GAIHE Survey Report Results, by Andrew Gibson & Ellen Hazelkorn. Governance and Adaptation to Innovative Modes of the Higher Education Provision Project
2. www.dit.ie/hepru
Overview
This survey attempts to answer a number of specific questions:
• How does the management of universities adapt to
innovations?
• What, if any, are the new modes of education provision?
• What is the role of university governance in establishing and
regulating innovative modes of education provision?
• What are the motivations, barriers and drivers for innovative
education provision?
Throughout the survey, the emphasis is on innovation for
education, rather than any other potential outcomes.
3. www.dit.ie/hepru
Survey Background
• Survey from the Governance and
Adaptation to Innovative Modes of Higher
Education Provision (GAIHE) Project,
funded by the Education, Audiovisual and
Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) through
the Lifelong Learning Programme.
• Survey conducted from 31/3/14 to 18/4/14
• Results from Report on the Survey of
Governance and Adaptation to Innovative
Modes of Higher Education Provision
(GAIHE).
• Online at:
http://arrow.dit.ie/aaschsslrep/26/
4. www.dit.ie/hepru
Innovation Definition
• Derived from the OECD’s Oslo Manual: Guidelines for
Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data (2005):
“An innovation is the implementation of a new or significantly
improved product (good or service), or process, a new marketing
method, or a new organisational method in business practices,
workplace organisation or external relations.” (§146)
• Survey defined innovation as a “change with an
increased ADDED value, replacing an existing product
or production method”, implemented since 2008.
5. www.dit.ie/hepru
Literature Review: I
• 4 suggested drivers of innovation:
1. Knowledge Economy/Society (Valimaa and Hoffman 2008;
Brennan et al. 2014; Istance and Kools 2013; Redecker et al. 2009)
2. Accessibility (Tuomi 2013; Jones and Lau 2010; Barber et al. 2013)
3. Disruptive Innovation (Bleed 2007; Istance 2011; Flavin 2013)
4. Financial Pressures (Blin and Munro 2008; Smith 2012; Barber et
al. 2013; Brennan et al. 2014)
6. www.dit.ie/hepru
Literature Review: II
• Agents of change:
– Students (Pedro 2006; Redecker et al. 2009; Newland and Byles 2014)
– Teaching staff (Flavin 2013; Bayne and Ross 2014; Brennan et al. 2014)
– HEIs themselves (Brennan et al. 2014)
• Barriers:
– Student resistance (Jaldemark and Lindberg 2013)
– Teaching staff resistance (Smith 2012; SJSU 2013)
– Organizational obstacles (Istance 2011; Jones and Lau 2010)
7. Survey: Respondent Overview
www.dit.ie/hepru
• SurveyMonkey Online survey
• Contacted 47 HEIs, selected by consortium members (6* per country)
• 31 respondents answered all of the 29 questions, 16 answered some
• Total of 47 responses, but not 100% response rate. Some HEI responded
twice…
• Countries: Austria, France, Ireland, Latvia, Netherlands, Romania,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain. Regional parity.
• Date of HEI establishment
• Majority (58.6%) of respondents from post-1970 HEIs
• Type of HEI
• Majority (65.5%) of respondents from teaching and research focused HEIs
• Majority (72.4%) of respondents from public HEIs
8. www.dit.ie/hepru
Survey Findings
• All (N=42) respondents indicated there had been innovations
in their HEI since 2008.
• Level of innovation: “Module” level dominates over
“Programme” or “Institution” levels… Low hanging fruit?
• New modes of education provision:
– “New technologies” not always successful.
– Many (96%) respondents have established partnerships with other
HEIs, but success of these questioned by some participants.
• Innovation leadership: Top management/rector-level and
teaching staff regarded as most important; students, admin.
and library staff less so.
