Global Best Practices in Professional Development for Faculty and University Staff

Professional development for university staff works best when learning is part of institutional practice rather than an occasional event. A workshop can introduce a useful idea, but staff also need time, relevant examples and support to apply it in teaching, research or professional services.

Global best practices should not be understood as a single model to import unchanged. Universities operate within different funding systems, employment arrangements and educational traditions. The useful task is to adapt well-supported principles to local conditions and evaluate whether they solve an actual problem.

Use international guidance without ignoring context

The OECD guide Fostering Quality Teaching in Higher Education recommends linking professional development to educational objectives, encouraging peer evaluation and coaching, and monitoring impact. These are adaptable design principles, not a guarantee that every programme produces the same result.

The European Standards and Guidelines also address professional development for teaching staff and competence development for support and administrative staff. Although this framework serves the European Higher Education Area, its distinction between teaching capability and support capability offers a useful planning lens elsewhere.

1. Begin with role-specific needs

Identify the capabilities required for particular responsibilities. A new lecturer may need assessment design support; a laboratory technician may need updated safety procedures; an admissions adviser may need better approaches to evaluating non-traditional learning. A generic catalogue rarely serves these needs equally well.

Combine institutional priorities with staff consultation, service reviews and student feedback. Avoid relying only on self-reported preferences: people may request familiar topics while important capability gaps remain unrecognised. Agree a small number of priorities with clear application opportunities.

2. Combine shared foundations with specialist pathways

Some responsibilities cross institutional boundaries, including accessibility, information security and respectful working practices. Others depend on discipline or role. Build shared foundations where appropriate, then offer specialist pathways rather than expecting every colleague to complete the same sequence.

For faculty, a pathway might connect curriculum design, assessment and reflective teaching. For professional services, it might connect process improvement, learner communication and evidence-informed decisions. Leadership development should address how managers enable learning, not only how they supervise performance.

3. Protect time for learning and application

Staff development is unlikely to become routine if it depends entirely on unpaid effort or spare evenings. Include participation and implementation within workload planning. Managers should agree when colleagues can test a new approach and what competing work can be postponed.

Budget for replacement cover where relevant. A technician or front-desk adviser may be unable to leave a service unattended, even when training is nominally available. Access depends on operating arrangements as much as on the existence of a programme.

4. Build learning around real work

Ask participants to improve an actual course, resource or service process. Authentic tasks make the purpose visible and provide evidence for feedback. They also help facilitators identify obstacles that a presentation alone might miss.

In an illustrative example, a cross-functional team examines why adult learners receive conflicting enrolment advice. Admissions staff, programme leaders and learning support colleagues map the process, agree clearer guidance and test it with prospective learners. Development produces a usable improvement rather than only a certificate.

5. Make peer learning structured and constructive

Peer observation, mentoring and communities of practice need clear purposes. A discussion group without an agreed question can become another meeting. A developmental observation without trust may feel like inspection.

• Agree the practice or problem participants will examine.
• Provide a short feedback guide and facilitator support.
• Separate confidential developmental conversations from formal assessment unless explicitly agreed.
• Record transferable lessons without exposing sensitive individual information.
• Return later to discuss what participants applied.

Cross-department exchange can reveal useful alternatives, while disciplinary groups can test subject-specific relevance. Institutions need both. External networks are valuable when colleagues bring learning back and adapt it, rather than treating conference attendance as sufficient evidence of development.

6. Design inclusion into the delivery model

Offer accessible materials, varied participation times and realistic options for colleagues across campuses or time zones. Ensure part-time, fixed-term and sessional staff know whether they are eligible and how participation is supported. Digital delivery can improve access, but it does not remove connectivity or accessibility barriers automatically.

The UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning conference recommendations advocate institution-wide approaches based on equity and inclusion, with learning content and modalities adapted to diverse needs. Universities should apply that same commitment to the learning conditions of their own workforce.

7. Recognise contribution without rewarding certificate accumulation

Recognition should value applied learning, collaboration and sustained improvement. Suitable evidence includes a reviewed teaching resource, a more accessible service process or mentoring that helps colleagues develop their practice. Certificates can record participation, but they should not displace evidence of capability.

Where development informs promotion or appraisal, publish the criteria and offer proportionate ways to demonstrate achievement. Avoid rewarding only highly visible innovations while overlooking careful improvements to essential services.

8. Review results and adapt the programme

Evaluate access, demonstrated learning and application. Ask what participants changed, what prevented implementation and whether intended beneficiaries noticed a difference. Use findings to revise the design, not merely to produce an annual success narrative.

These practices support quality improvement; they are not an official EUCPD, QS or THE scoring framework. Accreditation and ranking remain different processes, and EUCPD membership does not influence ranking eligibility or scores.

Frequently asked questions

Should all development lead to a formal qualification?

No. Qualifications can support substantial learning pathways, while coaching, supervised practice and focused peer review may better suit a specific workplace need.

What should a resource-constrained university prioritise?

Choose a high-value problem, protect a modest amount of staff time and use existing expertise. Evaluate a small, supported intervention before expanding the programme.

Put one principle into operation

Review an existing development pathway against relevance, access, application and evidence. Select the weakest element, assign an owner and agree a review date. Improving these conditions is more useful than adding another disconnected event to the institutional calendar.