I begin by observing that our strategic context is becoming increasingly complex. The impact of world events cannot be ignored by the institutions of education. We will be publishing our first synthesis report of the programme at the end of August. This is a preliminary presentation of some key points that might be made at this time.
Institutional innovation is about the connected commons gaining a purchase on the institutions of society. In the JISC context this might be expressed as 21st century learners and institutions coming to an accommodation with each other. While this is a process that can be traced back more than a thousand years (think Chuang Tzu and Roger Bacon), it is nuanced by the particular characteristics of today’s world where globalisation, liberalisation, innovation and participation are the dynamic context. Locally we are facing disruptions to our economies, political uncertainty, reduced institutional income, increased international participation, and epistemological engineering along baroque business lines. These are reflected in HEFCE policies and the Leitch Review with their increased emphasis on employer engagement. The demise of the short-lived DIUS and the rise of BIS, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills now in charge of universities.
Universities might align themselves in two broad ways (and within departments of any university a similar process might be seen). Some universities may position themselves as global change agents. This might be how most of the older universities see themselves, but it is by no means their exclusive preserve. Other universities might position themselves as institutional improvement facilitators.
How this positioning plays out will have both emergent and given parameters. These parameters are in tension or dialogue, as are the connected commons of 21st century learners in tension with the institutions of education.
For given parameters we can identify a framework of institutional pragmatics – a framework within which projects are getting things done:
- Learning, teaching and assessment
- Research and development
- Business and community engagement
- Learning resources
- Administration
- ICT services
- Physical estates and learning spaces
- Mobile, location-aware and pervasive computing
- Carbon reduction and climate change
Emerging from the projects we see the development of three broad areas of activity:
- Open educational dialogue
- Technical enabling practices
- Social and cultural enabling practices
We are beginning a 2 level synthesis focusing on the tools, rules, communities (stakeholders) and roles.
- Projects as actors using tools in contexts. In this view, the Institutional Innovation Programme is the wider system. At this level we will focus on the local/micro/whats of institutional improvement facilitation.
- At the next level, we focus on the Programme itself as the actor using projects as tools to effect wider change. At this level we focus on the wider/macro/whys of global change agency. Here we face questions about how widely do we draw the system? All HE? JISC?
The discussions at ssbr0709 have been instrumental in furthering this synthesis.
George Roberts