elton; cryer 1994 quality and change in higher education

7/28/2019 Elton; Cryer 1994 Quality and Change in Higher Education

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elton-cryer-1994-quality-and-change-in-higher-education 1/16

Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 18, No. 3, Spring 1994

Q u a l i t y a n d C h a n g e i n H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n

L e w i s E l t o n a n d P a t C r y e r

ABSTRACT.. There is increasing evidence that the pressures on British universities forgreater quality and accountability, linked closely to funding, are leading to loss ofquality. These governmental pressures, exerted through the Funding Councils, arewholly different from those applied in a quite separate way from another governmentsource, the Employment Department. This article analyses the nature and effects of the

two kinds of pressures in terms of change theory. This also demonstrates that theobserved effects were not only largely predictable but to a substantial extent werepredicted, and warns of the danger that the resulting deleterious effects may becomeirreversible.

Over the past decade there h ave been incr easing pressures on Brit ish

univers i t ies for grea ter qual i ty and accountabi l i ty in both teaching

and research. These pressures have come mainl y f rom the gover nment

as a whole and from the D epar tmen t for Educat ion in par t icular , and,

unlike s imilar pressures in most other countries , have been l inked

closely to universi ty funding by the Funding Councils . Yet there is

incr easin g evidence th at these pres sures are leading to loss of quali ty

and to a compliance culture, wher e uni versi t ie s comply far too un-

cr i t ica l ly wi th deman ds made on the m by the i r paymasters . Al thou gh

at this s tage m uch of the evidence is inevitably anecdotal , i t is rema rk-

ably consis tent . I t would be extremel y unw ise to ignore i t , s ince by the

t ime re l iable evaluat ions are avai lable , much i r revers ible damage

may have been done.

Lewis Elton obtained an M.A. in Mathematics at Cambridge University and a B.Sc. inMathematics and a Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics at the University of London. He is aFurther and Higher Education Adviser to the UK Employment Department and Emer-itus Professor of Higher Education at the University of Surrey. His special interests arein the improvement of university teaching and learning; staff development; distancelearning; and organizational change in higher education. Pat Cryer obtained a B.Sc. inMathematics and Physics at the University of Exeter and a Ph.D. in EducationalDevelopment at the University of Surrey. She has recently resigned as ProfessionalAdviser of the UK Universities' Staff Development Unit and is now a Consultant inHigher Education. Her special interests are in issues of quality; staff development; andteaching large classes.

The opinions expressed in this paper are our own and do not commit the EmploymentDepartment.

205 9 1994 HumanSciencesPress, Inc.



206 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

At the same time as these pressures were originating, a wholly

different kind of pressure was being applied in a small and quite

separate way from another government source, the Employment De-

partment. Its objective was to enr ich students' learning experience andto prepare them better for the world of work. Its success in achieving

this objective and thereby enhanc ing the quality of this experience is

now well documented.

The purpose of this article is to analyse the nature and effects of the

two kinds of pre ssu re- fro m the English Funding Council and from the

Employment De pa rt ment -i n terms of change theory, and to demon-

strate that the observed effects on teaching were not only largely

predictable but to a substantial extent were predicted.

T h e B a c k g r o u n d t o t h e P r e s s u r e s

t o I n c r e a s e Q u a l it y a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y

Questions of quality and accountability, which became an importan t

industri al and commercial concern in Britain in the 1970s, spread to

the public services, including higher education, in the 1980s. In higher

education they were applied first to university research and then,

quite separately, to teaching. Warnings against this transfer from theworld of commerce (e.g., Pollitt, 1987) were largely ignored, al thoughthe Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals in self-defence set

up a quality auditing procedure (Williams, 1992a) in the hope of

thereby preventing government interference.

When qua lity procedures were first introduced in industry and com-

merce, it was quickly realized tha t their introduction required funda-

mental change at every level of an organisation. There were of course

external driving forces, tha t is the exigencies of the market , with the

thr ea t that organisations that failed to improve the qua lity of thei rproducts would simply disappear. However, it was soon reali sed tha t

these forces by themselves would not resul t in organisational change

which would lead to high quality products. What was needed was for

an organisation to "own" its quality procedures at every level of theorganisation through processes such as total quality management (see

Sallis, 1992). This required radical changes in the atti tudes of manage-

men t and work force; man age men t had to become much more facilita-

tive and the relationship of managemen t and work force had to become

much more one of cooperation for the common good of the organisation.Thus the impersonal external pressures for change created internal



Quality and Change in Higher Education 207

facilitat ion of this change, designed to make everyone in the organisa-

tion feel bet ter as a result of the change, and wholly in accord with

classical field theory of change (Lewin, 1952).

The situation in universities is quite radically different. Although

the government talks about a ~student market," this is in no way

comparable to, say, a free market in manufactured goods. Its feedback

processes are so sluggish tha t the threat of institutional bankruptcy as

a result of market forces is far less immediate and perhaps scarcely

credible. Furthermore, the government can and does manipulate the

market, in line with changing government policy and thus constitutes

the real and only customer in this market; a situation of monopoly

which would be prevented by legislation if it occurred in the commer-

cial market. Hence the external pressure, which in Lewin's model

must never be wholly absent, cannot be provided naturall y by a mar-

ket, but has to be specifically created by the process of judgment.

Unfortunately, this shifts the ownership of quality cont rol -and even

of quality enhancement -fro m the individual university to govern-

ment, in total contrast to the situation that pertains to successful

commercial organisations. No talk about the assessment being based

in the first place on self-assessment can change that; true self-

assessment is predicated not only on the processes of assessment being

carried out by self, but also on the ownership of the assessment belong-ing to self. The wholly predictable result is the growth of a compliance

culture in un ive rsit ies -no t unlike the compliance culture of students,

which arises from the same lack of ownership of their assessment and

of which academics have complained for many years (Miller & Parlett ,

1974). Put at its simplest, change always requi res a mixture of stick

and carrot, but for successful change the balance must shift continu-

ously away from stick and toward carrot, until in the final '~refreezing"

stage of Lewin's model the change is complete and the stick has

withered away (Elton, 1992a).

