I just skimmed some of the resources you posted. The one that caught my eye was Distance Education: Facing the Faculty Challenge. Great article. My own experience in trying to promote post-graduate work-based Master's education in a UK university, around 2000, came up against the sort of institutional rigidities the article suggests. (I have only skim read it so might be misinterpreting).
I now use the techniques and methods I used then, and continue to use in a consultancy capacity with the same university and in my own business. I hear from colleagues at the university that there is still concern over quality in work-based programmes. I had stopped arguing about quality with colleagues. Concern with quality is of course appropriate. What I was dscerning was an inability or unwillingness to shift mental models. In designing a wok-based Master's programme, we started with the university-wide definition of the characteristics of Master's level learning - dealing with uncertainty, complexity and demonstrating higher-level cognitive skills like judging, assessing, critically reflecting, choosing, dealing with ambiguity, tensions, paradoxes, trade-off etc.
Eveything we did -drafting learning outcomes, shaping asessment criteria, specifying modes of assessment, was rigorous. Probably a bit of a pain to the students. Our early attempts to demonstrate academic rigour may have disadvantaged some students. Then we realised that no matter how we demonstrated our commitment to quality, we were always going to be accused on being not quite academic, just by the very fact that we were doing something different.
How do we begin the dialogue? How do we begin to communicate to people who have worked in a particular way that there is a place for teaching and there are different ways of learning that increasingly have their place in complex, rapidly changing work environments? From what I hear, that particular conversation still needs to take place in this university.