9. Survey: Types of Innovation
www.dit.ie/hepru
Programme Organization Curriculum delivery
Technology enriched
environment
• Flexible Delivery and Assessment Options • Problem-Based Learning (PBL) • Online Learning Support
• Module Choice within Programme • Research-Based Learning (RBL)
• Tablet or Mobile Device in Classroom and for
Study
• Module Choice across Disciplines • Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) • Social Media Learning Support
• Engagement with External Communities
Locally
• Outcome-Based Education (OBE) • Online Courses, Including MOOCs
• Engagement with Other Institutions
Internationally
• Work-Based/Employment-Based
Learning
• Open Access Resources/Materials
• Online Programmes
• Internship Programme, work
experience/placement
• Flipped Classrooms/Lecture Capture
• Year-Round Teaching with Introduction of
Summer Semester
• Compulsory Study Abroad/Erasmus • Changes to the Learning Space/Classroom
• Block Teaching Terms • Student-Led Projects
• Membership of Global Teaching and Research
Networks
• Interdisciplinary Teaching/Courses
• Competency Degrees
10. www.dit.ie/hepru
Survey: Innovation Drivers
• Equally on “efficiency/better use of resources” and
‘improving learning outcomes’
– All respondents identified these as drivers.
• Responding to “societal/economic needs and
regional accessibility”
– Importance of maintaining a relationship between HEIs and the wider
community.
• “Requirements of funding models” and “economies
of scale”.
• Growth in alternative ed. provision least influential.
11. Survey: Innovation Leaders I
www.dit.ie/hepru
YES
Rector and senior leadership team
University governance body
University Teaching Staff
NO / ?
Regional/local external administrative body
Media
General Public
Employers and Business Leaders
12. Survey: Innovation Leaders II
10.0%
16.1%
6.3%
12.5%
www.dit.ie/hepru
9.4%
3.2%
19.4%
12.5%
40.0%
48.4%
18.8%
32.3%
29.0%
6.3%
18.8%
46.9%
65.6%
41.9%
56.3%
50.0%
32.3%
37.5%
61.3%
19.4%
12.5%
43.8%
28.1%
22.6%
31.3%
15.6%
12.9%
37.5%
6.5%
48.4%
81.3%
37.5%
6.3%
15.6%
6.5%
Media
General Public
Employers or Business leaders
Regional/local external administrative…
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
National government/ministries
University library staff
University administrative staff
Students of the university
University teaching staff
Rector and senior leadership team
University governance body
0 = NOT AT ALL responsible 1 = Responsible in a MINOR way
2 = Responsible in a RELATIVELY MORE SIGNIFICANT way 3 = Responsible in a VERY SIGNIFICANT way
13. Survey: Barriers to Innovation I
• Student and administration staff resistance to change
is not seen as having inhibited change, or doing so to
only a limited extent.
• Insufficient financial resources and insufficient skilled
personnel however did inhibit innovation.
www.dit.ie/hepru
– Less consensus on where the emphasis is.
• Over half of respondents said academic staff
resistance to change was either quite or very strong.
• A spread of views aside from this…
14. Survey: Barriers to Innovation II
18.2%
27.3%
21.2%
15.2%
15.2%
9.1%
18.2%
15.2%
www.dit.ie/hepru
12.1%
9.1%
12.1%
27.3%
34.4%
27.3%
33.3%
33.3%
27.3%
24.2%
12.1%
42.4%
27.3%
15.2%
39.4%
39.4%
33.3%
39.4%
36.4%
36.4%
36.4%
37.5%
36.4%
66.7%
39.4%
36.4%
21.2%
30.3%
24.2%
27.3%
15.2%
25.0%
42.4%
18.2%
27.3%
51.5%
21.2%
3.0%
6.1%
9.1%
3.1%
9.1%
3.0%
9.1%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
Inadequate organisational structure
Atmosphere in workplace, interpersonal relations, etc.
