Educational innovation is often framed as a necessary response to societal, technological, economic and ecological developments in higher education (Fullan, 2016; Kezar, 2018). Yet many innovation initiatives remain fragmented, short-lived or weakly connected to everyday educational practice.  At the same time, higher education institutions operate in an environment saturated with research-based knowledge about change, improvement and implementation. Innovation models form a central part of this knowledge landscape, as they offer theoretically grounded ways of understanding how innovative change unfolds and how it can be guided. Despite the abundance of such models, however, their influence on educational practice remains limited, with innovations frequently persisting as isolated initiatives rather than becoming sustainably embedded. This gap is not merely a matter of implementation failure, but is rooted in the ways educational innovation itself is conceptualized. Innovation models embed assumptions about change, agency, context, and knowledge use, often drawing on disciplinary traditions that are not always made explicit. Against this background, it becomes relevant to examine how innovation models in education have developed over time, which disciplinary traditions they originate from, and to what extend they attend to conditions that enable sustainable education innovation in practice. The study therefore provides a systematic analysis of 19 established innovation models that are frequently referenced in the context of educational change and innovation, examining how educational research has conceptualized the relationship between theoretical knowledge about change and its translation into practical action in higher education.

The objective of the study is to critically examine how innovation models in education conceptualize change, and how these conceptualizations shape their potential to inform sustainable educational innovation in practice. To this end, the study pursues three interrelated aims. First, it analyses how innovation models in education have evolved over time, making visible shifts in underlying assumptions about change and agency. Second, it examines the disciplinary traditions from which these models originate, as these traditions inform how the relationship between knowledge and action is understood. Third, it assesses to what extent these models attend to key aspects required for sustainable educational innovation, by analysing them against five core dimensions identified by Bocconi, Kampylis & Punie (2013).

Conceptually, the study is grounded in a process-oriented understanding of educational innovation. Innovation is not treated as a single event or product adoption, but as a long-term, multi-layered process that unfolds within complex educational systems (Fullan, 2016; Kezar, 2018). The paper deliberately brings together insights from multiple scientific disciplines, reflecting the inherently interdisciplinary nature of educational innovation. This interdisciplinary grounding is important because different disciplines produce different forms of knowledge about how change works, how actors interact, and how action can be supported. In this way, the study examines under what conceptual conditions research-based knowledge about innovation becomes capable of informing practice, thereby contributing to discussions about the relationship between knowing and acting in higher education.

The European and international relevance of this study lies in its broad theoretical scope and its focus on higher education as a shared context across countries. Innovation models are often transferred across national and institutional boundaries without sufficient reflection on their theoretical assumptions or contextual fit. This paper provides a framework for critically selecting or combining innovation models in ways that are sensitive to institutional scale, cultural context and the intended depth of change.

The study is based on a scoping review methodology, following the approach outlined by Westphaln et al. (2021). A systematic literature search was conducted in the ERIC database (via EBSCOhost) between December 2023 and February 2024. An English-language search query was developed focusing on innovation, implementation processes, conceptual or theoretical frameworks and higher education contexts. The initial search resulted in 185 peer-review publications. These were screened using four inclusion criteria: (1) a primary focus on innovation as a process rather than a product, (2) explicit reference to an innovation model, framework or theory, (3) relevance to educational contexts, particularly higher education, and (4) an international orientation rather than a country-specific focus. After screening, 54 publications remained for full analysis. From these sources, 19 distinct innovation models were identified. Each model was analysed along three analytical dimensions. First, the models were ordered chronologically to examine their historical development. Second, each model was categorized according to its dominant disciplinary origin. Third, the models were assessed using a structured scoring framework based on the five core aspects of educational innovation proposed by Bocconi et al. (2013). The scoring of the models was conducted independently by two researchers to enhance reliability. Differences in scoring were discussed until consensus was reached. This qualitative-quantitative approach allowed for a systematic comparison of models while retaining sensitivity to theoretical nuance. This analysis therefore goes beyond a historical or descriptive account and examines how different research traditions have produced distinct representations of change and different assumptions about how theoretical knowledge can inform practical action in educational settings.

