1

Draft conference paper (please do not cite)

Chaos in higher education: Analyzing institutional behavior through the concepts of

complexity theory

Sandra Hasanefendic ISCTE-IUL Lisbon, Portugal Vrije University Amsterdam

Center for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research, University of Lisbon s.hasanefendic@vu.nl

Applying Complex Systems Theory to Higher Education and Research Policy ECPR General Conference Prague

September 8th-10th, 2016

2

Introduction (CHAPTER 1) In this conceptual paper, I show how complexity theory has been used as a framework under which higher education institutions are examined. Complexity theory highlights an environment which consists of many actors, interacting in a disorderly, or non linear way, and resulting in a robust organization with the capacity to learn, adapt and innovate relative to each agents’ internal structure (Marion 2008). The theory holds that agents, and in this case, higher education institutions, are collection of structures, immersed in greater structures (systems) and this structure is complex, a dynamic integration of relationships, which adapts to the environment, evolves, learns and improves. This complexity makes the behavior of one agent highly unpredictable by studying the structure alone. This means that complexity arises as higher education institutions are immersed within environments populated by different actors (Robbins et al. 2003) with different expectations and changing environmental demands (Arbo and Benneworth 2007). As environmental demands change, higher education institutions must respond, adapt and initiate the process of learning to cope with the new situations to greater or lesser extents (Jongbloed et al. 2008). Higher education behavior is thus also complex and this understanding allows for explaining for instance why recent policy developments in higher education (HE), including changes in governance (e.g. Sporn 1996; Amaral et al., 2003; Olssen and Peters, 2005), funding allocation, quality assurance (Rhoades and Sporn, 2002) and human resource management (Slaughter and Rhoades 2004; Teixeira et al., 2004; Musselin 2005; Ferlie et al., 2009; Teixira, 2013) have fostered different institutional outcomes (Sporn 2003). In other words, while there is an observable convergence towards similar trends in higher education in Europe (Schmidt, 2002), there is a clear differentiation in the way higher education institutions, universities and universities of applied sciences alike, have responded to these challenges within national contexts (see Sporn 2003; Musselin 2005; Hazelkorn and Ryan, 2013). The responses usually vary across nation states either due to differences in the degree of complexity of external environmental demands (Greenwood et. al., 2011; Villani and Phillips 2013), or the very nature, availability and source of internal institutional resources (DiMaggio and Powell 1983; Pfeffer and Salancik,2003). In this line, responses are somewhat dependent on the leadership skills (Sporn 1999), vested interest of stakeholders (Jongbloed et al. 2008) and opportunities or abilities of teams and departments to engage into strategic action (Oliver 1991; Roxas et. al. 2007). I show how complexity as an ontological paradigm can be explored to analyze higher education institutions. In other words, complexity theory is used as a magnifying glass to unpack the mechanisms behind institutional behavior in higher education. In the following section I explain the rationale behind my ontological position in defining and characterizing the behavior of higher education institutions as complex. I further reason why and how we should address the analysis of the behavior of universities of applied sciences in particular through the complexity framework. Then, I suggest that the knowledge about the behavior of universities of applied sciences (UASs) can be reliably obtained by taking a multiplex approach and following a mixed qualitative methodology. These epistemological ideas form a basis in understanding the behavior of UASs and capturing part of the

3

complexity behind the very process. I finish with a brief conclusion which summarizes the main ideas and analysis of the short conference conceptual paper. Research philosophy

Some of the grandest phenomena, like coursing of comets around the sun are marvelously predictable. But some of the most mundane, like weather, are so convoluted that they continue to elude the most diligent forecasters. They are what scientists call complex systems. Though made up of relatively simple units-like molecules in the atmosphere-the pieces interact to yield behavior that is full of surprises (NYTimes May 6 1997)

Higher education (HE) is a universe full of surprises. As a junior researcher and guest doctoral student in different higher education systems in Europe I became intrigued with the considerable diversity across and within higher education systems despite all the recent talk on policy convergence in higher education in Europe. In fact, while for example internationalization, entrepreneurship, engaged and participatory learning have been advanced in policy discourses at national levels, these major policy concerns have been adopted by higher education institutions in such diverse ways that I wondered how can we ever generalize behavior in higher education. What puzzled me the most and eventually became the core focus of my doctoral dissertation, was the behavior of universities of applied sciences. My general curiosity drove me to the stages where I am now, with a little bit more knowledge on what these institutions are doing and why, and still a long way to go before I comprehend their behavior fully. Universities of applied sciences (UASs), polytechnics, or commonly referred to as non-university higher education institutions provide professionalized education for the needs of the regional economy (e.g. Finland), enforce close collaboration with the professional field in training (e.g. Netherlands) and exist as alternative type of higher education training aiming to increase the knowledge skill base of countries ad open up opportunities for higher education access (e.g. Portugal) (De Weert and Soo, 2009). These institutions emerged in most of the European countries in the late 1970s and originated with merger of smaller industry institutes or local colleges (Urbano, 2011). Some appeared later, or in the 1990s such as in Finland and had a predefined regional function. Collectively, the role of such education around Europe is to provide students with undergraduate training and ensure robustness of professional skills so they can work in the industry which they extensively studied (Taylor et al., 2008). The aim is to appropriate students with learning conditions that reflect or resemble working situations and equip them with ready to work mindset (Hasanefendic et al., 2016). In theory, these institutions are nothing like universities; in fact, they were created to be different. The role of these type of institutions in the higher education systems in Europe has been growing exponentially as issues regarding advanced economic growth and social improvements have become dependent on the country’s ability to train highly skilled workers (Heitor et al., 2014). Europe is facing a scarcity of skilled workers with job opportunities for these type of workers rising and in demand (CEDEFOP, 2012; CEDEFOP, 2013; CEDEFOP, 2010; European Commission, 2010). For example, the Employers’ Organization of the Metal

