The following is a summary and possibly some reflection on Newton (2003). I’m still trying to decide if, as I read literature associated with the PhD, if I should take the time to produce these summaries. I wonder if, instead, I should concentrate on writing the thesis….
Essentially illustrates that academics have different perspectives of strategy than management – SNAFU principle perhaps. Suggests need for better understanding of change and policy implementation. Reinforces much of what I think, some nice references, but doesn’t necessarily indicate an appreciation of or if ateleological approaches might be more appropriate.
Examines an attempt to implement a “learning and teaching strategy” within the UK HE context. Describes the background through the 90s – very corporate, quality based. Is an institutional case study into how strategy and policy are “responded to” by academic managers, academic staff and students. Identifies a range of factors that can undermine successful policy implementation. Offers lessons which can inform management, in particular management of change.
Of course, there appears to be an immediate assumption that top-down/strategic change is appropriate. Given my previous post, I’d suggest the possibility that prescribing something may not be the best way to go.
This is a follow on to a previous article (Newton, 1999) around the same institution. The earlier article as more detail on setting, approach etc. The method/approach is described as a “systematic experiment in reflective practice taking the form of an extended conversation with a developing organisational situation”. A “range of methods and sources has been used to provide a basis for stabilizing the views of key order and groups, including the results of a questionnaire survey and data from a series of typed, semi-structured interviews”.
Does mention following the precepts of an ‘appreciated’ approach (Matza, 1969) – is this linked with appreciated inquiry of which I have a sense of disquiet and of which Dave Snowden is quite scathing?
Pressures on higher education institutions
Launching into the, by now, fairly traditional setting of the higher education sector – massive change, competition for students, impact of ICTs forcing change in the delivery of education, low funding, demands for efficiency gains…
Some nice quotes/references
What hasn’t changed is the perception that higher education is beset by what one Vice-Chancellor described as ‘grotesque turbulence’ (Webb, 1994, p. 43). All who work in higher education today continue to have to deal with the ‘complex interaction between the planned and the serendipitous’ (Webb, 1994, p. 43).
The growth of external and internal regulation and monitoring became associated with academic deprofessionalisation. This increased accountability, expressed in various areas of policy and strategy, has been characterised by the rise of ‘audit culture’ (Power, 1994), and by what Shore and Wright (2000, p. 57) have termed the ‘rapid and relentless spread of coercive technologies into higher education’.
Not to mention the rise of problems associated with this sort prescription
By the end ofthe 1990s, many academics had grown resistant to the ‘intrusion’ associated with the growth of the ‘quality industry’ in UK higher education.
Positions the hole for this research in that in the era post-Dearing in the UK there is some caution amongst institutions. Suggests that the profound impact/transformation of academics and teaching has one under-researched and under-theorised.
Development of a L&T strategy – institutional case study
Sets out the context for this case study,
Institution: a “non-elite” institution, teaching-led, rather than research led, expanded during the 90s, underfunded, experienced organisational turbulence and change, leading to unresolved tensions that undermine attempts at improvement, yet to resolve challenges raised by external changes
External regulatory context. Calls for L&T strategies only arose in the 97 with Dearing report. Resulting in two agencies – Institute for Learning and Teaching and Quality Assurance Agency. References and descriptions for this “new managerialism. Wales funding agency pushes for strategies. Most institutions had underdeveloped strategies – few the product of extensive or open consultation.
Institutional policy context. Management saw the need for L&T strategy before the external requirement. Implement version 1.0 by 1997. Implementation issues and version 2.0 developed during 99/2000.
version 1.0 – perspectives of stakeholders
Version 1.0 included a wide-ranging general policy document with specific recommendations, targets and a costed implementation schedule.
Senior management. Raised profile of L&T and assessment issues, generated debate and critical comment. Investment in staff development sessions – with high levels of invovlement. Production of web-based materials only small number of staff. But overall quality improved and measurable extension of teaching packs and directed learning materials.
Staff. Front line academics covered later. Academic managers thought success not easily visible. Implementation patchy. Some deadlines/targets not met, subsequent decrease in perceived value. Some saw aims as idealistic, some to techno-centric, no defintiion of “good teaching and learning”. Most innovators were enthusiasts, who may have innovated regardless of the strategy. In sufficient ownership and a lack of bottom-up commitement.
Students student focus groups not included. Some conclusions about the “thin veneer of student-centredness”.
Academics and implementation of strategy
Front-line academic and policy process. Above suggested it is contested. Coal-face adapt and shape policy. Various references about this.
Policy reception – factors influence implementation. From quantitative data and observation – arise 5 concepts or barriers to implementation
- Loss of ‘front-line’ academics’ autonomy.
Corporotisation increasing institutional requirements/impingement on teaching. The need to demonstrate compliance taking away emphasis on teaching and innovation.
- Policy and strategy overload.
This one certainly resonates with my local context at the moment. The shifting, growing nature of policy and requirements – “the goalposts keep moving”. Uncertainty over expectation.
- Bureaucratisation of teaching.
The rise of “task corruption”. More important to fill in the forms and plans, than actually be a good teacher. Some good quotes here.
- Local practices and local culture.
Seen both negatively and as a source of information. Negatively through “game playing”. Positively illustrating weaknesses of top down policy.
- The ‘shift from teaching to learning’.
This forms part of the prescription embedded within the strategy. Quotes from staff about students wanting to be taught. Disconnect from reality, limited impact on staff.
- Centralised consultation processes lead to a lack of ownership and effort required to support implementation.
Indeed, as has been argued earlier, strategies do not implement themselves or lead automatically to improvement—even where there may be consensus amongst academic managers and front-line academics regarding the ‘desirability’ of a strategy. Even where general principles are agreed, ‘implementation has to be localised and quality enhancement planned for. As Gibbs argues, ‘implementing learning and teaching strategies requires more than a statement of policy’ (HEFCE, 1999b, p. 4).
- Implementation must engage with the tensions that arise.
Implementation reveals tensions as things change, knowledge increases etc. These need to be responded.
- There is no blue print for an L&T strategy.
- There is a need for a greater degree of sophisticiation in institutional thinking in strategic planning and policy implementation.
Suggests the ethnographic approach is useful in highlighting certain perspectives – agree. But there’s also the issue of the single person doing the interpretation.
Strategy driven mostly be external needs, is less likely to succeed.
The nature of universities – characterised by turbulence and uncertainty – require better understanding of change. Wariness of planned change perspectives. need to be more sensitive to the diverse views and practices of the academic community. Policy needs constant evaluation……
Newton, J. (2003). “Implementing an institution-wide learning and teaching strategy: lessons in managing change.” Studies in Higher Education 28(4): 427-441.