ON THE DRIVERS, BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES OF
INNOVATION IN UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
ĽUBICA BAJZÍKOVÁ AND ANNA LAŠÁKOVÁ
Key words: innovation, education, university, innovation-oriented university stakeholders.
Abstract
The article provides a preliminary theoretical consideration focused on the delineation of
innovation in university education, differentiating four distinctive areas of the innovation.
Drivers as the “motors” of the respective innovation are specified and basic innovationoriented university stakeholders are identified. Article deals also with the theoretical analysis
of barriers of innovation in university education and delineates basic prerequisites for its
fruitful implementation.
Acknowledgment: This article refers to the project Governance and Adaptation to
Innovative Modes of Higher Education Provision (GAIHE, reference no. 539628-LLP-12013-1-NL-ERASMUS-EIGF). It is funded by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture
Executive Agency (EACEA) through the Lifelong Learning Programme and it is run by a
consortium of 11 partner universities: Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon (France),
University of Strasbourg (France), Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu (Romania), the Higher
Education Policy Research Unit of Dublin Institute of Technology (Ireland), Academic Unit
of the University of Latvia, the Comenius University and the University of Ss. Cyril and
Methodius (Slovakia), the University of Maribor (Slovenia), the University of Salamanca and
the University of Alicante (Spain) and RAND Europe (Cambridge). The consortium partners
are coordinated by the School of Governance of the University of Maastricht, Netherlands.
Introduction
One of the major tasks for today’s universities lies in fast and effective implementation
of innovation in education that challenges the traditional and in academia deeply rooted
pedagogical practices, which rely on the dominant teaching method of lectures and seminars.
This major ground-breaking change should be capable to ensure the enhancement of the
competencies of university students, which are important in the labour market,
democratization of access to university education as well as stronger competitive power of
universities on a “global playground”. Moreover, as Florida notes (2006), in today’s creative
economy universities play a crucial role in sustaining the regional economic growth through
fostering the technology, talent, and tolerance.
However, according to various authors who reflect the state of innovation in higher
education sphere (for eg. Whitworth, 2012; Hannon, 2013, Waring & Skoumpopoulou,
2013), there are some signs that this mission could be hindered substantially, either by
pressures from universities’ external or internal environment. For example, Waring and
Skoumpopoulou (2013) assume that the emergent cultural change in education could by
suppressed by the strong inner resistance of academics and the academic organizational
culture. These phenomena partially derive from the traditional values of academic freedom
and autonomy combined with competition for limited resources and high levels of instability
and uncertainty that are so typical for the current academic environment. Despite of the new
wave of managerialism at universities based on the “use of internal cost centres, internal
markets within organizations, the monitoring of efficiency and effectiveness through the
measurement of specific outcomes, as well as individual staff performance” (Waring &
Skoumpopoulou, 2013, p. 1368) together with focus on consumers (students), flexibility in
social networking and managerial effectiveness, it seems that the large-scale innovation in
education is just slowly becoming the centre of attention for academic practitioners.
The article focuses on the theoretical exploration of the phenomenon of innovation in
university education. Drivers of innovation will be delineated together with barriers that
hinder implementation, dissemination, and agitation for innovation in education. Analysis of
these issues will lead to a review of suggestions for changes that should take place at
universities in order to strengthen the innovative potential of education and its provision.
1. Innovation in university education
An innovation can be defined as a “new method, custom, or device – a change in the
way of doing things”; in other words, a successful introduction of a new way or method
(Luecke & Katz according to Brewer & Tierney, 2010, p. 5). It is linked with certain
characteristics of organizational environment like entrepreneurial mind-set, low uncertainty
avoidance, openness to change, experimentation, and creativity. Innovation in education
could be than defined as implemented (on the level of processes and systems) and adopted
(on the level of shared practices and value orientations) new way or method that contributes
with added value to competitiveness of education-based organizations ergo universities. An
innovation replaces older or traditional mode of doing things or a product. Furthermore,
project GAIHE (Governance and Adaptation to Innovative Modes of Higher Education
Provision), as a European-wide research project analysing the innovative modes of education
provision in Europe, delineated innovation in education as “a trend that has expanded over
the past five years and has attracted considerable attention, having the potential to provide
fundamental alternations to the higher education offer” (Florea & McGrath, 2014, p. 2). The
GAIHE project builds on the premise that innovation has an increased added value for all
relevant interest groups.
