Objective, research question and general background description

The objective of this study is to display how innovation in higher education can be understood in light of formal and informal leadership processes and how these are played out within established institutional practices. We investigate this by asking the research question: What characterizes the innovation processes and how do leaders interact and navigate on different arenas during these processes? We use a case from teacher education in Norway regarding a new format of the master thesis to illustrate the phenomenon. This case contrasts with other typical challenges concerning innovation in higher education where education and research usually follow established patterns (Frølich & Thune, 2020).

Leadership of innovation involves supporting new practices that challenge established routines (Carvalho et al., 2021). Despite reforms and policy signals, changes in higher education occur slowly due to established institutional practices and weak traditions for educational leadership at different levels (Hermansen, 2020). In policy documents innovation is described as a core task for the sector, alongside research, education, and dissemination (St. Meld. 5, 2022–2023).

Teacher education, marked by strong traditions and extensive quality assurance routines, offers limited room for innovation (Afdal & Lorentzen, 2023; Mausethagen et al., 2023). In Norway, teacher education is regulated through legal rules and a policy framework that restrict autonomy and space for innovation (Ministry of Education and Research, 2016). Nonetheless, examples of innovations that lead to changes do exist. In this paper, we examine the leadership of an innovation process in teacher education that resulted in the development of the "entrepreneurial master’s thesis." This kind of thesis differs from traditional written master thesis while it combines a product, written justification, and oral reflection (Bjørkvold, 2023, 2024). Led by a teacher educator this initiative also challenged traditional formats by emphasizing research-based teaching and practice.

Theoretical framework

Educational leadership and innovative work in higher education can be understood as institutional practices (Møller & Rönnberg, 2021) where educational leaders are responsible for setting goals, ensuring quality, supporting staff and adapting to policy changes. Formal leaders, such as deans, and department heads, hold explicit leadership responsibilities, while informal leaders among academic and administrative staff might take initiatives and responsibility in specific contexts. This case illustrates an initiative where formal and informal leaders collaborate on a specific task.

Within a cultural-historical activity framework, institutional practices in higher education encompass pedagogical, epistemic, organizational, and governance practices (Hermansen, 2020). While pedagogical practices focus on teaching quality and methods, epistemic practices concern knowledge creation and use. Organizational practices involve systems supporting education, and governance practices address the institution's compliance with policies and strategic objectives. Leadership involves navigating between these practices and educational leaders must skillfully manage tensions and contradictions to support institutional development.

The dataset includes documents, interviews with students, evaluation surveys, observation notes from seminars and completed master's theses. The findings are presented as a narrative grounded in analyses of national policy documents, internal work on curricula and guidelines, thesis examples, and input from students, supervisors, and examiners (Silverman, 2011). The analysis followed two steps where relevant activities, such as proposals for the new thesis format, decision-making meetings, and discussions on evaluation guidelines, were identified and chronologically organized. Next, these activities were examined in relation to formal and informal leadership contributions, drawing on the analytical concepts related to the analytical framework on institutional practices. The narrative illustrates how formal and informal leadership facilitated the innovation process, highlighting collaborative dynamics and contributions from various actors within institutional structures. The study provides insights into leadership’s role in balancing established institutional practices and innovation to achieve sustainable change in higher education.

Results demonstrate that the innovation was made possible through the interplay between formal and informal leadership. Formal leadership was manifested through governance and organizational practices, anchored in the formal leadership roles at different levels in the organization. Concurrently, an informal leader, a teacher educator (the innovator) played a key role in developing the ideas, driving the initiative forward, and securing institutional anchoring. Collaboration across organizational arenas and levels, where formal leaders collaborated with the administration staff, was crucial for integrating the innovation into the institution’s structures (Møller, 2021). Time and timing were also critical: The innovation was introduced gradually and grounded in local academic communities, reducing resistance and ensuring support (Helstad & Mausethagen, 2022). The findings illustrate how the innovation challenged traditional pedagogical and epistemic practices but was legitimized by combining professional orientation with academic standards (Carvalho et al., 2021). The innovation expanded rapidly. Within three years, the number of students choosing the new master’s thesis format increased from 4 to 76, and the innovation model was also adopted by other institutions. The study brings forward and underscores how the interaction between formal and informal leadership, combined with trust, and strategic work might facilitate successful innovation processes in higher education, where established institutional practices are challenged, and new practices are integrated into the institution's structure and culture.

