Exploring the structure of a coaching conversation

What is coaching?

The International Coaching Federation defines coaching as:

partnering with clients in a thought-provoking and creative process that inspires them to maximize their personal and professional potential. The process of coaching often unlocks previously untapped sources of imagination, productivity and leadership.
ICF, nd

In practice, coaching involves partnering with people through an emerging process of generative self-discovery, curiosity-driven inquiry, deep listening, reframing, and future-focussed action, learning and growth (Maltbia, et al., 2014). Maltbia et al. (2014) highlight four factors that are critical to successful coaching relationships and engagements, which can be conceptualized from both the coachee’s and coach’s perspective: clarity in needs and focus, conditions for framing the situation and identifying barriers and support, commitment to determining desired outcomes and goals, and continuous improvement with a focus on iterative action and reflection. They further describe three essential coaching competencies:

Co-creating relationships: building relationships based on trust and mutual respect. Developing awareness of and accessing one’s own coaching presence and engaging in metacognitive awareness and regulation of one’s own emotions and thinking.
Productive dialogue: listening deeply to what is shared through people’s words and behaviours. Engaging in curiosity and learning-centred exploration and inquiry.
Helping others succeed: exploring, expanding and (re)framing multiple perspectives and points of view. Partnering to facilitate action, learning, growth, and change.

What is the impact of coaching? What makes coaching effective?

Coaches help people dig deep to elevate their self-awareness and thinking, as well as their capacity for learning, growth, and change. Theeboom et al. (2014) confirm that coaching has a significant effect on a range of outcomes such as: improved performance, skill development, well-being, coping, work attitudes and goal-orientation. Their findings indicate that coaching is effective in improving functioning for individuals, even when coaching occurs across a small number of sessions. They point to the importance of solution-focussed coaching approaches, that encourage deep understanding, critical reflection, and transformative learning.

Deep learning approaches encourage people to question assumptions, make meaning, relate ideas, and use evidence to explore the broader implications and application of their learning (Entwistle and Tait, 1990; Trigwell and Prosser, 1991). When we engage in critical reflection, we create meaning by uncovering and challenging our assumptions, beliefs, and frames of reference (Mezirow, 1998). Transformative learning involves critical reflection and occurs when our previously held assumptions, beliefs and frames of reference shift and change to create new insights and understandings (Mezirow, 2003). Coaching is also often grounded in metacognition or learning more about and improving how we think and learn (Stanton et al., 2021). It may also include moments of mindfulness that encourage people to become aware of and notice their inner experiences so that they work to become more self-regulated and less reactive or “triggered” by their thoughts and emotions (Hülsheger et al., 2013). Like the best professional learning experiences, coaching is based on a social and constructive learning process that draws upon the coachee’s unique situation and experiences through collaborative dialogue (Webster-Wright, 2009).

I have experienced these conditions in action as a coachee, with many experienced executive coaches. They have helped me recognize that I am my greatest critic. I have tendencies towards fear-based thoughts and mind traps. I lean towards perfectionism and create excessively high standards for myself. AND, I know I am not alone in this.

I’ve worked with coaches to get below the surface and become more aware of and work through my fears – fears of failure, judgement, of not being deserving, smart enough, or good enough. These thoughts have not stopped, but through coaching, I’ve been able to develop future-focussed strategies to give them less space. I have learned to reframe my limiting beliefs (e.g. I am a failure.) to lifting beliefs (e.g., Nobody is perfect, I am committed to always learning and growing.). Coaches have helped me get there through their skilled presence, listening, awareness and questioning, “Is there a limiting belief in what you just shared that could be reframed or rethought?”

I’ve accepted that my emotions are often my greatest teacher, guiding me towards something in the moment that I need to pay attention to. Coaches have worked with me to develop skills in recognizing and acknowledging my emotions through mindful questioning, reflection, and awareness, “I feel the weight of what you just shared, where are you experiencing that in your body right now?” What is the emotion trying to teach you?”

I’ve learned to leverage my own gifts and strengths, “What strengths and expertise do you bring to this situation that may bring you grounding and stability?” I have leaned into the power of connecting to my own wisdom of experience and intuitive gifts – “What’s worked for you in the past? What does your gut tell you?”