T h e F u n d i n g C o u n c i l s a n d Q u a l i t y

Predictably, the government was not prepared to trust universities

to audit their own quality, and proceeded to set up its own quality

assessment procedures (Higher Education Funding Council England

(HEFCE), 1993), at the same time insisting that the universities' own

audit processes be continued. (Similar but separate assessment pro-cedures were established in Scotland and Wales.) In due course this




multiplicity of quality monitoring agencies will provide a fruitful

source for a comparison of different approaches to quality assurance.

The HEFCE based its approach on the experience of Her Majesty's

Inspectorate (HMI), which in higher education until then had beenactive essentially only in the polytechnics, which at tha t stage lacked

the independence of universities. The HMI mode of operation was

wholly external, placed considerable emphasis on classroom observa-

tion and made its judgments largely on the basis of long established

norms, derived from a culture tha t was transmi tted very successfully

from one HMI generation to anothe r (Lawton & Gordon, 1987). Unfor-tunate ly neither the mode of operation nor the culture fitted easily into

the traditions of established universities and the crash courses to train

experienced and respected university staff into quality assessors ap-pear to have done little to allay suspicions and fears in universities. In

contrast, the audit procedures, which concentrate on the processes in

universities that are designed to assure the quality of the student

learn ing experience rat her tha n on the quality of tha t experience, are

far less intrus ive and have proved far more acceptable in universities.

It may be argued of course tha t this is only to be expected since they

are less likely to reveal deficiencies, but this would ignore the poten-

tial negative effect of intrusive quality assessment procedures in an

area where precise assessment of qual ity is difficult if not impossible toachieve. It is essential to include these unintended-but by no means

unpredicted-consequences of external assessments in any judgment of

the effectiveness of quali ty assessment procedures (Elton, 1988).

Both the universities' audit and the government's assessment bodies

declare that universities are independent and chartered institutions,

and that it is part of their academic freedom to declare what theirmissions, aims and objectives are. The implication of this is that

quality can then be assessed only in relation to a university's declared

purposes, if quality is tak en to constitute the measured extent to whicha university achieves its purposes. In other words, quality is "fitness

for purpose" (Ball, 1985), which is equiva lent to the definition of qual-

ity given in British Standard BS 4778 Part 1, section 3.1.. This ap-proach is of course fundamentally different from the traditiona l HMI

approach, which related educational performance to the cultural

norms of HMI-a procedure which might be described as "fitness to

purpose." The resulting problems have been fudged rather than re-

solved, for there is no doubt that indirectly the Funding Council As-

sessment is questioning also the purposes of what it is assessing. Agood example of this is that one of its questions is, how a universi ty's




degree programmes respond to the expressed needs of employers. In

principle a un ive rsi ty could reply th at this is not one of its purposes,

but in practice it would be unli kel y to be so naive. The problems arise

far less in audit, since quality assurance procedures are much less

likely to conflict with academic freedom than outcomes. A conse-

quence-and it is a wholly beneficial on e- o f this fudge between "of' and

~'for" purpose is th at quality enh ance ment may result from either

performing an existing tas k better or from altering and upgrad ing the

tas k specification. The la tter has been one of the main features of the

Enterprise in Higher Education (EHE) initiative, which will be de-

scribed in some detail below, before its effects are anal ysed in term s of

change theory.

T h e E m p l o y m e n t D e p a r t m e n t a n d Q u a li t y: T h e E n t e r p r i se

i n H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n (E H E ) I n i t ia t iv e

The initial impetus for EHE came from a joint sta teme nt of the major

higher education funding and advisory bodies at the time (National

Advisory Board and University Grants Committee, 1984), in which

the y said:

The abilities most valued in industrial, commercial and professional life,as well as in public and social administration, are the generic intellec-tual and personal skills. These include the ability to analyse complexissues, to identify the core of a problem and the means of solving it, tosynthesise and integrate disparate elements, to clarify values, to makeeffective use of numerical and other information, and above all to com-municate clearly both orally and in writing. A higher education systemwhich provides its students with these things is serving society well.

These abilities are '~generic," th at is they are v ery ge neral ly applicable

an d -a t least in princi ple-tran sferable from one situation to another.

For t ha t reason th ey are often referred to as ~'transferable skills," but

as transfer does by no means always occur in practice, we prefer the

more neutral name of '~generic skills."

There is little doubt that such a high er education system would also

serve students well and that the majority of academics would agree

th at these are impor tant aims for studen ts to pursue in higher educa-

tion. One in teresti ng feature of the sta teme nt is its clear implicationthat they can be achieved, whatever the subject studied.



210 INNOVATIVE HIGH ER EDUCATION

T h e E H E i n i t ia t i v e b a s e d i t s e lf o n t h e a b o v e s t a t e m e n t , b u t m a d e

e x p l i ci t t h r e e i m p l i c i t m a j o r f e a t u r e s o f i t, a n d e f f e c t iv e l y m a d e t h e m

t h e a i m s o f t h e i n i t i a t i v e . T h e y w e r e :

9 T h e f a c i l i ta t i o n o f t h e a c h i e v e m e n t o f t h e s e i m p o r t a n t a i m s m u s t

b e a d d r e s s e d e x p l i c i t l y i n t h e c u r r i c u l u m . T h i s s h o u l d b e d o n e

w i t h i n t h e t e a c h i n g o f t h e d i s c i p li n e s t u d i e d , a n d n o t i n s o m e w a y

s e p a r a t e l y f r o m i t .

9 T h e s t u d e n t c u r r i c u l u m m u s t r e l a t e t o t h e w o r ld o f w o r k a n d

m u s t i n v o l v e e m p l o y e r s a n d e m p l o y m e n t .

9 A H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n I n s t i t u t io n w h i c h t a k e s p a r t i n E H E m u s t

e n s u r e t h a t a l l i ts s tu d e n t s o n u n d e r g r a d u a t e a n d p o s t g r a d u a t e

c o u r s e s a r e a f f e c te d b y t h e i n i t ia t i v e .

