Organization and Newness : Discourses and Ecologies of Innovation in the Creative University [1 ed.] 9789004394827, 9789004394810

Citation preview

Organization and Newness

Creative Education Series Editors Michael A. Peters (Beijing Normal University, P.R. China ) Tina Besley (Beijing Normal University, P.R. China ) Editorial Board Daniel Araya (University of Illinois, USA) Ronald Barnett (London Institute of Education, UK ) Jonathan Beller (The Pratt Institute, USA) Simon Marginson (University of Melbourne, Australia) Peter Murphy (James Cook University, Australia) Brian Opie (Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand ) Peter Roberts (University of Canterbury, New Zealand ) Susanne Maria Weber (University of Marburg, Germany)

VOLUME 5

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/crea

Organization and Newness Discourses and Ecologies of Innovation in the Creative University Edited by

Michael A. Peters and Susanne Maria Weber

අൾංൽൾඇ_ൻඈඌඍඈඇ

All chapters in this book have undergone peer review. The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at http://catalog.loc.gov

ISSN 2542-9418 ISBN 978-90-04-39480-3 (paperback) ISBN 978-90-04-39481-0 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-39482-7 (e-book) Copyright 2019 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

CONTENTS

Preface: Competing Conceptions of the Creative University Michael A. Peters

vii

Notes on Contributors

xiii

Introduction: Organization and Newness Susanne Maria Weber and Michael A. Peters

xix

Part 1: Analyzing Organization, Newness and Innovation 1.

2.

3.

Intentional Organizational Change and the “New”: An Organizational Ethics Perspective of Change Management Thomas Krobath

3

Between Organization and the New: How Lists Are Used to Create (or Reduce) Innovation Fabian Brückner

13

How Do the New Outcome-Oriented Instruments Arise in the Faculty? A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis Karl-Heinz Gerholz

21

4.

Innovation and Political Subjectivity: A Problem for the Actor in Education Richard Heraud

31

5.

Organizational Dynamics within the Knowledge Economy *HRUJH/ă]ăURLX

51

6.

Researching Organizational Entry from a Perspective of Newcomer Innovation Line Revsbæk

69

7.

PISA as a Generator of Innovation Miriam Sitter

81

8.

Searching for the Change Agent: Steps towards an Ecology of Innovation Soren Willert

89

9.

Futuring Higher Education? The Innovativeness of Reforms: Turkey – A Critical Case Study 0HWH.XUWR÷OX

10. Money Rules Knowledge: The Emergence of Creative and Social Imperatives in the Epistemic Field Agnieszka Czejkowska

v

105

125

CONTENTS

Part 2: Strategies and Actors 11. Managerialism and the Neoliberal University: Prospects for New Forms of ‘Open Management’ in Higher Education Michael A. Peters

135

12. Artistic Interventions in Organizations as Intercultural Relational Spaces for Identity Development Ariane Berthoin Antal and Gervaise Debucquet

149

13. Working at the Edge of Innovation: Artists in Labs Angela Krewani

167

14. Social Innovation and Social Intrapreneurship in German Welfare Organizations Andreas Schröer

177

15. Organizing a New Political Culture: Women Writers and Shifts in Meanings, Power Relations and Social Web of Society 5DPRQD0LKăLOă

189

16. In the Wake of the Quake: Teaching the Emergency Sean Sturm and Stephen Turner

205

17. The Assertion and Development of ‘The New’ in the Context of Emancipatory New Social Movements Meike Sophia Baader and Susanne Maurer

217

18. Change by Design!? Knowledge Cultures of Design and Organizational Strategies of Creation Susanne Maria Weber

233

19. Newness against the Grain: Democratic Emergence in Organizational and Professional Practice Philip A. Woods, Amanda Roberts and Glenys Woods

247

20. 3HGDJRJ\DQG2UJDQL]DWLRQDO/HDUQLQJ7KHRUHWLFDO5HÀHFWLRQV on Synergetics as a Meta-Model for Designing Learning-Processes in Organizations Peter C. Weber 21. Epilogue: Organizational Change, Newness and the Discourse of Innovation Susanne Maria Weber, Michael A. Peters, Richard Heraud and Annett Adler

vi

257

267

MICHAEL A. PETERS

PREFACE: COMPETING CONCEPTIONS OF THE CREATIVE UNIVERSITY

Education and research have been transformed in the development of knowledge economies. The knowledge, learning and creative economies manifest the changing significance of intellectual capital and the thickening connections between on one hand economic growth, on the other hand knowledge, creativity (especially imagined new knowledge, discovery), the communication of knowledge, and the formation and spreading of creative skills in education. Increasingly economic and social activity is comprised of the ‘symbolic’ or ‘weightless’ economy with its iconic, immaterial and digital goods. This immaterial economy includes new international labour markets that demand analytic skills, global competencies and an understanding of markets in tradeable knowledges. Developments in information and communication technologies (ICTs) not only define globalisation they are changing the format, density and nature of the exchange and flows of knowledge, research and scholarship. Delivery modes in education are being reshaped. Global cultures are spreading in the form of knowledge and research networks. Openness and networking, crossborder people movement, flows of capital, portal cities and littoral zones, and new and audacious systems with worldwide reach; all are changing the conditions of imagining and producing and the sharing of creative work in different spheres. The economic aspect of creativity refers to the production of new ideas, aesthetic forms, scholarship, original works of art and cultural products, as well as scientific inventions and technological innovations. It embraces open source communication as well as commercial intellectual property. All of this positions education at the center of the economy/ creativity nexus. But are education systems, institutions, assumptions and habits positioned and able so as to seize the opportunities and meet the challenges?1 The conference was a venue for exploring all the aspects of education in (and as) the creative economy with the objective of extending the dialogue about the relationship between contemporary higher education and the changing face of contemporary economies provocatively described as ‘cognitive capitalism’, ‘metaphysical capitalism’, ‘intellectual capitalism’, and ‘designer capitalism’. The conference was an attempt to describe the relationship between the arts and sciences and this new form of capitalism looking at the global reach and international imperatives of aesthetic and scientific modes of production, the conditions and character of acts of the imagination in the range of fields of knowledge and arts in this period, and the

vii

PREFACE

role of the research university in the formation of the creative knowledge that has a decisive function in contemporary advanced economies. The conference follows a host of other initiatives that positions the university critically in relation to the notion of the creative economy. In particular, Richard Florida et al. (2006) had examined the university’s role in the Creative Economy through the lens of the “3T’s” of economic development: Technology, Talent, and Tolerance.2 Their main message seems to be that the university is the “new engine of innovation”: The changing role of the university is bound up with the broader shift from an older industrial economy to an emerging Creative Economy. The past few decades have been one of profound economic transformation. In the past, natural resources and physical capital were the predominant drivers of economic growth. Now, human creativity is the driving force of economic growth. Innovation and economic growth accrue to those places that can best mobilize humans’ innate creative capabilities from the broadest and most diverse segments of the population, harnessing indigenous talent and attracting it from outside. Florida and his colleagues examine the three T’s and conclude “To harness the university’s capability to generate innovation and prosperity, it must be integrated into the region’s broader creative ecosystem.” While Florida’s work has been criticized, the report provides an excellent introduction to the relevant literature and an attempt to measure creativity at the institutional level. Creativity in Higher Education; Report on the EUA Creativity Project 2006–2007 represents another attempt to harness creativity and innovation of the university in the service of economic development: Creativity has received a high degree of attention from scholars, professionals and policy makers alike in recent years. Yet, despite the significant overall interest in the topic, so far relatively little attention has been paid in Europe on how creativity and innovation can be enhanced within and by academe. This is particularly unexpected given the key role assigned to higher education for the development of a knowledge society and for achieving the Lisbon objectives of the European Union. Progress towards a knowledge-based society and economy will require that European universities, as centres of knowledge creation, and their partners in society and government give creativity their full attention. Usefully the report considers creativity in terms of a number of related themes including: Creative partnerships: HEIs and external stakeholders; Creative learners: Innovation in teaching and learning; Creative cities/regions: HEIs, NGOs and governments; Creative HEIs: structures and leadership. The EUA report seems to viii

PREFACE

uncritically accept Florida’s theoretical work and the current European emphasis on innovation.3 Jamie Peck’s (2005) critique of Florida and human capital construction of the creative class and economy provides a useful benchmark: Both the script and the nascent practices of urban creativity are peculiarly well suited to entrepreneurialized and neoliberalized urban landscapes. They provide a means to intensify and publicly subsidize urban consumption systems for a circulating class of gentrifiers, whose lack of commitment to place and whose weak community ties are perversely celebrated. In an echo of the Creative Class’s reportedly urgent need to validate’ their identities and lifestyles, this amounts to a process of public validation for favored forms of consumption and for a privileged class of consumers. (p. 764) He suggests that “the notion of creative cities extends to the urban domain the principles and practices of creative, flexible autonomy that were so powerfully articulated in the libertarian business ideologies of the 1990s” (ibid.). Peck ties the script of creative cities and creative class to “the entrepreneurial efforts of deindustrialized cities” the “creative-capital” of “creative productionism” that empowers an “unstable networks of elite actors” that “reconstitute urban-elitist, ‘leadership’ models of city governance” and “lubricate new channels for rapid ‘policy learning’” for fast capitalism and the fast market (p. 767). Others critics seeing Florida’s work as the most widely adopted urban growth strategies in decades have found little theoretical support for the connection between the creative class and economic development (see Hoyman & Faricy, 2009). Clearly, similar critiques could be mounted of the “creative university” although the concept might be given a range of different interpretations that do not rely on neoliberal constructs or theory. By comparison, “creative universities” might embrace a myriad of different descriptions based on user-centred, open-innovation ecosystems that engage in cocreation, coproduction, codesign and coevaluation emphasizing theories of collaboration, collective intelligence, commons-based peer production and mass participation in conceptions of open development.4 This latter view that is only now beginning to be theorized to many of the grass-roots participation, consciousness-raising models, and user-oriented action research paradigms of the 1960s and 1970s first invented and developed by feminists and eco-social movements to marry these political models with new social media and technologically-enabled social production infrastructures embodied in crowdsourcing community informatics, and peer learning strategies. Underlying this alternative is an account of the way in which there has been a paradigm shift in understanding creativity. The model of creativity that has proved so enduring and alluring is that which emerges from German idealism and German and English Romanticism: the paradigm of creativity based on the individual artist of genius. As I have argued (Peters, 2009) this model emerges in the literature ix

PREFACE

from sources in the Romantic Movement emphasizing the creative genius and the way in which creativity emerges from deep subconscious processes, involves the imagination, is anchored in the passions, cannot be directed and is beyond the rational control of the individual. This account has a close fit to business as a form of ‘brainstorming’, ‘mind-mapping’ or ‘strategic planning’, and is closely associated with the figure of the risk-taking entrepreneur. By contrast, I argued for ‘the design principle’ that is both relational and social, and surfaces in related ideas of ‘social capital’, ‘situated learning’, and ‘P2P’ (peer-to-peer) accounts of commons-based peer production. It is seen to be a product of social and networked environments— rich semiotic and intelligent environments in which everything speaks. Most recently, at the conference “Organisation and the New”5 organized by Professor Susanne Weber at Marburg University an international symposium was held on the theme of the creative university with contributions from Peter Murphy (James Cook, Australia), Ruyu Hung (National Chiayi University, Taiwan), Amanda Bill, (Massey University, NZ), Ronald Barnett, (University of London), Nesta Devine, (Auckland University of Technology), Till Stellmacher (ZEF Bonn, Germany), and Dorji Thinley (Royal University of Bhutan). These contributions promised a new conception of the creative university nicely summarized and demarcated by Ron Barnett in terms of a three fold conceptualization comprising (a) an intellectual creativity (a creativity in research and in knowledge generation); (b) a pedagogical creativity (a creativity in curriculum design and in the pedagogical process); and (c) a learning creativity (a creativity among students, in their learning accomplishments). In addition to these three levels of creativity, he adds (d) a reflexive creativity in which a university demonstrates its creativity in its capacities for understanding itself and its possibilities. The alternative possibilities of the creative university was the ethos that provided both a critique of mainstream accounts of the creation of economic value and an orientation towards universities as creative institutions that have a role to play in forms of global “creative development”, a counter-discourse that takes form as an alternative “development” agenda.6 NOTES 1

2

3

4

5

6

x

“The Creative University” was the theme for an international conference held at the University of Waikato 15–16 August, 2012 http://tcreativeu.blogspot.com/. An earlier version of this paper appeared as an editorial in Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(7), 713–717. This is based on the theoretical work of Richard Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class, (Basic Books, 2002); Florida, Cities and the Creative Class, (Routledge, 2004); and Florida, The Flight of the Creative Class, (Harper Business, 2005). See Godin (year?). A shorter version is available in Karl-Erik Sveiby, Pemilla Gripenberg and Beata Segercrantz (eds.), Challenging the Innovation Paradigm, London: Routledge. Cocreation and coproduction in open development represents a very different political model from the United Nations’ neoliberal model of creative capital (UN, 2008, 2010). See the website http://dasneue2013.blogspot.de/p/venue.html for Jahrestagung der Kommission Organisationspädagogik der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Erziehungswissenschaft. A third creative university conference was held at the University of Butan in April, 2014.

PREFACE

REFERENCES EUA. (2007). Creativity in higher education; report on the EUA creativity project 2006–2007. Retrieved from http://www.eua.be/publications/eua-reports-and-studies.aspx Florida, R., Gates, G., Knudsen, B., & Stolarick, K. (2006). The university and the creative economy. Retrieved from http://creativeclass.com/rfcgdb/articles/University_andthe_Creative_Economy.pdf Hoyman, M., & Faricy, C. (2009). It take a village: A test of the creative class, social capital and human capital theories. Urban Affairs Review, 44, 311–333. Godin, B. (year?). ȀĮȚȞRIJR—tĮ$QROGZRUGIRUDQHZZRUOG2UWKHGHFRQWHVWDWLRQRIDSROLWLFDODQG contested concept (Working paper No. 9). Montreal: INRS, Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation. Peck, J. (2005). Struggling with the creative class. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(4), 740–770. Peters, M. (2009). Education, creativity and the economy of passions: New forms of educational capitalism. Thesis Eleven, 96(1), 40–63.

xi

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

EDITORS

Michael A. Peters is Professor of Education at Beijing Normal University, P. R. China, and Emeritus Professor in Educational Policy, Organization, and Leadership at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign (US). He is the executive editor of the journal, Educational Philosophy and Theory, and founding editor of five international journals, including The Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy (Springer), 2SHQ 5HYLHZ RI (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK (T&F). His interests are in philosophy and education, and he has written some ninety books, including: :LWWJHQVWHLQ DQG (GXFDWLRQ 3HGDJRJLFDO ,QYHVWLJDWLRQV, (2017) with Jeff Stickney, (GXFDWLRQ 3KLORVRSK\ DQG 3ROLWLFV 6HOHFWHG :RUNV (2012); and Education, Cognitive Capitalism and Digital Labour (2011), with Ergin Bulut. He has acted as an advisor to governments and UNESCO on these and related matters in the USA, Scotland, NZ, South Africa and the EU. He was made an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of NZ in 2010 and awarded honorary doctorates by State University of New York (SUNY) in 2012 and University of Aalborg in 2015. [email protected] Susanne Maria Weber, Prof. Dr., Philipps-University of Marburg, Germany. Professorship for societal, political and cultural conditions of education in international contexts, Working Group Innovation, Organization, Networks. Since 2007, she has been co-chair of the German educational research association initiative, commission and later section “organizational education”. She has served as chair of the section organizational education and together with her founding cochairs received the research prize of the German Educational Research Association, She serves as co-chair of the European Network “Organizational Education” within EERA and as chair of the global Network “Organizational Education” within the World Educational Research Association (WERA). Her main research fields are: discourse oriented organization and transformation research; participatory approaches and futurability; organizational education research methodologies; societal sustainability; organization and network development; organization and network consultancy; gender research, higher education and science research. [email protected] CONTRIBUTORS

Annett Adler, M.A., University of Kassel, Germany. Researcher in the research project Dynamics in Self-employment Start-ups (funded by the Ministry of Science and Arts, Hesse, Germany). Dissertation project on positions, positionings and

xiii

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

positionality of stakeholders in innovation labs connecting university and society. Her main research fields are: social innovation, laboratory formats, organizational education, discourse studies, situational analysis. [email protected] Ariane Berthoin Antal is Senior Fellow at the WZB Berlin Social Science Center, honorary professor at the Technische Universität Berlin, and Distinguished Research Professor at Audencia Business School in France. Her research has focused on business and society, organizational learning and culture, artistic interventions in organizations, as well as identity and meaning at work. Recent books include /HDUQLQJ2UJDQL]DWLRQV([WHQGLQJWKH)LHOG (with P. Meusburger and L. Suarsana, Springer, 2014); Moments of Valuation. and $UWLVWLF,QWHUYHQWLRQVLQ2UJDQL]DWLRQV Research, Theory and Practice (with U. Johannson-Sköldberg and J. Woodilla, Routledge, 2016). [email protected] Meike Sophia Baader, Prof. Dr., Professor of Education at the Institute for Educational Sciences, University of Hildesheim. Research Foci: Childhood, Youth and Family in Modern Societies; Gender and Education; Childhood and Care-Work; History of Education; International Progressive Education; Religion and Education; Social Movements and Education; Education and the Movement of 1968; Paedophilia and Social Sciences (1960–2000); Childhood and sexual Liberalization, Discourses on Motherhood; Gender and Diversity at University. Since 2011: Member of the Review Board “Educational Sciences” of the German Research Foundation (DFG). Contact: [email protected] Fabian Brückner, M.A. Social and Organizational Pedagogy, Institute for Interdisciplinary Work Science, Leibniz University of Hanover. Institute for Work and Employment Studies. Consultant at ICL – Interventions for Corporate Learning, Berlin. Main areas of research and work are Organizational Change, Corporate Culture, Child Protection and High Reliability Organizing. fabian.brueckner@ uni-hildesheim.de Agnieszka Czejkowska, Professor and Founding Director of the Institute for Professional Development in Education, University of Graz, Austria. Main areas of research are critical professional theories including the theme complex of difference and heterogeneity, tension fields in education and communication, informal learning and educational processes in a world of globalisation as well as art based research methods. [email protected] Gervaise Debucquet is Associate Professor of marketing at Audencia Business School in France. Her research focuses on the social representations and identity dimensions associated with food. Her expertise in qualitative methodology has led her into new research fields, including artistic interventions in organizations. [email protected] xiv

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Karl-Heinz Gerholz is Professor of Business and Human Resource Education at the University of Bamberg, Germany. His research interests comprise the design of service learning, digitization in vocational and higher education, corporate social responsibility in educational institutions and educational management. He is member of the review board Educational Design research and International Journal of Business Education. Furthermore, he is reviewer in different international journals and conferences in field of educational science. He earned his PhD at the university of Paderborn. (Online: https://www.uni-bamberg.de/wipaed-p/). [email protected] Richard Heraud, PhD, University of Waikato. He is an independent researcher with interests in the problems of participation in the innovation process, open innovation, networked and collaborative relations, creative economy through collective intelligence, and collaborative relations in R&D, in particular involving but not limited to relations between researchers and technologists in New Zealand and China. He is co-editor of E-Learning and Digital Media, managing editor of the 2SHQ5HYLHZRI(GXFDWLRQDO5HVHDUFK, co-editor of the Encyclopedia of Educational Innovation (Springer, forthcoming), co-chair of the Editors’ Collective and research assistant for ‘The Aesthetics and Politics of Innovative Learning Environments’ (Auckland University of Technology). [email protected] Angela Krewani is a professor for Media Studies at Philipps University in Marburg, Germany. She has published on American writers in Paris Moderne und Weiblichkeit (1992). and on the hybridization of literature, film and television, Hybrid Forms (2000). Among others she has co-edited a book on contemporary Hollywood Hollywood – Recent Developments (2005) and on Marshall McLuhan, McLuhan’s Global Village Today (2014), with Karen Ritzenhoff on Apocalypse in Film, The $SRFDO\SVHLQ)LOP'\VWRSLDV'LVWDVWHUVDQG2WKHU9LVLRQVLanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2016. Her latest monograph is on 0HGLD$UW±7KHRU\$HVWKHWLFV3UD[LV WVT Trier, 2016. [email protected] Thomas Krobath, vice rector of the University College of Teacher Education Vienna/Krems, Lecturer at University of Vienna. Main areas of research are school development, culture of recognition, interreligious cooperation. [email protected]; http://www.kphvie.ac.at/ 0HWH.XUWR÷OX, PhD Candidate, Department of Sociology, Middle East Technical University, Turkey. Main areas of research are sociology of higher education, higher education in global knowledge economy and institutional diversity in higher education. [email protected] *HRUJH/ă]ăURLX, PhD, is a senior research fellow at the Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, New York, United States of America. xv

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

His main areas of research are the cognitive information effect of televised news, the economics of citation impact metrics, individual personality characteristics as pivotal predictors of Facebook use, the social construction of participatory media technologies, democratic responsibilities of news media, and the language of journalism ethics. [email protected] Line Revsbæk, PhD, MSc in psychology, is an associate professor at the Department of Learning and Philosophy, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark. Her research focus on organizational socialization, employee induction and newcomer innovation in organizational contexts. She works from process ontology, pragmatism and complexity theory perspectives to develop understanding of the social dynamics of collaboration and organizational life during organizational entry. revsbaek@ learning.aau.dk Susanne Maurer, Prof. Dr., University of Marburg, Germany, faculty of education, chair for social pedagogy; research topics and interests: social movements and education, feminist critique, politics of critique and remembrance, critical theory of social work. [email protected] 5DPRQD 0LKăLOă is the vice rector for International Relations and full professor Ph.D. at the Faculty of Foreign Languages and Literatures (for which she served as a dean by the end of 2016), Dimitrie Cantemir Christian University, Bucharest. She is the author of books concerning women’s writing and co-editor for many volumes focusing on gender studies: Representations of Women’s Roles in Romanian Women’s Writing (2013), Identity Construction of Female Characters in 19th Century Prose (2008), editor of Divisions of Gendered Spaces (2016), Transnational Identities of Women Writers in the Austro-Hungarian Empire (2013), co-editor for Gender Studies in the Age of Globalization, volumes I–X (2013), *HQGHU6WXGLHV Woman Inside and 2XWVLGHWKH%R[ (2012). She has been visiting professor at Arizona State University (2010), research fellow for international institutions and universities: Library of Congress, Washington (2015), University of Southampton (2012), Huygens Royal Institute, The Hague (2011), grants recipient for conference participation:Hogeschool University, Brussels (2011), Université Paris-Est Créteil, Paris (2013) etc. She has been coordinator of the European project “Gender Studies and Gender Roles in Romania and Austria: A Contrastive Research of the Literary-Media Sources (2008–2011) and co-leader of Working group 4 within the European project “Women Writers in History” (2009–2013), member of the Management Committee for the European project “Gender, Science, Technology and Environment”(2012–2016). She serves as the executive publishing editor of Journal of Research in Gender Studies, Addelton Academic Publishers, New York. [email protected] Amanda Roberts is an independent educational consultant. Amanda’s subject, pedagogic and professional knowledge has been developed through experience xvi

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

in a variety of educational roles, including leadership positions in four secondary schools culminating in headship. She subsequently formed a successful consultancy company, providing support for leadership and learning in numerous contexts. She went on to hold a variety of roles at the University of Hertfordshire, UK which supported the development of her expertise in diverse areas such as quality enhancement and curriculum design. Her work now focuses principally on leadership (including student leadership) and coaching. Amanda’s current research focuses on the use of creative methodologies for exploring leadership experience and identity development. She has a particular interest in the use of collage to both enhance and explore human agency. Amanda’s latest book is &ROODERUDWLYH6FKRRO/HDGHUVKLS A Critical Guide, co-authored with Philip Woods and published by Sage in 2018. [email protected] Andreas Schröer is a professor of organizational education at Trier University. He received his Ph.D. at Erlangen-Nuremberg University. As a postdoctoral scholar he spent time at Heidelberg University and Stanford University. He held academic positions in Non-profit Management at Portland State University and Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences and served as research director of the Heidelberg Centre of Social Innovation and Social Investment. His research focuses on supporting innovation and organizational learning processes in non-profit organizations, social innovation labs and the role of leadership in organizational learning. schroeer@ uni-trier.de Miriam Sitter, Dr. Phil., sociologist and political scientist at the Institute of Social and Organizational Education at the University of Hildesheim (Germany). Main areas of research are discourse analytic studies on education-related debates as a result of PISA, social inequality in the early childhood as well as studies on the mourning processes of children and their consolation in the imaginary. [email protected] Sean Sturm serves as Deputy Director of the Centre for Learning and Research in Higher Education (CLeaR) at the University of Auckland. He coordinates CLeaR’s tertiary teaching qualification, the Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice. [email protected] Stephen Turner teaches communication studies in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Auckland. Together, they write about universities, writing and the digital humanities, and settler colonialism in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Their current book project focuses on the university as a place of possibilities. [email protected] Peter C. Weber, Dr. Phil, Dipl. Päd., Professor for career guidance and counselling at the University of Applied Labour Studies, Mannheim. Until 2016 research associate in the work unit “Continuing Education and Counselling” at the Institute xvii

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

for Educational Science at Heidelberg University. Promotion 2012 on quality in counselling. The main focus of research is is career-oriented counselling, development of competencies, and organizational development in educational and counselling services. [email protected] Glenys Woods is a visiting fellow at the University of Hertfordshire, UK. She gained her PhD through The Open University and has worked as a contract researcher in various universities. Her publications include Alternative Education for the 21st &HQWXU\ 3KLORVRSKLHV $SSURDFKHV 9LVLRQV, co-edited with Philip Woods, which was published by Palgrave in 2009. Philip A. Woods is Director of the Centre for Educational Leadership and Professor of Educational Policy, Democracy and Leadership at the University of Hertfordshire, UK, as well as former Chair and current Council Member of the British Educational Leadership, Management and Administration Society (BELMAS). His work focuses principally on leadership as a distributed and democratic process and on issues of governance, equity and change towards more democratic and holistic learning environments. He is author of over 130 publications and has wide-ranging experience and expertise in leading, managing and participating in projects funded by organisations including the British Academy, UK government and European Union. Philip’s latest book is &ROODERUDWLYH6FKRRO/HDGHUVKLS$&ULWLFDO*XLGH, co-authored with Amanda Roberts and published by Sage in 2018. [email protected]

xviii

SUSANNE MARIA WEBER AND MICHAEL A. PETERS

INTRODUCTION 2UJDQL]DWLRQDQG1HZQHVV

Innovation and newness is on the agenda of dynamic, accelerating societies: In the discourse on innovation, anything ‘New’ takes a strong hold of society (macro level), organizations (mezzo level) and individuals (micro level) (Weber, 2005). As part of the political agenda (Rammert, 1997), in political programs and programmatics, innovation and newness is translated into the rationalities of institutions and professions. Innovation and newness also occurs in the fringe areas or at the boundaries of what is perpetually accepted (Bormann, 2011). As marginal and different practice, something new breaches the daily routines of social normality. Innovation and newness occurs as an alternative to existing patterns; it appears as “otherness”, difference and aberration. Newness and innovation can be examined in different perspectives – as the relation between centre and periphery, between rule and exception, or between incremental and radical change. Given these different options, it is essential for any scientific analysis of newness and innovation to deal with the fundamental question: is “the new” really new or just occurring as new in the eye of the beholder? Does it reappear from the unconscious, the waters of forgetfulness – or it is new only if it was never known before? What is newness and innovation aiming at – at the material or immaterial, at social structures or cognition? These questions are being answered quite differently by the various disciplines that are concerned with the analysis of the ‘new’: while research in economics, for instance, approaches the topic of innovation and institutional and organizational design of the future mostly from a instrumental perspective (Hauschildt & Salomon, 2007), sociology focuses on (critical) analyses of societal development and on a discussion of renewal and innovation (Braun-Thürmann, 2005). A perspective on newness and innovation from the viewpoint of organizational learning aims at the potential of change in social, organizational, discursive, more or less structured systems as cultural and symbolic arrangements. Our understanding of newness and innovation ties in with discourses about newness, innovation, future, creativity and design. As part of those discussions, the following questions seem to be of particular relevance: how is the pressure to change perceived and dealt with, especially in academia and its open interconnected cooperations? How is change reflected and planned? Who are the actors and what are the relevant contexts of change? Which

xix

S. M. WEBER & M. A. PETERS

roles do educational and pedagogical approaches to change and transitions play in the discourses about innovation and newness? The volume at hand allows a view from a perspective of organizational education on the ‘New’, which analyzes the production of the ‘New’ within organizations, in relation to the inherent learning processes. Fundamental for this perspective is the question about the changeability of organizations, especially when these are not viewed only as instrumentally established regulatory structures but also as social constructs. They are analyzed as social structures, cultural patterns (Göhlich, 2004) or symbolic orders (Weber, 1991, 1998, 2005). The analysis of newness ties into these discourses about innovation and future, as well as to perspectives of creativity and creation (Weber, 2013a, 2013b). Hence, from a perspective of organizational education, those questions that deal with reflection and planning of the new and organizational change, with the stakeholders and contexts of the new, and not least with the pedagogical facilitation of processes of change, future and innovation, are particularly relevant. ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICE OF IMPERATIVES OF THE ‘NEW’

Starting with the macro level of global political, economic and civil-societal debates, academic discourses analyze the relationship between creativity and development within the different innovation paradigms of global knowledge economies (Peters, Murphy, & Marginson, 2009) in specific ways. Economies as “economies of signs and space” (Lash & Urry, 1994) are designed as spaces of global creativity, mobility and synchronization (Marginson, Murphy, & Peters, 2010), in which technological patterns of innovation are declining (Rammert, 1997), social innovation is considered a new, “post-industrial innovation paradigm” (Howaldt & Jacobsen, 2010) and open and interlinked coordination is identified as an overarching pattern of regulation and design (Peters & Roberts, 2011). However, there are distinct models and imaginations of newness that appear here (Murphy, Peters, & Marginson, 2010). In programmatic statements from supranational stakeholders (e.g. the European Commission 1995), traditional innovation discourses, as well as new development discourses, appear on the scene (Peters, Besley, & Araya, 2013), and by all means become imperatives of change for organizations. Here, indications are already made towards the potentials of analyzing cultures of the new “as a field of discourse”. Research perspectives that are related to organization pick up knowledge-based approaches with the metaphor of a “journey” of knowledge and ideas – of “traveling ideas” (Cziarniawska & Sevón, 2005) – and examine knowledge dynamics in multi-level structures and their relevance to organizing. The perspective of organizational education and pedagogy is also – and specifically – interested in the question of how organizations cope with the pressure of change and in the options and risks that are connected to this. How do they translate these options and risks for themselves? How does the new have to enter, or rather appear, in order to be able to connect to the linguistic games and self-conception of xx

INTRODUCTION

organizations? What strategies of speaking, forming coalitions, spreading, anchoring, diffusing are chosen or emerge in order to let newness seep into the routines of organization? What processes of organizational learning are launched, and how is this being done? How does organizational non-learning become possible? REFLECTION AND PLANNING OF NEWNESS

The reconstruction of planning and reflection of newness in innovation and design within organizational education and organizational pedagogy ensues beyond linear modelling. The origin of newness is understood as a complex interplay between knowledge and stakeholder relations in multilateral connections. Contrary to traditional hopes in planning, the specificity of stakeholder constellations, the lack of ability to plan newness, the dynamic of nonlinearity of processes and the connection of multiple organizational or societal levels in the configuration of newness comes into view, here. The project of newness is predominantly fragile, if we think of the contingency of organizational transformation processes. With that, it is open which conceptions of newness are – or are made – compatible with which organizational orders of value and knowledge, and in what way this occurs. It is uncertain which view organizations have of themselves in the interplay of the “old” and “new”, the things that are established and made into routines, the known and the “foreign new”. How do they become reflective when coming into contact with the new and with themselves? How do they develop their own “routines of reflection” and the “routines of reflection of their innovating” (Bormann, 2009)? STAKEHOLDERS AND SPACES OF NEWNESS

The thematic core of research in organizational education generally lies in the object of organizational strategies for dealing with intentional chance and emerging transformation – and with this it also lies with newness and future developments. Here, a question is raised that pertains to a perspective related to the purpose of discourse: “Who speaks” (Foucault, 1973, 1991, 1992) in the polyphony of organizing? Are traditionally dominant and technology-oriented positions shown to advantage? Are strategies of newness accepted as “rational” strategies? Or does this way of thought originate from (institutionalized) power and micro-political negotiations? Which stakeholders create the new? What role do cultural differences or social inequalities play in the design of newness? Where do stakeholders demand participation as a right – and where do they wait to be included? Where do new institutional arrangements of disruption, openings, congregation, institutional “agoras”, and temporal transitional spaces in organization (Weber, 2004) emerge? What coalitions are adopted here (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993)? What actors of change are being followed in processes of discursive negotiation in organization, what ones are not? What is transitional power based on? Who possesses the authority for deciding about the new? xxi

S. M. WEBER & M. A. PETERS

ORGANIZATIONAL EDUCATION SUPPORTING PROCESSES OF CHANGE

Special interest thus also pertains to questions about the relationship between intentionality and emergence of the ‘New’, about the creativity of institutions that are often geared towards value relations and maintenance. This is also always about issues of the creation of future in management (Neuhaus, 2007). Here, questions about the rank of aesthetic approaches for transformation and change are of considerable interest. Arrangements in the form of networks are increasingly being discussed as coordination mechanisms (Weber, 2005). Specifically with hybrid stakeholder constellations between profit, non-profit and administration, institutional and cultural difference becomes a critical factor: plurality has to be addressed, heterogeneity has to be negotiated in contact with various societal areas and institutional boundaries have to be overcome. In normative governance concepts, interwoven control strategies between the profit and non-profit sector, politics, economy and civil society tie in with hopes of redesigning the future paths (Scharmer, 2013). In debates of organizational learning and of innovation management, so-called communities of practice (Wenger, 1998) are identified as bearers of hope of newness in organizing. They are regarded as suitable social structures for network based control strategies. As empirical research shows, they can be change savers and contribute to maintenance as “closed shops” (Braun-Thürmann, 2005). How does the current state of research in organizational education and organizational pedagogy analyze newness within organization? What inventories of knowledge do discourses in organizational pedagogy draw on (Weber, 2000)? On the basis of the analyses, what organizational-educational and organization-pedagogical conceptualizations of the ‘New’ appear suitable? What research methodical designs are suitable for academic examination of organizational and interconnected learning efforts? PART 1

An ethical position on temporality is held by Thomas Krobath, with his contribution ,QWHQWLRQDORUJDQL]DWLRQDOFKDQJHDQGWKH³QHZ´$QRUJDQL]DWLRQDO ethics perspective of change management. In the current goal and semantics of acceleration, pressure for time and innovation becomes a world-economic whirl and thus management of change becomes a necessity. This contribution deals with the triumph of change-management in its technological, or rather technocratic version. According to the author, here, the self-legitimization of the new involves illusions of realization. The functionalization of organized change is focused on economization that is laid out one-sidedly. His organizational-theoretical perspective deals with the issue of the intensified managerial perspective on organizational change and requests organization and ethical reflective space. This position points to the organizationalpedagogical desiderates of an ethics of future creation, as well as to the handling of uncertainty and contradictions in accelerating societies. xxii

INTRODUCTION

Fabian Brückner reflects on %HWZHHQ RUJDQL]DWLRQ DQG WKH QHZ +RZ OLVWV DUH used to create (or reduce) innovation. He studies the assumption that “organization” and “newness” are contradictory. Thus organizations do not genuinely operate with newness, since newness does not exist in a form that would allow organizational revision. Organized newness, or rather the new that is made organizable, is known, which means that the newness becomes lost. Organizations translate the new into the known, or rather, into repetition. As central medium of this translation between organization and the new, Fabian Brückner examines “the list” as space and technical matters of the transformation of the New. The technique of the list transforms the only vaguely constructed new into a concise form that allows organizational steering and governance activities. From ethnographically collected material from the area of child- and youth-support, the author shows how ‘new’ stories are translated into lists and ‘new’ people become workable cases in lists. Karl-Heinz Gerholz examines the field of higher education. With his question How do the new outcome-oriented instruments arise in the faculty? A theoretical and empirical analysis, he discusses the change and irritation of routines on the level of faculties, which he regards as core elements of the university as an educational organization. The new challenges of the Bologna process, the ‘management of the courses of study’ and the ‘creation of competition and profile’ raise the question about the organizational concept of faculty actors. The empirical study that was realized on the basis of problem-centered interviews, aimed at the analysis of orientation patterns of faculty stakeholders. Richard Heraud from the University of Waikato, New Zealand argues in Innovation DQGSROLWLFDOVXEMHFWLYLW\$SUREOHPIRUWKHDFWRULQHGXFDWLRQ that structuring of education such that it should prepare students for work through an ends-oriented for of learning that itself becomes work, stifles student innovation in that such a system of learning is obliged to stifle innovaton that comes from the bottom up – the reason being that student innovation is bound to question the institution’s own processes. Presently, the application of the OECD’s concept of innovation in education is underpinned by the notion that the acquisition of knowledge and skills will produce innovative activity in R&D for the purpose of contributing to economic growth. However, this concept of the acquisition in innovative capacities excludes the majority of students for reason that the formation of innovation capacities in students supposes the formation of new political subjectivities and these political subjectivities will be disruptive to the institutional governance of education as a production of human capital. In effect, the already innovative capacities of students are stifled. With this problematic in mind, Heraud reflects upon the fate of the individual student as an actor. He concludes that despite the fact that the individual student may already be an innovative subject, the educational institution has prescribed a part without a part in that the student has been invited to play a role that is not role in the institution’s innovation processes of innovation – the test for innovative learning being the measure of student participation in the institution’s own innovation processes. xxiii

S. M. WEBER & M. A. PETERS

,Q KLV SDSHU *HRUJH /ă]ăURLX DGGUHVVHV 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO G\QDPLFV ZLWKLQ knowledge economy. Referring to Michael Peters, he says that “cloud capitalism” recentralizes the internet and creates large-scale monopolies in knowledge economy. New logics of social media structure different patterns of cultural consumption. In his view, Peters is right in claiming that openness is a hybridized mode of production and a leading source of innovation in the world global digital economy, while the user is a co-designer or co-creator integrated into the value creation process. Applying new conceptual and methodological approaches, this study advances to the next level of research on the relationship between organizational determinants and innovation, circumstances of organizational newness, and organizational factors that contribute to or detract from effective newness. The “soft architecture” of the network defines the nature of our institutions, our practices and our subjectivities. New forms of labour are developed by new technologies, and are enforced through intellectual property rights. The production processes are based on forms of networking that often require the individual freedom and consent of the workers, the new labour processes depend on language and communication that can be digitized, whereas distributed knowledge and learning systems become part of the open science economy, and co-production of symbolic goods reshape the production processes. Nonetheless, existing literature lacks a synthesizing model that weaves different empirical findings together as to offer a theoretical understanding of the organizational knowledge creation process, the relevance of newness to organizational processes, and creating newness in the products and services provided. Line Revsbæk, from Aalborg University in Denmark, analyzes the relationship between newcomers and old-timers: Researching organizational entry from a perspective of Newcomer Innovation. She addresses the topic of organizational newcomers, who may challenge existing work practices as they develop from legitimate peripheral participation in the community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) towards the position of full participation. She refers to experimental studies of Newcomer Innovation in small autonomous work groups, where authors have explicitly framed newcomers as change agents. In her paper, Line Revsbaek presents her empirical study of Organizational Newcomer Innovation based on reported entry experiences among newcomers, old-timers and superiors in Danish private sector organizations. Based on the analytical perspective of newcomers as actors of change, the paper explores a framework of understanding the reciprocal experiences of newcomers and old-timers in relation to Newcomer Innovation in a workplace setting. Miriam Sitter’s perspective on analytical discourse focuses on the PISADiscussions. In her paper PISA as a generator of innovation, she analyzes the constitutions and institutional rooting of the Pisa discourse with critical intent. She presents how the acronym PISA experienced a semantic change that by now has become established in the context of discourses in education policy. With this, its utilization for the launching of research perspectives and strategies in educational policy is almost self-explanatory. “PISA” legitimates new action initiatives and puts xxiv