Innovation can be differentiated by the scope, from large and complex innovation to
small and simple innovation (Whitworth, 2012, p. 146). Innovation in education provision
could be “supply-pushed through the availability of new technological possibilities or
demand-led based on market or social needs” (Brewer & Tierney, 2010, p. 5). According to
the time-scope of change related to innovation we could further differentiate between slow
and consecutive innovation and radical, fast moving innovation. Nevertheless, perhaps the
most useful differentiation of innovation in education and its provision deals with various
spheres of the education itself. Through this lens the innovation can be distinguished
according to which question it relates to:
- Who is teaching/learning?
- What is being taught/learned?
- How it is being taught/learned?
- Where the education takes place?
The first question on “Who is teaching?” regards for example the alternative providers of
education who draw power from the education provision “unbundling” process. Further,
innovations regard also business companies that enter the educational sphere and provide allinclusive courses at universities, or alumni services providing students with practical
knowledge. On the other hand, the question “Who is learning?” turns the educational
innovation discussion to the demographic change as well as to the generational exchange and
the “Net generation”.
The “What?” question points to the curricula-related innovation that regards issues like
utilization of new and prospective approaches linked with inquiry-based learning as a
strongly student-centred approach with teaching driven primarily by inquiry or research,
promoting student learning through problem-, project-, or case-based learning (Aditomo,
Goodyear, Bliuc & Ellis, 2013). Interdisciplinary- and transdisciplinary-based courses as well
as robust interconnection of courses with the current company-driven needs and requirements
on competencies of graduates belong to this category of curricula innovation, too.
The third question of “How?” encompasses issues like the program alignment with
external communities of firms or research networks, flexibility in module choices across
disciplines, online program support, or international networks in research and education.
Further, the information and communication technologies employed in teaching and learning
belongs to this category of innovation, too. It is encouraged by the massive global technology
innovation in information and communication. Flipped classrooms, online teaching, social
media learning, and especially MOOCs (Massive Online Open Courses) are just some
examples of these novelties.
The last category of innovation under the umbrella of the question of “Where the
education takes place?” relates to changes of the physical space of the classrooms, which
mirrors (and enables) the changes not only related to technologies or curricula, but also to the
change in the overall paradigm of the university education in general that leads us to the
virtual classrooms of today. This shift denotes the fundamental transformation of the whole
higher education sector stemming from grand societal changes in recent decades.
Globalisation, internetization, and eventually virtualization of our contemporary society
raises serious challenges for university education provision; being it the role of university in
society, the modes of university governance and leadership, organizational structures and
processes, together with the marketization of the university and consecutive changes in its
economic structure and value. The major “motors” of innovation in education will be
theoretically reflected and specified in the next part of the article.
2. Drivers of innovation in university education
Higher education in general occupies a considerably different position in the society than
other industries do; it is a unique locus given by its role in expansion of the knowledge
society, generating new knowledge and dissemination of new practices. Our society expects
this sphere to be actually innovation-based by providing innovation through innovative
methods and processes. According to Brewer and Tierney (2010, p. 4) a moral imperative
exists in higher education claiming for effective access to education, creating a bettereducated work force, and enabling “more individuals to participate in the democratic public
sphere”.
Over the past twenty years several changes have affected the way how universities
operate. These were related to an increase in managerial control and in competition, increased
attention to accountability, together with a remodelling of structures and operations following
the way corporations conduct their businesses; hence managerialism, marketization and
corporatization led to reduction of the academic autonomy, increase of bureaucratic burdens
and to the crisis of leadership in the sector (Jones, Lefoe, Harvey & Ryland, 2012).
