL ePortfolio materials including educational leadership dossiers, 

thematic literature reviews, pilot study reports, manuscripts and presentation slides which 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 1, 2020 

7 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

were published in local contexts;  

 Historical program data including a review of program graduate numbers, disciplines, foci for 

SoEL inquiries; focus group interviews with educational leaders cohorts, UBC SoEL Program 

advisory board, and external reviewers. 

Qualitative data sources were analyzed using the constant comparative method through categorization, 

and finally to thematization (Coe, Waring, & Hedges, 2017; Friedman, 2008). Next, member checking 

was utilized to establish major themes, data patterns, and to discern complex commonalities, 

contradictions, and interactions with respect to SoEL inquiry practices. The use of iterative and 

multiple data sources established the trustworthiness of the research findings through triangulation. 

 

3. Results 

The focus of this study was examining the strategic impact of institutional SoEL inquiry in UBC‟s 

diverse research-intensive context over the last twenty years. Therefore, the results are divided into two 

sections. The first section explains the evolution of institutionally supported scholarly 

teaching/scholarship of teaching and learning/educational leadership (discovery, dream, and design), 

while the second section focuses on the delivery of an international faculty development program with 

strategic impact in diverse institutional contexts. 

3.1 Discovering, Envisioning, and Designing the Strategic Impact of Institutional SoEL Inquiry in 

UBC’s Diverse Research-Intensive University Context  

Initially, UBC did not have a twenty-year plan to support the development of educational leadership. 

As a research-intensive university in the early 1990s, UBC focused almost exclusively on research, 

often at the expense of priorities toward excellence on teaching or international/community 

engagement. A change in leadership in 1997 and the launch of TREK 2000 sought to build on this 

position but be more strategic in its vision as a world class university; including contributions to 

research, teaching and service. In 2006, President Stephen Toope built on President Piper‟s legacy and 

recognized that more needed to be done to incentivise faculty through the promotion and tenure process. 

In a bold statement, President Toope declared that no faculty members would be promoted or tenured 

without evidence of effective teaching. As a result, significant resources were allocated toward the 

Institute for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (launched by Professor Gary Poole) and 

strategic visioning documents included explicit language around research-informed teaching and 

learning practices. Like many research-intensive universities, the institutional focus was to build and 

support a cutting-edge integrated research and program development agenda including high quality 

teaching. Funding for the program was on a one to two-year cycle of limited renewal until proven 

efficacy lead to more secure funding from the Provost, in collaboration with the Faculty of Education. 

Additionally, the university created and supported the rank of Professor of Teaching. This promotion 

and tenure stream explicitly requires excellence in research-informed teaching and learning, in addition 

to educational leadership and service. These strategic, institutional decisions are the backdrop for the 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 1, 2020 

8 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

scholarly approaches to teaching, SoTL, SoTL Leadership and now SoEL program over 20 years. 

Located in UBC‟s Faculty of Education, the International Program for the Scholarship of Educational 

Leadership (SoEL) is a customized faculty development program for nominated multidisciplinary 

educational leaders at UBC and in partner universities around the world. This cutting-edge 

inquiry-based faculty development program (1998-present), offered annually, focuses on the 

scholarship of teaching, learning, and educational leadership within and across the disciplines, as well 

as customized program offerings in international university contexts (including locations in Australasia, 

China, Europe, Middle East, North America, South Africa, UK, The West Indies) 

(http://international.educ.ubc.ca/soel). 

3.1.1 Program Design to Support SoEL Inquiry 

Based on program research and developments in the field since 1998, the UBC SoEL program has 

evolved from a focus within and across the disciplines on scholarly approaches to teaching (1998-2000), 

to the scholarship of teaching and learning (2001-2005), to the scholarship of teaching and learning 

leadership (2006-2010), to the scholarship of educational leadership (2011-current) (Hubball, Clarke, 

Webb, & Johnson, 2015). Over the past two decades, significant research has been conducted that has 

influenced the design of the program (Burt & Hubball, 2014; Hubball & Clarke, 2010; Hubball, Clarke, 

& Pearson, 2017; Hubball & Gold, 2007; Hubball, Pearson, & Clarke, 2013; Hubball & Poole, 2003; 

Webb, 2019), which focused on a learning-centred approach to developing educational leadership 

through diverse inquiries. 

3.2 Delivering Strategic Impact of Institutional SoEL Inquiry in UBC’s Diverse Research-Intensive 

University Context 

The strategic impact of the international faculty development program is delivered through the creation 

of an institutional culture that recognises and supports this work; key internal supports, including 

Dean‟s nominations and a critical mass of program graduates who have moved into administrative 

positions, and a program designed to align with and support current institutional initiatives. 

