As the autumn term begins, we’re delighted to welcome students and colleagues back to campus. For those involved in teaching, learning, and academic development, this season brings a wealth of opportunities to engage with educational scholarship—both at the University of Sussex and across the sector.
Where to publish
Whether you’re new to educational research or looking to share innovative practice, there are many platforms to consider:
Learning Matters– Sussex’s own space for reflections and scholarship on teaching and learning. Contribute a case study, blog post, article or take part in our podcast.
Open Scholarship of Teaching and Learning – Captures the rich contexts, experiences, and voices from colleagues across the sector. The journal encourage all types of writing from more traditional educational inquiries, to working-out-loud papers and provocations.
Teaching and Learning Inquiry – Publishes scholarly works on the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) in higher education. This includes original research, theory, or commentary and may include empirical and interpretive investigations, theoretical analyses, thought-provoking essays, works about the state of the field, or innovative genres.
Practitioner Research in Higher Education– Publishes research and evaluation papers that contribute to the understanding of theory, policy and practice in teaching and supporting learning.
RAISE Journal – Publishes contributions dealing with student engagement in Higher Education from a disciplinary or multi-disciplinary perspective.
Journal of Education, Innovation, Partnership and Change– Welcomes articles, case studies and opinion pieces in written or video format relating to learning, teaching and assessment with the context of students and staff as co-creators and change agents. Our aim is to inspire, educate, amuse, and generally engage its readership.
SEDA Blog– The SEDA Blog is a chance for higher education professionals and stakeholders, including students, to share ideas, opinions, good practice and reflections that can inform staff development in higher education.
Events to attend
Join us at Sussex on 26th November (13:00–16:00, Bramber House 255) for an interactive event on oracy in higher education. Explore how speaking and listening can be embedded into the curriculum to support inclusion, engagement, and academic integrity. Register via Eventbrite
Beyond Sussex, sector-wide events including registration and calls for contributions:
SHIFT 2026(Greenwich, 6–7 Jan) – This conference celebrates the role of students as active partners in shaping the future of higher education. By championing co-creation, collaboration, and inclusive practice, we explore how institutions can foster belonging and empower student agency. Proposals.Registration.
Assessment and Feedback Symposium 2025– (online 4th November) -This presenter-led virtual event will provide teaching and support staff from across the sector with a space to exchange and disseminate new and different ways of thinking about assessment and feedback.
Educational Excellence Symposium 2025– (online 9th December) – This year’s symposium will bring together educators, academic leaders, professional services, and students to explore what really works in delivering high-quality, inclusive, and impactful education.
Artificial Intelligence Symposium 2026(online 10th February) – A presenter-led event to learn, discuss and share latest practices and pedagogies utilising artificial intelligence.
Employability Symposium 2026 (online 10th March) – The Employability Symposium 2026 aims to bring together cutting-edge examples of how employability can be embedded at school, faculty/college and/or institutional levels.
Alison Bailey is an Associate Professor in Management at the University of Sussex Business School and is the convenor of the Introduction to Business and Management (IBM) a large core module taken by nearly every first-year business student in their very first term. Alison’s teaching research focuses on using team-based learning to enhance student engagement and outcomes in higher education and business simulations, other areas of interest include leadership and sustainability. She is a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (SHEA), a Certified Management and Business Educator (CMBE), a member of the Team-Based Learning Collaborative and has recently been appointed as the PRME London & South-East Co-Lead.
What I did
I redesigned the IBM module to integrate experiential learning through a business simulation game, replacing outdated assessments and traditional lectures with more active, practice-oriented experiences. The aim was to combine theoretical learning with real-world application, teamwork, and critical thinking. All delivered in a way that keeps students motivated and connected from day one.
The module is structured in two halves: the first focuses on foundational business theory, and the second immerses students in a business simulation where they apply that theory in running a virtual company. Over the years, we’ve evolved the simulation component.
Why I did it
The diversity of knowledge levels among first-year students makes this module particularly challenging. Some students arrive with a deep understanding of business concepts, others have never studied business before. My goal was to design a module that levels the playing field, engages everyone regardless of background, and sets a strong foundation for their degree.
Personally, I’m a social constructivist teacher. I believe students learn best when they can apply theory to practice in meaningful, collaborative settings. The previous iteration of the module lacked a clear connection between theory and practical application. Introducing a simulation and strengthening its link to classroom content helped bridge that gap. Additionally, embedding sustainability and employability throughout the course ensures that students not only learn and put into practice business theory but also gain essential, future-facing skills.
How it works
In weeks 1–5, students are introduced to key business concepts, from organisational structures to marketing and finance using team-based learning resulting in an MCQ to test knowledge. Going forward this will be assessed through a poster presentation and a reflective audio file focusing on sustainability frameworks. From week 7 onwards, students work in teams to manage a virtual business using a simulation game. Originally, this was Marketplace Business Fundamentals, where students ran a bicycle company. For the coming academic year, we’ve adopted an ESG-focused simulation called Humbro from SAGE Publishing where students make decisions based on real-time global news events, such as supply chain disruptions.
