Institutional Practice and Praxis
In this chapter, the main concerns lie with the means through which we can translate dialogue and a shared commitment to a more creative, effective, and democratic harnessing of the digital into enabling institutional strategies, policies, and practices. The expanded conceptual matrix and digitally distributed curriculum constructs are positioned as tools to guide collective critical reflection, dialogue, decision-making, and action. Key challenges and enabling dimensions in relation to institutional practice and praxis are explored, including distributed academic leadership, reconciling value pluralism, permissive institutional policies and strategies, and commitment to social justice. The chapter concludes by outlining a number of aspirations and possibilities pertaining to future developments at the institutional level.
- Czerniewicz, L., & Brown, C. (2009). Intermediaries and Infrastructure as Agents: The Mediation of e-Learning Policy and Use by Institutional Culture. In T. Mayes, D. Morrison, H. Mellar, P. Bullen, & M. Oliver (Eds.), Transforming Higher Education Through Technology-Enhanced Learning (pp. 107–121). York: Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar
- Jones, S., Lefoe, G., Harvey, M., & Ryland, K. (2012). Distributed Leadership: A Collaborative Framework for Academics, Executives and Professionals in Higher Education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2012.642334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mayes, T., Morrison, D., Mellar, H., Bullen, P., & Oliver, M. (Eds.). (2009). Transforming Higher Education Through Technology-Enhanced Learning. York: Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar