This paper is part of a Doctorate in Education at Maynooth University in Ireland. The primary research question is “What do stakeholders consider important for change leadership in an emerging Technological University?” The sub-research question that is the focus of this paper is “What are the contextual and cultural factors for change?”

In addition to dramatic disruptions because of Covid 19, major issues exist in the Irish Higher Education, which include increased workload, reduced staff development opportunities and concerns over investment in information technology, which lead to inefficiencies (QQI 2016). A number of key areas for development in Ireland’s Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) have been identified and include quality culture and systems, resources and leadership development and technology (Higher Education Authority 2017). In the context of most Institutes of Technology (ITs) merging to become Technological Universities (TUs), change and leadership have never been so important.

Having carried out a systematic literature review on change and leadership in Higher Education (Author, 2022), the topic of change drivers was identified as a key theme. Change drivers included globalisation and an emerging technological revolution (Geraiden et al. 2018). Managerialism or New Public Management resulting in structural governance and institutional changes is also seen as a change driver where HEIs are becoming more decentralised from government with increased focus on efficiency (Howells et al. 2014). Other drivers are associated with making HEIs more responsive to market needs (Kohtamaki 2019), internationalisation (Said et al. 2015) as well as diversity, climate change and environmental sustainability (Dahlvig 2018). More recently, research is emerging in relation to how HEI’s have coped with the change driver of Covid-19 (Makaram et al, 2021) and how they are addressing gender balance (Gebretsadik 2021)

Contextual factors were identified as another key theme when researching change. One factor is the type of HEI model and its power structures (Tjeldvoll 2011) as well as its developmental stage (Dobi 2012). Cultural influences and traditions are also important for leadership and performance of higher education (Tjeldvoll 2011). Collins (2014) suggests that any effort to encourage or teach leadership will fail unless the distinctive challenges of higher education’s individualistic culture is considered.

Schein & Schein (2016) emphasise that leadership and culture formation are two sides of the same coin, and that the role of leadership changes with the growth and development of an organisation. In relation to assessing organisational culture, Schein and Schein (2016) believe the Cameron and Quinn’s Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) based on a competing values framework, represents an interesting culture model, which they believe makes sense and helps describe the human experience.

Complexity Theory was chosen as a suitable theoretical lens. Mason (2008) outlines that complexity theory looks at complex systems as open systems, which survive through evolution and adaptation. He believes that organisations are complex, with many connected elements or agents, which facilitate the sharing of knowledge through formal bureaucratic structures and informal social networks.

This paper will examine the contextual factors, including change drivers of an emerging technological university in Ireland that was formed through the merging of three Institutes of Technology. It will also assess the current and preferred culture of this new university, using the organisational leadership dimensions of the OCAI from Cameron and Quinn (2011). This research will build on existing literature and form a strong foundation for the exploration of change leadership, which is an underdeveloped area of research in higher education.

It is hoped that this research will be timely and relevant to other researchers and HEIs across Europe undergoing significant change and provide insights into key cultural and contextual factors that are important for consideration. 

From a research design perspective, a mixed methods approach, using both qualitative and quantitative research methods was used in this study. A key feature of this mixed methods approach is its methodological pluralism, which frequently leads to superior results when compared to taking one method (Burke Johnson & Onwuegbuzie 2004). This pluralist approach, generally seen as a pragmatic philosophical paradigm, avails of the strengths of both methods and will help identify actionable, practical solutions for the stakeholders to consider. The overall scope of this doctoral research consisted for four stages as follows: Stage 1 involved a qualitative review using NVIVO of the TU application document to assess the initial common voice of the emerging TU and assess word frequency and emerging themes. Stage 2 builds on this context and involved an online focus group with a representative sample of senior management (both academic and support staff) from each of the three merging organisations (18 participants). A pre-focus group survey was conducted to gather demographic data of participants and initial insights into change leadership themes. In addition, each participant was asked to use the OCAI organisational leadership dimension and rate the four quadrants of collaborate, create, compete and control. The focus of this stage was on obtaining participant perceptions on change drivers, change and leadership as well as discuss and agree the culture of the organisation. The preferred culture was also identified for the emerging TU. Stage 2 focus groups were recorded and transcribed as well as coded and analysed using NVIVO. Stage 3 involved an online survey for all staff in the three organisations. 371 participants successfully completed the survey resulting in confidence level of 95%. SPSS was utilised to analyse the quantitative data from the survey and the open question responses were coded in NVIVO also. Stage 4 involved an interview with the new TU president to discuss the preliminary findings from the previous stages, including the topics of context, change drivers and culture. Note a pre-interview survey was completed by the President similar to Stage 2, which included the OCAI culture assessment. The qualitative data from this interview was transcribed and analysed using NVIVO as per Stage 2. The primary source of data utilised to respond to this paper’s research question was from the Stage 2 focus groups. Findings from the other stages, particularly stage 3 and 4 were used to support these findings.

