The relationship of leadership roles to the improvement of the student experience: international perspectives
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the ways in which key academic roles operate in higher education, bridging space, a ‘third space’ (Whitchurch, 2008) between the academic and the administrative, that frames the activities of academic staff engaging in projects that improve the student experience. We argue that such roles are the focus for implementing and designing change management projects that can promote innovation in pedagogic practice. Data was gathered through undertaking 21 interviews both in the UK and overseas with interviewees from Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands. The data provides insights into the ways in which academic staff acting in academic leadership roles, both here and overseas, engage in such projects. The paper draws from a chapter in the authors’ recently published book, Understanding and Improving the Student Experience in Higher Education: navigating the third space. Through the voices of practitioners in UK and international settings, the importance of understanding the role of third space professionals and the importance of leadership is brought to the fore. The paper considers the ways in which third space professionals act as educational leaders from the perspective of their agency, the fluid spaces that they operate within, their creativity and the metrics discourse.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it