INFORMAL FACULTY LEADERSHIP IN BLENDED LEARNING: A CASE STUDY IN PHILIPPINE HIGHER EDUCATION

Abstract

Blended learning initiatives in Philippine higher education expanded following pandemic-driven mandates for flexible delivery. However, existing capacity-building initiatives have largely focused on formal academic leaders or on developing individual faculty competencies. Faculty who influence colleagues’ blended learning practices without formal authority remain underrepresented in institutional programs. This study examined the conditions that supported and hindered informal faculty leadership in blended learning and considered how these conditions inform the design of capacity-building initiatives. The study was conducted as an exploratory qualitative instrumental case study within a multi-campus Philippine public university system. Participants were 20 faculty members identified as informal leaders in blended learning through peer, administrator, or self-nomination. Data were gathered through individual semi-structured interviews, a focus group discussion, and document review, and were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis to develop interpretive insights across participants’ accounts. The analysis produced four interrelated insights. First, informal leadership was enacted through contribution-oriented practice grounded in practical problem-solving, developing and sharing instructional materials, modeling, and collegial support rather than formal authority. Second, influence depended on legitimacy and voluntary uptake, making informal leadership relational and negotiated. Third, blended learning functioned as institutional infrastructure that sustained instructional continuity during disruption while operating under persistent constraint. Fourth, informal leadership developed as a patterned compensatory response to institutional misalignment, where institutional expectations exceeded available structural support. The study contributes a structural conceptualization of informal faculty leadership as compensatory institutional work and offers a conceptual lens that reframes capacity building in blended learning as a matter of institutional alignment rather than professional development alone. Strengthening informal leadership therefore requires attention not only to individual capability, but also to how workload, infrastructure, authority, and recognition are aligned with institutional expectations. Without such alignment, informal leadership remains compensatory and vulnerable to strain. Future research may examine institutional misalignment in other reform contexts beyond blended learning, explore how institutional alignment can be strengthened across higher education settings, and examine how compensatory informal leadership evolves over time.