Each coaching conversation has challenged me to find a path forward. I have become a much stronger and more mindful leader because of coaching. Coaches have helped me step back and metacognitively reflect, “What have you learned about yourself and your situation through this conversation?” They’ve pushed me towards action, “What’s one commitment that you will make this week based on what you’ve worked through today?” They’ve left me with challenging questions for further reflection, and they’ve helped me step back to celebrate my successes. In my experience, each coaching conversation is unique, evolving, sometimes a little messy and unpredictable, and deeply connected to what matters most given my current situation and context.

What does a coaching session look like?

How can these learning theories and approaches possibly come together in one coaching conversation? The truth is, there is no one coaching structure, framework or approach that works for all. Although it is certainly our aspiration, not all coaching conversations are deep, transformative, critically reflective, and mindful. Coaching is as much (or more) about our presence or who we be in the conversation, as it is about what we do. Who we be as a coach is often best framed in the context of the ICF Coaching Competencies:

Demonstrates ethical practice
Embodies a coaching mindset
Establishes and maintains agreements
Cultivates trust and safety
Maintains coaching presence
Listens actively
Evokes awareness
Facilitates client growth (ICF, nd).

One of the most widely used coaching models is the GROW model (Goals, Reality, Options, Wrap-Up). Coaches need to be both authentic and flexible to the context and needs of the person they are partnering with in conversation, rather than to any one structure or model (Grant, 2011). Developing this sense of authenticity and flexibility takes time and practice. Despite the shortcomings of coaching structures and models, I know from experience how much grounding they can provide. I learned through Essential Impact’s Excelerator Coaching^TMframework (Engage, Enlighten, Empower, Excel, Evolve), which was embedded in our experiences through the Graduate Certificate in Executive Coaching at Royal Rhodes University.

A simplified structure for a coaching conversation

My mind gravitates towards simplification. Below I’ve adapted Maltbia et al.’s (2014) work to provide an example structure for coaching conversations based on three essential components (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Example structure for a coaching session based on three essential components: 1) co-creating trust and clarifying focus, 2) engaging in curiosity-driven and solution-focussed inquiry, 3) helping people succeed & find their path forward.

In the below section, each component is paired with guiding questions to inspire generative inquiry.

Co-creating Trust & Clarifying Focus

What do you need to get comfortable in this space together? What do you need to transition into this conversation?
What will be of greatest value for us to talk about today?
What is most important about this? What’s at the core of this for you?
What would success look like at the end of this conversation for you? What would you like to leave our conversation today with that would help you move forward?
What would shift or change for you if you achieved this?

Engaging in Curiosity-driven & Solution-focussed Dialogue

What do you need to work through and/or work out?
What’s holding you back?
What results/changes do you really want to see?
What’s important? What matters most?
What do you want to move towards?
Who do you want to be as you approach this situation?
Imagine one year down the road, you have achieved success, what does this look and feel like?
What are you doing or not doing to support these results (or what you want to see)?
What’s worked (or not worked) for you in the past?
What strengths do you bring?
What roadblocks or tensions do you experience?
What would your wisest, kindest self say to you?
What is yours to do? What’s your responsibility there? What do you have control or influence over?
How might you see things differently? What else might be true?
What are the beliefs or assumptions in what you just shared that may need to be rethought or reframed?
In one or two words, how would you describe how you feel?
Where do you feel that inside your body?
What is this feeling or belief trying to teach you?
If you could zoom out from this issue from afar, what might you notice?
How could you put this into perspective? What is one thing you could do better?
What advice would you give a colleague in this situation? What advice might a colleague offer to you?
If you had nothing to lose, how might you approach this situation?
What does your gut tell you?
What are some possible paths forward? What other options come to mind for you? What else could you do?
What have you heard yourself say about how you might approach this situation?

Helping People Succeed & Find their Path Forward

Looping back to the beginning of the conversation and what you set out to accomplish, where are you now?
What did you learn about yourself? What did you learn about your situation? How will you use this learning going forward?
What’s shifted for you? What realizations have you had? What are your breakthroughs?
What’s the right next step for you? What commitment (or micro-step) will you make to move forward?
What barriers might you face?
What resources or supports do you have to draw upon?
How will you hold yourself accountable?
How will you celebrate your success?
How do we close this time together?

Despite the apparent simplicity of many coaching models and structures (including this one!), coaching is never linear. The best coaching conversations are unpredictable, dynamic, and cyclical.