Each week in the simulation represents a financial quarter, and teams compete on metrics such as market share and profitability. A balanced scorecard approach is used to assess performance. Weekly rankings are shared, which fosters a healthy competitive spirit and the simulation concludes with a team presentation and peer evaluation via Buddycheck.
Throughout, we embed sustainability using tools like the TASK certificate and the Climate Fresk. We even collapsed a week of the module to run Climate Fresk workshops, bringing together diverse student groups to reflect on climate impacts and corporate responsibility.
Impact and student feedback
The student response has been overwhelmingly positive. Many appreciate the practical, team-based nature of the module and the opportunity to form early friendships. They describe the classes as inclusive and engaging, and the simulation itself as highly motivating – particularly the live leaderboards, which fuel their competitive instincts!
The sustainability focus has also resonated. Students are beginning to see ESG not just as a theoretical add-on but as central to business strategy. In fact, some students then trained as Climate Fresk facilitators after participating in the workshop, with others hoping to train this academic year.
On the flip side, presentations can be anxiety-inducing for some, and peer complaints about unequal team contributions do come up. That’s where Buddycheck has been incredibly helpful, giving students a fair and transparent way to evaluate each other.
Future practice
Going forward, we’re making several key changes. We’ve scrapped the multiple-choice tests as they weren’t fit for purpose in large lecture theatres and didn’t support deep learning. The new poster and audio reflection are much better aligned with our goals.
We’re also embedding a new simulation which brings new challenges and opportunities. It’s longer, 12 rounds instead of 4; has a strong ESG emphasis; and integrates current global events, which adds complexity and realism. We’ll continue running the Climate Fresk annually, and we’ve strengthened ties with the International Study Centre to ensure students from all backgrounds can participate and feel part of the community.
We’re also inviting in a wider range of guest speakers, including representatives from B Corps, sustainable businesses, and local entrepreneurs, to enrich the module with real-world voices.
Top tips
Just do it. Don’t be afraid to introduce a simulation. Yes, it’s resource-intensive and complex, but the rewards are huge in terms of student engagement and learning outcomes.
Know it inside out. Play the simulation game yourself. Try to “break” it. You need to understand the mechanics fully because at least one student will probably figure it out faster than you! Strong understanding also helps you align it with your learning outcomes.
Train your staff. All teaching staff need proper hands-on training with the simulation. We run full-team trial games and ensure everyone is confident before term begins. This is especially important for a consistent student experience across a large cohort.
Design for inclusivity and clarity. Create clear, step-by-step resources, especially for neurodiverse students. Simulations can be overwhelming without strong scaffolding.
Link it to employability and sustainability. Choose a simulation that not only teaches business acumen but also builds soft skills like teamwork, communication, and adaptability.
Speak to staff running simulations or Fresks. Gabriella Cagliesi, Rashaad Shabab and Sambit Bhattacharyya run MarketPlace Corporate Capitalism with Apprenticeship students; Alex Pearson and Claire Tymoshyshyn run and organise Climate Fresk.
Can you tell us a little about your role at the Office for Students?
Around 2022, the Office for Students (OfS) was setting up a new unit focused on quality investigations, linked to the implementation of new conditions of registration. I became the first Principal Assessor, helping to establish the structures and lead some of the initial investigations. These were focused on the B conditions, academic experience, robustness of assessment, and so on, particularly where there were concerns about the quality of provision in specific subject areas.
I was involved in developing training and guidance for a wider pool of assessors. I enjoy working on new initiatives and helping shape things from the ground up, especially when they have the potential to positively impact the sector. I’m particularly interested in how we define and assess quality in higher education, and how we account for the diversity of institutions and contexts.
My priority was ensuring assessment teams operated appropriately, while also being transparent with institutions. Investigations can be anxiety-inducing, so it was important to communicate clearly that this wasn’t about catching individuals out, it was about examining systems and processes, and their impact on students. We focused on authentic staff and student voices, sometimes observing teaching, but mostly through conversations.
Can you walk us through a typical assessment process?
It usually started with data, identifying areas of potential risk. We’d request further information from the institution and prepare for site visits, focusing on key questions and stakeholders. The aim was to triangulate evidence: data, staff interviews, student feedback, policies, committee observations. You couldn’t rely on one source, you had to build a full picture. Sometimes the data pointed to issues that weren’t there, and sometimes it revealed real problems.
It was satisfying to uncover root causes and help institutions make positive changes. But we were careful not to overburden them, requests had to be purposeful. The goal was always improvement, not punishment.
What were some of the most important insights you gained?
The diversity of the sector is key. Quality assessors need open minds and a strong focus on student outcomes. Independence is also crucial, bringing subject expertise and practitioner insight to the role. Assessors need to recognise their own expertise and use it to evaluate fairly and constructively.