4

Trades in Europe and the Liaison Group of the European Mechanical, Electrical, Electronic and Metalworking Industries highlighted a growing shortage of “high calibre apprentices, qualified workers, skilled technicians and engineers throughout our industry” (WEM and ORGALIME. 2001:1). UASs provide an avenue to train larger masses of such specialized workers, and their importance has been particularly highlighted in the times when productivity growth is experiencing a decrease in Europe (Mas and Stehrer, 2012). Recently, these institutions also came under the spotlight given the number of changes in their external environment affecting their functioning. First, they were only recently given the task of doing research. Most recent studies have systematically shown which research practices were implemented at universities of applied sciences in Europe as a part of their new mission (De Weert and Soo, 2009). Most of these studies are single country analysis which address research conceptualization at institutional levels, incorporation in teaching, research funding and institutional research governance (e.g. Lepori, 2008). Rare exceptions are comparative investigations of the development of research at national levels for these types of higher education institutions (e.g. De Weert and Soo, 2009). Collectively, these studies lack analytical depth in explicating how institutions comparatively manage change surrounding the new mission. In fact, these studies assume convergence between universities of applied sciences within and across countries in Europe around the same research policies due to competitive forces which lead to isomorphism and homogeneity in their respective higher education fields (for example Dobbins and Knill, 2009) and tend to overlook the complexity of the national higher education systems and their consequential role in conditioning the behavior of universities of applied sciences and their adaptation. Second, increasingly, UASs have been pressured to change their teaching (curricular) practices to be more attentive to changing societal demands (Hoidn and Kärkkäinen, 2014) and shifting employment markets (Harvey, 2010). As higher education institutions traditionally closer to the professional field and the labor markets, these institutions were requested to contribute in a more effective way supplying the labor markets with labor force which is adaptable and can meet complex demands in multidimensional social, cultural, technological and economical challenging professional environments (CEDEFOP, 2012; CEDEFOP, 2013). Providing and preparing graduates adequately for the labor market has become a pressing concern both in the US and Europe, and has becoming so for the rest of the world, including for one of the fast growing economies in the world: China (see Simon and Cao, 2009). Many studies have systematically addressed this concern by showing developments in pedagogy at universities of applied sciences within national contexts (Kettunen, 2011), the benefits of workplace learning (e.g. Virolainen, 2007) and innovations in curriculum design (e.g. Hasanefendic et al., 2016). These studies have highlighted the multiplicity of different approaches UASs are undertaking to achieve a common goal of providing education in close collaboration with the professional field which enhances skills such as innovation, critical thinking and professionalization at the same time. Yet these studies have been less consistent in explaining the conditions which lead to unique approaches in developing modern and innovative teaching (curricular) practices at UASs and contributing to common goals in a comparative perspective. By understanding the conditions

5

behind the educational behavior of UASs, we are able to design effective policies and improve the overall institutional efficiency and development. In my doctoral thesis which studies the behavior of UASs in adversity of changes in research and teaching (curricular) practices both within their national settings and across two countries, Portugal and the Netherlands1, I advance a complexity approach to analysis. That is, rather than understanding behavior of higher education institutions and their adaptation to environmental changes as an output of causal and linear paths, I define it as an emergent property of non-linear interactions of higher education institutions with their environment. Higher education institutions serve many roles in highly competitive environments, interact with a myriad of external and internal stakeholders and keep a constant vigilance and attention to the quality of their products and modes of operation (Bess and Dee, 2008). This suggests interconnectedness and interdependence of higher education institutions and other constituents in their external environment. The environment includes social, cultural political legal and economic trends, and also physical environment that surrounds the institution (Katz and Kahn, 1978). It is critical in providing a variety of resource inputs to institutions, including financial resources, information details, and personnel. It poses constraints and enables proactive behavior of institutions, legitimizes action and secures accountability (Verweij and Gerrits, 2013). This environment is also dynamic and as it experiences changes, institutions are compelled to change as well. Change is either an alteration in the structures, processes and behaviors in the system (Zaltman and Duncan, 1977) or it is the creation of something new to an institution. In the case of which, it is innovation, or adoption of an idea, behavior, or process that is new to the organization (Damanpour and Evan, 1984). Some of these changes can be transformational and produce major overhaul of the institution’s structure and agency. For instance, the introduction of a research task at UASs in the Netherlands and Portugal was a transformation as it is not in traditional missions of these institutions. Other changes are incremental and do not lead to substantial transformations of institutions or the system, yet they may bring consequences in the long term (Bess and Dee, 2008). To a large extent, environmental changes have generated substantial reorganization in terms of governance, funding and human resource management at higher education institutions (Amaral et al., 2003; Sporn, 2003; Rhoades and Sporn, 2002; Musselin, 2005) and invoked changes in teaching and research approaches in concrete cases of UASs (Hasanefendic et al., 2016). At the same time, they influenced the relationship of higher education institutions with their stakeholders or put pressures on higher education systems (HES) to reshape their relationship with various stakeholders (Neave and Van Vught, 1991; Schuetze and Alvarez Mendiola 2012; Zgaga, Teichler and Brennan 2013) which additionally enhances the view of complexity. Researchers in higher education have been attempting to capture institutional and system changes (e.g. Amaral et al., 2013), their effects and outcomes (Musselin, 2005), and describe the multiple dimensions with which the external environment and changes can be 1 The countries were selected for two reasons: accessibility and convenience (convenience sampling; Ritchie et al., 2003), and despite diferente socio-economic conditions they share the same binary higher education system (criterion sampling; Ritchie et al., 2003).

