Umeå University's logo

Umeå universitet driver under åren 2012-2018 ett internt utvecklingsprojekt med syfte att skapa interaktiva lärmiljöer i fysiska rum. Om- och nybyggnationer rustas med rullbara möbler, pekskärmar, projektorer och annan interaktiv teknik. I takt med att dessa miljöer färdigställs aktualiseras behovet av utbildningsinsatser för lärare så att rummen nyttjas i sin fulla potential och inte återfaller till att bli rum för traditionell katederundervisning. Samhällsvetenskapliga fakulteten gav ht-14 Universitetspedagogik och lärandestöd (UPL) i uppdrag att stärka kompetensen bland fakultetens lärare gällande undervisning i dessa nya lärmiljöer. Syftet var att introducera möjligheterna med interaktiva lärmiljöer avseende olika typer av pedagogiska metoder och didaktiska grepp och därmed också avdramatisera teknikens betydelse, något som många lärare uttryckt sig frustrerade över att inte behärska. Studerandeaktiva lärandeformer som pedagogisk modell blev fokus för utbildningsinsatsen och de interaktiva salarna och dess tillhörande infrastruktur var förutsättningen.

Med inspiration av Luleå tekniska universitets arbete med att professionalisera studentrollen (NU2014) skapade UPL en verkstad som tar stöd i en dialogduk. Dialogduken fungerar som spelplan och anteckningsyta där verkstadsdeltagarna gruppvis tar sig ann ett antal utmaningar. Till stöd för dialogduken skapades även ett case baserat på en lärare som tänker högt om universitetslärares vardag. Caset för deltagarna framåt och de får genom diskussion och tillämpade övningar pröva på rummets möjligheter, analoga så väl som digitala. Alltid med fokus på den pedagogiska aspekten av lärande. Dialogdukens övningar har valts med omsorg och berör allt från omvänd brainstorming, citatark, flipped-classroom till ommöblering av rummet och presentation av egna lärresurser. Som metareflektion får deltagarna även fundera över frågor som rör studenternas grad av ansvarstagande och aktivitet i relation till rummets möjligheter och begränsningar. Verkstaden avslutades med en diskussion om förändringsarbete på den egna institutionen och hur deltagarna ska ta detta vidare på sin hemmainstitution och i sin undervisningsvardag.

Responsen på denna utbildningsinsats har varit över förväntan. Utvärderingar (skriftliga/muntliga) ger verkstaden högt betyg. Vissa institutioner har hängt upp duken i personalrummet för att påminna om diskussionerna som gick, andra har bett om att få skicka deltagare till öppna uppsamlingsverkstäder på samma tema. Det visade sig vara ett vinnande koncept att få uppleva och praktisera olika möjligheter i rummen istället för att få dem berättade för sig. En annan viktig aspekt som tas upp i utvärderingen var vikten av att avdramatisera tekniken och istället fokusera på förändrade undervisningsformer och den egna praktikens utmaningar.

Discomfort, disturbance, disharmony and disgust tend to provoke traditional science and research, bringing about questions of truth in relation to what is to be seen as emotional contamination of results and knowledge production. But what if uncomfortableness is the deal breaker for training our sensibilities and judgement as an important compass of care and ethics? What if the disharmony is an important act of violence when performed on norms and discourses of hegemonic power? Aligned with the theme of this annual meeting we invite contributions that reflect on the extent and limits of our sensibilities as STS scholars, teachers, and activists. We especially seek contributions that speculate on and figure concepts like "dirt", "the uncomfortable" and "matters out of place" in order to attain new critical sensibilities through composition, intra-action and critical reflective practices. With the theme Science out of Comfort, we would like this panel to offer a track of contributions that explore phenomena and concerns that antagonize and ruffle in order to break free — in order to feel and sense how the world is made differently sense-able through multiple discourses and practices of knowledge-making, as well as that which evades the sensoria of technoscience and STS. We welcome contributions that explore how alternative forms of knowledge production can support new critical sensibilities in which disturbances and uncomfortable affects and emotions are used in order to slow down and make room for critical reflection and attention.