Did you always work within your own subject area?
Not always. Each team had at least one subject expert, but as Principal Assessor, I often chaired the group, similar to a validation panel setup.
How did your work with the OfS influence your practice at Sussex?
It sharpened my focus on impact, evidence, and outcomes. I became more questioning and reflective. Writing the reports was a challenge, balancing priorities and articulating issues clearly using data and expert knowledge. It’s like a more intensive version of external examining. It also deepened my appreciation for how scholarship informs practice. Seeing different institutional approaches and their effects on students was incredibly valuable for that.
What advice would you give to colleagues considering a similar role?
Be open to different structures of working and work collaboratively.
People skills are essential.
You also need an interest in regulatory frameworks and how they translate into practice. Understanding the interaction between high-level regulation and on-the-ground data and experience is key.
Most importantly, keep the student impact front and centre. Quality isn’t abstract, it affects real people and their outcomes.
Dr Verona Ni Drisceoil is a Reader in Legal Education and a member of the Education Team, currently leading on Assessment and Gen AI policy, at Sussex Law School. She is a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (SFHEA), Co-Convenor of the International Connecting Legal Education Network and a Judge of the OUP Law Teacher of the Year Award.
Introduction
In the Spring Term of 2025, I, along with my colleagues Jeanette Ashton and Jo Wilson, ‘walked with’ nine of our first-year students to better understand and explore what community, belonging and inclusion means for them in the everyday. In this blog post, I share the background of the ‘Walk with Me’ project, a bit about walking interviews and some of the preliminary findings from the project, in advance of a longer piece. I hope these findings will be useful as we all prepare for another academic year. The ‘Walk with Me’ project was supported by the Sussex Education and Innovation Fund.
Background
The start point for the ‘Walk with Me’ project came about from a place of discomfort with our commitments to community and belonging in higher education. Whilst the terms community, belonging and inclusion are commonplace in higher education (HE) policy and viewed as positive and required for an enhanced student experience, there is much less clarity, as I have previously noted, about what the terms really mean and look like for the everyday lived experience of students, and indeed staff, in HE. Drawing on the work of Gravett, Ajjawi and O’Shea, I argue that we need to challenge our conceptualisation of these terms as they relate to both students and staff and the perceived frame within which community and belonging sits in HE.
Set against the challenges presented by increased student numbers, post pandemic trauma, the cost-of-living crisis, low attendance and poor mental health, this project, utilising walking as a research method, set out to walk with students to help better understand community, belonging and inclusion in the everyday. This approach (walking with students 1-2-1, side by side), as opposed to more traditional surveys and student group interviews, hoped to shift the power imbalance somewhat and to provide for more meaningful and authentic opportunities for spontaneous and holistic conversation about self and being within what can often become rather abstract or superficial conversations about community and belonging in HE.
Why walking interviews?
Walking as a research method, often referred to as walking interviews or mobile ethnography, has gained popularity in qualitative research due to its unique benefits (See O’ Neill & Roberts, 2019). It has been used widely in geography and more recently in health studies, criminology, and education. As researchers, it was not an approach we were familiar with, but we all felt drawn to engaging in a research approach that felt deeper, and more relational (see Gravett, 2023). According to O’Neill & Roberts, walking interviews allow the researcher to engage with participants ‘on the move’ in a more natural and holistic way, thereby providing insights into daily lives and experiences. The act of walking, they write, ‘engages the senses: looking, hearing, the feeling of being touched by air, rain, or other elements of the environmental atmosphere, and contact with changing aromas’ (O’Neill & Roberts, 2019:16) On the elements, we certainly experienced them all – cold, rain, wind, and sunshine. We all agreed that if we were taking this approach again, we would give more thought to the timing of the year. So, something to factor in, if you are keen to utilise walking interviews! Other things to factor in include time commitments, recording devices and transcription. There are, of course, now several AI tools that can be used to transcribe audio recordings, but this may not be allowed within your ethical review so do explore in advance.
The unique benefits…
On the unique benefits that O’Neill & Roberts speak about, as researchers we felt a more meaningful connection with the participants through this research. The student participants also spoke positively about the experience; how they enjoyed the conversations and building a connection with us. For us, as we moved through the term, the interviews (but felt more like conversations, and that is the point) moved into deeper discussions on a range of community and belonging issues including accessibility and the lack of accessibility on campus (one of our participants is visually impaired), race, class, discrimination, faith, and physical spaces – and how all can impact belonging, and a sense of community. In some respects, the conversations reinforced much of what we knew but it’s quite different when a first-year student walking side by side shares their personal story and journey of what community, belonging, class, race and exclusion feels like in the everyday. That ‘you have to be selective about events you go to in welcome week because of cost’, that ‘I was worried about racism in this country before starting university’, or that ‘I sometimes feel more connected to my teacher than other students’.
