Fall 2014 Stephanie J. Jones, Ed.D. Texas Tech University Copyright 2014 by the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate, Inc. (CPED). The foregoing material may be used for noncommercial educational purposes, provided that CPED is acknowledged as the author and copyright holder. Any other use requires the prior written consent of CPED. Webinar Strategies for Organizational Change – Redesigning the Education Doctorate

 Overview of CPED Principles and Design Concepts  Background to Study  Change in Higher Education Organizations  Processes of Organizational Change  Planned Approach to Organizational Change  Setting the Vision for Change & Change Agents  Communicating Vision for Change  Change 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 President  Redesign 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 vision  Grassroots 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 efforts  Communications  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 dialog  Faculty  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. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.  Definition of and Working Principles for EdD Program Design. (n.d.). The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. Retrieved from professional-practice-doctorate-education  Design Concept Definitions. (n.d.). The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. Retrieved from  Keller, G. (1983). Academic strategy: The management revolution in higher education. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.  Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row. REFERENCES