In this position paper, a tentative response to questions concerning the role of philosophy in conjunction with recent advancement within the field of HCI (Human Computer Interaction) will be discussed. At the core of our discussion are new demands for responsible research where philosophically informed HCI research can play a fundamental part. Our argument is that philosophically informed HCI research can serve as a foundation for assessing and deliberating relationships between digital designs and quality of life. In our view, such assessments have much to gain by perspectives and critiques already elaborated by HCI scholars. We briefly outline how, in our experience, the basis of Critical Theory and Feminism provides a bracketing foundation for educating and cultivating HCI research that anticipates and assesses potential implications and societal expectations with regard to digital designs.

In 2022, the Swedish government funded a national academic development enhancement project. It was administered by the Swedish Council for Higher Education (UHR), who commissioned the Network for Academic Development Leaders (HPCF) to provide a comprehensive practice-oriented mapping of leadership of education in Swedish academia. The network brings together all 28 appointed leaders of Swedish academic development units, acting as a national node and strategic partner for educational development in higher education. HPCF appointed researchers from three of Sweden’s largest universities to lead the project, as well as a reference group with experts in the field of academic leadership from the Nordic countries.

It is a truism that research is valued higher than education within the sector, and HPCF concluded that discussions of leadership of education in Swedish academia are much too rare. Indeed, the fact that the mapping was to be carried out as part of an initiative to enhance academic development set the direction for the project, in line with its declared purpose to strengthen the strategic educational leadership of universities.

We, the researchers in the project, have extensive experience of leading academic development work, and take every opportunity of trying to contribute to positive change in education and quality. Mapping leadership of education in academia is an urgent and important task and when planning for the mapping project, we saw an opportunity to use our situated knowledge (Haraway 1988) of leadership and development to cultivate change at the same time as we conducted our study. So, how does one design a study that both generates knowledge and cultivates change in the institutions one studies while studying them?

We consider qualitative research on higher education, where researchers meet colleagues and students, also as a pedagogical process. As researchers in this context, we have a responsibility to be responsive – learn, reflect and develop our methods and approaches – both before and while conducting the research. Our understanding of our role during the research process is based on Donna Haraway’s (1988) concept of situated knowledge, which emphasizes the context-dependence of knowledge and challenges the idea of universal objectivity. When we meet our informants, we adopt a situated objectivity, in Haraway’s sense, where our perspective is grounded in the context while striving for a responsible investigative approach in relation to the people we meet.

In this paper, we present and analyze how different parts of the research process have been designed, providing opportunities for cultivating change, in addition to the potential development that may come from the knowledge collected for the mapping project itself. It is, therefore, primarily a methodological contribution, which we hope can create awareness and reflection among other researchers studying colleagues and practices within higher education.

Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedWe aim to provide a methodological contribution on cultivating change during the process of collecting empirical data. In the mapping project, it was important for us to target various leadership roles, as we know from research that leadership in complex organizations depend on conversations across levels (Cregård 2018). From our own experience of leading academic development work, we also know that relational interactions empower change. Therefore, we emphasized the importance of making on-site visits from the start, to not only get our questions answered, but also provide an opportunity for meetings with and between informants across the institution.

Given our intention to cultivate change on-site, we were particularly careful with several aspects before and during our visits. Our letter of invitation to the institutions was formal (signaling the importance of the subject of our study). We addressed the Vice-Chancellor with our invitation (gaining legitimacy; Solbrekke & Sugrue 2020). A designated contact person at the institution arranged the on-site visit, and interviewees were appointed by the institution (enhancing local engagement). Researchers from three institutions were represented at each on-site visit (demonstrating national relevance; Dwyer & Buckle 2009). Focus group interviews were held in cross-organizational groups (enabling overhearing across the institution; Alvesson & Sköldberg 2017). The interview leader framed each conversation by explaining the purpose of the study (showing relevance and meaningfulness; McKenzie et al. 2020). The interviews were thematic and semi-structured, focusing on a fluid conversation (creating engagement and enabling collective knowledge creation; McKenzie et al. 2020). Our situated knowledge as leaders for academic development units was central for designing the study in this way.