Some preliminary findings…
As researchers, we all felt this project was different – it felt more meaningful and relational. The stories and voices of the project were powerful. There was space and time to hear the nuance and challenge our own biases and practice too. Belonging, and community, is not, as Ajjawi, Gravett and O’ Shea write, a homogeneous experience. In fact, belonging can be ‘political’ (see Yuval-Davis, 2006). It can be ableist (Nieminen & Pesonen, 2021). The stories of this project landed in a way that served as an important reminder to us as legal educators to be mindful of how our students, all with their own story and lived experience, are navigating through our law schools and campuses – and that for students not from the global majority, the challenge can be greater; that community, belonging and ‘inclusion’ events can be exclusionary, and reinforce barriers to connection and relationality. Who gets to belong?
Below, I highlight four preliminary findings from the project:
Many of our students value their faith; that it is part of belongingand it can help them through difficult periods of the academic year. By admission, we weren’t expecting this to come through as strongly as it did. When we talk to students about wellbeing, friendships, academic and personal challenges, recognise that faith might be a key part of a student’s identity and life and hold a space for that.
Students value meaningful connections with their teachers. It is probably fair to say that when we speak of community and belonging, we often focus on creating spaces ‘for’ students, rather than ‘with’. Many students value connection with their teachers as well.
Social and extra-curricular have a place in our efforts to build community and belonging but it is important to also focus on what happens in the classroom. Our default to the social and extra-curricular as sites of, and for, building community and belonging, and often inclusion, though understandable, can be problematic, and can lead to “feel good” visible performativity rather than meaningful interventions and attention for all students in the academic sphere. Moreover, the framing and over reliance on the social can be particularly problematic in a cost-of-living crisis when we know that many of our students are now commuting or forced to work 20 to 40 hours a week to pay rent and bills. Coming to campus for additional social, ‘community’ orientated (community for who?) events may no longer be feasible or a priority for many of our students.
Build an enabling environment. Teaching structures, timetables and physical environments matter in terms of how students experience and ‘feel’ community and belonging. Have you ever thought about how the timetable and/or layout of your classroom hinders or supports connection? Is there anything you can do to design a more meaningful learning experience for all students such as changing the layout of the room.
References
Ajjawi, R., Gravett, K., & O’Shea, S. (2023). The politics of student belonging: Identity and purpose. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(1), 1-14.
Gravett, K., & Ajjawi, R. (2022). Belonging as situated practice. Studies in Higher Education, 47(7), 1386-1398.
Gravett, K. (2023). Relational pedagogies: Connections and mattering in higher education. Bloomsbury Academic.
Moore, I., & Ní Drisceoil, V. (2023). Wellbeing and transition to law school: The complexities of confidence, community, and belonging. In E. Jones & C. Strevens (Eds.), Wellbeing and transitions in law: Legal education and the legal profession (pp. 18-19). Palgrave Macmillan.
Ní Drisceoil, V. (2025). Critiquing commitments to community and belonging in today’s law school: who does the labour? The Law Teacher, 59(2), 181–199.
Nieminen, J., & Pesonen, H. (2021). Politicising inclusive learning environments: How to foster belonging and challenge ableism? Higher Education Research & Development, 41(6), 2020
O’Neill, M., & Roberts, B. (2019). Walking methods: Research on the move. Routledge.
Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Belonging and the politics of belonging. Patterns of Prejudice, 40(3), 197-211.
Reflections from Dr Xiangming Tao (Assistant Professor in Innovation & Project Management) and Josephine Van-Ess (Associate Professor in Management)
Dr Xiangming TaoJosephine Van-Ess
Can you briefly outline your project and its aims?
The Dissertation Navigator was designed to support postgraduate taught students through what is often the most challenging stage of their studies. Many students struggle with framing research questions, selecting research methods, and receiving consistent feedback from supervisors. At the same time, supervisors face pressures of large cohorts and varying practices. To address these challenges, we developed the MASTER Toolkit (Methods, Assessment, Support, Tools, Ethics, Resources) to standardise best practice. Together, these provide step-by-step guidance, templates, and frameworks that promote inclusive, fairness, independence, and timely feedback. The project aimed not only to improve supervision process and dissertation quality but also to foster inclusivity, confidence, and a stronger culture of research excellence across our postgraduate community.
Which funding source did you apply to, and why did you choose it?
We applied to the Education and Innovation Fund, which offers up to £5,000 for projects that transform teaching and learning at Sussex. The fund was a natural choice because of its focus on innovation, inclusivity, and student–staff co-creation. Dissertation support had been highlighted in the Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES) as an area needing improvement, so our project aligned closely with institutional priorities. The Fund gave us the flexibility to pilot new ideas such as digital toolkits and to demonstrate impact in a way that could later be scaled across programmes. It also provided visibility and recognition for teaching-focused projects, helping to ensure that postgraduate support received the attention it deserves alongside more established areas of the curriculum.
Can you describe the application process?