6

characterized (e.g. Ramirez et al., 2016). Yet, these studies are so dispersed and outcomes diverse that generalizations are impossible; furthermore, they are analytically incomplete in explaining the increasingly complex behavior of higher education institutions in the light of recent changes as they cannot capture the interaction between multiple layers of the institution and its environment simultaneously. By understanding the behavior of universities of applied sciences through complexity framework, I focus on understanding and explaining interactions between the environment, implied changes and higher education institutions. This requires characterizing both the environment of institutions and the institutional characteristics such as structure, identity, tradition etc., but also the apparent relation between the institution and the environment. Institutions are said to define boundaries and create assumptions or rules which classify experience based on previously experienced patterns to cope with their environment (Weick, 2001). For instance, internal features of an institution such as structures, hierarchies, identity, culture and power relations are defined for each institution, locking it into an understandable patterns which can be very stable and resistant to change (Scott, 2005). Such higher education institutions adapt to macro and micro societal changes in their environment through self organization, or by making internal adjustments and developments in order to survive in changing external environments considering their internal features. At the same time, they are also changing their relationship with the environment, by adopting or responding to changes caused by the environment initially. In my dissertation I place an emphasis on institutional self organization and its dialectic process with the environment and underline that the behavior of the higher education institutions is thus complex, rather than the higher education system as commonly assumed. This approach makes the use of available conceptualization of society in general and existing theories in particular to rationally explain the behavior of institutions difficult and requires both advanced knowledge and sophisticated tools of analysis. Multiplex approach to understanding heterogeneous behavior of UASs I take a multiplex approach where different theoretical frameworks are used to explain the behavior of UASs in Portugal and the Netherlands in adaptation to the new research mission and change of teaching and curricular practices (see Table 1). The approach allows to analyze and study institutional behavior from multiple perspectives highlighting differences, similarities and mechanisms which drive certain outcomes in specific contexts. At the same time, by using different theories I set boundaries on the system, and control complexity variables (i.e. a reduction of real complexity) (Cilliers, 2001) and show that it is possible to understand and effectively manage institutional behavior which is considered complex. For example, using multiple theoretical frameworks ranging from neo-institutional analysis (Scott, 2005) to social constructivist approaches (e.g Albert and Whetten, 1985) and policy frameworks enables to control or place some sort of boundaries to complexity arising from the heterogeneity of responses and emergent behavior through interaction with the environment (P2). The fact that I use multiple theories for any set of phenomena does not mean that any theory is as good as any other or that it is impossible to know whether a theory

7

provides an accurate explanation or interpretation. On the contrary, the use of theories is nascent and occurs in the process of analyzing the data which reflects the behavior of these institutions in adaptation to environmental changes.

8

P1 Training Students for New Jobs: The Role of Technical and Vocational Higher Education and Implications for Science Policy in Portugal with Manuel Heitor (Minister of Science, Technology and Higher Education Portugal) and Hugo Horta (Assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong)

Context for teaching and research

Policy approach *policy framework

Contextual comparative case study (qualitative)

Published in Technology Forecasting and Social Change

P2 Professional Field in the Accreditation Process: Examining Information Technology Programs at Dutch Universities of Applied Sciences

with Hans Frederik (Doctoral candidate at the Vrije University in Amsterdam) and Peter van der Sijde (Full professor at the Vrije University in Amsterdam)

Teaching and curricular development

Neoinstitutional framework Loose coupling (Weick, 1976; Orton and Weick, 1990).

Evaluative comparative case study (qualitative)

Published in Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education

P3 Learning a New Trick: Identity Work in Adopting Research at Dutch Universities of Applied Sciences Single authored

Research mission Social constructivist approach Organizational identity theory (e.g. Albert and Whetten, 1985; Whetten, 2006)

Generative comparative case study (qualitative)

Under review in Higher Education

P4 Field Complexity and Strategic Maneuvering in Higher Education: A case of Portuguese Polytechnics and the New Research Mission with Frank de Bakker (Full professor at ) and Teresa Patricio (Associate professor at ISCTE-IUL, Portugal)

Research mission Neoinstitutional framework Theory on institutional fields (e.g. Scott, 2005; Hoffman, 1999)

Generative comparative case study (qualitative)

Under review in Research Policy

P5 Individuals in Action: Bringing about Innovation in Higher Education with Julie Birkholz (Postdoctoral researcher at CHEGG, Ghent University, Belgium), Peter van der Sijde (Full professor at Vrije University Amsterdam) and Hugo Horta (Assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong)

Teaching and curricular development

Neoinstitutional framework Institutional entrepreneurship theory (e.g. DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Battilana et al., 2009)

Explanatory comparative case study (qualitative)

Under review in European Journal of Higher Education

Table 1. Overview of empirical papers * the paper has a different take altogether because it is published in a technology policy and forecasting related journal where the conceptual organization of the paper is not mandatory or that much emphasized since the focus of this field is more on practically oriented research. The fact that there is no explicit theoretical

9

framework is an added value of this paper as by publishing it in this journal I was able to reach readership and communities (including stakeholders that are known to read this journal) that would not have been reached otherwise.