Halfway into our first on-site visit, we felt that things were happening during the interviews. Curious to understand what, we added a follow-up survey. The survey was voluntary for those who participated in the interviews. Respondents were asked to specify their role, the percentage of their leadership assignment, how often they discuss educational leadership in their daily work, what they took away from the interview (if anything), and if they wished to add anything after the interview. The survey was sent out immediately after each on-site visit. So far, nearly 70% of the interviewees have responded, and we have conducted an inductive content analysis of their open-ended responses. As this is an ongoing project, the preliminary results are based on responses from five on-site visits. We will undertake another seven visits during the spring of 2024. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsOur initial intentions went beyond conducting a mapping study: we also wanted to cultivate change during data collection. By letting informants reflect on what they gained from the interviews, we added a layer of knowledge development to the project. For instance, several informants recognized the value of collegial discussions for thinking about leadership. As one university leader wrote, “I take away the need to discuss leadership issues within our team more frequently”, and a dean reflected that “Crossing fictional boundaries between faculties and disciplines [as during the interviews] is necessary”. The importance of discussions across leadership levels to develop the institution as a whole was also evident: “I´ll bring with me the need for clearer dialogue with my leaders and clearer expectations on the role of program director”, one program director noted. In addition, several respondents described gaining new insights into their roles and responsibilities. One respondent wrote that the discussion “sparked the realization that I [director of studies] have a leadership role, i.e., I should lead others! My own view of the role was more or less that of an administrator with an interest in pedagogy”.

In total, four themes emerge from the open-ended survey responses: the value of cross-organizational, role-specific conversations; the importance of discussing how to work across leadership levels; making one’s own role visible; and an identification of competence development needs in relation to one’s role.  It is clear from the survey responses that our on-site visits have made impressions on individuals who participated in the study, and we see signs that our discussions about leadership in education will continue and grow in their respective institutions. Our paper demonstrates that with a careful research design and process, knowledge can be constructed through the mutual interaction between researcher and informant, and thereby cultivate change. ReferencesAlvesson, M, & Sköldberg, K. (2017). Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. London: Sage.

Cregård, A., Berntson, E., & Tengblad, S. (2018). Att leda i en komplex organisation: Utmaningar och nya perspektiv för chefer i offentlig verksamhet. [Leading in a Complex Organization: Challenges and New Perspectives for Managers in Public Organizations.] Stockholm: Natur & Kultur.

Dwyer, S. C., & Buckle, J. L. (2009). The space between: on being an insider-outsider in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1): 54–63. 

Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3): 575–99.

McKenzie, F., Sotarauta, M., Blažek, J., Beer, A., & Ayres, S. (2020). Towards research impact: using place-based policy to develop new research methods for bridging the academic/policy divide. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 7(1): 431–44.

Solbrekke, T. D., & Sugrue, C. (2020). Leading higher education: putting education centre stage. In Leading Higher Education As and For Public Good: Rekindling Education as Praxis, ed. by Solbrekke, T. D., & Sugrue, C. London: Routledge. 18–36.Intent of PublicationInternational Journal of Academic Development (IJAD)

Under senare år har ledarskap av utbildning i akademin diskuterats alltmer i Sverige. Flera forskare har lyft meso-nivån av ledarskapet som central för pedagogisk utveckling (Mårtensson & Roxå 2016; Bolander Laksov & Thomson 2017; McGrath, Roxå & Bolander Laksov 2019; Ewins et al. 2020; Fremstad & Ewins 2023). Trots detta saknas kunskap om hur detta ledarskap ser ut i praktiken.

Inom regeringens satsning på ett Högskolepedagogiskt lyft 2022–24 fick Högskolepedagogiskt chefsforum (HPCF) i uppdrag att ge en översiktlig nationell bild av hur ledarskap inom utbildning på universitet och högskolor skrivs fram, organiseras och praktiseras. Syftet är att stärka sektorns strategiska pedagogiska ledning av utbildning.

