Search results

Medical education is an evidence-driven professional field that operates in an increasingly regulated environment as compared to other fields within universities. The purpose of this paper is to establish the extent to which Porter’s five competitive forces framework (Porter, 2008) can drive the management of medical schools in Australia.

Drawing on data from semi-structured interviews with over 20 staff from 6 case study Australian medical schools, this paper explores Australian medical education, by looking at the current policy context, structure and interactions between organizations within the system.

The findings provide evidence that environmental forces affect the nature of competition in medical education, and that competitive advantage can be gained by medical schools from a sustained analysis of the industry in which they operate in. Consequently, it is possible to apply a pre-dominantly profit-oriented framework to higher education.

As an industry facing increasing pressure toward marketization and competition, the findings provide sufficient evidence that an analysis of higher education as an industry is possible.

The findings provide evidence that strategic leadership and management in higher education should encompass greater levels of delegation and decision making at all levels. Effective leadership should focus on creating an inspiring vision of the future through a sustained analysis of the industry in which they operate.

The study has made a key contribution through an industry analysis of Australian medical education, which provide important implications for leadership and management in higher education. The study is of significant value to researchers as well as senior management in higher education.

Universities are investing billions of dollars in building infrastructure, with the design of learning spaces driven by technological developments and long-standing changes in pedagogical theory and practice. The aim of the study is to investigate the alignment between pedagogy and space by responding to a single research question: What is the relationship between the purpose, process, place and product of student learning in higher education?

Drawing on Beckers et al.’s (2015) purpose–process–place framework, the study uses an online survey and photo elicitation method to gather perspectives from educators and students in one Australian university about their learning spaces. A hybrid approach consisting of inductive and deductive coding to thematic analysis was used to find repeated patterns of meaning.

A total of 24 images of learning spaces were received from 8 educators and 16 students. Thematic analysis of the images and responses by participants highlights the importance of the pedagogical affordances of the learning environment and the product of learning, which are aligned to the purpose–process–place of learning.

This study provided a robust approach grounded in data to understand the alignment between space and pedagogy. Articulating students learning as an output of the alignment between space and pedagogy has important implications for the design of learning spaces and pedagogical practices in higher education. One limitation to the study, however, is noteworthy. The surveys had limited responses. Whilst the small response rates may not necessarily lead to biased results, it is acknowledged that a larger sample is likely to give more reliable results to enable the theory to be generalised.

The study’s findings extend the purpose–process–place framework to include pedagogical affordances and the product of learning. The purpose, process, place, pedagogical affordance and product framework posits that pedagogical affordances within a place must be deployed in such a way so that teaching and learning processes can contribute to enhancing educational goals or purpose to improve student learning outcomes, i.e. product. This framework provides a context for understanding the relationships between pedagogy and space in higher education.

The pressures brought about by the COVID-19 global pandemic in 2020 have amplified the significance of academic resilience and highlight the importance of a shared insights into academics' experiences. The responses to academic work within this context has received little research attention despite its universality during the pandemic. Failing to recognise, or ‘invisibilising’ the roles and needs of academics during a pandemic, is a significant concern. This chapter explores this uncharted terrain, and presents stories of resilience – being a postdoc in a foreign country (de los Reyes), negotiating (yet another) contract (Mahat), navigating research in a different context (Cohrssen), and digital engagement in academia (Blannin) – from academics in different career stages and global contexts. These stories provide points of reflection for those navigating the complex world of academia during these uncertain times.

After years of promoting gender equality and diversity, women in academia are still failing to break the glass ceiling. The gap is, however, getting smaller, and increasingly, there are many programs within universities that offer strategies to develop academic women into leaders who have a profound impact in their institutions, communities, and wider society. This chapter presents examples of strategies – such as mentoring and sponsorship (Hardiman), finding an authentic and moral voice (Howell), teaching as an international academic (Mateo-Babiano), and leadership (Mahat) – through stories from women academics who are currently navigating the complex world of academia. These stories and strategies provide opportunities for other women to reflect about how they invest in themselves and transform the way they lead, influence, and innovate in challenging academic contexts.

This chapter shares the challenges that scholars experienced during the pandemic and their responses to them. We find that participants responded to complex work and home challenges through ethics of grit and perseverance. Offering a caution against grit mindsets, we argue that academics would benefit from opportunities to develop fuller forms of resilience. To do so, we recommend that higher education institutions co-construct locally and culturally relevant conceptualisations of resilience and enact trauma-informed practice to better support academic resilience in their faculties.

This book was not borne out of strong ideological feminist ideas or with grandeur aims to change the system. It was conceived as a celebration of the many academic women who have contributed and continue to contribute to make academia a home where high quality and impactful scholarship is observed, where teaching and learning is celebrated, and leadership and service to the discipline is honored. It is a celebration of how far women have come and continue to thrive in the pursuit of research, education, and scholarship. In this concluding chapter, I synthesize the key insights and take-aways from each chapter – academic stories and narratives that can support the modern female academic to energize, motivate, inspire, and thrive in academia.