HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, 12-15 July 1999 1 The value (added?) of academic development Stanley Frielick and Claire McLachlan-Smith Centre for Professional Development University of Auckland In an increasingly corporate university environment the value of academic development (AD) is an important question. In addition to key aspects of AD knowledge already defined, we propose a further two 'cornerstones' of the discipline: an understanding of AD as a dialogical process, and knowledge of deep approaches to the evaluation of AD. The dialogical nature of AD implies approaches to evaluation that go beyond value- added measurement by performance indicator. The intrinsic value of AD needs to be defined by qualitative and empowerment approaches to evaluation of AD work. The dominant pattern of change in Australasian universities is from a collegiate to a corporate and/or enterprise organisational model (Ramsden 1998). Evaluation of academic activity is increasingly based on performance indicators, benchmarking and market strength. In this bottom-line climate - where academic development (AD) units are increasingly vulnerable to the bean-counting logic of accounting - what is the value of AD? Does AD have an intrinsic value to the institution and its academic staff that is qualitatively different from “numbers floating on a page”? (Wilshire 1990). In other words, is the value of AD something other than its value-added? Such questions are critical for the future role and purpose of AD units in a rapidly changing university. The answers to a large extent depend on how AD work is defined and evaluated. Andresen (1996) for example has given a coherent account of the special knowledge and skills practiced by academic developers. Some of these knowledge and skills include: § Unique insights into teaching and learning gained from research and practice of their own scholarship § The theory and practice of higher education as an area of study § Analysing and finding solutions to educational problems § Appraising the quality of teaching and student learning, evaluating the methods adopted, and communicating results empathically § Facilitating reflective practice by teachers and students § Designing settings for quality learning § Modelling competent and effective teaching styles and strategies § Working for effective change and development in specific institutional settings In addition to these cornerstones for the emerging discipline of AD we would like to suggest and explore another two: § An understanding of AD as a dialogical process § Deep approaches to the evaluation of AD We argue that these additional sets of knowledge are essential for understanding the value of AD as something more than the sum of its value-added parts.