Institutional Practice and Praxis

  • Bill Johnston
  • Sheila MacNeill
  • Keith Smyth
Part of the Digital Education and Learning book series (DEAL)


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.


  1. Bolden, R., Petrov, G., & Gosling, J. (2009). Distributed Leadership in Higher Education: Rhetoric and Reality. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 37(2), 257–277. Scholar
  2. Brennan, J., & Naidoo, R. (2008). Higher Education and the Achievement (and/or Prevention) of Equity and Social Justice. Higher Education, 56(3), 287–302. Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Hall, R. (2011). Towards a Resilient Strategy for Technology-Enhanced Learning. Campus-Wide Information Systems, Special Issue of on Learning Technology and Institutional Strategy, 28(4), 234–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Harkavy, I. (2006). The Role of Universities in Advancing Citizenship and Social Justice in the 21st Century. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 1(1), 5–37. Scholar
  6. Johnson, M., & Smyth, K. (2011). Diversity, Value and Technology: Exposing Value Pluralism in Institutional Strategy. Campus-Wide Information Systems, Special Issue of on Learning Technology and Institutional Strategy, 28(4), 211–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Rambe, P., & Dzansi, D. Y. (2016). Informal Distributed Leadership in Technology Adoption. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 8(2), 155–165. Scholar
  10. Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., & Richard, F. (2006). Implementing a University e-Learning Strategy: Levers for Change Within Academic Schools. ALT-J, 14(2), 135–151. Scholar
  11. Strickland, K., McLatchie, J., & Pelik, R. (2011). Reflections on the Development of a Dynamic Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy. Campus-Wide Information Systems, Special Issue of on Learning Technology and Institutional Strategy, 28(4), 294–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Whitchurch, C., & Gordon, G. (2017). Reconstructing Relationships in Higher Education: Challenging Agendas. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bill Johnston
    • 1
  • Sheila MacNeill
    • 2
  • Keith Smyth
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Psychological Science and HealthUniversity of StrathclydeGlasgowUK
  2. 2.Academic Quality and DevelopmentGlasgow Caledonian UniversityGlasgowUK
  3. 3.Learning and Teaching AcademyUniversity of the Highlands and IslandsInvernessUK

Personalised recommendations