Kartläggningen genomförs som ett samarbetsprojekt mellan Örebro, Umeå och Göteborgs universitet. Den utgår från ett omfattande empiriskt material som samlas in i tre delar: enkät till chefer för högskolepedagogiska enheter, intervjuer med akademiska ledare på tolv svenska lärosäten samt en genomgång av styrdokument. Intervjuerna berör uppdrag, ledarskap, relationen mellan ledare, relationen mellan utbildning och forskning, kvalitet och kompetens.

Vid tidpunkten för NU2024 kommer vi att ha besökt samtliga tolv lärosäten och kunna presentera våra preliminära resultat inför den slutrapport som ska överlämnas till UHR senare hösten 2024. Det finns ett stort intresse för denna kartläggning inom hela sektorn och vi ser denna konferens som ett ypperligt tillfälle att kommunicera preliminära slutsatser till målgruppen. Vi ser redan i det insamlade materialet otydligheter i hur ledarskap begreppssätts och konsekvenser det har för praktiken.

Detta bidrag kan med fördel presenteras i samma panel som bidraget gällande den nationella kursen Att leda utbildning i akademin som HPCF även har i uppdrag att ta fram (se bidrag från Klara Laksov Bolaner).

Referenser: 

Bolander Laksov, K. & Tomson, T. (2017). Becoming an educational leader – exploring leadership in medical education. Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(4): 506–16.

Ewins, K., Fremstad, E., Fossland, T. & Sandvoll, R. (2020). Deliberative leadership: moving beyond dialogue. I: T. Dyrdal Solbrekke & C. Sugrue (red.), Leading Higher Education as and for Public Good: Rekindling Education as Praxis. London: Routledge. S. 107–24.

Fremstad, E. & Ewins, K. (2023). The critical-constructive potential of academic development: a case study. Studies in Higher Education, 48(7): 1097–110.

McGrath, C., Roxå, T. & Bolander Laksov, K. (2019). Change in a culture of collegiality and consensus-seeking: a double-edged sword. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(5): 1001–14.

Mårtensson, K. & Roxå, T. (2016). Leadership at a local level – enhancing educational development. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(2), 247–62.

Writing ethnography involves retelling a story and carrying the voices of others in order to describe and explain a cultural phenomenon. This article argues that the ethnographer cannot write in such a close manner without great difficulties when today's search engines operate with unprecedented vigour. Tracing a text string using Google takes less than a second and this has great implications for the ability to provide quotations if the researcher is to follow ethical guidelines to protect and to keep their informants anonymous. Further, this article discusses ethical implications involved in online studies of blogs where the content is of a sensitive and private nature. To undertake such research while showing respect for the informant is a challenging task, given the researchers need to adhere to the key issues in research ethics. This article specifically problematizes the ethics of informed consent and confidentiality as it provides a particular challenge for the researcher engaged in studies of affective online sharing.

Using social media and norm-breaking material as an empirical touchstone this thesis elaborates, investigates and explores the entangled relationships between humans and technology in social media settings. Guided by uncomfortable, emotional and bodily online sharing the thesis gives voice to stories that are seldom heard, by people whose lives are rarely spoken of. By exploring the performative entanglements of/with/through technology, design and human intent the overall aim is to offer a critical and new understanding of our online togetherness and posthuman becoming.

The conceptual framework throughout the thesis is based on posthuman theory and feminist technoscience, two closely connected theories providing a new onto-epistemological way of understanding the world’s becoming. The thesis should be seen as the product of an empirical practice of making theory about digital things, culture, humans and non-humans. By exploring diffraction and touch as not only theoretical standpoints but also hands-on methodology the thesis contributes to the development of new ways of doing research.

Important findings arising from the practice of diffraction and touch are Technoemotions – conceptually agents built on a posthuman understanding of how emotions are entangled between and within the phenomenon, becoming important agents in the apparatus creating the phenomenon. Four Technoemotions seem particularly prominent in the material: Trust, Truth, Time and Embodiment.