A l t h o u g h t h e a i m s a r e v e r y g e n e r a l, t h e y n e v e r t h e l e s s h a v e q u i t e

p r o f o u n d s p e ci fi c e f fe c ts . T h e f i r s t r e q u i r e s a c a d e m i c s t o p u t t h e i r

a c t io n s w h e r e t h e i r r h e t o r ic h a s a l w a y s b e e n , n a m e l y t h a t t h e s t u d y o f

a d i s c ip l i n e i n a d d i t i o n t o b e i n g a n e n d i n i t s e l f i s a m e a n s o f e d u c a t i n g

a n d d e v e l o p i n g s t u d e n t s a s w h o l e p e r s o n s . T h e s e c o n d c h a l l e n g e s t h e

i v o r y t o w e r c o n c e p t o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , a c o n c e p t w h i c h i n a n y c a s e

h a s a l w a y s b e e n m o r e p r o m i n e n t i n t h e r h e to r i c t h a n t h e r e a l i t y o f

a c a d e m i a . T h e t h i r d e n s u r e s t h a t E H E c a n n o t b e c o n fi n e d t o s o m e

v o c a t i o n a l g h e t t o w i t h i n a u n i v e r s i t y . T h i s h a s p r o f o u n d i m p l i c a t i o n s

f o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l c h a n g e , a s u b j e c t t o w h i c h w e s h a l l r e t u r n l a t e r .

F i n a l l y i t is c l e a r t h a t t h e i n i t i a t i v e i s n o t i n t e n d e d t o c r e a t e s t u d e n t

e n t r e p r e n e u r s b u t r a t h e r t o d e v e lo p i n s tu d e n t s a n d s t a f f t h e r e q u i s i t e

c a p a b i l i t i e s a n d c o m p e t e n c i e s to c op e w i t h t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s a n d c h a l -

l e n g e s o f t h e 1 9 9 0s a n d b e y o n d . T h i s p o i n t i s i m p o r t a n t , b e c a u s e b o t h

i n i t i a ll y a n d e v e n n o w t h e w o r d % n t e r p r i s e " i n t h e t i t l e o f t e n g e t s

m i s i n t e r p r e t e d . " E n t e r p r i s e " i n E H E h a s i t s n o r m a l m e a n i n g , a s f or

i n s t a n c e g i v e n i n t h e C o l li n s E n g l i s h D i c t io n a r y : ~ r e a d i n es s t o e m b a r k

o n n e w v e n t u r e s , b o l d n e s s a n d e n e r g y . " S u c h q u a l i t i e s a r e v a l u e d i n

a l l w a l k s o f l if e.

E H E i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h c h a n g e s i n t h e c u r r i c u lu m , w h i c h c a n b e

d e f i n e d a s th e t o t a l i t y o f t h e s t u d e n t l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e . I t is t h u s

c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e c o n t e n t a n d o b j e c t iv e s o f c o u r s e s, m e t h o d s o f t e a c h -

i ng a n d as s e s s m e n t , t h e le a r n in g e n v i r o n m e n t a n d th e m a n a g e m e n t o f

t h e s t u d e n t l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e . T h i s i s a f a r c ry f r o m t h e t r a d i t i o n a l

a c a d e m i c v i e w o f t h e s p e c i fi c a ti o n o f a d e g r e e c o u r s e i n t e r m s o f a

c o n t e n t s y l l a b u s . T h e s h i f t a w a y f r o m a p u r e l y c o n t e n t s p e c i f ic a t i o n i sa b s o l u t e l y f u n d a m e n t a l t o E H E , s in c e th e a c q u i s it i o n o f g e n e r ic s k i l ls




d e p e n d s v e ry m u c h m o r e o n how s t u d e n t s a r e t a u g h t t h a n o n what

t h e y a r e t a u g h t , t h a t i s t o s a y , l e a r n i n g is d e t e r m i n e d b y b o t h w h a t is

t a u g h t a n d h o w t h e l e a r n i n g t a k e s p la c e. T h e s a m e s h i f t a ls o r a i s e s

d i f fi c u l t i s s u e s c o n c e r n i n g a s s e s s m e n t . C a n t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f t h e s e

s k i ll s b e a s s e s s e d in t h e s a m e w a y a s t h e a c q u i s it i o n o f k n o w l e d g e a n d

i ts u n d e r s t a n d i n g ? T h e l a t t e r i s n o r m a l l y a s s e s s e d i n t e r m s o f t h e

o u t c o m e s o f l e a r n in g , b u t t h e r e a r e d o u b t s w h e t h e r t h e s a m e c a n b e

d o n e f o r s k i l ls l e a r n i n g , w h e r e - a s w i t h t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f a g o o d w i n e -

p r o c e s s e s a n d o u t c o m e s a r e c l o s e l y r e l a t e d .

T h e t h r e e m o s t c o m m o n a r e a s o f c u r r i c u la r c h a n g e h a v e b e e n :

1. P r o j e c t w o r k i n r e a l w o r k s i t u a t i o n s , o f t e n i n c o n j u n c t io n w i t h

e m p l o y e r s .

2 . S t u d e n t p l a c e m e n t s w i t h e m p l o y e rs , fo r p e r io d s v a r y i n g f r o m a

f e w d a y s o r w e e k s t o a w h o l e y e a r , i n t h e c a s e o f s a n d w i c h

c o u r s e s .

3. C h a n g e s i n t e a c h i n g m e t h o d s w h i c h le d t o c h a n g e s i n t h e s t u d e n t

l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e m o r e g e n e r a l l y .

T h e c h a n g e s l i s t e d a r e p r o fo u n d ; t h e y r e q u i r e a w h o l l y n e w a p p r o a c h

t o t e a c h in g a n d l e ar n in g . N o t o n ly t e a c h e r s - a n d a ls o s t u d e n t s - h a v e

t o le a r n n e w a p p r o a c h e s h e r e ; t h i s i s e v e n m o r e l i k e l y t o b e t r u e o f

e m p l o y e r s w h o m a y b a s e t h e i r a p p r o a c h o n t h e i r o w n e x pe r ie n c e a s

s t u d e n t s i n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , w h i c h i s l i k el y t o h a v e b e e n t r a d i t i o n a l

a n d b y n o w r a t h e r o u t o f d a te .

