Parallels between philosophy and academic development: under-labourers, critics, or leaders?

How should we conceptualise the role of academic developers? Academic development is criticised for being (1) under-theorized, (2) overly reflexive, and (3) intellectually fragmented. This paper attempts to address these concerns by drawing parallels between these criticisms and long-standing debates in philosophy. Philosophers have debated their role in academia: whether they should be seen as under-labourers, critics, or even leaders in relation to other disciplines. They, too, have been criticised for being overly reflexive and intellectually fragmented. A recognition of parallels, and differences, between such debates and those in academic development can help provide the conceptual resources to address the three criticisms.