Of course, it is never obvious at the start of any coaching session how the session will actually evolve, and coaches need to work with an emergent, iterative process. Indeed, for experienced coaches the uncertainty of the session and the unexpected discoveries made along the way are a large part of the joy of coaching. For the novice however, this uncertainty is often a source of anxiety and frustration and novice coaches tend to react to these feelings by to clinging too tightly to the model.
Grant (2011, p. 35)

A challenge moving forward

I encourage you to share, adapt and use this framework to help guide coaching conversations in your local context.

Try one or two questions (e.g., what’s most important? or, what else might be true?). Practice one coaching competency (e.g., listening deeply) that resonates strongly with you or that may stretch and challenge you.

The best coaches are critically reflective learners themselves. Take some time to reflect on the following:

What worked for you?
When did you feel most engaged?
What barriers did you face? When did you struggle or feel challenged?
What did you learn?
What is one thing that you would do differently next time?

Like life, there is no perfection in coaching. It is the ultimate dance of learning, curiosity, discovery, and growth – for both coach and coachee.

References

Grant, A. M. (2011). Is it time to REGROW the GROW model? Issues related to teaching coaching session structures. The Coaching Psychologist, 7(2), 118–126.

Entwistle, N., & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher education, 19(2), 169-194.

ICF (nd) What is coaching? Accessed at: https://coachingfederation.org/

ICF (nd) ICF Core Competencies. Accessed at: https://coachingfederation.org/credentials-and-standards/core-competencies

Maltbia, T. E., Marsick, V. J., & Ghosh, R. (2014). Executive and organizational coaching: A review of insights drawn from literature to inform HRD practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16(2), 161-183.

Mezirow, J. (1998). On critical reflection. Adult education quarterly, 48(3), 185-198.

Mezirow, J. (2003). Transformative learning as discourse. Journal of transformative education, 1(1), 58-63.

Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. (1991). Relating approaches to study and quality of learning outcomes at the course level. British Journal of Education Psychology, 61, 265-275

Hülsheger, U. R., Alberts, H. J., Feinholdt, A., & Lang, J. W. (2013). Benefits of mindfulness at work: the role of mindfulness in emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction. Journal of applied psychology, 98(2), 310.

Stanton, J. D., Sebesta, A. J., & Dunlosky, J. (2021). Fostering metacognition to support student learning and performance. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(2), fe3.

Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Review of educational research, 79(2), 702-739.

Four key elements to building a supportive teaching culture in higher education

I love a good read on how best to influence teaching and learning cultures in higher education. This recent article had me thinking critically about our work in higher education – Myllykoski-Laine et al. (2023).

It reminded me of four key elements critical to building a supportive teaching culture in higher education:

Value and Recognition: teaching and the development of teaching expertise and communities needs to be valued, recognized, and appreciated across multiple organizational levels. Many formal and informal processes and structures provide value and recognition for teaching including spaces, environments, resources, workload assignments, awards, grants, resources, policy, vision, professional learning, and leadership.
Collaborative Relationships & Collegiality: teaching and the development of teaching expertise should be recognized as a shared responsibility, across the academic community. A collegial “sharing culture” based on respect and trust are fundamental to creating communities of shared responsibility and understanding for teaching in higher education. Fostering this sharing culture extends beyond the responsibilities of teachers themselves.
Intentional Interaction & Knowledge Sharing: opportunities for formal and informal interaction and knowledge sharing about teaching should be fostered, including opportunities for co-teaching, peer support and learning, dialogue, critical reflection, and the sharing of experiences, ideas and knowledge. The development of teaching and learning communities, networks and conversations must be fostered across all levels of the academic community.
Pedagogical Influencers (aka Pedagogical Change Agents): Pedagogical influencers are individuals who actively support the development of teaching in community and positively influence change. Pedagogical influencers often hold informal roles and inspire concrete actions in their local teaching and learning communities. Pedagogical influencers require support, resources, recognition, and meaningful opportunities to impact change.

The authors acknowledge the inherent complexities and interrelationship of these different factors in influencing teaching values, attitudes, norms, principles, practices and structures across postsecondary institutions. They suggest, “…the development of a more supportive pedagogical culture requires intentional endeavors to influence abstract and possibly invisible cultural elements in the community” (p. 951).

Four elements to building a supportive teaching culture in higher education

I leave you with some further questions for reflection and dialogue.