O n c e H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n I n s t i t u t i o n s s t a r t e d o n c u r r i c u l u m c h a n g e

w i t h i n a n E H E p r o g r a m m e , t h e y t h e r e f o r e h a d t o f a ce t h e a s s o c i a t e d

p r o b l e m s o f s t a f f d e v e l o p m e n t . S o f a r, s u c h s t a f f d e v e l o p m e n t h a s b e e n

c o n f i n e d a l m o s t w h o l l y t o t w o a r e a s . T h e f i r s t o f t h e s e c o n c e r n s t e a c h -

i ng , l e a rn i n g a n d a s s e s s m e n t , a n d b r o a d l y s p e a k i n g , tw o a p p r o a c h e s

h a v e b e e n u s e d : o n t h e o n e h a n d , f o r m a l p r e s e n t a t i o n s a n d w o r k s h o p s,

a n d o n t h e o t he r , in f o r m a l n e t w o r k i n g a n d i n fo r m a t i o n s h a r in g . M u c h

r e l e v a n t s t a f f d e v e l o p m e n t h a s a l s o o c c u r r e d i n t h e p r o c e s s o f c o u r s e

d e v e l o p m e n t t h r o u g h c o u r s e t e a m s . T h u s s o m e s ta f f d e v e l o p m e n t w a s

~ to p d o w n , " w h i l e o t h e r w a s ~ b o t to m u p ," a n d u n i v e r s i t i e s g r a d u a l l y

c a m e t o r e a li s e t h a t a n a p p r o p r i a t e m i x t u r e o f t h e t w o , w i t h t h e

m i x t u r e v a r y i n g w i t h t i m e , w a s n e e d e d . T h a t t h i s s t r a t e g i c b a l a n c e

b e t w e e n ~ to p d o w n " a n d ~ b o t t o m u p " w a s a p o w e r f u l c h a n g e s t r a t e g y ,

a n d n o t c o n f in e d to s t a f f d e v e l o p m e n t , h a d p r e v i o u s l y b e e n f o u n d t o b e

s o i n a l a r g e s c a l e s t u d y o f S w e d i s h u n i v e r s i t i e s ( B e r g & ( ~ s te r g re n ,1 9 7 9 ) .



212 INNOVATIVE HIGH ER EDUCATION

T h e s e c o n d a r e a c o n c e rn s r e l a ti o n s h i p s w i t h e m p l o y e r s a n d e m p l o y-

m e n t . I n i t i a l ly , t h i s a r o s e t h r o u g h e m p l o y e r s p r o v i d i n g s o m e o f t h e

i n p u t t o a c a d e m i c s t a f f d e v e l o p m e n t . A s a r e s u l t , s o m e e m p l o y e r s h a v e

c o m e to a p p r e c i a t e t h e n e e d f o r s t a f f d e v e l o p m e n t a ls o a m o n g e m -

p l o y e r s (E l to n , G r a y , & M a r s h a l l , 1 99 0), b u t o v e r a l l E H E h a s b e e n

r a t h e r l e s s s u c c e s s f u l i n in v o l v i n g e m p l o y e r s t h a n i n c h a n g i n g u n i v e r -

s i ti e s. T h i s p o i n t w i ll b e d i s c u s s e d b el o w . S i m i l a r l y , l i t t l e h a s b e e n

d o n e w i t h i n E H E s o f a r i n s t a f f d e v e l o p m e n t f o r n o n - a c a d e m i c s t a ff ,

a n d e v e n l es s in s t a f f d e v e l o p m e n t f or i n s t i t u t i o n a l c h a n g e , w h i c h

w o u l d n e c e s s i ta t e t h e p a r t i c i p a t io n i n s t a f f d e v e l o p m e n t o f a c a d e m i c s

a t a h i g h l e v el o f t h e a c a d e m i c h i e r a r c h y , f r o m H e a d s o f D e p a r t m e n t s

u p w a r d s , a s w e l l a s t h a t o f s e n i o r a d m i n i s t ra t o r s , a n d a n u n d e r s t a n d -

i n g o f t h e r o l e s o f m a n a g e m e n t a n d l e a d e r s h i p ( M i d d l e h u r s t & E l t o n,

1 9 9 2 ) , w h i c h i s a t p r e s e n t r a r e i n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n .

A M o d e l f o r In s t i tu t i o n a l C h a n g e

T h e d i f f ic u l t y o f i n v o l v i n g s e n i o r s t a f f i n g e n u i n e l y p a r t i c i p a t i v e

t r a i n i n g h i g h l i g h t s t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l c h a n g e a n d t h e se -

r i o u s p r o b l e m s t h a t c a n a r i se w h e n a c a d e m i c te a c h e r s , t r a i n e d f or

E H E a n d e n t h u s i a s t i c a b o u t i t, t r y t o i n t e g r a t e t h e i r w o r k i nt o a

l a r g e l y u n c h a n g e d i n s t it u t io n . S t a f f d e v e l o p m e n t b y i t s e lf i s n e v e r

e n o u g h t o p ro d u c e i n s t i t u t i o n a l c h a n g e ; s o w h a t i s i t t h a t i s m i s s i n g ?

T h i s q u e s t i o n l e a d s i n t o t h e g e n e r a l a r e a o f s t r a t e g i e s f o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l

c h a n g e .

F a i l u r e s t o a c h ie v e e d u c a t i o n a l c h a n g e f r e q u e n t l y a r is e f r o m s t r a te -

g i e s w h i c h i n t h e f i rs t p la c e c h a n g e s y m p a t h e t i c i n d i v i d u a l s a n d t h e n

e x p e c t t h e m i n t u r n t o c h a n g e t h e i n s t i tu t i o n s i n w h i c h t h e y w o r k .

T h i s d o e s n o t w o r k ( s e e J o n e s & L e w i s , 1 9 9 1 ) a n d t h e r e a s o n w h y i t

d o e s n o t w o r k h a s b e e n w e l l e x p r e s s e d b y F u l l a n ( 19 85 ):

Ef fec t ive approaches to man agin g chang e ca l l fo r combin ing and ba lanc-in g fac tor s th a t d o n o t ap p ea r to go to g e th e r - s im u l t an eo u s s im p li c ity -complexity , looseness- t ightness, strong leadership-par t ic ipat ion (or si-mu l taneo us b o t tom up- top downness), f ide l i ty -adap t iv i ty and eva lua t ion-nonevalua t ion . M ore tha n any th ing e lse , e f fec tive s t ra teg ie s fo r improve-m e n t r eq u i r e an u n d e r s t an d in g o f th e p rocess , a wa y o f th in k in g th a tcannot be cap tured in an y l i s t o f s teps o r phases to be fol lowed.

