Internationalisation of the curriculum is increasingly recognised as a pedagogical innovation that can enhance the relevance and quality of higher education and support students in developing the competencies needed to navigate and address complex global challenges (Leask 2015). Despite this, little is known about how Swedish higher education institutions (HEIs) organise support for academics who are expected to integrate these elements into teaching, or under what conditions such support leads to pedagogical change. This study examines how educational development is designed, delivered, and supported, and how different approaches shape academics’ learning and their ability to apply new insights in practice.

Expectancy Value Theory (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002) and Job Demands Resources theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014) guided the analysis, allowing for an exploration of how motivation, expectations, and working conditions influence academic engagement in pedagogical development. A longitudinal, multiphase mixed-methods design was used. A national survey mapped support structures at twenty-six institutions, followed by interviews with twelve educational developers and facilitators. Three IoC-focused development initiatives were then examined through pre, post, and follow-up surveys and interviews with participating academics, together with a content analysis of syllabi. This design made it possible to analyse how development activities are constructed, how they are experienced, and how they interact with institutional and departmental conditions.

Development initiatives that were supported by leadership commitment, targeted resources, and prior needs assessment generated more consistent positive outcomes. Alignment between content and expectations supported satisfaction, while moments of productive misalignment and challenge often prompted deeper learning and, at times, behavioural change. The provision of practical skills and opportunities for aha moments were also identified as central for achieving stronger outcomes. At the same time, teaching conditions such as workload, autonomy in course design, and the timing of teaching opportunities determined whether these insights could be implemented in practice.

The study introduces empirically grounded academic personas and a conceptual framework that together illustrate how individual, departmental, and institutional conditions interact with pedagogical development design. These insights offer evidence-based guidance for educational developers, programme leaders, and institutional actors seeking to support sustainable pedagogical innovation through more coherent and responsive development structures.