3.2.1 Contextual Factors Influencing the Strategic Impact of Institutional SoEL Inquiry 

Multiple institutional factors have influenced the foci for SoEL inquiry in the international faculty 

development program at The University of British Columbia (UBC). For example, UBC is routinely 

ranked among the top 20-30 universities in the world and is among the top 3 universities in Canada 

(Times Higher Education, 2018). The University‟s Place and Promise 2018-2028 strategic visioning 

document professes a commitment to strengthen UBC‟s presence as a globally influential university: 

UBC is locally integrated and globally connected. Indeed, global perspective is 

embedded in the histories and communities that have shaped the local context in 

British Columbia and at UBC. The balance of Canadian perspective and geographic 

diversity across our student population is critically important. UBCs global networks 

open new vistas for research and education, and they enable UBC to help mobilize 

positive change across the world. Strengthened engagement requires an outward 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 1, 2020 

9 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

orientation and enhanced accessibility for partners, as well as structures and 

processes to support reciprocity and co-ordination. It also demands the capacity to 

listen and adapt to the evolving needs and dynamics of the world beyond the 

university. 

UBC educates a student population of more than 50,000 and offers over 250 graduate degree programs 

through 12 faculties, 1 college, and multiple schools (see http://www.ubc.ca/). Institutional level 

learning outcomes, for example, include local, international, and global objectives: “Through 

collaboration, at home and abroad, we will help students, faculty and staff broaden their perspectives, 

learn from peers and colleagues around the globe, and contribute to a shared positive impact” (UBC 

Strategic Plan, 2018).  

3.2.2 Key Supports to Enhance the Impact of Institutional SoEL Inquiry for Educational Leaders in an 

International Faculty Development Program 

Data suggest that regional, national and/or professional accreditation agencies in many regions of the 

world are working more closely than ever with universities to anchor their activities in the needs of 

institutional priorities to better support and enhance educational practices, leadership and their related 

scholarship. At the institutional level, data suggest that universities around the world are busily 

engaged in significant educational reform activities with mixed success regarding implementation (e.g., 

budget allocations reflecting institutional priorities, leadership expertise for research informed and 

evidence-based educational practices). For example, many universities, fueled by strategic recruitment 

and the rapid growth of international student enrollment have developed strategic mission statements 

with explicit commitments to high quality and cutting-edge (local and international engagement) 

educational experiences for their ethnically diverse and international student body. In conjunction, 

some universities are reconsidering strategically-aligned criteria for merit, tenure, and promotion, for 

example educational leadership tracks that are rooted in the scholarship of teaching and learning. At 

our own university, under Article 4.03 of UBC‟s Collective Agreement and the definition of “Scholarly 

Activity”, the scholarship of teaching and professional contributions rank equally with traditional 

scholarly research. Criteria for the scholarship of teaching, for example, are evidenced by 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, or substantial and sustained use 

by others. Similarly, criteria for professional contributions can include evidence that might be viewed 

as demonstrating leadership, rare expertise, or outstanding stature expected in a professional 

contribution. Furthermore, in parallel to the professorial research stream, examples of criteria for 

educational leadership in the Professor of Teaching rank can be evidenced by leadership taken at UBC 

and elsewhere to: advance innovation and excellence in teaching; contributions to curriculum 

development and renewal within the unit/Faculty; scholarly teaching with impact within and outside 

the unit; and, applications of and contributions to the scholarship of teaching and learning (The 

University of British Columbia, 2018, Sections 3.1.6 to 3.2.6, 3.4.1, and 4.4). However, although 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 1, 2020 

10 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

contested, the criteria for promotion to Professor of Teaching does not include an explicit requirement 

for scholarship. Nonetheless, aspiring candidates in the educational leadership stream for the rank are 

often nominated and supported by their Dean to undertake SoEL at UBC, which explicitly has as part 

of it curriculum, research into educational leadership. 

Key to strategic institutional support structures, and aligned with strategic visioning documents and 

collective agreement contracts, are customized and adequately resourced professional development 

programs (including leadership expertise, budget allocation) in order to meet the diverse educational 

needs and circumstances of the institutional context. Customised professional development is therefore 

a key enabling factor for institutional SoEL inquiry. At our own university, the SoEL Program has been 

developed and implemented to meet the diverse educational needs and circumstances of 

multidisciplinary educational leaders at UBC and faculty members in partner universities around the 

world. This program is administered through the Faculty of Education, and is led by senior professors, 

scholars, and National Teaching Fellows with a track record of higher education scholarship, in local 

and international settings. Therefore, SoEL programs focused on the scholarship of teaching, learning, 

and educational leadership (including strategic development, implementation and impact assessment of 

undergraduate and graduate degree programs) within and across diverse disciplines, is enacted within 

the UBC context.  

It is interesting to note that professional experience with partner universities and multinational SoEL 

cohorts revealed, however, that most research institutions do not have senior academics within 

Faculties or Colleges of Education who provide active leadership and educational inquiry contributions 

regarding the scholarship of teaching, learning and educational leadership on their campuses. 

