Why wait for later
Me on achieving SFHEA and SCMALT in 2023 - "I've a clear plan to achieve the coveted Principal Fellowship, naturally given my strategic role and abilities. However, there is no rush and it would be great to take a slower pace on such application and to allow a deeper and more thoughtful analysis of my work and achievements. But do I have the courage to say no and say this is enough? As you can go forever and a day getting accreditations, and there are plenty of accreditations available! But for now, it's important that I now take the time to take in and celebrate these two new milestones."
Not long after this, I decided to press on with it and not wait and press on throughout 2024. As each fellowship has their own focus/lens, and in hindsight, I do feel the evidence I submitted for my SFHEA is more suited to PFHEA. Perhaps that is how the journey to PFHEA starts for most people. I strongly feel much of that work is strategic and have much evidence of impact to support this. I'm not just leading and influencing. What I have done so far in my career has been strategic, so it's valid that I achieve this. And as I state in this blog post '
Learning technology manager - a celebration', I am strategic by nature and this accreditation reflects it. Most likely enhanced through my early childhood gaming of Command and Conquer, Creatures, Theme Hospital, Rollercoaster Tycoon 2, Pokémon ha! Therefore this is my work and at this level and it would be a disservice to myself if I didn't acknowledge and celebrate it, despite any negative peer judgements it may bring. I'm being brave and bold by pursuing this accreditation. I am sure many others know that our strategic value as learning technologists is often misunderstood or ignored. This certification is further proof that learning technologist-type roles bring
pedagogical value than just the technological solution. Of which many of these types of roles have also achieved this accreditation. Moreover, if I'm doing this level of work, I'm doing it. Hence why I didn't use the Fellowship Category Tool, as I know what my work impact reach is and where I am going. I've an equal right to validating my professional development. It's a fact I go above and beyond in my roles, and evidenced in my current role. Therefore it shouldn't be a surprise I am able to demonstrate my work at this level. I will proudly wave the flag to inspire others in similar roles. Like I said in '
What working class means to me'; "
The more I reflect on my journey the more important it is becoming in this space. The more personal and workplace adversity I experience the more I will channel it positively as an advocate. I think a main big reason for achieving Principal Fellowship is to prove that proper working class individuals like me can achieve such things. I want to obtain and use it as a torch to support others like me, especially true working class individuals."
So why wait for later when I can press on? I had a clear plan to obtain PFHEA whilst in this role and scaffold some activities around that. It wasn't too much of a slog, as I had done the work associated with those activities and in most case studies I had existing, and re-purposed SFHEA material and evidence. But mostly adding further naturally occurring and timely conversations and asking to capture in writing, and developing evidence of impact. Not disguising evidence collection through creative language, i.e. getting it from people without being honest about the actual intentions.
I quietly started developing ideas in early September 2023, and had established an appropriate narrative by October 2023. I had a clear idea of the case studies I wanted to use as I knew the strategic impact I wanted to focus on and showcase. So I found it easier doing Record of Strategic Educational Impact (RSEI) at the end by breaking down the activity milestones.
I attended a Principal Fellowship kickstarter on 1 December 2023, based on the new Professional Standards Framework 2023. With the aim of submitting for February 2025 deadline. Like the process, I have my own goals and timelines that I want to adhere to, which are non-negotiable as I don't want to be steered by others needs. I have my own goals and timescales and I don't want to delay it. However, through a conversation I had with the designated Professional Recognition Scheme team, it seems I wasn't event part of the newly designed capped cohorts. I was accepted into the current cohort, but they plan to take their first PFHEA applications against the new PSF 2023 in February 2025 - which takes me back to my original goal. As with these things though, I have to anticipate I will not pass first time and much feedback to action will be required. It could be another lengthy process of going back and forth. Official production began between January-February 2024 inputting the initial case study content. Initially for the written application pathway, but in April I became aware of the Professional Conversation pathway and opted for that. A welcome option that appealed to me to reflect openly via a conversation. From March-April 2024 I was modifying and trimming to suit. May-onwards rewriting and refining due to a change in focus on some case studies and refining my evidence. By beginning of November I had received all of my advocate statements.
In the Autumn I received some feedback from the scheme team of needing deeper impact on students. So I could wait a bit longer for capturing further evidence and impact on my strategic work. The sustained aspect was the main issue, due to the shorter dates in my Record of Strategic Educational Impact (RSEI), where I broke down the case study and presented as a coherent journey. But I pushed back and said if I'm doing the work, demonstrating that ability and having the intended impact then that's what should count over a couple shorter dates in the RSEI. Basing just on dates in my view is not showing sustainability, but actions of my abilities are. However creative suggestions were given on this. We later agreed to also bring in my PebblePad work. I was also assigned a mentor, receiving initial helpful feedback, until they went on leave and I went independent again.
