This session has two parts. Part 1 sets the scene with case narratives of the practical experience of ‘development work’ in four different academic settings in three European countries (more below). ‘Development work’ in an academic context takes many forms: autonomous (self-initiated and governed) development of academic activities and work practices, more or less sophisticated - small or large - projects aiming to improve academic activities (education, research, expert services, public outreach, governance), staff development, educational development, and doctoral education. At one extreme, individual academics are developing themselves, but they may be supported or hindered by various informal and formal arrangements. As academic development takes these various forms, there is value in sharing experiences and seeking to make sense of them. This exercise is aided by bringing in conceptual resources from studies of development work in other contexts, while being mindful of the specificities of academic work and critical of attempts to transfer techniques and ideals from the business world. The four cases of what is being done in the name of development are: 1. Post-graduate research supervision - the structure and approach taken at University of Oxford to induction of next generation supervisors and development of supervision practice for current academics 2. Short-terms, long strings - embryonic development programmes for post-doctoral researchers at Manchester, UK: progress despite a range of terms and stipulations 3. Jose’s visit to Oxford (Carter et al, 2010, in press) - experiences of a doctoral student (from Spain) benefiting from short-term visiting opportunities for next generation academics opened up by pan-European mobility opportunities 4. Autonomous development of academic practices in a disciplinary unit - the nature of developmental initiatives undertaken and governed by academics themselves, and the specific features of educational events created in these efforts (Räsänen & Korpiaho 2007, Räsänen 2008a, 2008b,Räsänen 2009, Räsänen and Korpiaho 2009; Räsänen 2007) Part 2 has three objectives. First, we draw on the fourth case presented to illustrate how development work can be understood as ‘practical activity’ which can be discussed in terms of four generic issues (how to do it, what to aim at, why these means and goals, who I am when doing it), and respective basic stances: tactical, political, moral and personal. Second, we use this 4-dimensional framework as a lens to re-interpret the three other cases as forms of practical activity. Third, we invite participants at the session to join with us in a wider discussion of academic development work as ‘practical activity’, first by drawing from their own observations and experience, and second by further exploring the possibilities and limits offered by the four-dimensional theoretical framework we posit. At the heart of this round table discussion are two key questions: Question 1: How could we articulate the tactics, politics, morals and subjects of development work, that is, account for our own practice as developers or objects of development? Question 2: What are the possibilities and limits of the frame of practical activity in increasing our awareness of development work and in generating new research questions?

The presenters have an interest in researching their own workplaces with participatory methods. The accounts from practice are based on research in each local context, in addition to practitioner knowledge of them. The round table serves the purpose of developing new ways of sharing knowledge generated in different academic contexts. Resources have been found in various forms of participatory research (e.g. the idea of critical friends, self-reflective practices, and Appreciative Inquiry (eg Kember et al., 1997; Cooperrider and Whitney, 1999; Goldberg, 2001). The prototypical version of the 4-dimensional framework was crafted in the 1990s to help students doing field studies on various workplace developers and their practices, and in comparing different approaches (Räsänen, 2007). The current version was developed when researching academic work and designing professional development activities for students and new academics (Räsänen & Korpiaho 2007; Räsänen 2009). It draws on traditions of participatory research and theories of practice.

Development work can often be ‘tactical action’, that is, survival and improvisation in a given contexts. Our research and experiences to date suggest that very few developers can resolve the how, what, why and who issues in their practice, even if there are seemingly authoritative commentators who can suggest coherent approaches in their writings. The narratives and reviews we offer here, in the main, do not counter this claim, even as we pursue glimpses of possible ways forward. A purpose of deliberate reflection on practical activity is to examine possibilities to become politically more conscious and goal oriented as well as to articulate moral motives and justifications (e.g. the ‘goods’ to be realized in and by development work). The starting point is to accept the situational, half-aware, mundane and non-heroic nature of development work. Moreover, we cannot assume that developers rehearse a collective practice, in contrast to individuals’ tactical operations. Collective action is a special accomplishment.