The application process was competitive but straightforward. We had to demonstrate the project’s rationale, expected outcomes, and alignment with the Learn to Transform strategy. To strengthen our bid, we drew on PTES survey data, feedback from MSc students, and reflections from supervisors to evidence the need for change. We also grounded the proposal in literature on postgraduate supervision and learning design. A key strength of the process was the requirement to think beyond immediate outcomes and consider sustainability and dissemination. This pushed us to frame the Dissertation Navigator not just as a one-off intervention, but as a scalable model that could be adopted more widely. The support from Educational Enhancement colleagues was invaluable in helping us refine our scope and make the project realistic within budget and timeframe.
3. Were there any challenges or barriers you encountered during the application process?
Our main challenge was balancing ambition with feasibility. Initial plans included a wide range of digital tools and cross-disciplinary training, but we needed to focus on deliverables that could be achieved within a modest budget and short timeline. Another challenge was evidencing need: while we were aware anecdotally of supervision inconsistencies, we had to support these claims with sector research and institutional survey data. Coordination was also demanding. Developing a project that involved multiple stakeholders, e.g. students, academic supervisors, success advisors, and administrators, required careful planning and compromise. Yet these very challenges helped sharpen the proposal, ensuring that the final project was focused, achievable, and relevant.
How did the project unfold once funding was secured? What impact did it have?
Funding allowed us to co-design the MASTER Toolkit with students and supervisors, hosted on Canvas, and across MSc programmes. The toolkit offered templates, explainer videos, and step-by-step resources. Students reported greater confidence in designing and managing research, and supervisors noted improved efficiency and fairness. One MSc Strategic Innovation Management student, supported through the Navigator, went on to secure a fully funded PhD scholarship at the University Liverpool School of Management. Students from other programs, such as the Entrepreneurship and Innovation MSc, also acknowledged the Dissertation Navigator’s impact:
“Dear Tommy, I wanted to thank you for your kind guidance and support during my dissertation journey…… Your support was invaluable throughout this challenging process, and I truly appreciate your assistance and the Dissertation Navigator.” - MSc Entrepreneurship and Innovation Student, 2024
The project was presented at the Higher Education Institutional Research (HEIR) Network Annual Conference 2024 and British Academy of Management (BAM) Management Knowledge and Education Teaching Practice Conference 2025, where it was praised as a scalable model.
What are your top three tips for colleagues looking to apply for funding for their own scholarship projects?
Ground your proposal in evidence and student voice. Use survey data, feedback, and literature to show the scale and urgency of the problem you are addressing.
Start small, think big. Design a focused pilot that can demonstrate quick wins, but with scalability built in from the start. Funders want to see both impact and sustainability.
Co-create with stakeholders. Engage students, colleagues, and support services early. This builds stronger projects and creates the buy-in needed for long-term change.
It was quite an organic process that began with a flipped learning workshop I facilitated, one of many, but this particular session had an energy to it. The discussions were really lively, and as the session concluded, several participants were like, “I wish we had more time to talk about this. Could we meet regularly?” So, we established a group dedicated to active learning. Although the initial focus was on flipped learning, it quickly became clear that the scope extended much further. This was around 2016–17, and as the group expanded, I sought opportunities to share leadership. Professor Wendy Garnham, whose passion and vision were evident from the outset, joined me in co-organising and developing the group.
Then something spontaneous happened. Wendy and I attended a conference at Anglia Ruskin University, where, at the close of the event, the organisers asked if anyone would host the next gathering. I just stood up and volunteered us. Wendy was surprised, we hadn’t got approval from Sussex, but I was confident it was the right step. That decision marked the beginning of a wider journey. From there, the network continued to grow, eventually becoming a global community with numerous satellite groups.
What motivated you to run that first workshop and volunteer to host the conference?
I’ve always felt strongly about making a difference in education. It’s one of the most transformative forces in the world. I’d read a lot of evidence showing that active learning is powerful, especially for making education more equitable and empowering marginalised groups. When I joined Sussex, I loved it, but the dominant teaching culture still felt quite traditional. I wanted to challenge that.
I was also inspired by the amazing people I met, Wendy, the Education Enhancement team, colleagues at Anglia Ruskin, and people like Andrew Middleton. The people I met introduced me to new ideas and helped me grow as an educator.
How has being part of the Active Learning Network benefited you as an educator?
It’s been transformative. Having a regular group of people who inspire you to keep learning, experimenting, and improving is invaluable. It’s helped me grow, stay motivated, and become more open-minded. The global nature of the network also broadens your perspective. You realise that education looks very different in other contexts, and that challenges you to rethink your own practices.
What impact has the network had on your teaching and the teaching of others?
A huge impact. Every time I plan or deliver a session, I draw on conversations and ideas from the network. It’s like having a richer palette to work with. I’ve seen colleagues get promoted, earn fellowships, and thrive in their careers thanks to the network. Personally, I received a National Teaching Fellowship a couple of years ago, and I wouldn’t have achieved that without the support and coaching from people like Wendy. I’ve also helped others with their Principal Fellowship applications, and we regularly support each other in that way.
