Continuous Change in Higher Education: A Case Study On the Structuredness of Change
Author(s):
Yasar Kondakci Herman Van den Broeck
Conference:
ECER 2008
Network:
22. Research in Higher Education
Format:
Paper

Session Information

22 SES 06C, Changes and Reforms in Higher Education (Part 2)

Paper Session

Time:
2008-09-11
10:30-12:00
Room:
B2 215
Chair:
Monne Wihlborg

Contribution

This study examines one aspect of continuous change, the structuredness of change, in a higher education organization (HEO). Structuredness of change is defined as the level of formal definition of different dimensions of change interventions. Although there is a wide literature documenting different theories and models of change (e.g., Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Burke & Litvin, 1992; Porras & Robertson, 1992; Van de Ven & Poole, 1995), many scholars and practitioners have articulated their dissatisfaction as to the progress of the field in theory and practice mainly because of the inability of the organizations to cope with change needs and high failure rate of change interventions (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Clegg & Walsh, 2004). Why and how higher education organizations change has been one of the major concerns of higher education scholars (Curri, 2002; Kezar, 2005; Kim et al., 2007; Kwiek, 2001; Levin, 2003; Morey, 2004; Taylor et al., 1998). Population level episodic change analyses are dominant in higher education field. One major concern of change research in higher education has focused on understanding whether higher education organizations are inertial or adaptive (Gumport, 2000; Kerr, 1987; Stensaker & Norgård, 2001; Vaira, 2004; Zajac & Kraatz, 1993). There are few empirical analyses on how and why continuous change takes place in higher education context. Hence, there is a need for empirical investigation of continuous change in higher education setting. The concept of structuredness advanced in this study is informed largely by the ideas of organizational ethnomethodologists, who are inspired by the ideas of process philosophers. The main argument of these scholars is that organizational change is an ongoing, informal, and emergent process, which is embedded in micro-level processes during normal functioning of the organization (Feldman, 2000; March, 1981; Orlikowski, 1996; Orr, 1996; Tsoukas & Chia, 2002; Weick, 2000). This is so because “quasi-stable” and open-ended nature of the organizations limits definitional control over the structured aspects of the organizations (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). Regardless of having or not having a formally defined change program, the structured categories are redefined, modified, or readapted on an ongoing basis (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Orr 1996). This study reports evidence on this perspective of continuous change.

Method

This study was designed as a longitudinal case study and utilized qualitative data collection techniques. The study analyzed the internationalization process (OCI) of a higher education organization (HEO) as a change process. Both real-time and retrospective data were collected covering the last six years of the organization. Within-method triangulation of qualitative data collection techniques was implemented in collecting the data. Semi-structured interviews, observations in administrative meetings and classroom settings, and document analyses (accreditation reports, progress reports, minutes of meetings, speeches, lecture notes, publication records, and program coordinators’ documents) were used to collect the data. The data analysis process was carried out according to data reduction, verification and display procedure (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Expected Outcomes

The findings suggest, first, that the HEO structured several managerial and academic dimensions when the OCI was launched. However, the structured domains are continuously modified, updated, or altered based on emerging needs, problems and opportunities. Second, many other managerial, academic and behavioral domains were unstructured at the onset of the OCI process. Throughout time the HEO constantly faces with unanticipated needs, problems, and opportunities, which help the HEO to realize the missing parts and incorporate them into the OCI. The co-existence of structured and unstructured domains suggests that the success of the OCI largely depends on the ability of the HEO to modify the structured domains and incorporate new (unstructured) domains. These findings suggest several insights for conceptualizing and practicing continuous change in higher education context.

References

Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293-315. Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Resolving the tension between theories E and O of change. In M. Beer and N. Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the code of change (pp. 1-35). Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57. Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1-34. Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 532-545. Clegg, C., & Walsh, S. (2004). Change management: Time for a change! European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(2), 217-239. Curri, G. (2002). Reality versus perception: Restructuring tertiary education and institutional organizational change-a case study. Higher Education, 44, 133-151. Feldman, M. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611-629. Gumport, P. J. (2000). Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives. Higher Education, 39, 67-91. Kerr, C. (1987). A critical age in the university world: Accumulated heritage versus modern imperatives. European Journal of Education, 22(2), 183-193. Kezar, A. (2005). Consequences of radical change in governance: A grounded theory approach. Journal of Higher Education, 76(6), 634-668. Kim, T., Shin, D., Oh, H., and Jeong, C. (2007). Inside the iron cage: organizational political dynamics and institutional changes in presidential selection systems in Korean universities, 1985-2002. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(2), 286-323. Kwiek, M. (2001). Social and cultural dimensions of the transformation of higher education in Central and Eastern Europe. Higher Education in Europe, 26(3), 399-410. Levin, J. S. (2003). Organizational paradigm shift and the university colleges of British Columbia. Higher Education, 46, 447-467. March, J. G. (1981). Footnotes to organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4), 563-577. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Morey, A. I. (2004). Globalization and the emergence of for-profit higher education. Higher Education, 48(131-150). Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 63-92. Orr, J. (1996). Talking about machines. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press. Porras, J. I., & Roberston, P. J. (1992). Organizational development: Theory, practice, research. In M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 719-822). Palo Alto CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Stensaker, B., & Norgård, J. D. (2001). Innovation and isomorphism: A case study of university identity struggle 1969-1999. Higher Education, 42, 473-492. Taylor, T., Gough, J., Bundrock, V., & Winter, R. (1998). A bleak outlook: Academic staff perceptions of changes in core activities in Australian higher education, 1991-96. Studies in Higher Education, 23(3), 255-268. Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567-582. Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510-540. Weick, K. E. (2000). Emergent change as a universal in organizations. In M. Beer and N. Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the code of change (pp. 223-241). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Vaira, M. (2004). Globalization and higher education organizational: A framework for analysis. Higher Education, 48, 483-510. Zajac, E. J., & Kraatz, M. S. (1993). A diametric forces model of strategic change: Assessing the antecedents and consequences of restructuring in the higher education industry. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 83-102.

Author Information

Yasar Kondakci
Middle East Technical University
Department of Educational Sciences
Ankara
212
Herman Van den Broeck
Vlerick Leuven-Ghent Management School, Belgium

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.