Though this paper has rather more title than is necessary, it is certainly a worthwhile read, especially if you have an interest in the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) at the university level. The vignette the authors use top support the case is worth reading on its own merits, a concise summary of Shulman's analysis 'signature pedagogies' such as clinical rounds in medicines, the legal case in law, the design project in engineering, and homiletics in ministry. This work - which shows that these pedagogies have a bias toward practice - can be used as a platform for the development of greater understanding of teaching in other disciplines. I think the case can be made that we can learn from a scholarly approach to teaching and learning. But I am less convinced that this work needs to be organized and strategized at a national level. People always assume, if only research were managed centrally, with all the research orchestrated, it would be so much better. But I see no evidence to support that, and quite a bit against. So while I would certainly support strengthening communications capacities, I would prefer things to remain more of a 'network of practice', and less of a 'community of practice'.