The findings demonstrate a persistent mismatch between how educational innovation is conceptualised in research and how it is enacted in practice. Early innovation models predominantly frame change in terms of individual behaviour, motivation, or adoption decisions, relying on linear or stage-based logics in which knowledge functions as prescriptive guidance for implementation. More recent models adopt broader, system-oriented perspectives that emphasise interactions among individuals, organisational structures, culture, and long-term learning. In these models, knowledge is framed not as instruction, but as a resource for collective sense-making in complex contexts. Although this shift reflects an important reorientation within educational research regarding what counts as actionable knowledge about change, the analysis shows that earlier assumptions persist. Instead, multiple and often incompatible logics coexist. Educational practice and policy continue to rely heavily on linear and instrumental approaches to innovation, frequently informed by earlier models that simplify pedagogical and organisational complexity. As a result, the analytical potential of more recent models remains underutilised, and the gap between theoretical knowledge about educational change and its enactment in practice is largely maintained. The disciplinary origins of innovation models further reinforce this pattern. Most widely cited models stem from psychology and organisational studies, while explicitly educationally grounded models remain scarce. Consequently, many innovation efforts prioritise behaviour change, adoption, or organisational alignment, while treating learning, pedagogy, and curriculum as secondary or implicit concerns. This imbalance helps explain why higher education innovations frequently struggle to reconcile pedagogical ambitions with organisational and managerial demands. Taken together, these findings indicate that innovation models constitute a largely underexamined factor in the knowledge-to-action gap in higher education. The issue is not the absence of models, but their unreflective use with implicit assumptions about change and practice. When used in narrow or instrumental ways, innovation models may reproduce rather than solve the problems they target.

Baregheh, A., Sambrook, S., & Rowley, J. (2009). Towards a Multidisciplinary Definition of Innovation. Management Decision 47(8), 1323-1339. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740910984578 Bocconi, S. Kampylis, P. & Punie, Y. (2013). Framing ICT-enabled Innovation for Learning: the case of one-to-one learning initiatives in Europe. European Journal of Education 48(1), 113-130. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12021 Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Machine studies, 39, 475-487. https://doi.org/10.1006/imms.1993.1022 Fullan, M. (2009). The Challenge of Change: Start School Improvement Now! (second edition). Corwin & SAGE Ltd Fullan, M. (2016). The NEW meaning of educational change (Fifth;5; ed.). Teachers College Press. Gess-Newsome, J., Southerland, S. A., Jonhnston, A., & Woodbury, S. (2003). Educational reform, personal practical theories and dissatisfaction: The anatomy of change in college science teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 731-767. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040003731 Hall, G. E., & Ford, S. M. (1987). Change in Schools: Facilitating the Process. State University of New York Press, Albany. Jonker, H., März, V., & Voogt, J. (2020). Curriculum flexibility in a blended curriculum. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, https://doi.org /10.14742/ajet.4926 Kezar, A. (2018). How college change: understanding, leading and enacting change. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315121178 Kirschner, P. A., Paas, F., Wopereis, I. G. J. H., & Hendriks, M. (2005). Determinants for failure and success of innovation projects: The road to sustainable innovations. Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. The Leadership challenge. San Francisco, CA. OECD. (2005). Oslo Manual: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data (3e druk). OECD Publishing. Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. Free Press of Glencoe. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusions of Innovations (Fifth Edition). Free Press, New York. Schaap, L. & Vanlommel, K. (2024). Why so many change efforts fail: using paradox theory as a lens to understand the complexity of educational change. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2023.2298210 Tappel, A. P. M. (2024). The sustainability of Educational Innovations. [proefschrift]. Universiteit Twente. https://doi.org/10.3990/1.9789036561174 Tidd, J. & Bessant, J. (2013). Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change. West Sussex, UK.: Wiley. Westphaln, K. K., Regoeczi, W., Masotya, M., Vazquez-Westphaln, B., Lounsbury, K., McDavid, L., Lee, H., Johnson, J., & Ronis, S. D. (2021). From arksey and O’Malley and beyond: Customizations to enhance a team-based, mixed approach to scoping review methodology. Methodsx, 8, 101375-101375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2021.101375