10

The theories that have been used in studying the behavior of UASs in adversity of environmental changes offer possibilities to understand multidirectional effects between institutions and their environment which is highlighted in complexity framework (see Table 1). Each of these theoretical lines allows for the characterization of a) the environment, b) the institution (defining institutional boundaries) and c) the interaction between the institution and the environment (or the output) in responding to change. These theories belong to the neo institutional literature which has initially theorized and documented institutional isomorphic activities or similarity of institutions within the higher education field as a result of common rules and institutionalized and taken for granted norms and values which leads to homogeneity (Scott, 2005). Originally it was assumed that institutions would adapt to environmental changes by mimicking other institutions in the environment and that they will adopt the practices to appear legitimate (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). However, in such institutionalized fields, institutions can still resume with old activities, or initiate new ones which suggests decoupling (or loose coupling-see Weick, 1978), or as I call it strategic acceptance of environmental changes (see Table 2). This was obvious in the Netherlands, where UASs formulated a number of strategic alliances with the professional field to prove legitimacy to accreditation procedure (P3). However, once we looked at operational level, the collaboration with the professional field in education was scarce and exemplary of strategic alliances whereas previous research and literature suggests that this interaction is much more elaborate in teaching and learning processes (e.g. in P2). This shows that for Dutch UASs maintaining institutional legitimacy is essential and possibly strategic as it gives way for further institutional arrangements. That is, the Dutch UASs secure legitimacy by attending to the needs and requirements of their changing environment, but at the same time follow their institutional interests, or develop activities which are reflective of their organizational tradition, identity and intentions (P4). In other words, Dutch UASs self organize around their identity (also see Kodeih and Greenwood, 2014). This suggests that meaning and potential impact that an environment has for the institution is the result of assumptions that institutional members have about their institution and becomes evident through identity work (see Table 2). Environment Institutional

characteristics Interaction with the environment

Outcome

Dutch UASs Low complexity (P3,P4)

(supporting policies, favorable

socioeconomic context, strong tradition as

industry institutes, high (professional field)

stakeholder involvement in setting learning

outcomes)

Strong identity (P4) High legitimacy

(P3)

Strategic acceptance of environmental

changes (P3, P4)

Decoupling (P3) Identity work (P4) Innovation (P6)

Portuguese polytechnics

High complexity (P5, P2)

(contradictory or

Identity ambiguity (P5)

Marginalized status (P5, P2)

Manipulation of the environmental

changes (P5)

Assimilation (P5, P2)

Hybridization (P5) Innovation (P6)

11

discrepante policies, or lack of, diversified

socioeconomic conditions, tradition as

second tier higher education institutions,

low (professional field) stakeholder

participation in defining learning outcomes)

Table 2. Summative findings On the other hand, my research findings also align with recent expansion of the neoinstitutional literature which accounts for changes within institutions as a result of entrepreneurial or strategic activities in or by institutions in highly complex and unstable fields which are not as institutionalized (Powell and Colyvas, 2007). Fields have been defined as communities of disparate organizations, including producers, consumers, overseers, and advisors, that engage in common activities, subject to similar reputational and regulatory pressures. But in 1999 Hoffman added that that fields should be seen as contested centers of debate, where competing interests negotiate the interpretation of what they each consider as key issues. This idea signaled that fields are not institutionalized rule imposing and norm and values setting spaces where institutions succumb to pressures to change and become homogenous, but spaces which can be highly complex, unstable and contested. This gives institutions agency to enact changes both within their institutions but to also alter social orders in which they are found suggesting reciprocity. Portuguese polytechnics manipulated such fields in achieving institutional interests (P5) (see Table 2). In fact, polytechnics took advantage of this complexity to adapt to change in the environment by emphasizing their strategic goals. The polytechnics in Portugal thus behaved very differently depending on the way they wanted to be seen as institutions within broader higher education field rather than self organized around existing organizational identity such as is the case with the Dutch UASs in response to environmental changes. Finally, my research also showed that innovation, as a transformational change, occurs in these institutions and that it is driven by individuals with certain characteristics (P6). Modern neo-institutionalism calls attention to the role of individuals who are able to change and innovate within the boundaries of their “constraining” environment (Battilana et al., 2009). These are innovative people with a certain set of personal characteristics, or institutional entrepreneurs who “create a whole new system of meaning that ties the functioning of disparate sets of institutions together” (Garud, Jain and Kumaraswamy, 2002). For example, in my study of individuals who have caused disruptive innovations in the curricular programs which impacted departments, institutions and systems, I highlight the opportunity for bottom up change that has environmental consequences (P6). That is, environments might trigger institutional changes but these may also be triggered by or within institutions and affect and reshape environmental dynamics. This particular research article emphasizes the dialectic process between the environment and the institution and suggests that institutional self

