| Abstract: | To many teaching in universities in this country, the whole idea of developing staff seems slightly absurd. After all, did we not choose to work in a university because we had already reached a position of some academic standing in our own specialisation; and surely is not the essential function of an academic to extend the boundaries of knowledge through scholarship and research? Perhaps this is too narrow a view of staff aims, but certainly it is still the widely held belief that promotion comes more readily this way. It is only recently that interest has been shown in the nature of teaching in universities. Doubts have been expressed by Bligh (1972) and others about the effectiveness of the traditionally accepted lecture approach; and attention has recently been given to small group teaching, individualised instruction, the Keller plan and other alternative methods. The emphasis placed on such methods could suggest that staff development is concerned largely with teaching‐‐yet is this not an absurdity in an environment which values mainly scholarship and research? This conflict is one of the major problems facing staff development, and solving it may‐‐to some extent‐be at the heart of the problem of responsibility In this paper, I will look briefly at some of the early work done in universities in the field of staff development, and suggest certain important character traits needed by anyone involved in this work, before posing questions of responsibility |
