As noted in the Research Handbook on the Transformation of Higher Education (Leisyte, Dee, & van der Meulen, 2023), higher education transformation has been widely discussed and debated, but the resulting picture remains clouded by multiple, sometimes contradictory perspectives. As argued in the introductory chapter (Dee, van der Meulen, & Leisyte, 2023), some research suggests that higher education has already undergone a massive transformation, as technologies, markets, and government policies have yielded significant changes in the daily operations of universities (Deem, Hillyard, & Reed, 2007; Geiger, 2004; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). Other studies, however, note that higher education is a highly institutionalized field where the rate of change is low, norms and traditions exalt the status quo, and decoupled organizational structures forestall new initiatives (Krücken, 2003; Rehberg, 2009).

These contradictions and paradoxes have been discussed in five streams of literature: 1) warnings about the effects of neoliberal and managerial transformations, 2) reminders that traditional academic norms and values are alive and well, 3) praises for the potential of disruptive innovations and transformative technologies for improving quality and efficiency, 4) blueprints for college and university managers to transform their institutions, and 5) concerns that higher education transformation has merely exacerbated the stratification and inequalities that have long characterized many systems (Dee, van der Meulen, & Leisyte, 2023). This panel aims to shed light on these streams, addressing some of the new actors fostering higher education transformation, as well as delving into the processes of change and resistance at higher education institutions.

To conceptualize the role of higher education actors in transformation, we draw upon Wheatley’s (2006) notion that transformational change occurs through coevolutionary processes that involve complex and iterative interactions among internal and external stakeholders. In higher education, transformation is often the result of intertwined efforts by multiple actors in formal venues (multi-actor governance systems and planned change), as well as through informal and spontaneous interactions that generate emergent change. This nexus of intertwined interests and interactions – internal and external, planned and emergent – suggests that there are possibilities for enhancing collaboration among actors at multiple levels who seek to transform higher education. Another possibility, however, is that these intertwined interests simply reflect a convergence in the priorities of elite actors. Under those conditions, transformations occur, but the residual effects only deepen the stratification and inequality of higher education.

Collectively, the presentations in this first part of the symposium offer in-depth analyses of the socio-political, technological, and market forces that are transforming higher education. The authors provide a multi-level perspective on higher education transformation by conceptualizing change at the field, system, and organizational levels. Furthermore, we identify core concepts and theories that scholars can use to conduct further research on higher education transformation.

Dee, J., van der Meulen, B., & Leisyte, L. (2023). Conceptualizing higher education transformation. In L. Leisyte, J. Dee, & B. van der Meulen (Eds.). Research handbook on the transformation of higher education. Edwards Elgar. Deem, R., Hillyard, S., & Reed, M. (2007). Knowledge, higher education, and the new managerialism: The changing management of the UK universities. Oxford University Press. Geiger, R. (2004). Knowledge and money: Research universities and the paradox of the marketplace. Stanford University Press. Giroux, H. (2014). Neoliberalism's war on higher education. Haymarket Books. Feher, M. (2018). Rated agency: Investee politics in a speculative age. Zone Books. Kezar, A. (2018). How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change (2nd ed.). Routledge. Krücken, G. (2003). Learning the new, new thing: On the role of path dependency in university structures. Higher Education, 46(3), 315-339. Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G., & Koch, J. (2009). Organizational path dependence: Opening the black box. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 689-709. Rehberg, K. (2009). Universität als Institution. In F. Felten, A. Kehnel, & S. Weinfurter (Eds.), Institution und Charisma (pp. 9-32). Köln, Weimar, Wien: Böhlau. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press. Wheatley, M. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.