12

organization is as much a response to changing environment as it is a cause for environmental changes. By taking a multiplex approach I emphasize that opportunities and constraints for certain institutional behavior and outcomes exist both within the environment (and in my case the higher education field) and inside the institution. Institutions are strategic actors who take action given their environment and their institutional characteristics. These different theoretical traditions have been used in this thesis to understand the behavior of UASs as they deal with the changes in their environment and under different conditions. Taken jointly, they capture the interaction between multiple layers of the institution and its environment simultaneously as it emerges in real time. Methodological choice for studying institutional behavior in complex systems

Scientists who study complexity usually use social network analysis, cellular automata, artificial societies, and game design to explain behavior (Castellani, B., and Rajaram, 2012; Rajaram and Castellani, 2014). For example, social network analysis explores models of agents and their relationships. The goal of this analysis is to understand the structure of their networks, strength of ties between and among different agents and how it affects behavior of complex systems built upon them (Gerrits and Verweij, 2015). Tools such as social network analysis effectively manage the increased organized complexity of our social world and the data gathered to make sense of it. However, concerns have been raised in relation to whether it is possible to discern contextual variables through such type of research, as well as whether they are an appropriate way to explain and study behavior which is emergent and non linear (e.g. Gummesson, 2006). These challenges encouraged the use of qualitative research as a means of overcoming some of the perceived limitations associated with such scientific methods. In practice, this meant that qualitative methods began to be seen as a more valid and valuable approach to research complex systems or processes occurring these systems (Gummesson, 2006; de Melo and Alrcao, 2016; Bennett and Elman, 2006; Castellani and Hafferty, 2009). Qualitative research is a “naturalistic, interpretative approach concerned with understanding the meanings which people attach to phenomena (actions, decisions, beliefs, values etc.) within their social worlds” (Snape and Spencer, 2003: 3). For example, understanding motivations and decisions, or exploring impacts and outcomes, generally requires detailed personal focus that in-depth interviews and participant observation allow (Legard et al., 2003). Given that participants have diverse ways of interpreting even 'the same' situations, this generates a large degree of complexity in qualitative accounts. These accounts are interpreted in different ways and via different methods of analysis as suitable for the data obtained, which reinforces flexibility of research design. The sheer volume and richness of data on the other hand (see for example Denzin and Lincoln, 2000; Patton, 2002) enables optimal clarification and detailed understanding of complex phenomena and processes as they emerge (Ambert, 1994).

13

In my doctoral dissertation, I have used a mixed qualitative methodology which relies on multiple research strategies, data collection, sampling and analysis techniques (see Table 3). The reason for this is two fold: first, to strengthen the reliability of empirical data and validity of findings, and maximize the capacity to produce rich, detailed contextual findings, and second, since I addressed two changes in the environment (e.g. the higher education field) which affect UASs, the adaptation to the new research mission, and pressures to introduce changes in teaching or curricular practices, it required the use of research strategies, data and analysis which best illuminate the research topics and underlying research questions and provide sufficient details on the topics (see Patton, 2002).

Research type

(Yin, 2003)

Research strategy (Ritchie,

2003)

Data collection: Naturally occurring

data

Data collection: Generated

data (Bryman,

2001)

Sampling Analysis

P2 Case study Contextual Observations, photos

30 Interviews, 3 focus groups

Purposeful, criterion sampling (Patton, 2002)

Evaluation analysis (Ritchie and Spencer, 1994)

P3 Case study Evaluative Documents X Purposeful, homogenous case sampling (Holloway and Wheeler, 1996; Patton, 2002; Robson, 2002)

Content analysis (Berelson, 1952; Robson, 2002)

P4 Case study Generative Observations, Documents

20 Interviews

Theoretical (Strauss and Corbin, 1998; see also Bryman, 2001)

Grounded theory (iterative approach) (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss and Corbin, 1998)

P5 Case study Generative Observations, Documents

40 Interviews

Theoretical Grounded theory

P6 Case study Explanatory X 6 Interviews from a database of 30

Purposeful, opportunistic or emergent sampling with criterion sampling (Patton, 2002)

Explanation building based on pattern matching analysis (Yin, 2004)

Table 3. Mixed qualitative methodology by paper For instance, in order to understand the current nature or form of teaching and research practices in UASs in Portugal and the Netherlands and contextualize the policy environment, stakeholders (and their involvement) and socioeconomic conditions which define the higher

