Foregrounding proposals for a change in practice
I’ve just read a really useful report about managing change. I’ve been exploring this theme because it links to my ECA for E846.
Trowler, P., Saunders, M. and Knight, P. (2003) Change thinking, change practices, Learning and Teaching Support Network Generic Centre. Available online at: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/resources/resourcedatabase/id262_Change_Thinking_Change_Practices.pdf (accessed 9 July 2010)
The report provides a useful overview of different conceptions of change and the implications for viewing them through certain lenses. I would argue that actually, they are sociocultural lenses (e.g. kaizen, technical/rational, economic, diffusionist/epidemiological, holistic) that also reflect the beliefs of those conceptualising change models both implicitly and explicitly. This is also very true of organisations – e.g. kaizen in japanese companies, tensions between economic and complex models in the hierarchy of HEIs, described as ‘loosely coupled organisations’ because they have social agenda to accommodate diversity.
Reading the change document is fascinating because it really does reinforce my thinking about the process of change from a strongly sociocultural perspective. This is significant to my practice because of our position in the University as ‘change agents’. Our role often calls upon the implementation of innovations which frequently strongly challenge the beliefs and values (as exemplified in their current practice) of the wider ‘client group’, or as I would prefer to term them, my colleagues! The authors explore the notion that, “it is important for them to have a value commitment rather than instrumental compliance to a proposed change.” (p17) The emphasis on changing beliefs and values over the ‘endgame’ – or a focus on the result of change also reinforces the emphasis on importance of change as process not product.
Relating to my service in UoC, there are a number of instances where this is particularly relevant. For example, currently there is an attempt to suggest to staff that online submission should be adopted. This has been met with some resistance from some quarters, but currently no exploration into this resistance in context with existing beliefs has been undertaken. I would argue that it is perhaps even unreasonable to expect the imposition of such a change to be well received because it doesn’t resolve the process for people. The reaction subsequently reinforces an underlying resistance based on a lack of understanding about the principles behind the change. Perhaps a more productive approach would be to implement the change process –which in this instance has not yet been identified– before releasing the intended aim of the change.
Likewise in teacher education, and my own practice, we are seeking to develop teachers’ understanding of their professional identity. In fact, we are asking them to change their practice to align with the professional roles outlined by the wider community. This is articulated through the professional standards (a cultural tool) and mediated through the PgC and the way that we deliver it.
So this has some big implications for my practice. This sociocultural view of change has to underpin pedagogy (I want to explore the extent to which it does in my assignment). Considering this will be useful in foregrounding my propositions for changes in practice. I feel that this document is part of the landscape that will inform that response and progress my understanding further.
