This paper attends to the issue of institutional diversity in Australian higher education, providing a topography of this dynamic sectoral landscape. Australian higher education is often perceived as a constellation of 41 universities. But these institutions are only one component of the sector. Glynn Davis argues that Australia’s public universities have become too homogenous, and that that homogeneity does not align with the increasing diversity of tertiary students (2017). Davis envisaged a more institutionally diverse sector which includes large public universities as well as “Institutions which preference teaching over research, which use pedagogical innovation to widen participation, which offer bold experiments with graduate pathways, novel aggregations of disciplines, institutions which teach in multiple languages, which specialise in neglected disciplines or focus all of their energy on just a handful of related fields” (AFR). To what extent might that vision already be realised? Drawing on Krause’s application of Huisman’s ecological theory of institutional diversity to the Australian higher education sector (Krause 2022), the paper anatomises the institutional characteristics of each of the four Australian higher education provider categories: Australian University, Overseas University, University College and Institute of Higher Education. In doing so, the paper demonstrates that the Australian higher education sector is more diverse than is often imagined; it concludes by arguing that understanding and promoting this diversity is of increasing importance as Australian higher education prepares to expand significantly in terms of student numbers and student demographic diversity post- the Universities Accord. The presentation incorporates an opening quiz to assess participants' sectoral knowledge, a live padlet for engagement throughout the presentation and a concluding open floor discussion of participants' experiences of work in the four subsectors of Australian higher education.

We have introduced a pioneering initiative at Charles Darwin University: A paid Indigenous Students as Partners program showcasing innovative integration of Indigenous perspectives across various academic disciplines.

Background/Context:
Indigenous perspectives remain underrepresented in higher education curricula. CDU’s program aims to bridge this gap, facilitating collaborative projects between Indigenous students and academic staff, fostering mutual learning and Indigenisation of the curriculum.

Description:
The program encompasses diverse fields such as Social Work, Speech Pathology, Economics, Cybersecurity, and Health, with projects ranging from curriculum unit development to digital resource and badge creation, all aimed at integrating First Nations perspectives.

Method:
Following Rigney’s (2017) Design and Evaluation Framework for Indigenisation (DEFI), the program prioritises inclusive partnerships, ethical engagement, and transformative processes that utilised regular check-ins, an induction processes, and a formal evaluation. The initiative is part of a critical Participatory Action Research methodology where participation and action are part of the research process (Freire, 1982).


Evidence
Examples of projects include the development of First Nations perspectives in social work education, redesigning sustainability units, establishing a First Nations pre-law program, creating an Indigenous glossary for academic assignments, and incorporating Indigenous voices in social work accreditation materials.

Contribution
The program contributes to the academic landscape by offering a new method of embedding First Nations knowledges within the curriculum, enhancing curriculum design and promoting student partnership in curriculum development.

Engagement
Engagement will be fostered through interactive discussions, showcasing project examples, and insights into the participatory design process. Attendees will gain an in-depth understanding of the program’s impact, challenges and barriers encountered, timeframes and payment provided, and the induction process highlighting the importance of student as partners principles, Indigenous partnership principles, and Indigenous cultural and intellectual property.

Focus
This is a meditation on the place of creative practice in Australian higher education.

Background

In 2024, the persistent dominant discourse of human capital and creative economies posits a challenge to the author to carve a space for creative academics that exploits the contradictions of neoliberalism rather than capitulates to its “inevitability” (Patrick 2013).

Description

Despite what seemed be the inevitability of the failure (Horton 2020), the author persisted, choosing to believe that enacting her ethical framework as self-care (Bryan & Blackman 2019) was important. The outcome – a space for creatives – was almost an accident, driven by what she would categorise as her “transgressive emotional energy”, and all the while coming up against questions, frustrating her for a lack of comfortable answers.
Method
“Data” is the authors own critical self-reflection and is therefore a piece of autoethnography, not the least because it is a “transgressive account in the context of professional practice [that] opens out a professional’s life, remaking power relations in the process” Denshire (2019).
Evidence
What the outcomes are is a question for the audience. Is the space “tactical compliance” (Elsaesser 2020), failure, problem, what problem, or something else?
Contribution
Firstly, this presentation is a contribution to scholarly work on identity, ethics and selfcare as expressed in an Australian HEI. Secondly, the “I” of autoethnography is deconstructed by the author who cannot present a coherent satisfying narrative because she finds the subject matter crafty, meaningfulness at times allusive and cannot pretend her experience is in anyway complete (Jackson & Mazzei 2008).
Engagement
The posing of an ethical dilemma to any self-reflective academic is rich ground for discussion. The author will pose a series of “what would you do” questions throughout the presentation, where the answers can be used to prompt discussion during the Q&A session.

Focus:
This showcase focuses on development challenges that tertiary educators face during crises and the adaptive mechanisms they employ to help mitigate such challenges. Drawing from novel research completed during the recent pandemic, insights are contextualized to explore and compare academic development challenges and opportunities posed by the rising proliferation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in higher education.

Background:
Martin & Wilson’s (Forthcoming) case study explores the development of teaching practices in the Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, and Ambiguous (Baran & Woznyj, 2021) (VUCA) context by leveraging the unique setting of the COVID-19 crisis.

Description:
In semester 1 2020, the pandemic hit, giving academics three days to ‘pivot’ from teaching remote students from campus to embracing Emergency Remote Teaching in their own homes. This research investigated how academics developed their teaching practice in this VUCA environment.

Method:
The research being presented, utilised a novel qualitative methodology that embraced traditional Thematic Analysis, grounded in preliminary orienting devices identified through semi-structured Zoom interviews. Zoom transcripts were further augmented with non-verbal observational data from corresponding Zoom recordings. This approach allowed richer and thicker a qualitative description, than previous approaches.

Evidence:
The research reveals a shift in learning conceptions when teachers grapple with complex disruption, shedding light on the dynamics of adapting to unforeseen and/or future circumstances by utilising an established conceptual framework (Wardak et al., 2023) for professional development in academic development.

Contribution:
While there has been extensive research into academic development challenges that tertiary teachers faced during the COVID-19 experience, there is limited consideration of feeding forward learnings for practice development from the pandemic to future crises. The research also contributes to scholarship through its novel methodology.

Engagement:
Educators, researchers, and policymakers will be invited to consider this multifaceted challenge and the implications for future professional development, through conversation prompts and an interactive mentimeter.