3.2.2.1 Impact of Institutional Educational Leaders for SoEL Inquiry 

Since 1998, over 550 educational leaders at UBC and institutional nominees at universities in 20 

different countries (including Australia, Bahrain, China, England, Iceland, Iran, Japan, New Zealand, 

Qatar, Scotland, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Thailand, UAE, USA, and The West Indies) have 

graduated from this program with significant SoTL/SoEL experience. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 1, 2020 

11 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Table 1. Program Graduates Within and Across Disciplines at UBC and International University 

Settings 

UBC Faculty/Discipline Number of faculty graduates 

Applied Sciences 48 

Arts 43 

Commerce 14 

Dentistry 24 

Education 40 

Forestry 12 

Graduate & Postdoctoral Studies 6 

Instructional Development / Student Services 11 

Land & Food Systems 4 

Law 5 

Medicine 71 

Pharmaceutical Sciences 30 

Science 21 

External (Canadian / International) Faculty 

Members 

189 

 

Program graduates include senior administrators, associate deans, department heads, program directors, 

curriculum leaders, teaching award winners, tenured faculty members/professors of teaching, and P&T 

committee personnel. Consistent with the theoretical rationale for institutional SoEL inquiry, program 

graduates have made significant leadership and scholarship contributions to educational practice in a 

wide range of university contexts around the world. For example, more than 50 peer reviewed articles 

have been published and an equal number of invited international presentations have been given on 

SoEL Program processes and impacts at universities around the world 

(https://international.educ.ubc.ca/soel/research-activity/). Twenty-one years of full enrolment and 

sustained program implementation (including changes in university presidents, provosts, senior 

advisors for teaching and learning, deans, directors of centres for teaching, and department heads, and 

multiple funding models) at a world ranked university is testimony to the leadership, quality, and 

impact of the program, as well as on-going program research and development. 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 Program for the Scholarship of Educational 

Leadership.  

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 1, 2020 

12 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

3.2.3 Common Practices for SoEL Inquiry in UBC‟s Diverse Research-Intensive University Context 

Data revealed a wide range of best practices, centred on alignment of SoEL inquiry questions with 

appropriate research methodology, data collection and dissemination processes in UBCs international 

SoEL program.  

3.2.3.1 Foci for Institutional SoEL Inquiry 

Coupled with ongoing institutional support for educational leadership, there has developed at culture of 

institutional SoEL inquiry (Place & Promise, 2010; Strategic Plan 2018-2028). For example, currently, 

although educational leaders tend to engage in SoEL inquiry to examine issues pertaining to strategic 

development, implementation, and impact of educational initiatives, they engage in such inquiry from 

diverse ontological (i.e., world view) and epistemological (i.e., theoretical framework for knowledge 

construction) perspectives (Creswell, 2013; Pratt, 2016). For many faculty members from multiple 

disciplines, undertaking SoEL inquiry to enhance practice was both epistemologically challenging and 

empowering. SoEL inquiry, for example, very often required educational leaders to move beyond 

disciplinary research boundaries, embrace broader social science methodologies, and collaborate with 

students, colleagues and stakeholders (Webb, 2019).  

Various types of SoEL inquiry questions have been investigated in diverse 

institutional/curricula/classroom contexts over the past 20-years, using varied methodologies and 

methods commensurate with the scholarly and institutional contexts. Based largely on institutional or 

disciplinary leadership roles and programmatic priorities, SoEL inquiries, developed within the UBC 

SoEL Program, focused on organizational (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 

leadership (effective faculty development, flexible learning, and evaluation of teaching) practices. A 

starting point for formulating preliminary SoEL questions emerged from participants problematizing 

their institutional/ curricula/ classroom practice. Thus preliminary SoEL inquiry questions typically 

focused around “What is going on here?”, “What is the effectiveness or impact of „X‟?”, “What are the 

strengths and further developments of „X‟?”, “What improvements can be made to „X‟ and can these 

improvements be made?”, “Why is „X‟ happening?”. 

Thus, preliminary questions point to the central intent of the SoEL inquiry and the sorts of insights 

sought to enhance specific practices. Further to important preliminary questions, educational leaders 

were challenged to consider broader and inter-connected factors (e.g., theory-practice integration, 

process-outcome relationships) about their practice in order to formalize their SoEL inquiry questions 

for investigation. Thus, strategic SoEL inquiries were situated in particular context, process, impact, or 

outcome phase of an educational initiative. The following framework (Figure 2) was employed to 

document and assist educational leaders to prioritize and formulate their SoEL inquiry question(s) in 

diverse higher education settings. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 1, 2020 

13 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Figure 2. A Heuristic Model for Investigating Potential SoEL Inquiry Questions in Diverse 

Higher Education Settings 

 

This framework takes into account complex higher education contexts and reflects a wide range of 

potential time-phased SoEL inquiry questions.  

SoEL context questions. These questions focused on critical structures that shape educational initiatives. 

For example, SoEL context questions included: To what extent do institutional strategic planning 

documents and Promotion and Tenure (P&T) criteria enhance faculty engagement in educational 

scholarship at a Singapore and Canadian research-intensive university? (Hubball, Clarke, Chng Huang 

Hoon, & Grimmett, 2015); what are strategic approaches for entrenching a culture of innovation in 

teaching and learning at a UAE research-intensive university? (Selim, & Hubball, 2017). What needs 

further development, why, how?  