14

education field for UASs (P2), I chose a contextual comparative case research strategy. Some authors prefer to term it exploratory strategy or exploratory case study research (Marshall and Rossman, 1999) whose essential purpose is to explore and describe participants' understanding and interpretations of phenomena in a way that captures their inherent nature. The choice of sampling was purposeful (Patton, 2002) and was based on several criteria. Criterion case sampling (Patton, 2002) encompasses cases chosen on the basis that they meet a pre-determined criteria. The logic is that these cases will be 'critical' to any understanding offered by the research. I collected both interview and focus group data which were interpreted later in the process, but I also relied on naturally occurring data such as observation. Observation offers the opportunity to record and analyze behavior and interactions as they occur. Such data is useful in providing an 'enactment' of social behavior in its own social setting. A mix of both types of data enhances the understanding of how behaviors naturally arise as well as checks it against the reconstructed perspectives on their occurrence which enhances the validity and reliability of analysis. I have analyzed this data from an evaluation perspective, providing thick descriptions of the context for the development of research and teaching at UASs and understanding the impact of global pressures, national policies and specific local environmental context (socioeconomic conditions and the involvement of societal and industrial stakeholders in educational provision) which influence the characteristics of the higher education fields in determining specific teaching and research outcomes. Evaluation research analysis focuses on providing knowledge about the contexts and the effectiveness of policies and other environmental conditions in fostering certain behavior and institutional outcomes (Ritchie and Spencer, 1994). In P3, I undertake an evaluative comparative case study as the aim was to understand how well are UASs in the Netherlands accomplishing expected learning outcomes in terms of involvement of the professional field in teaching and education. In order to carry out an evaluative study, information is necessary about the processes and outcomes. P3 analyzes reported outcomes of the involvement with the professional field in the curriculum of the undergraduate information technology programs and compares them against the expected quality assurance standards for this type of education. The sampling procedure was purposeful and cases were homogenous, or had the same characteristics (Holloway and Wheeler, 1996; Patton, 2002; Robson, 2002). This particular sampling achieves detailed investigation of the phenomena in specific contexts, such as undergraduate information technology courses, and yields also further examination in other contexts for greater generalizability of findings. I undertook content (qualitative comparative) analysis in which themes and categories were identified and labelled if occurring. The themes and categories were developed prior to our investigation and based on literature whereas new ones were added in the process of data analysis. On the other hand, in an article about the responses of Portuguese polytechnics to the new research mission (P5), or the role of organizational identity in adapting to research mission at the Dutch UASs (P4), I integrated a generative comparative case study strategy with explanatory research. Generative studies aim to develop, extent theories, strategies or actions

15

(Strauss and Corbin, 1998). The aim in P4 and P5 was to refine the contribution of organizational identity and higher education fields in understanding institutional behavior and to stimulate policy implications. The cases were sampled theoretically (Strauss and Corbin, 1998; Bryman, 2001) or based on their potential contribution to the development and testing of theoretical constructs. Data was collected through observations and documents (naturally occurring data) and through semi structured interviews. I have analyzed the data from a grounded theory approach. This approach is used to categorize the interpretation of human behavior in analytical categories and deduct dimensions and relationships between them that can construct and expand theory (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). It is a very useful approach in disentangling the complexity underpinning human behavior and identifying institutional responses as constructed by its participants through their interpretation of the environment. P6 is an explanatory case study which employed opportunistic or emergent sampling (Patton, 2002) initially as the six individuals who were analyzed in the article as innovators were selected from a database of thirty. Then the criterion sampling was employed as only individuals who share two common characteristics were selected for analysis; that they participated or brought about innovation in their departments, faculties or systems, and that the environment was not forthcoming of change or was characterized as posing restrictions and obstacles to accomplishing innovative undertaking. The explanation building analysis (Yin, 2004) focuses on the reasons behind and associations between personal characteristics of these individuals in innovation in higher education. It generates a list of common and variably present characteristics of individuals and matches them with commonly associated characteristics of institutional entrepreneurs in literature. In conclusion, the use of mixed qualitative methodologies enhances the understanding of how different conditions both in the environment (the field) and the institution, as two different dimensions of social existence, intersect, relate and produce certain outcomes. Furthermore, this approach can enhance the capacity to theorize beyond either institutional or environmental conditions and consider the interaction or fluidity between the two (Mason, 2006). Conclusion The aim of this conceptual paper was to show how complexity theory has been used as an ontological framework for the study of behavior of higher education institutions. In fact, it has been argued why we need to observe higher education institutional behavior as complex, and what does it imply in terms of theoretical and methodological analysis. The paper has rationalized that a multiplex approach and mixed qualitative methodology as epistemological choices are the most suitable empirical choices for the studies in, or about, complex systems and complexity. Multiplex approach draws on multiple theoretical frameworks to explicate reality and emergent behavior we are witnessing in higher education institutions. It allows for control and at the same time categorization of conditions and interaction with the environment which are site specific and conducive to certain behavior and institutional

16

outcomes. While multiplicity of theoretical frameworks employed in different studies cannot add to categorical generalizations, it can provide a more consistent and complex-obvious representation of causality and emphasize individuality of institutions. It also stresses interactivity between the institutions and the environment in condition the emergent behavior and with it contributes to explicating non linearity in higher education systems. Considering the qualitative methodology, it offers a viable route in studying complexity. Qualitative approach realizes the importance of multifaceted and iterative relations within social and cultural systems (Curry et al., 2010) That is, the goals of qualitative studies are to understand meaning, context, and process, as well as identify unanticipated phenomena (Maxwell, 2010). Besides, by using different qualitative research strategies, data collection techniques and analysis I was able to uncover the complexity by identifying different yet consistent patterns, trends, and tendencies. Approaching the study of institutional behavior in higher education through the complexity framework requires widening the frame and scope of theoretical lens by which we observe these phenomena and a comparative approach. At the same time, it calls for the implementation of a mixed qualitative methodology design where multiple research strategies, types of data and its analysis are implemented simultaneously. Whereas complexity underlying institutional behavior in higher education cannot fully be understood, it is still relevant to capture as much of it as possible to inform theory and practice in higher education and policy (see Corbin and Strauss, 1998). References Albert, S., and Whetten, D. (1985). Organizational identity. In J. M. T. Balmer & S. A. Greyser (Eds.), Revealing the corporation: Perspectives on identity, image, reputation, corporate branding, and corporate-level marketing (pp. 77–105). New York: Routledge. Amaral, A., Jones, G. A., and Karseth, B. (Eds.). (2013). Governing higher education: National perspectives on institutional governance (Vol. 2). Springer Science & Business Media. Amaral, A., Meek, V.L. and Larsen, I.M. (eds.). (2003). The higher education managerial revolution? Kluwer: Amsterdam. Ambert, A. M. (1994). A qualitative study of peer abuse and its effects: Theoretical and empirical implications. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 119-130. Arbo, P. and Benneworth, P. (2007). Understanding the regional contribution of higher education institutions: A literature review. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 9. OECD Publishing: Paris. Battilana, J., Leca, B., and Boxenbaum, E. (2009). How actors change institutions: towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 65-107.