Today’s university education is burdened not only by the above mentioned changes to
which it did not respond always accurately and successfully. New challenges ascended in the
last decades to which universities as well as the rest of the higher education sector have to
respond adequately in case they do not want to lose legitimacy in society as the prominent
provider of wisdom and competence.
According to the Ernst & Young report entitled University of future: A thousand year old
industry on the cusp of profound change (Bokor, 2012), five major drivers of change and
innovation will transform the higher education sector. First of all, the democratization of the
knowledge and access to it will “ignite” the will of higher education organizations to entry
the new markets and global partnerships and stimulate new approaches to distribution of
knowledge related to new ways of providing teaching and learning across the globe. Next,
digital technologies will literary “bring the university to the device”; MOOCs and rise of the
online learning methods will interfere with more traditional ways of “doing” education.
Thirdly, integration with industry, scale and depth of industry-based learning, research
partnerships and commercialization of education will generate pressures for changes in
university structure, governance and culture. Fourthly, global mobility of the academic staff
and students, with emerging markets becoming global-scale competitors in the international
market will bring more attention to the academic talent cross-country acquisitions and to
creation of truly global university brands. And, finally, the contestability of markets and
funding brings in an intensified competition between universities for students, academic
talent and government funds as never before.
Correspondingly to the above mentioned issues, Keohane from Princeton University
(Keohane, 2013) defines five basic challenges in current university education. Firstly, it is the
development of online education as a powerful and appealing approach that is supposed to
undermine the traditional university business model and flourish in the next decade. The
second challenge for university education lies in mobility of students, who might feel less
strong ties to their alma mater institution, seeing higher education sphere like a shopping mall
full of varied possibilities waiting for them to be picked up. Next, Keohane (2013) assumes
that the rising costs of education will hinder many students and their families from being able
to afford the tuition and fees. Fourthly, a challenge (and at the same time a risk) stems from
the reduction of governmental funding mechanism in certain research and scientific fields.
And finally, competition of universities all around the world will create pressure to innovate
and change perpetually and hence to be able to adjust continuously to the needs and trends in
education.
The discussion about the drivers of innovation in university education would be
incomplete without mentioning also growing concerns with generational exchange and
related socio-cultural shifts. Some authors (for eg. Tapscott, 1999; Gros, Garcia & Escofet,
2012) point out that a wholly new generation of students is entering the educational market.
By the term “a wholly new generation” the “Net generation” or sometimes called also the
“Digital natives” generation is meant. These young people have been immersed by
technology intensively from early childhood. This resulted in acquisition of technological
skills and associated learning preferences, for which the traditional modes of education are
not prepared at all. It is argued that universities need a quick adjustment to their needs. On
the other hand, some authors claim, that there is no need for a panic in academic world and
call for a “considered and rigorous investigation that includes the perspective of young
people and their teachers, and genuinely seeks to understand the situation before proclaiming
the need for widespread change” (Bennett, Maton & Kervin, 2008, p. 784).