T o r e s o l v e t h e a p p a r e n t c o n t r a d i c t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e s e o p p o s i t e s r e-

q u i r e s a d i a l e c t i c p r o c e s s , i n w h i c h t h e s i s a n d a n t i t h e s i s l e a d t o s y n -t h es is , o r - p u t a n o t h e r w a y - w h e r e t h e c h a n g e p r o ce s s i s g u id e d



Quality and Chang e in Higher Education 213

t h r o u g h f e e d b a c k lo o p s t h a t e n s u r e t h a t t h e p a i r s o f o p p o s it e s a r e

b r o u g h t i n t o o p e r a t i o n i n s u c h a w a y a s to p r o g r e s s i v e l y l e a d t o d e s i r e d

s y s t e m i c c h a n g e . T h e s i m p l e s t o f t h e s e o p p o s i t e s i s t h a t o f c a r r o t a n d

s t i ck , w h i c h b e t w e e n t h e m " u n fr e ez e " a s y s t e m a n d m a k e i t op e n t o

c h a n g e ( L e w i n , 1 9 5 2 ; S c h e i n , 1 9 7 2 ) . F i n a l l y , i t i s u s u a l l y n e c e s s a r y f o r

c h a n g e t o b e i n i t ia t e d b y a n e x t e r n a l a g e n c y ( A l sc h u le r , q u o t e d b y

J o n e s & L e w i s , 1 99 1); c h a n g e r a r e l y c o m e s f r o m t h e g r o u p t h a t n e e d s

c h a n g in g . A l l t h e s e p o i n ts h a v e b e e n a m p l y d e m o n s t r a t e d i n b o t h t h e

s u c c e s s e s a n d t h e f a i l u r e s o f E H E . I n p a r t i c u l a r , F u l l a n ( 19 9 0) c on -

c l u d e s :

Al l o f t h e r e sea r ch c i t e d . . , sh o ws th a t t h e su p p o r t o f cen t r a l ad m in i s t r a -to r s i s c r i ti c a l fo r c h a n g e . . , i t a l so sh o ws th a t su p p o r t o r en d o r sem en tin g en e ra l o f a n ew p ro g ram m e h as v e ry l i tt l e i n f lu en ce o n ch an g e inprac t ice ( fo r example , verba l suppor t wi thou t implementa t ion fo l low-th ro u g h ) . Teach e r s an d o th e r s k n o w en o u g h n ow, i f t h ey d id n' t twen tyy ea r s ag o , n o t t o t ak e ch an g e se r io u s ly u n le ss cen t r a l ad m in i s t r a to r sdemonstrate through actions t h a t t h ey sh o u ld .

F u l l a n g o e s o n t o o u t l i n e t h e s u c c e s s i v e s t e p s n e e d e d f o r s u c c e s s f u l

c h a n g e :

1. S m a l l g r o u p s o f p e o p l e b e g i n a n d , i f s u c c e s sf u l, b u i l d u p m o m e n -

t u m .

2 . B o t h p r e s s u r e a n d s u p p o r t a r e n e c e s s a r y fo r s u c c es s .

3 . T h e r e la t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n c h a n g e s i n b e h a v i o u r a n d c h a n g e s i n

b e l i e f r e q u i r e s c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n .

4 . T h e r o l e o f o w n e r s h i p i s t h e f o u r t h s u b t l e t y i n t h e c h a n g e p r o -

c e ss . T r u e o w n e r s h i p i s n o t s o m e t h i n g t h a t o c c u r s m a g i c a l l y a t

t h e b e g i n n in g , b u t r a t h e r e m e r g e s d u r i n g a s u c c e s sf u l c h a n g ep r o c e s s .

I n a s i m i l a r v e i n , J o n e s a n d L e w i s ( 1 9 9 1 ) l i s t t h e f o l l o w i n g k e y e l e -

m e n t s o f a c h a n g e s t r a t e g y :

1. T h e i d e n t i f ic a t i o n o f a g r o u p w i t h i n t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n t h a t i s

r e a d y f o r c h a n g e a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y t h e i d e n t if i c a ti o n o f k e y d ec i-

s i on m a k e r s w i t h i n t h a t g r ou p .

2 . T h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f a p r o b l e m o r i s s u e s w i t h i n t h e o r g a n i s a t i o ng e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d a s b e i n g i n n e e d o f r e s o l u t io n .




3. The development of an appropriate staff development pro-

gramme.

It may be noted tha t Jones and Lewis' point 1 is almost identical with

Fullan's point 1, Jones and Lewis' point 2 relates to Fullan's point 3,

and Jones and Lewis' point 3 is an important condition for achieving

Fullan's point 4. Strangely, Jones and Lewis omit Fullan's point 2,

which is an essential component of Alschuler's intervent ionis t strat-

egy, which they quote.

The fact that EHE has been comparatively unsuccessful with em-

ployers can easily be accounted for by the total absence of"stick" in the

university-employer relationship. Even the carrot, that is the oppor-tun ity of obtaining good employees from the gradua tes, is small in a

recession. The stra tegy used was essentially that of 'twinning heart s

and minds" which, in the terminology of Benne and Chin (1969),

amounts to the complete neglect of any power-coercive component and

complete reliance on the normative-reeducative component. Such a one

component strategy has rarely had more than partial success.