17

Bennett, A., and Elman, C. (2006). Complex causal relations and case study methods: The example of path dependence. Political Analysis, 14(3), 250-267. Bess, J. L., and Dee, J. R. (2008). Understanding college and university organization: Dynamics of the system (Vol. 2). Stylus Publishing, LLC. Bryman, A. (2001). The nature of qualitative research. Social Research Methods, 365-399. Castellani, B., and Rajaram, R. (2012). Case-based modeling and the SACS Toolkit: a mathematical outline. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 18(2), 153-174. Castellani, B., and Hafferty, F. W. (2009). Sociology and complexity science: a new field of inquiry. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media. CEDEFOP. (2012). From education to working life. The labor market outcomes of vocational education and training. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. CEDEFOP. (2013). Labour market outcomes of vocational education in Europe. Evidence from the European Union labor force survey. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Cilliers, P. (2001). Boundaries, hierarchies and networks in complex systems.International Journal of Innovation Management, 5(02), 135-147. Curry, L. A., Nembhard, I. M., and Bradley, E. H. (2009). Qualitative and mixed methods provide unique contributions to outcomes research. Circulation, 119(10), 1442-1452. Damanpour, F., and Evan, W. M. (1984). Organizational innovation and performance: the problem of" organizational lag". Administrative Science Quarterly, 392-409. de Melo, A. T., and Alarcão, M. (2016). Qualitative methods for the exploration of complexity in human social systems: Applications in family psychology. In Proceedings of ECCS 2014 (pp. 21-32). Springer International Publishing.

de Weert, E., and Soo, M. (2009). Research at universities of applied sciences in Europe: Conditions, achievements and perspectives. Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS), University of Twente, The Netherlands. Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. (2000). Qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, 413-427. DiMaggio P.J. and Powell W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48 (2), 147-160. Dobbins, M., and Knill, C. (2009). Higher education policies in Central and Eastern Europe: convergence toward a common model? Governance, 22(3), 397-430. European Commission. (2010). Europe 2020: A European strategy for smart, sustainable and

18

inclusive growth. Retrieved from www.ec.europa.eu/eu2020 Ferlie, E., Musselin, C., Andresani, G. (2009). The governance of higher education systems: A public management perspective. In Paradeise C. et al. (eds.), University governance: Western European comparative perspectives (pp. 1-19). Dordrecht: Springer. Garud, R., Jain, S., and Kumaraswamy, A. (2002). Institutional entrepreneurship in the sponsorship of common technological standards: The case of Sun Microsystems and Java. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 196-214. Gerrits, L.M. and Verweij, S. (2015). Taking stock of complexity in evaluation: A discussion of three recent publications. Evaluation, 21 (4), 481-491. Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., and Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317-371. Gummesson, E. (2006). Qualitative research in management: addressing complexity, context and persona. Management Decision, 44(2), 167-179. Harvey, L. (2010). New realities: The relationship between higher education and employment. Tertiary Education and Management, 6 (1), 3-17. Hasanefendic, S., Heitor, M., & Horta, H. (2016). Training students for new jobs: The role of technical and vocational higher education and implications for science policy in Portugal. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Hazelkorn, E. and Ryan, M. (2013). The impact of university rankings on higher education policy in Europe: A challenge to perceived wisdom and a stimulus for change. In Zgaga, P., Teichler U. and Brennan, J. (Eds.), The globalisation challenge for European higher education convergence and diversity, centres and peripheries, (pp. 79-100). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Heitor, M., Horta, H., and Mendonça, J. (2014). Developing human capital and research capacity: science policies promoting brain gain. Technology Forecasting and Social Change. (82), 6-22. Hoidn, S., and Kärkkäinen, K. (2014). Promoting skills for innovation in higher education: A literature review on the effectiveness of problem-based learning and of teaching behaviours (No. 100). OECD Publishing. Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the US chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 351-371. Holloway, I., and Wheeler, S. (1996). Qualitative research for nurses. Blackwell Science. Katz, D., and Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. 2nd ed. MA, US: John Wiley and Sons.