Student resistance to change
Administration staff resistance
Academic staff resistance to change
Absence/insufficient control mechanisms
Insufficient forward planning
Lack of leadership to support/understand change required
Human resource management functions didn't support it
Wrong type of internal communication in HEI
Insufficient vision for innovativeness
Insufficient skilled personnel
Insufficient financial resources
0 = Did not inhibit innovation at all 1 = Inhibited innovation to a limited extent
2 = Inhibited innovation to quite a large extent 3 = Inhibited innovation to a very large extent
15. www.dit.ie/hepru
Survey: Impacts
• All said there had been changes in organisational structures and staffing
• Greater emphasis on quality assurance (89%)
• Greater emphasis on accountability (70%)
• Most (82%) made changes to mission statements
– Easy, cosmetic changes? Intention is there…
• Little change (33.3%) in the role of the Rector/President
• Split in terms of introducing new teaching positions, and in terms of
demanding greater flexibility from academic staff, as well as new
performance/compensation criteria for staff
• 96% established partnerships with other institutions
• Less emphasis on becoming more specialist, reducing the number of
faculties/schools, downsizing the HEI, or mergers with other institutions…
• More investments in technology to support academic staff
16. Survey: The Future of Innovation
• Agreement on the importance of technology to ensuring
www.dit.ie/hepru
innovation (93% agree or strongly agree).
• There is a split on the question of MOOCs, with more
disagreeing with the idea that they make HE better.
• 84% view academic staff as leaders of innovation and change.
• Majority (68%) of respondents don’t think their HEIs are one
of the most innovative in Europe.
• 63% think European HE is one of the most innovative in the
world.
• Governance problems with innovation…
17. www.dit.ie/hepru
Survey: Desired Changes
Desired changes to support innovation in education
provision:
“A significant shift from state control of higher education to
state steerage; HEIs need the HRM toolkit to manage their
own affairs. Contracts are too rigid to support flexible and
innovative initiatives.”
“My HEI has very limited autonomy due to centralized and
ministerial power. The first step ought to be to gain full
autonomy and responsibility.”
18. www.dit.ie/hepru
Issues Arising I
• Less flexibility in terms of introducing innovations in European
HEIs – real or perceived?
– GRC and Higher ed.: Result of established public system of HE and
“compliance” mindset?
– Innovation, by contrast, is a “risk” activity.
• Compare with US experience (Pearson 2013).
• Response to societal/economic needs, as well as an emphasis
on efficiency... European situation different to the US?
• Less negative view of MOOCs in Europe than US.
• “Low-hanging fruit” innovations (module level) have been
implemented, LR suggested this is commonly the case
19. www.dit.ie/hepru
Issues Arising II
• Staff as both barriers and drivers?
– Possibly module-level instigators…
– But programme- and institution-level innovation may require more
work between HEI management and academic staff…thus resistance
• Problems of definition, what kinds of changes are being
discussed?
– Were the changes simply part of the normal ebb and flow of
development and evolution within an institution or across a system?
– Were they intended changes with a view to adding value, as the survey
hoped to capture?
– Between these two extremes, the “low-hanging fruit” of easily
implemented changes, first steps in thorough-going process of value-adding
innovation…
Why 2008? To address the “new” element in the definition of innovation. Chosen at the Maastricht kick-off meeting.
Agents of change also appear to be
Slovakia had 7, Slovenia was 4 plus one in Austria
Countries: Contacted 25 WE, 22 CEE; Responded to question WE 13, CEE 15
N=29 (double response from one HEI in Ireland)
Date of HEI establishment: pre-1845 [6.9%], 1850-1899 [10.3%], 1900-1945 [13.8%], 1945-1969 [10.3%], 1970-2014 [58.6%]
N=29
Type of HEI: teaching-focused [20.7%], research-focused [3.4%], teaching and research focused [65.5%], research only [none], specialist (business, law, fine arts, etc.) [10.3%]
N=29
These types of innovation came from the literature review and the survey design process with the entire consortium.
There was also space in the online questionnaire for respondents to include other forms of innovation under these three headings (e.g. Soft skills workshops for PhD students had also been introduced)
Another stated that “many of these were introduced before 2008, so I ticked not introduced”, and so it is to be remembered, for this question as for others, that absence of evidence for specific innovations is not evidence of absence.
Respondents were asked to rate various factors on a scale of 0 to 4, 0 being “NOT a driving force” and 3 being “A VERY STRONG driving force”.