E H E a s a n A g e n t o f I n s t i t u t i o n a l C h a n g e

EHE has been evaluated several times (Tavistock Institute for Hu-

man Relations, 1991; Brooks, 1991; Elton, 1991) and has received

consistent approval in audi t reports (Williams 1992b), as well as being

acclaimed by wholly independent academics, such as the Vice-

Chancellor of the Open Univers ity who recently called it ~'the grea t

unsung success of higher education," a remark repeated by the Chief

Execut ive of HEFCE (Davies, 1993). There is no reasonable doubt now

about its general success and about the significant institutional

change that it has generated.As the year s progressed, profound effects on academics, on employers

and on academic institutions became apparent, well beyond anyth ing

that had been envisaged. It is interesting that this happened almost

wholly in line with an earlier prediction (Elton, 1981):

In most universities there are groups of academics who do not wish to beconfined within traditional boundaries, who want to develop broadercurricula and appropriate teaching methods. Such academics do not needto be ~unfrozen'; what they need is for the forces which oppose them to be

reduced. To achieve this, let government and industry provide the




meagre resources needed by such groups and protect them by guarantee-ing their continued existence for some period, even if at firs t they do notgreatly succeed, which is likely. Put at its lowest, this will enable the

traditionali st majority to isolate the troublesome innovators where theycan do least harm. At the institutional level, there may even be somegain in kudos .. . . This will make the universities feel good. Let therealso be a clear statement t hat none of the resources provided for innova-tions will be at the expense of those for the more traditional functions.This will make the universities feel safe. Overall, the proposed schemeshould therefore reduce the forces opposing change.

Once the universities are reassured, staff within them who wish toinnovate will also feel safer. To make them feel better, two things arerequired. The first is a change in the traditional reward structure, whichhas been frequently advocated and is indeed, I believe, slowly coming

about. The second is a recognition of their communali ty of purpose, forinstance through the establishment of academically respected learnedsocieties. Both these proposals will provide small supporting forces,when the initial motivational forces begin to slacken off.

Introduced like this, innovations can prove thei r value. They may thentake root, become more famil iar and eventually appear less threatening.Who knows, but that tradit ional ists may see some good in them then andin due course take them over. At that point the innovators becometraditionalists and the cycle starts again. (p. 31)

The financial support which EHE provided, while very small in com-

parison with institutional budgets, was mostly found to be very large

in comparison with anyth ing th at institutions had previously allocated

to curric ulum an d staf f development. The prediction, th at such strate-

gic placing of small funds would unlock pent-up en thu sia sm in a

significant prop ortion of academic staff has been fully confirmed. The

evidence for this claim can be found in the a nnu al reports of the EH E

institutions and also for instance in the recent book by Hale and Pope

(1993). Many employers were similarly affected. They contributed in

kind, through time and creative energy, so that i t was very soon

realised that any initial disappointment at the comparative lack of

cash support had been quite misplaced. It is more than likely that a

cash cont ribut ion might well not have b een followed up by the kind of

commit ment that has been witnessed and to which time contributions

have led.

Roughly at the end of the second year in any E HE Programme, t he

enthusiastic staff became less enthusiastic when they saw th at those

who continued to concentrate their effort on their research reaped

benefits denied to those who concentrated on teaching innovation.




Their evident dissatisfaction acted as a stimulus for institutions to

reappraise their reward and promotion structures, so as to provide a

more even playing field for the recognition of excellence in teaching

and in research-a quite remarkable manifestation of institutionalchange (Elton & Partington, 1993). One may by now have confidence

that EHE, aided and abetted by national developments in quality

audit and assessment, has changed institutional cu ltures to the extent

that the importance of the teaching function will not easily decline

again to the position, relative to tha t of the research function, which it

had held traditionally for so long in higher education. This compara-

tive balance be tween teaching and research should of course be main-

tained at only the ins titutional level and not at t hat of the individual

academics, whose relative preference at any one time of their career forteaching and/or research should be respected within the overall insti-

tutional balance (Elton, 1992b).

Finally, not only is the Society for Research into Higher Educat ion-

the ~learned society" asked for in the above quotation-taking a

greate r interest now in teaching developments than it did twelve years

ago, but the "recognition of communality of purpose" has been greatly

strengthened by the establishment of the national Staff and Curricu-

lum Development Association and its accreditation scheme for

teachers in higher education (Baume, 1992), pointing the way to theeventual professionalisation of academic teachers and staff developers

(Elton, 1993).

Thus there has been an outcome of EHE of crucial importance, but

wholly unpredicted, and that is the effect of EHE as an agent of

change, first on line management , where Heads of Departmen t had to

learn to make decisions on the individual work plans of their staff so asto fit in within an overall depar tmental plan for teaching and research,

and t hen in a similar way on organisational development. The impor-

tant features in the change strategy appear to be the following.1. The Employment Department was prescriptive only in the broad-

est manner, but in this way provided a firm framework within which

institutions-and indeed departments within institutions-could de-velop innovations. They initiated development plans which they then

put to the Employment Department, for the latte r to improve through

dialogue and then to approve, before contracts were signed. This ap-

proach is radically different from the way that financial support is

normal ly disbursed by governmen t agencies.

2. Once institutions had signed contracts, staff of the EmploymentDepartment continued to work with them. Contracts were reviewed




and renewed annua lly and could be adjusted even during the year by

mutual agreement. This work was done by a Development Manager

and a Higher Education Adviser, assigned to each institution, who

worked as a team. Within the team, the Development Manager natu-rally had more of the ta sk of ensuring th at the contract was properly

fulfilled and the Higher Education Adviser more of the task of acting

as a curriculum adviser, but in the best t ea ms - and they were the rule

ra the r t han the exception -eac h of them did aspects of both.

3. The Employment Department funding is for future activities and

is dependent on being ma tched by corresponding support from institu-tions and employers, although the latter was allowed to be in kind.

There was no insistence on matched funding in cash. This arrange-

men t led to a far bigger contribution in kind t han could ever have beenobtained in cash through matched funding, which would in any event

have been impossible to obtain. But much more importan tly, the con-

tribution in kind came largely from the time given by committed

people, whose enthus iasm was an added bonus tha t it would not have

been possible to quantify in cash terms.

What these stra tegies had in common was that they all relied much

more on carrot than on stick, without-except in the case of

empl oyer s-ever doing wholly away with either. This well known pre-

scription for successful change (Lewin, 1952) is however far too rarelyput into practice and has indeed been ignored by those who have

attempted change through ~'hearts and minds" strategies.