INTRODUCTION

into action concepts into perspective by marking them as significant and innovative. As a collective semantic, PISA hence turns into a discursive condition of possibilities of the new – and into an “innovation generator”. Soren Willert from Aalborg University in Denmark analyzes Searching for the FKDQJHDJHQW6WHSVWRZDUGVDQHFRORJ\RILQQRYDWLRQ. Linear-strategic management thinking implies (1) a clear separation between situation-to-be-changed (improved), and change agent; (2) the ability of situational outsiders, not only to make unequivocal situational assessments of situations, but also to predict and control the effects of their later interventions in such situations. These presuppositions are being modified and/or challenged by the following three theoretical positions (among others): Luhmann describes social systems as upholding their identities through ‘communicating communication’. Individual human mind-power has no direct change potential. Innovative system behaviour requires structural coupling. Organizational complexity theorists insist on viewing organizational territories as composed of nothing but complex responsive processes in some state of orderly disorder. Individual human actors fill the paradoxical role of being, at one and the same time, media through which these processes flow and conditiones sine qua non for making them happen. For Barad the quantum-mechanically derived concept of intra-action contests the ontic separateness of change agents and situations that require change. The author is engaged as an action researcher in an educational setting. Change processes, or the lack thereof, will be analyzed with the aim of shedding light on the role and function of the change agent – with the theoretical ambiguities mentioned above as analytic context. In his text )XWXULQJKLJKHUHGXFDWLRQ"7KHLQQRYDWLYHQHVVRIUHIRUPV7XUNH\±$ critical case study0HWH.XUWR÷OXDQDO\VHVJOREDOWUHQGVLQKLJKHUHGXFDWLRQSROLF\ reforms. As he shows, they present an increasing connectedness to policies towards establishing knowledge economies and put universities into a central position for economic development. This tendency creates an urge for higher education reform in many developing countries as part of their political agenda towards global competitiveness. The new concepts brought by such reform processes i.e. entrepreneurship, techno-science, corporate governance, quality assurance so on and, as such, create a tension with the traditional idea of universities and their institutional settings. As a result, universities face controversies in finding the paths for reflecting the new challenges and sustaining their institutional traditions. This process is understandably different in developing countries with a weaker tradition of modern universities than in the developed countries. Focusing on three case studies, the internal and external factors shaping the processes of change are shown. As the author argues, ‘Innovativeness’ in higher education needs to transfer – and transform – policy tools from developed countries. In her article 0RQH\ UXOHV NQRZOHGJH 7KH HPHUJHQFH RI FUHDWLYH DQG VRFLDO imperatives in the epistemic field Agnieszka Czejkowska discusses the emerging challenges of economization of and within the academic field taking into account the case of Austria. In her contribution she shows, how European Framework xxv

S. M. WEBER & M. A. PETERS

Programmes for research and innovation produce implications and effects on research and academic knowledge production. The author highlights the impact for academic and disciplinary identity and research in education and discusses potential research approaches and the dilemmata that accompany these. Fundamental social, economical, political and technological changes create the double shift of ‘economization’ on the one hand and ‘culturalization’ on the other hand. As calls for research proposals show, research policy and granting strategies refer to aesthetic sensitivity and rationality. They imply a specific art of governing (cf. Peters, 2001; Weber & Maurer, 2006; Foucault, 2004; Czejkowska, 2011; Holert, 2011) setting up a regime and a governmental practice that connect art and knowledge to social productivity in a specific way. Art and culture enter in a functional relationship to support the creation of consensus; they enter in multifunctional embeddings like supporting a sense of (national) identity or other intentions and goals. The implicitness of education (cf. Liebau & Zirfas, 2009) allows for the shaping and codesign of complex fields of aesthetical social interaction. The relationships between aesthetics and economics, and shifts to a functional epistemological relationship have to be analyzed more deeply in the future. PART 2

In Part 2, Michael A. Peters problematizes Managerialism and the neoliberal XQLYHUVLW\3URVSHFWVIRUQHZIRUPVRIµRSHQPDQDJHPHQW¶LQKLJKHUHGXFDWLRQ The restructuring of state education systems in many OECD countries during the last two decades has involved a significant shift away from an emphasis on administration and policy to an emphasis on management. Starting from philosophical critiques of the Western university and emphasizing the dominance of technical reason on the one hand and the apparatus of administrative reason, the article discusses the new constellation highlighted here with the rise of the ‘neoliberal university’. The “new managerialism” has drawn theoretically, on the one hand, on the model of corporate managerialism and private sector management styles, and, on public choice theory and new institutional economics, most notably, agency theory and transaction cost analysis, on the other. A specific constellation of these theories is sometimes called “New Public Management,” which has been very influential in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. These theories and models have been used both as the legitimation for policies that redesign state educational bureaucracies, educational institutions and even in the public policy process. Most importantly, there has been a decentralization of management control away from the centre to the individual institution through a “new contractualism” – often referred to as the “doctrine of self-management” – coupled with new accountability and competitive funding regimes. This shift has often been accompanied by a disaggregation of large state bureaucracies into autonomous agencies, a clarification of organizational objectives, and a separation between policy advice and policy implementation functions, together with a privatization of service and support functions through xxvi

INTRODUCTION

“contracting out”. The “new managerialism” has also involved a shift from input controls to quantifiable output measures and performance targets, along with an emphasis on short term performance contracts, especially for CEOs and senior managers. In the interests of so-called “productive efficiency,” the provision of educational services has been made contestable; and, in the interests of so-called allocative efficiency state education has been progressively marketized and privatized. In Michael Peters paper, he analyzes the main underlying elements of this theoretical development that led to the establishment of the neoliberal university in the 1980s and 1990s before entertaining and reviewing claims that new public management is dead. At the end of the paper he focuses on proposals for new forms of ‘the public’ in higher education as a means of promoting “radical openness” consonant with the development of Web 2.0 technologies and new e-research infrastructures in the global knowledge economy. Ariane Berthoin Antal (Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin, WZB, Germany) and Gervaise Debucquet study Artistic interventions in organizations as intercultural relational spaces for identity-development. An interesting phenomenon that has come to the fore in recent years that is in search for new ways of seeing and doing things in organizations through artistic interventions – when people, practices, or products from the world of the arts enter the world of (non-art-based) organizations. Stimulating employees to engage with the arts in their workplace can be seen as a potential trigger for – or enabler of – organizational learning. The confrontation between different perspectives, behaviours, and values from these two “worlds” can generate newness by challenging underlying assumptions and irritating routines in an organizational culture, thereby opening spaces of possibility. The paper draws on findings from internet-based qualitative survey data that result from a series of artistic interventions conducted in small and medium sized companies in Spain between 2011 and 2012. The respondents include artists, employees, project managers and the intermediaries who produce the interventions. The survey questions address the pre- and post-experience phases, permitting insights into the objectives, hopes and fears with which the different stakeholders entered into the learning space, and then into the kinds of learning outcomes that they perceive as having arisen out of these engagements. The findings show the interconnectedness of organizational learning processes at the individual, collective, and inter-organizational levels. Angela Krewani from Philipps-University of Marburg, Germany analyzes :RUNLQJ DW WKH HGJH RI LQQRYDWLRQ $UWLVWV LQ ODEV Since the middle of the 20th century, creative activity can be observed in artists within academic research laboratories, specifically in the laboratories of the academic disciplines that yield a high “future potential”, also described as LifeSciences or Biotechnologies. The presentation aims to chart the dimension of this work and its significance for the organization of newness. In the course of this, different theoretical and practical aspects of the work are discussed. From a theoretical point of view, the epistemic foundations of the academic disciplines of LifeSciences are examined. In terms of the theories of Bruno Latour, these forms of knowledge are “hybrid objects” that xxvii

S. M. WEBER & M. A. PETERS

have long left the laboratory and are active in a variety of discourses. Against the backdrop of new insights about Science and Technology Studies, these disciplines turn out to be a form of knowledge that need to be redefined and that distinguish themselves through a new relationship of practice and theory. Here, practice is the dominant element of the acquisition of insight. The epistemological description of the insight information opens the doors for the understanding of artistic works. These should not be introduced with the long tradition of cooperation of art and science in view, but rather their artistic contribution should be reviewed in light of the practices of LifeSciences and on the dimensions of action that are implemented in artistic creation. Focused are the creative aspects of the works of art and their abilities of critically reviewing the sciences, the aspects of the dimensions of public discussion of scientific practices, of analogies of creative and academic thinking and of implications for future action. The future designs of the works of art are also to be examined, which are expressed in the conduct of the works of art and in the medial techniques, as well, that are applied by them. The central question with this is whether the works of art offer a potential with which academic knowledge can be transformed into societal action, and to what extent the offered options of action are capable of aiding through aesthetic production with the implementation of new forms in aesthetic/societal practice. Andreas Schröer from University of Trier, Germany, discusses Social innovation and social intrapreneurship in German welfare organisations. The paper introduces a definition of social innovation and explains the role of social innovation in German welfare organizations, before introducing the two research questions: (1) Who are social innovators in German welfare organizations? and (2) What are effective ways to support social innovators in German welfare organizations? Based on the results of current studies carried out by a large national research network on Social Entrepreneurship, the paper argues that there is increasing public attention for social entrepreneurs, which play an innovative role in the German third sector. However, social entrepreneurs are mostly understood as founders of new, innovative organizations, addressing a social mission with entrepreneurial means. Nonetheless, those organizations remain small compared to the big social service agencies with several hundred thousand employees and volunteers, organized in the National League of Welfare Organizations. Entrepreneurial leaders and innovators in those “big” organizations are likely to be more important for innovation in the German third sector than the founders of small organizations. Those innovators are recently called Social Intrapreneurs. This observation leads to the question how social innovation or social intrapreneurship can be supported by processes of organizational learning. Based on an analytic framework the paper will compare different approaches, such as social innovation labs, innovation teams and innovation hubs to compare those approaches and identify core principles. The last part discusses the best fit of those approaches for the institutional context of German welfare organizations. 5DPRQD 0LKăLOă IURP 8QLYHUVLW\ RI %XNDUHVW LQ 5RPDQLD GLVFXVVHV WKH WRSLF of 2UJDQL]LQJ D QHZ SROLWLFDO FXOWXUH :RPHQ ZULWHUV DQG VKLIWV LQ PHDQLQJV xxviii

INTRODUCTION

power relations and social web of society. The concept of the liability of newness has influenced late 19th century Romanian and other European women’s writing. Newness creates a number of challenges for writers and this article tries to explore the suffragette work of a number of entirely neglected Romanian women writers and to assess their achievement by their cultural impact, in an age of significant changes in women’s social status. For a variety of reasons, partly because of their exclusion from male organizations and partly because of cultural beliefs that emphasized the differences between women and men, women writers’ political culture flourished in separate organizations. A main strength of Romanian feminism prior to 1938, when women were granted the right to vote, was the separate female community that helped sustain women’s participation in both social reform and political activism. The expansion of women’s political culture after the War of Independence (1877–1878) laid the foundation for the greatest political mobilization of women in Romanian history – through the creation of many committees for women. Women organized many feminist societies, the first one Reuniunea femeilor române (The Reunion of the Romanian Women) in 1886, in Iassy, where Cornelia Emilian also initiated the feminist movement. Later, in 1895, she founded Liga femeilor române (The League of the Romanian Women), the first Romanian society with statutes and a printed bulletin Buletinul Ligii femeilor (The Bulletin of the Women’s League), that urged women to fight for their political rights and showed how women reformers and gender-specific issues they championed helped advance class specific issues during a time of fundamental social, economic, and political transition. Sean Sturm and Stephen Turner, based at the University of Auckland (New Zealand) analyze ,QWKHZDNHRIWKHTXDNH7HDFKLQJWKHHPHUJHQF\ In the context of the contemporary techno- or technological university what is new would appear to be the pan-disciplinary imperative of ‘critical and creative thinking.’ Without content these drivers of contemporary education orient research projects, shape the built space of institutions (and indeed social futures) and motivate pedagogy by design. Yet these values should not be taken as given; rather they constitute the programming intent, or structural intent, of the new university as innovation hub, knowledge factory and learning ecology. The discourse of critical and creative thinking unfolds the immanent consistency, or techno-drive, of capitalist enterprise, within the material environs of the new university, whose architectonics increasingly model learning that is flexible, distributed, collaborative and immaterial. Programmed creativity is, however, an oxymoron. Tracing a non-linear logic of aberration and describing a teaching practice of errancy (erratoloy), Sturm and Turner consider innovation as a reflexive investigation of ground (assumptions, boundaries, parameters and physical space) that is dialogic rather than discursive, situational rather than programmed, and that necessarily precedes in fits and starts. As a matter of organization theory, seismotics and seismological intelligence need to be included in the management of the research university if the unpredictable grounds of knowledge-production and the matter of the ‘new’ are to be properly grasped. xxix

S. M. WEBER & M. A. PETERS

Meike Sophia Baader (University of Hildesheim, Germany) and Susanne Maurer (Philipps-University of Marburg, Germany) examine narratives of the new in the context of “new social movements”. In their contribution The assertion and GHYHORSPHQW RI µWKH QHZ¶ LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI HPDQFLSDWRU\ QHZ VRFLDO PRYHPHQWV they use the example of Kinderladen and women’s movements of the 1970s in order to reconstruct and discuss those narratives. In doing this, the relationship of “movement” and “organization” becomes topical in a specific way. Initially, they ask on a fundamental level about theories and (research) approaches to ‘new social movements’ and their characteristics. They principally assume that, to this day, the connection between the so-called new social movements and questions of education represents an aspiration of research. But what specific difficulties does academic research about new social movements have to deal with and how is this connected to their claim to want to create something ‘new’? By means of historic sources and materials they generically analyze claims of newness in the context of the Kinderladen and women’s movements on the 1970s. Especially narratives of the new are reconstructed, which are being studied on their functions in their respective movement. On the level of historic research and analysis, it deals with what part of everything that claimed to be ‘new’ actually was. Eventually they inquire about what became of the ‘new’ in the historical course. Here, the organizational innovations and improvements become visible, which originated in, or rather, were provoked by both the Kinderladen movement as well as the women’s movement. Theoretically they tie into historical, sociologic and socio-scientific theories about new social movements. Methodically they take up a perspective of educational, cultural and modern history. At the basis of this, along with other things, lies material from an ongoing research project on the “Kinderladen movement in the perspective of educational, cultural and modern and occupational history 1965–1977”. Additionally, already completed and ongoing studies on politics that are affected by women’s movements in generational relationships provide the specific empirical evidence for the contribution (Susanne Maurer). Overall, the contribution deals with the relationship between claims of innovation and the dynamics of new social movements, and exemplarily reflects the specific historical impacts and effects in organizing. Following a discourse-analytical perspective that analyzes the nexus between knowledge, power and the practices of the production of newness, academic, politic and economic, also methodical objectives and semantics of organizations are analyzed in order to learn about what requests of innovation and strategies of change of the design spaces and process models they formulate. In the sky of organizational change and the discourses of innovation, “design” and “design thinking” becomes a rising star. As organizational knowledge for multi-stakeholder processes and open innovation processes, this knowledge contains a methodical, organizational and paradigmatic status. What rank does this knowledge have? Is design just a new mode of management, a myth of organizing, or does it allude to a new distribution of rationalities in the epistemic field of the new? In her paper Change by design!? Knowledge cultures of design and organizational strategies of creation, Susanne xxx

INTRODUCTION

Maria Weber, based at Philipps University Marburg, Germany addresses knowledge dynamics in design. In dynamic, accelerating societies, discourses on future and innovation, creativity and change increasingly appear on the agenda of organized systems. Scientific, political and economical, yet also methodical objectives and semantics of organizing shape organizational discourses and the adequacy of change strategies, settings and processes. Thus, the connection between knowledge, power and practice is a productive analytical approach to organization and the ‘new’. On the horizon of organizational change and innovation strategies, “design” and “design thinking” comes into being as a “rising star”. As organizational knowledge for multi-stakeholder and open innovation processes, it is awarded a methodical, organizational and even paradigmatic status. What, then, is the relevance of different concepts of collective creation within the horizon of the “design-discourse”? Is “design” just a new management fashion, another myth of organizing, or a first hint on power shifts in the epistemic fields of academic as well as organizational and institutional discourses of the New? “Organizational learning”, “deep innovation” and “design-thinking” are presented and analyzed as “surfaces” of a discourse and as strategies of epistemic organizing in institutional fields of the ‘New’. Philip Woods, Amanda Roberts and Glenys Woods from the University of Hertfordshire in England address the topic 1HZQHVV DJDLQVW WKH JUDLQ Democratic emergence in organizational and professional practice. Innovation and entrepreneurialism are seen by dominant policy discourses as defining components of contemporary education systems. What counts as new and acceptable is, however, shaped and constrained by the priorities embedded in these dominant discourses, which typically privilege performative and economistic visions of the self and limit the application and development of full human potential. This paper examines newness and entrepreneurialism as concepts that have both dominating and emancipator innovation – namely, a ‘degrees of democracy’ framework encouraging reflection on professional practice. This involved groups of teachers, school leaders, students and others who worked with the framework in teaching and professional development sessions in the UK, Europe and the US. Examples of progressive change in schools, following reflection using the framework, are examined. The potential and challenges for organizational innovation aimed at creating more holistically democratic educational environments are discussed in lights of the responses. Peter C. Weber discusses the text Pedagogy and organizational learning – Theoretical reflections on synergetics as a meta-model for designing learningprocesses in organizations. The synergetics perspective interlinks a psychological and a physics theoretical perspective. Organizations here are regarded are interfaces of learning and adaptation processes, mediating processes between environmental factors (e.g. technical innovations, political regulations, legal decisions, etc.) and individuals (e.g. individual learning or competence development). The chapter in an organizational education perspective systemizes relevant criteria, which allow the reflection of organizational development and learning in theory and practice. The suggested approach of “Synergetics” (Haken & Schiepek, 2010; Schiersmann, xxxi

S. M. WEBER & M. A. PETERS

2012), relating to dynamic interplays between micro- and macrosystems, refers to theories of self-organization, applied in different thematic fields like psychotherapy, counselling, organizational or network development. Self-organizational approaches relate to patterns and recursive processes (macrolevel), feedbacks bringing about new orders and the modification of patterns in processes. While any system is operating within its own logic, change can be stimulated by the environment. Thus, the theoretical approach focuses on the recursive interplay of different systems, elements and the modulation of patterns and rules. The model suggested reflects the situation of “nested” multi level systems (cf. Weber, 2013, p. 43). With that, the contributions of the issue contour the complexity of newness in organization and form a bridge from critical analysis of imperative discourse of newness, to programmatic pleas of an organizational education, analyzing and bringing about reconfigurations of organizational and societal relationships. The issue at hand shows how tightly the question about newness is constitutively woven into the self-conception of organizational education and pedagogy. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The Editors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Richard Heraud with some technical and editorial aspects of this book. REFERENCES Barnett, R. (2011). Being a university. Abingdon: Routledge. Bormann, I. (2011). Zwischenräume der Veränderung. Innovationen und ihr Transfer im Feld von Bildung und Erziehung. Wiesbaden: VS. Braun-Thürmann, H. (2005). Innovation. Bielefeld: Transcript. Czarniawska, B., & Sevón, G. (2005). *OREDOLGHDV+RZLGHDVREMHFWVDQGSUDFWLFHVWUDYHOLQWKHJOREDO economy (Advances in organization studies). Frederiksberg: Liber and Copenhagen Business School Press. Czejkowska, A. (2011). Ob es uns gefällt oder nicht. Kulturelle Bildung und drittmittelbasierte Forschung. In C. Mörsch (Ed.), Art Education Research Nr. 4, Jg. 3. gem. mit Marianne Sorge (Illustriationen). Europäische Kommission. (1995). Grünbuch innovation. Retrieved from europa.eu/documents/comm/ JUHHQBSDSHUVSGIFRPBBGHSGI˪ Foucault, M. (1973). Archäologie des Wissens. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. Foucault, M. (1991). 'LH2UGQXQJGHV'LVNXUVHV. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. Foucault, M. (1992). Was ist Kritik? Berlin: Merve. Foucault, M. (2004). Die Geschichte der Gouvernementalität I und II. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Göhlich, M. (2004). Rituale und Schule. Anmerkungen zu einem pädagogisch bedeutsamen Zusammenhang. In Beiheft Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 2–04 (Editorial). Innovation und Ritual. Jugend, Geschlecht und Schule, 17–28. Haken, H., & Schiepek, G. (2010). 6\QHUJHWLN LQ GHU 3V\FKRORJLH 6HOEVWRUJDQLVDWLRQ YHUVWHKHQ XQG gestalten. 2., korrigierte Auflage. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Hansen, T., & Levine, J. M. (2009). Newcomers as change agents: Effects of newcomers’ behavioral style and teams’ performance optimism. Social Influence, 4(1), 46–61. Hauschildt, J., & Salomo, S. (2007). Innovationsmanagement. 4. Aufl. München: Vahlen. Holert, T. (2011, June). Künstlerische Forschung: Anatomie einer Konjunktur. Artistic Research, s. 38–63.

xxxii

INTRODUCTION Howaldt, J., & Jacobsen, H. (2010). 6R]LDOH LQQRYDWLRQ $XI GHP :HJ ]X HLQHP SRVWLQGXVWULHOOHQ Innovationsparadigma. Wiesbaden: VS. Lash, S., & Urry, J. (1994). Economies of signs and space. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Liebau, E., & Zirfas, J. (2009). Die Kunst der Schule. Über die Kultivierung der Schule durch die Künste. Bielefeld: Transcript. Marginson, S., Murphy, P., & Peters, M. A. (2010). *OREDOFUHDWLRQ6SDFHPRELOLW\DQGV\QFKURQ\LQWKH age of the knowledge economy. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Murphy, P., Peters, M. A., & Marginson, S. (2010). ,PDJLQDWLRQ7KUHHPRGHOVRILPDJLQDWLRQLQWKHDJH of the knowledge economy. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Neuhaus, C. (2007). =XNXQIWLP0DQDJHPHQW2ULHQWLHUXQJHQIUGDV0DQDJHPHQWYRQ8QJHZLVVKHLWLQ strategischen Prozessen. Heidelberg: Carl-Auer Verlag. Peters, M. A. (2001). Education, enterprise culture and the entrepreneurial self: A Foucauldian perspective. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 2(2), 58–71. Retrieved from http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/ EDEQ/article/view/558/428 Peters, M. A., & Besley, T. (2006).%XLOGLQJNQRZOHGJHFXOWXUHV(GXFDWLRQDQGGHYHORSPHQWLQWKHDJH of knowledge capitalism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Peters, M. A., Besley, T., & Araya, D. (2013). 7KHQHZSDUDGLJPRIGHYHORSPHQW(GXFDWLRQNQRZOHGJH economy and digital futures. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Peters, M. A., Murphy, P., & Marginson, S. (2009). Creativity and the global knowledge economy. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Peters, M. A., & Roberts, P. (2011). 7KHYLUWXHVRIRSHQQHVV(GXFDWLRQVFLHQFHDQGVFKRODUVKLSLQD digital age. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Rammert, W. (1997). Innovation im Netz: Neue Zeiten für technische Innovationen: heterogen verteilt und interaktiv vernetzt. 6R]LDOH:HOW=HLWVFKULIWIUVR]LDOZLVVHQVFKDIWOLFKH)RUVFKXQJXQG3UD[LV 48(4), 397–415. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). 3ROLF\ FKDQJH DQG OHDUQLQJ $Q DGYRFDF\ FRDOLWLRQ approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Scharmer, O., & Käufer, K. (2013). /HDGLQJIURPWKHHPHUJLQJIXWXUH)URPHJRV\VWHPWRHFRV\VWHP economies. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Schiersmann, C. (2012). Career counselling as a support of self-organisation. In C. Schiersmann, B. J. Ertelt, J. Katsarov, R. Mulvey, H. Reid, & P. Weber (Eds.), NICE handbook for the academic training of career guidance and counselling professionals (pp. 156–160). Heidelberg: Heidelberg University. Weber, P. (2013). Qualität in der arbeitsweltlichen Beratung – eine Untersuchung von Qualitätsmerkmalen, Qualitätsmodellen und eines Netzwerks zu deren politischen Implementierung in Europa unter Berücksichtigung der Theorie der Selbstorganisation (Dissertation). Heidelberg University, Heidelberg. Weber, S. M. (1991). Frauenförderung – Akteure, Diagnosen und Therapievorschläge. Analyse und Kritik am Beispiel betrieblicher Weiterbildung. Institut Frau und Gesellschaft. Reihe Theorie und 3UD[LVGHU)UDXHQIRUVFKXQJ. Bielefeld: Kleine. Weber, S. M. (1998). 2UJDQLVDWLRQVHQWZLFNOXQJXQG)UDXHQI|UGHUXQJ(LQHHPSLULVFKHDQDO\VHLQGUHL 2UJDQLVDWLRQVW\SHQGHUSULYDWHQ:LUWVFKDIW. Königstein: Ulrike Helmer. Weber, S. M. (2000). Fördern und Entwickeln. Institutionelle Veränderungsstrategien und normalisierendes Wissen. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 3(3), 411–428. Weber, S. M. (2004). Organisationsnetzwerke und pädagogische Temporärorganisation. In W. Böttcher & E. Terhart (Eds.), 2UJDQLVDWLRQVWKHRULHLQSlGDJRJLVFKHQ)HOGHUQ±DQDO\VHXQG*HVWDOWXQJ(pp. 253–269). Wiesbaden: VS. Weber, S. M. (2005). Rituale der Transformation. Großgruppenverfahren als pädagogisches Wissen am Markt. Wiesbaden: VS. Weber, S. M. (2012). Macht und Gegenmacht. Organisation aus praxistheoretischer Perspektive – Implikationen für eine habitus- und feldreflexive Organisationsberatung. Gruppendynamik und 2UJDQLVDWLRQVEHUDWXQJ 137–152. Weber, S. M. (2013a). Dispositive des Schöpferischen: Genealogie und Analyse gesellschaftlicher Innovationsdiskurse und institutioneller Strategien der Genese des Neuen. In M. Rürup & I. Bormann (Eds.), Innovationen im Bildungswesen. Analytische Zugänge und empirische Befunde (pp. 191–221). Wiesbaden: VS.

xxxiii

S. M. WEBER & M. A. PETERS Weber, S. M. (2013b). Imagining the creative university. Dispositives of creation, strategies of innovation, politics of reality. In M. Peters (Ed.), The creative university. New York, NY: Sense Publishers. Weber, S. M., & Maurer, S. (Ed.). (2006). Gouvernementalität als Perspektive für die Erziehungswissenschaft. Wiesbaden: VS. Wenger, E. (1998). &RPPXQLWLHVRISUDFWLFH/HDUQLQJPHDQLQJDQGLGHQWLW\ Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

xxxiv

PART 1

ANALYZING ORGANIZATION, NEWNESS AND INNOVATION

THOMAS KROBATH

1. INTENTIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND THE “NEW” $Q2UJDQL]DWLRQDO(WKLFV3HUVSHFWLYHRI&KDQJH0DQDJHPHQW

According to sociological and philosophical diagnoses we are living in an age of acceleration (Doppler & Lauterburg, 1997; Heintel, 1999). This age can be said to be characterized by global time pressure and pressure on people to be innovative (Trebesch & Kulmer, 2007) which as a thrend continues to accelerate the pace of life (Rosa, 2005). Many developments contribute to the logic of acceleration. This accelerated development implies, that there is no longer grace period for getting used to the “New”. As a result of this analysis, change management seems to be absolutely essential and is regarded as key-factor of success (Lauer, 2010). Popular concepts of change management focus on the fact that change will be successful if the rules of management are followed, which can provide and produce “successful change of any magnitude in organizations” (Kotter, 1996, p. 20). The action orientated mainstream management literature tends to emphasize a mechanical function of an organization, producing an imbalance between stability and flexibility or between continuity and change. This paper intends to add an organizational ethics perspective to the discussion about the sense and nonsense of organizational change (Sorge & Witteloostuijn, 2004). The paper will start by highlighting a few critical remarks in relation to some basic assumptions about change management. According to organizational ethics, organizational change is a responsible change and will always need organizational reflection as well as a framework of communication settings to enable reflection on the “New”. The paper starts with some remarks on Newness (the first section) and highlighting the focus on radical change as a substructure for organizational development (part 2). The demand for permanent change refers to ethical questions processing fundamental tensions e.g. between stability and flexibility. The second section introduces organizational ethics as a participative way to organize ethical reflection. The following section deal with elements of ethical reflections on change management: responsible change (the fourth section), ways of shaping the future (the fifth section), uncertainty as the starting point of ethical management (the sixth section) and the necessity of managing tension within change management (the seventh section).

© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2019 | DOI:10.1163/9789004394827_001

T. KROBATH

ORGANIZATION AND NEWNESS

Reflecting on Organization and Newness we enter the topic full of ambivalence, expectations, fears and hopes, myths, and with a lot of questions related to traditional ways of bringing about the future while managing newness. As we will see, the debate on managing organizational change as direct action towards the “New” contains “many riddles or conundrums” (Hughes, 2010, p. 3) as well as “a wide range of contradictory and confusing theories” (By, 2005, p. 378). These riddles and confusion are manifest in different expressions or models: Modification, Reform, Reorganization, Organizational Learning, Innovation, Transformation, Turnaround, Change, and Revolution. Integrating the new into the existing, be it organizations or societies, is a decisive factor of innovation (Vahs & Burmester, 2005, p. 44). The Latin word “innovatio” (renewal, newness) derives from “novus” (new) without clearly explaining the meaning of “new” (loc. cit., p. 45). In traditional rationalist and technocratic management discourses, organizations are considered rational entities and functional structures, made for rationally handling the achievement of tasks and jobs (according to the approach of Wimmer, Meissner & Wolf 2009). More up-to-date organizational theories engage the informal side, the power plays, the process dimensions of ‘organizing’ and do not limit organizational perspectives to illusions of rationality. As the organizational theorist and organizational consultant Wimmer (2004, p. 155ff) puts it, one of the greatest illusions of organizations is that they are said to be able to organize Newness in all its various meanings and dimensions. Risks of this ‘possibilist’ perspective that accompany this assumption can be forgotten such that Newness also creates new differences within an organization. As Wimmer points out, the organizing of the New will also mean dealing with difference productively by organizing settings for reflection and decision-making. In this respect, it always will be relevant to relate to the state of newness: What is new and in which respect? Are we talking about absolute newness, about the only contextually regarded newness? What is regarded as new at all? Are we talking about symbolic arrangements and a rhetoric of newness, or will there be collective processes of reflecting on and agreeing to criteria of innovations that are wanted – and unwanted, too? Where do those reflections take place? Will they be legitimate or have an ‘undercover’ space only? Going beyond limited methodical approaches and designs of innovation, it needs to be asked what path should be followed, according to what criteria should the path be developed, and what kinds of newness could and should be collectively wanted. This perspective argues that there is a need for reflection on the means and the ends of organizations and of organizing, as such. This debate does not limit itself to organizational learning perspectives, but engages questions on innovation and learning for organizational ethics (cf. part 3 in this paper).

4

INTENTIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND THE “NEW”

CHANGE MANAGEMENT

As there exists an abundance of literature on change management, this paper only draws on the underlying rationality, to be found in main-stream management literature. We will take an exemplary look at the bestselling book “Leading Change” authored by John P. Kotter (1996), which Hughes (2010, p. 135) regards it as one of the most influential books in this field. In what follows below, we reflect on the ethical dimension that has to do with the ideas, claims and promises that are prevalent in organizational change. As we will show, the normative claims, made in management and the change management literature, are underpinned by an underlying normative statement that will be shown to be biased in its approach to ethics. As a look at Google search results and a general review of the literature shows, change management has been developed as a business concept (according to overall summaries by Oltmanns & Nemeyer, 2010; Hughes, 2010). Over the last twenty years, change management has become the most popular and symbolic claim of management innovation. As Burnes and By (2012, p. 240) show, the rise of the number of approaches to change management is accompanied by a “significant decline in support for ethical approaches to change”. In this paper change is defined as intentional organizational change, which right from the very beginning has been seen as an integral part of organizational development concepts From a social science perspective, organizational development is historically grounded in humanistic ideals and focuses on participation and participatory change (Trebesch, 1980; Freimuth & Barth, 2011). Critics of organizational development emphasize, that in classical ways of organizational development the process of change takes too much time (Trebesch & Kulmer, 2007). In contrast change management seems to be a radical adaptation to the big challenges of the ever-increasing speed of global markets (Doppler & Lauterburg, 1997). By stressing dynamics and goal orientation during the change process (Kotter, 1996), it also emphasizes the leading role of managers. As we can see, there are big differences in how change management is understood. Against a technocrat expert management consultancy approach, organizational development follows the model of Kurt Lewin by describing a planned approach to organizational change in the three stages of unfreezing the present level of an organization (1. stage), changing to a new level (2. stage) and refreezing the “new” level (3. stage) (Burnes, 2004). In this early linear and relatively static concept of Lewin change occurs being exceptional in a stable organization. Change as an irritation, making restabilizing and “refreezing” the new state necessary, later on was developed further, and can be seen in Kotter’s eight–stage-process for successful organizational transformation (Kotter, 1996) or accordingly in Luecke’s seven steps (Luecke, 2003). In newer approaches to change management, the exceptional becomes the rule. Change is no longer regarded only as a stage in a process or as a result, but as an ongoing process itself. This results in the “chronically unfrozen” organization being 5

T. KROBATH

introduced into research and change management literature (Weick, 1977, p. 32). According to Weick, organizational development introduces intentional change into organizations. Change management regards change as having a constantly flowing character. Weick therefore does not suggest the need for an entity related and substantialist approach, but a process view of organizations. This perspective takes the “blind spot” of uncertainty into account. According to Weick, uncertainty does not easily allow for a reflexive approach to change and is therefore easily turned into rational planning of and within organizations. The stability claim is replaced by the claim for a constantly learning organization (Kühl, 2002, p. 244). In the latter-type model of the learning organization, structural dilemmas are constantly present and in need of being balanced in all processes of organization. Balancing between continuity and change requires new patterns and modes of governance, which can offer support and stabilization to the constantly changing organization. As such, Kühl sees the principles of organizational learning becoming the core of organizational change (loc. cit., p. 243) The call and demand for a constant change also carries with it tensions regarding stability and flexibility. Within the norm of the constantly learning organization, organizations in general will have to be “balancing paradoxes” (Nasim & Sushil, 2011, p. 202). As knowledge is not neutral, any learning and change project will carry questions regarding power, participation, interests and, as such, will always be processing ethical decision-making in respect to basic contradictions and conflicts in organizations (Krainer & Heintel, 2010, p. 159ff). ORGANIZATIONAL ETHICS

In general, “organizations” and “ethics” present a wide field of theoretical concepts, applications and scopes. The term “organizational ethics” combines ‘organization’ on the one hand and ‘ethics’ on the other hand. Reflecting on organizational ethics, we should always ask, how these terms are related to each other. An organization, as seen from an ethical point of view, can be described as an important space and arena, where, within problem identification, goal setting and decision–making, as well as organizational learning in general, moral and ethical questions are raised. .On the other hand, ethics, in general, deals with questions such as the following: What is good for us, for others and for future generations? From an organizational point of view ethics can be described as a process of dealing with these questions in organizations for the purpose of a specific organization. (WKLFVLQ2UJDQL]DWLRQV Debates on organizational ethics are usually adressed as ‘ethics in organizations’ or ‘ethics of organizations’ (Philipps & Margolis, 1999), both of them being the most common definitions. The term ‘organizational ethics’ is not used for reflecting on the sense of organizations in an philososphical (social ethics). It mainly refers “to 6

INTENTIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND THE “NEW”

generally accepted standards that guide behavior in business and other organizational contexts“ (Ferrell, 2005, p. 4). The recent extensive surveys of organizational ethics cover almost all moral questions and how they can be managed in organizations (Johnson, 2016; Maak & Ulrich, 2007). Seen from this perspective, organisational ethics usually asks for: ‡ Shared values and moral standards (Lozano, 2002), ‡ Value management and communicating values of an organization to its members and stakeholders (Breyer-Mayländer, 2009), ‡ Distinctions between ethical and unethical behaviour (Blickle, 1998), as well as ‡ Codes of integrity and social responsibility (Fisher & Lovell, 2009). ‡ The questions being asked here are the following: How does an organization ethically respond to challenges, stimuli and critical situations? When can we speak of an ethical organization? 2UJDQL]LQJ(WKLFDO5HIOHFWLRQLQ2UJDQL]DWLRQV Another approach to organizational ethics surfaces when you change the order of the terms: from “ethics in organizations” to “organization of ethics” (Heintel, 2010) or “organizing ethics” (Krobath & Heller, 2010). The concept does not only relate to organizations, specified on the topic of ethics or dealing with moral concerns From the point of view of organizational ethics, all organizations are loaded with ethics whatever the practice, whatever the decision and whatever the situation. Organizations can always be regarded as a space and an arena of ambiguity and contested ethics, as they are the main social spaces where people work together and where the principal needs and necessities of society are attended to (Heller & Krobath, 2010). Organizational ethics, as it is understood in this paper, is not a set of moral values transcribed into guidelines or codes of conduct. “Organizing ethics”, in our perspective, addresses the way in which ethical reflection is organized (Krobath, 2010). Based on a conflictivity perspective, ethical reflection needs to be organized in order to create a reflexive state and standpoint from which to operate – otherwise it will be carried through at an unquestioned and pre-reflexive level. And the process of reflection has to be organized to become part of the organisation. Organizing organizational ethics means establishing structures and processes of reflexivity within an organization. Ethical reflection in organizations cannot be limited to an individual level of reflection, but should be specifically organized as a collective process of reflection. In order to make reflection possible there has to be an organized difference, a system-difference that allows system-reflection (Krainer & Heintel, 2010, p. 185f). Questions to be asked from an organizing-ethics-point-of-view might be: ‡ Is it possible to organize ethics/ethical reflection as true setting or structure in this organization? ‡ How can ethical reasoning be part of an organization? ‡ Who should define what is (ethically) good and what is not? 7

T. KROBATH

‡ How can time, social systems, communication and rules for ethical reflection and decision-making be organized? ‡ Who takes part in the process and setting of deciding on what should be changed in an organization and how? The following sections deal with elements of ethical reflection related to change management and provoked by some general assumptions on change management philosophy and attitude as presented in the main-stream management literature mentioned before. ETHICS OF RESPONSIBLE CHANGE

As we have seen above, “change” is a core topic of organizational ethics. This leads to the needs to deconstruct the following question: How do organizations deal with change? For example: ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

Is this a question of management only? How does change affect employees? What are the aims and purpose of the actual change process? Do we want things to remain as they are and do we want to continue as we have done to this point?

An organizational ethics perspective is not limited or even focused on optimizing functional operation of an organization. It reflects the logic of functions in respect to the question: What is “the good” that is considered to be the product of the organization, why does it exist and how can it be brought about? Organizational ethics in general carries is a sceptical view on a management optimism that is inherent in functionally-oriented managerial attitudes and to technocrat innovation models. Unfortunately, the constantly increasing amount of literature on innovation and change management, does not focus much on the ethical aspects of change (e.g. Hughes, 2010, p. 224ff). In particular organizational ethics perspectives (Nielsen, 1991) are hard to find (Burnes & By, 2012). An outstanding exception in the mainly economical literature is Ulrich’s concept of “Responsible Change” (Maak & Ulrich, 2007, p. 311ff), which needs to be discussed here. Responding to the change management discourse from a business ethics point of view, Ulrich asks what are the reasons for initiating a change process, and how is this managed and organized. “Responsible Change” takes into account the legitimacy of a proposed change and its social and cultural consequences for the organization, all stakeholders and participants, and asks: ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 8

What should be changed and why is this change necessary? Who is concerned and in what ways? Can the change be justified to the people concerned? Can the change be realized responsibly?

INTENTIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND THE “NEW”

ETHICS OF SHAPING THE FUTURE

Management aims at making things possible in future. Change management gurus often tend to present ahistorical concepts and to overemphasize the making of the future. The balance of time (which is very important for managing transformation energy (Wimmer, 2004, p. 176ff)) may get lost here. Kotter speaks about historically grown relationships in organizations, suggestion that: “the purging of unnecessary interconnections can ultimately make a transformation much easier” (Kotter, 1996, p. 142). He prefers “to leap into the future” (loc. cit., p. 186), giving the impression that managing change provides enough certainty and control. But even when there is less of this kind of appealing rhetoric, the critical question remains: “How feasible is it to manage into the future?” (Hughes, 2010, p. 10). In the early days of change management, James March elaborated on the importance of balancing stability and change. His warning seems to still hold contemporary purchase: “As a result, our plans are based on a future that we know, with certainty, will not be realized” (March, 1981, p. 572). There is also evidence of “a failure rate of around 70 per cent of all change programmes initiated” (By, 2005, p. 370). In an age of acceleration, processes are speeding up. Ubiquituous and permanent innovation shortens innovation cycles (Doppler & Lauterburg, 1997, p. 21ff). Newness seems to be the fetish of a rapidly changing society. But where are we heading? Where is our speed taking us? Who will make sure that these questions will be asked? The future is always ahead of us. However, will we ever be able to grab it. The Austrian philosopher Peter Heintel points to the consequences of such a speedbound society: The more we try to reach the future, the more we lose spaces of the rest in the present, places of consciousness and contemplation (Heintel, 1999, p. 194). Ethical interventions should therefore encourage us to ‘stop’ and ‘reflect’. We need to interrupt the ever growing and constant acceleration. Organizational ethics is a way of organizing and establishing settings for interruption as a systemdifference within organizations. Organizational interruption needs space, time, structure, resources and the taking of responsibility. Thinking of future from a pedagogical and an ethical perspective always involves a magical element. When we hope, we hope for a better future. The future is the place for utopia, the place of different possibilities. There, the importance of time is crucial: Reflection needs time. Careful decisions need time. In many organizations time is only seen as time pressure, where time is only regarded as being a scarce resource which is always in shortage> In such circumstances, there is hardly any space will be left for ethical reflection and for taking ethical decisions (Krainer, 2007; Monteverde, 2009). Managing change therefore should take into account the slowing down of the speed of decisionmaking and change making. Nevertheless, deceleration too,in this context, remains ambivalent. As a selective measure, deceleration prevents us from loosing stability and becomes a functional demand in an accelerating society (Rosa, 2005, p. 152). 9

T. KROBATH

ETHICS OF UNCERTAINTY

Decisions always will include ventures and require risk taking. There is no safety and security in planning. Modern technological developments ask for new ethical questions, e. g. about beginning and ending of life. In many areas of modern life, life becomes complex, intransparent and even complicated. According to the constructivist perspective of Heinz von Foerster, decision-making only is needed, when you cannot decide by using pre-established rules, and when things seem to be un- or indecidable (Foerster, 1984). Quoting the sociologist Zygmunt Bauman: We have to face the possibility of wrong decisions. Uncertainty is the basis of moral action and ethical reflection (Bauman, 2007, p. 46f). In management you often will find a heroic attitude of determination, power, security, the understanding that enabling things is only a matter of technical tools. Ethical reflection puts an end to heroic management (Baecker, 1994) and to the illusion of feasibility. This does not only refer to the feasibility of a technical-rational civilization, but also to a naive belief in progress, transfer and an ‘easy going’ organizational development and learning. A modern form of heroic management in all areas of work shows in the focus of competence. System theorist Baecker (1994) therefore argues to establish the ethical principle of “postheroic management”. Here, principles of uncertainty include ethics, which need the competence of dealing with shared incompetence (Heller, 2008, p. 4). This could be a ‘postheroic’ way of facing uncertainty. Shared uncertainty then needs communication, shared perspectives and rules for understanding and agreement in social systems. An ethics of uncertainty suggests a common decision making in the face of known uncertainty (Fischer, 1999). ETHICS OF MANAGING TENSIONS

So how can there be certainty? In organizational governance and management, there seems to be a tendency toward craving to gain certainty by using key data and rational management. Uncertainty cannot be excluded. Following Weick and Sutcliffe (2001), we live in an age of complexity which means we should expect the unexpected. According to the authors, ‘managing the unexpected’ means to establish mindfulness as an attitude and as a management style. As our “plans and visions and forecasts are inaccurate and gain much of their power from efforts to avoid disconfirmation” (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001, p. 172), we need to shift the mode of governance accordingly. For the authors quoted here, it is important to develop mindfulness in groups, as individuals tend to focus on their own interests and to simplify problems. However, uncertainty cannot be avoided by collective decision-making. As we have seen from an ethical point of view, decision-making always produces a source of tension between certainty and uncertainty (Heintel, 1986). Similar to the tensions between stability and flexibility and between maintaining the status quo and changing, these 10

INTENTIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND THE “NEW”

tensions can regarded be analytically as structurally given in human lives, as well as in our societies of the present age. From an ethical point of view it will always be risky to allow one dimension of the tensional bond to overpower its counterpart. From an ethical point of view, organizations in our society will be bound to deal with these tensions: they will not be able to solve them. Instead of a mere ‘managing’ concept, our present societies and organizations will need to find a balance that works. REFERENCES Baecker, D. (1994). Postheroisches Management. Berlin: Merve. Bauman, Z. (2007). Leben in der flüchtigen Moderne. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp. Blickle, G. (Ed.). (1998). (WKLNLQ2UJDQLVDWLRQHQ. Göttingen: Verlag für Angewandte Psychologie. Breyer-Mayländer, T. (2009). Aktives Wertemanagement %DVLV GHU 8QWHUQHKPHQVNRPPXQLNDWLRQ. Renningen: Expert Verlag. Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A re-appraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 41(6), 977–1002. Burnes, B., & By, R. T. (2012). Leadership and change: The case for greater ethical clarity. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(2), 239–252. By, R. T. (2005). Organisational change management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 369–380. Doppler, K., & Lauterburg, C. (1997). Change management. Den Unternehmenswandel gestalten (6th ed.). Frankfurt a. M.: Campus. Ferrell, O. C. (2005). A framework for understanding organizational ethics. In R. A. Peterson & O. C. Ferrell (Eds.), %XVLQHVV HWKLFV 1HZ FKDOOHQJHV IRU EXVLQHVV VFKRROV DQG FRUSRUDWH OHDGHUV (pp. 3–17). New York, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Fischer, R. (1999). Wissenschaft und Bewusstsein der Gesellschaft. In F. G. Wallner & B. Agnese (Eds.), Konstruktion und Verfremdung (pp. 69–82). Wien: Braumüller. Fisher, C., & Lovell, A. (2009). %XVLQHVV HWKLFV DQG YDOXHV ,QGLYLGXDO FRUSRUDWH DQG LQWHUQDWLRQDO perspectives (3rd ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall. Foerster, H. Von. (1984). Sicht und Einsicht. Braunschweig & Wiesbaden: Friedrich Vieweg & Sohn. Freimuth, J., & Barth, T. (2011). 30 Jahre Organisationsentwicklung: Theorie und Praxis vs. Theorie oder Praxis? 2UJDQLVDWLRQVHQWZLFNOXQJ(4), 4–13. Heintel, P. (1986). Über Entscheidung. In Wiener Jahrbuch für Philosophie XVIII (pp. 151–169). Heintel, P. (1999). Innehalten. Gegen die Beschleunigung – für eine andere Zeitkultur. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder. Heintel, P. (2010). Organisation der Ethik. In T. Krobath & A. Heller (Eds.), Ethik organisieren. Handbuch GHU2UJDQLVDWLRQVHWKLN (pp. 453–483). Freiburg im Breisgau: Lambertus. Heller, A. (2008). Unsicher sein dürfen. 3UD[LV3DOOLDWLYH&DUH, 4–7. Heller, A., & Krobath, T. (2010). Organisationsethik – eine kleine Epistemologie. In T. Krobath & A. Heller (Eds.), (WKLN RUJDQLVLHUHQ +DQGEXFK GHU 2UJDQLVDWLRQVHWKLN (pp. 43–70). Freiburg im Breisgau: Lambertus. Hughes, M. (2010). 0DQDJLQJFKDQJH$FULWLFDOSHUVSHFWLYH (2nd ed.). London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Johnson, C. E. (2016). 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO HWKLFV $ SUDFWLFDO DSSURDFK. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. (Refreshed edition, 2012) Krainer, L. (2007). Nachhaltige Entscheidungen. Zur Organisation demokratisch-partizipativer Entscheidungsprozesse. In L. Krainer & R. Trattnigg (Eds.), Kulturelle Nachhaltigkeit (pp. 169–199). München: oekom.

11

T. KROBATH Krainer, L., & Heintel, P. (2010). Prozessethik. Zur organisation ethischer Entscheidungsprozesse. Wiesbaden: VS. Krobath, T. (2010). Zur Organisation ethischer Reflexion in Organisationen. In T. Krobath & A. Heller (Eds.), (WKLNRUJDQLVLHUHQ+DQGEXFKGHU2UJDQLVDWLRQVHWKLN (pp. 543–583). Freiburg im Breisgau: Lambertus. Krobath, T., & Heller, A. (Eds.). (2010). (WKLNRUJDQLVLHUHQ+DQGEXFKGHU2UJDQLVDWLRQVHWKLNFreiburg im Breisgau: Lambertus. Kühl, S. (2002). Sisyphus im Management. Die verzweifelte Suche nach der optimalen 2UJDQLVDWLRQVVWUXNWXU. Weinheim: Wiley. Lauer, T. (2010). Change management. Grundlagen und Erfolgsfaktoren. Heidelberg: Springer. Lozano, J. (2002). Organizational ethics. In L. Zsolnai (Ed.), (WKLFV LQ WKH HFRQRP\ +DQGERRN RI business ethics (pp. 165–185). Bern: Peter Lang. Luecke, R. (2003). Managing change and transition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Maak, T., & Ulrich, P. (2007). ,QWHJUH 8QWHUQHKPHQVIKUXQJ (WKLVFKHV 2ULHQWLHUXQJVZLVVHQ IU GLH :LUWVFKDIWVSUD[LV. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel. March, J. G. (1981). Footnotes to organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4), 563–577. Monteverde, S. (2009). The importance of time in ethical decision making. Nursing Ethics, 16(5), 613–624. Nasim, S., & Sushil. (2011). Revisiting organizational change: Exploring the paradox of managing continuity and change. Journal of Change Management, 11(2), 185–206. Nielsen, W. R. (1991). Ethics and organizational change. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 29(1), 82–93. Oltmanns, T., & Nemeyer, D. (2010). Machtfrage change. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus. Philipps, R. A., & Margolis, J. D. (1999). Toward an ethics of organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(4), 619–638. Rosa, H. (2005). Beschleunigung. Die Veränderung der Zeitstrukturen in der Moderne. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp. Sorge, A., & Witteloostuijn, A. van. (2004). The (non)sense of organizational change: An essai about universal management hypes, sick consultancy metaphors, and healthy organization theories. 2UJDQL]DWLRQ6WXGLHV(7), 1205–1231. Trebesch, K. (1980). Ursprung und Ansätze der Organisationsentwicklung sowie Anmerkungen zur Situation in Europa. In U. u. a. Koch (Eds.), 2UJDQLVDWLRQVHQWZLFNOXQJLQ7KHRULHXQG3UD[LV (pp. 31–50). Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang. Trebesch, K., & Kulmer, U. (2007). Von der Organisationsentwicklung zum Change Management. Der Wandel in der Gestaltung von Veränderungsprozessen. In R. U. A. Ballreich (Ed.), 2UJDQLVDWLRQVHQWZLFNOXQJ und Konfliktmanagement (pp. 43–54). Bern: Haupt und Concadora. Vahs, D., & Burmester, R. (2005). Innovations management (3rd ed.). Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel. Wimmer, R. (2004). 2UJDQLVDWLRQ XQG %HUDWXQJ 6\VWHPWKHRUHWLVFKH 3HUVSHNWLYHQ IU GLH 3UD[LV. Heidelberg: Carl-Auer-Systeme. Wimmer, R., Meissner, J. O., & Wolf, P. (2009). 3UDNWLVFKH2UJDQLVDWLRQVZLVVHQVFKDIW. Heidelberg: CarlAuer-Verlag. Weick, K. E. (1977). Organization design: Organizations as self designing systems. 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO Dynamics, 6(2), 31–46. Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). 0DQDJLQJWKHXQH[SHFWHG$VVXULQJKLJKSHUIRUPDQFHLQDQDJH RIFRPSOH[LW\. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

12

FABIAN BRÜCKNER

2. BETWEEN ORGANIZATION AND THE NEW How Lists Are Used to Create (or Reduce) Innovation

INTRODUCTION

In organization research, the importance of lists has until now drawn little attention, despite the fact that our everyday lives, especially in organizations, are positively overrun with lists. We find lists in practically every social sphere and historical epoch. In Chinese culture, there are lists to learn certain arts, such as painting, playing the zither, boxing or even love (cf. Jullien, 2004). Once this phenomenon comes to one’s attention, it can be found in almost every area of an organization: recording working hours, agreeing on targets, doing SWOT analyses, double-entry bookkeeping or as rows of performance figures in the cost control department. Lists seem almost indispensable to an organization. They cut through confusion, create order and improve understanding and coordination in many ways. They are one of the ways in whih the idea of formal rationality is manifested. Perhaps it is the ubiquitous nature of lists, combined with their apparent “simplicity”, that explain why little heed has been paid to their essential contribution to organization, at least in “broad” dialogue on organization research. This article goes some way towards addressing this desideratum. It looks into the treacherous twist to lists in the field of social service organizations and attempts to show how a specific skill can be seen in the way people use lists as a technique. The theories used in what follows are mostly utilized in relation to on material collected during ethnographical research done in either the field of child and youth welfare or in risk management surveys conducted in banks.1 The chapter begins with the argument that organizations and the new are fundamentally at variance with one another. In the second section, I show how organizations can “catch” and to some extent “tame”, the ‘New’ using the creation and employment of a list as a technique. The third point that will be made is one relating to the gradual compilation of lists and how this activity entails transforming the ‘New’ into something compatible with the organization. However precise lists may be, there is always a need, as shown in the fourth section, for a certain amount of “readjustment” such that lists are twisted to make sure they do their job. Finally, in the summary, I outline a pragmatics of lists. The discussion in this chapter is based on the theory that organizations and the ‘New’ are at fundamental variance with one another. Organizations stand for

© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2019 | DOI:10.1163/9789004394827_002

F. BRÜCKNER

repetition and predictability. Routines, one of their characteristic features, allow organizations to react in “the same” way to “different” stimuli (cf. Luhmann, 1975). Thus, organizations do not genuinely engage with the ‘New’. The ‘New’ is always uncertain and (at least at first) not available in a form that organizations are able to deal with. Once the ‘New’ has been organized or made organisable, then it is familiar, i.e. its originality has been removed. Organizations typically translate the ‘New’ into the familiar, or into specific forms that make their work repeatable. The principal medium for this transformation of the ‘New’ is the list. The list is the place where the ‘New’ is transformed and the technique through which this occurs. Lists lie somewhere between organization and originality. They allow the ‘New’, which is initially vague in shape and usually appears in an organized social system in the form of a narrative, to be translated into succinct forms which an organization can deal with. One example might be a visit to the doctor. When we see a doctor, we describe our complaints using everyday language. The doctor then uses the ICD2 to translate these tales of woe into diagnoses which can be dealt with (and, above all, put on the bill) (cf. Eisenberg et al., 2005, p. 394). In just the same way, in child and youth welfare, new people, events or dangerous developments (for example) are selectively placed in existing list categories to create manageable cases, allowing the organization to predict what risks it is prepared or not prepared to address. Lists can thus be positioned EHWZHHQ RUJDQL]DWLRQ DQG WKH µ1HZ¶, and the use of lists can be said to have very contradictory functions. On the one hand, lists are one of the techniques that give an organization stability in terms of time (duration, repetition), practical issues (categories, criteria) and social issues (roles, powers of authority). On the other hand, they are also a technique which permits the ‘New; indeed, lists can positively generate activity in the organization and thus get the organization moving. Many creative techniques are, for example, based on lists, e.g. when creating new ideas is suggested through the rewriting or combining concepts to find new arrangements, systems or subject matter (cf. Becker, 1998, p. 199ff.). Lists are used both to create and reduce the ‘New’. In Götz Bachmanns words: “Lists are a place where movement can be directed, influenced and in some ways also generated” (cf. Bachmann, 2013, p. 119; own translation). THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE NEW

I shall begin with how the transformation of the ‘New’ from results in a transformation of stories into lists. Organizations primarily come up against the ‘New’ in the form of narratives. New information is always characterised by a brief moment of surprise. As soon as something new becomes known, it thus loses the quality specific to it (cf. Luhmann, 2006, p. 143). Lists play a prominent role in this transformation: they “grasp” new information from narratives and enable an organization to get a grip on it (e.g. by turning stories about illnesses into medical diagnoses). 14

BETWEEN ORGANIZATION AND THE NEW

One graphic empirical example might be a strategy-planning meeting at a large social organization. A SWOT analysis is used to list aims and steps to be taken in the new business year. The participants start out by describing their personal experiences on the SWOT list: perceived strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats; everything that seems somehow to fit into one of these categories. If a speaker’s description is accepted, i.e. if the scenario sketched out seems to make sense or if it is confirmed by descriptions of similar events, then the group agrees to add it to the list. During the two meetings observed in this research, the person writing the list repeatedly asks, “But what does that mean for us?”, “What shall I write down?”, “What points are behind that?” or “Is that one point or two?”. In this situation, the list helps focus everyone’s attention on one aspect. The group cooperates in “condensing” the relevant meaning from the various narratives, which are sometimes quite rambling and wide-ranging. The transformation takes place when the entire conglomeration of individual ideas, suppositions, personal interests or demands to be taken seriously are, so to speak, “washed clean” of any contingency by being listed and thus made “identical”. Items which are listed gain a special status compared with those which do not make it onto the list. Lists homogenise and connect individual ideas to create a new context. From then on, the listed entries act as officially declared aims for reshaping the organization. Future organizational processes can thus be directed, demanded or even orchestrated. In other words, the future can be shaped. However, what is important about list entries is not only their storage function (communicating ideas across different times and places of thought), but also the chance they offer of “re-ordering and refining” (Goody, 1977, p. 78). The “crystallised meaning” in one point (one item on the list) (Miklautz, 1996) can now be shaped and re-shaped in more detail (than would be possible in speech). The material form of the list allows “visual symbols to be moved back and forth in different contexts” (Bachmann, 2013, p. 116). Lists serve not only to pin down knowledge that has been accumulated so that it can be used later, but they can also be used to “raise problems of classification and to push at the frontiers of a certain kind of understanding” (Goody, 1977, p. 94). Thus, in the compilation of lists, we can see a dialectic tension between the writing down and the sorting out phases of the activity; a tension which creates or leads to the ‘New’. In contrast to a narrative, a list is made up of non-syntactic units (cf. Vismann, 2001, p. 22; Damerow, 1993, p. 17). This means that no limits are set a priori to any possible sorting or resorting, for example no grammatical restraints are set in the form of correct syntax. ON THE PRODUCTION OF ORGANIZATION WHEN COMPILING A LIST

As already mentioned, the material form of the list allows the meaning crystallised in the list entry to be shaped in more detail. It can be seen that the points made in the list are articulated with different degrees of abstraction and can be summed up in different ways, for example when a regional manager asks, “What scope do you want 15

F. BRÜCKNER

this point to cover?” and someone else replies, “You can put it restrictively or more broadly”. Or when someone says, “If we get too general, we’ll get too noncommittal, and then there’s no need for us even to meet.” The gradual construction of the list seen here leads to certain points or list categories becoming more clearly defined. Lists are also seen to be nested within one another, for instance when a target is operationalized using a list of other steps (in the form of observable actions or indicators). This said, there remains an unresolved question when it comes to dealing with lists concerns what falls under a single point. As organizations face this question again and again – regularly coming across new, unprocessed (or unprocessable) facts and requirements, we find a whole string of lists in organizations that can be subsumed under the term diagnosis lists. They can be said to look for the familiar in the unfamiliar. These include checklists to evaluate parenting ability, child protection questionnaires to evaluate the probability that abuse is taking place, or inspection reports to evaluate the quality of work. To be more precise, their findings start out within the lists. It is no longer the young people, families or organizations that are being observed; it is the lists themselves, list entries and numerical values. One factor common to all examples of this kind of list is that their factors, characteristics and properties shape or even transform the phenomena of interest, and tend to reduce those phenomena to a single dimension (which may itself be the result of multidimensional values). There is a general tendency when using lists and when in doubt to making them PRUHH[DFW, all in pursuit of ensuring that the phenomenon in question is described as carefully and precisely as possible. More detailed criteria are added to existing categories. For example, when people using child protection questionnaires are comparatively inexperienced with applying them in practice, they typically want to know H[DFWO\, “At what stage are parents said to be not coping?”, “How can you tell if meals are age-appropriate?”, “What are everyday sources of risk?” The organization reacts to such notorious uncertainties by handing out increasingly detailed criteria (sometimes in the form of lists) or instructions for diagnosis. This occurs not only to ensure that the practice of evaluation remains stable and predictable (especially when new staff come in), but also to meet external demands for rationality and to protect staff from the risk of wrongly evaluating a situation. When secondary spheres of action are “concretised” in this way, this can certainly be said to increasingly reduce any opportunities for over interpretation or using one’s own judgement. At the same time, this urge not to overlook anything leads to potentially unlimited distinctions being made between the relevance of the different aspects categorised. For instance, there are now child protection questionnaires which are 30 pages or more in length, covering up to 640 so-called relevant items.3 This is where lists take a treacherous twist. If a list becomes too exact in its categories and criteria, its value drops in practice. Its value may endure in certain cases but no longer apply in others (cf. Foucault, 1974, p. 183) or no longer meet its users’ more detailed needs. This means that list categories are similar to a boundary object 16

BETWEEN ORGANIZATION AND THE NEW

(Bowker & Star, 2000) in that their specifying criteria have to allow for a certain amount of vagueness, and thus provide leeway for them to be used in a manner that involves their adaption to individual situations, enabling different users and groups of users to apply them. ORGANIZATIONS TWIST LISTS

In practice, no list seems to work without an accepted degree of vagueness being used to make it fit the situation, or informal exceptions and “beside lists”. Their selfcontained nature is always artificial. If a list is used as the only means of clarifying a situation, negative consequences are more or less preordained, as I will show using the following example from a child and youth welfare institution (the quotes come from field notes taken during observations of team meetings). The implicit purpose of the Human Resources (HR) form used in this social organization is to avoid discrimination against employees, in the workforce planning group, when internal posts are re-filled or employment contracts become fixed-term or permanent contracts. This form only lists certain points, and only these points are meant to be used when working out how to fill the vacancy. Any other special characteristics of individual cases are deliberately neutralised. This is followed by an objective evaluation, for which clear criteria have been developed to calculate the order in which candidates rank. The idea is that decisions on how to fill posts no longer really need to be made, as they can be worked out more or less mechanically using the mechanism of the lists (without personal preferences being involved). There are strict restrictions on how the list can be used to ensure that each case is dealt with equally. There are pre-set categories to tick, and only a certain number of characters can be typed into the free text fields (it is a PDF document which is filled in on the computer). New information is basically excluded: only familiar information is evaluated. Despite or perhaps because of the carefully regimented list, what are obviously wrong decisions cab be made at this organization resulting in not making an employee’s position permanent. This can then lead to a real stir at the managerial meeting, as an employee who many might believe is the right person for the job is not taken on permanently, resulting in their be moving to a new company. The manager in question, in this research project, complained that he could not be accused of making the wrong decision, as he had ticked everything “the form allowed”. His superior, in turn, agreed that the workforce planning group could not have made any other decision in that situation, i.e. because the list inhibited the possibility of there being any other decision. As things turned out, however, he saw that “a different decision should have been made”. During their joint analysis of the situation, the managers involved then highlighted the existence of an extremely complex state of affairs which, in retrospect, simply seemed too complicated for the list to have dealt with it. In the course of the discussion, another manager described, with supporting nods from her colleagues, how she twisted the list (or got round it): “Why don’t you 17

F. BRÜCKNER

write it? I always print the form out and then I can write what I want on it.” Another manager disclosed: “I always cover the other side of the page with writing.” Advice was also given to write “see attachment” or to “send an e-mail afterwards to explain things”. Towards the end of the discussion, the chair summed up the situation by saying that “the people in the workforce planning group need … background information”; in other words, they need the story of each case to “make sense” or to be able to be followed such that a choice can be made. Logically, the conclusion drawn at the meeting was that managers should in future discuss, in advance, such matters with their representative in the workforce planning-group. When the process of organization involves the use of lists it can frequently be seen that lists always (especially in complex cases) requires additional narratives that need to be used to show what is special (i.e. new) about a case or a situation (cf. Brückner & Wolff, 2015). A PRAGMATICS OF LISTS

The outline of a pragmatics of lists thus begins to appear. Despite being used in different ways, lists always function by the same means. They bring the world into order on paper (or through the use of other recording media). On paper, using defined criteria and relations, certain events are brought to light and thus are made accessible. At the same time, whether or not lists do their job depends on whether or not other aspects (from narratives) and events are pushed into the background or are made invisible, on account of their having no place in the list’s logic. These aspects and events remain between the lines, although it is well known that what is tacitly expressed in these spaces make up part of the meaning. It is only with these “nonevents” in the background that events and connections can be observed and shaped. While reality is continuous, representations in lists are based on discontinuity. The specific, concrete nature of lists acts as a “shell” keeping organizations indifferent to the constant “infiltration” of new elements. These concretisations of meaning are needed over time to create higher-order categories and platforms for comparison and observation. It is the “flat” shape of lists that enables complex ideas, events and concepts to be put into either an order or a sequence that is logical or chronological. And it is only this kind of reduction that allows events, situations, cases, processes etc. to be treated “equally” and placed in relation to one another (possibly even in statistical form). The lists of organizations are always finite. They present a self-contained world which they themselves create thanks to their orderliness, clarity and lack of ambiguity. The fact that lists shut out the new in this way is at least as important as the subsequent openings that the resulting list provides. The objectivity, repeatability and precision of a list as a technique is not achieved by the same series of actions being carried out again and again, but by an actor observing (not registering) the new and thus taking into account what is unique about every situation and “calculating it into the list”. 18

BETWEEN ORGANIZATION AND THE NEW

When dealing with lists it can be seen that if they are to be taken into account in a manner appropriate to the situation, then points and relevant information always need to be included which cannot be operationalized. Thus, a child protection worker explains that “if, even then, I just had the feeling that there was love, I could put up with a whole lot more when it comes to precarious living conditions” – even if the results from the child protection form have actually come up with something different. At the same time, this worker does not leave the form entirely to one side: it is used as a nagging reminder to avoid any creeping tendency towards normalization when dealing with deviance (cf. Vaughan, 1996). Seen from this point of view, the point of lists in fact lies with “providing tools rather than […] dictating results” (Goody, 1977, p. 76). Lists act as resources which can be used to create meaning. They act as a contact surface for irritation or a toehold to explain the orderly nature of processes or observations, or to record deviations from this orderliness (cf. Wolff, 2009, p. 18). If, however, lists are followed too precisely, the big picture falls out of sight, or agency is lost. Items can only be categorised in a manner appropriate to a specific situation if the formal guidelines can sometimes (temporarily) be ignored, i.e. if a certain distance is kept from the list, though without entirely abandoning it. Skilled users of the technique stay at a medium distance from it (I call this way of professional acting “mastery”). It is only when harmony is skillfully created between the situation and the technique used to analyse the practical circumstances that comprise it, that the system as a whole can be flexible and professional. If there is too little leeway, there is no space for the organization to twist the list. Formal elements gain the upper hand and the treacherous twist to lists leads the process of organization along a narrow path of apparent practical constraints. Organizing requires order, but when order alone is achieved, the pathways for organizing are cut off. NOTES 1

2 3

The project is being run as part of the doctoral programme “Social Services in Transition” at the University of Hildesheim’s Institute for Social Work and Organization Studies, funded by the federal state of Lower Saxony. The doctorate is based three months of ethnographic observation at a large German commercial bank and four months of observation (of selected situations) at an institution for child and youth welfare. World Health Organisation (WHO) International Classification of Diseases. This applies to the diagnosis tables for social workers produced by the Bavarian Youth Service. The Munich child protection form does still have 27 pages with 96 items.

REFERENCES Bachmann, G. (2013). Listen, Zeit und Atmosphären. Die Kommentarlisten der japanischen Videoplattform Nico Nico Douga. In P. Jan-Hendrik & W. Josef (Ed.), Quoten, Kurven und Profile. zur Vermessung der sozialen Welt (pp. 115–143). Wiesbaden: VS. Becker, H. (1998). Tricks of the trade. How to think about your research while you doing it. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

19

F. BRÜCKNER Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (2000). Sorting things out. Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Brückner, F., & Wolff, S. (2015). Die Listen der Organisation – Und der Blick zwischen die Zeilen. In W. Silvia & von G. Victoria (Eds.), )RUPDOLWlWXQG,QIRUPDOLWlWLQ2UJDQLVDWLRQHQ. Wiesbaden: VS. Damerow, P. (1993). Buchhalter erfanden die Schrift. Rechtshistorisches Journal, 12, 9–35. Eisenberg, E., Murphy, A., Sutcliffe, K., Wears, R., Schenkel, S., Perry, S., & Vanderhoef, M. (2005). Communication in emergency medicine: Implications for patient safety. Communication Monographs, 72(4), 390–413. Foucault, M. (1974). 'LH2UGQXQJGHU'LQJH(LQH$UFKlRORJLHGHU+XPDQZLVVHQVFKDIWHQ Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Goody, J. (2012). Woraus besteht eine Liste? In Z. Sandro (Ed.), Schreiben. .XOWXUWHFKQLN*UXQGODJHQWH[WH als (pp. 338–396). Berlin: Suhrkamp. Jullien, F. (2004). Die praktische Wirkkraft der Liste: von der Hand, vom Körper, vom Gedicht. In J. François (Ed.), Die Kunst, Listen zu erstellen (pp. 15–50). Berlin: Merve-Verlag. Luhmann, N. (1975). Lob der Routine. In L. Niklas (Ed.), Politische Planung. Aufsätze zur Soziologie von Politik und Verwaltung (pp. 113–142). Opladen: Westdt. Verl. Luhmann, N. (2006). 2UJDQLVDWLRQXQG(QWVFKHLGXQJ. Wiesbaden: VS. Miklautz, E. (1996). Kristallisierter Sinn. ein Beitrag zur soziologischen Theorie des Artefakts. München [u.a.]: Profil. Vaughan, D. (1996). The challenger launch decision. Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Vismann, C. (2001). Akten. Medientechnik und Recht. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer. Wolff, S. (2009). Organisationstheorie und Erfahrung. In G. Michael, M. W. Susanne, & W. Stephan (Ed.), 2UJDQLVDWLRQXQG(UIDKUXQJ%HLWUlJHGHU$*2UJDQLVDWLRQVSlGDJRJLN(pp. 17–28). Wiesbaden: VS.

20

KARL-HEINZ GERHOLZ

3. HOW DO THE NEW OUTCOME-ORIENTED INSTRUMENTS ARISE IN THE FACULTY? A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis

INTRODUCTION – CHALLENGES OF FACULTIES

Currently it can be observed that Higher Education Systems are changing their modes of governance in management. Universities are turning towards an outcomeoriented model, which is being conceptualized and developed at the department level of academic institutions. As faculties are the central units of universities that are responsible for research and teaching in their special fields, this is the level, where the proactive of shifting governance modes and management styles is playing out. Here, social expectations of the idea of the university, such as the outcomeoriented management model, are put in practice at the level of departments and faculties. Faculties are facing deregulation and regulation at the same time: While autonomy is strengthened, target agreements and indicator-based approaches shift academic practice into a different mode of regulation (Jaeger & Leszczensky, 2007; Rhoades & Sporn, 2002). How do faculties at department level adjust to these new requirements, organizational and management structures (e.g., Klug, 2010; Bayer, 2011)? As we will see, the faculty’s organisational concept will be vital for departmental development. As well the development of the faculty is to be regarded as relevant regarding organisational ideas. Assumptions, values and practices of faculty members all contribute to participants co-shaping of departmental development (Picot et al., 2005). Aygris and Schön (1996) use the term ‘theories-in-use’, to imply the relevance of individual and collective norms, rules and values that underlie the way in which organizational routines are realized and co-created by faculty members. Routines of faculty members can be characterised as following collegial and democratic self-administration practices, which involves a major shift. The new outcome-oriented model, which is bases on a managerial externally controlled model, shows the emergence of a different governance rationality. How will faculty deal with these concepts and rationalities? What is the role of values, mindsets and routines in the faculty? How can outcome-oriented steering mechanisms be harmonized with given organisational routines of faculty members? As the article shows, with this shift in management rationality, the activity structure of the whole faculty becomes implicated. Based on theoretical and empirical modelling, the article analyses the ‘theories-in-use’, and the thinking and action routines of faculty

© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2019 | DOI:10.1163/9789004394827_003

K.-H. GERHOLZ

members. The article illustrates where possibilities lie with respect to the designing of instruments for an outcome-oriented model with academic faculty settings. In doing this, the second section presents several organisation concepts of a faculty. These concepts function as a descriptive model for actions patterns of people in a faculty and contained in a qualitative study. Grounded in an empirical qualitative study, the mental models shown offer a descriptive analytical model for the above described change of governance in the management of faculties. Based on the results of the study, principles for designing outcome-oriented instruments in faculties will be presented in the third section. THE FACULTY AS AN ORGANISATION

Organisation models describe the functionality and specificities of an organisation (Scherer, 1999). When it comes to organisation research of faculty members, different theoretical options for analyzing mental models and orientation patterns can be found. In the following, different models to analyse and understand action routines of people in a faculty will be presented; highlighting the different aspects of thinking, action patterns and routines of faculty members.1 Clark´s analytical model of ‘collegial consensus’ is based on the assumption, that the actions of people who work together follow the same norms and values. Clark speaks of an existing ‘organisational saga’, which enables the possibility of a consensual decision-making in the faculty where differences can be overcome (Clark, 1971). This image of the organisation represents the collegial and democratic idea. To this effect, Baldrigde thinks of universities as ‘politicized institutions’. There are pluralistic structures in faculties that produce to incompatible interests among its members for reason that collegial decision-making seems impossible and the political nature of decision-making processes (Baldridge, 1971). Micro-political processes usually occur in target agreements or resource allocation since resources are limited and interests vary among members of the faculty. Weick theorizes educational organisations, like universities and faculties, as ‘loosely coupled systems’, where teaching and research units are regarded as autonomous entities, that are loosely coupled to each other. Interests and norms of faculty members are orientated to objectives and norms of the prevailing scientific community (Weick, 1976). The risk seen here is that objectives and performance indicators become one-sidedly connected to the demands of the scientific community. In this case, the social requirements of universities and faculties would not be fully recognised. A different model to the functionality of faculties is the ‘professional bureaucracy’ model (see Mintzberg, 1992). Here, the organisation of the faculty is regarded as rather formalized in the manner that it provides academic staff (the professionals) with autonomy. The actions of people are legitimized by their scientific expertise. Hierarchies are created through the demonstration of skills and experience of scientific staff. There is a democratic process of decision-making within faculty committees. Management boards, like the deanery, play a subordinate 22

Autonomous making of consensus among people in the faculty External interference from outside is difficult, because core values in the faculty exist

Faculty community shares the same norms and values A pronounced understanding of autonomy

Targets and performance indicators should be based on the core values in the faculty Committees and commissions are arenas to find a consensus

Organisational structure of the faculty

Norms and values

Clues for the design of control instruments

Faculty as a collegial consensus (e.g. Clark, 1971)

Agreements on objectives represent a micro-political process Risk that powerful interest-groups decide objectives by their own without participation other groups

Interest-oriented and group-specific Principles: negotiation, political influence

Pluralistic structures with different and incompatible interests Participation depends on the interests of people in the faculty

Scientific staff is the important piece in the organisation Decision-making structure is democratic and self-governed

Relevant norms are the skills and abilities of the scientific staff A pronounced understanding of autonomy Steering by skills and expertise of people is possible, because these are the relevant norms Committees are an important steering instrument

Decentralized Values and norms orientate on the prevailing scientific community Steering about committees is difficult, except when it exist an accordance with the objectives of the scientific community Risk, that the objectives orientate on-side at the scientific community

Faculty as a professional bureaucracy (Mintzberg, 1992)

Loose coupling between the units Teaching and research units orientate on the scientific community Autonomy Internal orientation is relatively small

Faculty as a political arena Faculty as a loosely Coupled (Baldrigde, 1971) System (Weick, 1976)

Table 1. Models of the organisation faculty and clues for the design of control instruments

HOW DO THE NEW OUTCOME-ORIENTED INSTRUMENTS ARISE IN THE FACULTY?