What are you already doing in each of these areas to intentionally build a supportive teaching and learning culture?
What’s missing from this list? What would you add, change, refresh, revise?
Where are your strengths and points of pride?
What is one area where you would like to further learn, grow, and improve (as an individual, faculty/department, or institution)?
What is one action (or forward movement) you would like to take to provide an even more supportive teaching and learning culture in your context?

Reference:

Myllykoski-Laine, S., Postareff, L., Murtonen, M., and Vilppu, H. (2023) Building a framework of a supportive pedagogical culture for teaching and pedagogical development in higher education. Higher Education, 85, 937–955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00873-1

A framework for influencing change in teaching and learning cultures, communities, and practices.

As a leader of a teaching and learning institute at a large-research intensive institution, I reflect a lot on how change and learning happens in organizations.

How do teaching and learning centres work to influence teaching and learning cultures, communities and practices?

A couple of years ago, I presented at the Educational Developers of Caucus of Canada Conference, and tried, in one slide to communicate all that I have learned about the complex work of teaching and learning centres. Below is a version of that slide.

Figure 1: a framework for influencing change in teaching and learning cultures, communities, and practices across multiple organizational levels

This framework builds upon the work of others (see for example: Brew & Ginns, 2008; Finkelstein, et al., 2016; Fields et al., 2019; Hannah & Lester, 2009; Jarvis, 2010; Mårtensson & Roxå, 2016; Roxå & Mårtensson, 2009; Simmons, 2016; Trigwell, 2013; Webster-Wright, 2009; Wright et al., 2018). I also highlight it in a forthcoming paper with Dr. Sarah Eaton (Kenny & Eaton, in press).

Most people would point to teaching and learning centres for the workshops and courses they offer individual educators. These formal, planned events are a visible part of the work of educational developers. But, as one of my favorite colleagues, mentors and leaders Dr. Leslie Reid shares,

“Change happens one conversation at a time.”

The seminal work of Roxå & Mårtensson (2009) and Roxå et al. (2011) suggests that teaching and learning cultures, communities and practices are strongly influenced by the small, but significant conversations we have and networks we create with colleagues we trust. A recognition that teaching and learning in higher education is influenced by FORMAL processes (i.e., policies, programs, structures, resources and committees) and INFORMAL activities (i.e., significant networks, relationships, conversations, and communities) is fundamental to the work of teaching and learning centres, and this framework.

Take a moment to reflect on where and how these formal processes and informal activities occur across your institution. How and where is your teaching and learning centre influencing these formal processes and informal networks, conversations and communities?

The centre of the framework highlights four key components to influencing teaching and learning cultures: 1) High-impact professional learning for individuals and groups, 2) Local-level leadership and microcultures, 3) Scholarship, research and inquiry, 4) Learning spaces, pedagogies and technologies.

High-impact professional learning activities can be informal or formal, but are intentionally designed to be contextual, embedded in practice, and to facilitate on-going reflection and action (Webster-Wright, 2009).

How is your centre providing initiatives to support meaningful and sustained professional learning and growth for educators across higher education?

The influence of local-leadership and microcultures are often overlooked in higher education (Mårtensson & Roxå, 2016; Kenny et al., 2016). Formal leaders (who hold roles such as Dean, Department Head/Chair, Associate Dean) and informal leaders (who may not hold a formal title) are catalysts for action and change. They have an incredible influence on the development of microcultures (behaviours, norms, values, actions) that either support or hinder the development of the teaching and learning cultures, communities and practices we most aspire to see (Christensen Hughes & Mighty, 2010). We need only to look at the complexities, sheer exhaustion and pressures that Department Heads/Chairs faced related to teaching and learning during the global pandemic – Gigliotti (2021) calls for more training, support and development for those who hold these roles.

What does your teaching and learning centre do to support informal and formal teaching and learning leaders?

Scholarship, research and inquiry provide a means for investigating, sharing and disseminating knowledge about teaching and learning in postsecondary education. This work includes inquiry in individual classrooms, as well as how teaching and learning are more broadly supported across multiple organizational levels within higher education. Knowledge sharing and dissemination about teaching and learning are important, and we are also coming to understand that the very process of intentionally engaging in scholarship and inquiry related to teaching and learning, helps us become better educators, as we focus on the student learning experience and develop stronger abilities as critically reflective practitioners (Brew and Ginns, 2009; Trigwell, 2013).