SoEL Process questions. These questions focused on periodic assessments of issues of importance that 

arise throughout the educational initiative (formative). For example, what are strategic approaches to 

enhance undergraduate program reform within and across the disciplines at a South African 

research-intensive university? (Van der Merwe, Schoonwinkel, & Hubball, 2017); What are strategic 

approaches to enhance student engagement and retention in a 4-year languages program in a Canadian 

and S.E. Asian research-intensive university context? What needs to be further developed, why, how? 

SoEL Impact questions. These questions focused on issues of importance that occur as a result of the 

educational initiative (summative). For example, how do students effectively demonstrate learning 

outcomes on completion of a four-year undergraduate pharmaceutical sciences program at a Canadian 

research-intensive university? (Burt & Hubball, 2016); To what extent are undergraduate programs 

informed by and shaped by research-informed and evidence-based curriculum renewal practices in a 

Swiss university context? What needs further development, why, how? 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 1, 2020 

14 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

SoEL Follow-up questions. These focused on issues of importance which arise as a result of the longer 

term (e.g., months, year) impact of educational initiatives. For example, what is the impact of a 

SoTL-based faculty development program on institutional peer review of teaching 

practices/educational scholarship practices at a Canadian and Gulf State university context? (Hubball, 

Clarke, Webb, & Johnson, 2015; Hubball, Clarke, & Pratt, 2013); To what extent did institutional 

program leaders apply learning to enhance research-informed and evidence-based curriculum practices 

within and across the disciplines in a UK university context? Generally speaking, to whom and to what 

extent, if at all, did the educational initiative make any difference? If at all, how did the educational 

initiative contribute to further development? 

SoEL inquiry questions, therefore, were contextualised within each unique institutional/disciplinary 

practice setting, and grounded in the scholarly literature and best practice for dissemination of 

educational initiatives in a wide range of peer-reviewed fora. 

3.2.3.2 Methodological Approaches to SoEL Inquiry 

Consistent with common educational research methods texts (Arthur et al., 2012; Cresswell, 2013), a 

wide range of methodological approaches that were rooted in particular ontological, epistemological 

assumptions and situational practicalities (e.g., numbers of people involved, duration and types of data 

collection, and under what conditions), were employed to investigate SoEL inquiry questions in diverse 

higher education settings. Action research, appreciative inquiry, phenomenological inquiry, self-study, 

and case study research methodologies, for example, were particularly prevalent across diverse SoEL 

inquiry projects. Further emerging technology-enabled inquiry methods such as curriculum analytics 

were increasingly being used to mine data and support effective decision-making for quality 

enhancement and curriculum renewal (Dawson & Hubball, 2014). However, educational leaders were 

initially more likely to select familiar inquiry questions and methodological approaches (i.e., 

ontological and epistemological assumptions) that were common to their disciplinary field. Supervision 

and mentoring opportunities by program leaders assisted education leaders to think critically about the 

formulation and alignment of their SoEL inquiry questions, research design and data collection 

methods. The following table reflects alignment examples of methodological approaches with 

particular practice-based SoEL inquiries in multidisciplinary settings (Table 1). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 1, 2020 

15 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Table 2. Alignment Examples of Methodological Approaches with Particular Practice-Based 

SoEL Inquiry in Multidisciplinary Settings 

SoEL Inquiry Research 

Question 

Methodological Approach Data Collection Methods 

Strategic Approaches for 

Entrenching a Culture of 

Innovation in Teaching and 

Learning in an Arabian Gulf 

Research-intensive University 

Context: Impact of the 

Scholarship of Educational 

Leadership (Selim & Hubball, 

2017). 

Appreciative inquiry. 

Intervention orientation (e.g., 

strategic development, program 

impact assessment) and 

examination of context-specific 

best practices and structural 

supports. 

Qualitative and mixed methods 

approaches (e.g., focus group 

interviews, strategic planning 

documentation analysis, 

examination of program 

materials, student assessment 

methods, students‟ academic 

work, teaching practices, field 

notes, historical program data, 

external review reports). 

The Scholarship of Educational 

Leadership in a South African 

Research-intensive University 

Context: Strategic Approaches 

to Undergraduate and Graduate 

Degree Programme Renewal 

(Van der Merwe, Schoonwinkel 

& Hubball, 2017); The 

scholarship of curriculum 

leadership: The art, science and 

politics of faculty engagement 

(Burt & Hubball, 2014; Putman 

& Rock, 2017). 

Action research. Intervention 

orientation (e.g., implementation 

analysis) and examination of 

context-specific program 

effectiveness, barriers, 

improvements, ongoing 

monitoring. 

Qualitative and mixed methods 

approaches (e.g., video analysis, 

focus group interviews, 

examination of program 

materials, student assessment 

methods, students‟ academic 

work, teaching practices, field 

notes and observations, external 

review reports). 

