The higher education sector as a particular context for innovation

While not all change necessarily amounts to innovation, and there are scholars who articulate differences between the two terms (e.g. De Lano, Riley and Crookes, 1994; Kennedy, 1999), in this chapter, and following Murray (2008), Wedell (2009) and Waters (2009), I use the words ‘innovation’ and ‘change’ synonymously.

Innovation is often cited as one of the hallmarks of good leadership (see, for example, Stoller, 2009) and, conversely, the lack of innovation as a ‘recipe for disaster’ (Goldsmith and Clutterbuck, 1984). White (1987) argues that, while it may be distasteful to some, ELT is an industry like any other, and thus Goldsmith and Clutterbuck's observation is as relevant to the ELT context as it is to other areas of industry. His argument reads as follows:

While I would argue that it is legitimate to interpret White's reference to the ‘ELT industry’ as encompassing English language provision within higher education, it is the case that change within that context, and on the kind of institution-wide scale with which this book is concerned, raises a number of issues that would not necessarily arise with innovation in ELT on a more modest scale and within smaller organisations such as language schools. This is due, in part, to the unprecedented complexity of institutions of higher education today in terms of the following factors:

1. • The increase in regulation governing practices and the concomitant increase in institutional bureaucracy designed, in part, to guard against sanctions that can result from failure to comply. This is typified by the enormous bureaucracy surrounding UK universities’ efforts to ensure that they meet the UKVI requirements (see section 2.2.2). Such regulation and the potential dangers of failure to comply with stated good practice can have the effect of stifling innovation by reducing universities’ appetite for risk.