Dialectical Change Theory in Higher

Dialectical Change Theory in Higher Education

Six main types of change theories exist: (1) evolutionary, (2) teleological, (3) life cycle, (4) dialectical, (5) social cognition, and (6) culturally-based models. Evolutionary theories suggest that change is inevitable, and evolves naturally over time in response to external and internal circumstances. Teleological theories attribute change to institutional leaders who see the necessity of change. Life-cycle models focus on the natural stages of growth, maturity, and decline of an organization. In contrast to these models, dialectical models see change as evolving from conflict, rather than as a linear process, a result of clashing ideologies or belief systems. Social-cognition models describe change as being tied to individual learning and psychology, and change occurs because individuals understand they need to grow, learn, and change their behavior in response to circumstances. In cultural models, change occurs within the institution as part of the natural alterations in the human environment as human cultures are always changing (Kezar 2004, p1).

While all of these models have their value in explaining changes in higher education, perhaps the dialectical model of change as the result of political wrangling is most appropriate. Universities have relatively autonomous governing bodies, including the different academic departments and different parts of the administration, as well as student and faculty organizations. All of these institutions have profoundly different interests, even though they may be housed within the confines of the same diffuse structure. The university model of leadership has been called 'organized anarchy' rather than a true organization. Take for example, a school that wishes to build a new football stadium. The football team advocates the construction because of its previous winning season. Other, less well-funded sporting teams howl in outrage -- the football team only recently won a championship and drew national attention, but the women's basketball team has had a consistent winning record for many years. Yet because it is not a 'money sport' that attracts alumni attendance it is ignored. These two groups desire change -- the swim team wants greater recognition and a reassessment of athletic priorities, the football team believes that as it attracts more spectators, it deserves a stadium.

Then, the alumni network begins to lobby hard for the stadium, as do certain students who want to belong to a well-regarded Division I school. The admissions office believes that a bigger stadium will attract more applicants. Current students struggling to pay tuition say the money should go to more scholarships and oppose the stadium. The conflict begins to grow more heated, and tensions between athletic students on scholarships and poorer students without scholarships grow, as do tension between teams, and faculty who oppose so much money going to a stadium vs. more conservative alumni.