The ‘Higher-ness’ of ‘Further-ness’ in HFE: Organising at the HFE Interface

Higher Education in Further Education in England (HFE) is claimed to be:

Under theorised

Under researched

Under Valued

The limitation of dichotomies, dualisms and continuums for understanding HFE

Static Emphasising differences Lacking in context Prone to Reification Simplistic Lacking holism and relationality

An Alternative analytical model Based upon neo-institutionalist theory:

institutions matter Incorporating context and situational

factors and arguing that institutions matter

Arguing for relationality and positionality within an HFE organisational field

Incorporating Holism and Path Dependency

Defining Institutions “the rules of the game in a society, or more

formally, ..the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction.” North (1990, p 3)

“(i)nstitutions consist of cognitive, normative, and regulative structures and activities that provide stability and meaning to social behavior. Institutions are transported by various carriers—cultures, structures, and routines—and they operate at multiple levels of jurisdiction” (Scott, 1995 p 33)

Legitimacy and Institutions Organisations seek legitimacy in their

operating environment as a means of accessing resources

Coercive isomorphism Normative isomorphism Mimetic isomorphism

Isomorphism HFE Coercive isomorphism

QAAHE HEFCE

Isomorphism in HFE Normative isomorphism

Peer review Communities of practice Research networks Disciplinary cultures

Isomorphism in HFE Mimetic isomorphism

Reputation Status Brand Often a function of uncertainty

Organisational fields

“those organizations that, in aggregate, constitute a recognized area of institutional life: key suppliers, resources and product consumers, regulatory agencies, and other organizations that produce similar services or products” (DiMaggio and Powell 1983, p148)

Organisational field ‘fields are defined in terms of shared

cognitive or normative framework or a common regulative system. The notion of field connotes the existence of a community of organizations that partakes of a common meaning system and whose participants interact more frequently and more fatefully with one and another than with actors outside of the field’. Scott (1995:56)

Emergence of an Organisational Field

Increased interaction between groups and organisations in field

Common meaning system evolves Increase of information load that

organisations in field are subject to Coalitions and alliances form over

common interests

THE HFE Organisational Field

Pre 1988: – HFE mainly public sector HFE (dominated by polys and colleges)1988 – 1992: Incorporation and abolition of the binary divide1992 – 1997: era of low policy1997 – date: era of high policy post Dearing

Structuration of HFE Organisational Field

By ethos of HFE By vocational emphasis and closeness to

world of work By different organisational forms By different traditions and cultures Through dual structures of funding and

quality assurance By scale and scope By power asymmetries at the interface

Mapping the Institutional Context Use of a heuristic as context to map socio-

structural spaces in HFE organisational field Helps to identify the process of embedding

in context Captures organisational dispositions

(habitus) and organisational positioning Institutionalising the HFE organisational field A contested terrain The legitimation or legitimacy of HFE

THE HFE Organisational Field

A positional construct (Positioning and positionality in a field)

Embedded at the Meso level: intersection of macro and micro

An analytical construct The outcome of a process of

institutionalisation and constant change at the boundaries

Organisational Dispositions Preference formation as an aspect of

institutional context: institutionalising organisational dispositions

Institutionalised classifications and categories in HFE (conventions and administrative conveniences: a historical legacy)

Positioning and repositioning HFE in an organisational field as a dynamic and iterative process of constant organising at the boundaries of HFE

Douglas’ grid group heuristic (sometimes called cultural theory)

A comparative device Links preferences and dispositions of agents

to patterns of organising Assumes an iterative, dialectical interplay

between the two dimensions (grid and group) but not a deterministic one

Asks where do preferences come from?

The Grid-Group Heuristic GRID

the degree to which HFE organisations are subject to externally imposed rules and regulations and associated role prescriptions

Roles, rules, categories and classifications of regulation that impinge on HFE providers as organisations.

The Grid-Group Heuristic GROUP

Patterns of group interaction, identity and boundary maintenance embedded in an organisational field

Organisational forms and patterns of structured inter organisational collaboration across HFE interface

Grid-GroupFatalism(isolated atomism)

ApathyRitualismIsolationPeripheralRisk as random

Hierarchy(bureaucracy)

Rule followingStandardisationStatus orders (Positionality)CentralisationRisk averse

Individualism(negotiation/bargaining)

MarketsEntrepreneurshipDiscovery processesBridging Structural HolesRisk as opportunity

Egalitarianism(sects/community of practices)

MutualityNetworksClansEnclaves Risk pooled

The Grid Group Quadrants Hierarchy strong grid strong group

(Bureaucracy) Individualism weak grid weak group

(Market) Egalitarianism (Enclaves) strong group

weak grid Fatalism Strong grid weak group

(isolated atomism)

Boundary work boundary crossings and boundary objects

Structured collaboration across the HFE interface

Mediated through Boundary Objects Boundary Objects located at inter

section of the grid group quadrants

Boundary Objects “objects which both inhabit several intersecting social

worlds and satisfy the informational requirements of each of them. Boundary objects are objects which as plastic enough to adapt to local needs and the constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites. They are weakly structured in common use, and become strongly structured in individual use. These objects may be abstract or concrete. They have different meanings in different social worlds but their structure is common enough to more than one world to make them recognizable, a means of translation. The creation and management of boundary objects is a key process in developing and maintaining coherence across intersecting social worlds.” (Start and Griesmer, 1989, p 393)

Boundary Objects (Carlile,2002)

Difference Dependency Novelty

Boundary Properties Syntactic Semantic pragmatic

Hybridisation Through boundary objects Through common funding and quality

assurance agencies for HE and HFE Through structured collaboration Through boundary work Through common policy focus:

Widening participation Access Organisational diversity

Context of Structured Collaboration Facilitate understanding through grid

group-heuristic Maps socio structural space, institutional

trajectories and relational spaces within an organisational field

locates boundary objects in inter organisational ‘communities of practice’ across the HFE interface

Contextualises boundaries and the HFE interface

Incorporates dynamic processual view of modal forms of organising in HFE

Boundary Objects and transactions at the HFE Interface

Hierarchy - Individualism (targets / Performance indicators / Quasi-markets etc.,)

Egalitarian - Hierarchy (Peer review / Status order: reputation)

Individualism - Hierarchy (League Tables; market forces)

Policy Lessons Perverse incentives Transaction Costs Intended and unintended consequences

of policy change Boundary Objects and Boundary Objects

in use (embedded) Contesting Legitimacy in HFE

Policy Lessons Which Boundary Objects are most likely

to be effective? How to manage tensions at the HFE

interface? Dual or binary systems and structures? Strengths and Weaknesses of different

modes of organising Arguing from different premises (grid

and group)