19

Kettunen, J. (2011). Innovative pedagogy for the university of applied sciences. Creative Education, 2(1), 56-62. Kodeih, F., and Greenwood, R. (2014). Responding to institutional complexity: The role of identity. Organization Studies, 35(1), 7-39. Legard, R., Keegan, J., and Ward, K. (2003). In-depth interviews. In Ritchie J. and Lewis J., (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, (pp. 138-169). London: Sage. Lepori, B. (2008). Research in non-university higher education institutions. The case of the Swiss Universities of Applied Sciences. Higher Education, 56(1), 45-58. Marshall, C., and Rossman, G. B. (1999). Defending the value and logic of qualitative research. Designing Qualitative Research, 191-203. Maxwell, J. A. (2010). Using numbers in qualitative research. Qualitative inquiry, 16(6), 475-482. Mas, M. and Stehrer, R. (eds.) (2012). Industrial Productivity in Europe: Growth and Crisis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Mason, J. (2006). Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qualitative Research, 6 (1), 9-25. Marion, R. (2008). Complexity theory for organizations and organizational leadership. Complexity leadership, part, 1, 1-16. Meyer, J. W., and Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 340-363. Musselin, C. (2005). Change or continuity in higher education governance? Lessons Drawn from twenty years of national reforms in European countries. In Bleiklie, I. and Henke, M. (eds.), Governing knowledge: A study of continuity and change in higher education, (pp. 65-79). Dordrecht: Springer. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. The Academy of Management Review, 16, 145-179. Olssen, M. and Peters, M. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 20 (3), 313-345. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry a personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261-283. Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G.R. (2003). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Stanford University Press. (original 1978).

20

Powell, W. W., and Colyvas, J. A. (2007). The new institutionalism. The international encyclopedia of organization studies. Retrieved 20 June 2016 from http://www.sage-ereference.com/organization/Article_n336.html Rajaram, R., and Castellani, B. (2015). The utility of nonequilibrium statistical mechanics, specifically transport theory, for modeling cohort data. Complexity, 20 (4), 45-57. Ramirez, F. O., Byrkjeflot, H., and Pinheiro, R. (2016). Higher education and health organizational fields in the age of “world class” and “best practices”. In Pinheiro R. et al., (Eds.), Towards a comparative institutionalism: Forms, dynamics and logics across the organizational fields of health care and higher education, (pp. 35-57). Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 45. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Rhoades, G. and Sporn, B. (2002). Quality assurance in Europe and the US: Professional and political economic framing of higher education policy. Higher Education, 45, 355-390. Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., and Elam, G. (2003). Designing and selecting samples. In Ritchie J. and Lewis J., (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, (pp. 111-145). London: Sage. Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (2002). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion, 573, 305-329. Robbins, S.P. et.al. (2003). Management. 3rd ed. Australia: Pearson Education. Robson, C. (2002). The analysis of qualitative data. In, Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-researchers (pp. 391-454). London: Blackwell. Roxas, H.G. et. al. (2007). Institutional analysis of strategic choice of micro, small and medium enterprises: A conceptual framework. The Philippine Review of Economics, XVIV (1). Schmidt, V. (2002). The futures of European capitalism. New York: Oxford University Press. Scott, W. R. (2005). Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program. In K.G. Smith and M. Kitt, (Eds), Great minds in management: The process of theory development, (pp. 460-485). New York: OUP. Simon, D.F., and Cao, C. (2009). China’s emerging technological edge: Assessing the role of high-end talent. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Slaughter, S. and Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore. Snape, D., and Spencer, L. (2003). The foundations of qualitative research. In Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. (Eds)., Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, (pp.56-77). London: Sage Publications. Sporn, B. (1996). Managing university culture: an analysis of the relationship between institutional culture and management approaches. Higher Education, 32, 41-61.

21

Sporn, B. (2003). Management in higher education: Current trends and future perspectives in European colleges and universities. In Begg, R. (ed.), The dialogue between higher education research and practice, (pp. 97-107). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. Guilford Press. Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications, Inc. Taylor, J. S., Ferreira, J. B., de Lourdes Machado, M., and Santiago, R. (Eds.). (2008). Non-university higher education in Europe (Vol. 23). Springer Science & Business Media. Teixeira, P, Jongbloed, B., Dill, D. and Amaral A. (2004). Markets in Higher Education. Amsterdam: Kluwer. Teixeira, P. (2013). The torturous ways of the market: Looking at the European integration of higher education from an economic perspective. LEQS Paper No 56/2013. Urbano, C. (2011). A (id) entidade do ensino superior politécnico em Portugal: da Lei de Bases do Sistema Educativo à Declaração de Bolonha. Sociologia, Problemas e Práticas, (66), 95-115. Verweij, S., and Gerrits, L. M. (2013). Understanding and researching complexity with qualitative comparative analysis: Evaluating transportation infrastructure projects. Evaluation, 19 (1), 40-55. Villani, E. and Phillips, N.W. (2013). Beyond institutional complexity: The case of different organisational successes in confronting multiple institutional logics. Paper presented at the 35th DRUID Celebration Conference 2013, Barcelona, Spain. Virolainen, M. (2007). Workplace learning and higher education in Finland: reflections on current practice. Education+ Training, 49(4), 290-309. WEM and ORGALIME. (2001). Skills shortages in the engineering industries. Brussels. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1-19. Weick, K.E. 2001. Making sense of the organization. Oxford: Blackwell. Whetten, D. A. (2006). Albert and Whetten revisited: Strengthening the concept of organizational identity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(3), 219-234. Yin, R. K. (2004). Applications of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zaltman, G., and Duncan, R. (1977). Strategies for planned change. Wiley.