**8. Conclusions**

The development of a productive teaching environment is key to the success of a modern university. However, in the contemporary economic and political climate of higher education, there are many conflicting and competing discourses that need to be accommodated. Colleagues occupying different roles within the university structure (teacher, administrator, manager) will each have a different perspective on the university—what is important and what should be the institutional focus for the coming years. Inevitably, the development of teaching is a compromise between what we dream of being able to do and what is possible within the current constraints. In order for a university to move forward with a sense of coherence of purpose, the stakeholders within the institution need to have a shared vision of the key elements that make up the teaching environment. When this is achieved, we can talk about the pedagogic health of the institution in positive terms. Where this is not achieved, we might view the pedagogic health in less positive terms—tending towards frailty.

The adoption of appropriate language is an important issue when trying to initiate buy-in from academics (and their managers) to support interventions to enhance teaching quality. Use of the term 'frailty' in this context may invoke fatalistic connotations that were not the intention when originally applying the clinical analogy [26]. Buta et al. [52] have explored the language used in the literature surrounding clinical frailty and have identified some more positive expressions that can be used to better reflect the underlying philosophy of this work (for example, characterizing frailty as 'an opportunity for self-awareness and reflection') that sit better with the original pedagogic frailty model. This can be enhanced using a salutogenic gaze. In order for a salutogenic perspective on PHL to be operationalised within an institution, the network of understanding (Figure 2) needs to be related to productive chains of practice (*sensu* Kinchin and Cabot [53]), that will need to be context-specific. To this end, a modified model of pedagogic frailty is presented (Figure 3). In terms of practical application of this model, the diversity of perspectives revealed by concept mapping is important to help avoid a simplistic binary classification (frail–resilient) as that would preclude the development of individualised routes towards coping and adjustment [32]. Uncovering personal perspectives on the teaching environment [17] provides a shared lexicon to open up the potential for more collaborative discussions, helping to promote the development of a shared perspective underpinned by a set of common values [54]. This is likely to promote more productive dialogue about teaching, and the promotion of an environment that supports greater pedagogic health.

Within the author's university, moves towards a more salutogenic perspective of pedagogic health currently involve initiatives such as supporting a gradual transition from a 'responding-to-student-voice' mode of operation towards a greater degree of 'student–sta ff partnership' [55], as indicated in Figure 2 as a 'life-style choice' for the institution. Such a move is seen to have 'the potential to remedy neoliberal university models and performance self-regulation by o ffering a counternarrative to these dominant trends that imagine a di fferent model of learning between students and sta ff' [56]. Analysis of the practicalities of developing a salutogenic gaze towards PHL across a university is not anticipated to be straightforward within institutions that have developed particular cultures and ways of doing things over many years. It is particularly important that the senior managers in an institution demonstrate a commitment to the counternarrative to ensure that the values that are espoused by the teachers working in partnership with the students are reflected in the language used by and actions demonstrated by the managemen<sup>t</sup> [57].

The clinical literature continues to provide the basis for analogy in describing the variation in the way that frailty is experienced by individuals as they struggle to maintain their daily routines in the context of complicated transitions that create uncertainty [58]. Work on pedagogic frailty suggests a need to raise awareness among professionals (academics and university managers) of the malleability and preventability of frailty and the benefits of having an informed 'navigator' [43] or 'interpreter' [59]—which, in the case of pedagogic frailty, would be an academic developer [60] or learning developer [61]—to assist in steering a route through appropriate interventions. This provides a modified perspective in the role of the academic community as a whole, through a more distributed ownership of pedagogic health [44]. It also requires academic developers to be in a position to support the process of conceptual exaptation of disciplinary concepts for the enhancement of teaching. This may be achieved most e ffectively when academic development becomes a distributed activity [62], and those involved are actively engaged in research with their disciplinary peers [63]. This still requires effort on the part of all stakeholders to engage in professional development to ensure a positive direction of travel along the frailty—resilience continuum. As explained by D'Avanzo et al. [32], 'The resilience of people who succeed is achieved through continuous active development on numerous fronts' (p. 15).

In summary, it makes no sense to consider interrelated aspects of university teaching in isolation. Educational theory and analysis of practice needs to be considered as a connected whole. The salutogenic model of pedagogic health provides a lens to help achieve this goal, and concept mapping provides a tool that emphasises connectivity. Jonas [64] has referred to salutogenesis as an 'anchoring principle' to unify all dimensions of a healthcare system. I sugges<sup>t</sup> here that salutogenesis o ffers grea<sup>t</sup> potential as a concept that can be repurposed to add clarity and a sense of coherence to the teaching endeavour. This added coherence is particularly important in the current context of political and economic uncertainty about the future of higher education and the need to care for our students [65]. To reinterpret comments by Becker et al. [66] by placing them into the discourse of teaching, 'A salutogenic gaze works prospectively by considering how to create, enhance, and improve resilience and provides a framework for researchers, and practitioners to help individuals, and organizations to move towards optimal pedagogic health' (p. 25). This potential seems worth exploring, and the application of concept mapping o ffers a nuanced methodology to do this.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.