23

K.-H. GERHOLZ

role (Mintzberg, 1992). On the basis of Mintzbergs’ model, target agreements and control instruments are organised by and through democratic bodies (e.g. the council of faculty). The models explicated above show the first potentials and barriers to design outcome-oriented instruments at faculty level (see Table 1). The models represent images of the faculty that analyse the interplay of structures, processes and people in the faculty organisation. At the same time it depends on the different situational constellations and routines of people in daily practice which model fits to the functionality of a given faculty. An empirical case study on the guiding values and routines of faculty members will be presented in the following section. MENTAL MODELS AND ACTIONS, ROUTINES OF FACULTY MEMBERS

&RQWH[WDQG*RDOVRIWKH(PSLULFDO$QDO\VLV A business and economics faculty in a medium-sized German university was qualitatively researched as a single-case study (Yin, 2000).2 The structure of the faculty has the traditional represent core elements like the dean’s office, faculty administration and faculty council. Teaching and research areas within the department are organized into six larger units with individual teaching and research units (professorships), such as business administration, economics, and law, as well as computer science. These single professorship units represent the various disciplinary approaches within the faculty of business and economics (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). The faculty investigated is a typical faculty in the field of business administration and economics and is therefore comparable to institutional settings in other business and economic faculties in German universities. The research carried out here involved addressing underlying norms, rules, values and routines of the faculty investigated. Data Collection and Data Analysis The data collection involved problem-centered interviews (Witzel, 2000) with sixteen faculty actors were conducted. Research data was gathered from different parts of the faculty administration including the dean’s office, faculty administration, research and teaching area, as well as various status groups professors (n = 6) and research assistants (n = 6). Interviews were conducted on semi-structured interview guidelines, which focused on the interviewees’ perceptions of faculty organisation, as well as their mental models, perspectives and action routines within the faculty. Using a ‘mini-case’ “vignette” approach, problem-oriented narrations were triggered, which supported storytelling, normative claims and the expression of world-views in a qualitative approach to generating research communication. The existing data was transcribed. Interview transcripts were analysed using Bohnsack´s knowledge sociology-based approach of the ´documentary method´. The method used aims at analysing orientation patterns of individuals which can 24

HOW DO THE NEW OUTCOME-ORIENTED INSTRUMENTS ARISE IN THE FACULTY?

be generational, social or institutional in nature. The approach taken here can be regarded as involving use of a practice-oriented methodological framework. According to Bohnsack, orientation patterns orient mental models as well as action sets and patterns. (Bohnsack, 2007; Schäffer, 2012).3 In the following section, a secondary analysis of the data sets is presented (Creswell, 2009). Based on the qualitative empirical material, the mental models and action sets, as well as value sets and the routines of professors and research assistants will be reconstructed. Based on the results of this study, three different patterns of orientation will be differentiated: the first perspective ‘understanding structure’ relates to organisational structures, and engages the perception of the faculty according to the interviewees (e. g. informal, hierarchical). As well, there is an interest in the extent to which these perceptions were related to interviewees’ actions in the faculty. The second perspective relates to the leadership dimension: Understanding leadership’ relates to leadership forms and patterns, with respect to whether or not the actors act (e.g. they are cooperative or distant). Against this backdrop of attitudes, convictions and situated constellations, we can see different styles of leadership in faculty. The third perspective ‘understanding of one’s role’ highlights, how interviewees describe their role in the faculty (e. g. as chair holder, member of a committee). It will later be revealed which guiding motives are to be analysed here. In the following section, the results of data analysis will be shown. Data Analysis and Results 6WDWXVJURXSµSURIHVVRUV¶ The majority of the professors perceive the cooperation mode of their faculty as involving a collection of independent actors cooperating with each other in order to ensure the successful functioning of self-organisation (I 7, I 12, I 16). Management seen as self-management is regarded as a relatively difficult task, especially for leading position holders: “there are on-going discussion processes (…). The dean […] together with the vice-deans are the poorest pigs. They have to try to force something through” (I 1, line 54ff., own translation). In the mindset of self-management and leadership, conviction and consensus-orientation are the guiding patterns (I 20). Related to the previously explained organizational theoretical models, a mixture of ‘loosely coupled’ models and a ‘collegial consensus’ models are used by professors. The units in the faculty are regarded as loosely linked, interconnection is being explained as a cooperative and collegial agreement. Interestingly, professors give less emphasize to the importance of the faculty council, bundling together different status groups, interest groups and lobbies. Regarding their use of concepts, the ‘understanding of leadership’ interviewees also increasingly highlight the micro-political processes that take shape in different action routines: Interviewee (I 16), for example, prepares formal decision-making processes by informal communication. A second interviewiee (I 5) begins with formal structures but with little success concerning his interest in addressing 25

K.-H. GERHOLZ

“micro-political fields” (I 5, line 360, own translation). In this interview, references to the model of the ‘political arena´ are made’, where the department is regarded as a negotiation process and a micro-political field of activityfield. Hierarchical leadership (I 1, I 20) is less prevalent here and is based on the actions of those who should act (I 7). Here, similarities to the concept of ‘professional bureaucracy’ can be found, where leaders´ expertise and authority is relevant regarding the ability to design change. Considering self concepts, researchers follow the perspective of being autonomous researchers and client-centered academic teachers: “Even though you have already held a lecture two, three, four, five times, (…) you have to prepare yourself a bit (…) and concentrate on the students’ needs” (I 7, line 195ff., own translation). Self concepts of autonomous decision-making and role taking refers to professionalism and the self-efficacy of the professional: “Students enter the labour market with an H[FHVVRINQRZOHGJHDQGDOORIDVXGGHQWKH\PLJKWUHDOL]HWKDWIURPDSV\FKRORJLFDO perspective, it is completely different. It is teaching this is what motivates me” (I 1, line 123ff., own translation). Instead, I 5 shows a stronger research orientation: “I reduce the preparation for teaching so that I can do more research” (I 5, line 125f., own translation). Consequently, I 5 is “often ill-prepared” (I 5, line 143ff., own translation) for lectures. As the interviews of the professors show, there are different orientational patterns highlighting administrative leadership, research of teaching based professional self concepts. As well, there is a structural tension between teaching, research and administration shown here. 6WDWXV*URXSµ5HVHDUFK$VVLVWDQWV¶ Looking into the data sets of the second status group, we can see, that research assistants perceive faculty organizational patterns as bureaucratic and not necessarily as hierarchical. They talk about committees and clear responsibilities (I 2, I 6, I 15, I 17). In contrast, the teaching and research units are thought of as being autonomous and collegial (I 13, I 15, I 17). Faculty leadership is seen as involving cooperative action among faculty members and is partially perceived as an egalitarian activity between research assistants and professors. On the whole, research assistants´ regard the faculty as being embedded in a more bureaucratic structure. Autonomy and flexible scheduling seem to be of less relevance for research assistants as an academic status group. The relationship between the dean’s office and the teaching and research units is described in different ways. On the one hand, the dean’s office seems to point the way ahead: “The team discusses changes and authors, and according to the size, one is looking for volunteers to realize the project” (I 6, line 939f., own translation). On the other hand, interviewees grant the dean’s office little possibility of changing anything, “since the teaching and research units are too strong and there is no one to outrank them” (I 9, line 608f., own translation). Academic autonomy and selfmanagement relates here to the organizing pattern of a ‘professional bureaucracy’, 26

HOW DO THE NEW OUTCOME-ORIENTED INSTRUMENTS ARISE IN THE FACULTY?

Regarding role concepts, two different groups can be distinguished. A first group can be identified as the intrinsically and highly motivated researchers, who use leisure time to pursue academic and scientific research, in order to develop skills and finish the PhD. Here, I 6 mentions: “to develop skills and to obtain the PhD” (I 6, line 148f., own translation). Moreover, I 9 notes: “You can always do better «  DQG , ZRXOG FRPSDUH P\VHOI ZLWK WKRVH SHRSOH EHLQJ UHDOO\ JRRG࣠” (I 9, line 103ff., own translation). The other group characterizes itself as service providers who organize the administrative processes in the teaching and research units or in the field of student counselling (I 2, I 13, I 15, I 17). Some assistants´ motivation relates to a high service orientation: “You are a service provider (…), you work for and with many people together (…), and this shows that you are important, taken seriously and helpful for others (…), and this is really nice” (I 15, line 756ff., own translation). Furthermore, “to see the organisation of modules working (…) yes, this is fun” (I 2, line 50ff., own translation). As we can see, variations in the field of professors, research assistants´ orientation patterns vary between the service and teaching orientation and the academic research orientation. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The empirical results show that the status group of professors describe the organizational mode of the department as an autonomous, loosely coupled, but also as cooperative space. In contrast, the status group of research assistants characterizes the faculty as a more being bureaucratically and hierarchically organised entity, although collegial consensus is highlighted here too. Obviously, autonomous work seems to be of less relevance for research assistants, as their scope in decisionmaking is lower than that of professors. As we can see, on the one hand, the classical mode of the self-organizing academic and professional organization seems to be the primary governance mode. In the mode of cooperating autonomy, independence and liberty are consistently experienced and are meaningfully perceived norms for professors’ own actions. In this sense, faculties are self-organized organisations of independent experts willing to cooperate together for a common goal. The department integrates collegial processes for the finding of consensus and establishes the mode of the Agora or a political area. Several interest groups argue and defend positions, and consensus emerges based on (micro)political coalition-building. Based on the concepts of collegial consensus building, it seems to be important to design a basic framework of targets and performance indicators that are accessible and doable for all people in the faculty. The targets and performance indicators should fit interests of the people involved. Empirical results show, that research orientations, teaching orientations and the support of young researchers are equally thought of as being the motivational drivers of professor’s willingness to contribute. Evidence of these drivers can be seen in contributions in academic journals, professional learning arrangements and career support and assessment, 27

K.-H. GERHOLZ

mentorship and the training of young researchers. While internal self-facilitation can always build on the existing knowledge of local internal interest groups etc., external support can be helpful, too. The negotiation process of the basic framework is to moderate in order to prevent political influence from stronger interest groups and to ensure participation of all parties involved. The basic framework represents the base, on which the various people may decide how they will achieve the targets with their individual contributions and within their given autonomy. Thus, the basic framework is a prevailing condition that helps people to develop their autonomy and, at the same time, the negotiated basic framework cannot be changed. By integrating new steering patterns into existing academic governance cultures, academic staff will self-organize a new management approach. In this way, autonomy becomes the driver and the prevailing mode of integrating management mechanisms and indicator-based frameworks to be worked with. Outcome-oriented instruments designed in participatory processes will always offer the potential to integrate the different rationalities and programmatics, and interlink traditional selforganizing academic governance into the new public management knowledge sets and instruments. Like this, academics self-organize new public management. NOTES 1

2

3

Models of the functionality of universities and faculties were developed in particular in the 1960s in the field of organisational sociology. The models referred in the text are also evident in the Higher Education discourse (e.g., Engels, 2004; Gerholz, 2010). Since the 1980s, no fundamentally new model has emerged (Musselin, 2007). Since this is a single-case-study and anonymisation has been assured, only the investigated faculty’s structure is presented in greater detail. In case of any further queries, please contact the author. The complete results of the study have been published in Gerholz et al. (2013).

REFERENCES Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). 2UJDQL]DWLRQDOOHDUQLQJ,,7KHRU\PHWKRGDQGSUDFWLFH. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Baldridge, J. V. (1971). 3RZHU DQG FRQIOLFW LQ WKH XQLYHUVLW\ 5HVHDUFK LQ WKH VRFLRORJ\ RI FRPSOH[ organizations. New York, NY: Wiley. Bayer, I. (2011). Autonomy, professionalism and management structure in the German university system. Higher Education Review, 43(2), 56–64. Bohnsack, R. (2007). Dokumentarische Methode und praxeologische Wissenssoziologie. In R. Schützeichel (Ed.), Handbuch Wissenssoziologie und Wissensforschung (pp. 180–190). Konstanz: UVK. Clark, B. R. (1971). Belief and loyalty in college organization. The Journal of Higher Education, 42(6), 499–515. Creswell, J. W. (2009). 5HVHDUFKGHVLJQ4XDOLWDWLYHTXDQWLWDWLYHDQGPL[HGPHWKRGVDSSURDFKHV. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Engels, M. (2004). Eine Annäherung an die Universität aus organisationstheoretischer Sicht. Die Hochschule. Journal für Wissenschaft und Bildung, 1, 12–29. Gerholz, K.-H. (2010). ,QQRYDWLYH(QWZLFNOXQJYRQ%LOGXQJVRUJDQLVDWLRQHQ(LQH5HNRQVWUXNWLRQVVWXGLH zum Interventionshandeln in universitären Veränderungsprozessen. Paderborn: Eusl.

28

HOW DO THE NEW OUTCOME-ORIENTED INSTRUMENTS ARISE IN THE FACULTY? Gerholz, K.-H., Sloane, P. F. E., Fuge, J., Kaiser, V., & Schwabl, F. (2013). Die Fakultät als Organisation – Theoretische und empirische Modellierung. Zeitschrift für Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik, 2, 191–215. Hochschulfreiheitsgesetz (HFG). (2007). Land NRW. Retrieved May 29, 2011, from https://recht.nrw.de/ lmi/owa/br_bes_text?anw_nr=2&gld_nr=2&ugl_nr=221&bes_id=9796&aufgehoben=N&menu=1&sg= Jaeger, M., & Leszczensky, M. (2007). Hochschulsteuerung im Kontext veränderter gesellschaftlicher Rahmenbedingungen – Eine Einführung. In M. Jaeger & M. Leszczensky (Eds.), Hochschulinterne Steuerung durch Finanzierungsformeln und Zielvereinbarungen (Vol. 4, pp. 5–22). HIS: Forum Hochschule. Klug, H. (2010). Geschäftsführung zwischen Administration und Wissenschaft. ZFHE, 5(4), 178–191. Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experimental learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193–212. Mintzberg, H. (1992). 6WUXFWXUH LQ ILYHV 'HVLJQLQJ DIIHFWLYH RUJDQL]DWLRQV. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Musselin, C. (2007). Are universities specific organisations? In G. Krücken, A. Kosmützky, & M. Torka (Eds.), Towards a multiversity? Universities between global trends and national traditions (pp. 63–84). Bielefeld: Transcript. Picot, A., Dietl, H., Franck, E., Fiedler, M., & Royer, S. (2012). 2UJDQLVDWLRQ7KHRULHXQG3UD[LVDXV ökonomischer Sicht. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel. Rhoades, G., & Sporn, B. (2002). New models of management and shifting modes and costs of production: Europe and the United States. Tertiary Education and Management, 8(1), 3–28. Schäffer, B. (2012). Dokumentarische Methode. Einordnung, Prinzipien und Arbeitsschritte einer praxeologischen Methodologie. In B. Schäffer & O. Dörner (Eds.), Handbuch qualitative Erwachsenenbildungs- und Weiterbildungsforschung (pp. 196–211). Opladen u.a.: Budrich. Scherer, A. G. (1999). Kritik der Organisation oder Organisation der Kritik? – Wissenschaftstheoretische Bemerkungen zum kritischen Umgang mit Organisationstheorien. In A. Kieser (Ed.), 2UJDQLVDWLRQVWKHRULHQ (pp. 1–37). Stuttgart u.a.: Kohlhammer. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19. Witzel, A. (2000). Das problemzentrierte interview. Retrieved September 8, 2010, from http://www.qualitative-research.org/fqs-texte/1-00/1-00witzel-d.pdf Yin, R. K. (2003). &DVH VWXG\ UHVHDUFK 'HVLJQ DQG PHWKRGV (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

29

RICHARD HERAUD

4. INNOVATION AND POLITICAL SUBJECTIVITY A Problem for the Actor in Education

INTRODUCTION

Education in the neoliberal economy does not prepare students to be innovative through a practice of learning how to be innovative. The importance of innovation to economic development might suppose the existence of a system of education that provides the means whereby students explore the problem of being innovative in relation to significant contemporary problems and challenges but this is not the case. Generally speaking, education for innovation is not what might be thought of as being the logical preparation for being innovative, which in the first instance, we might understand as referring to the capacity to introduce new meanings and practices (see Peters, 2011). In crude terms, education for innovation is education for work, which is normatively conceptualized as requiring the acquisition of skills and knowledge. The acquisition of skills and knowledge is not in itself that which produces the formation of a capacity to introduce new meanings and practices. If the capacity to be innovative requires more than or something other than the acquisition of skills and knowledge, it needs to go beyond what education in its present form offers. Of course exceptions can be found across disciplines, institutions, pedagogies and approaches to curriculum etc., but these are only exceptions in that innovation in such instances usually occurs despite the system of education that is offered not because of it. One of the key precepts for the discussion that follows is the idea that innovative capacities are not dependent upon the student completing their studies. The argument here is that the formation of human capital is by and large one that merely capacitates students to realize the achievement of innovations that have already initiated by others. In other words, they are being educated to apply and execute the ideas of others. As Richard Sennett (2006) highlights, while many students may believe that their education produces opportunities to be innovative, very few actually get to be innovative upon completion of their studies. By this we need to emphasize that very few realize or take the opportunity to initiate change in the form of new meanings and new practices in their work environments because it is not anticipated that their innovations will actually add to the production function of the institution they work for. With such an outlook and predicament in mind, the concern becomes one of interest in the fate of the student and in particular the student who does not accept to

© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2019 | DOI:10.1163/9789004394827_004

R. HERAUD

receive their education in the form that it is presented to them in. This is to say, our interest in this discussion sits with the idea that students should not be thought of as having to wait until they have competed their education before being allowed, as it were, to be innovative: that we should think of them as being already innovative and that the challenge of education is to encourage their already existing innovative capacities. With the above thought in mind, this chapter explores the situation of the student who finds him or herself absented by education policy as a result of the education system being unable to recognise their already existing innovative capacities. The attitude taken here is one of sitting empathetically alongside the already innovative student with the intention of understanding something about the paradox of their situation and its dialectical qualities with respect to how the student’s commitment to further developing their innovative capacity also implies the formation of political subjectivities. As such, the intention is to break with the now traditional notion of what technological innovation might be thought of as, which is to say to break with the simple commercialization of new ideas and to think of the technological in technological innovation in a new way. The idea is to think of practical reason that occupies itself with the innovation process as also involving technologies of the self that employ already existing innovative capacities that cannot be delimited by neoliberalism’s notion of innovation as purely commercial innovation (see Godin, 2015 for a critique of commercial innovation). It is argued here that because already existing innovative capacities precede the acquisition of the requisite skills and knowledge that innovation is said to require, the student is brought into conflict with education policy. However, instead of arguing for a change in pedagogy and/ or curriculum, it is argued that such a conflict offers possibilities for the student to rework their position within the politics of the teacher-student relations and therefore within the wider politics of educational innovation. This reworking by the student of the student’s position is thought to require the student to recognize their responsibility to a more endogenous approach to the formation of a capacity to be innovative.2 To do this, I will make a brief reference to the historical circumstances in which this conflict has been framed and then proceed with an analysis of what it is that the student does when we say they are being educated. This is followed by a description of the divergent forces at play within the aforementioned conflict and a reference to the seemingly schizophrenic situation that this conflict puts the student in. Instead of focusing on the sort of policy changes that this conflict supposes would be necessary in the future, it is argued that the student’s political alienation elucidates the possibility to think of innovation as implying the formation of political subjectivities; that endogenous growth begins with the changes in meaning and practice that they can bring to the political relations that govern their learning. As such, the divergences of the forces at play are thought to maintain a dialectical relationship and to offer the student possibilities of understanding that being innovative involves their formation as a political actor. 32

INNOVATION AND POLITICAL SUBJECTIVITY

THE THRESHOLD

Perhaps we have passed the point when we can refer to the school and the university as quasi-economic enterprises. I think it could be argued that these institutions are in fact fully fledged economic enterprises on account of what they produce: that the student is the form of homo economicus or “economic man.”1 This is to say, we should define the school and university according to what they do. How these institutions were conceptualized 25 years ago no longer provides an accurate account of what they do today. In New Zealand – the context in which this paper was written – it is now more than a generation since the commissioning of the Administering for ([FHOOHQFH(IIHFWLYH$GPLQLVWUDWLRQLQ(GXFDWLRQ5HSRUWRIWKH7DVNIRUFHWR5HYLHZ Education Administration (Department of Education, 1988), known as the Picot Report and 7RPRUURZ¶V6FKRROV7KH5HIRUPRI(GXFDWLRQDO$GPLQLVWUDWLRQLQ1HZ Zealand (Department of Education, 1988); the two documents that have defined the transformation of education in New Zealand since the 1980s. Children born since the creation of this policy have themselves begun to have children, meaning that what we are seeing today can no longer be thought of as involving a social transition into a new political-economic paradigm: today, students (excepting mature students) in schools and universities know no other interpretation of reality than that which they have inculcated through their experience by neoliberalism. It might be argued that as students are not yet working in the world of work, their activities cannot be considered to be grounded in the ethos that drives economic activity; however such an interpretation can no longer be anything more than a semantic objection. While it is true that the contract between students and the politics of education has a different configuration to that which binds workers to the principles that drive commercial enterprise, the underlying objectives are the same: to make the individual constitute him or herself as someone who lives uniquely according to the economic values that characterise our times2; something that should be achieved through self-interest, self-investment, self-reliance, self-management, user-pays, intense competition, greater performativity, greater efficiency, improved accountability (Peters, 2011) and self-leadership, among others. One might speculate that the importance of these capabilities to how the politics of education serves the political economy cannot be explained without also considering what would seem to be the underlying intention of this project, which, when deconstructed, might be thought to involve an increasingly political monopolization of the individual’s creativity, such that their creative actions might diverted from producing a political challenge to the political economy’s governance of society’s creative development. Such a speculation comprises a double negative when considered in relation to what happens in education: it makes innovation, as a technology of the self, problematic to the formation of student political subjectivities, stifling, in the opinion of the author, the capacity of individuals to take new initiatives in the aftermath of their education that might cause discomfort, disruption, disturbance and even destruction in the realm of day-to-day human activities; excepting when this realm of activity constitutes a priori economic activity. This is to say; the use for which 33

R. HERAUD

innovation is to be put has already been decided. The second negative refers to the fact that this stifling of innovation happens at the level of the student’s learning and that their use of technologies of the self, in many instances, occurs off the radar and in a discrete space that cannot as yet be called innovative – only graduates are thought of as being innovative. Of course, we cannot proceed further without briefly referring to how our understanding of the relationship between homo economicus and the way our concept of economic man conditions the way in which we theorize the formation of a capacity to be innovative in education in schools and university. The reason for this is simple. The theoretical and practical protagonism given to innovation is intimately tied to the conceptualization of the function of entrepreneurship (Schumpeter, 1961/1934); the concept of homo economicus providing the means through which it is possible to speak to the becoming of the entrepreneur or, for that matter, the non-becoming of the entrepreneur, in the context of the student’s experience of their education. With this in mind, I will now speak briefly to the concept of homo economicus, leaving the entrepreneur to one side; homo economicus being the more generalizable concept in the positive sense of what generalizable might mean. Michel Foucault (2010) in his critique of liberalism in his 1978–1979 lectures The birth of biopolitics describes homo economicus, or economic man, as not only referring to “every economic actor” but as also referring to “every social actor” (p. 268), which is to say, as Foucault cites Gary Becker, to “someone who accepts reality”. The immediate problem that this characterization should raise, with respect to how we think about the student, is captured by the question: what account of reality is provided and what is more, what political and philosophical scope is ascribed in these circumstances to the student such that they might refer to the relationship with the self in the moment of accepting to be governed by the other (the teacher)? Is the student obligated to accept the teacher’s notion of reality that requires the student to prepare to be innovative by not doing innovation, or is there more scope given to political subjectivity here? This is a question that will be considered later in the text. What might be useful in the meantime and prior to considering this question, is a brief reference to Foucault’s identification of homo economicus as referring historically to “someone who pursues his (sic) own interest, and whose interest is such that it converges spontaneously with the interest of others” (p. 270). Following this statement, I think it should be highlighted that the individual’s diverse interest, as that which he or she might bring to their education, is not only not foreseen by both the politics of education and the teacher, as explained by Hannah Arendt (1961), but is also not necessarily foreseen by their peers or their student cohort. In this sense, such a convergence is not necessarily fluid. Foucault adds, furthermore, that “homo economicus is the person who must be let (sic) alone”. What interests me here, is that homo economicus is conceptualized as being a “subject or object of laissez-faire”; in other words, him or her who governs or is governed by. Today, this hierarchy can be thought of as being inculcated such a manner that they must constitute themselves as accepting commercial reality; the student becoming someone “who 34

INNOVATION AND POLITICAL SUBJECTIVITY

responds systematically to modifications in variables of the environment” and appearing as someone who is “manageable” and “governable” in the form that it is thought homo economicus should take. It is in the context of this characterization that I am interested in the fate of already existing innovative capacities and how these already existing innovative capacities might challenge the administration of power that makes education manageable and governable when it comes to the idea that our interest in innovation should spontaneously converge around the idea that innovation should be thought of as a “value” (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 10).4 THE ACTOR GOES TO WORK

I will begin with an exploration of how education today might be more accurately thought of. The success of neoliberalism’s transformation of education into an economic enterprise and, as such, its transformation of the school and university such that they should serve the economy through the reproduction of the student as homo economicus would appear to depend upon the success with which education can be made to function as a workplace. I believe we can now argue that that the success of this aforementioned transformation depends upon the extent to which education can be made into a place of work; a notion that would seem to prohibit the possibility of the individual understanding that they are knowingly volunteering for what it is that they are making themselves into: workers. Not only would it seem that the necessary political learning is not encouraged, but it would also seem that current political tactics reflect the idea that individual political choice is off the table when it comes to open discussion on the purpose of education. The making of education into a workplace where individual students treat their experience of education is one that requires students to hone their workplace skills; an activity that, in its crudest form, can be thought of as being uniquely oriented towards the meeting production outcomes.3 This above leap, in thinking of education as a workplace, is more easily understood if we take the students’ perspective. To students, the activity that appears to most accurately define that which they do in school and university is the doing of assessments. Learning for its own sake is secondary and even meaningless when put alongside the importance of the assessment. The assessment task is privileged above all else, such that its symbolic importance becomes the focus of all learning and, as such, the student’s principal technology of the self.5 One could suggest that the student’s engagement with assessment is what has always traditionally been a principle of academic progression and that the assessment itself is merely being used to measure what it has traditionally been used to measure; whether or not students have acquired the skills and knowledge that the curriculum claims to be important for effective learning to have taken place. However, I would argue that learning activities in today’s curriculum (see, for example, Ministry of Education, 2007) are only meaningful to the student if the grade awarded concurs with the student’s preconceptions of what the institution is thought to reciprocally owe them.6 This subjugation of learning for the exclusive purpose of acquiring assessment 35

R. HERAUD

grades transforms the activities of the classroom into a form of work, into a meansends framework, where the student’s academic success depends on their capacity to manage “the optimal allocation of scarce resources [including, for example, time and teacher-student interactions] to alternative ends [including, for example, strategically chosen subjects and the consequences of poor grades]” (Foucault, 2010, p. 268). The student’s task is therefore not so much one of needing to learn by doing, as a means of learning to learn, but one of needing to complete, submit and meet the expectations of the programme. In these circumstances, learning outcomes become the mechanism through which the value of the assessment is put beyond reproach in the eyes of both the student and the institution. In this way, the purpose of the assessment can be conceived of as being purely performative, in that rather than revealing an understanding of the students’ capacities and interests, it functions as a productivity indicator that signals the student’s level of productivity: it does not matter how assessments are ticked-off, it just matters that they are ticked-off. To challenge the merits of such a rationale, teachers and lecturers only need to withdraw the assessment from course requirements. As Matusov and Brobst (2013) highlight, students quickly recognise that their own sense of purpose in their learning is intrinsically tied to the performative imperatives of submitting and completing assessments. In such circumstances, the student’s contract with the institution collapses with what, to the student, can be horrifying consequences. This said; it is not my intention to focus on assessment other than to highlight how it has been an effective device in the transformation of education into a workplace. Rather, my intention is to take the situation of the student who is made to make him or herself into a subject of this workplace and to theorize the fate of the process of their capacitation to be innovative.7 In the first instance, I am claiming that the idea of the new is neither a product nor a process and, as such, as an idea, it cannot be imposed on teachers by the politics of education, in the form that innovation is often introduced to education (beginning with OECD, 2007). If the new exists, it is by definition also possible to say that it does not exist; that under certain conditions it is impossible for the new to occur. Ironically, while the politics of education might purport to be the source of all things new in education, it might be that this very exclusivity to decide what is new prohibits the emergence of the new for the student. Put another way, I am not thinking of the new as a phenomenon through which the politics of education might govern the student. On the contrary, the new here refers to a phenomenon that emerges in the student’s experience of their education, or more specifically, in the governance of the relation with self in accepting to be governed by the other (the teacher).8 To complicate things further, if the new is a colloquial stand-in for what we mean when we speak of innovation, then this is not how we normally think of innovation as occurring in education. The introduction of innovations into education, in the form of new ideas, new information and communication technologies (ICTs), new pedagogical approaches etcetera, are activities that are generally understood to be the unique prerogative of those who administer the politics of education, in particular, policy makers and 36

INNOVATION AND POLITICAL SUBJECTIVITY

their agents; educational institutions. The introduction of new ideas on the part of students is not thought to involve the introduction of the new in the sense that the new could refer to the emergence of innovations, quite probably because it is thought that students are still in a formative stage of their learning and, as such, do not have sufficient knowledge such that they can, to paraphrase Romer’s definition of innovation, formulate “new sets of instructions” (as cited in Walsh, 2006, p. 293). In part, this is because only innovations that are introduced by those who govern the experience of education can be thought to be innovations, as it is only these ideas, these new phenomena, these changes that can be thought of as impacting upon the market experience that determines the economic fate of the school or the university. Ironically, the student’s power to perform academically and, by implication, to contribute to the institution’s upward movement in the rankings does not in itself credit the student with the right to be innovative, to think of the new. In light of this brief analysis, one might wonder how we are to think of student innovation. It would seem that the institution has absented the student from engagement with the problematic that supposedly explains the institution’s raison d’état. Curiously this effect is achieved in the name of inclusion. More about this latter! Now, I want to broaden the analysis slightly from one that has occupied itself with the governance of the other (the teacher of the student) to one that seeks to understand how the student’s governance of the self conditions their understanding of innovation. In this shift, I am going to refer to Foucault’s (1997a, p. 225) idea that games of truth should employ what he calls a “matrix of practical reason”. Teaching and learning are not merely about the governance of power relations; there are other things going on too. Furthermore, not only is each individual thinking for him or herself; according to Foucault, they are employing a matrix of practical reason that in any one situation might require the use of a distinctive combination of technologies of thought and action. Foucault identifies this matrix of practical reason as involving the use of “technologies of production”, … “technologies of sign systems”, … “technologies of power”, … and “technologies of the self” (p. 225). This being the case, it is not difficult to think of how different professions might configure these technologies into a hierarchical relationship that conforms to the objectives of its interests such that we could say that their thinking is governed by a particular matrix of practical reason. However, for any particular activity that is centred on its purpose, the objectives of a single technology would seem to need to dominate the function of the other technologies, such that the interests of the dominant technology should define both the role and implication of the other three technologies. For example, in the manufacturing industry, technologies of production must be used in a manner that facilitates their domination of the function of the other three technologies; technologies of sign, technologies of power and technologies of the self. While this may appear logical, what is less obvious is the fact that the four technologies, according to Foucault, are always in relation one another. This means that while it might be necessary in the manufacturing industry for technologies of production to dominate the matrix of practical reason, on account of the principal objective being 37

R. HERAUD

to produce product, these technologies of production cannot realize their objectives without the complementary and willing implication of the other technologies. This being the case, we can therefore speculate that practical reason itself cannot be employed to optimal effect without all technologies having a protagonism that reflects the value of their possible contribution to the objectives of the dominant technology. Of course, this situation is not as simple as it has been made to sound. The value of a given technology and its relative protagonism within what we might consider to be practical reason can be theorized from conflicting political and philosophical perspectives where the protagonism of the less important technologies can be minimized or excluded completely in order to protect the political and/or economic benefits that accrue from such a configuration. An extreme example of this practice of the minimizing of the value of technologies to the point of exclusion can be seen in the garment industry where big corporations use cheap labour in poor countries to manufacture their products. When corporations refuse to sign contracts that guarantee minimum working conditions, they utilize a form of practical reason that subjugates the significance of the worker’s right to act upon the self in any way that concurs with their sense of personal dignity, making the worker’s interests extraneous to the corporation’s purpose and objectives. The moral issue here not only has to do with a complete lack of respect for the minimum rights of others but also has to do with the lack of understanding of and respect for the individual’s right to optimize their employment of technologies of the self within the bounds of the work that is being done. In relation to the latter question, what begins as an apparently benign moral issue for the employer, quickly becomes an ethical problem for the worker, in that only the worker can really know why and how they need to employ technologies of the self that are relevant to their (the employee’s) sustainability. Their employer can use power to insist upon the use of a particular technology of the self (a particular work practice through which it is possible for the worker to change something in the relationship with the self) – for example, the practice of verifying instructions by repeating them – but a worker in a liberal society will only voluntarily comply with such instructions if they are actually free to comply. In summary, it would appear that if the worker is not able to participate in the matrix of practical reason that can be said to govern their employment on account of not being able to participate voluntarily, they are in effect absented by the politics that govern their formation. The relevance of this extrapolation with respect to the creation of a capacity in the student to be innovative is that if the student is not invited to learn by doing – by being innovative – is that we come to understand why the rationale employed by the politics of education is flawed when it comes to capacitating students to be innovative through the acquisition of requisite skills and knowledge. Such a politics of education is not rational if it neglects to engage with the fact that the practice of learning to be innovative as a result of the prior acquisition of skills and knowledge – where no relationship between learning and innovation is clearly drawn – has, as a politics, to be contestable from the student’s perspective. Without this politics being open to challenge, we cannot say that the student is willingly volunteering to participate in 38

INNOVATION AND POLITICAL SUBJECTIVITY

this project. In such a situation, the student is made to acquire skills and knowledge as if they, as an individual, were being excluded from the process; a learning outcome that appears to seek to disrupt the relationship with the student and their already existent innovative capacity. In other words, in prescribing the skills and knowledge specified by the curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007), the politics of education is succeeding in making students make themselves into passive political subjects;9 an outcome that should be worrying with respect to the emphasis that the politics of education puts on acquiring skills and knowledge that will supposedly enable them to be active participants in the development of the economy. Where it does appear that the student is acting upon the self, as a willing participant in the matrix of practical reason, is in the context of doing assessments! By doing assessments, the student’s participation as that which requires reference to their own diverse knowledge and skills creates the foundation for transforming the self as an effective worker, but this said, this application of technologies of the self is employed to do nothing more that to create a worker and someone who executes what others initiate. A SCHIZOPHRENIC SCENARIO

I would now like to draw out the above described description of what I think happens in education by speaking to how a capacity to be innovative can be understood in two very different and divergent ways; firstly, through critically examining the application of human capital theory and, secondly, through an analysis of the same application from the student’s perspective. So, if we critically examine the application of human capital theory, we might begin with the following postulate: that human capital refers to the skills and knowledge acquired during education and that these skills and knowledge are regarded as requisite requirements for innovation to occur (see Becker, 1993; Ministry of Education, 2011; Schultz, 1971), meaning innovation cannot take place without the prior acquisition of skills and knowledge. As you would have already surmised, the pragmatism of this schema would need to be deconstructed within the parameters of the idea that a student’s education, as a preparation for work is, itself, a form of work. Evidently, in such circumstances, the situation of the student is an ambiguous one: while the student is led to believe that their formation supposes the acquisition of certain skills and knowledge in preparation for employment, this same process of acquisition is thought by policymakers to provide students with what they will require to be innovative – a fact which students are unlikely to be conscious of. Is it rational that these two seemingly related objectives should go glove-in-hand in practice and in a manner that supposes that one logically leads to a capacitation of the other? If, for instance, the process of acquiring skills and knowledge for their own sake does not suppose a practice of learning through being innovative, why should it be self-evident to students that this process of acquiring skills and knowledge should be tantamount to the formation of a capacity to be innovative upon entering paid employment? In this situation, there would seem to be an irreconcilable conflict between what students 39

R. HERAUD

want to do and what they ought to do; where what they want to do is presumed to be what the curriculum supposes they should do – and this is notwithstanding the fact that the curriculum does not teach innovation through doing innovation. In such circumstances, one could ask, is the innovation that takes place after school and at university in fact a consequence of what education does for a student or is such economic development merely an outcome of how work is managed in free enterprise as a reflection of how education was managed as a work experience? The official discourse might wish to discount such a criticism for reason that it was never intended that students should develop the capacity to be innovative through the practice of doing innovation. Yes, students make changes, alter things that already exist and create of new ideas but none of these activities (which are not innovative in name), are supposed to represent evidence of innovation taking place because WKHVHDFWLYLWLHVFDQQRWEHVDLGWRKDYHDQLPSDFWXSRQWKHPDUNHW௘10; the latter impact only being said to take place if the student’s academic capabilities are such that their particular skills and knowledge bring them to the notice of outside commercial interests; an event that is usually associated with the student’s involvement in research and development (R&D). However, when we return to my original supposition – that school and university are both full-blown economic enterprises and places of work – this argument runs amuck. The progression of the student’s formation towards becoming an innovative subject is characterized by, on the one hand, an already existing innovative capacity that accompanies the student’s arrival at primary school and, on the other hand, the need to focus exclusively on the acquisition of skills and knowledge that require the student to suppress of this aforementioned already existing capacity. This conflict of individual and institutional wills can further be characterized by the presence of the student’s bisociative capacity (see Koestler, 1964) that can, in turn, force the student to be dissociative (see Foucault, 2010; Ferguson, 1995/1767) once the student’s diversity presents itself in the form of a political challenge. The peculiarity of this situation is that what might appear to be a contradiction from the perspective of those who govern the politics of education, this contradiction might, from the student’s perspective, appear to be paradoxical in nature. To elaborate, the acquisition of skills and knowledge, as understood in the national curriculum (see Ministry of Education, 2007), requires the student to manage the self without allowing their diversity to cause deviation from or distortion along the thought-to-be safe path of maximum utility.11 In this situation, the student cannot measure their already existing innovative capacity by the same means by which they are forced to measure their acquisition of skills and knowledge as that which supposes an acquisition of a capacity to be innovative and, as such, they find themselves displaced within a holding pattern that has been structurally created by the institution; one measure concerning the creative, the other concerning the political; each on account of their individual ontologies being incompatible with objectives of the other. At a more metaphysical level, we might speculate that the knowledge-object coupling, as Hallward (see 2003, p. xxv) might call it, is separated from the subject-truth coupling (Ibid.), with the intention of separating the formation 40

INNOVATION AND POLITICAL SUBJECTIVITY

of an innovative capacity from the way in which the student is made to constitute the self, so as to avoid the student using their understanding of innovation to challenge the politics of education. In such circumstances, innovation, for the student, must remain a benign value, rather than be susceptible to re-evaluation because such a reevaluation, by implication, supposes the political dissociation of the student and the potential for student disruption. The second of these divergent trains of thought refers to the student’s own experience of their acquisition of human capital; in other words, it refers to how the acquisition of human capital might be understood from the student’s own perspective. While education policy (Ministry of Education, 2007; The Treasury, 2001, 2005, 2008) is wanton to lead us to believe that the formation of the student’s capacity to be innovative is a formation that does not require an actual engagement with the practice of being innovative,12 I believe that this politics is not only in denial of an already existing reality but that it works against a more profound capacitation of students to be innovative after their education. For instance, I would argue that children arrive at school with an DOUHDG\ H[LVWLQJ capacity to be innovative; that much of what children and young people do is innovative in nature, even though the activities that they are engaging in are not referred in name to as being innovative. The fact that children and young people are protagonists of their own formative growth, suggests that their diverse experiences suppose possibilities for reinterpretation and ongoing transformation of existing realities; a process that could not be realized without the involvement of an innovative process. Every time a child or young person initiates a new activity, this activity is likely to both change the configuration of their immediate world and transform their relationships with the self and others.13 While such innovative activity is varied and multiple in the child and young person’s day, it is perhaps not until we interpret these activities as technological feats that involve the “writing of new instructions” (Romer as cited in Walsh, 2006, p. 293) for the creation of “new combinations” of existing elements (Schumpeter, 1961/1934, p. 65), that we begin to realize what is going on. Of course, such activities, whether they refer to a change in the student’s individual approach to reading, to the use of online resources, to interaction with other students, to the use of ICTs, to the way assessment tasks are addressed etcetera, can easily be dismissed as not being relevant to how we understand innovation with respect to what the economic implications of these activities are, but perhaps we only succeed in making this dismissal because we have put aside the challenge of drawing relations between the innovation that takes place in school and the innovation that takes place in commercial enterprise. Of course, such a dismissal supposes that innovations are what they are because they are unique in their purpose to the solving of problems that can only be described in economic terms and that problems in life are themselves logically economic problems; given neoliberalism’s pretence to determine the nature of all problems as being economic in nature (see Becker in Becker, Ewald, & Harcourt, 2012). The task of making students constitute the self with a capacity to be innovative is a task that is exclusively governed by economic objectives. While it is assumed 41

R. HERAUD

that these objectives are the only terms under which an innovative capacity can be acquired such that it will produce economic development, it would seem clear that this assumption is neither rational nor logical with respect to, one, what we should understand the acquisition of a capacity to be innovative to require and, two, with respect to our understanding that innovation can only be defined according to the interests of political economy. While there is not the scope to further pursue these concerns here, I would like to allude to where I think their theoretical problematization could be carried out. While economics and by implication business management would appear to attempting to claim unique title to the philosophical question of what it is to be creative in the sense of pretending to best understand the purpose of creativity (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2010; Sternberg, 1999), it would seem irrational to promote creativity in student learning while at the same ignoring how innovation, as a practice of learning through doing, contributes to the student’s formation when both creativity and innovation can be thought to share common epistemologies (Mann & Chan, 2011). With respect to the above-stated second concern, this separation of one practice from another, during school and university, not only suggests that there is something to say about the problem that macroeconomics has with understanding the innovation process (Fagerberg, 2005) but also suggests there is something to say about the problem macroeconomics has in understanding creativity (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2010). Surely, this said separation is both the irrational with respect to how we understand the epistemologies of creativity and innovation and, also, in terms of how students are made to make themselves into an innovative subjects while not practicing being innovative during their education in school and university. THE PLAY IN WHICH THE INNOVATIVE SUBJECT HAS ‘A PART THAT IS NO PART’

