Month: May 2009 Page 1 of 2

The following is an early section on the Process component of the Ps Framework and is intended as part of chapter 2 of my thesis. Still fairly rough, but somewhat cleaner than some of the thesis sections I’ve shared here.

Teleological and ateleological processes

Clegg (2002) suggests that one of the most pervasive debates in management has been between the “planning school” and the “learning school”. The planning/learning school continuum is mirrored in a range of literature describing different approaches to processes. Table 2.1 provides a summary of some of this literature. Table 2.1 and this thesis make use of the terminology introduced by Introna (1996) with respect to design processes: teleological and ateleological. This continuum covers the spectrum of different types of processes identified in the literature on and informing the practice of e-learning within universities.

Table 2.1 – Different authors and terms for the teleological/ateleological continuum

Author	Teleological	Ateleological
Mintzberg (1989)	Deliberate strategy	Emergent strategy
Brews and Hunt (1999) Clegg (2002)	Planning school	Learning school
Seely Brown and Hagel (2005)	Push systems	Pull systems
Kutz and Snowden (2007)	Idealistic	Naturalistic
Hutchins (1991)	Supervisory reflection and intervention	Local adjustment
Truex, Baskerville and Klein (1999)	Traditional information systems design	Emergent information systems design
March (1991)	Exploitation	Exploration
Boehm and Turner (2003)	Plan-driven	Agile

Introna (1996) identified eight attributes of a design process and uses them to distinguish between the two extremes: teleological (planning school) and ateleological (learning school). The eight attributes of a design processes are used by Introna (1996) to highlight the differences between the two extremes. This work is summarised in Table 2.2 and will be expanded in the following sections.

Table 2.2 – Attributes of teleological and ateleological design processes (adapted from Introna, 1996)

Attributes of the design process	Teleological development	Ateleological development
Ultimate purpose	Goal/purpose	Wholeness/harmony
Intermediate goals	Effectiveness/efficiency	Equilibrium/homeostasis
Design focus	Ends/result	Means/process
Designers	Explicit designer	Member/part
Design scope	Part	Whole
Design process	Creative problem solving	Local adaptation, reflection and learning
Design problems	Complexity and conflict	Time
Design management	Centralized	Decentralized
Design control	Direct intervention in line with a master plan	Indirect via rules and regulators

The information systems discipline has seen fairly widespread domination by teleological thinking and ateleological design taking on a subservient position (Introna 1996). A position reinforced by the labels used by Truex et al (Truex, Baskerville et al. 1999) where teleological design was described as traditional information systems design while ateleological design is labeled emergent information systems design. Introna (1996) suggests that most, if not all, of what happens within modern organizations is teleological. Teleological processes dominate the training and practice of information systems development (Baskerville, Travis et al. 1992). Many, if not most, universities follow, or at least profess to follow, a purpose driven approach – a teleological approach – to setting strategic directions (McConachie, Danaher et al. 2005).

There are risky extremes inherent in both approaches that must be avoided if organizations and systems are to be functional rather than dysfunctional (Jones, Luck et al. 2005). An extreme pre-occupation for either exploration or exploitation can trap organizations in unproductive states (March 1991). A purely deliberative strategy suggests no learning, while a purely emergent strategy suggests no control (Mintzberg 1994). A synthesis of the most productive elements of both teleological and ateleological approaches is crucial to addressing the plethora of issues competing for the attention of university decision-makers (Jones, Luck et al. 2005). The aim of this section is to offer a brief explanation of the two ends of the process continuum and the relevant weaknesses and strengths of the two extremes. The following section (Section 2.1.2) examines the literature around the processes used in universities and, in particular, for e-learning.

References

Baskerville, R., J. Travis, et al. (1992). Systems without method: the impact of new technologies on information systems development projects. The Impact of Computer Supported Technologies on Information Systems Development. K. E. Kendall. Amsterdam, North-Holland: 241-251.

Boehm, B. and R. Turner (2003). "Using risk to balance agile and plan-driven methods." Computer 36(6): 57-66.

Brews, P. and M. Hunt (1999). "Leanring to plan and planning to learn: Resolving the planning school/learning school debate." Strategic Management 20(10): 889-913.