One standout project was our collaborative book, 100 Ideas for Active Learning, with 100 chapters from 109 authors worldwide. It started as a Google Doc and grew organically. For many contributors, it was their first publication, and they felt proud to be part of it. It’s a practical, accessible resource that’s evidence-informed but not weighed down by academic jargon. We wanted it to be inclusive and collaborative. I don’t have a PhD, and being neurodivergent can be a barrier in traditional academic spaces. But we’ve built a community where people with all kinds of challenges can contribute meaningfully. It’s about creating the kind of empowering environment we want for our students, too.
What tips would you give to others considering setting up a network or community of practice?
Find your people. Even if you don’t feel like you fit into your institution’s culture, there are people out there who share your passion. Build routines and culture together through monthly meetings, shared documents and annual events. That’s how you create impact.
Share leadership. Distributed leadership is key, let go of control and empower others. The more you share, the more opportunities arise. No one can do everything alone, and generosity with leadership makes the whole initiative stronger.
Be brave and different, challenge the status quo. We faced resistance from senior academics, leadership, and other institutions. But if you believe in your vision and have a supportive group, you can push through. Sometimes you just have to stand up and say, “We’ll do it,” even if you’re not sure how yet.
Higher education can be tough, especially if you feel like you don’t fit in. The network has made it bearable, and even joyful, for many of us. It’s about solidarity, support, and making education better for everyone.
Dr Lorraine Smith: Associate Professor (Biochemistry)
Applying for Senior Fellowship of the Higher Education Academy (SFHEA) can feel like a daunting task. One that often gets pushed aside amid the daily demands of teaching, research and other demands of academic life. Dr Lorraine Smith (Associate Professor in Biochemistry), a colleague who successfully navigated the SFHEA process, gives us valuable insights into what the journey looks like, and how it can shape both personal and professional development.
Why did you apply for Senior Fellowship?
There were two main reasons I applied for Senior Fellowship. First, it was about career progression. When I joined, I only had Fellowship, and my colleague and friend encouraged me to pursue further qualifications.
Second, I realised I’d been given poor advice in a previous role. I was in a management position and should have applied then. When I contacted Advance HE, they confirmed that management experience was key, so I had to quickly reflect on my experience in that role to build my application from that.
What did you find most helpful during the application process?
The most helpful thing was setting aside dedicated time to work on the application without distractions. I couldn’t have done it during term time because my teaching schedule is so busy. Being on the education and scholarship track, I used the summer period and set clear deadlines. That made all the difference.
Were there any challenges with making the application?
Yes, absolutely. I found the writing style quite challenging. It’s a mix of reflective practice and academic referencing, and you also have to align everything with the framework. It felt like spinning lots of plates at once.
I started by jotting down my thoughts and shaping them into case studies, then did the reading to support them, keeping in mind which framework elements I was evidencing. The reflection came as I thought about how my practice impacted students and staff.
My application didn’t pass the first time, but the feedback was clear and constructive. I reached out to former colleagues to fill in the gaps, and that made all the difference.
I think we’re so used to being critical of ourselves that shouting about our strengths can feel really uncomfortable. I’m better at it now, but I still find it easier to spot what I could improve than to say, “I’m really good at this.”
Senior Fellowship is all about impact. Where you’ve been influential, where you’ve led, and how others have taken on board what you’ve done. That can be a challenge to engage with, but it’s essential to the process.
How has the process of applying for Senior Fellowship contributed to your development as an educator?
The process really made me reflect on my own practice and read more deeply into pedagogy and curriculum design, which was incredibly helpful. During term time, there’s so much going on that reflection often gets pushed aside.
I also learned a lot about myself as a manager. I’m very much a doer, and I hadn’t really considered my strategies for managing staff or modules. The application gave me space to think about why those approaches work, why I’ve had good feedback, and how I adapt to individuals to work collaboratively and avoid conflict.
Has achieving Senior Fellowship had an impact on your colleagues or the teaching culture that you work in?
Yes, I think it has. I’m now always up for discussing pedagogy with colleagues, and we have a really collegiate way of working in our department. We collaborate well and socialise too, which I think the students notice. We regularly come together to talk about how to approach modules, and there’s a very open attitude to teaching.
It’s also given me more confidence in sharing good practice. One example is our recent curriculum redesign, where around ten faculty members collaborated on the design and delivery. I felt really proud of that. It was a genuinely collective effort to make the new module the best it could be.
Three top tips for undertaking the Senior Fellowship application
Lorraine offered three practical tips:
Start gathering evidence early. Save emails, feedback, and reflections that demonstrate your impact.
Keep a diary of good practice. Jot down projects or moments that might become case studies later.
Set SMART targets. Be realistic about what you can achieve and break the application into manageable chunks.
And perhaps most importantly be kind to yourself. Progress may be slow, and life will inevitably get in the way, but this is part of your career development and deserves your attention.