T h e F u n d i n g C o u n c i l a s a n A g e n t o f I n s t i t u t io n a l C h a n g e

The reliance on both carrot and stick, with the greater reliance on

carrot, has also been largely ignored, although in a different way, by

the Funding Councils. Their strategies are all somewhat different,although there is some evidence tha t the smallest of them, the Welsh

Council, may be moving in the EHE direction (Brookman, 1993).

The strategies of the Funding Council can be ana lysed as follows in

terms of the above three dimensions.

1. The Funding Councils wholly eschew being prescriptive; indeed

they explicitly deny their righ t to be so in deference to academicfreedom. For the same reason, they do not engage in dialogue with

universities. Unfortunately, such a complete absence of direction and

of boundaries leaves universities insecure and leads in practice toconvergent and even compliant planning across the university sector.




In contrast, the firm boundaries of the EHE strat egy and the initial

dialogue fostered great variety within those boundaries in institu-

tional proposals.

2. The external assessment by the Funding Councils of the institu-tional self assessment discourages honest self evaluation, which is

necessary for improvement, and the feedback after the assessment is

resisted, as it is so intimately associated with financial penalties. In

contrast, the dialogue and feedback in EHE continues throughout the

contract. While the latter can be renegotiated at any time, it is re-

viewed annually, which provides the minimal sanction needed to safe-

guard against bad practice. Furthermore , the negotiation process gives

security in exper imentation and continues the process of institutional

divergence.3. Rewards and penalt ies of the Funding Councils are made retro-

spectively, that is on the basis of the quality of work done. This

encourages a conservative attitude and does not encourage supportfrom other agencies. In contrast, EHE allocates funds on the basis of

proposals for the future and makes the allocation conditional on other

support being obtained. The difference between rewarding past excel-

lence and encouraging future excellence is perhaps the most signifi-

cant difference between the two funding methods.

In sum, although the Funding Councils do use both carro t and stick,the balance between the two is inflexible and far too heavily biased

towards the stick. This inflexibility in fact extends to the strategy as a

whole, mainta ining a ~'top down" relationship between Funding Coun-

cils and universities into the indefinite futu re and preventing a grad-

ual transition to institutional independence. In tur n the manag ement

of universities, which is '~ottom up," as far as the Funding Councilsare concerned, compensates for this by becoming increasingly '~top

down" internally. The result is a managerial rigidity that bodes ill for

one of the most important fea tures of a good university , its collegiality(Middlehurst & Elton, 1992). Regrettably one has to predict that the

current Funding Council regime is almost guaranteed to lead to a

gross deterioration in the quality of the work of universities.

C on c l u d i n g R e m ar k s

The EHE model, which has been found so successful when dealing

with sums in millions of Pounds, would clearly have to be significantlychanged, if it had to handle the billions which the Funding Councils




h a v e t o h a n d l e. B u t t h e l e s so n s t h a t c a n b e l e a r n e d f r o m i t w i ll b e v a l i d

a l s o i n a n y s c a l e d u p v e r si o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , i t i s i m p o r t a n t a n d e x -

t r e m e l y u r g e n t t h a t t h e y a r e l e a r n e d a n d a c t e d u p o n q u i ck l y , a n d t h i s

i s t h e r e a s o n f o r n o t w a i t i n g f o r a f u ll y - fl e d g e d e v a l u a t i o n , w h i c h w i ll

i n e v i t a b l y c o m e t o o l a te . A g o o d e x a m p l e o f t h i s i n a r e l a t e d f i e ld h a s

o c c u r r e d i n th e p a r a l le l r e s e a r c h q u a l i t y e x e r c i s e o f t h e F u n d i n g C o u n -

c il s, w h i c h w a s l a r g e l y b a s e d o n t h e n u m b e r o f p u b l i c a t io n s p r o d u c e d

b y a r e s e a r c h c e n t r e. P r o f e s s o r D a v i e s (1 99 3 ) n o w a d m i t s t h a t t h i s h a s

l e d t o a n i n c r e a s e i n t h e n u m b e r o f p u b l i c a t i o n s , b u t a r e d u c t i o n i n

t h e i r q u a l i t y - a w h o l l y p r e d i c t a b l e a n d p r e d i c t e d e ff e c t ( P o l li tt , 1 9 87 ;

E l t o n , 1 98 8), w h i c h i t w i l l b e a l m o s t i m p o s s i b l e n o w t o r e v e r s e .

I t is a l w a y s m o r e d i f f ic u l t t o r e c o v e r f r o m a b a d s i t u a t i o n a n d c h a n g e

i t t o a g o o d s i t u a t i o n t h a n t o s t a r t a f r e s h f r o m s q u a r e o n e ( C r y e r &

E l t o n , 1 99 0). I n m a n y w a y s u n i v e r s i t i e s a r e n o w i n a b a d s i t u a t i o n .

T h e y h a v e i n v e s t e d m a s s i v e l y i n t e r m s o f s e t t in g u p p r o c e d u r e s to

d e m o n s t r a t e t h e q u a l i t y o f w h a t t h e y a r e p r o v i d i n g ( C r y e r, 1 9 93 ), a n d

a t t i tu d e s u n f a v o u r a b l e t o t h e s e p r o c e d u r e s - a n d h e n ce t o t h e q u a l i t y

m o v e m e n t i n g e n e r a l - a r e b e c o m i n g e n t r e n ch e d a t a l l l ev e ls . T h e

F u n d i n g C o u n ci ls a n d t h o se t h a t g a v e t h e m t h e ir t a s k s m a y h a v e

m u c h t o a n s w e r f o r i n t e r m s o f a d e t e r i o r a t i o n o f q u a l i t y i n h i g h e r

e d u c a t i o n f o r d e c a d e s t o co m e , a t t h e v e r y t im e w h e n u n i v e r s i t i e s h a d

c o m e t o a c c e p t t h e n e e d f o r p u b l i c a c c o u n t a b i l i t y a n d f o r t h e m a i n t e -

n a n c e a n d e n h a n c e m e n t o f t h e i r t e a c h i n g q u a l i t y .