Clegg, S. (2002). Management and organization paradoxes. Philadelphia, PA, John Benjamins Publishing.

Hutchins, E. (1991). "Organizing work by adaptation." Organization Science 2(1): 14-39.

Introna, L. (1996). "Notes on ateleological information systems development." Information Technology & People 9(4): 20-39.

Jones, D., J. Luck, et al. (2005). The teleological brake on ICTs in open and distance learning. Conference of the Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia’2005, Adelaide.

Kurtz, C. and D. Snowden (2007). Bramble Bushes in a Thicket: Narrative and the intangiables of learning networks. Strategic Networks: Learning to Compete. Gibbert, Michel, Durand and Thomas, Blackwell.

March, J. (1991). "Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning." Organization Science 2(1): 71-87.

McConachie, J., P. Danaher, et al. (2005) "Central Queensland University’s Course Management Systems: Accelerator or brake in engaging change?" International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning Volume,  DOI:

Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning: Reconceiving roles for planning, plans, planners. New York, Free Press.

Seely-Brown, J. and J. Hagel (2005) "From push to pull: The next frontier of innovation." The McKinsey Quarterly Volume,  DOI:

Truex, D., R. Baskerville, et al. (1999). "Growing systems in emergent organizations." Communications of the ACM 42(8): 117-123.

I’m currently on a bit of a wave with bashing the consultant model of change, i.e. a model by which an “expert” from outside comes into a context performs or directs the performance of some analysis and evaluation of the context and then, drawing on their vast knowledge, recommends some ways forward. I started my “bashing wave” in a post comparing this model with the “fat smoker” problem (telling them what they already know isn’t sufficient to create change) and then continued with this inspiration from Dilbert.

Aside – Dilbert’s latest contribution

Which reminds more of the SNAFU principle.

Back to the consultants

The real reason for this post was to save this quote for later purposes. It’s talking about professional development around ICTs in education and the facilitators (i.e. consultants)

Facilitators however can pay
too much attention to analysis and recommendations and not enough to the complexity of translating these into actions. (Watson, 2006)

The quote is part of a section title “The problematic of the teacher” which resides in a broader section titled “Enduring issues”. The other enduring issues are: understanding learning; learning about or learning with; and, a technocentric enthusiasm.

Some other quotes from the section on those problematic teachers

Beynon and Mackay (1992, 1993) reflect that introducing ICTs into teaching create a number of tensions that professional development does not necessarily resolve. I have myself noted the dichotomy of purpose in rationales for using technology that leaves teachers unconvinced (Watson, 2001); and that those who don’t use ICT do so because it resonates with their personal beliefs and professional philosophy of teaching (Watson, 1993). And yet much professional development for using ICT in education leaves the participants feeling that training has been done to them rather than with them (Burstow, 2006)

And there is the following one, which really resonates with the local context and some recent discussions

Research such as that reported by Gross, Giacquinta, and Berstein (1971) indicated that there was no resistance to planned change on the part of teachers. On the contrary, they were receptive to educational innovation, but the strategies for implementation were deficient in two respects—failure to identify and bring into the open various difficulties teachers were liable to encounter in their implementation effects, and failure to establish and use feedback mechanisms to uncover barriers that arose during the period of attempted implementation. (Watson, 2006)

Note the date on that reference 1971. That’s 38 years ago, and yet I would suggest that there are still institutions that have implementation strategies that have these same two deficiencies. I would go further to suggest that those same organisations, when questioned about these deficiencies, respond with typical model 1 behaviours and defensive routines.

Especially when those implementation strategies rely on specialised project managers to manage the implementation. Such project managers suffer exactly the same flaws as consultants and MBAs – emphasis on objectified knowledge and processes over context. An emphasis that leads to the above deficiencies, an increased tendency to see the participants in the change as recalcitrant and lead to feelings from the participants of change being done to them, rather than with them.

References

Gross, N., Giacquinta, J. B., & Berstein, M. (1971). Implementing organisational innovations: A sociological analysis of planned educational change. New York: Basic.

Watson, D. (2006). “Understanding the relationship between ICT and education means exploring innovation and change.” Education and Information Technologies 11(3-4): 199-216.