If our relationship with the world, and our future experience of it, were only to be thought of in economic terms, then it would be possible to think of education in the purely mechanical such that the purpose of education could be evaluated macroeconomics and macroeconomics alone. However, as long as there is individual diversity of experience, then such a project supposes that political economy will always be forced to consider the significance of emerging political subjectivities and the contribution these diverse subjectivities might make to our common future. This dialectic challenges the manner in which the politics of education monopolizes how we understand the role of innovation in controlling the formation of such subjectivities. Diversity cannot be immediately foreseen or recognised as a phenomenon and its emergence furthermore implies the reformation of the existing system through which the politics of education attempts to form innovative subjects and, as such, supposes this diversity should break with this politics if it is to continue to be innovative.14 This conflict in experience, philosophy and intention is evidently elucidated when possibilities for innovation are prescribed in the form of encouragement to create 42

INNOVATION AND POLITICAL SUBJECTIVITY

the new or bring about change without acknowledgement of the relationship that the student experiences between the innovative and the political. In such circumstances, education prescribes that the diverse individual should not be innovative; that is, until they participate in a R&D project that involves collaboration with commercial enterprise. Outside of this situation, particularly in the big firm, it would seem that power relations are designed such that job descriptions can be delineated between those who should initiate new ideas and who should H[HFXWH these same ideas (see Arendt, 1998). When individual participation is defined along these lines in large firms,15 we would understand Arendt’s thinking to imply that the nature, scope and objectives of the activity are prescribed such that those who should H[HFXWH that which has been initiated find themselves doing a task that has already been decided for them. What this means is that the individual’s difference in experience, philosophy and intentions must be excluded from the activity, for reason that these aspects of the individual’s relationship with the self can be thought to add unforeseen dimensions to the task’s preconceived objectives. While this might be a crude explanation of how individual workers in a large firm are excluded from participation in activities that might have otherwise involved their participation as innovative subjects, the purpose of describing this situation in such essential terms will hopefully become evident when we see how this same delineation of roles becomes prohibitive of innovation in education; that is, where the student is prohibited from engaging with their own experience, philosophy and intentions when the learning activity might otherwise be thought of as providing cause for innovation – the later needing to be anticipated, in that we necessarily acknowledge that students arrive at school with an already existing capacity to be innovative. For the moment, I want to put aside the above description of the governmentality of innovation as something that can be thought of from a top-down perspective and instead, begin to examine more closely the student’s situation in the politics of education. This is to say, I would like to consider the need for an explanation of innovation as if it might be described from the perspective of the student; in other words, from the contrary perspective within the hierarchy of power relations within which teaching and learning normally occurs. While this shift in perspective is radical, it is a shift that should nevertheless be anticipated. After all, it would not seem inequitable to provide an opportunity for the voice of policy reforms without also providing a voice for the subjects who are made to reform themselves according to such a policy?16 To speak about a universal interest in the formation of students who are made to acquire the requisite skills and knowledge in order that they later have the capacity to be innovative – a politics that has been asserted in Government policy since the late-1980s – would be meaningless without speaking of the individual student, as someone who cannot be theoretically contained by the universal politics of education. In so doing, I want to allude to the significance of the diversity of experience, philosophy and intentions of the individual student as that which should contribute both to our knowledge of the innovation process in education and to that which the politics of education cannot plan for – as articulated so eloquently by Hannah Arendt, in her essay ‘Crisis in education’ (1961). 43

R. HERAUD

The initial description of the student’s situation, as worker, must be likened to the description of the situation of the worker in the big firm. In such circumstances, the student’s situation is conditioned by the way in which the interests of politics and creativity seek to govern one another.17 We might describe this conflict in the following way: while the student arrives at school with an already existing capacity to be innovative and in circumstances where the maturation of the learner supposes an interest in further developing this capacity, the student is required by the politics of education to repress this already existing innovative subjectivity for reason that innovation cannot be thought to be possible before the requisite skills and knowledge required for innovation are employed in R&D.18 If we carry this rationale to its logical conclusion, we might speculate that the politics of education will reconcile the aforementioned contradiction by repressing the student’s already existing innovative subjectivity; the individual student being subjected to a process of formation whereby he or she is made to forget that they already have the capacity to be innovative – the amnesia of which permits, by (re)discovery, the later discovery of this capacity as if it were experienced for the first time. This political feat on the part of the teaching institution enables neoliberalism to define the exclusive purpose to which innovation is to be put and, in so doing, marginalize the possibility that innovation could be understood by the student to relate to a capacity to make political changes that would disrupt in the politics of education. To the student, these contradictory forces could be interpreted as producing a dialectical paradox;19 where the merits of innovation that might result from the formation of what one might call pre-commercial20 capacities can only be accepted as a result of being denied; the denial ultimately delivering the practice it seeks to repress. In effect, what I am suggesting is that while the present regime is doing its utmost to stifle both the elaboration of existing innovative subjectivities and the formation of pre-commercial innovative subjectivities that might emerge during school and/ or university education, this repression of innovative capacities must ultimately aid their emergence. In other words, we would see what Foucault (see Foucault, 1997b) calls the emergence of politically active subjects from a context where individuals had till then been forced to make themselves into politically passive subjects. To understand the political complexity of the student’s situation, human capital theory needs to be extrapolated with respect to how it contributes to the creation of the above-mentioned dialectic paradox. “[M]odern human capital theory” (Fitzsimons, 1999, p. 1) is interpreted as being the result of one historical stream of thought gaining the upper-hand over another, more specifically, where the idea that human beings should be thought of as capital, per se, winning out over the idea that acquired capabilities could be classified as capital and, as such, be distinguished from how we think of ourselves as human beings. While this triumph might be considered to be a logical outcome for economists, the soundness of this concept flounders when we think of schools and universities as places where to be a student means to become a worker. Why? Because, while the student is yet to become a fully-formed worker, he or she still remains in some way human and capable of the actions that Arendt 44

INNOVATION AND POLITICAL SUBJECTIVITY

(1998) refers to, in that their diversity continues to overflow our understanding of the concept of the student as would-be capital and therefore of student as would-be commodity. Of course, this so-called triumph does not betray all students; it only flounders for those students who interpret their situation to be a paradoxical one; that is, it only flounders for the student who has already developed an innovative subjectivity. Why should the application of this theory betray the student in these circumstances? For the simple reason that, once the school and university are transformed into workplaces, we must acknowledge that we are once again bringing these aforementioned trains of thought back into conflict with one another. The collapse is not total; the betrayal is particular and therefore subjective. For instance, if the student subjugates their relationship with the self to the politics of education and its ideological vision for students as effective workers – where students must be thought of as mere capital (labour as capital) – then the student must accept that implicit within this politics of education is the demand that they self-exclude their individual diversity and “act rationally to maximize utilities” (Fitzsimons, 1999, p. 2). It therefore goes without saying that the subjugated student is likely to form their political perspective and cultural understanding of the world through an “exogenous” engagement with education’s matrix of practical reason, whether education’s employment of technologies of power is, at once, endogenous in the understanding of the teacher and exogenous in the understanding of the student. For this student, there is no paradox; even though there is no evidence that says that one’s contribution to the economy is uniquely dependent upon human capital theory’s concept of how the student acquires their education (Blaug, 1987 as cited in Fitzsimons, 1999; Elster, 1983, as cited in Fitzsimons, 1999). The above example refers to the situation of the political inactive subject (see Foucault, 1997b), and is itself a relevant story as the student’s freedom to be innovative must be won against the resistance of that which creates the paradox in the first place (see Laclau, 1994). The threshold faced by the student who is already innovative is one that is characterised by differences in value that make each party strangely irreproachable to the other. There is what Badiou (2010) calls a relationship that is not a relationship: both are talking about innovation and yet in as much as the politics of HGXFDWLRQ¶VFRQFHSWRILQQRYDWLRQIXQFWLRQVDVD³VWDQGLQIRUWKH8QLYHUVDO´äLåHN 2013, p. 66) truth, the merits of the already existing innovative capacity of the student could be said to exist in what economists call innovation when it is referred to as a “black box” (Fagerberg, 2005, p. 3). Here the student is not only in a situation where there is a relationship that is not a relationship (Badiou, 2010) (between concepts of innovation) but he or she also plays “a part that is not a part” (Rancière, as cited in äLåHNS 7KLVVDLGWKHVWXGHQW¶VVLWXDWLRQLVQRWFRPSOHWHO\ORVWDIWHUDOO it is a dialectical paradox, meaning the paradox contains the ironic possibility that it might be overcome by that which it tries not to permit its overcoming: the formation of innovative subjectivities. For the student to wait until they have acquired requisite skills and knowledge before being able to be innovative, brackets innovation as taking place on the outside, and in so doing makes it an exogenous phenomenon. However, 45

R. HERAUD

when we think of the school and the university as places of work, then endogenous growth theory (see Galt, 2009) supposes that the student must be thought to act in relation to their existing knowledge of their already existing innovative capacity, for, according endogenous growth theory, new technologies must come from within; that is, from the student’s experience of their situation. CONCLUSION

Because the politics of innovation is oriented towards what students do once they are no longer students – as in, what graduates do in R&D and beyond – then it is logical that there would be little written about what might be the situation of the student who is already innovative when arriving at school and furthermore and what it might mean for this student to critically resist the governance of innovation by the politics of education. For this reason, this exploration might be considered a preliminary engagement with the question of how students come to constitute themselves as innovative subjects. As intimated, our reluctance to say what it is that students might already be doing, whether this refers to their making themselves into workers or their undermining this same politics in the interest of innovation that has to be conducted discretely within the realm of their use of technologies of the self, would seem to inhibit our capacity to not only understand the formation and fate of innovative subjectivities but the fate of the actor in education, with respect to, for example, how we understand the purpose of assessment. There cannot be an adequate assessment for the student who has a part that is no a part because that which the assessment seeks to account for inevitably returns to the paradoxical situation of the student. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I cannot complete this text without acknowledging the kindness, generosity and patience of Bernd Krämer, Bergneustadt (1944–2014), a consultant to entrepreneurs in the region of Cologne, Germany, and the father of my special friend Lars Krämer, Johnson Controls, Hannover, Germany. NOTES 1

2

3 4

5

46

For a critical account of the history of the concept of homo economicus or economic man, see Foucault (2010, Lecture 12, pp. 291–325). One could cut more directly across this similitude by saying they are both knowledge workers and share a common status in the political economy because the politics of knowledge have become economic (see Peters, Marginson, & Murphy, 2009, pp. 150–153), for a more elucidating reflection on this question). See also, for instance, Hanusch and Pyka (2007). There is not scope in this discussion to examine how the subject addressed in this chapter might be analysed within the framework of Foucault’s (2010) discussion of homo economicus and civil society in Lecture 12 (pp. 291–325). This idea is explored in Rose’s *RYHUQLQJWKHVRXO7KHVKDSLQJRIWKHSULYDWHVHOI (1999).

INNOVATION AND POLITICAL SUBJECTIVITY 6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17 18

19

Isenberg (2013) remarks that “truth in business” might be considered to be “somewhere between making a sale and the market value of a company”. Such a claim might lead us to speculate that, for the student, truth in education might be somewhere between a completed assessment and the market value of the skills and knowledge that the same assessment supposes the student to have acquired. Or their familiarization with what economic analysis calls the “innovation process” (Fagerberg, 2005, pp. 1–26; Pavitt, 2005, pp. 86–114). My understanding of governmentality initially draws from Foucault’s reflection on this concept as explicated in the interview ‘Governmentality’ (Foucault, 2000). My understanding of the concept of passive and active political subjects comes from my reading of the Foucault interview ‘The ethics of the concern for self as a practice of freedom’ (Foucault, 1997b, pp. 281–302). A myth initiated by Schumpeter (1961/1934) and perpetrated by economic theory (the leader of the band being Becker, 1993) that conceives of innovation as requiring a requisite acquisition of human capital; something that was done in the first instance for no other reason than to provide the means of measuring the value of investment in education against its benefits to the economy. “Innovation” is understood in The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 10) as a “value”. If the student’s already existing capacity to be innovative is recognised by the politics of education, then any student critique of this concept is likely to lead to a re-evaluation of innovation as a value according to the matrix of practical reason that the student employs in their learning and education. While there is a perfectly good reason for why economic theory, that informs education policy, is unable to come up with an explanation of what the innovation process is (Fagerberg, 2005), this lack of an explanation logically implies that the innovation process cannot be taught. In defence of this assertion, it might be argued that one cannot teach what cannot be retrieved from the “black box” (p. 3). I would argue that anything that can be retrieved is not worth retrieving and that we need to take another approach to the problem of understanding how an innovative activity can be thought of as a creative process. Incidentally, the student’s formation, conceptualized in this way, could be said to prepare the student to contribute to open and social innovation (beginning with, for example, von Hippel, 2006). This is a situation that would seem to alert us to the continued relevance of Hannah Arendt’s (1961) work on the crisis in education, especially with respect to teacher-education. Schools and universities could be likened to big firms with respect to the problem of facilitating innovation in the learning environment. While a class per se might suggest metaphoric possibilities to be likened to the scale of small and medium enterprises, re their size and the notion that the latter are understood in economic analysis to be most able at being innovative, the pedagogical approach to teaching in schools and universities is by and large a servant of the politics of education of a greater institution; the State. My inspiration for this apparent irony comes from John Codd’s ‘Education Policy and the Crisis of the New Zealand State’ (1990), and the idea that the non-intervention of the State should automatically create a capacity in the individual to intervene on their own behalf. This idea only holds if the value of everything can be determined according to crude economic interests. For instance, what happens to the individual’s capacity to make decisions and intervene on their own behalf, and that of others, in the situation where there is no economic measure? In order to understand the broader complexity of this question, it would seem that we might need to formulate the means to measure political subjectivity – its extent and its multiplicity, and most of all, its interests with respect to its impact on the way we improve our understanding of the significant problems. See, for instance, Badiou (2010) and Rancière’s (2013) explanations of these contradictory interests. While education policy is of course heavily informed by economics and entrepreneurialism, not all thinkers in these two fields define innovation in this way. For instance, Miller and Wedell-Wedellsberg (2013) define innovation as involving “[c]reating results by doing new things” (p. vii). This notion of a paradox created through the application of human capital theory has been drawn from J. G. A. Pocock’s (1975) reflection on what he calls the Machiavellian moment, when he observes the existence of “a dialectic paradox [in] that while the Christian doctrine of salvation ultimately made

47

R. HERAUD

20

the historical vision possible, for centuries it operated to deny that possibility” (p. 31). What I mean to say is that while human capital theory may be used to repress all notions of innovation that deviate from the politics that governs the acquisition of skills and knowledge, this same repressive act might eventually lead to the birth of what human capital theory says cannot be. The choice of the terminology pre-commercial is not made to highlight the difference in significance of innovative activity realized by students in schools and universities: this terminology is chosen to highlight the incapacity of contemporary economic analysis to provide an account of how already formed innovative subjects contribute to society and/or the economy.

REFERENCES Arendt, H. (1961). Crisis in education. In H. Arendt (Ed.), %HWZHHQ SDVW DQG IXWXUH 6L[ H[HUFLVHV LQ political thought. London: Faber. Arendt, H. (1998). The human condition. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Badiou, A. (2010). Thinking the event. In S. P. Engelmann (Ed.), 3KLORVRSK\ LQ WKH SUHVHQW $ODLQ %DGLRX 6ODYRMäLåHN (P. Thomas & A. Toscano, Trans., pp. 1–48). Malden, MA: Polity Press. Becker, G. S. (1993). +XPDQ FDSLWDO $ WKHRUHWLFDO DQG HPSLULFDO DQDO\VLV ZLWK VSHFLDO UHIHUHQFH WR education (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Becker, G. S., Ewald, F., & Harcourt, B. E. (2012). Becker on Ewald on Foucault on Becker American 1HROLEHUDOLVP DQG 0LFKHO )RXFDXOW¶V  µELUWK RI ELRSROLWLFV¶ OHFWXUHV [Institute of law and economics working paper No. 614]. Chicago, IL: Coase-Sandor Institute of Law and Economics. Retrieved from http://www.law.uchicago.edu/academics/publiclaw/index.html Codd, J. (1990). Education policy and the crisis of the New Zealand state. In M. Sue, C. John, & J. Alison (Eds.), New Zealand education policy today. Wellington: Allen & Unwin. Department of Education. (1988). $GPLQLVWHULQJIRUH[FHOOHQFH(IIHFWLYHDGPLQLVWUDWLRQLQHGXFDWLRQUHSRUW of the taskforce to review education administration (The Picot report). Wellington: Government Print. Department of Education. (1988). 7RPRUURZ¶V VFKRROV 7KH UHIRUP RI HGXFDWLRQDO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ LQ New Zealand. Wellington: Government Print. Fagerberg, J. (2005). Introduction. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), 2[IRUG handbook of innovation (pp. 1–26). Auckland: Oxford University Press. Ferguson, A. (1995). An essay on the history of civil society. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published in 1767) )LW]VLPRQV3 +XPDQFDSLWDOWKHRU\DQGHGXFDWLRQ,Q03HWHUV3*KLUDOGHOOL%äDUQLü  A. Gibbons (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of philosophy of education and theory. Retrieved from http://www.ffst.hr/ENCYCLOPAEDIA/doku.php?id=human_capital_theory_and_education Foucault, M. (1997a). Technologies of the self. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), Ethics (pp. 223–325). London: Penguin Books. (Original work published in 1982) Foucault, M. (1997b). The ethics of the concern for self as a practice of freedom (P. Aranov & D. McGrawth, Trans.). In P. Rabinow (Ed.), Ethics (pp. 281–302). London: Penguin Books. (Original work published in 1984) Foucault, M. (2000). Governmentality (R. Hurley & Others, Trans.). In J. D. Fabion (Ed.), Power (pp. 201–222). London: Penguin Books. (Original work published in 1994) Foucault, M. (2010). 7KHELUWKRIELRSROLWLFV/HFWXUHVDWWKHFROOHJHRI)UDQFH± (G. Burchell, Trans.). New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan. (Original work published in 2004) Galt, D. (2009). New Zealand’s economic growth [Treasury working paper]. Retrieved from http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2000/00-09/twp00-09.pdf Godin, B. (2015). ,QQRYDWLRQ FRQWHVWHG 7KH LGHD RI LQQRYDWLRQ RYHU WKH FHQWXULHV. New York, NY: Routledge. Hallward, P. (2003). %DGLRX$VXEMHFWWRWUXWK. London: University of Minnesota Press. Hanusch, H., & Pyka, A. (Eds.). (2007). Elgar companion to neo-schumpeterian economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Isenberg, D. (2013). 'DQLHOLVHQEHUJ$QLQWHUYLHZE\%RE0RUULV. Retrieved from http://bobmorris.biz/daniel-isenberg-an-interview-by-bob-morris

48

INNOVATION AND POLITICAL SUBJECTIVITY Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2010). The Cambridge handbook of creativity. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Koestler, A. (1964). The art of creation. London: Hutchison & Co Ltd. Laclau, E. (Ed.). (1994). The making of political identities. London: Verso. Mann, L., & Chan, J. (Eds.). (2011). &UHDWLYLW\DQGLQQRYDWLRQLQEXVLQHVVDQGEH\RQG6RFLDOVFLHQFH perspectives and policy implications. Oxon: Routledge. Matusov, E., & Brobst, J. (Eds.). (2013). 5DGLFDOH[SHULPHQWLQGLDORJLFSHGDJRJ\LQKLJKHUHGXFDWLRQ DQGLWVFHQWDXULFIDLOXUH&KURQRWRSLFDQDO\VLV(GXFDWLRQLQDFRPSHWLWLYHDQGJOREDOL]LQJZRUOG . New York, NY: Nova Publishers. Retrieved from http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu/vita/Articles/ Matusov,%20Brobst,%20Radical%20experiment%20in%20dialogic%20pedagogy,%202013.pdf Miller, P., & Wedell-Wedellsberg, T. (2013). ,QQRYDWLRQDVXVXDO+RZWRKHOS\RXUSHRSOHEULQJJUHDW ideas to life. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press. Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media Ltd. Ministry of Education. (2011). Briefing for the incoming minister for tertiary education, skills and employment. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). 'LUHFWRUDWHIRUHGXFDWLRQ ,QQRYDWLRQVWUDWHJ\IRUHGXFDWLRQDQGWUDLQLQJLQQRYDWLRQ7KH2(&'GHILQLWLRQ. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/document/10/0,3746,en_2649_35845581_40898954_1_1_1_1,00.html Pavitt, K. (2005). Innovation process. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), 2[IRUG handbook of innovation (pp. 86–114). Auckland: Oxford University Press. Peters, M. A. (2011). Neoliberalism and after? Education, social policy, and the crisis of western capitalism. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Peters, M. A., Marginson, S., & Murphy, P. (2009). Creativity and the global economy. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Pocock, J. G. A. (1975). 7KH 0DFKLDYHOOLDQ PRPHQW )ORUHQWLQH SROLWLFDO WKRXJKW DQG WKH $WODQWLF republican tradition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rancière, J. (2013). 7KHSROLWLFVRIDHVWKHWLFV7KHGLVWULEXWLRQRIWKHVHQVLEOH (G. Rockhill, Ed. & Trans.). Sydney: Bloomsbury. Rose, N. (1999). *RYHUQLQJWKHVRXO7KHVKDSLQJRIWKHSULYDWHVHOI. London: Free Association Books. Schultz, T. C. (1971). ,QYHVWPHQWLQKXPDQFDSLWDO7KHUROHRIHGXFDWLRQDQGRIUHVHDUFK. New York, NY: The Free Press. Schumpeter, J. (1961). 7KH WKHRU\ RI HFRQRPLF GHYHORSPHQW $Q LQTXLU\ LQWR SURILWV FDSLWDO FUHGLW interest and the business cycle (R. Opie, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published in 1934) Sennett, R. (2006). The culture of the new capitalism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1999). Handbook of creativity. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. The Treasury. (2001). Knowledge, capabilities and human capital formation in economic growth [A working paper]. Retrieved from http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2001/01-13 The Treasury. (2005). 7KH HFRQRPLFV RI NQRZOHGJH :KDW PDNHV LGHDV VSHFLDO IRU HFRQRPLF JURZWK" [Policy perspectives paper]. Retrieved from http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/ ppp/2005/05-05 The Treasury. (2008). (QWHUSULVHDQGSURGXFWLYLW\+DUQHVVLQJFRPSHWLWLYHIRUFHV[Productivity paper]. Retrieved from http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/tprp/08-04 von Hippel, E. (1988). Democratizing innovation. London: The MIT Press. Walsh, D. (2006). .QRZOHGJHDQGWKHZHDOWKRIQDWLRQV$VWRU\RIHFRQRPLFGLVFRYHU\. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

49

*(25*(/Ă=Ă52,8

5. ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY

INTRODUCTION

The mainstay of the paper is formed by an analysis of the university’s penetration by society, inter-relationships between knowledge and policy in neo-liberal states, the forms of knowledge, learning and creative economies, and the intimate connection between government and knowledge within liberalism. In the present paper, I focus on the rise of the knowledge society and information economy, the dramatic dematerialization of the global economy, the global economic reorganization made possible by new data storage, analysis and sharing technologies, and the global effects of risk-generating growth and development. Related topics I will explore include the simultaneously integrative and fragmenting dynamics of globalization, the dynamics of complexly networked global systems of interdependence and interpenetration, the higher education (HE) crises of quality and alignment, and the operational dynamics of the global economy. Scholarly research reveals strong correlations between the rise of online journalism, the dynamics and opportunities presented by the Internet, the unbundling of news on the Web, and the creative and economic challenges posed by Internet-enabled digital media. THE CHALLENGES POSED TO HIGHER EDUCATION BY CONTEMPORARY GLOBAL DYNAMICS

Peters (2013) argues for “cosmopolitanism as openness” that serves to revitalize education and other related forms of public knowledge-intensive industries. In the emerging global knowledge/information economy, education is the single most important means for furthering the shift from reliance on state welfare to economic and social self-responsibility. The knowledge economy depends upon the taking in of higher order cognitive abilities, the advancement of the knowledge infrastructure, and a grasp of the institutional intricacies of knowledge cultures. Economists of information and knowledge should consider the wider societal and cultural parameters of knowledge. Peters (2013) holds that the notion of education is a global welfare right under the changed conditions of “the knowledge economy.” Governments and world institutions must provide the public goods of knowledge and education, and support the right to education. Education is the global welfare right that has the power to determine individual citizenship, employment status, and income.

© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2019 | DOI:10.1163/9789004394827_005

*/Ă=Ă52,8

Hershock (2011) asserts that the emerging “information economy” and “knowledge society” are opening spaces for a significant revolution in the provision and purposes of HE: the latter is a primary site for knowledge production or the realization of complex systems of informational flows, and is deeply embedded in and responsive to the full range of society’s constitutive dynamics (revising higher education means redirecting the circulatory dynamics of the information/attention economy and knowledge society). Internationalization requires the repositioning of HEs vis-à-vis the constitutive flows or relational dynamics of contemporary globalization processes, aiming at a qualitative shift across the full spectrum of boundary-crossing relationships (a deepening coordination of educational and broader societal aims and interests). Truly internationalized HE facilitates the emergence of new knowledge, and new and novelty generating systems of interaction. Internationalization is inseparable from realizing meaningful pluralities of perspectives and interests. HEs current disciplinary configuration is a reflection of individuation and differentiation processes central to industrial modernization. Hershock (2011) remarks that the long standing bias toward building knowledge capacity regarding what can be done does not correlate with heightening HEs public goods function. Honing the cutting edge of HE innovation and quality improvement can centre on realizing the kinds of relational nexuses that yield new prototypes of decision-making protocols. The resilience of HE involves resourcefulness committed to bringing about the types and qualities of interplay required to bolster equity-improving arcs of materialization. Issues of quality have become primary drivers for HE change, and improving HE quality must be indexed to refining and diversifying our global senses of what truly matters. HE quality is indexed by its effectiveness in enhancing predicamentresolving strengths throughout society, is a function of the resilience and creativity of epistemic networks, and of relational appreciation throughout the full range of societal domains within which it is embedded. It therefore seems reasonable to suggest that the dynamics of action-reaction have given way to complex interaction, whereas complexly troubled patterns of interaction present us with predicaments that must be resolved. The predicaments of contemporary societies can be resolved through combining greater clarity about the dynamics of global interdependence and interpenetration with new and encompassing patterns of commitment. Hershock (2011) observes that the complex systems associated with global informational capitalism both shape and are shaped by their environments in value-laden and value-generating ways. The communications and computing revolutions have triggered the emergence of a form of global capitalism in which economic growth is predicated on accelerating attention turnover. The governing principle of a manufacturing society may still be accumulation under conditions of globally accelerating economic flows. The severe inequalities, discontinuities and volatilities associated with complex global interdependence are caused by recursively amplifying internal factors. The differentiation-driving growth of global informational networks has resulted in an explosive multiplication of learning or knowledge generating networks. Globalization both intensifies 52

ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY

homogeneity and amplifies heterogeneity. An interplay of globalization, complex interdependence and reflexive modernization processes characterizes the rise of global informational capitalism. These findings are complemented by additional evidence showing that the proper unit of quality analysis is the complex systems of relational dynamics within which universities and colleges are constitutively embedded. As Hershock (2011) puts it, complex systems recursively factor the history of their interactive dynamics into their own patterns of development, and change in ways that are nonlinear, qualitatively transforming, and value conserving. The adaptive successes of complex systems can bring to light differences of outcomes, opportunities, interests and values. Knowing is an interest-articulating process of relating informational flows, whereas knowledge consists in complex and dynamically realized systems of information (a knowledge society is rich in recursively-configured, self-assisting and novelty-developing streams RIYDOXHH[SUHVVLQJGLVSDULW\). The advent of the knowledge society is inseparable from an extension of the horizons of the unanticipated (as a function of FRPSOH[ systems of informational flows, knowledge growth is inseparable from growth of the unknown). The conditions fostering the knowledge society’s emergence also foster continuously accelerating knowledge obsolescence (knowledge lastingness is inversely proportional to the generation of information decomposition and surplus). The trajectory of contemporary social, economic, political, cultural and technological systems has been toward greater interconnection, interdependence and complexity. Hershock (2011) explains that the pursuit of knowledge must be subordinated to that of wisdom. Knowledge that affords new capacities for knowing what should or ought to be done is needed. The increasing ambit and speed of knowledge production has a shortening of the lifetime of knowledge. The value of knowledge should be indexed primarily to coherently realized capabilities-for and commitments-to redirecting circulatory dynamics across scales, sectors and societies. The demands for and advantages of highly differentiated and refined bodies of knowledge have become extremely differentiated. We are witnessing the shrinking of the lifetime of specific bodies of knowledge, and the dynamic desuetude of problem-solving knowledge and an archetypal shift in the meaning of epistemic imaginativeness (the accumulation of knowledge is itself in some important senses rendered obsolete). The analysis also provides evidence that newly emerging knowledge net- works bring about finely structured and encompassing systems of informational flows. The quality of knowledge networks is a function of their capacities for generating systems of innovative relevance. Hershock (2011) stresses that knowledge networks afford sustained capacities for meaningfully affecting the dynamic orientations of changing systems of informational/attentional flows. Mass mediation immerses us in a ceaselessly shifting matrix of options for attending to what matters (the functional logic of a media-driven information economy links economic growth to an intensifying circuit of cutting edge and obsolescence). The equivalence of absorbing information and its conversion to non-information are the imperatives for novelty and exclusivity. Mass media must constantly expand both the horizons of 53

*/Ă=Ă52,8

real informational needs and the sphere of potential disinformation (the process of information production is continuous with the generation of novel uncertainties to be addressed with further information). Economic growth has witnessed accelerating and differentiated flows of goods and services. The shift from a material economy to an information/attention economy is one from the economic primacy of the factory to that of the laboratory or studio (economies of scope advance via the incessant alteration of what counts or makes a difference). Hershock (2011) reasons that the information economy operates according to a circulatory logic: the value of knowledge acquisition is subordinated to that of widening knowledge diffusion and spurring knowledge creation. The progressive misalignment of higher education and markets is a result of the degree to which market economies have been unhampered WRXQUHVWULFWHGO\H[SDQGWKHLURZQLQWHUHVWV. THE UNIVERSITY’S PENETRATION BY SOCIETY

Frank and Meyer (2007) claim that the university increasingly incorporates an array of persons with variable qualities, accommodating differences in personal interests and capacities and welcoming a variety of individual tastes: the university organizes students and cultural materials around principles that transcend local realities and stand at considerable distance from any concrete particularities, outlasts the technically-superior competition that undercuts it in the current period, and is suited to accommodate both the standardizing and the particularizing processes underway. The university survives in the contemporary era by casting the building blocks of a universalistic and principled cultural unity: what are forged at its core are the transcendent principles that constitute the knowledge society’s foundations. The university’s success reflects factors far removed from the technical demands and training requirements of today’s complex societies (the university’s structural and human dimensions are transformed). Frank and Meyer (2007) report that the university is well poised to teach people how specific features of nature and society relate to ultimately encompassing truths, and is positioned to teach both students and society the meta-principle that all sorts of particulars should be understood as instances of general abstractions. The university’s core task goes beyond shaping culture and personnel for efficient role performance in a bounded society. The expansions in the university’s student enrolments and academic contents exhibit the intensifying interpenetration of the global and universal with the local and particular. The local particularities both of that which is known and those who know are reconstituted in global and universal terms. The globalized and individualized society has offered enhanced centrality to the university and increased the pace of its expansion, inviting extensive interpenetration of the local and the cosmic (the resultant contemporary university is globalized as an institution). It also follows that the striking expansions of the university’s student enrolments and academic contents are expressions of universalization. Problems, demands, and resources associated with every institution in contemporary society are on 54

ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY

university agendas. University education can actively create the kinds of knowledge and personnel that can produce societal development. Frank and Meyer (2007) posit that university knowledge and university graduates deeply penetrate society’s constitutive foundations. Knowledge is stored in university organizations and woven into the fabrics of everyday practices and routines. The “knowledge society” is marked by the outstanding degree to which the university is opened to society, being equally distinguished by the degree to which society is built around the university. It is worth emphasizing that the knowledge society is fundamentally based on schooled understandings that can be required and can count as progress per se: it is a system of cosmic mapping. Frank and Meyer (2007) insist that “society” is increasingly relocated to a world society of empowered individuals embedded in a rationalized and scientized context (the new societal setting furthers the DFFHOHUDWLRQ RI LQGLYLGXDOEDVHG H[SHULHQWLDO NQRZOHGJH). The knowledge at the crux of the contemporary knowledge society is distinct from information and skills tied to role-performance, referring to the understanding of cultural materials organized around supra-local principles. The nature of the societal model for which knowledge is required has changed (contemporary society is built around universal principles more than local techniques). Knowledge is structured into the proper life experiences of society’s individual constituents, and knowledge in the form of inert substantive facts gets rearranged into process-oriented abstract principles. Frank and Meyer (2007) put it that everything is knowable, whereas knowledge is deeply institutionalized in the codes and procedures of society, and is the master key to a wide variety of social structures. The knowledge produced has a functional-theory quality, becoming rooted in benchmark routines of production and practice. No one is obliged to know anything in particular, whereas everyone is authorized to know anything at all (specialized knowledge becomes subject to individual taste). Pedagogy in the current era emphasizes involvement, option, decision-making, and H[SHULHQFH, shifting to empowerment and to participation. IMAGINATIVE PERCEPTIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY AND PROCESSES OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION

Barnett (2013) maintains that the public debate over the nature of universities is imaginatively stunted: to speak of the ideas of the imaginary and the imagination in relation to the university is to point to the power of imagination as heralding a bold leap for freedom and to the possibility of a collective imaginary emerging from those individual imaginative efforts. Ideas can change reality, turning into reasons for action, which can become causes of change. The exercise of the imagination is a necessary condition of a collective imaginary developing. The imagination lives in and is energized by individual minds, being taken forward by them. Those imaginings may be transformed and sedimented over time into a collective imaginary. The imagination can challenge the current imaginaries of our age, has the task of engaging with the material and social worlds, and is charged with engaging with 55

*/Ă=Ă52,8

the real world. If the imagination is to fulfil its potential, then it must come into play with the structures of the world. There is a thinness in our contemporary thinking about the university (the imaginary landscape of the idea of higher education is rather empty). Imaginative ideas of the university are in short supply, whereas there are many ideas of the university quite close at hand, characterised by an imaginative thinness. A challenge to the imagination is that of freeing itself from experience. The imagination has the task of being at least sensitive to the levels of university being (the being of a university is embedded in the deep structures of the world), has to engage with the deep structures that are influencing the ways in which universities are developing in the world, has a seriousness in realizing the potential that lies within the university in a challenging age, has the task of importing new values, can glimpse possibilities for the university beyond our contemporary sense of it (freeing it from its entrapment within dominant discourses), has to be sensitive to the fundamental structuring of the world that bears on academic life, involves contrasting relationships between ideas of the university and its material form, and can furnish robust resources for developing the university anew. Barnett (2013) holds that society needs both the most imaginative and the widest range of ideas of the university. The institution in society that should encourage imaginative thinking is tacitly working to diminish imaginative thinking, being characterized by a poverty of imagination about itself and its own possibilities. The university is much more an institution of society, and is taking on diverse forms. The university is caught in vortices of knowledge generation and knowledge transmission that transgress societal boundaries. New technologies are opening up possibilities for the sharing with the wider society of researchers’ findings. The new digital technologies refer to dynamic entities that generate processes of communication. Universities and their members tend to allow themselves to be captured by unfolding digital technologies. The digital university can justifiably attract a range of imaginative impulses. The university has its being amid multiple time-frames, and its academic staff and its senior managers are to be found active across the globe. The virtual university, the borderless university and the edgeless university are current ideas of the university that promote the association of the university with new technologies. It follows from this that the university is a site in which the largest matters of human life can be played out, is undergoing change in multiple time horizons simultaneously, and must struggle to understand itself. Barnett points out that there is a massive set of structures that position universities in the main currents of neoliberalism and the global knowledge economy. Universities have become corporate in their demeanour, extracting institutional loyalty from their academics. The idea of the liquid university can convey a sense of the university in the midst of swirling forces and as itself in restless motion, dislodging any sense of universities as occupying a particular space, and pulling perceptions into a counter-realm. The creation of new metaphors through which to comprehend universities is a powerful 56

ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY

act of the imagination. The idea of the ecological university could be construed as a feasible utopia by virtue of some elements of the ecological university being apparent in some institutions across the world. To imagine the university is to show that the university could be different from its contemporary forms. The dominant ideas of the university are narrowing our general sense of the university. The task and the potential achievement of the imagination lies in its helping to bring into play new forms of the university. The use of the imagination offers a way of freeing the university from the limited forms and ideas with which it is understood. Ideas of wellbeing and improvement open up an infinite space in which the imagination can be put to work, and thus the potential of the university can be promoted. A university is both institution and a set of ideas, inhabiting spaces and being caught in networks. The exercise of the imagination in relation to the university faces the challenge of attaining weight in exhibiting both fecundity and profundity. For Barnett (2013), it is important to notice that the dominant ideas of the university are reflections of powerful forces influencing the shaping of the contemporary university. The idea of the university has thinned out: many of the ideas of the university in the public domain are somewhat superficial, whereas weight is being put behind ideas of the university that are losing contact with the historic depth of the idea of the university. Universities are coming to concern themselves with the problems and concerns of the moment that are practical ones prompted by the university’s own positioning (the university has become a university-for-itself). In imagining the university, we should have a sense of the potential relationships between our imaginings and the world. Imaginings of the university will need to encompass qualities of unfolding and emergence. Revealing the pattern of the imaginative impulse can help to shape images of the university which may influence policy and practices. The global academic marketplace orients universities towards uniformity. A single university is an institutional kaleidoscope of shapes and colours, interblending and superimposing in dynamic manners. A university never sits easily and comfortably in any location in our imaginative space. A new idea when presented to a university is an addition to the colours and shapes of the resident ideational space of the university. Ideas of the university and actual forms of the university both energize and usurp each other in equal measure. Accordingly, imagining the university is a complex of processes, reflecting different human interests and dispositions. Barnett (2013) argues that imaginative perceptions of the university and its possibilities might inform processes of institutional transformation. New lines of communication can be opened oriented to expanding the imaginative potential of a university. The imagining university demands, and will cultivate, an arena for imagining. In understanding the university and its possibilities, the imaginative impulse is much to be encouraged, and is far from being a unity. A feasible utopia of the university is an imaginative idea where there would be good grounds for believing in its possible realization, offering principles that 57

*/Ă=Ă52,8

a particular kind of feasible utopia would need to satisfy, and indicating a value orientation. Utopian visions of the university are at once critical, deep and optimistic. One potential candidate for a feasible idea of the university, that of the university of wisdom, is insufficiently attentive to the repositioning of universities and the global structures that are its cause. We can come to know universities in a multitude of ways. The broad swath of the imaginative ideas that are in circulation by and large barely enter the public domain, and perhaps they do not deserve to come into widespread circulation. After all, imaginative ideas in themselves are not necessarily worthwhile. They may be ideological or impractical or deficient in some other way. Barnett suggests that imaginative ideas should be brought up against six criteria of adequacy, as he calls them, criteria of scope, duration, locale, emergence, wellbeing and feasibility. Such criteria of adequacy would provide a demanding but fair tribunal for imaginative ideas of the university. Ultimately, the imagination has to return to the world and reveal its possibilities for the world. A university stretches across manifold planes of being. An imaginative idea of the university might have implications for many of the planes of its being, and may be inert in relation to its planes of being. A university is always in a process of becoming. The idea of becoming harbours a sense of a realization of the possibilities of the university. Any university constitutes a set of intellectual resources for imaginative thinking. COLLABORATIVE PROCESSES OF MAKING MEANING FROM EVENTS