Case study methodology: 

Flexibility, rigour, and ethical 

considerations for the 

scholarship of teaching and 

learning (Pearson, Albon, & 

Hubball, 2015) 

Case study inquiry. In-depth 

baseline data (e.g., current 

practices) regarding rich 

understanding of 

context-specific norms, barriers, 

actions. 

Qualitative and mixed methods 

approaches (e.g., focus group 

interviews, strategic planning 

documentation analysis, 

examination of program 

materials, student assessment 

methods, students‟ academic 

work, teaching practices, field 

notes, historical program data, 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 1, 2020 

16 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

external review reports). 

Internal departmental/program 

review (Bullough & Pinnegar, 

2001; Clarke & Erickson, 2004; 

Drevdahl, 2002). 

Self-study inquiry. Preliminary 

baseline data (e.g., current 

practices) regarding 

context-specific norms, barriers, 

actions and rationale, as well as 

perceived strengths, 

weaknesses, opportunities and 

threats (SWOT analysis). 

Qualitative and mixed methods 

approaches (e.g., focus group 

interviews, strategic planning 

documentation analysis, 

examination of program 

materials, student assessment 

methods, students‟ academic 

work, teaching practices, field 

notes, historical program data, 

external review reports). 

Phenomenology as a 

methodology for SoTL research 

(Webb & Welsh, 2019). 

Phenomenological inquiry. To 

understand lived experience 

from participants/group 

perspective of specific group 

and Exploration of students‟ 

perceptions of life-long learning 

in multidisciplinary settings. 

Qualitative and mixed methods 

approaches (e.g., focus group 

interviews, individual 

interviews, student journals, and 

student self-assessments). 

Curriculum analytics: 

Application of social network 

analysis for improving strategic 

curriculum decision-making in a 

research-intensive university 

(Dawson & Hubball, 2014). 

Impact of assignment 

submission practices on the 

quality of students‟ work (Steele 

& Hubball, 2014). 

Experimental design (e.g., 

Quasi-experimental design to 

assess student grades, quality of 

students‟ work and assignment 

submission practices). 

Quantitative and mixed methods 

approaches (e.g., curriculum 

analytics, numeric evaluations 

of teaching, student grades, 

learning management system 

analytics). 

 

Data collection strategies for SoEL inquiries tended to be qualitative in nature (i.e., iterative and 

seeking to explore, describe or explain complex phenomena in educational settings), or a combination 

of both qualitative and quantitative (i.e., numeric instrumentation designed to confirm hypotheses about 

phenomena in educational settings), methods (i.e., a mixed-method approach). Quantitative data 

sources for SoEL inquiries, for example, tended to include a variety of survey instruments (e.g., 

numeric performance and participation records, check-lists, use of on-line learning tools, rating and 

rank-order preference scales). On the other hand, qualitative data sources for SoEL inquiries tended to 

include a variety of open-ended sources (e.g., teaching and learning observations, semi-structured and 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 1, 2020 

17 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

structured focus group interviews, internet searches, student response feedback forms, audio-video 

recordings, examination of course syllabi, curriculum documentation and teaching journals, participant 

narratives, etc.). Appropriate mixed methods and combinations of qualitative and quantitative data 

sources provided reliable and critical information to enhance SoEL inquiries in diverse practice settings. 

In summary, multidisciplinary cohort members tended to adopt the following sequential strategies for 

dissemination of their SoEL inquiries (including collaborative contributions): 

1. Strategic situational analysis: Identify rationale, purpose and/or incentive for SoEL inquiry. 

For example: 

a. Level of institutional practice contribution: University-wide, program-level, 

curriculum-pedagogical level?  

b. Level of scholarly contribution: International, regional/national, professional, 

discipline-specific? 

i. Which journal(s) and type of submission (e.g., higher education/discipline 

specific education journal, research-based articles, instructional articles, 

essays, reviews)?  

ii. Which invited presentation(s) (e.g., departmental, institutional, national 

Organization)? 

iii. Which conference presentation(s) (e.g., International Consortium for 

Educational Development, International Society for the Scholarship of 

Teaching and Learning)?  

iv. Which funding source(s) (e.g., national funding, institutional funding, 

discipline-specific funding, individual professional development funding)?  

v. Other? 

2. Prioritize, formulate and refine SoEL inquiry question(s)/objectives.  

3. Develop strategic alignment of SoEL inquiry, research methodology, research design, data 

collection and analysis in order to achieve goals.  

4. Targeted writing (fora-specific) and progressive writing goals with timelines, consider 

appropriate co-authorship team.  

5. Purchase useful higher education research methods text/online resource and seek guidance of 

expert for advice and review opportunities. 