The following is yet another section from chapter two of my thesis. As with previous sections, this is an early first draft, it will change.

This section attempts to give a brief overview of the Purpose component of the Ps Framework.

Purpose

The purpose or reason for an organisation adopting e-learning or changing how it currently implements e-learning is widely understood to be an essential starting place for any project. How do you measure achievement if you have no shared understanding of what you are aiming for? Transformational change through e-learning requires institutional leaders, amongst other things, to articulate a clear, bold vision and demonstrate a broad understanding and acceptance of that view (Hitt and Hartman 2002). The common features of successful implementations of Learning Management Systems include realistic operationalised objectives and defined project scope (Wise and Quealy 2006).

Many, if not most, universities follow, or at least profess to follow, a purpose driven approach to setting strategic directions (McConachie, Danaher et al. 2005). It has, however, been argued that a “fixed purpose” approach to e-learning within universities significantly limits flexibility and choice for learners and learning (Jones and Muldoon 2007). Problems with a “fixed purpose” approach are discussed in more detail in the Process (Insert cross ref) and Place (Insert cross ref) components of the Ps Framework. Rather than repeat these arguments, the aim of this section is to give a broad overview of the claimed purpose behind the adoption of e-learning within Universities. It does this by starting first at what is known about the broader purposes of universities (Section 2.1.1) and learning (Section 2.1.2) before examining e-learning (Section 2.1.3). Finally, it attempts to draw out some lessons for future implementation of e-learning from the Place component (Section 2.1.5).

Purpose of universities

Understandings of the purpose of a university are many and diverse. Rashdall (1895) concluded that the university embodied three educational values: the provision of professional training and the highest intellectual cultivation possible; a desire to conserve, transmit and advance knowledge; and the joining together of teachers of diverse subjects into a single harmonious institution. The idea of a Humboldtian university, a common perspective underpinning many modern universities, encapsulates an idea of freedom from external controls and academic autonomy (McNay 1995).

Martin and Etzkowitz (2000) identify two main conceptions held about the purpose of a university:

1. the pure or ‘immaculate’ conception; and
   A view that sees the purpose of the university is education and knowledge for its own sake.
2. the instrumental or utilitarian ethos.
   Where the role of the university is to create and disseminate knowledge and train students with skills, which are deemed useful to society.

It is perhaps timely to mention the discussion of the limitations of dichotomous views of such binary views, and the value of harnessing paradox mentioned in the section (insert cross ref) on Place.

Diversity in the purpose of universities arise from a large number of factors. Table 2.1 provides an overview and description of some of these factors. As a result of the factors shown in Table 2.1 and others, higher education’s purposes and mandates are multiple and under constant pressure to change to such an extent as its very definition becomes unclear (Kogan 2000). The existence of several competing visions of true purpose is the cause of much of the malaise within modern university communities (Kerr 2001). On the other hand, any attempt to enforce commitment to an all-embracing set of values would inhibit innovative thought or create tensions that fracture the institution (Marginson 2007). The contemporary university suffers from an acute case of mission confusion (Jongbloed, Enders et al. 2008).

Table 2.1 – Some of the factors increasing diversity in the purpose of universities

Factors	Description
Individual or societal outcomes	There are disagreements about whether universities should aim to promote individual or social outcomes (Bell 2004).
Competition leading to differentiation	Increased national and international competition cause universities to search for a unique purpose in order to increase differentiation and attract students and academic staff (Waeraas and Solbakk 2009).
Freedom	Freedom (to varying levels) granted to academic staff enable the pursuit of a broad range of objectives and agendas, with varying values and ethical regimes in order to fulfil the knowledge-forming role of universities (Marginson 2007).
Responsive	In order to reflect the ever-changing philosophical ideals, educational policies and cultures of particular societies or institutions, university missiones are dynamic and fluid (Scott 2006).
Changing tasks	Tasks expected of universities are so multifarious, subject to change, mutually contradictory and immediately pressing (de Ridder-Symoens and Ruegg 2003).