For anyone considering Senior Fellowship, Lorraine’s experience offers both practical guidance and inspiration. It’s not just about ticking boxes. It’s about recognising the value of your work and sharing it with others. The University of Sussex supports SFHEA applications. For further information, please see our web guidance.
Conversations around teaching rarely happen beyond formal training opportunities that often take place early on in our careers. After this, and especially during term-time, space for talking in our busy working lives is often limited. Incidental corridor chats are seen to generate a collaborative and positive working culture and, for some, were mourned during the pandemic and its aftermath. Indeed, post-COVID (or maybe this was always the case?), we rarely have time to talk to our colleagues about anything at all. When it comes to teaching, who do we approach when things go well, or not so well? Who is talking? Who is listening? And who cares? This was the premise for our project, drawing colleagues together across the then newly formed Faculty of Social Sciences, to talk about how we facilitate conversations about teaching, and our wider working lives, to enhance a sense of community and belonging for staff.
The conversation theme was inspired by Jarvis and Clark (2020) whose work emphasises how the informality of a conversation about teaching flattens power relations and allows people to make meaning together without the intensity of an agenda or outcome. They position this work in contrast to formal teaching observations with their traces of surveillance, performance and measurement. Too often we rely on these individualised encounters to ‘develop’ teachers, where in fact, authentic conversations might more meaningfully transform teaching, where colleagues hear something, share together and be inspired by each other in the everyday. This reflects Zeldin (1998, p.14) who notes that: ‘when minds meet they don’t just exchange facts; they transform them, draw implications from them, engage in new trains of thought. A conversation doesn’t just reshuffle the cards; it creates new cards.
With the provocation to encourage transformation through talking together, Emily, Suda and Verona set up an initial launch event for all the faculty to generate some initial conversations about teaching. The questions and topics that emerged from this focused on the following questions.
Why is community and belonging important for diverse academic flourishing?
How and where is community and belonging created and developed?
How might the labour of community and belonging work become visible, valued and rewarded?
The 12 colleagues who attended were afterwards put in cross-faculty threes and connected by email, with suggestions that they meet again to continue these conversations. As project leads, we were deliberately hands-off at this point, as the purpose of this project is to see if and how these conversations form organically.
A couple of months later, 5 of us met to blog together for the day, about our response to the questions, along with other themes that came up along the way. What we share in this blog collection is the story of our collaboration conversations.
In Jeanette and Fiona’s blog, they talk about what we can learn from student collaborations, which are often and rightly prioritised in the work of higher education.
In Suda and May’s blog they write about the value of time and space to slow down the academic pace and to generate community.
In Emily’s blog, she talks about the joy and challenges of teaching across different disciplines and how collaborations are structurally challenging.
What we learnt from this project is the ethics and timeliness of the conversation format, as a collegiate response to the complex and evolving challenges facing the sector, our students and ourselves as teachers. We all relished time to talk and think about the uncertain, the tricky, the everyday, the thorny, the unequal, the caring and uncaring practices – all of this important ‘stuff’ that sustains us as teachers but has no space in our working lives. We also did not only talk about teaching but about other collaborations that we value.
Our recommendation is that teaching (and other) collaborations should be exploratory and conversational rather than only a tool for appraisal, What we are seeking is regular open and meaningful dialogue about teaching and academic working lives that is not ‘done to academics at the behest of institutional leaders’ but conversations ‘with or among colleagues, characterized by mutual respect, reciprocity, and the sharing of values and practices’ (Pleschová et al, 2021:201).
References
Jarvis, J., & Clark, K. (2020). Conversations to Change Teaching. (1st ed.) (Critical Practice in Higher Education). Critical Publishing Ltd.
Pleschová, G., Roxå, T., Thomson, K. E., & Felten, P. (2021). Conversations that make meaningful change in teaching, teachers, and academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 26(3), 201–209.
Read the blog collection on Conversations on Teaching for Community and Belonging
Across the faculty of social sciences, many of us share research interests, professional expertise and academic knowledge that shape the topics we teach. When we met to collaborate on this project, for example, we found most of us teach about issues related to education, social justice, and globalisation. Yet we rarely teach outside the confines of our disciplines and departments. And where we do, it is through favours and friendships, rather than anything structurally organised. Our compartmentalised teaching arrangements often produce a culture that can work against collaboration.
A couple of years ago, Jeanette and I met through a shared interest in education for those of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller heritages. This was an area I research, and Jeanette had just started a community legal education initiative, Street Law, in partnership with the community organisation Friends, Families and Travellers. She asked me whether I’d talk to her students about teaching. Of course, I’d love to. I liked her. I liked the project. It was my area of expertise. Why not?