How does your teaching and learning centre encourage and support engagement in scholarship, research and inquiry in teaching and learning?

I have also been thinking a lot lately about how these supports are (or aren’t) inclusive of multiple ways of knowing, being and understanding?

Learning spaces, pedagogies and technologies have an incredible impact on teaching and learning communities, cultures and practices in higher education. Learning spaces can be designed intentionally to foster engagement, collaboration and to create a shared learning community between students and instructors (Finkelstein and Winer, 2020). Never has the power of learning technologies become more prevalent as during the COVID19 pandemic when millions of learners across the globe accessed their higher education from remote locations. When thoughtfully integrated, learning technologies can strengthen connection, collaboration, flexibility and innovation. Pedagogical approaches that are intentionally structured, promote active engagement, encourage meta-cognition and self-regulation, foster deep learning, and establish relevance improve student learning outcomes (Freeman et al., 2014, Deslauriers et al., 2011; Kember, Ho & Hong, 2008; Pintrich, 2002).

How does your teaching and learning centre support learning spaces, pedagogies and technologies that improve student success and promote deep learning?

How are we ensuring our learning spaces, pedagogies and technologies support our commitments to equity, diversity and inclusion, and Indigenous Ways of Knowing?

The framework is grounded by the recognition that these four core elements (i.e., high impact professional learning, local-level leadership and microcultures, scholarship, research and inquiry, and learning spaces, pedagogies and technologies) are influenced across multiple organizational levels (Hannah & Lester, 2009; Kenny et al., 2016; Simmons, 2016; Roxå & Mårtensson, 2009). At the institutional (macro-level) senior leaders, policies, and committees can establish a clear vision, resources, governance processes and structures for teaching and learning. At the faculty and departmental level (meso-level) integrated networks of knowledge sharing can be established, and local leaders can be provided with appropriate support to help influence change and decision-making related to teaching and learning. And finally, at the individual level (micro-level) individuals must be supported, recognized and rewarded for their work to advance teaching and learning.

How is your teaching and learning centre influencing change in teaching and learning cultures, communities and practices across the micro, meso and macro levels?

As always, I’d love to hear how this framework resonates for you. It’s difficult to articulate what I have come to understand about the work of educational development and teaching and learning centres in one slide, and I am certain my thoughts will continue to evolve over time!

References

Brew, A., & Ginns, P. (2008). The relationship between engagement in the scholarship of teaching and learning and students’ course experiences. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 535-545.

Christensen Hughes, J., & Mighty, J. (2010). A call to action: Barriers to pedagogical innovation and how to overcome them. In J. Christensen Hughes & J. Mighty (Eds).Taking stock: Research on teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 261-277). Queens School of Policy Studies.

Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332(6031), 862-864.

Finkelstein, A., & Winer, L. (2020). Active learning anywhere: A principled-based approach to designing learning spaces. In S. Hoidn & M. Klemenčič (Eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (pp. 327–344).

Fields, J., Kenny, N. A., & Mueller, R. A. (2019). Conceptualizing educational leadership in an academic development program. International Journal for Academic Development, 24(3), 218-231.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.

Gigliotti, R. A. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 on academic department chairs: Heightened complexity, accentuated liminality, and competing perceptions of reinvention. Innovative Higher Education, 1-16.

Hannah, S. T., & Lester, P. B. (2009). A multilevel approach to building and leading learning organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 34-48.

Jarvis, Peter. (2010). Adult Education and Lifelong Learning. Fourth Edition. Routledge, NY. pp.338.

Kember, D., Ho, A., & Hong, C. (2008). The importance of establishing relevance in motivating student learning. Active learning in higher education, 9(3), 249-263.

Kenny, N., Watson, G. P. L., & Desmarais, S. (2016). Building sustained action: Supporting an institutional practice of SoTL at the University of Guelph. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2016(146), 87-94. doi:10.1002/tl.20191

Kenny, N., & Eaton, S. E. (2021, in press) Academic integrity through a SoTL lens and 4M framework: An institutional self-study. In S. E. Eaton & J. Christensen Hughes (Eds.), Academic integrity in Canada: An enduring and essential challenge: Springer.

Mårtensson, K., & Roxå, T. (2016). Leadership at a local level–Enhancing educational development. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(2), 247-262.

Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into practice, 41(4), 219-225.

