Academic Fads as a Practical and Ethical Challenge in Higher Education

Introduction: External Pressures and the Academic Fad

The notion of academic transformation has long permeated discussions on higher education in America. As culture, economy, and political pressures have shifted, so too have the demands and imperatives felt by the educational community to adapt where appropriate. This challenge has created an ongoing demand for universities to develop new ways of approaching new learning problems, new paradigms for promoting the values of any given discipline, and new points of focus as they relate to meeting student needs. Likewise, the financial realities of higher education have had an impact on this discussion, promoting consideration of how we should define the university, how higher education should regard its role in relation to the student "customer," and how broad institutional changes can be made without upsetting the fundamental values of higher learning.

The discussion here considers a significant dilemma that has emerged in the critical evaluation of this challenge — namely, the nature of the "academic fad." This is often the best way to characterize the sweeping and temporal changes that may occur throughout the university system as it attempts to address the challenges of social change and shifting philosophies. At times, academic fads are the stimulus for more appropriate and long-standing changes. At others, they can be an impediment to more meaningful and necessary change. The discussion that follows works to resolve this dilemma, with a particular focus on the ethical implications of academic fads.

This discussion begins with Birnbaum's (2000) analysis of the so-called "academic fad," which arises from the array of pressures imposed upon educational institutions from outside the system. According to Birnbaum, "institutions of higher education are always under pressure to become more efficient and effective. In response, many have attempted (either voluntarily or under mandate) to adopt new management systems and processes that were originally designed to meet the needs of (presumably) more efficient business or governmental organizations" (p. 1). Accordingly, the university system adopted an approach not unlike the corporate structure of America as the two developed in tandem. According to Birnbaum's assessment, more than two dozen management philosophies co-opted from the business sphere passed through the halls of America's college administrative offices between 1950 and 1990 (Birnbaum, p. 1). A simple consideration of the number of shifts in perspective that took place over that time demonstrates that very few of these management approaches manifested as a lasting or meaningful framework.

This is the focus of Birnbaum's research, which ultimately demonstrates that there is a serious ethical consequence to the kneejerk adoption of management "innovations" at the academic level. This is tantamount to shortsightedness and mismanagement, and can have lasting effects on the university experience for students, educators, communities, and the professions shaped by our schools. Birnbaum's primary argument extends from the observation that universities have largely used corporations as a model for management decisions, yet lack the same latitude for handling the complexities of implementation that corporations possess.

Defining the Academic Management Fad

Birnbaum argues that all too often, a corporate management style will achieve a critical mass in the business world, causing its proponents to extend it as universally applicable. It is under this pretense, Birnbaum states, that the university is inclined to submit to this assumptive "universal" management style. Problematically, just as quickly as such styles are proliferated, they are often adjusted, supplanted, or simply discredited — and it is thus that they come to be remarked upon as fads. Referring to Allen and Chaffee (1981), Birnbaum identifies several characteristics by which to distinguish this phenomenon from true academic change (p. 2). Among these characteristics, Birnbaum notes that the style and its management features will often have been borrowed from another context, such as a corporation or business network. This imposes implementation difficulties that may undermine assumptions of universality, suggesting that certain management styles become fads when they are foisted improperly upon higher education institutions without consideration of the unique intricacies of the higher learning environment (Birnbaum, p. 2).

Another characteristic distinguishing the academic management fad is the tendency on the part of its implementers to lack both a full understanding of the management style and the commitment to see it through to its long-term benefits. As Birnbaum points out, the claim of universality must be balanced by recognition that the implementing organization needs a long-term willingness to follow through on its commitment to transformation. Partial implementation or half-hearted commitment to change are ingredients for failure (Birnbaum, p. 2).

Additional features Birnbaum identifies include the use of jargon particular to the management style and the enforcement of that jargon throughout the managed system (Birnbaum, p. 2). He also points to styles that may be overly simplistic or, conversely, too densely layered and complicated. While Birnbaum makes a point of stating these observations objectively, it is also clear that the notion of an "academic fad" implies that its impact will be inherently short-lived, and that some resources and opportunities will inevitably be lost during the period of transformation and during any period of retrenchment following short-term implementation failure. The article by Birnbaum "analyzes the literature of academic management fads to seek patterns permitting the construction of a Weberian ideal type, a conceptualization 'based on observations of reality that are designed to make comparisons possible' . . . This ideal type allows us retrospectively to consider the 'life cycle' of academic management fads from the time of their diffusion into higher education until the time of their eventual abandonment, re-invention, or partial incorporation" (Birnbaum, p. 3).

Birnbaum argues that this framework can help improve the understanding of university administrators as they navigate external pressures requiring higher education institutions to make critical strategic changes. Particularly, he makes the case that if universities were to gain a better critical understanding of the poor track record historically compiled when adopting strategies with faddish qualities, they might be less inclined to jump on a management bandwagon. This argument is reinforced by Sunstein (2001), who describes the academic community as particularly vulnerable to the ebb and flow of ideas. According to Sunstein, the popular consensus on particular management ideologies essentially enters the atmosphere of academic thinking — which already intermingles heavily with the corporate world — making the academic administrative community uniquely susceptible to being swept up by critical mass and, consequently, to being part of the fallout when that mass inevitably fractures in favor of alternate ideas.

Cascade Effects and Reputational Pressures

Sunstein refers to "reputational pressures" that are often carried by sweeping management ideologies, suggesting that these have a direct connection to the proclivity of academics to adopt them. When consensus on a novel management approach has been reached, the university begins to view itself as out of step with the cultural and economic realities around it. This "reputational pressure" translates into a sharp imperative at the administrative level. Sunstein explains that "academics, like everyone else, are subject to cascade effects. They start, join, and accelerate bandwagons. More particularly, they are subject to the informational signals sent by the acts and statements of others. They participate in creating the very signals to which they respond" (Sunstein, p. 1251).

Sunstein views this pattern as simultaneously a path to new opportunity and a roadblock in effective academic administration. He suggests that the exploration of the "informational signals" moving around the academic community is valuable and necessary to progress and cultural relevance. However, he also argues that inappropriate or ill-suited implementation of the strategies suggested by these signals can lead to "error and confusion," the costs of which to the basic goals of education can be extremely high.

So reports the article by Pondiscio (2010), which brings to the forefront some of the core ethical issues relating to the kneejerk tendencies of too many academic communities. Pondiscio's article responds to the imposition of interdisciplinary philosophies upon public educational institutions, indicating that this is often done to the detriment of a student's educational opportunities. Here, the student is treated essentially as a "guinea pig" as academic leaders experiment with prevailing management trends. Pondiscio argues that this is an irresponsible approach to management that demands more meaningful and critical reflection, asserting that "there are many ways in which teachers can, and do, help students pursue their interests that don't involve completely restructuring the elementary curriculum. Schools should spend less time using students as guinea pigs for the latest unproven theory and more time looking at ways to raise academic standards" (Pondiscio, p. 1).

Conclusion: Toward Greater Independence and Critical Scrutiny

Ultimately, we are inclined to view the academic fad as an essentially disruptive occurrence which points to the larger problem of the academic community's patronage of the corporate world. Though it is often well outside the power of most administrators and educators to resist this sway, it is important for leaders of the higher education community to remain critically invested in adapting the best features of a management fad into more meaningful and relevant approaches to education.