Therefore, in order to maximize the institutional impact of SoEL, these data suggest that attention must 

be given to the art, science, and politics of SoEL program implementation. For example, there are clear 

implications in terms of the need for:  

 strategic institutional vision for SoEL that includes customized supervision and professional 

development for educational leaders, as well as related workload expectations and P&T 

criteria, and that is consistent with institutional priorities and resources; 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 1, 2020 

18 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 strategic engagement and mobilization of educational leaders and key stakeholder representation 

in order to foster networked improvement communities within and across the disciplines 

around rigorous educational inquiry; and 

 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. 

 

4. Key Challenges and Cautionary Lessons for Facilitating SoEL Inquiry in Diverse University 

Contexts 

While there are encouraging signs of progress toward support for enhancing the impact of SoEL 

inquiry for educational leaders in this international faculty development program context (e.g., the 

development of an Educational Leadership track at the university), data suggest that a myriad of related 

challenges exists on university campuses that can result in a “management” (versus scholarship) 

orientation to educational leadership (Geertsema, Chng, Lindberg-Sand, & Larsson, 2017; Grimmett, 

2015). Even under supportive institutional conditions in this context, it was far from easy for many 

educational leaders to engage in independent or collaborative SoEL inquiry. Nonetheless, longitudinal 

data and practical experience on university campuses suggest SoEL or other dimensions of scholarship 

for academic leadership practice within the academy are more likely to be taken up in substantial ways 

if senior administrators 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 tenure and promotion (Hubball, Clarke, Chng, & Grimmett, 2015). 

Specific examples of strategically supported SoEL initiatives from the authors‟ experiences include 

programme renewal at the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa involving the Vice-President 

Teaching & Learning, Senior Advisor for Teaching & Learning, and selected Vice-Deans from across 

six Faculties; institutional capacity building for educational scholarship at the National University of 

Singapore; and involvement of senior professors, curriculum leaders, program directors, and 

institutional quality assurance faculty in SoTL efforts related to innovations at the United Arab 

Emirates University (UAEU) supported by the UAE National Innovation Strategy. 

Key challenges in diverse university contexts included a lack of resources (e.g., financial, supporting 

literature, expertise and role models to lead institutional and discipline-specific supports for SoEL), and 

misaligned institutional visioning documentation and P&T criteria that hinder educational leaders from 

engaging in SoEL. Several respondents commented that frequent and significant changes in senior 

administration on their campuses created continual uncertainty about the importance given toward 

strategic institutional initiatives (e.g., curriculum renewal, strategic development of new undergraduate 

courses and programs, impact assessment of educational innovations). Others raised concerns about the 

extent to which institutional budget allocations reflected strategic educational priorities. On our own 

campus, for example, changes in senior administration, including significant growth of 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 1, 2020 

19 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

middle-management, and funding priorities in recent years have revealed competing institutional 

priorities (e.g., technology, curriculum renewal, peer review (formative and summative) of teaching 

practices, service units, and optional scholarship expectations for educational leadership) and budget 

allocations, which often constrained efforts to adequately support SoEL.  

In addition, and exacerbated by already-heavy workloads, notable challenges for many educational 

leaders to fully engage in SoEL within and across disciplines included the time and effort to develop a 

new form of inquiry in higher education. These challenges often involved overcoming disciplinary 

biases for particular research methodologies, and related scholarship issues such as quality, quantity, 

authorship contributions, and sustained dissemination (Webb, 2019). Further, while there is no shortage 

of scholarly literature and criteria to describe educational scholarship, currently there is a lack of agreed 

standards (e.g., does not meet expectations, meets expectations, exceeds expectations) that define 

expected levels for SoEL contributions for particular academic ranks in specific university settings (e.g., 

required evidence of impact for instructor, associate professor, professor, etc.) (Rawn & Fox, 2017). As 

with other forms of scholarship in university contexts, for example, at the professor level in a particular 

discipline, an expectation 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. These 

findings reinforce that SoEL inquiry is shaped by many factors and is impacted by people at various 

institutional levels (e.g., administrators, curriculum and pedagogical leaders, instructors, and learners) 

in complex university settings. Despite significant challenges and barriers to SoEL inquiry on 

university campuses around the world, increasing institutional support is testimony to the growing 

value placed on SoEL at these campuses. 

 

5. Conclusion 

On a global scale, educational leaders from a variety of disciplines face significant challenges when 

undertaking SoEL inquiry in diverse university contexts. This paper provides critical insight to strategic 

institutional supports and customised professional development for facilitating SoEL inquiry within 

and across the disciplines. No one size fits all. For example, we have provided a theoretical framework 

for enhancing institutional SoEL inquiry, as well as practical examples for its strategic use and support 

drawn from our professional learning experiences with academics in Canada and multi-national settings. 