Eventually in December 2024, I decided to do the written application and submit for June 2025. Reflective writing is one of my strengths anyway. It was odd I was considering the professional conversation. It would also be more beneficial for me to utilise my reflective writing abilities, include further detail than I wouldn't have been able to in the professional conversation outlines, and in the long-term it provides a better format for me to reflect and use the text produced in it. Plus less planning around the conversational route. In the second week of January 2025, my narrative came into actual focus and clarity. Luckily as I had previously attempted the written pathway, I had a good foundation of material to rework and refine for my application. Though I was delayed again to Summer 2026 due to me working on my PGCLTHE at the same time, which I wasn't made aware of previously. As a result, I was offered February 2026, of which I accepted. I then spent from September 2025 to January 2026 refining my submission.
I need to remind myself it's a marathon not a sprint. Finding a little bit of joy of being in the position to work towards such thing. Reminding myself of the enjoyment and value of my role and tasks, and not getting lost in the rat race of self importance and being superior to others.
What follows might be contentious, however, this is my personal lived experience, not naivety. Is my hope it inspires much hope and reflection in others. And to be clear, there are many academics that do involve, collaborate and value me. However, there is still an imbalance with how my role is perceived.
Fear and anxiety
As with the scheme, I should be able to get some benefit out of the process not just credentials. I felt it was more of a proving exercise than cathartic. Perhaps this was because I know I'm doing this level of work and the impact I am having and hoping to make. The biggest learning experience for me was going deeper on this impact and articulating it in a way that satisfies the criteria. These accreditations are originally designed more for academics than professional services, even though attempts to have been made to make fellowships more accessible and cohesive. They still expect the same writing style, detail and format which is not a natural fit for non-academic contract roles. I find it stressful trying to write the way they wanted me to write and articulate, and it does make them somewhat inaccessible even if I am doing the demonstrable work. I still think these things should be more portfolio-based. Whilst they accept minimal screenshots, having more of them supports the discussion and reflection of evidence much better. Rather than fully relying on the assessment of creatively convincing language and potentially abusing academic integrity. I was conscious not to make it feel like a driving test; being taught how to pass it - again I needed to get a benefit out of doing it. But I guess to some extent it does depend on what type of reviewer is assigned. As whilst there is set criteria, they will most likely have areas of focus and interest depending on their own expertise. The process has made me realise the huge amounts of high-level work and positive impact I have made during my employment at NTU. As a result, I'd like to think that I am a respected individual and stakeholder in digital education in and beyond at NTU. The PFHEA process allowed me to focus on my journey and analyse the quality of my impact; why I am doing what I'm doing.
As I started writing, I felt a bit of anxiety and self-judgement that I may be coming across arrogant in my application. Which I don't think I do as it is not naturally me, I am far too modest for that. So I had to push myself to say that well yes I am doing all these higher-level things. The use of language and being succinct to points was definitely my main challenge. As I can be very literal and objective, which it needs to be sometimes, when my academic language could take more prominence.
Clearly this is still a current topic and affects many people in my context, therefore what follows are my open thoughts on the matter. I stealthily worked on this in the background as I found it quite uncomfortable making it known. The fact that I am talking about my work at this level - because it is at this level, I have actually done/doing the work at this level and I'm literal about it. However, a part of me that can't comprehend the level of this work I do, given my poor educational beginnings. I appreciate on the outside that I appear an unconventional PFHEA candidate. Of which I feel might be seen as controversial and may bring unnecessary academic offence and judgement against me. Which may stir a bit of jealousy and anger in others, causing me much anxiety. Perhaps this stems from the direct and in-direct academic perception that I am not on a teaching contract. Especially as some organisational cultures might depict which roles/who can and cannot work towards such accreditations, making it even more challenging for professional services colleagues to achieve.
