Project Planning

Project planning for changes within an educational context and project planning for changes in general seems to be two different things. In this posting, I will emphasize some of the differences

Latchem og Hanna (2001) refers to several critics (Bates, 2000; Cohen and March, 1974; ) of strategic planning in higher education (HE). One of the strong arguments is that universities are 'organized anarchies'.

Beaudoin (2005) claims that effective leadership in HE is transactional, since , as he argues, faculty feels “little pressure to adopt new ways ” and a transactional leadership “tends to minimize any innovation” (p.94). In contrast to transformative leadership that enhances innovation.

This is to some extent supported by Collis and Moonen (2001) when they claim that top-down changes are “difficult to carry out in university contexts” (p. 61). Faculty is used to autonomy and will therefore always believe that they have found the right solutions. Accordingly, they feel “that the ways they have always taught are in fact the appropriate ways to teach their own discipline” (p. 61). It leads Collis and Moonen to the conclusion that faculty needs more than abstract visions to change their practice. So, for faculty visions for future of society or university are no drivers for changes:

Change for abstract reasons such as the future of the university does not weigh heavily enough to convince them to teach in what they feel will be an ‘inappropriate way’ for their course and habit (p.61).

According to Latchem and Hanna (2001), innovation in an university setting depends on support, reasonable timelines and learning infrastructures developed for the specific faculty. It is essential that the leaders acknowledge experience and build on the good practices already developed within faculty. Faculty needs a responsive feedback and encouragement corresponding with the actual situation of the faculty member and the entire faculty. Dhanarajan (2001) expresses a similar view on good leadership when he states that the leader must look “on the horizon but their feet must be firmly on the ground” (p.185).

Collis and Moonen (2001) belief that it is important that a higher education institution (HEI) “commit itself to a change” (p.29), at the same time they conclude that the overall motivation to enhance flexible learning in HEI is that “you can’t not do it” (p.29). However, nothing will actually change unless the changes are grounded “in pedagogy and sound implementation strategies” (p. 43)

References:

Beaudoin, M.F. (2005). Reflections on research, faculty and leadership in distance education. . Oldenburg: Der Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg – BIS – Verlag.

Collis, B., and Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learning in a digital world –experiences and expectations. London: Kogan Page.

Dhanarajan, D. G. (2001). Partnerships for change. In In C. Latchem and D.E. Hanna (Eds.) Leadership for 21st century learning. Global perspectives from educational innovatiors (pp. 177-186) New York: Routledge.

Latchem, C., & Hanna, D.E. (2001). Processes of organizational change. In C. Latchem and D.E. Hanna (Eds.) Leadership for 21st century learning. Global perspectives from educational innovatiors (pp. 41-52) New York: Routledge.