Higher Education as an Agent of Social Innovation
Dalija Gudaitytė
Brigita Janiūnaitė
Kaunas University of Technology
Institute of Educational Studies
Lithuania
Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University of Hamburg, 17-20 September 2003
The present time is marked as the time of fast development of science and technology, the rise of the new social and economic possibilities and prospects, as well as a brighter and more radical expression of life changes. The changes, characteristic of the development of the mankind, manifest themselves in different forms. The first group of changes are the changes in society which are very often called transformations. They are treated as qualitative and quantitative changes which can influence the formation of the new state of the society or the new qualitative level of the way of living. The transformations in society embrace several spheres of priority: political, economic, technological and social. Transformations in the social sphere reflect the changes in the system of values characteristic of the society and the changes of different structures of the society; the changes show the formation process of a new social content of the society, i.e. they reflect the birth of the system of new ethic, cultural, social and other values while the new structure of the society is developing on the basis of the symptoms of new social structures.
The formation and forming of new quality in politics, social spheres, economics, technology and other kinds of evolution, have to be linked with innovations, their expression and results. In this context innovations should distinguish themselves with such characteristics:
· they should give a new content for the future development and progress;
· they should be oriented towards the solving of those problems that are or can be characteristic of the appropriate sphere in politics, social life, economics, technology, etc. and for the activities representing the sphere of progress or its results;
· they should define the precondition for new problems to arise and to manifest themselves because their existence and their further solution express the essence of further development and progress.
Education and its highest level– higher education–could be an influential agent of innovation, because in the developing social system, where new processes of implementation occur, the central factor is a human being. Thus, realizing the activities characteristic of every specific phase of innovation implementation, the factors, which influence the actions and behaviour of an individual and his/her success, become important. On the other hand, an individual taking part in the process becomes a very important factor in successful implementation of innovations. The level of one’s education becomes important in this context because it enables an adequate grasp of social reality, environment and successful acting in it. According to Doppler and Lautenburg (1996), the success of innovation implementation is greatly influenced by the following mental and cultural factors: general readiness for change, personal responsibility of the employee, prevailing culture of confidence, i.e. the so called soft factors of innovation technology which often make a determining influence upon the final result.
However, the society supports higher education and believes in it only when it is convinced in its usefulness. In a democratic society (we are also striving for its values), the basis of the relationship between higher education and the society lies in understanding their interdependency and mutual trust. Only in such a case higher education is understood as the main power of the world development which influences technology and society; it develops the background for progress and at the same time improves the everyday life. How the contemporary higher education can achieve such a quality which should differ radically from the traditionally treated mass higher education? This article attempts to answer this question.
Research question:
How should contemporary higher education act in order to become the agent of social innovations?
Theoretical background:
· The concept of relations between modern higher education and the society (Barnett, 1990, 1994, 2000; Gibbons, 1998).
· The process of transition from the elite to mass higher education is understood as a phenomenon that leads to a new mission of higher education, i.e. being the driving force of intellectual development of the society (Barnett, 1990, 1994, 2000; Kerr, 1994; Scott, 1997, 1998).
· Model of activity of the change agent by Havelock (1973).
· Classification of innovation by Prigogine (1998).
· The statement that innovation is not just an economic mechanism or a technical process. It is, above all, a social phenomenon (Green Paper on Innovation, EU, 1997).
The structure of the article is determined by three aspects included in the discussion: first of all, the context in which the new goals of the higher education arise, secondly, specific features and peculiarities of innovation agent, and, in the end, analysis of the opportunities for contemporary higher education to develop the features of innovation agent.
I. The Context of the Contemporary Transformations of the Society
First of all, we should consider the intellectual context in which the idea of higher education is discussed. We should not choose a single ideal of education no matter how attractive it seemed in the past because all the ideals are connected to one’s own epoch. The goals of education can be determined only having analysed the present cultural, social and other conditions (Bowsma, 1990). The ideal of higher education changes together with the society; it exists in the social context of the concrete epoch and not beyond its boundaries.
The public processes during the last decade are going on more rapidly than the changes in the values, regulations and vital skills of the mankind to change its way of life – to adapt oneself to new economical and social conditions. It is stimulated by some psychological instability, social disintegration, manifestation of legal nihilism in the society. When an individual encounters a new problem, and is not able or does not want to solve it, he/she addresses the elected authorities for the way out and places the burden of his/her personal responsibility on the state.
What is the consequence of social transformations brought to the post-socialist countries, including Lithuania? Most contemporary problems in Lithuania arise from the fact that, practically speaking, the relationship between a person and the state changes – the preference to the state changes into the preference to a person. On the one hand, in a society, which becomes more democratic, a person himself/herself has to take responsibility for his/her life and the solution of arising problems. On the other hand, the state has to help a person to implement his/her choice and guarantee the legitimate principles of major human rights and opportunities. However, there is inadequacy between declaration of principles and opportunities to use them. This inadequacy becomes stronger in the times of transformations and then social conflict and exclusion emerge.
The exceptional state of social organization and transformations can be used to describe the state and the specific context of our days not only of Lithuania but also of other European countries which were forced to live a rather closed way of life, isolated from the centre of European culture and its evolution. All the post–soviet and post-socialist countries are undergoing it. Today these countries, which have come into the space of the free and democratic world, have to conduct themselves according to the norms of behaviour and activities usual for that world. But they seem to be as if in a different zone of traffic which is distinguished by different traits of social time and space: the regulations and norms usual to the world which is democratic and more mature in civilisation are not valid here yet. At this point, comparing its own social activities with another zone of social traffic and still hastily conforming to the norms and regulations of that zone, social instability and cultural marginality become more obvious. The old structures have collapsed or are vanishing and the new ones are not of desirable stability, clearness of purpose, obligatory mutual harmony and more rational degree of interaction. What structural qualitative changes are most characteristic to this transformation? What main contradictions accompany the transformation? What is global in the transformation, i.e. what depends on common civilization activity, and what is local, specific, i.e. characteristic only to us and others like us?