From the debate on the drivers and challenges of university education could be
concluded that several social groups have their stakes in the evolution of a more innovative
higher education. We assume that stakeholders who in a sense truly require these changes to
intrude the traditional university education are especially the:
- (1) University governance and management seeking for re-acknowledgement of the
university status as the guarantor of innovation and progress in society;
- (2) Academic personnel that anticipates to develop and retain competencies within
their field of expertise across borders, hence being globally mobile as well as active in
the virtual world of knowledge;
- (3) Administrative personnel at the university claiming for the right for training and
development aligned with recent technological innovation, and hence to be able to
provide adequate support for the academic staff and students;
-
(4) Students requiring an added value from education and an easy access to
knowledge;
- (5) Employers expecting a better prepared work force with varied skills ready for the
corporate environment;
- (6) Regional community of the university expecting economic progress and regional
development linked to increased migration of people within the region;
- (7) State/governmental institutions awaiting positive impacts on the state economy,
effective tools for combating the unemployment rates (especially of the youth), and
improved national branding and image;
- (8) Global community anticipating positive impacts of educational innovations free of
conventional state borders that raise the overall quality of life for the human mankind;
- (9) Environment together with future generations and their right for a sustainable life
supported by a diligent utilization of benefits of information communication
technologies in accordance with the idea of environmental protection;
- (10) University sector expecting networking benefits stemming from research and
education initiatives, and raised goodwill of the whole sector as a prominent
innovation lab;
- (11) Alternative providers of higher education creating competitive pressure on
traditional universities thus awaiting inflow of in education interested people; and
finally
- (12) Information and communication technologies (ICT) sector expecting on one hand
universities to become an important purchaser of the newest ICT devices and services,
and on the other hand universities to generate graduates as an ICT-skilled customer
population ready to use their products.
All of the above identified innovation-oriented university stakeholders request
universities to become an open source of innovation for various spheres of society, providing
all interest groups with an easy access to knowledge by employing modern technological
solutions for teaching and learning. However, certain barriers have to be overcome in order to
achieve this goal. The next part of the article focuses on the description of these barriers as
well as on identification of particular working actions tied to adjustment to new challenges in
university education.
3. Barriers of innovation in university education
Universities need to be more responsive to stakeholders’ requirements. This affects the
number of enrolments, the talent acquisition from an international pool of researchers and
lecturers, and the scientific prestige of universities, these resulting in their position on the
market, their market share, and profitability. In order to create a win-win solution between
universities and their stakeholders certain barriers to innovation in education and its provision
have to be eliminated.
First of all, regulation of university environment, with the focus on accreditation process
has to be revised. Today, accreditation processes follow usually the process-based logic
rather than the outcome-based logic (Brewer & Tierney, 2010). Hence, the funding schemes
and remuneration of staff promote results that sometimes do not support fully the
innovativeness quotient of universities. In general, insufficient financial resources act as a
barrier for innovation and change.
Further, a more systematic professional development of skilled university personnel is
desirable, too. Together with the human resource management functions that do not
adequately support the required changes, the lack of skilled academic staff and academic
support personnel acts as a massive obstacle to innovativeness at universities. Therefore
substantial changes are essential in prevailing human resource systems and policies in order
to effectively train, develop, support, and recognize effective practices in education
(Marshall, Orrell, Cameron, Bosanquet & Thomas, 2011). Special attention has to be paid to
the university leaders and managers, because they are the ones who actually form the internal
environment of universities.
According to Simkins (2005, p. 23) leaders and managers at universities decide about the
“ways in which power and authority are and should be constituted and distributed.” Similar
call for establishment of a new approach to university leadership share also Bolden, Petrov
and Gosling (2009) who conducted research in twelve UK universities with the aim to
capture a range of views on distributed leadership in university setting. Also Jones, Lefoe,
Harvey and Ryland (2012) recognized that a new model of leadership is needed for the whole
higher educational sector. They define the distributive leadership as an approach that places
an emphasis “on collective collaboration rather than individual power and control” (Jones,
Lefoe, Harvey & Ryland, 2012, p. 67). Distributed leadership relates to so called relational
stream in the leadership theory. In the university setting it calls attention to the active
involvement of all employees either directly or indirectly engaged in teaching and research.
The goal is to improve participation and engagement of teachers and other personnel, taking
the view that “leadership is largely emergent, informal and widely dispersed” constructed
through social interaction involving spontaneous collaboration of employees (Bolden, Petrov
& Gosling, 2008, p. 360-361). Authors suppose that this type of leadership is a prerequisite
for consecutive changes in other parts and aspects of the university, like systems, strategies
and organizational structure, especially the financial structures, human resource systems,
information technology and strategic planning.