Afdal, H. W. & Lorentzen, M. (2023). Bachelor- og masteroppgaversom uttrykk for forskningsbasering i lærerutdanningene. [Bachelor’s and master’s theses as expressions of research-based practices in teacher education]. I S. Bøyum, J. Caspersen, S. Mausethagen, T. S. Prøitz & F. W. Thue (Red.), En forskningsbasert skole? Forskningens plass i lærerutdanning og skole (s. 149-175). Universitetsforlaget. Bjørkvold, T. (2023). Hvordan masteroppgaver kan skape bedre lærere. [How can master’s theses create better teachers.] Bedre skole, (3), 32-37. https://www.utdanningsnytt.no/bedre-skole-laererutdanning-master/hvordan-masteroppgaver-kan-skape-bedre-laerere/377207 Bjørkvold, T. (2024). En profesjonsrettet og forskningsbasert masteroppgave. [A profession oriented and research based master thesis.] Uniped, 47(4), 268-282. https://doi.org/10.18261/uniped.47.4.4 Carvalho, A., Teixeira, S. J., Olim, L., Campanella, S. d. & Costa, T. (2021). Pedagogical innovation in higher education and active learning methodologies – a case study. Education & training 63(2), 195-213. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-05-2020-0141 Frølich, N. & Thune, T. (2020). Hva skjer i universiteter og høgskoler? [What’s up in higher education?] I N. Frølich (Red.), Hva skjer i universiteter og høgskoler? Perspektiver fra vitenskapelig ansatte og studenter (1. utg., s. 11-24). Universitetsforlaget. Hermansen, H. (2020). In pursuit of coherence: Aligning program development in teacher education with institutional practices. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(6), 936-952. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1639815 Helstad, K. & Mausethagen, S. (2022). Skoleutvikling: I forskning, politikk og praksis. [School development: Research, politics and praxsis.] I K. Helstad & S. Mausethagen (Red.), Skoleutvikling: I forskning, politikk og praksis (1. utg., s. 15-34). Cappelen Damm akademisk. Kunnskapsdepartementet. (2016). Forskrift om grunnskolelærerutdanning for trinn 1-7. [Regulation of primary school teacher education.] https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2016-06-07-860 Mausethagen, S., Bøyum, S., Caspersen, J., Prøitz, T. & Thue, F. W. (2023). Forskningsen rolle i skole og lærerutdanning. [The role of research in school and teacher education.] I S. Bøyum, J. Caspersen, S. Mausethagen, T. S. Prøitz & F. W. Thue (Red.), En forskningsbasert skole? Forskningens plass i lærerutdanning og skole (s. 10-21). Universitetsforlaget. Møller, J. & Rönnberg, L. (2021). Critical perspectives in and approaches to educational leadership in two Nordic countries. I S. J. Courtney, H. M. Gunter, R. Niesche & T. Trujillo (Red.), Understanding educational leadership : critical perspectives and approaches. Bloomsbury Academic. Silverman, D. (2011). Interpreting qualitative data: A guide to the principles of qualitative research (4. utg.). SAGE. St. Meld. 5 (2022-2023). Langtidsplan for forskning og høyere utdanning 2023–2032. [Long term plan for research and higher education 2023-2032.] Kunnskapsdepartementet. Regjeringen. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/meld.-st.-5-20222023/id2931400/?ch=1#:~:text=M%C3%A5let%20om%20styrket%20konkurransekraft%20og%20innovasjonsevne%20er%20avgj%C3%B8rende,satsinger%20og%20prioriteringer%20innenfor%20forskning%20og%20h%C3%B8yere%20utdanning.