I am contractually defined as professional services though I am an academic and undertake much scholarly work. Strongly synthesising much educational technology, digital learning design and digital literacies literature. Though I am often designated a technical support label, and therefore my academic and pedagogical value can be disregarded by some. Despite digital being in my title provoking technical stereotypes. I discuss more of this in
my teaching philosophy formative assessment and
reflective summative piece of my PGCLTHE. In my personal opinion, schemes of this kind could have been originally created to express superiority, individually and organisationally. However, the increased widespread accessibility of them has made them less so. However, I do feel some purists and organisations like to protect and preserve the originality. Though I am not always convinced others' clearly know what is being protected or preserved. Perhaps fear of particular role types is downgrading the quality of their interpretation of the fellowship process? When I started telling some academic colleagues I am working towards it, their first reaction is not immediately positive and supportive, but more so off-putting language. Firstly, yes it is ok to make a realistic comment, but a more encouraging and supportive response would be welcomed. Secondly, are they focusing on their role and experience. It is not role-focused but the level of work I do in it. I sense hidden negative role/contract perceptions and gatekeeping behaviours. I experienced something similar when asking to do Postgraduate Certificate in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (PGCLTHE), there was hesitancy in language of should I be doing it in my professional services role. When I read body language this also confirms it. Actually, when I was doing my PGCLTHE I experienced what I interpreted as role type/contractual perception. Yes teaching contracts are a key identifier, but I don't think they are the only thing that should define someone's abilities. If I were to be switched to an a teaching contract as I am now. To what extent would that change others perceptions? How different would I be treated?
Education is often celebrated for being made accessible to all, however such systems and schemes like this can be susceptible to becoming exclusive. Which might not align ethically with academic integrity principles. The realism, and my own lived experience through multi-disciplinary collaboration and partnership with academics, I do contribute to successful high quality Higher Education learning, teaching and the student experience. Therefore, it doesn't just rely on academic-only roles. Fellowships in particular require evidence of collaboration with colleagues, however, in my experience there is lack of consideration for stakeholder involvement.
I believe myself to operate in a ecosystem in the web of life. Not as a solo egotistic individual that is superior to others. A learning technologist can have a focus on academia, and I have that and I am academic. I am soon to achieve my
PGCLTHE, which makes me a qualified academic professional in HE. It was very clear that I am already doing this as part of my current role, and I did not have to consider alternatives or undertake extra work to make up for it.
Some might argue that achieving a fellowship does not make an individual academic. But my position on it is that if they have or are doing the work that is specified in the academic criteria and therefore successfully demonstrating this, then they are. I see the point that I am not on a teaching/academic/research contract then I might not be defined as academic. However, undertaking academic and scholarly work, whether fully or partial to my role, and is supported by being demonstrated successfully through academic criteria laid out in the PGCLTHE qualification I am completing or a fellowship, proves this. This is besides the argument that I have previously completed Higher Education. Conversely, some may teach, undertake scholarship and research but might not embody and appreciate what it means to be in those roles.
Whilst about SFHEA, this article by Advance HE gave me reassurance; '
A non-academic’s journey to achieving the Senior Fellowship'. Often a misconception that these accreditations are for academic/teaching-only roles, when that is not stated by Advance HE. Some University's interpret the criteria more narrowly. However, as Advance HE state for PFHEA, it is not role or title dependent, though some purist academics may prefer specific roles and rank before making an application. Meaning, as I said in my blog post '
Achieving SFHEA and SCMALT'; "
I believe that if you are doing the work and not in the assumed designated role I.e. in a senior or managerial role, but can provide required and adequate evidence. Why not make an application? The accreditations are there to be claimed.". As it is stated, treat the application as a claim.
Some might view that these fellowships have become easy. I'd disagree and say they've got too stuck in their rigid structures and formats. I think early achievers had it easier before they became too complex, perhaps due to early achievers iterating it and becoming harder - as most schemes like this are, along with educational programmes. And internal scheme team leads will have a different vision that they want to implement. In general there should be more parity across learning technologist type roles as we encourage, enable, and convince academics to develop and apply their digital and innovative approaches beyond their current practices. Especially in those where this does not come natural or generally resist change.
Whilst the external comments below are in response to the National Teaching Fellowship Scheme (NTFS), their perspectives resonate with me.
Puiyin Wong, an influential figure and advocate for learning technologist roles - "The issue I am seeing and indeed fighting a lose battle is that Advance HE isn’t making any recommendation directed to accredited institutions to give these groups a fair chance. Time and time again, so so many stories of colleagues who fall in one of more of these groups are simply denied the opportunity regardless how ready and/or good we are. The NTFS say contribution to teaching, no where does it say only in teaching, yet so so many universities choose to interpret the criteria in the most narrow way imaginable, effectively robbing so so many their opportunities. Someone once said to me, getting their NTF (post nomination) was way easier than trying to fight internal politics and prove their worth and to everyone nominated. It shouldn’t be like this, it should be fair chance for anyone regardless of contract type or any background, if you are good enough, you are good enough. If you are not, even you might be a senior academic, you should not stand in the way of others."