The thesis concludes by providing a discussion on critical alternatives for ethics, politics and power in relation to social media and the norms and norm-breaking practices most of us participate in. The responsibility and ability to respond are addressed, as well as social justice and hope for the future to come. 

Temat för årets konferens är Helhetssyn på undervisning – kropp, känsla och kognition i akademin. Konferensens keynotetalare, Åsa Nilsonne, Karolinska institutet, fokuserar på känslor i den pedagogiska ekvationen och vill slå ett slag för att ge dem utrymme. Som temat för konferensen antyder inrymmer det många olika frågeställningar och erfarenheter och nästan 40 bidrag kommer att presenteras under konferensen. I programmet varvas föredrag med rundabordssamtal, postrar, snabbpresentationer och verkstäder och vi är glada för att konferensen innehåller bidrag från hela universitetet.

Universitetspedagogiska konferensen vänder sig till all undervisande personal, pedagogiskt ansvariga samt lednings- och utbildningsadministrativa funktioner vid Umeå universitet. Under 8-10 november 2023 firade konferensen 30 år med temat Högskolepedagogiska pärlor - 30 år av utveckling.

Med anledning av pandemiutbrottet av Covid19 behöver hela samhället mobilisera och prioritera bland kritiska och mindre kritiska verksamheter. För högre utbildning innebär smittrisken att hela eller delar av sektorn stängs ner, personal och studenter sätts i karantän och/eller genomgår sjukdomsförlopp. Undervisningens förutsättningar ändras och krisgrupper aktiveras lokalt på respektive lärosäte för att på bästa möjliga vis leda och fördela arbetet i en osäker tillvaro där förutsättningarna ändras stundtals timme för timme.

Undervisningsformer och examinationer behöver anpassas för att klara nya format, ofta genom att äga rum på nätet istället för i fysiska rum. Pedagogiska metoder utmanas då lärandemiljöerna ändras vilket påverkar studenternas förutsättningar för lärande. Lärare förväntas flytta sin redan planerade undervisning till andra lärmiljöer så som lärplattformar, e-mötestjänster eller liknande samtidigt som kapaciteten för systemen är inte anpassade efter den belastning som uppstår när allt mer undervisning kliver ut på nätet.

Högskolepedagogiska enheter samt ansvariga för e-lärandesystem behöver i stunder av kriser som denna samordna sin verksamhet och den information som lärosätet ger sina anställda och studenter. Korta utbildningsinsatser krävs för att snabbt utbilda lärare i att använda e-lärandesystem för sin undervisning.

Detta rundabordssamtal tar avstamp i de erfarenheter vi gjort från situationen kring Covid19 för att diskutera hur vi på nationellt plan ska kunna generera samordningsvinster vid liknande katastrofer i framtiden. Vad har vi lärt oss? Vad tar vi med oss? Hur kan vi nästa gång vara bättre förberedda? Har effekterna av åtgärderna vi gjort gett ringar på vattnet som lever kvar i våra verksamheter eller återgår vi till ”business as usual” när faran är över?

Notera: Då detta är en kris som just startat blir detta ett kort och lite förvirrat abstrakt. Utgången av krisen är omöjlig att förutsäga och därför kan texten framstå som spekulativ. Vi vet idag inte om lärarna klarar av att med kvalitet flytta sin undervisning till nätet, om de högskolepedagogiska enheterna räcker till med sin utbildning, om e-lärande systemen klarar trycket, om lärosätena klarade av att lösa problemen med salstentamen och stora studentgrupper. Vi vet inte om högskoleprovet blåstes av eller om lärosäten stängs helt eller delvis. Inte heller känner vi i dagsläget till om effekterna slår olika för små och stora lärosäten inom högre utbildning. Dock tror vi att det kommer finnas ett stort behov att diskutera erfarenheter kring arbetet som görs med avseende på Covid19.