Although programmatic examples are ongoing works-in-progress, significant developments and 

commitments to enhance institutional SoEL inquiry practices have been made. Preliminary findings 

from this study in the international SoEL Program at UBC indicate that strategic institutional supports 

(e.g., visioning documents, criteria for tenure, promotion and re-appointment, customized professional 

development) are key to enhance institutional SoEL inquiry practices. Further, SoEL inquiry is 

inherently situated; socially and culturally mediated; and, is responsive to the professional learning 

needs and circumstances of educational leaders in diverse institutional contexts. Essentially, SoEL 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 1, 2020 

20 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

inquiry questions and methodologies should be tailored to the needs and circumstances of the 

institutional/curricula/classroom research context. It is important to note, however, that SoEL inquiry is 

not value-free. Further, it reflects approximations of the truth (acknowledging that there are multiple 

truths about SoEL inquiry from multiple perspectives). Thus, similar to all forms of research, 

interpretations of SoEL outcomes requires a healthy skepticism, analysis of methodological rigour, and 

an openness to alternative critique and analysis. While there are still many challenges and areas for 

improvement in the international SoEL Program at UBC, an institutional commitment can be the basis 

for facilitating the art, science, and politics of SoEL inquiry within and across the disciplines in diverse 

university contexts. 

 

Acknowledgements 

The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to institution-level educational leaders and 

colleagues from universities around the world who have provided key insights for this paper. 

 

References 

Alexander, I. K., & Hjortsø, C. N. (2019). Sources of complexity in participatory curriculum 

development: An activity system and stakeholder analysis approach to the analyses of tensions 

and contradictions. Higher Education, 77(2), 301-322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0274-x 

Arthur, J., Waring, M., Coe, R., & Hedges, L. (2012). Research methods and methodologies in 

education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2006). Qualitative research for education. In An introduction to theories 

and methods (5th ed.) Allyn & Bacon.  

Boyer. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Lawrenceville, N.J.; Princeton 

University Press. 

Breslow, K., Crowell, L., Francis, L., & Stephen, P. (2015). Initial efforts to coordinate Appreciative 

Inquiry: Facilitators‟ experiences and perceptions. Inquiry in Education, 6(1), Article 4. 

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. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1576-9_7 

Bullough, R., & Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines for quality in autobiographical forms of self-study 

research. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 13-21. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X030003013 

Burt, H., & Hubball, H. T. (2014). The scholarship of curriculum leadership: The art, science and 

politics of faculty engagement. International Journal for University Teaching and Faculty 

Development, 5(4).  

 

 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0274-x
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1576-9_7
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X030003013


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 1, 2020 

21 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Clarke, A., & Erickson, G. (2004). The nature of teaching and learning in self-study. In J. J. Loughran, 

M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. L. Russell (Eds.), International Handbook of Self-Study of 

Teaching and Teacher Education Practices (pp. 41-68). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer 

Academic Publishers. 

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (2004). Practitioner inquiry, knowledge and university culture. In J. J. 

Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. L. Russell (Eds.), International Handbook of 

Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices (pp. 601-605). Dordrecht, Netherlands: 

Kluwer Academic Publishers. 

Cockell, J., & McArthur-Blair, J. (2012). Appreciative inquiry in higher education: A transformative 

force. San Francisco, C.A.: John Wiley & Sons.  

Coe, R., Waring, M., & Hedges, L. (2017). Research methods and methodologies in education (2nd 

ed.). Sage, London: UK. 

Cresswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd 

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers. 

D‟Andrea, V. (2006). Exploring methodological issues related to pedagogical inquiry in higher 

education. In C. Kreber (Ed.), Exploring Research-Based Teaching, New Directions for Teaching 

and Learning 107 (pp. 3-10). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.248 

Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, pedagogy 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. 

https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.2.2.59 

Drevdahl, D. J. (2002). Merging reflective inquiry and self-study as a framework for enhancing the 

scholarship of teaching. Journal of Nursing Education, 41(9), 413-419. 

Friedman, V. J. (2008). 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, USA: Sage Publications. 

Geertsema, J., Chng, H. H., Lindberg-Sand, A., & Larsson, M. (2017). Teaching academies as a means 

of developing institutional quality: Academic identities, levels of engagement and organizational 

cultures. In B. Stensaker, G. T. Bilbow, L. Breslow, & R. van der Vaart (Eds.), Strengthening 

teaching and learning in research universities: Strategies and initiatives for institutional change 

(pp. 129-159). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56499-9_6 

Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. T., & Maefoff, G. I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the 

Professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.  

 

https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.248
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.2.2.59
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56499-9_6


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 1, 2020 

22 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Green, L. W. (2008). Making research relevant: If it is an evidence-based practice, where‟s the 

practice-based evidence? Family Practice, 25(Suppl. 1), 20-24. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmn055 

Grimmett, P. P. (2015). 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, N.Y.: Routledge. 

