{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030910609857978277, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001670843776106934, 'mean_word_length': 5.440860215053763, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Teaching Development in Higher Education as Scholarly Practice: A reply to Rowland et al. 'Turning Academics into Teachers?'

The author replies to an attack, made by Rowland et al. in Teaching in Higher Education 3(2), on the practice and profession of university teaching development (also known as 'academic development' and 'educational development'). It argues that by omitting reference to Scholarship, Rowland has confused his subject-matter, since the so-called 'dichotomy' between research and teaching on which the argument is based has been transcended since Boyer's work. It argues that teaching development is a legitimate second-order practice in the same family as literary and artistic criticism and similar fields. It appeals for a close collegial relationship between teachers and teaching developers, based on mutual respect, understanding and appreciation of each other's contribution to the academic enterprise. This is necessary in the face of the onslaught of the corporate managerialism that has (on his own admission) triggered Rowland's work. Written from an Australian perspective, the paper contributes to a dialogue about vital contemporary issues in Higher Education.