Establishing and Sustaining SoTL: The Role of Brokering and Strategic Leadership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) has continued to evolve as a field, building and sustaining SoTL within educational institutions remains challenging. Through interviews with 18 SoTL scholars, we sought to examine the question, “How do individuals and institutions sustain SoTL?” Our findings highlighted the important roles of brokering and strategic leadership. Using the landscape of practice as our theoretical framework, we identified the many ways that SoTL scholars influence and are influenced by these roles. SoTL practices are undeniably vulnerable to fluctuating institutional agendas and discourses, changes in leadership, funding opportunities, formal rewards, and overt recognition of SoTL, including scholars’ positions and titles. We found institutional actions may be critical in launching SoTL, supporting it at different times, or establishing academic positions for SoTL scholars who are able to promote the field. However, institutional support waxed and waned across institutions, with a few exceptions, which meant that the SoTL brokers working across the landscape of practice sustained SoTL over time through their strategic leadership. Despite varying contexts, our participants were in it for the long haul, brokering their connections to withstand the vagaries of institutional support. Thus, building SoTL is a long-term effort that requires resilience and a certain degree of institutional support, but more importantly, sustained, bottom-up support for faculty development, collaboration, and commitment across the landscape of practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".