This paper uses case studies from three public research intensive universities, two in Europe – University College, Dublin (UCD) and the University of Oslo (UiO) -- and one in the United States -- the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) -- to answer the question: What roles do (should?) faculty developers play in faculty and institutional formation? This session will draw on the concept of individual formation and extend it to institutions. We analyse institutional formation by focusing on the goals, values, aspirations, and ethical stances as expressed by the three institutions’ mission statements and strategic plans. As part of our analysis, we have drawn on Barnett’s (2011) concepts of the University (the Metaphysical, Entrepreneurial, Scientific, and Bureaucratic) to develop a conceptual framework designed to describe UCD, UiO, and UNC-CH. We contend that Barnett’s University types lie on a continuum, and we have found that three universities we have investigated aspire to embody some or all four types. In turn, the strategic plans point to how each of these institutions will try to enact a range of values and ethical stances. These texts reveal a common tension: How do institutions, academic developers, and university teachers balance academic responsibility to the public good and accountability for their work (Englund & Solbrekke, 2011)? We will also invite participants to use the framework to reflect on their institutions and help us interrogate the tensions we have identified at other universities.

Barnett, R. (2011) Being a University. London: Routledge. Solbrekke, T.D. & Englund, T. (2011). Bringing professional responsibility back in. Studies in Higher Education, 36(7), 847-861.