I’ve since done this a couple of times and get a huge amount from teaching Law students who I normally would never get to meet. Thinking about their contexts, disciplines and experiences and translating my pedagogical knowledge to them is also a useful exercise in understanding what and why I prioritise as an educator. But it isn’t in my workload. I don’t have to and am not, directly ‘rewarded’, in the very narrow sense of my own time. Jeanette confesses in our collaboration project that she feels guilty about asking me. But we work in the same university and now in the same faculty. Why shouldn’t we teach across these artificial academic boundaries?
This raises questions about how much of academic life might be sustained by these sorts of favours. It reminds me of the complicated emotions of gift-giving, where the receiver bestows something with surrounding norms of exchange and appreciation. On the one hand, forging positive relationships and having reciprocal practices of care are important ways to navigate academic work and its pressures (Frossard and Jeursen, 2019). Doing this cross-faculty teaching was joyful and enriching – a ‘gift’ to me as well as Jeanette. Also, an academy where we only did what was in our job description would surely fall apart!
But, on the other hand, these practices lead to under-recognition of labour or overwork. Academia has long been organised into silos – whether departments or modules – producing a sort of bento-box style organisation rather than a rich, interdisciplinary tasty stew. It is only when trying to foster collaboration through teaching across departments that we notice how the structures and cultures produce or preclude the kinds of interdisciplinary work we may find personally enriching.
In reflecting on this experience, what becomes clear is the tension between the joy and enrichment of interdisciplinary collaboration and the structural barriers that make such collaboration exceptional rather than expected. While cross-faculty teaching can feel like a ‘gift’—personally fulfilling and intellectually stimulating—it also reveals the fragility of a system that relies on goodwill rather than institutional support. When collaboration is sustained through favours rather than formal recognition, it risks becoming invisible labour, disproportionately carried by those with the capacity or inclination to give more than is required. If we want to foster truly interdisciplinary, socially engaged teaching that reflects our shared academic interests and values, we need to rethink how work is recognised, rewarded, and organised. Moving beyond the bento-box model of academic life will mean embracing new structures that not only encourage, but also sustain, collaboration across boundaries.
Frossard, C., & Jeursen, T. (2019). Friends and Favours: Friendship as Care at the ‘More-Than-Neoliberal’ University. Etnofoor, 31(1), 113–126. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26727103
Since we’ve been teaching at Sussex, it’s felt like we’ve been in a state of perma-crisis: Strikes, pandemics, financial losses, have all contributed to a sense that we are on the brink of imminent disaster and we need to react quickly to avert an impending collapse. In this context a lot of pressure is put on as individual academics to do more and more with less and less. We need to teach more students and give them extra support even though there are fewer resources. We need to bring in more grants even though funding sources are shrinking, and publish more research in an increasingly narrowing field of “world leading” journals. Failure to do this, we are told, is an existential threat to the University and could result in more job losses, including our own. This sense of existential dread has meant that many of us feel like hamsters in a wheel – desperately scrambling from one task to the next in an attempt to just keep going and hope that eventually things will calm down. But the calm never seems to come, and in this highly individualised and reactionary wheel of toxic productivity, we seem to have lost a sense of community and belonging. In this blog we consider: Where in this endless cycle of work and crises is there space to think and reflect on why we’re doing this both as individuals and as a community? How can we break the vicious cycle of individualism and reaction and instead foster an environment where there is space to think and reflect in a collective and collaborative way to build the kind of University that we want?
By participating in the Conversations for Teaching for Community and Belonging, we have come to realise that there is a community of like-minded staff members who feel similarly , and that the answer to these questions begins with time and space. Time to step away from the hamster wheel of toxic productivity. Space to reflect on our individual identities and sense of purpose. Space to support and be supported by our colleagues. And from that space to foster a wider sense of community and belonging. This space requires us to have protected and meaningful time to just think and discuss with each other these bigger-picture and wider issues, which are not easily captured in bureaucratic processes. So much of the day-to-day running of the university relies on labours of caring and collegiality, and yet so much of this labour is hidden and not celebrated or even spoken about. We don’t want these spaces to be just one-off lip-service events or individualised awards, but rather collective spaces to talk through issues and share experiences with no expectation of a measurable output. By setting aside time for reflection, we argue we can move away from these feeling of constant reaction to immediate crises.
In the short time that we’ve had to engage in conversations with one another in this small project, we have been able to learn about what colleagues across faculties are doing in their teaching and research, and also share experiences that are point to issues of both concern and hope. We have been able to foster a sense of openness precisely because there is no sense that we are in competition for some sort of reward at the end, or that we have to produce something to demonstrate “value for money”. While we appreciate that much of what we do on the hamster-wheel of productivity is part of the job, we argue that it shouldn’t take up all the space, and should not be moving us away from other essential elements of our practice that require us to slow down to reflect, learn, collaborate, feel, care, read, and think.
Learning Matters provides a space for multiple and diverse forms of writing about teaching and learning at Sussex. We welcome contributions from staff as well as external collaborators. All submissions are assigned to a reviewer who will get in touch to discuss next steps. Find out more on our About page.
Please note that blog posts reflect the information and perspectives at the time of publication.