Houston, M., & Lebeau, Y. (2006). The social mediation of university learning. Project Report. York, 

U.K.: Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from 

http://www.open.ac.uk/cheri/documents/somul_wp03.pdf  

Hubball, H. T., & Clarke, A. (2010). Diverse methodological approaches and considerations for SoTL 

in Higher Education. Canadian Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning in Higher 

Education, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2010.1.2 

Hubball, H. T., & Gold, N. (2007). The scholarship of curriculum practice and undergraduate program 

reform: Theory-practice integration. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 112, 5-14. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.293 

Hubball, H. T., Clarke, A. C., Webb, A., & Johnson, B. (2015). Developing institutional leadership for 

the scholarship of teaching and learning: Lessons learned with senior educational leaders in 

multi-national research-intensive university contexts. International Journal of University 

Teaching and Faculty Development, 4(4). Retrieved from 

https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=53411 

Hubball, H. T., Clarke, A., & Pearson, M. L. (2017). Strategic leadership development in 

research-intensive higher education contexts: The Scholarship of Educational Leadership. In P. 

Tripathi, & S. Mukerji (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Administration, Policy, and Leadership 

in Higher Education (pp. 1-19). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. 

https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0672-0.ch001 

Hubball, H. T., Clarke, A., Chng, H. H., & Grimmett, P. (2015). 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), 92-107. 

Hubball, H., & Poole, G. (2003). A learning‐centred faculty certificate programme on university 

teaching. International Journal for Academic Development, 8(1-2), 11-24. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144042000277900 

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. https://doi.org/10.2979/teachlearninqu.1.1.41 

Hutchings, P. (Ed.). (2002). Ethics of inquiry: Issues in the scholarship of teaching and learning. 

Menlo Park, CA: Carnegie Publications.  

 

https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmn055
https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2010.1.2
https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.293
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=53411
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0672-0.ch001
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144042000277900
https://doi.org/10.2979/teachlearninqu.1.1.41


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 1, 2020 

23 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Hutchings, P., Huber, M. T., & Ciccone, A. (2011). The scholarship of teaching and learning 

reconsidered: Institutional integration and impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

International program for the Scholarship of Educational Leadership: UBC certificate on curriculum 

and pedagogy in higher education. (n.d.) Developing institutional leadership. Retrieved from 

https://international.educ.ubc.ca/soel/ 

International program for the Scholarship of Educational Leadership: UBC certificate on curriculum 

and pedagogy in higher education. (n.d.) Research activity. Retrieved from 

https://international.educ.ubc.ca/soel/research-activity/ 

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355 

Myatt, P., Gannaway, D., Chia, I., Fraser, K., & McDonald, J. (2018). Reflecting on institutional 

support for SoTL engagement: Developing a conceptual framework. International Journal for 

Academic Development, 23(2), 147-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2017.1346511 

Pearson, M. L., & Hubball, H. T. (2012). Curricular integration in pharmacy education. American 

Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 76(10), Article 204. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7610204 

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). https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2015.3.12 

Putman, S. M., & Rock, T. (2017). Action research: Using strategic inquiry to improve teaching and 

learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Rawn, C. D., & Fox, J. A. (2017). Understanding the work and perceptions of teaching focused faculty 

in a changing academic landscape. Research in Higher Education, 59(5), 591-622. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9479-6 

Saladana, J., & Omasta. M. (2017). Qualitative research: Analyzing life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications. 

Selim, H. M., & Hubball, H. T. (2017). Strategic approaches for entrenching a culture of innovation in 

teaching and learning in a research-intensive university context: Impact of the Scholarship of 

Educational Leadership. In O.M. Alegre de la Rosa, & L. M. Villar Angulo (Eds.), Research on 

University Teaching and Faculty Development (pp. 259-279). New York, N.Y.: Nova Science 

Publishers. 

Senge, P. M., & Scharmer, C. O. (2008). Community action research: Learning as a community of 

practitioners, consultants and researchers. In P. Reason, & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of 

action research: The concise paperback edition (pp. 195-207). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications. 

Shuayb, M., Sharp, C., Judkins, M., & Hetherington, M. (2009, February). Using appreciative inquiry 

in educational research: Possibilities and limitations. In National Foundation for Educational 

Research. Slough, U.K.: National Foundation for Educational Research. Retrieved from 

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2017.1346511
https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7610204
https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2015.3.12
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9479-6


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 1, 2020 

24 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/AEN01/AEN01.pdf 

The University of British Columbia. (2018). Shaping UBC’s next century: Strategic plan 2018-2028. 

Retrieved from https://strategicplan.ubc.ca/  

Van der Merwe, A., Schoonwinkel, A., & Hubball, H. T. (2017). The scholarship of educational 

leadership in a South African research-intensive university context: Strategic approaches to 

undergraduate and graduate degree programme renewal. In Olga M. Alegre de la Rosa, & L. M. 

Villar Angulo (Eds.), International Perspectives: Research on University Teaching and Faculty 

Development (pp. 237-258). New York, N.Y.: Nova Science Publishers. 

Webb, A. S. (2019). Navigating the lows to gain new heights: Constraints to SoTL engagement. 

Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2). 

https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.2.8173 

Webb, A. S., & Welsh, A. J. (2019). Phenomenology as a methodology for SoTL research. Teaching 

Learning Inquiry, 7(1), 168-181. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.1.11 

Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

 

https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.2.8173
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.1.11