Purpose of learning

It can be argued that the purpose of learning, particularly within universities, can be seen through two conceptions very similar to those identified by Martin and Etzkowitz (2000) for the broader purpose of universities: the immaculate and utilitarian. The immaculate conceptions include a broad array of work from diverse authors, including but not limited to Illich (1972) and Friere (Freire 2000), while the utilitarian approach sees learning as making contributions to society. Illustrating these two conceptions, Thompson (quoted in Mayo 1999) suggests

Education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate the integration of generations into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity to it, or it becomes the ‘practice of freedom’, the means by which men and women deal critically with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world.

While Illich (1972) suggests

A good education system should have three purposes: it should provide all who want to learn with access to available resources at any time in their lives; empower all who want to share what they know to find those who want to learn it from them; and finally furnish all who want to present an issue to the public with the opportunity to make their challenge known.

Increasingly the purpose of universities with respect to learning is seen through a more utilitarian perspective. Mass access to tertiary education is seen as a major contributor to the fostering of knowledge societies (OECD 2005). The knowledge society becomes increasingly dependent upon the social institutions that create knowledge and educate people (Duderstadt, Atkins et al. 2002). Consequently, the neo-liberal state continues to control universities through devolved mechanisms including accountability-based funding (Lewis, Marginson et al. 2005). Increasingly higher education is expected from outside and increasingly intends to be a strategic actor that sets clear goals and establish forceful means of pursuing the implementation of strategies (Brenan 2008).

The wider regulatory context encourages the development of learning and teaching strategies that focus on students’ learning (Newton 2003). From a quality assurance perspective Biggs (2001) suggests the basic purpose is whether or not “our teaching programmes are producing the results we say we want in terms of student learning?”. From a utilitarian perspective the desired results are related to serving the needs of the society within which universities operate. A perspective in which education is a commodity and universities are enterprise institutions selling educational products (White 2006).

Purpose of e-learning within universities

The stated and apparent reasons behind the adoption of e-learning within universities exhibits many of the characteristics identified within the broader purpose of universities and learning. That is, it is possible to identify a significant diversity in the reasons behind the adoption of e-learning within universities that can be grouped within both the immaculate and utilitarian conceptions of purpose. There is, however, similar to the growth of utilitarian perspectives of learning within universities, an identifiable preponderance of utilitarian drivers for e-learning.

In discussing the influence of the learning management system (LMSs) Coates et al (2005) identify six drivers that have enhanced the attractiveness of LMSs to universities and have driven their rapid uptake. More broadly, these drivers can also be seen in the broader literature about e-learning.

Table 2.2 – Drivers behind the adoption of e-learning

Driver	Description
Efficiency	E-learning can reduce the administrative burden on teachers (Britain and Liber 2000).
Enriched student learning	E-learning technologies are adopted to enhance the flexibility of traditional teaching (Nanayakkara and Whiddett 2005).
New student expectations	Technology is necessary to meet the changing demands and entry-level skills of recent high school graduates (Duderstadt, Wulf et al. 2005). Online education is increasingly common in tertiary education in response to the growing needs of the student population (Nanayakkara and Whiddett 2005).
Competitive pressure	E-learning is a way to respond to a changing and more competitive marketplace (Xu and Meyer 2007).
Responding to massification	E-learning overcomes access limitations caused by the lack of physical infrastructure (Coates, James et al. 2005).
Control	LMSs appear to offer a means of regulating and packaging pedagogical activities, to create order (Coates, James et al. 2005).

There is a tendency to see technology as the “magic bullet” that will enable reforms to make university learning more accessible, more affordable and more effective (Van Dusen 1998). There does, however, remain significantly questions about this ability and about whether or not e-learning can actually fulfil the needs identified by the drivers described in Table 2.2 or whether or not fulfilling such requirements will have negative consequences. For example, Wise and Quealy (2006) suggest that there is no evidence that the selection of an LMS has any affect on the enrolment choice of students.

Lessons from purpose

The above has suggested that increasingly universities are being driven more by the utilitarian conception of their purpose rather than the immaculate. Universities and their learning and teaching are increasingly expected to be accountable and consequently managed through strategic, plan-driven approaches that tend to prefer a unity of purpose. At the least, e-learning within universities needs to demonstrate an appropriately pragmatic level of support for this the increasingly utilitarian and singular view or purpose. In addition, this section suggests two two additional lessons from this discussion of Purpose for the implementation of e-learning: problems with purpose proxies, and problems with a singular view of purpose.