The post-communist social changes in Lithuania consist of two stages: revolutionary and evolutionary. The Lithuanian common social existence was mostly predetermined by the processes which started and formed themselves beyond the geographical and social cultural boundaries of the country. Societal transformations are qualitative and quantitative changes which influence the formation of a new state of the society or qualitatively new level of its way of life: political, economic, and cultural (see Picture1).
Picture 1. The revolutionary and evolutionary stages of the social changes in Lithuania: articulation of the political, economic, cultural and social state.
The distinguishing feature of the first, revolutionary, stage (1988-1992) is the articulation of a new political, economic, cultural and social state, i.e. formulation, public discussion and lending of legitimate form. At this stage political, cultural and legitimate structures were changing more rapidly than economic and social; the background of civic and political community and the frame of the state institutions were developing at a rapid pace.
The distinguishing feature of the second, evolutionary, stage (since 1992) is institutionalisation of the articulations of the revolutionary stage, i.e. their practical realization and turning into the norms of the social life. At this stage economic and social structures were changing rapidly and new layers in the society as well as their interaction became obvious. The norms, forms and institutions of public, political and economic life became strong.
Both stages have the features of tendencies in development of the Western world, often named as formation of post – industrial, consumer, information and global society. It means the development of service sector and decline of industry; increasing cultural variety and tolerance towards different values; the extension of the world wide information web; the increase of the spheres of life conducted by bureaucrats which determines the reduction of the private sphere and the broadening of the social sphere; the growing decentralisation of the control and management in different social spheres; the universal dominance of the information and communication technology in the economic, cultural, political and social development of the society and the increase of the outgoing social bonds; massive onset of the hedonistic culture, the revealing social differentiation and specialisation, the rapid complexity of the technologies and the growing importance of the social role.
Continuing changes result in specific consequences. One of the most characteristic results is pragmatism, the idiosyncratic feature of the present. It speeds up the change of social realism which determines the instability of its structures and global rapprochement. One of the indications of the present days is the human being, estranged from traditions and nature, with considerable changes in the system of values and even sub consciousness, i.e. the qualities which form a different social anthropological portrait.
This is demonstrated by another, yet more controversial continent of aspects and shades in the evolutionary development, dressed with latent structures and phenomena. Cultural indeterminacy of the society and its constituent parts (marginality), modality of culture (its kaleidoscopic nature and uncertain changes), decomposition of identity and seeking for it, fragmentation and egocentrism of the elements of the split society and its alienation, increasing poverty of spiritual life, and lack of social order and communal integrity are becoming more obvious. (see Picture 2).
Picture 2. Tangible and latent structures of the society.
Thus the essence of the universal gnosiological change is made of the following aspects: how do we appreciate the changing world, how do we understand it and try to adjust ourselves to it? Or, on the contrary, are we inclined to rebel? Or, maybe, are we inclined to accommodate ourselves helplessly? Do we interfere trying to preserve not only our creative potential but also enriching it?
Answers to these questions depend upon how we are able to perceive and to evaluate the hidden factors – the underwater part of the iceberg. This is the activity space of an agent of innovation.
II. The Activity Space for an Agent of Innovation
According to Lundvall and Jonson (1994), one of the most important reasons for social exclusion is that modern societies can not be innovative and strive for economic and social goals without including every citizen into creation and usage of knowledge. The obligation of every citizen is to take part in the process of the development of the four types of knowledge necessary for the society – know what, know why, know how, know who.
The knowledge of all four types is essential in order to create a safe society in a country which experiences changes. The most important is the know how knowledge, because this type of knowledge gives opportunity for the society to innovate, reconstruct, to undergo the economic, technological and social challenges, mostly connected with the necessity to adapt to the technological innovations (innovations for most people are associated with new technologies), and the main role of education in this context is to ease the process of adaptation so that technologies could be used effectively striving for economic and social goals. First of all, it is the process of “social innovation” which opens the way for the innovations of other kinds to appear. How the innovation agent should act in order to stimulate activities of such kind?
According to Prigogine (1998), social innovations manifest themselves in a closer connection with specific social relations and culture of work. It should be taken into account because the same innovations can manifest themselves differently in different countries which can be very close in their social structure and even in different regions in the same country. The possibilities for using social innovations are very large because the implementation of technological innovations is often accompanied by necessary managerial, economic and other changes. So when mastering new equipment, it often happens that new organizational changes are being planned. The more radical the innovations, the greater changes in the structure of organization are necessary. The possibility to use an innovation depends considerably upon group and personal qualities of users because innovation implementation requires new regulations, relationship, behaviour and all this influences innovation adoption. The changes of human activities, behaviour and consciousness are ascribed to the direct sphere of social changes which are closely connected with individual’s social status. Social status is conditioned by the level of education, the contents and kinds of activity, income and wealth. Social status is reflected by social stratification. The changing social status results in new needs and interests. As times passes and generations change, smaller or greater changes take place in social life. Values, norms, habits - the expression of culture in general– are the most changing. The change of national consciousness is especially slow. Social changes are reflected in social institutes. Through time the changes become distinct in such social institutes as family, matrimony, education, authority (power) and even religion. What should be the characteristics of innovation agent activities in this aspect?