R e f e r e n c e s

Ball, C. (1985). Fitness for Purpose. Guildford: SRHE/NFER-Nelson.Baume, C. (1992). SCED Teacher Accreditation Year Book. Birmingham: Staff and

Educational Development Association.Benne, W. G., & Chin, R. (1969). General strategies for effecting changes in human

systems. In W. Bennis, W. G. Benne and R. Chin (Eds.), The Planning o f Change (2nded.). New York: Holt, Rinehar t and Winston.Berg, B., & Ostergren, B. (1979). Innovation processes i n higher education. Studies in

Higher Education, 4(2), 261-269.Brookman, J. (1993). Welsh reward for teaching excellence. Times Higher Education

Supplement, 8, 10, 1993, p. 3.Brooks, G., et al. (1991). Enterprise in Higher Education: Second Year National Evalua-

tion. Slough: Nat ional Foundation for Educational Research.Cryer, P., and Elton, L. (1990). Catastrophe Theory: a unified model for educational

change. Studies in Higher Education, 15 (1) 75-86.Cryer, P. (1993).Preparing for Quality Audi t and Assessment: Establishing a Quality Assur-

ance System in Higher Educatior~ Sheffield: Universities' Staff Development Unit.

Davies, G. (1993). Quality assessment methodology: how it addresses employer-educationlinks. Second Quality in Higher Education Seminar, Warwick University, Decem-ber 1993.



2 20 I N N O V A T IV E H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N

El ton , L . ( 1961) . Can un ive r s i t i e s change? S tud i e s i n H igher Educa t ion , 6(1) 23-34 .E l ton , L . ( 1988) . Ac coun tab i l i t y i n h ighe r educa t i on : t he dan ge r o f un in t end ed conse -

quences . Highe r Educa t ion , 17, 377-390.E l ton , L . (1991). En t e r p r i s e i n h igh e r edu ca t i on : wo rk i n p rog re s s . Educa t ion & Tra in -

ing, 33 (2) , 6 -9 .E l ton , L . ( 1992a ). Q ua l i t y enha ncem en t a nd academ ic p ro fe s s iona l i sm. T h e N e w A c a -

demic , Spr ing 1992 , 3 -5 .E l t o n , L . (1 99 2b ). R e s e a r c h , t e a c h i n g a n d s c h o l a r s h i p i n a n e x p a n d i n g h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n

s y s t e m . Higher Educa t ion Quar t e r l y , 46 , 252 -268 .El ton , L . (1993) . U nive rsi ty teaching: a profe ssion al mo del for quality . In R. El l i s (ed) ,

Qua l i t y Assu rance i n Un iver s i t y Teaching . B u c k i n g h a m : S R H E & O U P r e s s .E l ton , L . , Gray , H . , & M arsha l l , L . (1990). Em ployer s an d t he h igher educa t ion cur r i cu -

lum: t he En te rpr i s e i n H igher Educa t ion In i ti a t ive . G u i l d fo r d : A n n u a l C o n f e re n c e o ft h e S o c i e ty fo r R e s e a r c h i n t o H i g h e r E d u c a t io n .

E l ton , L . , & Pa r t i ng to n , P . ( 1993). Teaching s tandards and exce l lence in h igher educa-t ion: Developing a cu l ture o f qual i ty . Occas iona l Green Pape r No . 1 , ( 2nd ed . ) ,S h e f fi e ld : U n i v e r s i t i e s ' S t a f f D e v e l o p m e n t a n d T r a i n i n g U n i t .

Fu l l an , M. (1985). Chang e p roces s and s t r a t egy a t t he l oca l l eve l . T h e E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o lJourna l , 84, 391-420.

Ful lan , M. (1990) . The ma nag em ent o f change: an im plem enta t ion perspec tive . I n J .M ega r ry ( ed ), Facing the challenge. Oxford.

H ale , B. & Pope , N. (1993) . A Vis ion for High er Educatiora E d i n b u r g h : T h e U n i v e r s i ty o fE d i n b u r g h .

H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n F u n d i n g C o u n c i l E n g l a n d (1 99 3) . Qual i ty assessment . Ci r cu l a r 10 /92 .J o n e s , P . & L e w i s , J. ( 19 91 ). I m p l e m e n t i n g a s t r a t e g y o f c h a n g e i n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n .

S tud i e s i n H igher Educa t ion , 16, 51-61 .Lawton, D. , & Gordon, P . (1987) . H M I . L o n d o n : R o u t l e d g e a n d K e g a n P a u l .Lewin , K. (1952) . Field theory in social science. London : Tav i s tock Pub l i ca t i ons .M i d d l e h u r s t , R . , & E l to n , L . (1 99 2) . L e a d e r s h i p a n d m a n a g e m e n t i n h i g h e r e d u c a t io n .

S tud i e s i n H igher Educa t ion , 17, 251-264.M il le r , C.M.L. , an d P ar l e t t , M. (1974). Up to the m ark . London : Soc i e ty fo r Resea rc h i n to

H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n .N a t i o n a l A d v i s o r y B o a r d a n d U n i v e r s i t y G r a n t s C o m m i t t e e. ( 19 64 ). Higher Educa t ion

and the Needs o f Soc ie ty . L o n d o n: H M S O .Po l l i t t , C . (1987). The po l i t i c s o f pe r fo rm ance a s se s sm en t : l e s sons fo r h ighe r ed uca t i on .

S tud i e s i n H igher Educa t ion , 12, 87-98 .Sa l l i s , E . (1992). To ta l Qua l i t y Managemen t i n Educa t ion . L o n d o n : K o g a n P a g e .Schein , E .H. (1972) . Professional education. N e w Y o r k : M c G r a w H i l l , c h 8 .T a v i s t o c k I n s t i t u t e o f H u m a n R e l a t i o n s . (1 99 1). T h e f i r s t y e a r o f E n t e r p ri s e i n H i g h e r

Educatior~ S h e f fi e ld : E m p l o y m e n t D e p a r t m e n t .

W il l iam s, P . (1992a). T h e U K A c a d e m i c A u d i t U n it. In A . Cra f t (ed) , Qual i t y Assurancein Highe r Educa t ion . L o n d o n : T h e F a l m e r P r e s s .

W il l iam s, P . (1992b). Aca dem ic Au d i t Un i t An nu a l Report, 1990 /91 . B i r m i n g h a m : C V C PA c a d e m i c A u d i t U n i t.

elton; cryer 1994 quality and change in higher education

Documents