Shirky (2011) focuses on freedom of the press as a relationship between actual technical capability, and a set of legal and policy restraints that envelop and shape that capability, breaking down the media environment and the effect on non-state action into three elements: the synchronization of opinion, the coordination of action and the documentation of results. There is no separation that can be coherently drawn between traditional publishers and the new participants in the media environment. Mainstream media have typically been the most vocal proponents of free speech and the most active opponents of states to restrict that speech. “The mainstream media needs to understand that notwithstanding the competitive pressures and the affront to professional dignity, with the digitization of all media well underway, there is only one media environment that matters and controls in that media environment will apply to all participants” (Shirky, 2011, p. 20). Thus, the use of social media tools does not have a single preordained outcome, popular culture provides cover for more political uses of social media, access to information is not the primary way social media constrain autocratic rulers or benefit citizens of a democracy, whereas social media have become coordinating tools for nearly all of the world’s political movements, and a fact of life for civil society worldwide: the capacity of social media resides chiefly in their furtherance of civil society and the public realm, and social media intensify collective cognizance by disseminating messages via social 58

ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY

networks (the Internet spreads media consumption and media production, enabling individuals to privately and publicly integrate and discuss a welter of discordant perspectives). Shirky (2011) contends that media play a supporting role in social change by strengthening the public sphere (it is a strong civil society, rather than access to Google or YouTube, that does the most to force governments to serve their citizens). “As the communications landscape gets denser, more complex, and more participatory, the networked population is gaining greater access to information, more opportunities to engage in public speech, and an enhanced ability to undertake collective action” (Shirky, 2011, p. 2). Shirky (2010) emphasizes that the participation part comes from a medium that makes any person who links to it a possible originator of bits and not only a user of them. The coordinated voluntary participation is a cognitive surplus that allows us to treat the connected world’s free time and talents in aggregate. Citizen involvement becomes a core to our conception of how news can be part of the fabric of society. On the Web, news outlets could act not just as a source of information, but as a site of coordination. The former audience is becoming increasingly intertwined with all aspects of news. Journalists have always used tip lines and man-in-the-street interviews, and consumers have always clipped and forwarded favourite articles. What’s new here isn’t the possibility of occasional citizen involvement. What’s new is the speed and scale and leverage of that involvement, the possibility of persistent, dramatic amounts of citizen involvement. What’s new is that making public statements no longer requires professional outlets that citizens now have tools that enable them to assemble around causes they care about without needing to live near each other. […] What’s going away, from the pipeline model, isn’t the importance of news, or the importance of dedicated professionals. What’s going away is the linearity of the process, and the passivity of the audience. What’s going away is a world where the news was only made by professionals, and consumed by amateurs who couldn’t do much to produce news on their own, or to distribute it, or to act on it en masse. (Shirky, 2010, p. 21) THE ROLE OF JOURNALISM IN DEMOCRACY

Scheuer (2008) argues that journalism has blurry boundaries and internal distinctions, does not derive its rationale purely from the disinterested diffusion of topical information, has to do with seeing, identifying, and understanding, is excellent if it is free of concealed biases or competing and corrupting ends, reflects all the complications of social life, is needed to inform decisions and catalyze change, may inscribe a broad range of information in the public record, defying simple formulas for judging excellence, is not a predominantly objective enterprise, can provide a shared strand of facts so that more substantial democratic debates may occur, is regular in frequency and format, and tends to be intermediate in tone and explanatory 59

*/Ă=Ă52,8

depth, is quintessentially selective, is pegged to immediate events of general public interest, is wedded to the spot, the moment, and the fact, is about economies of meaning and complexity, can provide the building blocks for moral and political awareness, cannot be modelled solely on fact-gathering, is critical to the functioning of a democracy, is mainly about novel and frequently transient knowledge of a new and public character, requires accuracy and relevance as well as interpretation and argument (accuracy is the straightforward correlation of a message to a particular precursory reality that it intents to represent), provides the news that democratic citizens need, within a commercial context, and is a core democratic value for informed political, cultural, and economic citizenship. According to Scheuer (2008), journalistic excellence must be a basic democratic value, factoring into the quality of democracy (democracy and journalistic excellence have experienced a joint downward spiral toward their marginalization), promotes democracy through devotion to truth, FRQWH[W, and vigilance (the pursuit of journalistic excellence is an essential part of the practice of democracy), makes for better-informed citizens, making more things possible through informed action, is a family of related values for informed citizenship, requires stenographic accuracy in conveying antecedent messages (the market is a continual inducement to pursue profit over excellence by diminishing the news and diluting it with entertainment), and depends on wise decisions about complexity. One thing that is clear is that excellence in journalism is an envelope that we must continually push (reflecting the world as we find it is a precondition of any notion of excellence), the actual determinants of journalistic excellence are cultural, and ethical journalism is a necessary condition of excellence (truth, context, and independence merely help to organize the idea of excellence in democratic journalism). Scheuer (2008) puts it that the symbiosis between journalism and democratic values is a basic supporting structure of any model of self-government. Democracy demands intelligent consumers of journalism, is a quintessentially communicative process, and is used to the system and criteria of journalism in a certain society. Quality journalism is pivotal to the quality of democratic culture. It is the business of democratic citizens to try to improve the quality of their journalism. The expression of opinion, and advocacy journalism, are basic ingredients of democratic discourse. The core mission of democratic journalism is to report relevant new facts, issues, and trends to the general public. Democratic citizens require a shared flow of outstanding, balanced information concerning the world (journalism in a democracy should be an assessment of power). Journalism’s watchdog function and investigative role link the democratic agenda with progressive ideas. The media’s mission is to inform, explain and support democratic ideological argument. We should bear in mind that democratic journalism must always be in a state of crisis, the quality of journalism is a key determinant of democracy’s meaning and scope, whereas democracies are contingent on journalism’s existence and conditioned by its quality. Scheuer (2008) maintains that freedom of speech and expression are predicates of any democracy. In democracies based on active and 60

ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY

informed citizenship, truth is a moral virtue. The purpose of serving democracy by informing citizens disdains both power and money as its aim. Gratifying audiences often degrades democracy by inhibiting civic knowledge and engagement. There is a complicated relationship between the formal constitutive elements of democracy and the informal elements that compose the level and breadth of citizens’ knowledge and participation. Expansions of the public media sphere must be created by citizens. The news is an influence on democratic life (news without its democratic role is a simple curiosity). A democracy without news is an impossibility. News and journalistic excellence are core democratic values. The provision of news is a quintessentially democratic aspiration. Commercial news is a compromise with journalistic excellence and democratic ideals. Scheuer (2008) points out that journalists need to be self-critical to achieve excellence, formulate knowledge by knitting facts to contexts, should dignify and seek to understand the nature and roots of ideological differences, and should exhibit a decent detachment from all powerful institutions (able journalists function within compromised regimes as a matter of practical necessity). We need good daily journalism to choke off the competing forms of information which would fill the information vacuum (good journalism should convey complexity and ambiguity). Journalistic vigilance refers to any journalism that either publicizes or otherwise deters misbehaviour. Journalistic knowledge is quite transitory and nontransmissible LQVWDQWDQHRXVO\EH\RQGLWVH[LVWLQJDXGLHQFH. Journalistic digging tends to produce a complicated picture of social reality. Journalistic ignorance disserves the public. To the extent that it is convincing, the argument so far establishes that journalism’s dependence on both concrete skills and broader knowledge cannot be resolved in the abstract. Even when striving for neutrality, journalism acquires subliminal political overtones. Scheuer (2008) insists that if some journalistic institutions did not devote themselves to an ideal of political neutrality, journalism cannot generate factual accounts as foundations for partisan debates. A clear journalism conscience and the lack of aggrieved parties are minimal conditions of good reporting (if reality signifies anything, journalism only investigates the periphery of it). Reporting all relevant and reportable facts is the first virtue of journalism. Subject knowledge and practical skills jointly affect the quality of reporting. Extremes of objectivity and subjectivity are equally potent ingredients of journalism. Mainstream journalists should avoid conscious slanting and strive for balance and fairness. Scheuer (2008) asserts that the illusion of easy neutrality or broad objectivity oversimplifies journalism’s function as the principle source of timely civic education. The effective transmission of constructed knowledge is not always intended when journalism is produced or consumed. Because of its commercial context, journalism often blends in entertainment values or substitutes them for news values. Blogging is not conventional journalism, seldom involves original reporting, can produce journalism, providing an important fact-checking function – correcting journalistic inaccuracies, and may function as an echo-chamber for unconfirmed reports and diatribes. Bloggers lack the institutional resources and filters of news organizations. 61

*/Ă=Ă52,8

Scheuer (2008) writes that news is a regular flow of topical information, describing and explaining actual events, is information intended for assimilation as knowledge (news, as a form of social knowledge, is radically intersubjective), is primarily new and about change, is embattled, is composed of language and images, conveys or implicates other kinds and levels of knowledge, is a human value, both as a commodity and as an essential fuel of the democratic process, is valued in different ways and degrees by different people, and is potentially progressive, equalizing forces in society: news is partial, problematic, and imperfect, there is a popular commercial demand for news media and entertainment, the availability and quality of news production partially determines the overall level of civic knowledge, even if the news is not always enriching, there is always some new information to be learned, producing news means describing a society’s basic conflicts and creating some new ones, news is mostly about what is new and relating the new to the old by SXWWLQJLWLQFRQWH[W, the consumption of news is an informal and voluntary quotidian act, and we need a “mainstream” of ostensibly neutral factual news, protected from the tributaries of advocacy. On Scheuer’s (2008) reading, in its continuity, news can seal the lining of public opinion against misinformation, manipulation, and flimflam. In the absence of independent news, there is a void filled by rumour and opinion. The news is a social product, is mainly about events, and should not be confused or combined with gossip or rumour. The need for news is not uniform, universal to humanity, or critical for survival, relating to the common project of democracy, and has a desire to connect with others and with society. The news media are capable of bringing unwelcome truths to light. We need enough independent reporting to constitute a viable alternative to commercial news. Questions of newsworthiness and news priorities are determined by the news culture, and the broader culture within which it floats. Daily journalism and hard news reporting are biased toward appearances and against deeper knowledge. Clean news would promote excellence and enrich democratic discourse, and would be a boon to democracy and to free and diverse speech. It is worth emphasizing that, in the mass media, the more common leaning is toward simplification, our media system is a series of evolving, competing ways of dispersing commodified information, whereas most knowledge of events and issues is filtered through the media. Scheuer (2008) remarks that investigative journalism is essentially revelatory, disclosing facts that were hitherto concealed at a cost to the public interest, and is propulsive and reparative, restoring public accountability about public matters. The intent to uncover deeper or more hidden truths makes investigative reporting more subversive and more revelatory than ordinary hard news (investigative reporting underscores complex and hidden realities). The notion of objectivity plays a role in conveying, understanding and evaluating knowledge. Journalistic objectivity is confined to a relatively narrow class of truths (even putatively objective facts can tell slanted tales). Selection, emphasis, and tone are necessary for the construction of meaning, and can make putatively objective facts tell subjective tales (outright lies seldom survive for long 62

ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY

where there is diversity of voices and values). The ultimate source of subjectivity is the receivers. A subjective eyewitness account of an important event can be uniquely informative. Scheuer (2008) states that factual information may be compromised by subordination to economic interests and by subordination to political interests (community-based, open-source journalism and alternative journalism are providing important conduits of information). Popular government depends on the flow of information to and among the public (functional citizens need enough good information to make informed judgments). The value of independence is rooted in the dual nature of most communication. As a democratic value, independence is a basis on which further meaning may be built (journalistic independence is relative to some actual or possible threat). All this necessarily leads to the conclusion that facts are tools made to fit our mental needs in negotiating reality, and can be verified and shared regardless of one’s values or prejudices – propositions which are so likely to be true that their denial is impractical and self-defeating. Scheuer (2008) reasons that facts help us to delineate the important boundaries of what is possible or foreseeable in a specific place and time. Facts are the smallest observable parts of journalistic knowledge, are more or less irrefutable, are where we start from if we are to argue at all, and do not impugn basic democratic values (context is elaboration of the facts and the framework for their coherence). Facts may change more rapidly than “fact-finding” agreements about them can keep pace. It takes time to come to agreement on what the facts are. Facts are relatively stable communities of agreement about the world. Agreed-upon facts are subject to different interpretations (facts never settle basic value differences, or cause people to abandon their commitments). Truth is the polestar of excellent journalism, is journalism’s most important feature, is not entirely unknowable, is essential for the news to have value, is central to what distinguishes news from other forms of communication, and is a pragmatic construct and a reflection of our common experience of the world. THE ABILITY OF USERS TO BECOME ACTIVE COLLABORATORS IN THE JOURNALISTIC PROCESS

Hermida (2011) focuses on the opportunities that active audience members have to influence the processes of producing and distributing news. With online media, newspapers offer a myriad of opportunities for readers to participate and interact with the news or the publication. Online newspapers frame participation primarily as the public’s ability to engage in a debate on current events. Most of the available options for participation frame the user primarily as a consumer of journalism. The way participatory tools are implemented and managed in newsrooms is determined by the availability of the technology, and is shaped by the newsroom ethos (the ethos of the newspaper organizations and their journalists forms a prism to shape the opportunities for audience participation). 63

*/Ă=Ă52,8

It therefore seems reasonable to suggest that news websites may be evolving into hybrid sites that focus on both content and community. Hermida (2011) argues that digital media technologies enable users to create and distribute information based on their own observations or opinions (digital technologies enable the audience to assume some of the communication functions necessary for the whole process to work effectively). Digitalization and convergence have blurred the distinctions between producers and audiences. Major newspapers are generally averse to opening up significant stages of the news-production process to the audience. Heinonen (2011) notes that professional news workers justify their special role and privileges in society by referring to their public service function (the social function of journalism in the democratic process provides the context for defining the nature of the relationship between audience members and journalists). Readers, listeners and viewers have several options in deciding when, where and how they consume journalists’ products. Enabling communications technologies greatly facilitate the flow of information from users to newsrooms. Journalists are pressured by a heavy workload that demands continual updates across multiple media platforms. The online environment provides a wide variety of tools to offer audience feedback. Online newspapers have engaged audiences in the content formation process as quality monitors (newspapers can serve as collective community nodes). Essentially, the argument is that the user participation in online news redefines the roles of audience members in overlapping media-based communities. Providing a space for horizontal communication among users offers both social and economic benefits for newspapers, building both communities and markets. Heinonen (2011) emphasizes that the image of media users expands from passive audience members to active citizens. Newspaper journalists assign users important roles as idea generators and observers of newsworthy events (active users may be a valuable resource for the professional journalist). Networked communication enables people to be more than simply members of an audience (the culture of participation is a broad social phenomenon). THE CREATIVE AND ECONOMIC CHALLENGES POSED BY INTERNETENABLED DIGITAL MEDIA AND THE POTENTIAL FOR NEW FORMS OF AUDIENCE ENGAGEMENT IN AN ONLINE MEDIA ENVIRONMENT

McNair (2011) stresses that the technologically driven erosion of boundaries between once-distinct and separate media platforms has led to multimedia news production as the norm. The dissolution of the production-consumption boundary is accompanied by a decentralization and diversification of public discourse. The professional pundits of print and broadcast journalism routinely express opinions that do not stand up to scrutiny a month or a year after their publication and have no special access to predictive power. The professional standards of journalism are the anchor in a sea of potential confusion. The notion of professional journalism will be 64

ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY

embodied in adherence to learned practices of information gathering, processing and presentation that mobilize trust and confidence among audiences. In this connection it is worth reiterating that the journalist as information architect works across multiple platforms with equal facility. McNair (2011) insists that veracity, reliability and accuracy are the prerequisite of journalism having any social impact. Media power is diluted and disrupted, even in relation to established platforms audiences are more active than ever before, and the on-the-ground authenticity of user-generated content is not enough in itself (user-generated content is often unreliable and inaccurate). Blogs add little to the stock of knowledge in the public sphere, and the blogosphere makes it easier for more people to engage with the process of agenda-setting and public opinion formation. “The way journalism is made is changing, then, and by whom, as is the way it is consumed. The increasing involvement of the non-professional newsmaker and commentator […] means that millions of ordinary people, all over the world, linked by the Internet to the established, professional news outlets, have become a visible presence in the globalized public sphere, with the potential to make a significant input to the news production process” (McNair, 2011, p. 45). Goggin (2011) notes that mobile news is a potent facet of contemporary journalism, is part of a suite of cross-platform media options, is a prominent part of the strategies of newspaper organizations, and entails changed practices of news consumption and production (the affordances of mobile technologies and networks provide novel possibilities for devising and circulating news, and the intimate turn furnishes groundbreaking possibilities for how media, their audiences and publics are created and connected). With the popularity of text messaging, new forms of news have developed, whereas with the rise of the mobile Internet, mobiles offer a conjunct form of online news. We must bear in mind that the personal and portable technology of the mobile is bringing about a distinctive form of news (news is being redesigned for, and consumed on, mobile devices). As Goggin (2011) put it, new technologies offer the potential for hybrid news services that cross previous computing and broadcasting divides. The capacity of mobiles to capture news events and make such images available is a common feature of television and online news. The future of news will lie in its claims to immediacy, whereas good reporting needs to be able to quickly find its place on online platforms. Cellular mobile devices are part of the intricate fashioning of news offerings and delivery. Jarvis (2010) puts it that a newspaper must not define itself by its medium, and its strength and value do not come from controlling content or distribution: newspapers are valued members of larger networks that enable their communities to gather, share, and make sense of the news they need. Journalism is a service that can expand in many ways, turning a newspaper into something new and something more, helping organize a community’s knowledge so that a better-informed society can attain the objectives it sets for itself (using technology, communities are starting to gather and share information at a marginal cost of zero). 65

*/Ă=Ă52,8

The important point here is that the economics of media have changed, and news organizations should enable and train networks of local bloggers and specialized news sources to sprout up in their communities. News organizations must take advantage of content networks and of the savings realized by eliminating print and distribution costs (newspapers should put themselves at the centre of revenue networks for the new, emerging media ecosystems in their communities). Jarvis (2010) reasons that news executives should see Google as a model of success in a new marketplace. CONCLUSIONS

The results of the current study converge with prior research on the dynamics of HE change, the gap between higher education outcomes and market needs, the dynamics of the information/attention economy, and education as a universal human right in the so-called global knowledge society/economy. The paper generates insights about the societal function of mass media and information, the emergence of epistemic ecologies of knowledge, the compromise of university autonomy by the incursion of mundane societal interests, and the universalistic essence of contemporary knowledge. This paper seeks to fill a gap in the current literature by examining the process of developing audience participation, users as participants in the process of making journalism, the potential for new forms of audience engagement in an online media environment, and the role users might play in producing actual editorial content. The implications of the developments outlined in the preceding sections of this paper suggest a growing need for a research agenda on newsroom attitudes toward participatory journalism, participatory forms of content production, the significance of online news in the construction of media politics, and online public participation in news production. We hope this paper makes a significant contribution to evaluating the democratic values associated with journalistic excellence, the role of ideology in the media, the analytic dimension of journalism, and the interrelated effects of the topology of social networks and technological networks. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

An earlier version of this paper (“Epistemic Ecologies of Knowledge”) was included in Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice 4(2), 2012, pp. 348–354. I am greatly indebted to Ronald Barnett (Emeritus Professor, University of London), whose insightful comments helped in improving and clarifying the argument put forward in the fourth section of this chapter. REFERENCES Barnett, R. (2013). Imagining the university. London & New York, NY: Routledge. Frank, D. J., & Meyer, J. W. (2007). University expansion and the knowledge society. Theory & Society, 36, 287–311.

66

ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY Goggin, G. (2011). The intimate turn of mobile news. In G. Meikle & G. Redden (Eds.), 1HZVRQOLQH Transformations and continuities (Vol. 11, pp. 99–114). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Heinonen, A. (2011). The journalist’s relationship with users: New dimensions to conventional roles. In J. B. Singer (Ed.), 3DUWLFLSDWRU\MRXUQDOLVP*XDUGLQJJDWHVDWRQOLQHQHZVSDSHUV (pp. 34–56). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Hermida, A. (2011). Mechanisms of participation: How audience options shape the conversation. In J. B. Singer, A. Hermida, D. Domingo, A. Heinonen, S. Paulussen, T. Quandt, Z. Reich, & M. Vujnovic (Eds.), 3DUWLFLSDWRU\MRXUQDOLVP*XDUGLQJRSHQJDWHVDWRQOLQHQHZVSDSHUV (pp. 13–33). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Hershock, P. (2011). Information and innovation in a global knowledge society: Implications for higher education. In D. E. Neubauer (Ed.), The emergent knowledge society and the future of higher education Asian perspectives (pp. 12–48). New York, NY: Routledge. Jarvis, J. (2010). News as a service to be sustained rather than a product to be sold. In B. Mitchell (Ed.), %UDYHQHZVZRUOGV1DYLJDWLQJWKHQHZPHGLDODQGVFDSH(pp. 8–11). Vienna: IPI and Poynter Institute. McNair, B. (2011). Managing the online news revolution: The UK experience. In G. Meikle & G. Redden (Eds.), 1HZV RQOLQH 7UDQVIRUPDWLRQV DQG FRQWLQXLWLHV (pp. 38–53). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Peters, M. A. (2013). &LWL]HQVKLSKXPDQULJKWVDQGLGHQWLW\3URVSHFWVRIDOLEHUDOFRVPRSROLWDQRUGHU. New York, NY: Addleton Academic Publishers. Scheuer, J. (2008). 7KH ELJ SLFWXUH :K\ GHPRFUDFLHV QHHG MRXUQDOLVWLF H[FHOOHQFH. New York, NY & London: Routledge. Shirky, C. (2010). The shock of inclusion and new roles for news in the fabric of society. In Brave news ZRUOGV1DYLJDWLQJWKHQHZPHGLDODQGVFDSH (pp. 18–21). Vienna: IPI and Poynter Institute. Shirky, C. (2011). Richard S. Salant lecture on freedom of the press. Cambridge, MA: Joan Shorenstein Center, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government. Shirky, C. (2011, January/February). The political power of social media: Technology, the public sphere, and political change. Foreign Affairs.

67

LINE REVSBÆK

6. RESEARCHING ORGANIZATIONAL ENTRY FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF NEWCOMER INNOVATION

The paper1 outlines preliminary considerations from a doctoral case study2 on organizational entry from an analytical perspective of newcomer innovation. Organizational entry processes are researched from a reciprocal perspective of newcomer, co-worker and hiring supervisor. All interviewees are employed in support functions of a large private sector industrial company in Denmark. Interpreting multi-perspective interview accounts of newcomer – veteran interactions the paper suggests viewing organizations as complex responsive processes (Stacey, 2010, 2011) and understanding socialization in terms of establishing a workplace-related Self and acquiring a sense of ‘generalized others’ (Mead, 1934) in the organization. INTRODUCING RECIPROCITY IN SOCIALIZATION RESEARCH

A recent review on organizational socialization research sums up the general entry experience of organizational newcomers: They [organizational newcomers] are unsure of their role and how well they will perform their job. They are unaware of the appropriate and acceptable ways of behaving in the organization. In effect, they are like strangers in a strange land who must learn how to think, behave, and interact with other members of the organization if they are to become accepted and effective members themselves. (Saks & Gruman, 2012, p. 27, 7KH2[IRUG+DQGERRNRI 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO6RFLDOL]DWLRQ) As is the case in this account by Saks and Gruman, the literature on organizational socialization unambiguously locates learning needs and the sense of insecurity with newcomers, and significantly not with organizational veterans who are more often referred to as ‘socialization agents’ (Feldman, 2012). Van Maanen and Schein’s founding conceptual work on organizational socialization in their 1979 article interpret organizational socialization as “the process by which one is taught and learns ‘the ropes’ of a particular organizational role” (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979, p. 211). As such organizational socialization is coined as the learning process of the organizational newcomer and transitioning individual, and socialization practices are described as aimed at facilitating newcomer learning and adjustment.

© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2019 | DOI:10.1163/9789004394827_006

L. REVSBÆK

While much of the previous research on organizational socialization has focused on how supervisors and coworkers influence the entry of new entrants into the firm, surprisingly little attention has been given to how the socialization of new employees influences insiders. (Feldman, 2012, p. 215) The Feldman quote argues that most socialization research literature tends, onesidedly, to emphasize the influence on newcomer from coworkers and supervisors, thus neglecting influence from newcomers on insiders. I would carry this argument further, contending that the research literature on organizational socialization is oblivious of the interdependency between newcomers and veterans during entry processes. Researchers’ exclusive focus on the newcomer experience, learning and adjustment, and their conceptualization of organizational socialization in terms of processes, strategies and practices centering exclusively on organizational newcomers, leads to a neglect of the inevitably reciprocal social nature of entry processes. I argue for understanding socialization as a bi-directional process between organizational newcomers and veterans in everyday work-related local interactions. In order for organizational entry to be understood as a reciprocal social phenomenon shared by newcomers and veterans alike, attention must be paid also to the motivations, actions, and experiences of veteran coworkers and supervisors encountered by newcomers in the local organizational entry processes. … moving beyond investigating only transitioning individuals to also engaging in more careful study of the motivations and actions of those they encounter in their local context. (Ashford & Nurmohamed, 2012, p. 16) Gallagher and Sias recently did a study on veteran employees’ experiences of uncertainty during organizational entry processes (2009). They identified categories of veteran uncertainty, and on that basis concluded that organizational newcomers are not just (as already acknowledged in earlier research on organizational entry) H[SHULHQFLQJuncertainty themselves, but also create uncertainty for veteran employees. According to Gallagher and Sias (2009), irrespective of whether any ‘newcomer innovation’ is registered, veteran uncertainty is part of organizational entry, “because the veteran saw potential for the new employee to transform the work environment” (Gallagher & Sias, 2009, p. 31). In other cases, most often involving entry of new supervisors, veteran uncertainty related to job security will be triggered (Ibid.). According to Gallagher and Sias their research efforts at linking various categories of experienced veteran uncertainty to entry of newcomers, “broadens the notion of the organizational newcomer” as well as “the notion of the veteran employee” (Ibid, p. 38), thus highlighting “the fact that new employee socialization is an organizationwide phenomenon, not simply an event that affects the newcomer” (Ibid, p. 38). The case study presented in this paper is based on a multi-perspective interview design inquiring into work-related interactions during the period of entry as experienced by newcomer, veteran coworker and hiring supervisor alike. The chosen case study focus on the reciprocal nature of entry processes is further informed by 70

RESEARCHING ORGANIZATIONAL ENTRY

a concept of ‘newcomer innovation’ developed by Levine and his colleagues in the context of their experimental studies on newcomer innovation in autonomous ad hoc work groups (Levine et al., 2001, 2003). Below a brief introduction to the said notion of ‘newcomer innovation’ will be followed by my account of the ways in which this notion has informed the current case study. The Concept of Newcomer Innovation Researchers of organizational socialization have long recognized newcomers as proactive participants in their own socialization process (Morrison, 1993; Kramer, 2010). Furthermore, studies of newcomer’s proactive information seeking behaviour vis-à-vis veteran coworkers and supervisors have been demonstrated to carry unintended innovation effects in workplace and practice (Ashforth et al., 2007). … As critical as it is to understand when newcomers will become active participants in their own socialization process, it is equally critical to understand when insiders will embrace (or reject) the changes newcomers seek. (Feldman, 2012, p. 220) ‘Newcomer innovation’ is a term coined by Levine and his colleagues researching entry of newcomers in autonomous, ad hoc work groups of university students in experimental research designs (Levine et al., 2001, 2003; Hansen & Levine, 2009). Their research is aimed at explaining the conditions under which newcomer innovation occurs. Drawing on Levine and Moreland’s work on innovation and socialization in small work groups (1985), Levine et al. (2001) define the ‘innovation’ in newcomer innovation in broad terms as: “any significant change in the structure, dynamics, or performance of a group” (Ibid., p. 91). Innovation is seen as brought about in “implicit or explicit negotiation between newcomers, who suggest new ways of performing team tasks, and old-timers, who accept these suggestions” (Levine et al., 2003, p. 216). Levine and his colleagues describe encounters between newcomers and old-timers in terms of reciprocal influence “… with both parties acting as sources as well as targets of influence” (Levine et al., 2001, p. 87). Levine et al. (2001) distinguish between unintended and intended newcomer innovation. The intended variety is understood as newcomer ‘pushing’ the group to change in order for the group to fit newcomer’s needs better – what has elsewhere been understood as ‘individualization’ (e.g. Kramer, 2010). Hence, the innovation intentionality is assumed ‘owned’ by newcomer. The occurrence of newcomer innovation is understood in terms of accommodation by group to newcomer suggestions as opposed to newcomer assimilating to group socialization (Levine et al., 2001). Levine et al. identify three determining factors of ‘newcomer innovation’ incidents. Newcomer innovation occurs when: 1. newcomer is motivated to suggest new ideas to the group: “Innovation attempts are more likely when newcomers want to change the group and believe their 71

L. REVSBÆK

efforts will succeed” (Levine et al., 2001, p. 96). If newcomer’s needs are not being met, newcomer will be motivated to consider innovation attempts. In attempting innovation newcomer takes into account anticipated group responses and the likelihood that the group will be receptive to newcomer’s suggestions, 2. newcomer is capable of working out useful ideas, perceived by veteran group members as possibly enhancing group performance or as otherwise serving group interests. Newcomer capability to come up with ideas is likely enhanced if newcomer has formerly experienced doing similar kinds of work (Ibid.), 3. newcomer is able to convince veteran group members to adopt the new idea (Levine et al., 2003). Communication consistency is assumed to be a factor that enhances newcomer’s convincing potential, as well as his/her perceived status among veteran members (Levine et al., 2001). The group performance events studied by Levine and his colleagues are without organizational context. Formalized leadership, as would often characterize group performance in real life organizations, is as well non-existent. 3URMHFW'HILQLWLRQRIµ1HZFRPHU,QQRYDWLRQ¶ As mentioned earlier, in my case study I approach organizational entry processes from an analytic perspective of ‘newcomer innovation’. The study inquires into incidents of ‘newcomer innovation’ as brought about in newcomer-veteran interactions during organizational entry. For this an operational definition of ‘newcomer innovation’ is worked out: ‘Newcomer innovation’ is a contribution by newcomer significantly determining the outcome of some task- or organization-related issue, and identified by coworker and/or hiring supervisor as (1) being different from or adding something new to earlier habitual practice and (2) as originating in newcomer activity. Drawing on Schumpeter’s (1934) understanding of ‘innovation’ as “novelty that creates economical value”, the suggested demarcation of newcomer innovation rests on a dual criterion of ‘novelty’ and ‘value’. ‘Novelty’ is said to be present whenever coworker and/or supervisor identify a specific newcomer contribution as differing from earlier practice. ‘Value’ is understood in terms of newcomer’s contribution having utility value for somebody.3 In practice this utility value shows in the contribution becoming integrated in work practice by newcomer and/or veteran coworker, and being referred to as such in interviews by supervisor and/or veteran coworker. The notion of innovation here presented is not a notion of wide-spread innovation across organizational units. The analytical focus restricts to micro-organizational variations in local practice (Ellström, 2010) referred to case study interviewees as (somehow) related to the entry of newcomer. Over time such micro-organizational 72

RESEARCHING ORGANIZATIONAL ENTRY

variations may, or may not be amplified into wide-spread innovations. Thus, tentative detection of ‘newcomer innovation’ in case study interviews was done by asking veteran coworkers and supervisors about ‘contributions’ by and ‘inspirations’ from newcomer in follow up questions succeeding interviewee accounts of shared work and interactions during the entry period: ‡ “… what was his/her [newcomer’s] contribution to your shared work?” ‡ “… in which situations did he/she [newcomer] act as an inspiration for you?” As such, the case study applies the notion of ‘newcomer innovation’ in exploring everyday, mundane organizational entry processes shared by newcomers, veteran coworkers and hiring supervisors. ,QWURGXFLQJ&RPSOH[5HVSRQVLYH3URFHVVHVLQ5HVHDUFKRQ2UJDQL]DWLRQDO(QWU\ Generally speaking, researchers’ theoretical pre-assumptions on ‘organization’ as a social phenomenon will affect their way of conceptualizing organizational entry and organizational socialization. Such theoretical pre-assumptions are not often dealt with in the research literature on organizational socialization (Revsbæk, 2013). As Kramer argues, the field of organizational socialization is mainly engaged in developing a-theoretical, heuristic models, “lacking any coherent theoretical perspective to explain the overall process” (Kramer, 2010, p. 10). Similarly, the literature seldom moves beyond simplistic notions based on dualist logic of assimilation versus accommodation: ‘either you change, or I change’. As long as options are restricted to either ‘veteran influencing newcomer’ or ‘newcomer influencing veteran’ (or possibly a bit of both) the reciprocal nature and complexity of entry processes – and indeed any social processes – are ignored. For such reasons I suggest adopting a complexity theory perspective viewing organized social life in terms of FRPSOH[ UHVSRQVLYH SURFHVVHV between the individuals involved (Stacey, 2010, 2011). According to such theoretical framework what, retrospectively, we label ‘veteran uncertainty’, ‘newcomer innovation’ or ‘newcomer adjustment’ are brought about through an iterative local interplay of intentions and fluctuating power figurations between mutually engaged individuals. The interplay of intentions takes the form of local interactions of communication, power relating and ideologically-based choosing which can be understood as the daily politics of organizational life. (Stacey, 2010, p. 9) Ralph D. Stacey brings together G.H. Mead’s social psychology, Norbert Elias’ process sociology and draws on complexity theory causality and simulator modeling of FRPSOH[DGDSWLYHV\VWHPV as a source domain for analogies to develop understanding of organizational life in terms of continuously emergent processes of interaction (Stacey, 2010, 2011). Approaching organizational life from a perspective of complexity theory, Stacey interprets organizational life in terms of “… interdependent individual agents [who] are forming patterns of organization 73

L. REVSBÆK

in the interplay of their intentional acts while, at the same time, those individuals are being formed by the patterns they are creating…” (Ibid., p. 57). He draws on Mead’s conversation of gestures (Mead, 1934) emphasizing the particularization of global themes in local interactions by specific actors in specific situations (Stacey, 2010). Narrative themes articulated by management (e.g. in response to previous patterns of interactions in and beyond the organization) change over time as managers (and other organisational actors) respond to what they encounter in the local interactions of their everyday practice. Themes and ‘cult values’ (Mead, 1934) emerge in the ongoing communication and negotiation of all involved and are nowhere else to be found except in the gesturing and responding of people interacting locally throughout the organisation. The simultaneous continuity and change of global patterns in and of interaction continually takes place in specific situations of local interaction among the involved (Stacey, 2010). From such a temporal account of organisational life, no newcomer enters the exact same organizational dynamics as newcomers before him/ her (cf. ‘panta rhei’, Heraclitus). CASE STUDY DESIGN

The applied multi-perspective interview design consists of individual semistructured qualitative interviews (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009) with newcomer, veteran coworker and supervisor. Interview themes relate to shared work experiences and applied induction practices. Six sub-cases of organizational entry are covered by the interviews. In each sub-case newcomer, coworker and supervisor are interviewed twice: One month after newcomer’s first work day and again four months after newcomer arrival. All sub-cases are of entry processes in company support functions. The case company’s HR department was responsible for identifying possible sub-cases and newcomer interviewees. Newcomer’s supervisor picked the veteran coworker interviewee based on researcher guidelines requesting veteran coworkers engaged in work-related interactions with newcomers during the initial period of newcomer employment. The study includes a total of 34 interviews with six newcomers, six veteran coworkers, and six hiring supervisors. Apart from interviewing, the study also includes participant observation of company onboarding seminars and introductory e-learning programs. A cross-perspective analysis of sub-case interview texts shows interviewees articulating a number of shared entry period incidents concerning collaboration, negotiation and conflict. The mutually-referred-to-incidents articulated by two or three sub-case interviewees are characterized by a particular emotionality of conflict or surprise. In a cross-perspective analysis of those mutually-referred-to-incidents the analytical figure of ‘interplay of intentions’ (Stacey, 2010) proved helpful in opening up the analysis.