Many external change drivers previously identified in literature were also identified in this research, including Covid, equality, diversity and inclusion. The topic of gender balance was prominent, especially for leadership positions. The regulatory environment of compliance was seen as a key external driver of change. Other external drivers included internationalisation, sustainability, industry engagement and technology. The TU merging process was also a big change driver. Internal change drivers were associated with the source of change, either from the top down or bottom up such as staff, trade unions and the leadership team. From a contextual perspective, the TU was perceived as being complex and evolving. Tensions were identified between academic and support staff, where trust and respect may not be equally shared. In the context of an emerging TU, the organisational size and structures were seen as important factors as well as the potential to reduce duplication and improve efficiencies and invest in technology. Out of the four OCAI culture quadrants of Collaborate (clan), Create (innovate), Compete (market) and Control (hierarchy). Control was identified across the three organisations as being the most dominant. Compete was the lowest aggregate score. In terms of preferred culture, the Collaborate culture was growing in importance, especially due to the TU merger and should be strengthened. Due to external regulatory and quality requirements, Control (hierarchal) culture was seen as a necessity but something that should be constrained. Overall, a balanced approach between the four quadrants was seen as desirable by the management staff and President. It is hoped that this research has provided useful findings for researchers as well as HEI’s across Europe and that through ECER 2023, this research will act as a stimulus to carry out comparative cultural and contextual analysis internationally with other researchers to further develop this research area.

Burke Johnson, R, Onwuegbuzie A, 2004. ‘Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come,’ Educational Researcher, vol.33, no. 7, pp. 14-26. Cameron, K.S., Quinn R.E. 2011, “Diagnosing and Changing Organisational Culture,” Jossey-Bass, Third Edition. Collins, J.P. 2014, "Leadership and Change in Twenty-First Century Higher Education", BioScience, vol. 64, no. 7, pp. 561-562. Dahlvig, J.E. 2018, "Flourishing for the Common Good: Positive Leadership in Christian Higher Education During Times of Change", Christian Higher Education, vol. 17, no. 1-2, pp. 97-109. Dobi, T. 2012, "Major changes to leadership, management, and organizational structure: The case of the European University of Tirana", International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 107-119. Gebretsadik DM., 2022,” An Exploration of Change Leadership at Public Higher Education Institutions in Ethiopia,” Sage Open, 1-11. Gelaidan, H.M., Al-Swidi, A. & Mabkhot, H.A. 2018, "Employee Readiness for Change in Public Higher Education Institutions: Examining the Joint Effect of Leadership Behavior and Emotional Intelligence", International Journal of Public Administration, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 150-158. Higher Education Authority. 2017, Higher Education System Performance 2018-2020. Higher Education Authority. Available from: https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Education-Reports/higher-education-system-performance-framework-2018-2020.pdf [Accessed on 27 Dec 2019] Howells, J.R.L., Karataş-Özkan, M., Yavuz, Ç. & Atiq, M. 2014, "University management and organisational change: A dynamic institutional perspective", Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 251-270. Kohtamäki, V. 2019, "Academic leadership and university reform-guided management changes in Finland", Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 70-85. Mason, M 2008, ‘Complexity theory and the philosophy of education’, Educational Philosophy & Theory, vol. 40(1), pp. 4-18, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00412.x. Mukaram AT., Mukaram Ali Khan KR., Danish RQ., Zubair SS., “Can adaptive–academic leadership duo make universities ready for change? Evidence from higher education institutions in Pakistan in the light of COVID-19,” Management Research Review, vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 1478-1498. QQI, 2016, Quality in an era of diminishing resources, Irish higher education 2008-15,’ QQI. Available from: https://www.qqi.ie/Publications/Publications/Quality%20in%20an%20Era%20of%20Diminishing%20Resources%20Report%20(FINAL%20March%202016).pdf. Said, H., Ahmad, I., Mustaffa, M.S. & Ghani, F.A. 2015, "Role of campus leadership in managing change and challenges of internationalization of higher education", Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 6, no. 4S1, pp. 82-88. Tjeldvoll, A. 2011, "Change leadership in universities: The Confucian dimension", Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 219-230.