Problems with purpose proxies

The rise of the minimalist state (see cross reference to society section) brings with it accountability-based and performance-oriented funding strategies on the part of government that require standardized data collections (Lewis, Marginson et al. 2005). However, no ranking or quality assessment system has been able measure the value added during education and few comparisons focus on teaching and learning (Marginson 2007). A significant and related problem is that measurement and quantification distort the character of what is being measured (Shore 2008) and divert attention from the central purposes of higher education (Marginson 2007).

Instead of valid data, various proxies of teaching quality are used, even though empirical research suggests little correlation between those proxies and quality outcomes (Marginson 2007). In order to obtain meaningful measures for the audit process the meaning of teaching quality is being transformed into something that can be quantified and standardized (Shore and Wright 2000). It is becoming less important how well an academic teaches or whether or not students are inspired, it is more important that they have fulfilled the prescriptions outlined by externally driven policy (Johnson 1994).

Problems with a singular view of purpose

Goal ambiguity is a defining characteristic of higher education institutions (Hearn 1996). As argued above, broader agreement about purpose within a university may not only be impossible but undesirable (Marginson 2007). For example, the absence of a specific or single purpose can make individuals within an organisation more open to change (Kezar 2001). With e-learning the different campus cultures and lack of a single, unified vision for e-learning work against a single tool being considered best across the board (UF CMSAG 2003). Rather than expend resources attempting to develop, promulgate and deal with the resulting tension associated with enforcement of a singular view of purpose, it may be more appropriate to accept and harness the diversity inherent within universities.

References

Bell, P. (2004). "On the theoretical breadth of design-based research in education." Educational Psychologist 39(4): 243-253.

Biggs, J. (2001). "The Reflective Institution: Assuring and Enhancing the Quality of Teaching and Learning." Higher Education 41(3): 221-238.

Brenan, J. (2008). "Higher Education and Social Change." Higher Education 56(3): 381-393.

Britain, S. and O. Liber. (2000). "A Framework for Pedgogical Evaluation of Virtual Learning Environments."   Retrieved 21 Nov, 2006, 2006, from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001237.htm.

Coates, H., R. James, et al. (2005). "A Critical Examination of the Effects of Learning Management Systems on University Teaching and Learning." Tertiary Education and Management 11(1): 19-36.

de Ridder-Symoens, H. and W. Ruegg (2003). A history of the university in Europe, Cambridge University Press.

Duderstadt, J., D. Atkins, et al. (2002). Higher education in the digital age: Technology issues and strategies for American colleges and universities. Westport, Conn, Praeger Publishers.

Duderstadt, J., W. Wulf, et al. (2005). "Envisioning a transformed university." Issues in Science and Technology 22(1).

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London, Ctoinuum International Publishing Group.

Hearn, J. (1996). "Transforming U.S. Higher Education: An Organizational Perspective." Innovative Higher Education 21(2): 141-154.

Hitt, J. and J. Hartman (2002). Distributed learning: New challenges and opportunities for institutional leadership. Washington, American Council on Education: 28.

Illich, I. (1972). Deschooling society. New York, Harper and Row.

Johnson, N. (1994). "Dons in decline." Twentieth Century British History 5(3): 370-385.

Jones, D. and N. Muldoon (2007). The teleological reason why ICTs limit choice for university learners and learning. ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ASCILITE Singapore 2007, Singapore.

Jongbloed, B., J. Enders, et al. (2008). "HIgher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda." Higher Education 56(3): 303-324.

Kerr, C. (2001). The uses of the university. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.

Kezar, A. (2001). "Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st Century: Recent Research and Conceptulizations." ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 28(4).

Kogan, M. (2000). Higher Education Research in Europe. Knowledge Management in the Learning Society. Paris, France, Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, OECD: 193-209.

Lewis, T., S. Marginson, et al. (2005). "The network university? Technology, culture and organisational complexity in contemporary higher education." Higher Education Quarterly 59(1): 56-75.