74

RESEARCHING ORGANIZATIONAL ENTRY

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS

The case study company is characterized by rapid growth. High hiring rates and semi-high turnover rates make up an average seniority of two years in the company. A case study newcomer describes the company as a ‘young organization’ in spite of it having been founded more than a decade ago. He elaborates: Newcomer A: “… a lot of people are completely new to the organization. Only a few have been here for a long time. And still, some things seem to have been practiced for many years, but people don’t quite know how it used to be done.” Several organizational change processes are articulated in case study interviews. Some of the change initiatives were initially introduced by group executive management and particularized by hiring supervisors, veteran coworkers and newcomers when interviewed about organizational life events at the time of the entry processes. Adding to the organizational flux, a future round of lay-offs is announced only six days prior to first sequence of case study interviews. Much organizational turbulence thus abounds at the time of newcomer entry. The case study newcomers become participants in the fluctuating change processes in ways reflecting and affecting existing power figurations between veteran coworkers and hiring supervisors – the latter being themselves fairly recently employed. Two case study sub-cases are referred to below. Hiring supervisors of the sub-cases entered the organization four and six months prior to the entry of ‘their’ newcomer employees. Furthermore, the hiring supervisors were acquainted with newcomer employee from shared work experiences in an earlier employment. This makes for a situation where ‘interpersonal trust’ between newcomer and hiring supervisor may be counted on from newcomer’s very entry date.4 The newcomer is ‘new’ to the organization, however, to the hiring supervisor newcomer’s entry may rather be experienced as the renewal of an established, cherished relationship. Hiring supervisor A5: “He [newcomer] knows what kind of person I am, and I know what kind of person he is” // “I know what he [newcomer] represents. That’s something I am only just getting to know about other newcomers. I already have trust in him … so in that sense he is ahead, due to the knowledge we have of each other. Besides that, I treat them alike.” In the context of a variety of change agendas articulated in another sub-case, the veteran coworker associates the entry of newcomer with veteran-experienced uncertainty and a sense of being the outsider, while newcomer is viewed as part of the establishment. Veteran coworker B: “… I am old school, really old school compared to the others [the newcomers] … I am skilled at some things and doing some kind 75

L. REVSBÆK

of work, but I am just average at what I do now” // “… we are our own little department, and it is really a sense of me being alone, not them [referring to hiring supervisor and newcomer]…” Similarly, the veteran coworker in the first sub-case expresses uncertainty concerning the future of his work and departmental belonging following newcomers’ entry. Veteran coworker A: “In such a small department as ours, having two newcomers arrive at the same time is really too much, because it creates an insecurity at some level, because, well, we know what’s about to happen [referring to the announced round of layoffs]. At some level it causes insecurity. I don’t know if it is my own insecurity, well yes, perhaps it’s a mixture. What job functions will I get? How are we going to share this ‘cake’ between us?” Linking Concepts of Socialization and Newcomer Innovation Returning to the socialization of newcomer in the interplay of intentions and power figurations between hiring supervisor, veteran coworker and newcomer, I look to the work of H. G. Mead. According to Mead, the attainment of selfhood presupposes interdependency between the individual and his social surroundings. Socialization on the part of the individual is interpreted as acquiring a sense of the ‘generalized other’ of the collective: … he [the individual] must also, in the same way that he takes the attitudes of other individuals toward himself and toward one another, take their attitudes toward the various phases or aspects of the common social activity or set of social undertakings in which, as members of an organized society or social group, they are all engaged. (Mead, 1934, p. 154–155) Following Mead, the socialization of newcomer is considered as a process of becoming a self in a collective, depicting the organizational newcomer as learning about the attitudes of others in the organization through interactions and conversations with supervisors, veteran coworkers and fellow newcomers. Picking up on narrative themes articulated by veteran coworkers and supervisors, newcomers establish a sense of the values wished for in the organizational practice. From the conceptual pair of ‘generalization’ and ‘particularization’, by which Stacey (2010) draws on G. H. Mead’s work, it is relevant in the present case study to explicate that there may be different ‘generalized others’ related to an organizational setting of which to respond to when particularizing membership in the organization. Fluctuating global themes offer a variety of ‘generalized other’-related attitudes that newcomer may (conscious or unconscious) particularize in his or her participation. Such is the process constituting newcomer’s workplace-related self, the community practice and hence membership. Across several case study interviews a global narrative theme of ‘alignment’ is articulated. Throughout the interviews a sense of “lack of standardization”, 76

RESEARCHING ORGANIZATIONAL ENTRY

“immature formalization of procedures”, and a dominant habitus of “everybody having to invent the wheel themselves” is articulated in the thematic context of ‘a need for alignment’. A newcomer in one of the mentioned sub-cases learns about and makes sense of the global narrative theme of ‘alignment’ from conversations with supervisors and veteran coworkers inside and outside company headquarters. In a particular situation, asked by supervisor to come up with ways of solving a certain task in collaboration with a particular veteran coworker, newcomer responds in alignment-supporting ways: Newcomer A: “I need to understand what my role is in the general game of this organization, and what we [the company, the department] are trying to achieve.” (…) “I listen to the people around me and to those in other parts of the organization. I try to get around, find out what is going on outside Headquarters. And I visit the suppliers… Besides this I sit down and search out the intranet and find out what has already been created. …A lot of people would prefer to sit down and start all over when doing tasks like this one, but I am a big opponent of such an approach, meaning, that what I am about to do, I assume at least 50 people in this company have worked on before me. So it is about stealing and getting things done.” In the process of socializing himself, responding to a certain attitude (of ‘alignment’) toward the shared work, newcomer is enacting the organizational practice differently. Thus, veteran coworker identifies newcomer’s introduction of an intranet template to their shared work as a renewing contribution by newcomer: Veteran Coworker A: “He [newcomer] uses our intranet a lot for searching out information – and then he comes across this material. I guess, almost all company presentations are available in the intranet. I was surprised this information existed. So, in that way he is contributing. He is searching out and taking in what is available of things that we [newcomer and himself] can then steal with arms and legs. But in this way he is giving on, what he found on the intranet as an inspiration, saying ‘oh well, this just happened to exist’!” // “We [veterans] are engaged with our hands in the soil, so to speak … and then all the sudden, there are a lot of things, that we as veterans don’t spend time on searching out in daily doings because we are not new to the organization.” From Levine et al.’s notion of ‘newcomer innovation’ follows a location of the innovation intentionality with newcomer in line with general concepts of individualization in the socialization literature (Kramer, 2010). The perspective of complex responsive processes (Stacey, 2010) considers any incident (also those we might retrospectively agree to label ‘newcomer innovation’6) as emerged in the interplay of intentions between the involved individuals. Considering the perceived change of practice in the mentioned sub-case as related to newcomer’s particularization of a generalized theme of ‘alignment’, ‘newcomer innovation’ during organizational entry is possibly understood as a change in habitual practice 77

L. REVSBÆK

brought about as newcomer particularizes certain global themes over others in an organizational reality of many fluctuating global themes. Compared to earlier mentioned dualist models dominant in the organizational socialization research literature and implying a disjunctive relationship between newcomer assimilation and group/organizational accommodation, this understanding, instead, explains the integration of newcomer and the change of the collective as constituted by the same process of entry. Drawing on the theoretical perspective of FRPSOH[ UHVSRQVLYH SURFHVVHV (Stacey, 2010, 2011) I suggest viewing newcomer particularizations (and hence possible innovation) as simultaneously enabled by and affecting fluctuating power figurations in local interactions between newcomer, veteran coworkers and hiring supervisor. CONCLUSION

The presented case study offers a reciprocal perspective on newcomer and veteran experiences during organizational entry processes. The case study analysis builds from G. H. Mead’s theoretical notion of socialization as a process of attaining selfhood in a collective by acquiring a sense of the attitude of others and taking part in the collective doings. Identified ‘newcomer innovation’ incidents in a rapid changing case study organization are suggested understood in terms of newcomer particularizations of certain global organizational themes over others in the process of participation. As comparred to Levine and Moreland’s informing concept of ‘newcomer innovation’, the study suggests that the notion of newcomer innovation during organizational entry be subjected to a de-centering away from newcomer. Drawing on the theoretical perspective of FRPSOH[UHVSRQVLYHSURFHVVHV (Stacey, 2010, 2011) ‘newcomer innovation’ incidents are understood as enabled by and affecting power figurations between specific newcomers, coworkers and hiring supervisors engaged in the interplay of intentions of local interaction. For more conceptual development from the empirical study see Revsbæk (2014). NOTES 1

2

3

4

78

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the DGfE in Marburg, Germany, February 2013 and was published in Revsbæk (2014) in the PhD thesis Adjusting to the Emergent. A process theory perspective on organisational socialisation and newcomer innovation. Aalborg, DK: Aalborg University Press. Aalborg University, Denmark. The scholarship is co-financed by Aalborg University and Mercuri Urval A/S. The case organization is anonymous. Interpretation of the innovation criterion of ’value’ as having ‘utility value for somebody’ draws on interpretations of the Schumpeterian concept of innovation by e.g. Hoeyrup (2010) considering employee-driven innovation in relation to process- and service-innovation. Van Maanen and Schein (1979) refer to “the sort of interpersonal trust with others on the scene which is necessary to exert meaningful influence” (Ibid., p. 257) and argues organizational members are

RESEARCHING ORGANIZATIONAL ENTRY

5

6

hence “likely to have the most impact upon others in the organization… at points furthest from any boundary crossing” (Ibid., p. 224) when “the person may have ‘gone native’ and has consequently lost the sort of marginality and detachment necessary to suggest critical alterations in the social scheme of things” (Ibid., p. 257). In the two case study sub-cases presented here ‘interpersonal trust’ is already present between hiring supervisors and ‘their’ newcomers from the day of newcomer entry. The following quotes from the PhD empirical study are also cited in Revsbæk (2014) where a more elaborate analysis is also found. The term ’newcomer innovation’ is foreign to the perspective of complex responsive processes (Stacey, 2010, 2011).

REFERENCES Ashford, S., & Nurmohamed, S. (2012). From past to present and into the future: A hitchhiker’s guide to the socialization literature. In C. R. Wanberg (Ed.), 7KH 2[IRUG KDQGERRN RI RUJDQL]DWLRQDO socialization (pp. 8–24). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Saks, A. M. (2007). Socialization tactics, proactive behavior, and newcomer learning: Integrating socialization models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70(3), 447–462. Ellström, P.-E. (2010). Practice-based innovation: A learning perspective. Journal of Workplace Learning, 22(1–2), 27–40. Feldman, D. C. (2012). The impact of socializing newcomers on insiders. In C. R. Wanberg (Ed.), The 2[IRUGKDQGERRNRIRUJDQL]DWLRQDOVRFLDOL]DWLRQ (pp. 215–229). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Gallagher, E. B., & Sias, P. M. (2009). The new employee as a source of uncertainty: Veteran employee information seeking about new hires. Western Journal of Communication, 73(1), 23–46. Hansen, T., & Levine, J. M. (2009). Newcomers as change agents: Effects of newcomers’ behavioral style and teams’ performance optimism. Social Influence, 4(1), 46–61. Hoeyrup, S. (2010). Employee-driven innovation and workplace learning: Basic concepts, approaches and themes. 7UDQVIHU(XURSHDQ5HYLHZRI/DERXUDQG5HVHDUFK(2), 143–154. Kramer, M. W. (2010). 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO VRFLDOL]DWLRQ -RLQLQJ DQG OHDYLQJ RUJDQL]DWLRQV. Cambridge: Polity Press. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). ,QWHUYLHZ,QWURGXNWLRQWLOHWKnQGY UN (2nd ed.). København: Hans Reitzel. Levine, J. M., Choi, H.-S., & Moreland, R. L. (2003). Newcomer innovation in work teams. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), *URXSFUHDWLYLW\,QQRYDWLRQWKURXJKFROODERUDWLRQ(pp. 202–224). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1985). Innovation and socialization in small groups. In S. Moscovici, G. Mugny, & E. Van Avermaet (Eds.), Perspectives on minority influence (pp. 143–169). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levine, J. M., Moreland, R. L., & Choi, H.-S. (2001). Group socialization and newcomer innovation. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), %ODFNZHOO KDQGERRN RI VRFLDO SV\FKRORJ\ *URXS SURFHVV (pp. 86–106). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Mead, G. H. (1934). 0LQGVHOIDQGVRFLHW\)URPWKHVWDQGSRLQWRIDVRFLDOEHKDYLRULVW (C. W. Morris, Ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Morrison, E. W. (1993). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 557–589. Revsbæk, L. (2013). Modtagelsessamspillets lokale økologi. In $FDGHPLF TXDUWHU VSHFLDO LVVXH Humanistic leadership research (pp. 175–186). Aalborg: Aalborg University. Revsbæk, L. (2014). $GMXVWLQJ WR WKH HPHUJHQW $ SURFHVV WKHRU\ SHUVSHFWLYH RQ RUJDQL]DWLRQDO socialization and newcomer innovation (Published PhD thesis). Aalborg University Press, Aalborg. Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2012). Getting newcomers on board: A review of socialization practices and introduction to socialization resources theory. In C. R. Wanberg (Ed.), 7KH2[IRUGKDQGERRNRI organizational socialization (pp. 27–55). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

79

L. REVSBÆK Stacey, R. D. (2010). &RPSOH[LW\ DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQDO UHDOLW\ 8QFHUWDLQW\ DQG WKH QHHG WR UHWKLQN management after the collapse of investment capitalism (2nd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge. Stacey, R. D. (2011). 6WUDWHJLFPDQDJHPHQWDQGRUJDQL]DWLRQDOG\QDPLFV7KHFKDOOHQJHRIFRPSOH[LW\ (6th ed.). Harlow: Pearson, Financial Times, Prentice Hall. Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 209–264). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

80

MIRIAM SITTER

7. PISA AS A GENERATOR OF INNOVATION

INTRODUCTION

“PISA is an international study that was launched by the OECD in 1997. It aims to evaluate education systems worldwide every three years by assessing 15-year-olds’ competencies in the key subjects: reading, mathematics and science” (OECD, 2013). In 2000 the focus of the assessment was reading. The ‘unsatisfactory’ results from PISA 2000 for the German educational system have given rise to a vigorous public post-PISA debate about the reasons for differences in reading literacy and the related childhood social inequality. To this day, PISA is used in a wide variety of German debates on educational reform policy as a self-explanatory catchword to underpin innovation-led research perspectives and to (re-)explore issues and frameworks for practice in educational policy. Even now, more than eleven years after its initial publication, the PISA study is used to position the user in relation to the politics of the discipline, and to reflect on what has or has not been – but needs to be – achieved in educational reform policy “following PISA” (BMFSFJ, 2013, p. 253, a.o.t).1 Such reflections are often based on the seemingly negative or problematic character surrounding the PISA study, which finds expression in widely utilized symbolic terms such as ‘PISA crisis’ and ‘educational disaster’. And yet PISA, as a catalyst for reflections on educational reform policy, does not have exclusively negative connotations. After all, PISA showed what had “been neglected for far too long” (KMK, 2001, a.o.t.), and even today, in the 14. Kinderund Jugendbericht (14th Child and Youth Report), it provides a legitimate rationale for the “boom in early childhood education” (BMFSFJ, 2013, p. 159, a.o.t.). PISA thus creates a space for both organizational and institutional changes. Regardless of how PISA is interpreted and incorporated into arguments, every case in which reference is made to PISA helps to canonize an ‘event’ whose results, for over eleven years, have “[perturbed] the world of educational policy to an unprecedented extent” (Pongratz, 2004, p. 243, a.o.t.). PISA thus has a dual character: because of its results, PISA has primarily negative connotations, but it can be transformed into a secondarily positive event. PISA is, on the one hand, an actual event, and there is little that can be done to change its findings. On the other hand, PISA can be understood as a construct, because the meaning, validity, and impact of its findings (particularly the negative ones) can be (critically) interpreted in very different ways by the diverse actors involved in educational policy issues. Furthermore, given the regularly recurring test cycles, they are constantly open to renegotiation. These

© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2019 | DOI:10.1163/9789004394827_007

M. SITTER

negotiations are carried out with reference to the prevailing normative idea of what the German educational system should be like. Thus we can observe that – in the context of this norm which educational policy should be striving to attain – the ‘PISA crisis’ is also (re-)interpreted positively as a ‘warning’ or ‘wake-up call’, and is deployed with the corresponding rhetoric. Within this dual logic, then, PISA is established as an initiating and therefore functional vehicle, with which initiatives from a wide range of actors, e.g. within the specialized discourse on early childhood education, can be legitimized and marked as significant even today. The key concern of the present article is to take this vehicle (more) seriously in its self-evident semantic usage, and to provide a critical analysis of its lasting impact and both its articulated and its unexplored consequences, including, for example, the way organizations and institutions deal with children facing disadvantages in education. This will largely be based on the findings of a discourse analysis (sociology of knowledge approach to discourse – Wissenssoziologische Diskursanalyse, Keller, 2005, 2008, 2012). The analysis will examine the debate on the call to remove educational inequalities which followed the announcement of the PISA results. The article picks up as its starting point the question of how the new initiatives – which in this case are legitimized by PISA – are discursively and institutionally positioned, and how are they reflected and (re-) produced organizationally in interactions with children facing disadvantages in education. The first section is concerned with the heterogeneous reception and the process of collectively constructing symbolic semantics with which PISA manifests itself as a rhetorically deployed event construct. The second section explains how various actors from a wide range of disciplines and specialized discourses are still using this event construct to define their positions in relation to the post-PISA educational debate, and to exchange views with one another. The third section casts light on the flexible scope of action which is created as a result of this generator of innovation. The fourth section offers related conclusions. PISA – AN EVENT CONSTRUCT

In the phase immediately after the publication of the PISA results in December 2001, PISA was subjected to a striking process of collective construction of symbolic semantics by a variety of actors from the fields of education policy, academia, and (early childhood) educational practice. With reference to PISA, a press release from the Kultusminsterkonferenz (KMK, 2001, a.o.t.) in 2001 quotes the words of its vice president, Willi Lemke: “The complexity and the weight of the findings mean […] that it is out of the question to immediately propose a finalized plan of action.” A few months later, a report on the Siegener Kinder- und Jugendsurvey in the professional section of the Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation (ZSE – Journal for Sociology of Education and Socialization) begins with the following words: “PISA brought the fact to light: German adolescents are poor readers […]. 82

PISA AS AN GENERATOR OF INNOVATION

The public debate now revolves around the reasons for this calamity” (Maschke & Stecher, 2002, p. 331, a.o.t.). Lösch (2002, p. 4, a.o.t.), in the editorial of the journal DISKURS, adds the following words: “The whole country has had a jolt – a mediumsized shock: Germany has been given bad marks for the state of its education system – and by an independent jury: PISA.” In 2003 we find similar remarks in the Zeitschrift frühe Kindheit (Journal Early Childhood): The shock was deep, the results were widely seen as a disaster for the German education system. Teachers, educational psychologists and politicians sought and are still seeking putative causes for this ‘ignominy’ [‘Schmach’], and one of the things they are focusing their attention on is the educational mandate of kindergartens. (Bruendel & Hurrelmann, 2003, a.o.t.) “Shock”, “disaster” and “ignominy” can be understood as collective symbols, which make up a so-called catachresis consisting of a description of a medical condition (shock), a major event (disaster) and a feeling of degradation or disparagement (ignominy). Jürgen Link (2001a, p. 51, a.o.t.) refers to the effects of such a collective symbolic aggregation as a “collective hallucination”. In the quote above this is achieved by gradually intensifying the situation or the declared state of affairs, by way of three successive collective symbols, into a ‘dramatic state of affairs’, and thereby positioning it on a ‘level of reality’ (cf. Fleischer, 1996, p. 41). After all, we can vividly imagine what a “shock” or a “disaster” entails. “Ignominy” [“Schmach”] in particular reveals itself, in its textual position, to be a very effective symbol. It points to “attention”, and thus to new initiatives in the wake of the “shock” and “disaster”. At the same time, as “ignominy”, it provides the condition for the constitution – or more exactly: the moral constitution – of a new phase of reflection and searching for causes. It thus leads the way to the associated constitution of a ‘new’ specialized discourse about early childhood education (“educational mandate of kindergartens”), involving “teachers, educational psychologists and politicians”. Today PISA is still subject to semantic responses – and problematized to varying degrees – in a very similar way. In the recent 14. Kinder- und Jugendbericht (14th Child and Youth Report), the committee of experts points out that research on early childhood and education was brought out of obscurity “with the first PISA shock, if not before” (BMFSFJ, 2013, p. 101, a.o.t.). Another contemporary source, with an entirely different political perspective (taz, 6 May 2013, p. 12, a.o.t.), also links PISA with the description of a medical state (‘hyperventilation’), but, by combining several collective symbols, evokes exactly those things that characterize PISA as essentially negative: “In education policy – see the Pisa study – such news causes national hyperventilation – when it comes to alarming findings on lobbying, the political class and the public are astonishingly hard of hearing.” Without directly describing the PISA study itself in collective symbolic terms (e.g. as the ‘PISA shock’), the collective symbolism of ‘hyperventilation’ and the analogy chosen for the magnitude of the findings (‘alarming’) readily express the problematic nature of PISA, and use PISA to problematize the issue at hand. 83

M. SITTER

Thus, with all these collective symbolic associations, PISA continues to manifest itself as something very similar to an (educational) cultural stereotype. As soon as these four initials appear – whether in upper or lower case, problematized to varying degrees –, we can observe something similar to what Emile Durkheim, in his discussion of morality, referred to as a “collective habit” (Durkheim, 1973, p. 82, a.o.t.). The collective process of constructing symbolic semantics with respect to PISA can be interpreted, in this sense, as a “matter of habit” (ibid.). This thesis is corroborated by the observation that statements relating to entirely different topics and disciplines (e.g. on lobbyism) use the PISA acronym to give precision and/or a particular direction to their subject. This form of use is effective because the acronym PISA has such a fixed, clear, and collectively established meaning within (educated) German society that it can be used to impose its semantics onto the presentation of completely new objects and topics (cf. Fleischer, 1999, p. 101). In the light of these characteristics, PISA can be described as an event construct, which has undergone a “temporal and spatial expansion” (Notarp, 2005, p. 38, a.o.t.), and is notable for its nature as an event. As well as reflecting an event or fact which has taken place in reality, this essentially has the function of being used for diverse discursive purposes and thus becoming a component of new constructs (cf. ibid., p. 18). Given its strong connection to political themes related to education within German education systems, I want to articulate PISA as a culturally constructed event within the broader context of education. According to Fleischer (1999, p. 101, a.o.t.) event constructs can be recognized, in practical and analytical terms, mainly by the fact that they have no “direct and compelling connection to the content of the object in question” or to the points to be discussed. Given that PISA is still being cited in introductions to research perspectives (e.g. in the 14. Kinder- und Jugendbericht), even though some time has passed since the announcement of the first PISA results, it can be assumed that it serves on the one hand as a “rhetorical ornament” (Link, 2001b, p. 8, a.o.t.), and on the other hand as a “semantic form and direction-giving component of other constructs” (Fleischer, loc. cit., a.o.t.). For this very reason, PISA often appears in conjunction with widely used symbolic phrases that, like “shock” or “hyperventilation”, have a distinct cultural meaning and are subject to “collective handing-down and collective rules of use” (Biskupska & Fleischer et al., 2011, p. 51, a.o.t.). Thus the event construct PISA and the collective symbols complement and provide semantic form to each other (cf. Fleischer, loc. cit.). PISA AS A GENERATOR OF INNOVATION

As an event construct, PISA can readily be used to create (interpretative) connections, and to generate mutual links with (new) specialized discourses. Here PISA’s ‘immersion’ in [collective] symbolism plays a key role. This allows the real event PISA – as we have seen – to be transformed into a symbolic dramaturgy. This dramaturgy, in turn, has the effect of constituting specialized discourses. In light of the observation that the PISA acronym takes a more or less meandering 84

PISA AS AN GENERATOR OF INNOVATION

course hither and thither between various topics and debates (cf. Link, 2001a, p. 52), PISA is becoming established as an interdiscursive vehicle and therefore as a “boundary object”, which has “different meanings in different social worlds” (Bowker & Star, 2000, p. 297). But its “structure is common enough to more than one world to make [it, M. S.] recognizable, a means of translation” (ibid, p. 297). A wide variety of actors – all involved in the post-PISA education debate – can therefore use this vehicle to exchange ideas, mutually and cooperatively, thereby creating an interdiscursive knowledge space about the PISA phenomenon. This is vague enough to fulfil an integrative, transdiscursive, and above all communicationfacilitating function within an extremely heterogeneous group of actors. On the basis of this feature, this debate can also be described as an interdiscourse. In this, PISA has the function of providing a bridge to other topics of specialized discourses, such as early childhood education. This function is exemplified by the following title, “PISA – an opportunity for kindergarten”: here – the author Renate Zimmer (2003, p. 14, a.o.t.) – is expressing demands relating to the “necessary consequences” for the practice of day-care facilities. What is significant here is the decision to link the event construct PISA with the [collective] symbol “opportunity”. By using this symbol, the author is indicating her involvement in a more specific discourse, the specialized discourse about the importance of early childhood education which was generated or rekindled by the post-PISA education debate (interdiscourse). The “opportunity”, after all, is only referring to one area of practice, that of day-care facilities. At the same time, however, the “opportunity” can be understood as a result of the PISA study, and thus offers an “analogous track” (Link, 2006, a.o.t.) to the interdiscourse. The [collective] symbolic intensification contained in the statement that PISA ‘offers an opportunity’ allows individual discussion preferences with regard to early childhood education to be effortlessly related to – and accentuated by – the broad socio-historical knowledge space of PISA. PISA, when subjected to this kind of collective process of constructing symbolic semantics, can give current discussions enhanced emphases relating to specialized discourses. Today, however, PISA is used – more than ever before – for “recursive reflection”. This should be taken to mean – following Bernhard (2005, a.o.t.) – an on-going process of learning, but also of development, which is supported by the recurring PISA test series. Remembering and incorporating the ‘old’ PISA findings, and closely comparing them with the new ones to see what has changed, can provide the catalyst for new opportunities for actions and innovations – in a recursive, reflecting manner. In this respect PISA can be understood not only as an interdiscursive vehicle, but as an interdiscursive generator of innovation at the same time. FLEXIBILITY WITH CONSEQUENCES

This interdiscursive generator of innovation allows the establishment of an extremely flexible scope or array of actions. On the one hand this is because it can be used in 85

M. SITTER

highly variable fashion, and on the other hand because, in its dual character as an event construct with primarily negative but secondarily positive connotations, it is more productive for (educational) culture than ‘normal situations’ (cf. Nedelmann, 1986, p. 18). This enhanced productivity arises because the traditional association between PISA and crisis awakens “interpretative needs and questions of meaning” (ibid.) in the different actors participating in the discourse. Thus a mechanism of mutual influence links all the forces involved in the (educational) cultural (re)interpretation, but also transformation, of the PISA crisis: moves by educational policymakers to draw consequences and develop programmes, interdisciplinary research, and field implementation by practitioners. Following Brigitta Nedelmann (ibid.), I wish to conceptualize this productive mechanism of mutual influence as an (educational) FXOWXUDOH[WHQVLRQof the PISA crisis. This is particularly well suited to creating an impression of agency, i.e. creating flexibility and new pretexts for action in dealing with PISA. This flexibility is evoked in the 14. Kinder- und Jugendbericht (14th Child and Youth Report), which reminds readers of the “excessively high social disparities and the associated social consequences of failure at school” (BMFSFJ, 2013, p. 158, a.o.t.) revealed by the PISA findings. Shortly afterwards, the report points out that, to resolve these problems, “educational, family and social policy” (ibid.) must come to the fore. By ascribing responsibility to several entities, it becomes possible to give a more nuanced view of PISA’s nature as a crisis, and thus to create flexible and at the same time crisis-defusing spaces for dealing with PISA. The generator of innovation does allow a broad and flexible scope of action to be opened up. However, this is too variable and thus too non-specific to systematically remove the educational disparities (in particular the social disparities) in the German education system. In my view, this non-specificity has to do with the fact that the semantic use of PISA, which creates flexibility, simultaneously generates concepts of implementation which also create flexibility. The concept of equal educational opportunity is particularly affected by this. In the semantic context of PISA as a flexibility-creating event construct, the practical and organizational implementation of equal educational opportunity is ultimately limited to a social minimum of early childhood education and support. For the concept of equal educational opportunity turns out to be merely an ideal which can fit whatever insights PISA, an event construct typically associated with crisis, has brought forth. To defuse this crisisladen character, a wide variety of actors in the individual German states are called upon to devote themselves to implementing educational equality of opportunity in early childhood education. The flexibility gained here thus legitimates neglecting and indeed avoiding mention of the structural factors leading to education inequalities within the German education system. Thus the concept of educational equality of opportunity – as the etymological origin of the term ‘opportunity’ reveals – fails to move beyond the mere idea and implementation of a kind of social game of chance, in which children and their parents take sole responsibility for making use of the equal educational opportunity offered, and for influencing or not influencing how the (educational) ‘dice’ falls. 86

PISA AS AN GENERATOR OF INNOVATION

CONCLUSION AND PROSPECTS

PISA shapes the current reality of society, and particularly of educational (reform) policy, more than one might notice at first glance PISA is an event construct with real consequences, including increasingly firm patterns and modes of interpretation with regard to the best way of dealing with the social disparities found to exist in the German education system. A certain degree of care is therefore needed in the constant ‘recursive reflection’ of the PISA findings, especially as this keeps (re)producing, with a remarkable persistency, the same problem category of its ‘disastrous’ findings. For instance, evoking these findings, along with the “at-risk students [identified by] PISA” (BMFSFJ, 2013, p. 158, a.o.t.), makes it possible to clarify elsewhere – and in comparison with other studies – what this risk comprises, and to what extent a migrant background is a risk factor for the “likelihood of leading to a ‘problematic developmental pattern’” (ibid, p. 201, a.o.t.). As an event construct which is evoked with such negative associations, PISA smoothes the complex (re-) argumentative path on which it is always and especially migrant children who are problematized. Classified in such a way, the (inter)discursively negotiated support for these children, and above all, the way this is negotiated in the context of the concept of educational equality of opportunity, helps to create a distinct category in which migrant children appear as the eternal prototype of social educational inequality. Thus PISA is not only a generator of innovation: instead, because it is constantly being cited as a crisis-laden event, it also produces a kind of performativity. This performativity – by analogy with PISA – keeps (re-)dramatizing migrant children within institutional and organizational settings (e.g. in the form of language support concepts) as socially disadvantaged. NOTE 1

Author’s own translation. This also applies to all subsequent quotes from German sources. Hereafter abbreviated as “a.o.t.”.

REFERENCES Bernhard, S. (2005). Sozialpolitik im europäischen Mehrebenensystem. Die Bekämpfung von Armut und VR]LDOHU$XVJUHQ]XQJLP5DKPHQGHU2IIHQHQ0HWKRGHGHU.RRUGLQLHUXQJ. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin. Biskupska, K., Fleischer, M., Grech, M., Parus, M., & Przyborska-Borkowicz, A. (2001). Das System der Kulturmetaphern (an polnischem Material). kultuRRevolution, 41/42, 50–62. BMFSFJ (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend). (Ed.). (2013). 14. Kinderund Jugendbericht. Bericht über die Lebenssituation junger Menschen und die Bestrebungen und Leistungen der Kinder- und Jugendhilfe in Deutschland. Stellungnahme der Bundesregierung zum Bericht der Sachverständigenkommission. Bericht der Sachverständigenkommission. Berlin: BMFSFJ. Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (2000). 6RUWLQJWKLQJVRXW&ODVVLILFDWLRQDQGLWVFRQVHTXHQFHV. Cambridge, MA & London: The MIT Press. Bruendel, H., & Hurrelmann, K. (2003). Chancen des Kindergartens nach PISA. Zeitschrift frühe Kindheit.

87

M. SITTER Durkheim, E. (1973). Erziehung, Moral und Gesellschaft. Vorlesung an der Sorbonne 1902/1903. tr. by Ludwig Schmidts, Neuwied am Rhein und Darmstadt: Luchterhand. [orig.: L’Éducation morale, 1963] Fleischer, M. (1996). Das System der deutschen Kollektivsymbolik. Eine empirische Untersuchung. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. Norbert Brockmeyer. Fleischer, M. (1999). Normative, Stereotype und Ereigniskonstrukte (aus systemtheoretischer und konstruktivistischer Perspektive). kultuRRevolution, 38/39, 95–105. Keller, R. (2005). $QDO\VLQJGLVFRXUVH$QDSSURDFKRIWKHVRFLRORJ\RINQRZOHGJH. Retrieved September 6, 2013, from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/19/41 Keller, R. (2008). Wissenssoziologische Diskursanalyse. Grundlegung eines Forschungsprogramms. Wiesbaden: VS. Keller, R. (2012). 'RLQJGLVFRXUVHUHVHDUFK$QLQWURGXFWLRQIRUVRFLDOVFLHQWLVWV. Washington, DC: Sage Publications. KMK (Kultusministerkonferenz). (2001, December 4). Schulisches Lernen muss stärker anwendungsorientiert sein. (Press release) Link, J. (2001a). Karl Kraus im Kampf mit der Phrase oder Versuch über den Anteil der Katachrese an der modernen Kultur. kultuRRevolution, 43, 50–55. Link, J. (2001b). Texte, Netze, Fluten, Charaktere, Rhizome. Noch sieht die Kollektivsymbolik des 21. Jahrhunderts ziemlich alt aus. kultuRRevolution, 41/42, 8–16. Link, J. (2006). ,P*HVSUlFKPLW5DLQHU'LD]%RQH]XP7KHPDÄ2SHUDWLYH$QVFKOVVH=XU(QWVWHKXQJ der Foucaultschen Diskursanalyse in der Bundesrepublik. Retrieved June 11, 2013, from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/rt/printerFriendly/147/323 Lösch, H. (2002). Zu diesem Heft. DISKURS. Studien zu Kindheit, Jugend, Familie und Gesellschaft, 2, 4–5. Maschke, S., & Stecher, L. (2002). Bildungskultur ohne Lernkultur. Bericht aus dem aktuellen Siegener Kinder- und Jugendsurvey. ZSE (Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation), 3, 331–335. Nedelmann, B. (1986). Soziale Probleme und Handlungsflexibilität. Zur Bedeutsamkeit des kulturellen Aspekts sozialer Probleme (H. Oppl & A. Tomaschek, Eds.). Soziale Arbeit 2000, 13–42. Notarp, U. (2005). 'LH GHXWVFKH SROLWLVFKH 5HGH (LQH H[HPSODULVFKH NXOWXU XQG GLVNXUVWKHRUHWLVFKH Untersuchung anhand ausgewählter Reden von J. Rau, G. Schröder, K. Wowereit, J. Fischer, E. Stoiber, F. Merz und R. Koch. Wroclaw: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wroclawskiego. OECD. (2013). %HWWHUSROLFLHVIRUEHWWHUOLYHV2(&'3URJUDPPHIRU,QWHUQDWLRQDO6WXGHQW$VVHVVPHQW (PISA). Retrieved September 6, 2013, from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisa2000/ publications-pisa2000.htm Pongratz, L. A. (2004). Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle. Schule zwischen Disziplinar- und Kontrollgesellschaft. In N. Ricken & M. Rieger-Ladich (Eds.), 0LFKHO)RXFDXOW3lGDJRJLVFKH/HNWUHQ (pp. 243–259). Wiesbaden: VS. Zimmer, R. (2002). PISA – Chance für den Kindergarten! Kindergarten heute, 3, 14–15.

88

SOREN WILLERT

8. SEARCHING FOR THE CHANGE AGENT Steps towards an Ecology of Innovation

INTRODUCTION

The present article draws inspiration from an ongoing action research project which is situated in a large Technical College. The project aims at upgrading the quality of teaching/learning among College teaching staff. In general terms, the project is guided by the idea of: the Classroom understood as an organization – the Teacher understood as leader of learning production. In the introductory part of the article I first present the project setting and, building on that, the theoretical issues that have motivated me as an author. THE PROJECT SETTING

The circumstances leading to the choice of an action research-inspired methodological framework for the project are presented below.1 The author’s initial contact with members of the Technical College management team had taken place in the context of a seminar on general educational issues. At a certain point the author ‘happened to’ mention the above-cited project’s guiding idea as one which he, himself, as a teacher (in a university setting) found useful. Then and there, the idea, elicited interest among the management team members – and led them to suggest he prepare training courses for (a selection of) their teaching staff members. The management team leader said with an amiable grin: “roughly speaking, this concept might be useful for 300–400 of our teachers – if, for a start, you explained it properly to 30 or 40; which is to say, some kind of snowballing effect might follow …?” To the initial proposal, the author turned down the suggestion. His professionally tinged reasons for doing so had to do with the seeming affinity between what his dialogue partners had just described as a problem-to-be-solved, and what they now suggested as a potential remedy for handling this problem. The relative professional discontent of the Technical College representatives had principally been explained with reference to (what they saw as) a much too higher prevalence in College classrooms of teaching styles akin to what Freire (2007/1968) derogatorily called ‘the banking concept of teaching’, and which, in Danish educationalist circles, is often described as the ‘petrol station attendant teaching

© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2019 | DOI:10.1163/9789004394827_008

S. WILLERT

style’: The pupil is seen and treated as the empty vessel who passively lets herself be filled with teacher-mediated ‘knowledge stuff’. Not only had such a teaching style long ago come to be known as carrying little learning potential, but also present-day youngsters’ internet habits had made the said style appear even more obsolete than before. Present-day youngsters are used to searching the internet for needed basic information at their own leisure and are thus, to a large extent, their own ‘petrol station attendants’. Historically speaking, youngster pupils’ needs for the teacher in that role have diminished. To the author, his dialogue partners’ way of describing the problem made a lot of sense. But what was the right way to hand it? Did it make sense (he asked himself) to promote innovative, non-banking teaching styles through an educational format that, at least superficially, appeared to be founded on that very same concept – e.g. a two-day training course run by some university scholar whose ‘intellectual petrol tank’ was supposed to possess lots of classroom management-related ‘knowledge stuff’ which he would kindly transmit into 30–40 teachers’ empty vessel-heads? Yet, in spite of the author’s described scruples, his ensuing exchanges with the College representatives did whet his intellectual and professional appetite–resulting, finally, in the following proposal: I still find the idea of me providing training courses ill-advised.2 At the same time, I perceive the issues we discuss, and our way of discussing them, both stimulating and exciting – and of central professional concern, not only to me, but also to the University Department of Learning and Philosophy to which I belong. I do believe some colleagues of mine might be persuaded to involve themselves, together with me, in some kind of action researchinspired partnership for mutual learning3 between our two institutions – with the explicit goal of furthering local teaching practices based on this idea of ‘the Classroom understood as an organization …’, etc. The author’s proposal was met with immediate approval. A task force comprising three members from each institution was established and a project design was worked out. In place of ‘banking concept courses’, an action learning strategy was adopted (Madsen, 2010; Revans, 1998). Self-selected teachers working in facilitatorsupported groups would help each other develop classroom experiments which were positioned within the experimenting teachers’ (i.e. action learners’) Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978). Seemingly useful classroom experiment outcomes would through a process of generalization be translated into practice-prototypes to hopefully carry inspirational value for teaching staff members who taught different subjects in different classroom settings. In this way (according to the optimistic thinking behind the project design), the Technical College would become its own innovation laboratory, i.e. the site for ongoing experimentation within the thematic framework originally decided upon as a project platform (Classroom understood as an organization …, etc.). Gradually, as time went by, incoming project experiences 90

SEARCHING FOR THE CHANGE AGENT

would shape and transform the original thematic framework so as to optimally match local needs and circumstances. What would be the university partners’, including the present author’s, main functions in the described project setting? For one thing, university partners would, jointly with Technical College management team members, take up the roles of action-learning group facilitators and also partake in the task of describing actionlearning processes and outcomes in ways that would optimally assist the Technical College in the monitoring of its professional development. Beyond this, and given that the project was intended not ‘only’ as an ‘action project’, but also as an action research project in which the university partners would be concerned with transforming project experiences into texts of scientific value. THEORETICAL ISSUES

This, then, is where the impetus for my writing this paper comes from. Had I accepted my dialogue-partners’ first invitation, i.e. placed myself in the role of ‘banking concept course provider’, my professional responsibilities would have been limited to the construction and ensuing promulgation of theoretically and professionally valid ideas. Whatever happened to those ideas after the course was closed down would in principle (at least according to the banking concept Idealtypus) be none of my business: the Technical College, not I would be responsible for answering and reflecting upon such crucially important questions as, for example, “Did the college’s teachers and students start behaving differently? Did they start behaving differently in ways that were somehow related to the course provider’s pedagogical intentions and interventions?” Comparatively speaking, the scope of my professional responsibility was much widened in the described action research project. It would no longer suffice ‘simply’ to present clever and, as such, potentially inspiring ideas. The action research setting required that I see myself as one self-willed change agent in a change agent team, i.e. the above-mentioned task force. The change agent team would be successful only to the extent that its members’ behavioral choices had the effect of activating other potential change agents in the Technical College’s organization and, hopefully, goad these potential change agents into experimental, pedagogically innovative action – with the final goal of making the Technical College a better educational institution. At the same time – and this is where the impetus emanates: in my role of academic scholar and linguistic mediator of project events, I have my theoretically grounded reservations concerning the pivotal importance of individual change agents as instigators of innovation. Each in their own way a number of meta-theoretical paradigms that are currently inspiring me seem to make it anything but ‘simple’ to talk about individual change agents’ capacities to bring about organizational change, and thus to actually fulfill the role of change agents ascribed to them. I am talking about 91

S. WILLERT

‡ The complexity perspective represented by Ralph Stacey (2011, 2012) and his research partners at the University of Hertfordshire, ‡ The system theory developed by Niklas Luhmann (2000), and ‡ Karen Barad’s “ontoepistemological framework” (2007, p. 44) named Agential Realism. AIM OF THE PRESENT ARTICLE

I have now described the background for my choice of main title for this article: Searching for the change agent. The article is intended to offer me a personalacademic space of reflection that allows me, hopefully, to work out a linguistic reconciliation between, on the one hand, the three scholarly traditions just mentioned and, on the other hand, the fact that changes happen all the time, and apparently happen – at least partly – as a result of concrete actors’ concrete activities. As my title also indicates, my search for the change agent will involve me in taking steps toward an ecology of innovation. “Steps towards …” strikes a note of modesty! Establishing an ecology of innovation necessarily transcends, not only the number of pages I have at my disposal, but also my own present level of clarity concerning the requirements for such a notion. The ‘steps’ I’m am searching for in this text are closely linked and limited to my prescribed role as linguistic mediator of project events and the question of how we might talk about change agents and agency in ways that … ‡ Are consistent with the facts on the ground, i.e. the fact that change seems to happen all the time, and seemingly with change agents as its mediator ‡ Do not violate sound epistemic principles that have come into my possession partly, as a result of my getting acquainted with the above-mentioned research traditions, and ‡ May even enrich our understanding of our practical capabilities as change agents. My argument will be presented in two main sections. First section presents the viewpoints of my three meta-theoretical, inspirational discussion partners. This part is called Deconstructing the Change Agent – as a privileged Mover of Things. Then follows the tentative reconstructive part of the paper, i.e. my attempts to develop a linguistic-conceptual framework that does justice to my three just-presented bullets. The introduction to this main section will be a theoretically argued presentation of the term ‘ecology of innovation’. DECONSTRUCTING THE CHANGE AGENT – AS A PRIVILEGED MOVER OF THINGS

