F a l l 2 0 1 4

S t e p h a n i e J . J o n e s , E d . D .Te x a s Te c h U n i v e r s i t y

C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 4 b y t h e C a r n e g i e P r o j e c t o n t h e E d u c a t i o n D o c t o r a t e , I n c . ( C P E D ) . T h e f o r e g o i n g m a t e r i a l m a y b e u s e d f o r n o n c o m m e r c i a l e d u c a t i o n a l p u r p o s e s , p r o v i d e d t h a t C P E D i s a c k n o w l e d g e d a s t h e a u t h o r a n d c o p y r i g h t h o l d e r . A n y o t h e r u s e r e q u i r e s t h e p r i o r w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f C P E D .

Webinar

Strategies for Organizational Change – Redesigning the Education Doctorate

Overview of CPED Principles and Design ConceptsBackground to StudyChange in Higher Education OrganizationsProcesses of Organizational ChangePlanned Approach to Organizational ChangeSetting the Vision for Change & Change AgentsCommunicating Vision for ChangeChange Process

Challenges to Change Strategies to Overcome Challenges

OVERVIEW

CPED has six (6) working principles that guide the professional doctorate in education:1. Is framed around questions of equity, ethics, and social

justice to bring about solutions to complex problems of practice.

2. Prepares leaders who can construct and apply knowledge to make a positive difference in the lives of individuals, families, organizations, and communities.

3. Provides opportunities for candidates to develop and demonstrate collaboration and communication skills to work with diverse communities and to build partnerships.

4. Provides field-based opportunities to analyze problems of practice and use multiple frames to develop meaningful solutions.

CPED PRINCIPLES

5. Is grounded in and develops a professional knowledge base that integrates both practical and research knowledge, that links theory with systemic and systematic inquiry.

6. Emphasizes the generation, transformation, and use of professional knowledge and practice. (“Definition of and Working Principles,” n.d., para. 6)

CPED PRINCIPLES

CPED has six (6) design concepts that define program components that support the development of the Scholar Practitioner: Scholarly Practitioner blend practical wisdom with

professional skills and knowledge to name, frame, and solve problems of practice;

Signature Pedagogy is a set of practices used to prepare scholarly practitioners for all aspects of their professional work;

Inquiry as Practice is the process of posing significant questions that focus on complex problems of practice. By using various research, theories, and professional wisdom, scholarly practitioners design innovative solutions to address the problems of practice;

CPED DESIGN CONCEPTS

Laboratories of Practice are settings where theory and practice inform and enrich each other;

Problem of Practice is a persistent, contextualized, and specific issue embedded in the work of a professional practitioner; addressing the issue has the potential to result in improved understanding, experience, and outcomes; and

Dissertation in Practice is a scholarly endeavor that impacts a complex problem of practice. (“Design Concept Definitions,” n.d., para. 2-6)

CPED DESIGN CONCEPTS

In 2012, faculty and Fellows from CPED Consortium member institutions engaged in a mixed-methods, multi-case study of work at 21 of the 25 original CPED member institutions

Focus of the study was to explore the experiences of the institutions in the design/redesign process of their CPED-influenced education doctorate

Cross-case analysis of institutional experiences were used to identify strategies used for organizational change

BACKGROUND TO STUDY

Change can be defined as simply “the introduction of something new to an organization” (Bess & Dee, 2008, p. 796)

According to Keller (1983), higher education institutions are known to change incrementally and adapt in an unplanned way Incremental change is unlikely to address societal needs It is often not guided by a united vision Adaptations are often haphazard, inefficient, and may not

be responsive to institutional goals Often takes on the form of adding more responsibilities to

existing personnel, which place unreasonable burdens on those involved (e.g., faculty, staff, administration)

CHANGE IN HIGHER EDUCATION ORGANIZATIONS

In order to redesign a degree program in higher education, faculty must be involved in the change process

Theories of change can be used to assess the change process when working with faculty Lewin’s (1951) force field analysis of change supports that

change resistance can be addressed when people understand and contrast the need for change and the forces that may lead them to resist change (restraining forces) and those that induce them to change (driving forces)

