Merging Theories and Practice

In order to assist the analysis and the merging of different areas of theory a number of visual representations of the information space were created which are

represented in the figures below.

Beginning from the original definition of four cultures used by McNay (McNay, 1995) An initial representation which has previously appeared in Chapter Eight was

considered.. For ease of reference It is shown below (29).

Figure 29. The Four Cultures of the University (McNay, 1995)

This initial representation takes at its core the four approaches to organisation found in Higher Education: collegial; corporate; bureaucratic and enterprise, as discussed by McNay. Although every institution will incorporate a mix of these approaches, it is possible to typify the possible causes and consequence of the approaches which are found as discussed in Chapter Seven, Change and Innovation.

This view is important because it draws attention to the argument that an institution’s ability to change will be affected; accelerated or inhibited, because of drivers or constraints which are a consequence of its organisational structure.

The next perspective which was considered relates specifically to the uptake of learning technologies. When Geoghegan asked “Whatever Happened to Instructional Technology?” (Geoghegan, 1994b) he compared Moore’s “Crossing the Chasm” observation of the key success factors for technology based companies (Moore, 1991) to those which impacted on the uptake of instructional technology. Geoghegan suggested that to achieve widespread change in practice it was necessary for

implementers to adopt approaches which would be effective for the early majority. Factors which enhanced the appeal of innovations to the early adopters were not the same as those which held sway with the early majority. He suggested therefore that the use of learning technology would be more likely to become embedded when the technology or its providers addressed specific preferences of those individuals or groups who would form the early majority of users. The factors are summarised below (Table 16).

Table 16. Early Adopters vs. Early Majority (Geoghegan, 1995)

Having taken these two views into account and reflecting on the data collected in the case study interviews an additional model was drawn (30) which combined some parts of the two models by McNay and Geoghegan and considered the role of

external drivers in the UK higher education context. The diagram is not definitive, but is included to demonstrate the thought process which was to be developed in greater detail subsequently.

Figure 30. Mindmap Showing Four Cultures and Crossing the Chasm

Interviewees in the case study exemplars all mentioned external drivers. The history of learning technologies in the UK and the wider community has benefited from funding from a range of external sources.

The four external sources most frequently referenced were:

• The Funding Councils (specifically HEFCE since all institutions were English)

• The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)

• The Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC)

• The Research Councils

As is suggested in the diagram each source exerts influence in a different way and may have greater or lesser importance with different audiences.

In the diagram the activities of the early majority are seen on the right hand side, while the early adopters are placed on the left hand side.

Briefly, the reasoning for the positioning of the external drivers (encircled) is as outlined below.

11.7.1 Early Majority

Beginning with the Bureaucratic Culture, external funding bodies such as HEFCE seek to shape institutional activities by directing their monies, by promoting specific initiatives through ring-fenced spending (such as the TQEF funding, which was recognised in interviews as being significant), by requiring policies and procedures as well as monitoring for accountability.

Mainstream funding council activities relate to a Corporate Culture. Funding council involvement lies behind the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) and the Higher Education Academy. For the period of the study, the QAA has been a more

significant player in determining external drivers for institutions. The QAA does not provide explicit funding but seeks to steer practices through its requirements,

inspections and expectations in terms of policies and procedures. The QAA is also a mechanism for government policy, but it necessarily has greater impact on those institutions where the larger part of activity and income generation is through teaching activities. Activities and requirements of the funding councils and the various authorities concerned with the regulation of teaching have a greater impact on the activities of the early majority.

11.7.2 Early Adopters

The project focussed activities engendered by the research councils and the JISC impact most directly on the activities of the early adopters. From the institutions interviewed the JISC was most commonly referred to as a source which would stimulate activity in learning technologies. Research council activities affect

institutional e-learning activities only marginally, but can be recognised in the context of institutional drivers and barriers as a core to many institutional activities in the extent that they enable financial autonomy, for individuals, teams, schools, departments and faculties; and ultimately, whole institutions. The extent of this autonomy varies as does an institution’s research strengths and priorities.

The JISC direct funding, manages and funds a wide range of initiatives under the e- learning banner. Alongside project funding, the JISC has also taken responsibility for providing technological infrastructure, generating policy guidance documents and initiating strategic planning projects. The JISC, therefore, sit in the enterprise area

(through projects which stimulate outward facing activities and horizontal associations) and attempt to sit in the bureaucratic area (though their work with information system managers and their production of guides and strategic planning guidance).

The picture is more complex than this argument because of the inter-relationship between the JISC and the funding councils (in the case of the case studies HEFCE was the only funding council involved).

11.7.3

A more elaborate model

The view provided via the mindmap is indicative, showing some clear lines of influence which need to be taken into account if attempts are to be made to theorise drivers and barriers in UK Higher Education.

This initial diagramming prompted an attempt to draw a more integrative picture of the whole area using a concept map approach (Figure 31). The diagram takes as its core in purple the balance of cultures proposed by McNay. Around this core, grey boxes indicate major external influences. Pale green boxes indicate experiences which emerged consistently during the interviews. The pale grey boxes introduce concepts from Geoghegan’s model and place them alongside the experience reported in the case studies.

Figure 31. Concept Map of Four Cultures and Crossing the Chasm

The most significant observation is the way in which academic practice found in all institutions (and thus academic culture) supports behaviours which are typical of the

early adopters whilst corporate behaviour, which is found more in the teaching intensive institutions, supports behaviours which are typical of the early majority. One area of teaching which might be found in both research intensive and teaching intensive institutions is that of focused teaching, which may be brought about by ambitions of significant income generation from teaching, or through large student numbers (as in the case of popular or necessarily large teaching areas such as medicine and nursing). In these instances, academics involved in learning

technologies could experience tightly controlled policy definition and tightly controlled implementation conditions, and therefore are more likely to fall into the area of the early majority.