Search

Objectives: The aim of this paper is to provide an integrative review of the literature associated with signature pedagogies and to discover what lessons have been learned about unearthing, articulating and applying signature pedagogies across a variety of disciplines, but particularly with respect to nursing. Design: A systematic search of databases using key terms was utilised with a particular focus to papers emerging from nursing disciplines. Data sources: The databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched for literature from 2005 to 2018 inclusive. Review methods: An initial examination of titles and abstracts by the authors resulted in the retrieval of 45 papers and following the application of exclusion criteria, 25 papers were included. Results and conclusions: Signature pedagogy literature is a developing area and scholars both in nursing disciplines and beyond, often fail to develop on Lee Shulman's framework in their identification of signature pedagogies, resulting in poorly adapted conceptions. Ways forward include closer linking with the original signature pedagogy framework in research, the development of robust evidence-based signature pedagogy identification processes in disciplines and a reconsideration of the esteem of scholars performing signature pedagogies within disciplines.

Introduced in New South Wales in 2010, Intensive Correction Orders (ICOs) were presented as a new rehabilitative, community-based alternative for offenders sentenced to less than 2 years imprisonment. ICOs were meant to be widely available, providing a means of dealing with offenders criminogenic issues such as drug use and mental health; however, later evidence found that their uptake had been limited and Indigenous offenders were underrepresented on the order. Arguably, this lack of success for the Indigenous community stems from an early absence of consultation and input from Indigenous leaders and groups during the development of ICOs - resulting in a sentencing option that is excluding Indigenous offenders and failing to meet their needs. This thesis will discuss a study that examined how ICOs are currently impacting Indigenous offenders and will explore the findings of over 50 interviews undertaken with a variety of affected Indigenous offenders (both in the community and in custody), as well as a range of other stakeholders in the New South Wales justice system. The study covers a diversity of perspectives including interviewees from both urban and regional/remote locations, as well as offenders of different gender and age groups. Beyond examining where ICOs have struggled to meet the needs of these offenders, potential areas of reform that have emerged from this study will also be identified that may promote greater accessibility and success for Indigenous offenders on community-based orders in the future.

This paper provides a commentary on a significant collaborative international project to set up an effective system for promoting innovation in the Australian higher education sector. This project was the pilot Transforming Practice Programme (TPP), which was run in Australia in 2014. A sophisticated knowledge translation methodology, the TPP was influenced by the UK's Higher Education Academy's (HEA's) thematic change programmes and focused on enhancing the reward and recognition of quality teaching in Australian higher education. The paper explains the intentions of the TPP and how it was run in conjunction with the HEA in both Australia and the UK. Thirteen Australian universities took part in the pilot, and nine UK universities took part in the UK version of the programme. Having detailed the content and process of the pilot TPP, this article also presents details of feedback received via surveys and interviews with participants, and closes with some evidence-informed conclusions on what worked in the pilot and why. Alongside these conclusions, recommendations are outlined regarding what people in other higher education sectors might learn from the pilot TPP.

With an academic workforce undergoing transformation, it is vital that universities rethink how they define and value scholarship through their processes for academic promotion. A key part of this rethink is to review and refine existing documentation about promotion to reflect changing conceptions of scholarly work, in a way that enables scholars from non-traditional academic pathways to be valued equally through the promotion process with their more traditional counterparts. This process of reviewing scholarship was the aim of a promotions review project which began at the University of Wollongong in 2011 and concluded with the production of an Academic Performance Framework (APF). This framework outlines a new way of articulating performance expectations in order to recognise scholarship more broadly, as well as to emphasise more clearly the imperative for academics to be able to articulate evidence of the impact of their work.

Despite receiving growing international recognition and regard, the scholarship of engagement remains undervalued internally at academic institutions, especially in relation to career development and academic promotion. This form of scholarship presents difficulties relating to evaluation, assessment, and evidencing that are not generally present in the traditional scholarships of learning and teaching, research, and governance and service. Thus, scholarly engagement work is often not valued or rewarded by promotional bodies, and a gap is appearing between the career development opportunities, promotion, and probation outcomes of engaged scholars and those who focus on more traditionally recognized scholarly outcomes. To combat this, the University of Wollongong has undertaken a project that aims to embed the scholarship of engagement as a scholarly method of doing. This approach involves applying new and reformulated promotions guidelines to traditional scholarships in a way intended to remove barriers to promotion for “engaged scholars.”

Teaching and Learning as a form of scholarship has struggled for recognition in universities, with one of the biggest hurdles being visibility. As the Internet is now one of the primary sources of visibility, this study examines how Australia's 39 universities present their teaching and learning profiles online. The purpose was to examine the aspects of teaching and learning that were visible and those which were not, highlighting the areas of scholarship that may require enhanced focus. The study used a scoring system of 15 primary criteria drawn from the literature, in conjunction with common teaching and learning website elements as ascertained from a brief study of 20 websites. The results revealed that while certain teaching and learning aspects such as professional development and awards are consistently presented across the Australian tertiary sector online, other aspects such as scholarship of teaching and learning research foci and external impact are not generally visible on Australian university websites.

Universities in Australia are becoming increasingly concerned with their reputation as 'engaged' institutions. Yet there is significant confusion about what this idea of 'engagement' means and no clear way of measuring or reporting it. In part, this is because of the nature of engagement itself which is dependent on local context, partnerships and communities. This presents a difficulty for academic staff undertaking engaged work within institutions and stresses the need for institutions to develop internal processes that clearly articulate definitions of engagement, set out performance expectations and provide processes for the reward and recognition of the scholarship of engagement. In a sector increasingly concerned with the outputs of research as measurable by publication bibliometrics and grant income, the sometimes difficult to measure outcomes of engaged work can become relegated and dismissed. As part of a project to articulate performance expectations in the area of the scholarship of engagement for academic promotion at University of Wollongong, researchers undertook an extensive international literature review to learn what had been done in this area previously and to identify issues of concern. This paper sets out the findings from this review, considers the implications of engaged scholarship for academic promotion and suggests some possible ways forward for institutions and staff working in this area.

Aims This paper discusses the issues facing the nursing academic workforce and the development of a project at the University of Wollongong in Australia which attempts to address this problem. Background The project draws on Boyers work around scholarship reconsidered to enable new ways of thinking about the nature of research and how the work of a diversifying workforce can be recognized and rewarded within institutions. Methods We conducted a series of interviews with senior university staff to identify key issues around academic promotion processes. Feedback from these interviews, along with extensive internal and external consultation and benchmarking, will be used to redraft promotion documentation that includes discipline-specific performance expectations. Results Interviews revealed a number of perceived and actual barriers to promotion of academic staff who did not conform to a traditional view of research expectations. It was widely felt that unspoken expectations about research performance were being used to judge applications for promotion, and that this disadvantaged people from practice or professional backgrounds, or people who had heavy administrative or clinical roles. Conclusions Internal university processes need to reflect the reality of a diversified workforce. Practice and professional disciplines have responsibilities beyond meeting traditional research output measurements. More flexible and transparent expectation guidelines and career development pathways are needed to build holistic schools and faculty and enable maximum staff productivity. Implications for nursing management By redefining scholarship, schools and faculties are able to meet the multiple demands of the government, the institution, individual staff, students and the profession. Not everyone can do traditional research all the time, and staff involved in other scholarly work should be able to rewarded and promoted. By taking the lead in this issue, nursing as a discipline can s