Roxå, T., & Mårtensson, K. (2009). Significant conversations and significant networks–exploring the backstage of the teaching arena. Studies in Higher Education, 34(5), 547-559.

Roxå, T., Mårtensson, K., & Alveteg, M. (2011). Understanding and influencing teaching and learning cultures at university: A network approach. Higher Education, 62(1), 99-111. DOI 10.1007/s10734-010-9368-9

Simmons, N. (2016). Synthesizing SoTL institutional initiatives toward national impact. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2016(146), 95-102. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20192

Trigwell, K. (2013). Evidence of the impact of scholarship of teaching and learning purposes. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 1(1), 95-105.

Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Review of educational research, 79(2), 702-739.

Wright, M., Horii, C. V., Felten, P., Sorcinelli, M. D., & Kaplan, M. (2018). Faculty development improves teaching and learning. POD Speaks, 2, 1-5.

Fostering Meaningful Postdoctoral Scholar Professional Learning and Development Opportunities in Higher Ed

Postdoctoral Professional Learning and Development Framework (Source: Nowell et al. 2021)

With leadership from University of Calgary’s Dr. Lorelli Nowell (https://twitter.com/lorelli_nowell), I recently collaborated with a fabulous group of scholars to publish a framework for postdoctoral scholar professional learning and development. The framework presents a holistic view of how we can better support postdoctoral scholars as they move forward in their academic and professional careers – recognizing that the vast majority of postdoctoral scholars do not enter permanent academic positions. With ever changing job markets and demands, higher education must better prepare postdocs for a range of careers, whether that be in higher ed, government, not-for-profit or private sectors (see Ålund et al., 2020).

Moving beyond academe’s traditional focus on research skill development, the Professional Learning and Development (PLD) framework consists of four major domains:

Professional Socialization (mentorship, community engagement, inclusivity & diversity, networking)
Professional Skills (leadership skills, interpersonal skills, communication skills, careering planning)
Academic Development (academic writing, academic service, critical thinking, teaching & learning)
Personal Effectiveness (time management, work-life balance, health & wellness, project management)

The framework builds upon results from our previous research, which included literature reviews, document analysis, surveys, interviews, and consultations with key stakeholders (see Nowell et al., 2018, 2019; 2020). Through this research, postdoctoral scholars consistently communicated the need for professional learning and development that extended beyond research skill development. For example, areas of particular interest included teaching and learning, mentorship, academic service and well-being. I will note that COVID-19 has escalated the stress-related challenges that postdocs face, including burnout, work-life conflict, and social isolation.

Our research certainly has practical implications, including serving as a framework for institutions as they create, design and implement robust supports and a learning culture for postdoctoral scholars. We imagine postdoctoral supervisors and postdocs using the framework as a guide for mentorship conversations, developing learning plans, and fostering critical reflection and career growth. Teaching and learning centres, academic units, and postdoc offices could use it as a reference to develop robust professional learning programs. More broadly regional, national and international postdoc organizations can use this framework to amplify discussions to strengthen how we conceptualize and design meaningful postdoctoral scholar communities, cultures and practices in higher ed.

We’d love to hear how you imagine using this framework in your particular context, and successful examples of initiatives to meaningfully integrate postdoctoral scholars in the academic community, and to strengthen professional learning and development for postdocs across a variety of career contexts!

References:

Ålund, M., Emery, N., Jarrett, B.J.M. et al. Academic ecosystems must evolve to support a sustainable postdoc workforce. Nat Ecol Evol 4, 777–781 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1178-6

Nowell, L., Ovie, G., Berenson, C., Kenny, N. and Hayden, K.A. (2018), “Professional learning and development of postdoctoral scholars: a systematic review of the literature”, Education Research International, Vol. 2018, p. 5950739.

Nowell, L., Ovie, G., Kenny, N., Hayden, K.A. and Jacobsen, M. (2019), “Professional learning and development initiatives for postdoctoral scholars”, Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 35-55.

Nowell, L., Ovie, G., Kenny, N. and Jacobsen, M. (2020), “Postdoctoral scholar’s perspectives about professional learning and development: a concurrent mixed-methods study”, Palgrave Communications, Vol. 6 No. 1.

Nowell, L., Dhingra, S., Kenny, N., Jacobsen, M. and Pexman, P. (2021), “Professional learning and development framework for postdoctoral scholars”, Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-10-2020-0067