In order to perpetually create and re-design the education resources (“Who”?), the
education goals and content (“What?”), the education provision mechanisms (“How?”), the
educational environments (“Where?”), and to create sound feedback and quality evaluation
mechanisms together with working revisit strategies, universities would need the:
- Empowerment of professionals who have career bonds with these institutions;
- Sophisticated accreditation procedure supporting innovation in education and its
provision;
- Redesign of the human resource functions, which have to be considerately aligned
with the new strategic objectives; and
- Refinement of funding formulas based more on attainment of results and outputs than
on processes.
These changes lead to recognition of universities as entrepreneurial entities that address
the pressures and challenges of the 21st century (Hannon, 2013). The guiding idea within this
transformation persists: a strengthening demand for universities that are able to better align
with the environmental challenges. It is a vision of a university that instils innovative mode of
thinking through the governance structures and managerial policies and practices; a
university that fosters an environment, within which the innovation-oriented mind-sets,
decisions and behaviours are wanted, encouraged, developed and rewarded.
Conclusion
The theoretical reflection of the current challenges of university education may be
probably best summarized by the inspiring words of Keohane: “Disruptive change is never
easy for those who have helped construct the status quo … it undermines much that we take
for granted and rely on … It sometimes destroys things that are worth treasuring. This is why
we fear it. But disruptive change also provides an opportunity for restructuring that can
actually improve our institutions” (Keohane, 2013, p. 102). In line with Keohane we assume
that no fundamental changes will happen without the will and commitment of various power
authorities (both at the level of the macro-environment that affects universities as well as at
the level of university management) to fulfil the needs of relevant innovation-oriented
university stakeholders. Our political view of this situation is somehow “softened” by a
societal-relational perspective that considers the importance of the social characteristics of
the organizational context. This implies that without the active participation of all university
stakeholders in free and open communication and collaborative share of knowledge and
information, the so much desired and awaited innovation in university education cannot
proceed. After all, as Archer, Garrison, and Anderson pose it, in not taking into account the
communication and learning innovation “universities risk sliding into mediocrity and perhaps
irrelevancy as far as the teaching function of the university is concerned” (Archer, Garrison
& Anderson, 1999, p. 28).
Universities have to become open to all interest groups, providing them with an easy and
flexible access to knowledge. At the same time there is also the need for a balance between
openness and rigorous inclusiveness of knowledge. Surely, the scenario of a university as an
shopping mall enabling to selectively pick up knowledge that reinforces the “information
bubbles” phenomenon (preferential selection of information reinforcing existing attitudes of
people, see Liao & Fu, 2013) together with the massive McDonaldisation (for the term
“McDonaldization” see Ritzer & Stillman, 2001) of university education is not desired. As
Persico, Manca, and Pozzi (2014) suggest, universities have to remain cautious when aiming
at any innovation implementation; universities should first define precisely the aims of the
innovation process and control this process that their mission is not forgotten or overridden.
Nevertheless, despite of these critical thoughts we assume that our society would have to face
far more serious risks without the will to introduce considerable changes in university
education, which will challenge the traditional university business and funding models.
References
Aditomo, A., Goodyear, P., Bliuc, A.-M., and Ellis, R. A. (2013). Inquiry-based learning in
higher education: Principal forms, educational objectives, and disciplinary variations. Studies
in Higher Education, 38(9), 1239-1258.
Archer, W., Garrison, R., and Anderson, T. (1999). Adopting disruptive technologies in
traditional universities: Continuing education as an incubator for innovation. Canadian
Journal of University Continuing Education, 25(1), 13-44.
Bennett, S., Maton, K., and Kervin, L. (2008). The “digital natives” debate: A critical review
of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775-786.
Bokor, J. (2012). University of future: A thousand year old industry on the cusp of profound
change. Ernst & Young, 1-31.