“Efficiency and better use of resources” (UIC 39) 34.4%/11 “very strong driver”….
“Learning outcomes” (UIC 43) 34.4%/11 “very strong driver”, 15.6%/5 for minor, and 50%/16 for “relatively strong”
100% of respondents said that these were issues, to a greater or lesser extent.
“Requirement for greater response to societal/economic needs and regional accessibility” (UIC) got support
Less support for requirements of funding models and economies of scale. There is a view to the wider economy and HE’s role in that, HEIs and HE isn’t thoroughly “marketised”.
And finally, the fact that there is grown in “alternative ed. provision (for profit, online, international providers)” is not seen to be influential simply because it is “in the air”.
Rector and senior leadership team
University governance body
University Teaching Staff
Regional/local external administrative body
Media
General Public
Business
Emphasis here on the governance and management level, which is not surprising, given the focus of the project.
Again, it’s interesting to note that there is little external influence (in terms of the media, the general public, business etc.) The general public point is worth considering, given that the majority of HEIs surveyed were public institutions. But we also see that “national government/ministries” still have a role to play.
Also interesting to see that business isn’t regarded as having a stronger role to play, given that many of the education provision innovations discussed in this survey and that came up in the literature review are often discussed in terms of readying students for the workforce.
Rector and senior leadership team
University governance body
University Teaching Staff
Regional/local external administrative body
Media
General Public
Business
Emphasis here on the governance and management level, which is not surprising, given the focus of the project.
Again, it’s interesting to note that there is little external influence (in terms of the media, the general public, business etc.) The general public point is worth considering, given that the majority of HEIs surveyed were public institutions. But we also see that “national government/ministries” still have a role to play.
Also interesting to see that business isn’t regarded as having a stronger role to play, given that many of the education provision innovations discussed in this survey and that came up in the literature review are often discussed in terms of readying students for the workforce.
Student resistance 81.8%/27 either didn’t or only inhibited to a very small extent… so students not opposed to these kinds of innovations?
Financial constraints however is a different story, with 72.7%/24 indicating that paying for these innovations inhibited innovation to quite a large or a very large extent.
Insufficient skilled staff is also an issue, but there is less consensus on the matter than for
51.4% pointed to academic staff resistance to change.
Yes/no questions
quality assurance (88.9%)/12
Mission statements (82.5%)/22 “low hanging fruit”. Easy, cosmetic changes, intention is there but this isn’t necessarily becoming manifest
Training/development (77.8%)/21
Technology investments (88.9%)/24
This section is worth exploring in full in the report, but here are a few tasters
“Technology is crucial to ensuring innovation in teaching and learning in the future”
“MOOCs are worth the hype – they make HE better” 56.3% say no, 43.7%
This is perhaps a contradiction, as in the ‘barriers to innovation’ half of respondents said academic staff were resistant to change … this is worth investigation – nevertheless shows a belief that “change/innovation” comes from within and throughout institutions, not just from senior management.
Innovative HEI belief is split between WE and CEE.
There is disagreement with this (36.7%) but not strong disagreement.
Desired changes to support Innovaton in education provision:
Open ended questions:
These two quotes refer to problems associated with government and ministers…
GRC – governance, risk management, and compliance
Confirmation of many of the findings in the literature review
Responding to societal-economic needs…
Some contradictions in that while the LR notes the role played by accessibility, and survey respondents also said as much, there isn’t much indication that structural changes such as year round teaching (noted elsewhere as helping with accessibility…)
In the Pearson report, cutting costs and using technology are regarded as “innovative practices”, rather than making changes to teaching and learning as in this project.
Pearson (2013) Attitudes on Innovation: How College Leaders and Faculty See the Key Issues Facing Higher Education (Washington, D.C.: The Chronicle of Higher Education).
Understanding the degree of change or innovation dependent upon different institutional, political, social, and historical contexts, the stage of development of the higher education system, and indeed of the institution itself.
The transition from the low-hanging fruit of cosmetic changes to the realm of real and deep innovation may not be a simple, linear process.
The sample size was to give a base-line for the case studies, and so future research would be helpful.