The phraseology of change agent as a privileged mover of things rests on implicit ontic assumptions saying that … 92

SEARCHING FOR THE CHANGE AGENT

‡ Structurally determined stability is the rule ‡ Novelty is the exception to the rule, and ‡ Exceptions to the rule-of-stability may be brought about willfully by persons I see this phraseology as largely consistent with folk psychology: The material world in itself is basically an a-historical world. Historical change is brought about by human potential change agents. I also see the phraseology as being part of a cultural heritage which is, in a somewhat paradoxical manner, historically aligned with the natural scientific breakthrough that got under way during the European Renaissance and was famously codified in Newton’s Principia. As a rigorous research paradigm, the Newtonian tradition built on a firmly held strategic assumption stating that all discernible movement, i.e. apparent instability, must be understood as expressions of inviolable natural laws, i.e. expressions of a higher-order stability. Yet, in spite of Newtonians’ boosting of stability as an ontological rule (cf. notions of determinism and reversibility of time; Prigogine, 1997), one impressive result of this scientific breakthrough was the tremendous upsurge of societal changes brought about by ingenious individuals who knew how to convert scientific discoveries into technological tools, machines, devices, etc., and who may therefore be viewed as successful change agents by personal choice, i.e. willfully; cf. my third bullet above. The three meta-theoretical paradigms from which I shall draw inspiration in my deconstructive efforts share an intention to work out viable alternatives to a Newtonian worldview. As part of this shared intention they unanimously oppose the above-mentioned ontic assumptions. All three view historically mediated change as a basic feature of the world that we live in. The differences between them have to do with their respective analytic strategies when it comes to understanding the ways in which change processes – including such processes as those that lead to states of relative stability – are patterned and brought about. First I present and discuss the contributions of Ralph Stacey and the ‘Hertfordshire way’ of dealing with complexity issues. COMPLEXITY POSITION

Among my three inspirational sources, Stacey is the one who focuses most unequivocally on issues of direct relevance to the Technical College case presented in the introduction. The scholarly tradition he instigated presents an impressive series of variations on and fine-tunings of one particular theoretical stance concerning organizational life.4 Within the broad array of complexity-based research traditions (cf. Marion, 1999), the Hertfordshire group most importantly builds on what has become known as Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS; e.g. Kauffmann, 1995). Such systems (according to Stacey, 2012, p. 13) consist of “a large population of agents, each of which interacts with some of the others in that population according to its own evolved principles of local interaction. No individual agent, or group of them, determines the local interaction principles of others, and there is no centralized 93

S. WILLERT

direction of either the patterns of behavior of the system as a whole or the evolution of those patterns.” This description refers to Stacey’s way of understanding how organizational life evolves as seen in a process perspective. Yet, at the same time he vigorously emphasizes that using CAS for illustration purposes doesn’t mean that this research tradition’s all-round conceptual platform is suitable for describing organizational dynamics. As the name indicates, CAS deals with Complex Adaptive Systems, and such systems will be constituted and get their specific identity from “evolved principles of local interaction” that may be specified in a finite form, and whose system-generative power may in principle be ascertained, for example, through computer simulations. In human behavior, however, rule-following is always and necessarily combined with the bending of rules in ways that open up the possibility of unpredictable emergence of novelty. The radical conclusion drawn by Stacey from considerations such as these is that the very terms ‘system’ or ‘systemic’ are in fact inapplicable for describing what organizational life is all about. Human researchers may successfully model chaotic pattern evolution in computer simulation, microbiology, and, generally speaking, in closed systems. Organizations, however, are intrinsically open, continually evolving figurations of (what he terms) complex responsive processes of human relating (2012, p. 16). Efforts aimed at locating a finite set of process controlling, pattern generating rules or principles represent categorical mistakes. Thus, for Stacey, change is indeed endemic to and a defining feature of organizational life. Further than that, his way of describing the dynamics nourishing this life in its patterned manifestations makes it clear that any change agent who believes she may implement change processes in accordance with, even the most carefully thought-out plans and predictions, is falling prey to illusions as to her own event-controlling power. This emphasis of his is leaving its distinct mark, e.g., on one of Stacey’s most recent publications (2012) which, while carrying the main title of Tools and Techniques of Leadership and Management, is most importantly written in order to discourage leaders and/or managers (i.e. potential change agents) from trusting such generalized tools and techniques as are promoted by mainstream managerial handbook and consultants. Instead – the reader is told – the sole remedy when it comes to meeting the challenges of complexity consists in the “practical judgment exercised by expert leaders and managers who have left the rules behind in order to deal with unique and uncertain situations. In the context of my personal way of reading and making intellectual use of Stacey’s work I distinguish between Stacey-as-theorist and Stacey-as-pedagogue. His theoretical exposition of the logic governing organizational life-as-lived-andevolving I find most illuminating. Yet, no illumination occurs when, in his pedagogue role (my term), he translates theoretical insights into principles potentially useful for the organizational actors’ self-guidance. The key premise behind such principles and suggestions is that, as an actor, I must abstain from believing that such subjective presuppositions as I use for guiding my professional interventions somehow match objective reality in a subject-independent action field ‘out there’. According to 94

SEARCHING FOR THE CHANGE AGENT

Stacey (e.g. 2012) such beliefs correspond to what he calls a “dominant discourse” lying behind much ineffective leadership and/or management. My ‘problem’ as recipient of these pedagogical messages is that I’ve indeed never entertained beliefs like those described. On the one hand, as an organizational actor – in a change agent role or otherwise – I definitely make use of action plans and strategic intentions based on presuppositions about, e.g., “What is happening? – What type of situation are we in? – What seems to need doing? – By what means can what needs doing be done?” Yet, these presuppositions I do not view as somehow ‘belonging to’ or reflecting a durable world out there. They belong to me – in my present moment of existing – rather than to the surrounding world. What they reflect is simply my momentary engagement with a situation in which something needs doing. In order to make myself accountable to myself and to others I need temporary roadmaps and I need language. Otherwise I would feel lost. Based on experiences such as these, I view the presuppositions as ‘natural ingredients’ in that species-specific human feature called deliberate willful acting. Further than that, I cherish them as positively useful in that they help me to become wiser as to what went wrong in those many cases where reality seemingly refused to carry my action through in accordance with my intentions and plans. To fill that function, they need to be fairly detailed and distinct. Blurred presuppositions will make my learning from the world’s feedback correspondingly blurred. Thus, while greatly appreciating many theoretical insights I have gained from Stacey and the Hertfordshire group, I also find this tradition excessively sparing when it comes to translating insights into not only deconstructive, but also constructive lessons of general value for human actor and/or change agents. This stance of mine is echoed in Zichang’s pragmatically based critique of Stacey’s particular handling of the complexity viewpoint (2007, p. 24): “Stacey appears more interested in rigorous sophisticated theorizing for its own sake than in caring for managers’ immediate practical concerns.” Moving on to the Luhmann position, we shall find a much more elaborate interest in the person-as-actor, but definitely not one that encourages us to view persons as ‘privileged movers of (social) things’. Luhmann Position The writings of Niklas Luhmann represent an effort to make theoretical sense out of the world as inhabited by humans. Thus it is no wonder that individual human actors are dealt with in great detail. Yet, Luhmann is far from granting to such actors the power of being prime movers of things in their social surroundings. According to Luhmann (2000) ‘psychic systems’, i.e. self-referential conscious (thinking, reflecting) units, do not have any immediate influence on the way ‘social systems’, i.e. self-referential communication-based units, operate. On the one hand, the operation of social systems requires that psychic systems (together with the bodies that ‘carry’ them) attach themselves to the system through structural couplings. Yet, 95

S. WILLERT

any attempt at trying to analyze social system operations as an accumulated effect of psychic system characteristics (e.g. individually thought-out intentions or plans for change) is doomed to failure. Luhmann’s (ibid.) radical distinction between psychic systems/social systems serves as his means toward drawing a picture of social reality as governed by contingency and with emergence of novelty as an ever-present possibility. Any would-be change agent who might believe his pronounced change intentions may directly affect those he intends to change is according to the Luhmann perspective deceiving himself. A similar message emanates from Luhmann’s understanding of human communication as a three-step-process with contingent links between (1) the sender’s selection of message content; (2) the sender’s selection of transmission channel; (3) the receiver’s understanding of message content. Thus the theoretical claims of Luhmann (ibid.) imply a clear refutation of the ontic assumption lying behind ideas of Change Agents as privileged Movers of Things, at least in their simplest version. The analytic strategy pursued by Luhmann as his means towards making this point clear consists in drawing clear separation lines between system types which, on the one hand, operate in mutually incompatible ontic realms, while, at the same time, sharing the characteristic of being autopoietically self-sustaining. In the next section we shall meet Karan Barad (2007), a thinker who shares with Luhmann (2000) the intention of deconstructing the change agent as a privileged mover of things – but by means of a seemingly reverse epistemic strategy. The difference between the two may be grasped with reference to a distinction between analytic as opposed to synthetic thinking. Luhmann’s revolt against a linear-determinist world view is accomplished by his persistent pointing out of there being qualitative distinctions between this and that, i.e. between different systemic orders. Barad just as persistently keeps pointing at the impossibility of upholding absolute distinctions between any two distinguishable world units. The subtitle of her book (named Meeting the Universe Halfways, 2007) expresses this eloquently: “Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning”. Barad Position Whereas Luhmann (2000) explicitly focuses on ontic domains where human lifeworlds are involved, Karen Barad’s (2007) thinking originates in the peculiar research field of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics deals with lifeless matter. Yet, lifeless matter when studied in its most minuscule variety must be acknowledged to behave in ways that look strangely life-like – not least if compared to the grim determinist world described through (or rather presupposed by) Newtonian mechanics. As Barad’s primary intellectual guide, the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, is said to have remarked: “If somebody tells you he has understood quantum mechanics, that very statement indicates he cannot have understood it.” 96

SEARCHING FOR THE CHANGE AGENT

Karen Barad describes her position as an “ontoepistemological framework” (2007, p. 44) and she names it Agential Realism. The two terms ontoepistemology and Agential Realism are both pointing at Barad’s efforts to transcend dualistic thinking habits that are ingrained in Western history of ideas. As already hinted at, her transcending efforts draw their main inspiration from the so-called Copenhagen interpretation of quantum phenomena. Thus the term ontoepistemology carries the message that the very act of knowledge seeking (or, in Ancient Greek, seeking of episteme) must be understood as a formative event giving birth to the very phenomena that are found to exist (or, in Ancient Greek, found to be part of ta onta). Likewise, Agential Realism claims that agency is what gives shape to, and thus also constitutes reality. The agency she is talking about, however, is in no way restricted to human beings’, for example to would-be change agents’ deliberate actions. This theoretical stance may be illustrated with reference to one of Barad’s key terms, and terminological inventions: intra-action. The term Intra-action was invented by Barad (2007) in order to further elucidate her understanding of the peculiar ontoepistemological logic inherent in quantum mechanics. Intra-action is intended as a terminological replacement for the mainstream or everyday term interaction. When using the term interaction (Barad claims) we presume the interacting units to possess a distinguishable identity ‘all by themselves’ or (in more philosophical parlance) per se or an sich, i.e. quite irrespective of their encounters with other units. Newtonian mechanics are based on such assumptions. Intra-action indicates that such presumptions are mistaken, and not just mistaken on a small scale, but indeed, on the largest imaginable scale, namely an ontologic scale. In order to fine-tune her argument she refers to a partly documented, partly semimythic terminological dispute 5 between Niels Bohr and his close research partner Werner Heisenberg concerning the apparently unavoidable stochastic nature of event prediction in the quantum realm. According to Heisenberg such stochastic prediction bears concrete testimony to a universally prevailing uncertainty principle: Due to uncontrollable influences from the LARGE measurement device on the minuscule measured object, researchers have to make do with less than the full certitude that might under other, more favorable conditions, have been reached. Heisenberg thus viewed stochasticity as expressing a regrettable imperfection that blocks truthseeking researchers from acquiring full knowledge of the true state-of-affairs in their research field, i.e. knowledge uninfluenced by measuring devices. This way of speaking implies a separation between ontological issues (referring to ta onta, i.e. that which is truly there), and epistemological issues (referring to that which may be ascertained by human knowledge seekers to be there). Niels Bohr (according to Barad, 2007), instead, talks of reality as being essentially indeterminate. Whereas uncertainty points to a lack of precision that may in principle be overcome when existing research limitations are transcended, indeterminacy belongs to the world as such. In line with this, he speaks of the investigated matter units, not as objects, but as phenomena. Matter unit A can only be said to exist as a certain something, insofar as its intra-action with matter unit B makes it into exactly 97

S. WILLERT

that certain something. Likewise matter unit B can only be said to exist as a certain something, insofar as its intra-action with matter unit A makes it into exactly that certain something. The described interactive effects are what lie behind and give process meaning to the concept of entanglement. The generalized intra-action perspective described above gains specific relevance for change agent issues when linked with the kind of generic experimental set-ups on which quantum mechanics is based. In my discussions below I shall refer specifically to the so-called principle of complementarity, something which is formulated and defended forcefully by Niels Bohr.6 The so-called particle-wave duality provides us with one dramatic instance of the complementary principle. Conventional logic makes it inconceivable that light may behave both as discrete particles and as a propagating wave with no fixed location. Conventional logic demands that light, so to speak, makes a binding choice as to its true nature. Either – or. And yet, as shown in the famous two-slit experiment, light cannot help but shifting from particle form to wave form, and possibly back again, depending on whether the experimenter chooses to leave two slits or only one slit open in a screen placed midway between the light emission source and the screen on which the arrival pattern of the light is registered. According to the complementarity principle light-as-particles and light-as-wave represent, on the one hand, two mutually exclusive phenomenal forms. On the other hand, a full comprehension of light as a material form needs them both. Other complementarity illustrations relate to the location – movement duality. According to conventional logic moving objects must at any time have both of these features. Yet, in quantum mechanics, due to the specific intra-active conditions existing for their becoming known, they cannot be simultaneously determined for one and the same particle. The more precisely, e.g., the velocity of a particle becomes known, namely through the application of registration devices required for obtaining such information, the more indeterminate its location will appear, and vice versa. On the basis of the presented features of the research logic inherent in quantum mechanics the experimenter may be cast in the role as change agent. Even though he cannot design an experiment that determines in linear fashion and unequivocally the behavior of the objects under investigation, he still has the capacity to set up material conditions that, selectively, allow particular kinds of phenomena to emerge, e.g. light in wave form rather than particle form; or particle velocities rather than particle locations. In this way the Barad position does allow human actors to function as indirect movers of things. When working with lifeless matter, like in quantum mechanics, they cannot, in linear fashion, as required by Newtonian dogmatics, control the precise outcome of intra-actions. Here indeterminacy reigns. Yet, by way of wilfully and systematically manipulating material components they can pre-contextualize future intra-active encounters in ways that selectively shape the content categories of the intra-action once it gets under way. 98

SEARCHING FOR THE CHANGE AGENT

Summary of Deconstruction Section I initially chose my three theoretical protagonists because, generally speaking and each in their own way, they have proved useful for refining my understanding of what organizational life is all about and what happens in the interface between human actors and their social surroundings. I knew beforehand that the protagonist trio would share a critical attitude towards viewing change agents as privileged movers of (social) things. My writing process became my means of getting a more elaborate sense of the import of their criticism. Further I wanted to find out whether – in spite of the trio’s critical attitude – I might yet discover some link between the trio members’ respective theoretical ideas and whether or not such a concept of ‘ecology of innovation’ as had emerged as a result of my own ongoing action research experiences, i.e. the Technical College case alluded to in the introduction. Here comes a brief summary of my learning gained from the writing process. Stacey and the Hertfordshire tradition throw light organizational life in an inspirational and thought provoking manner. They recurrently emphasize, and rightly so, that their descriptive format, i.e. complex responsive processes, is not immediately translatable into trans-situational guidelines that it may be used by change agents or other organizational actors. My own intellectual disposition induces me to go further than that, i.e. search for advice to such actors which will not only be deconstructive, but also somehow constructive. Luhmann (2000) recognizes the existence of separate identities of human actors (i.e. embodied psychic systems), and the social surroundings of such human actors (i.e. social systems). By also recognizing that the operation of social systems requires structural couplings with psychic systems he allows for all sorts of mutual influences to take place between the two system orders. Even so, and in line with his recurrent emphasis on the double contingency inherent in all encounters between human agents, Luhmann’s theoretical strength supports his firm resolve never to lose sight of the discontinuity between psychic system issues (individual actors) and social system issues. With Karen Barad (2007) we move out of the specifically human life-world. Her emphasis on ascribing an element of outcome indeterminacy to any (intra-active) encounter taking place between world units implies – in accord with the other two trio members – a refusal to view human actions as having predictable, controllable outcomes. Yet, she also ascribes to human actors the capacity to materially precontextualize future intra-active encounters and thereby attain selective influence on the kinds of phenomena that may materialize within the encounter frame-to-come. Her argument is empirically based on the case of quantum mechanics experiments. When taken into the realm of intra-action involving human actors or actor units the complexity level is expanded enormously; cf. also the Luhmann concept of double contingency. Even so and as will become apparent below, I shall make use of the idea of pre-contextualization in the following section dealing the logic pertaining to ‘ecology of innovation’ and its possible applicability to my action research case presented above. 99

S. WILLERT

TENTATIVE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE CHANGE AGENT – AS ECOLOGICALLY CONDITIONED GAMEPLAYER

In this section, I shall take a first step towards explicating what may be implied by the term ‘ecology of innovation’. The ground is laid by a generalized account of the term ‘ecology’. The Ecological Perspective Ecology implies a mutually implicational relationship between organism and environment. Ecology is conceptually linked with the terms Umwelt (originally coined by von Uexküll, 1926) and autopoiesis (Maturana & Varela, 1987). Taken together, these terms imply a biologized view of nature. According to a classical Newtonian perspective, the planet we inhabit is simply one large lump of physical matter. Biologically viewed, however, this one world consists of a huge number of different life-enabling worlds innately linked to a similarly huge number of different organisms. Mead (1934, p. 350) puts it this way: This material of instinct or impulse in the lower animals is highly organized. It represents the adjustment of the animal to a very definite and restricted world. The stimuli to which the animal is sensitive and which lie in its habitat constitute that world and answer to the possible reactions of the animal. The two fit into each other and mutually determine each other, for it is the instinct-seekingexpression that determines the sensitivity of the animal to the stimulus, and it is the presence of the stimulus which sets the instinct free. The organization represents not only the balance of attitude and the rhythm of movement but the succession of acts upon each other, the whole unified structure of the life of the form and the species. Moving from the “lower animals” of the Mead quote to the human species, one feature that makes us special in the animal kingdom is our capacity is not only (in Barad terms) our capacity to intra-act with, and thereby effect changes in our external Umwelt but also our capacity to intra-act with and effect changes in ourselves-asactors. One more Mead quote illustrates this (1934, p. 172) Through self-consciousness the individual organism enters in some sense into its own environmental field; its own body becomes a part of the set of environmental stimuli to which it responds or reacts (…) (T)o be self-conscious is essentially to become an object to one’s own self in virtue of one’s social relations to other individuals. For Mead this intra-action is shaped in the form of an ongoing dialogue between an I that is directly responsive to whatever meaning-imbued Umwelt aspects it is encountering here and now (“a bare thereness of the world”; Mead, 1934, p. 135) and a Me that carries normative views on proper behaviour derived from the social 100

SEARCHING FOR THE CHANGE AGENT

community – or rather communities – to which the individual belongs and to whose values he feels actively committed. This ongoing I-Me dialogue Mead describes as the self-process. As such, the term ‘self-process’ refers to or is rooted in individual human actors, but not in a rigidly fixed one-self-person manner. Human actors may experience value-based commitment to a variety of sub-communities within the larger community known to them. In complex, globalized societies like the ones in which, today, we live our lives, the commitment structure to which we pay allegiance is nothing but harmoniously consistent. Under such circumstances, successful living consists in being able to shift between Umwelten, if nor effortlessly, then at least with life- and society-sustaining productivity. Thus the self-process pertaining to one individual may be understood as a more or less tension-filled assembly of sub-selves cohabiting one and the same body. In Barad-terms, each sub-self shall be understood as intra-acting with one specific external Umwelt – within the one world shared by all of us. I shall now endeavour to show how these ideas may usefully be translated into an account of the way change agency may be implemented in the Technical College as my chosen site for action research activities. My account will have a concise, programmatic form. Links will be made to the three meta-theoretical positions (Stacey, 2012; Luhmann, 2000; Barad, 2007) used for deconstructing the change agent concept. Future action research activities will hopefully add details and adjustments to the sketchy, but hopefully suggestive presentation below. (VWDEOLVKLQJDQ,QQRYDWLRQ2ULHQWHG6XE2UJDQL]DWLRQZLWKWKH7HFKQLFDO&ROOHJH The Technical College, shall serve as shared organizational framework for two distinctly different Umwelten, i.e. two sub-organisations within one and the same organization. One Umwelt consists of the ‘normal’ production-oriented organization that was there before the action research project came into being. This sub-organization is Umwelt for the Technical College inhabitants in their roles as producers. Goal orientation, accountability and cost-benefit efficiency are important values. Umwelt number two may be described as an innovation laboratory intended as a project vehicle. This Umwelt shall exist alongside with the ‘normal’ productionoriented organization. It shall serve as Umwelt for members of the Technical College population in their capacity as potential innovators, change agents. As stated, the two-organizations-in-one thus delineated will have the same potential membership, i.e. in principle every-body at the Technical College. The two sub-organizations may be distinguished from one another with reference to implementation logic and operational values. Speaking about ecology of innovation thus implies a shift away from thinking about change agents as particular persons who do particular things which will have a particular impact on ‘something else’, i.e. an organization. Instead change agents are to be understood as (temporary) members of an innovation-oriented organization existing alongside with the ‘normal’ production-oriented organization. 101

S. WILLERT

In Stacey (2012) terms (or rather, in terms of my personal adaptation of the Stacey position) human actors adding social life to each of the two Technical College suborganizations shall ideally speaking let their social responsivity be colored differently as a function of whether they presently experience themselves as members of the production-oriented, or rather the innovation-oriented sub-organization. In saying this I indirectly contend Stacey’s stated aversion against viewing social assemblies as distinguishable systems, but I do so wilfully. I fully agree with Stacey’s pointing out that ongoing organizational life cannot be subsumed under a finite set of unchanging regulatory principles but must be understood as continually evolving, temporally fluid entities. Yet, when looked at in an actor’s perspective social assemblies do have distinct systemic qualities. The same actor taking part in a meditation retreat and in a Rio Carnival is employing distinctly different sub-selves. This fact will in no way fully determine his way of behaving, but will neither be without influence. For such reasons, I find the system concept theoretically valuable – hopefully without forgetting that, for reasons eloquently pointed out by Stacey among others, it must be used with caution. In Luhmann’s (2000) terms, the two organizations-in-one, the production-oriented Umwelt versus the innovation-oriented Umwelt, may be understood as two distinct social systems; the distinction between them being a matter of communicative style. Maintaining an operational distinction between these communicative styles will not be easy given that there won’t be any clear differentiation, neither between the psychic systems who, through their structural couplings make the two social systems operationally viable, nor between the material surroundings contextualizing the systems; buildings, classrooms, furniture, etc. All considered, differentiation between a meditation retreat and the Rio Carnival seems a lot easier! Yet, in so far as the action research project does manage to establish some degree of operational, communicationally-mediated differentiation between the two sub-organizations (social systems) in question, the fact that the sub-organizations are peopled by the same human actors and contextualized through the same material surroundings may also imply potential advantages, namely in terms of learning transfer. Indeed, my original reasons for wanting to replace what I described as ‘banking concept courses’ with an action research approach may be explicated in transfer terms. Technical College staff members participating in ‘banking concept courses’, with me in the teacher’s role, would definitely perceive the course set-up as widely different from their everyday working life. The transfer distance would be a long one. The transfer distance will be much shorter for valuable insights gained by the same staff members in the innovation-oriented sub-organization established by the action project. The organizational value of the action research project will depend on the ways in which psychic systems may function as intermediaries or bridge-builders between the-twosub-organizations-in-one. In Barad (2007) terms the one crucial task that, above all, must be resolved by the action research project consists of working out generally accepted and practically feasible pre-contextualization procedures that may secure the operational 102

SEARCHING FOR THE CHANGE AGENT

differentiation between a production-oriented and an innovation-oriented suborganization within the Technical College. Resolving this task will require cleverly designed experimentation, and a lot of trial and error. While the quantum mechanics experimenter could limit himself to manipulation of material devices (e.g. opening one or two slits), the pre-contextualization required from action researchers in the Technical College context will be vastly more complex, involving material, behavioral, and linguistic aspects. Further than that, action researchers must be aware that assessments as to whether one particular social encounter in fact succeeded in becoming part of the innovation-oriented rather than the production-oriented suborganization can never be done ante hoc – and may only be done post hoc in a tentative fashion, given that the different implementation logics characterizing the two-organizations-in-one will vary over time. SUMMARY

The article is based on an ongoing action research project situated in a large Technical College. The impetus for writing the article comes from theoretical ambiguities surrounding the concepts of change agent and change agency as seen in an organizational context. After having briefly presented the said action research project I introduced and discussed three theoretical positions whose ideas, each in their own way, led to a deconstruction of ‘the change agent as a privileged mover of (social) things’. Building on the idea of ‘ecology of innovation’, the final section aims at constructing a positive re-conceptualization of change agent and change agency. NOTES 1 2 3

4

5 6

See Willert et al. (2013), for a more detailed presentation. The background for the author’s doubts is explained by Willert et al. (2013). ‘Partnership for mutual learning’ as a consultancy tool has been described in Molly-Søholm and Willert (2010). From the beginning Patricia Shaw (e.g. 2002) and Douglas Griffin (e.g. 2002) were Stacey’s two closest collaborators. Recently Chris Mowles (e.g. 2011) became manager of the complexity-oriented PhD programme at University of Hertfordshire. The discord is dealt with in Michael Frayn’s (2000) theatre play Copenhagen. Detailed discussions of the issues presented below may be found in any standard presentation of quantum mechanics, e.g. Rosenblum and Kuttner (2006).

REFERENCES Barad, K. (2007). 0HHWLQJWKHXQLYHUVHKDOIZD\V4XDQWXPSK\VLFVDQGWKHHQWDQJOHPHQWRIPDWWHUDQG meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2010). Doing action research in your own organization (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications. Frayn, M. (2000). Copenhagen. New York, NY: Anchor Books. Freire, P. (2007/1968). The pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Griffin, D. (2002). The emergence of leadership. London: Routledge.

103

S. WILLERT Kauffman, S. A. (1995). $WKRPHLQWKHXQLYHUVH7KHVHDUFKIRUODZVRIVHOIRUJDQL]DWLRQDQGFRPSOH[LW\ New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Luhmann, N. (2000). Sociale systemer. Grundrids til en almen teori. København: Hans Reitzels forlag. Madsen, B. (2010). Aktionslæringens DNA (The DNA of action learning). Aarhus: VIASystime. Marion, R. (1999). 7KHHGJHRIRUJDQL]DWLRQ&KDRVDQGFRPSOH[LW\WKHRULHVRIIRUPDOVRFLDOV\VWHPV. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1987). The tree of knowledge. Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Molly-Søholm, T., & Willert, S. (2010). Action learning consulting. København: Dansk Psykologisk Forlag. Mowles, C. (2011). Rethinking management. Burlington, NJ: Gower Publishing. Prigogine, I. (1997). The end of certainty. New York, NY: Free Press. Revans, R. (1998). ABC of action learning. London: Lemos & Crane. Rosenblum, B., & Kuttner, F. (2006). Quantum Enigma. Physics encounters consciousness. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Shaw, P. (2002). Changing conversations in organizations. London: Routledge. Stacey, R. D. (2011). 6WUDWHJLFPDQDJHPHQWDQGRUJDQL]DWLRQDOG\QDPLFV7KHFKDOOHQJHRIFRPSOH[LW\ (6th ed.). Harlow: Pearson, Financial Times, Prentice Hall. Stacey, R. D. (2012). 7RROV DQG WHFKQLTXHV RI OHDGHUVKLS DQG PDQDJHPHQW 0HHWLQJ WKH FKDOOHQJH RI FRPSOH[LW\. London: Routledge. Stegeager, N., & Willert, S. (2012). Aktionsforskning som organisationsudviklende praksis. In G. Duus, K. Kildedal, E. Laursen, M. Husted, & D. Tofteng (Eds.), Aktionsforskning – en grundbog. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur. von Uexküll, J. (1926). Theoretical biology. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & Co. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). 0LQGDQGVRFLHW\7KHGHYHORSPHQWRIKLJKHUSV\FKRORJLFDOSURFHVVHV. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Willert, S., Keller, H. D., & Stegeager, N. (2011). Academic vocational training: Bridging the gap between educational space and work space. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(2), 168–180. Willert, S., Østergaard, L., & Nymand, R. (2013, June). Gensidigt lærende partnerskaber i teori og praksis. Akademisk Kvarter. Zhichang, Z. (2007). Complexity science, systems thinking and pragmatic sensibility. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 24, 445–464.

104

0(7(.8572ö/8

9. FUTURING HIGHER EDUCATION? THE INNOVATIVENESS OF REFORMS Turkey – A Critical Case Study

INTRODUCTION

In today’s globalized world of higher education, policy has been influenced by processes of massification, internationalization and marketization that bring an increasingly complex array of roles to universities (Altbach, 2008). During recent decades discourses on establishing a “global knowledge economy” have been the main rationale behind reform processes of higher education systems, especially in OECD countries. Policies under the guidance of the OECD, the World Bank and the Bologna Process have shifted the mission of universities towards maintaining the needs of knowledge economies by ensuring that they make themselves into engines of economic development. Following these policies we find trends in higher education reform – mainly in the OECD countries – moving towards the corporatization of the university system, an increase in the number of entrepreneurial institutions, academics and students, a shift from universal welfare entitlement to private investment in human capital, with an increasing concern for efficiency (as the expense of democratic forms of governance) and the dominance of technoscience and performativity (Peters, 2003, 2007). This discourse on the knowledge economy may be updated with the rise of creative industries and economies, and the new roles defined for “creative universities” as “new engines of innovation” for the 3T’s of economic development, i.e. technology, talent and tolerance (Florida, 2002, 2006). Thus, we are living in a phase where discourses on sources of economic growth define the discourse in higher education policy. The dominance of discourses emerging from post-modernism and neo-liberalism puts in question the modern idea of university, as founded on philosophies of Kant and Humboldt. One way of reacting to such a challenge is merely to conform to it, and as such, acknowledge that the current emphasis on the capacity of universities to adapt to the socio-economic shifts by acquiring new roles that are contrary to the ideal types of universities (Scott, 1993). Opposing this interpretation are attempts to search for possibilities of re-establishing the idea of university with new epistemic openings to the future in an age of super-complexity (Barnett, 2000). Considering the increasing centrality of knowledge and higher education in today’s knowledge societies, the responsibility of universities in shaping the future of societies should

© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2019 | DOI:10.1163/9789004394827_009

0.8572ö/8

be growing contrary to the arguments undermining its social and cultural missions. Thus, following Barnett (2013), I find it crucial to insist on new possibilities and openings for universities through reflexivity, imagination and creativity against the dominant economic discourse. The rise of the concept of “the creative university” can bring about alternative ideas, institutional practices and pedagogies through considering competing discourses on creativity in a Foucaultian sense (Weber, 2013). Despite the similarities in global trends in reform processes, and considering that today’s universities are historically European and Western institutions, the manner and depth of discussions on the idea and future of Higher Education may vary both across Western countries and the developing world. In this paper, I want to analyse the reform process in Higher Education in Turkey; a country that is an ambitious and developing country in the competitive global arena, and one that has been a member of the Bologna Process since 2001. In 2012, the Turkish Council of Higher Education (CoHE) initiated a reform process by conducting meetings with various stakeholders and using an online platform to receive suggestions.1 Based on these discussions, a draft proposal was prepared in January, 2013 to be submitted to the Turkish Parliament in the form of a new Higher Education Law. This draft has not been issued as a new law since 2013. However, it presented a broad agreement on the main principles such as diversity; institutional autonomy and accountability; performance evaluation and competition; financial flexibility and multi-resourced income and quality assurance. The reforms undertaken by the CoHE in recent years have mostly been developed within the framework of this draft. This paper will discuss the principles of this new proposal and current policies in Turkish Higher Education at the national level and in terms of their convergence with the above mentioned global trends. This will be followed by an investigation of institutional diversity in Turkish Higher Education based on the responses to the draft proposal and institutional strategies of three different types of universities; an international research university (METU), a classical comprehensive university (Ankara University) and a young entrepreneurial university (TOBB ETU). REFORM PROCESS IN TURKISH HIGHER EDUCATION

A Short History The history of modern universities in Turkey goes back to modernization attempts during the last centuries of the Ottoman Empire. After the loss of its power in the battlefields, the Ottomans recognized the need to improve its labor force in fields of engineering and medicine (mainly in service of the military), and later in bureaucracy and diplomacy. Contrary to the gradual development of modern research university in Europe over the centuries, the case of Republic of Turkey involves a move from existing educational institutions in a multi-ethnic and theocratic Ottoman Empire to universities and other types of higher education institutions imp orted from the West. Secularism has been the main concern of this cultural shift (Barblan et al., 2008). 106

FUTURING HIGHER EDUCATION? THE INNOVATIVENESS OF REFORMS

The first comprehensive establishment of a modern Higher Education system came after the foundation of the Turkish Republic with the 1933 reforms. The significant contribution of German professors who had escaped from Nazi regime should be noted during the early period of higher education in the young Republic of Turkey. As in many other cases when establishing a modern nation-state, the independence universities functioned as incubators for nationalistic ideas, and produced educators of the emerging governing class and providers of the technical expertise needed for nation-building (Altbach, 2008). Parallel to the industrialization of the country the system expanded from 1950s to 1970s with establishment of new – mostly technical – universities, that functioned for the purpose of sustaining the production of high-quality technical personnel. A second wave of expansion came after 1973 with the establishment of 10 new universities outside the three metropolitan cities of øVWDQEXO$QNDUDDQGø]PLU'XULQJWKLVSHULRGZKLFKLQYROYHGXQUHJXODWHGJURZWK the system propagated various types of institutions in terms of status, duration, goals DQGDGPLVVLRQSURFHGXUHVùLPúHN  It can be said that, as the establishment of universities has been instrumental from the beginning in terms of serving to the needs of the state, understandings of academic freedom and institutional autonomy have not developed successfully. However in time, a certain level of functional differentiation is sustained within the system, widening of institutional diversity as seen in the emergence of variety of missions, academic cultures, pedagogies is not welcomed. This might be related to another challenge that universities and academicians are experiencing in developing countries. As Altbach notes (2003), the history of higher education in developing countries is one of governmental oversight and bureaucratic control. Colonial regimes as well as post-independence governments worry about the political loyalty of both the professoriate and the university. Academic freedom is, in a sense, more than ‘academic’ in many developing countries because the writings and sometimes the teachings of the professors may have direct political consequences beyond the university. Protecting professorial freedom of expression and academic work does not receive a high priority from colonial and post-independence governments. The current Higher Education system in Turkey was established after the 1980 military coup through the introduction of the new Higher Education Law (no 2547) and 1982 constitution. The aim was to centralize, regulate and consolidate the system, and introduce international criteria for the academic profession, and for research and publications to increase academic outputs. The military coup was legitimized as a response to intense political turmoil in the country and the universities were blamed as sources of left-wing/right-wing political activism. Thus, beyond the given policy oriented aims, at the political level establishment of CoHE as a highly centralized, hierarchical body was a means for maintaining control over universities. The formation of the members of the board of the CoHE (7 appointed by the President of the Republic, 7 by the Council of Ministers and 7 by the Inter-university council) is just one example of the political influence exerted over the function of the CoHE. The foundation of the CoHE in 1981 has increased 107

0.8572ö/8

bureaucratic control over universities and academics and worked against the principles of autonomy and academic freedom. Accordingly, since its establishment, the CoHE has been criticized by universities, academics and many stakeholders on issues of institutional autonomy and academic freedom. On institutional diversity, the law allows for the first-time establishment of non-profit foundation universities for increasing competition within the system. Despite the CoHE’s critiques of academic freedom and institutional autonomy, the council has been successful in increasing the number of universities and academic staff, and the internationalization of tertiary institutions in terms of mobility, publishing in international journals and conducting international research. During 1990s, the system had to address pressures for further expansion due to growth in the younger population and inefficient distribution of enrolment in various types of institutions, demand for qualified teaching staff, shrinking public resources, LQHIILFLHQF\ DQG GLYHUVLILFDWLRQ RI TXDOLW\ IXQGLQJ ùLPVHN  S   7KHVH issues have added validity to the recent reform process. Among them, massification of Higher Education has been of particular concern to policy-makers and politicians when responding to the increasing demand for access to universities. In the national examination for university entrance only 1/3 of around 1.5 million students entering the exam gain the opportunity of studying at university – this includes open universities. This demand has caused increased the number of both state and public universities rather that increasing the quantitative concerns related to providing an adequate supply of places available. The outcome is that there has been a doubling in the number of Higher Education institutions in less than a decade, raising even bigger concerns about WKHTXDOLW\DQGDYDLODELOLW\RITXDOLILHGDFDGHPLFVWDIIVHH)LJXUHVDQG 

Figure 1. Number of higher education students (SETA, 2011) total formal open

108

FUTURING HIGHER EDUCATION? THE INNOVATIVENESS OF REFORMS

Figure 2. Number of higher education institutions (SETA, 2011) total state foundation

Bologna Process in Turkey Following the foundation of the Turkish Republic, it has been very important to adopt Western principles and values in social, political, economic and technological areas of the development of the country and ‘to reach the [anticipated] level of civilization’ $\GÕQ .H\PDQS $FFRUGLQJO\7XUNH\¶V(8DFFHVVLRQSURFHVVGHVSLWH its complications, has initiated the convergence of educational policy with the EU IUDPHZRUN 7KH %RORJQD 3URFHVV LV SHUFHLYHG DV DQ RYHUDUFKLQJ IUDPHZRUN IRU HVWDEOLVKLQJ (XURSHDQ +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ $UHD ,W KDV SURYLGHG WKH URDGPDS IRU 7XUNLVKSROLF\PDNHUVLQWKHLUGHYHORSPHQWRIDFRPSUHKHQVLYHSDFNDJHRISROLFLHV that both address the internal problems of the system and increase cooperation with (XURSHDQ+LJKHU(GXFDWLRQV\VWHPVDQGLQVWLWXWLRQV6LQFHEHFRPLQJDVLJQDWRU\ FRXQWU\ LQ  D VHULHV RI UHIRUPV KDYH EHHQ LQWURGXFHG LQ WHUPV RI GHJUHH structures, facilities for greater mobility and recognition, quality assurance, lifelong OHDUQLQJDQGWKHLPSURYHPHQWRIWKHVRFLDOGLPHQVLRQ0RELOLW\RI7XUNLVKVWXGHQWV DQGDFDGHPLFVWDIIKDYHLQFUHDVHGUDSLGO\VLQFHHVSHFLDOO\DVDFRQVHTXHQFH RI WKH (UDVPXV SURJUDP OHDGLQJ WR LQFUHDVLQJ FRRSHUDWLRQ LQ UHVHDUFK DQG MRLQW GHJUHHVZLWK(XURSHDQFRXQWHUSDUWV