Marginson, S. (2007). "University mission and identity for a post-public era." Higher Education Research & Development 26(1): 117-131.

Martin, B. and H. Etzkowitz (2000). "The origin and evolution of the university species." Journal for Science and Technology Studies 13(3-4): 9-34.

Mayo, P. (1999). Gramsci, Freire, and adult education: possibilities for transformative action. New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

McConachie, J., P. Danaher, et al. (2005) "Central Queensland University’s Course Management Systems: Accelerator or brake in engaging change?" International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning Volume,  DOI:

McNay, I. (1995). From the collegial academy to the corporate enterprise: The changing cultures of universities. The Changing University. T. Schuller. Buckingham, Open University Press: 105-115.

Nanayakkara, C. and D. Whiddett (2005). A model of user acceptance of e-learning technologies: A case study of a Polytechnic in New Zealand. 4th International Conference on Information Systems Technology and its Application (ISTA’2005), Palmerston North, New Zealand, GI.

Newton, J. (2003). "Implementing an institution-wide learning and teaching strategy: lessons in managing change." Studies in Higher Education 28(4): 427-441.

OECD (2005). E-Learning in Tertiary Education: Where do we stand? Paris, France, Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Rashdall, H. (1895). The universities of Europe in the Middle Ages. Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Scott, J. (2006). "The mission of the University: Medieval to postmodern transformations." The Journal of Higher Education 77(1): 1-39.

Shore, C. (2008). "Audit culture and Illiberal governance: Universities and the politics of accountability." Anthropological Theory 8(3): 278-298.

Shore, C. and S. Wright (2000). Coercive accountability: The rise of audit culture in higher education. Audit Cultures. M. Strathern. Milton Park, UK, Routledge: 57-89.

UF CMSAG. (2003). "Report of the University of Florida Course Management System Advisory Group."   Retrieved 21 Nov, 2006, 2006, from http://at.ufl.edu/~cmsag/cms_recommendations.pdf.

Van Dusen, G. (1998). "Technology: Higher education’s magic bullet." The NEA Higher Education Journal: 59-67.

Waeraas, A. and M. Solbakk (2009). "Defining the essence of a university: lessons from higher education branding." Higher Education 57(4): 449-462.

White, N. (2006). "Tertiary education in the Noughties: the student perspective." Higher Education Research & Development 25(3): 231-246.

Wise, L. and J. Quealy. (2006, May, 2006). "LMS Governance Project Report." from http://www.infodiv.unimelb.edu.au/telars/talmet/melbmonash/media/LMSGovernanceFinalReport.pdf.

Xu, Y. and K. Meyer (2007). "Factors explaining faculty technology use and productivity." Internet and Higher Education 10(2): 41-52.

The main point of this post is to save this quote. I’m about to delete it from the thesis, can’t make it fit, and I think it is important.

(Zellweger 2005) the tasks assigned to each group bear a number of inherent conflicts. For example, the push of instructional designers for creative and flexible solutions matching a faculty member’s goals might impose a threat for well-rehearsed IT processes. The deviation of standard solutions implicates a certain risk that IT workers would rather avoid as they most of all feel responsible for the stability and security of the IT systems.

It connects with a sentence or two from an earlier post

Ayers (2004) observes that academic and information technology cultures, two of the main sub-cultures involved with e-learning within universities, do not mix together well. The differing viewpoints and subsequently the varying and competing priorities of the different sub-cultures within an organisation can lead to considerable internal tension (Luck, Jones et al. 2004).

References

Ayers, E. (2004). “The Academic Culture and the IT Culture: Their Effect on Teaching and Scholarship.” EDUCAUSE Review 39(6): 48-62.

Luck, J., D. Jones, et al. (2004). “Challenging Enterprises and Subcultures: Interrogating ‘Best Practice’ in Central Queensland University’s Course Management Systems.” Best practice in university learning and teaching: Learning from our Challenges. Theme issue of Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development 1(2): 19-31.

Zellweger, F. (2005). Strategic Management of Educational Technology: The Importance of Leadership and Management. 27th Annual EAIR Forum. Riga, Latvia.