Survey results-involvement of people

Fifty-eight percent of responses indicated that a broad cross-section of people were involved in the initiative from design through to implementation and successful outcome. Eighty-two percent of responses stated that those involved in the design of the initiative were also responsible for its implementation. Whereas, only fifty-eight percent of responses indicated that decisions regarding the initiative, as well as responsibility for the successful outcome, was shared. 

Seventy-four percent of responses also stated that participants included academics and professional staff responsible for learning and teaching delivery participated in the initiative. The following quotes illustrate this involvement:

• Each project team is supposed to include a junior academic, a senior academic, the associate dean (education) for the target faculty, and an academic developer. About half of the teams include someone from the institution's learning and teaching unit. There are two academic developers and one former head of a learning and teaching unit on the 11-member steering committee of SaMnet.
• The Project Team comprises both academics and professional staff, who are experienced WIL leaders and chose to be involved. These WIL Leaders are modelling WIL leadership in their project, and encouraging and facilitating WIL leaders to try similar in their contexts, and to network with other WIL leaders in wider national CoP's
• The planning group consisted of academic staff and general staff from different departments within the university. The task had the support of senior management but was led and undertaken by staff who did not have formal responsibilities in the university, but had knowledge and experience of eportfolios
• This project was a problem-based initiative that involved academics, leaders and professional staff.
• The network is the hub linking academic & professional staff. The advisors also act as a distributed network to share workload & consult with each other to plan & solve problems
• The working group included both academic from all Faculties within the university and professional staff from IT, L&T, Quality assurance & HR. We held formal meetings of the working group, sought guidance from the advisory group which comprised mostly academic staff who were interested in the topic. We liaised with the PVC and other senior staff to ensure support for the initiative when it went through Academic Board
• The project I had chosen had previously been developed in different forms twice in the past and never gotten off the ground. By working collaboratively with all stakeholders from the beginning and recognising people and achievements all the way through made this project a success. Also by looking at why the previous attempts had not worked and learning from previous issues and utilising the things that worked well the final project ran extremely well with only a few adjustments requires before final pilot
• Associate Deans (T &L) opted in, with the Dean at each institution supporting, with little involvement, until the results were produced. Extracting cohort data student records from 8 universities involved professional staff in each institution. 

Participation in fifty-nine percent of cases were reliant upon self-selection. This is illustrated by comments such as Faculty representatives were invited to join in organising the initiative, supported by the L&T unit. Staff decided themselves whether to attend / participate.