An Analysis of Frameworks for Research on Innovation and Change in Higher Education

Abstract

This paper seeks to facilitate research on the processes of innovation and change in higher education, an area of scholarly endeavor which is attracting much interest of late. To meet this goal, a conceptual distinction is first drawn between the broad process of organizational change and the more specific processes of purposive change and innovation. Then, a typology of four research frameworks relevant to innovation and change is presented and illustrated through exemplary studies in the field of higher education. Using techniques of causal modeling, a prototypic flowgraph is constructed to capture the major features of each framework. Flowgraphs are cast in terms of posited relationships between generic variables which can be operationalized to suit the particular needs and setting of a given study. The authors further suggest that the most productive research on change and innovation in higher education will be based on sound theoretical reasoning employing combinations of the four frameworks. They argue that the specificity inherent in causal modeling can clarify important conceptual issues and thereby promote more informative investigation.

Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature

“…The HER community also has a strong history of studying change and has produced at least two significant reviews of the literature (Dill & Friedman, 1979; Kezar, 2001). However, unlike the FDR community, the HER community is much more interested in developing perspectives and methodologies for studying how change happens rather than proposing strategies for making change happen.…”

The maintenance of curriculum-development activities in government medical schools in Indonesia

“…The enduring problems of planned organizational change and difficulties of implementation (e.g., Dill & Friedman, 1979; Parker, 1980), and the need to find mechanisms to maintain innovations after the intervention phase (e.g., Gross, Giacquinta & Bernstein, 1971; Bennis et al , 1976; Elton, 1981) make this evidence of maintenance of change, based on educational bureaux, most impressive. However impressive this appears, a crucial consideration remains that of the substance of curriculum changes (and their relevance to the health needs of the community) brought about by these activities.…”

“…In higher education a number of reviewers have alluded to the paucity of knowledge about the implementation phase of planned organizational change (e.g. Gross, Giacquinta & Bernstein, 1971; Baldridge & Deal, 1975; Dill & Friedman, 1979). In Indonesia, and in many other countries in the developing world, there have been inherited traditional Western‐based systems of medical education (Blunt, 1979) which in many instances have been found to be ill adapted to the fulfilment of national health goals and to changing concepts of medical manpower training needs.…”

Bringing the State Back In: Promoting and Sustaining Innovation in Public Higher Education

“…There is an extensive literature in the field on innovation in higher education. In the USA, the literature focuses almost exclusively on the factors underlying the rise and inevitable fall of college innovation (Grant and Riesman, 1978;Dill and Friedman, 1979;Levine, 1980). Levine (1980), for example, argues that innovation will be sustained only when the innovation is both compatible and profitable within the goals of the organisation.…”