Available at:
http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/University_of_the_future/$FILE/University_of
_the_Future_2012.pdf
Bolden, R., Petrov, G., and Gosling, J. (2009). Distributed leadership in higher education:
Rhetoric and reality. Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, 37(2), 257277.
Bolden, R., Petrov, G., and Gosling, J. (2008). Tension in higher education leadership:
Towards a multi-level model of leadership practice. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(4), 358376.
Brewer, D. J., and Tierney, W. G. (2010). Barriers to innovation in U. S. higher education.
American Enterprise Institute conference, „Reinventing the American University: The
Promise of Innovation in Higher Education“. Revised draft, June 28, 2010, 1-35.
Florea, S., and McGrath, C. H. (2014). Governance and adaptation to innovative modes of
higher education provision. Manuscript. Presented on the 18th International Conference on
Circuits, Systems, Communications and Computers (CSCC 2014). Santorini Island, Greece,
July 17-21, 2014.
Florida, R. (2006). The flight of the creative class: The new global competition for talent.
Liberal Education, summer 2006, 22-29.
Gros, B., Garcia, I., and Escofet, A. (2012). Beyond the Net generation debate: A comparison
of digital learners in face-to-face and virtual universities. The International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(4), 190-210.
Hannon, P. D. (2013). Why is the entrepreneurial university important? Letter from
Academia. Journal of Innovation Management, 1, 2 (2013), 10-17.
Jones, S., Lefoe, G., Harvey, M., and Ryland, K. (2012). Distributed leadership: A
collaborative framework for academics, executives and professionals in higher education.
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(1), 67-78.
Keohane, N. O. (2013). Higher education in the twenty-first century: Innovation, adaptation,
preservation. PS: Political Science & Politics, 46, 102-105.
Liao, Q., and Fu, W.-T. (2013). Beyond the filter bubble: Interactive effects of perceived
threat and topic involvement on selective exposure to information. In Proceedings from the
31st Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Changing
Perspectives, Paris. ACM: New York, 2013, 2359-2368.
Marshall, S. J., Orrell, J., Cameron, A., Bosanquet, A., and Thomas, S. (2011). Leading and
managing learning and teaching in higher education. Higher Education Research &
Development, 30(2), 87-103.
Persico, D., Manca, S., and Pozzi, F. (2014). Innovation and sustainability in higher
education: Lessons learnt from the case study of an online university. In Cerone, A., Persico,
D., Fernandes, S., Garcia-Perez, A., Katsaros, P., Shaikh, S. A., and Stamelos, I. (Eds.),
Information Technology and Open Source: Applications for Education, Innovation, and
Sustainability. SEFM 2012 Satellite Events, InSuEdu, MoKMaSD, and OpenCert
Thessaloniki, Greece, October 1-2, 2012. Revised selected papers. Springer, 35-52.
Ritzer, G., and Stillman, T. (2001). The postmodern ballpark as a leisure setting:
Enchantment and simulated De-McDonaldization. Leisure Sciences, 23, 99-113.
Simkins, T. (2005). Leadership in education: “What works” or “what makes sense”?
Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, 33(1), 9-26.
Tapscott, D. (1999). Educating the Net generation. Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, Educational Leadership, February 1999, 6-11.
Waring, T., and Skoumpopoulou, D. (2013). Emergent cultural changes: Unintended
consequences of a Strategic Information Technology Services implementation in a United
Kingdom university. Studies in Higher Education, 38(9), 1365-1381.
Whitworth, A. (2012). Invisible success: Problems with the grand technological innovation in
higher education. Computers & Education, 59, 145-155.
Contact information
prof. Ing. Ľubica Bajzíková, PhD. and doc. Mgr. Anna Lašáková, PhD., Comenius University
in Bratislava, Faculty of Management, Odbojárov 10, 820 05 Bratislava, Slovakia,
lubica.bajzikova@fm.uniba.sk, anna.lasakova@fm.uniba.sk