PROCESSES OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

Lewin’s process for managing change includes: Unfreezing – presenting information to organizational

members that supports change is needed Changing – create a change in the way people think –

want to create ownership in the change process Refreezing – stabilizing the new change into the

culture of the organization

PROCESSES OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

Results of this study implied that most of the study institutions utilized a planned approach to facilitating change, which is normally aligned with a top-down, centralized structure (Bess & Dee, 2008)

Planned change approach is normally driven by: Need to be responsive to external constituents Resources and time are limited Change initiative formulated by ambitious change

agent(e.g, College of Education Dean) with vision but executed by others who may not share vision/ambition (e.g., faculty)

Over time, change initiative will lose energy unless faculty and staff are involved in the development of the change

Communication and institutionalization of vision should be managed from the top for institution-wide change

PLANNED APPROACH TO FACILITATING CHANGE

At the study institutions, the vision to redesign the education doctorate was generated predominantly from administration Mainly through the College of Education Dean At some institutions, the change was demanded by the state or

University PresidentRedesign of the EdD need for multiple reasons

Institutions had a number of students who were ABD and who were not completing

Indistinguishable differences existed between the EdD and PhD within a program and/or college

Pressures from state leaders who saw other states developing EdD practitioner-based programs; and

Demands from the community/region/state for qualified educational leaders were increasing

SETTING THE VISION FOR CHANGE

Administration was instrumental in the planned change processes at the study institutions Driven by external demands Funding shortfalls

Principal Investigators (PI’s) for CPED project were identified at each institution Appointed by the Dean of the College Charged with leading the change processes to achieve

the visionGrassroots faculty were identified at some institutions

who believed in the vision and felt impelled to lead

CHANGE AGENTS

Committees, task forces, PI, and transparency through documentation was used to convey changes and the vision

Information was shared through university-wide communication systems, regular faculty meetings, and individual meetings

COMMUNICATING THE VISION FOR CHANGE

Change process was based on planned change model Charge from top-level administration that the deficiencies of

the education doctorate needed to be addressed Appointment of leadership to lead the change process and

carry out the vision At some institutions, faculty participation in the change

process was mandated; at others resistors to change were realigned to other foci areas

Development of human resources was conducted through sharing of CPED convening information, as well as CPED principles and design concepts; participation in curriculum development and teaching of courses and chairing dissertations

CHANGE PROCESS

Reinforcement of the vision was constant and continuous

Incentives were provided at some institutions to support change processes through opportunities to co-teach, course releases, and retreats

Constant dialog supported the forward progression of change

CHANGE PROCESS

Leadership Deans came and went Many individuals in the PI positions

Resources Lack of sufficient resources to support increased faculty

workloads due to design concepts of CPED-influenced EdD and the shortening of time to degree

Communications Often not at all levels of the organization Unclear and inconsistent

CHALLENGES TO CHANGE

Faculty Resistors who prevented forward progress in change

initiatives Concerns about working with the EdD and how it was

viewed in tenure and promotion Curriculum was in a constant state of flux and redesign Differing philosophies on what the education doctorate

should look and feel like

CHALLENGES TO CHANGE

Leadership PI should have the skills and abilities to collaborate and

communicate effectively Participate in CPED convenings and disseminating

information broadly Utilize faculty “champions” to lead initiatives Utilize work groups, task forces, and committees with

foci on specific components of the redesign effortsCommunications

Monthly meetings that provide structured agendas and clear communication of information consistently

STRATEGIES TO OVERCOME CHANGE CHALLENGES

Resources Allocation of resources to support co-teaching and

course releases Travel support to CPED convenings Support of retreats and other activities to support

redesign work and dialogFaculty

Resistance to change overcome by creating transparency through distribution of documentation; involvement in committees and leadership support

Mandated involvement of all faculty resulted in greater support at all levels

STRATEGIES TO OVERCOME CHANGE CHALLENGES

Bess, J. L., & Dee. J. R. (2008). Understanding college and university organization: Theories for effective policy and practice. Volume II - Dynamics of the system. Sterl ing, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Definit ion of and Working Principles for EdD Program Design. (n.d.). The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. Retrieved from http://cpedinit iat ive.org/working-principles-professional-practice-doctorate-education

Design Concept Definit ions. (n.d.). The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. Retrieved from http://cpedinit iat ive.org/design-concept-definit ions

Keller, G. (1983). Academic strategy: The management revolution in higher education . Balt imore: John Hopkins University Press.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science . New York: Harper & Row.

REFERENCES