Thu, Apr 18, 2024
[Archive]
Volume 3, Issue 1 (MARCH ISSUE 2022)
johepal 2022, 3(1): 68-89 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Culver K C, Harper J, Kezar A. (2022). Engaging Design Thinking in Professional Bureaucracies: Improving Equity for Non-Tenure Track Faculty in Higher Education. johepal. 3(1), 68-89. doi:10.52547/johepal.3.1.68
URL: http://johepal.com/article-1-188-en.html
URL: http://johepal.com/article-1-188-en.html
Abstract: (1923 Views)
Higher education faces a number of wicked problems, including the inequitable work environment for non-tenure-track faculty (NTTF), that require innovative solutions. This study examines the potential of liberatory design thinking for creating new policies, programs, and practices in higher education, including how the professional bureaucratic environment might shape the design process. Using data from three campuses where changes related to NTTF were successfully implemented, we extend the conceptualization of design thinking toward a model that adapts existing phases of design thinking and identifies new phases where the work of design is particularly influenced by the higher education context. We identify three dimensions that particularly contribute to these differences: politics and power in professional bureaucracies, structural and cultural constraints, and centering equity. This model has practical implications for supporting equity-minded change processes in higher education and may be of particular interest to policymakers, institutional leaders, design teams, and researchers.
Keywords: Design Thinking, Organizational Change Process, Non-Tenure Track Faculty, Equity-Minded Practice, Liberatory Design
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2022/01/16 | Accepted: 2022/03/19 | Published: 2022/03/30
Received: 2022/01/16 | Accepted: 2022/03/19 | Published: 2022/03/30
References
1. American Federation of Teachers. (2009). The American Academic: The State of Higher Education Workforce 1997-2007. American Federation of Teachers. [Article]
2. Anaissie, T., Cary, V., Clifford, D., Malarkey, T., & Wise, S. (n.d.). Liberatory design: Your toolkit to design for equity, version 1.0 [card deck]. Stanford k12 lab network. [Article]
3. Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in the scholarship on student success. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 441-469. [DOI]
4. Bickerstaff, S., & Chavarín, O. (2018). Understanding the needs of part-time faculty at six community colleges. Community College Research Center (CCRC). [Article]
5. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. SAGE Publications, Inc.
6. Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2011). Change by design. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(3), 381-383. [DOI]
7. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5-21. [DOI]
8. Clarke, A., & Craft, J. (2019). The twin faces of public sector design. Governance, 32(1), 5-21. [DOI]
9. Clifford, D. H. (2017). Liberatory design deck [PowerPoint slides]. Stanford k12 lab network. [Article]
10. Considine, M. (2012). Thinking outside the box? Applying design theory to public policy. Politics & Policy, 40(4), 704-724. [DOI]
11. Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Clark Plano, V. L., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative research designs: Selection and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), 236-264. [DOI]
12. Dahiya, A., & Kumar, J. (2020). Direct user behavior data leads to better user centric thinking than role playing: An experimental study on HCI design thinking. In C. Stephanidis, M. Antona, & S. Ntoa (Eds.), HCI International 2020 – Late Breaking Posters (pp. 11-18). Springer International Publishing. [DOI]
13. Eagan Jr., M. K., & Jaeger, A. J. (2009). Effects of exposure to part-time faculty on community college transfer. Research in Higher Education, 50(2), 168-188. [DOI]
14. Ehrenberg, R. G., & Zhang, L. (2005). Do tenured and tenure-track faculty matter? The Journal of Human Resources, 40(3), 647-659. [DOI]
15. Elsbach, K. D., & Stigliani, I. (2018). Design thinking and organizational culture: A review and framework for future research. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2274-2306. [DOI]
16. Finkelstein, M. J., Conley, V. M., & Schuster, J. H. (2016). The Faculty Factor: Reassessing the American Academy in a Turbulent Era. Johns Hopkins University Press.
17. Friis Dam, R. (2020). 5 stages in the design thinking process. Interaction Design Foundation. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/5-stages-in-the-design-thinking-process [Article]
18. Fung, A. (2015). Putting the public back into governance: The challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public Administration Review, 75(4), 513-522. [DOI]
19. Harper, J., Scott, D., & Kezar, A. (2019). Creating a culture of care for contingent faculty through professional development at Santa Monica College. The Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success. Pullias Center for Higher Education, University of Southern California. [Article]
20. Howlett, M. (2020). Challenges in applying design thinking to public policy: Dealing with the varieties of policy formulation and their vicissitudes. Policy & Politics, 48(1), 49-65. [DOI]
21. Jacoby, D. (2006). Effects of part-time faculty employment on community college graduation rates. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(6), 1081-1103. [DOI]
22. Kezar, A. (2013). Examining non-tenure track faculty perceptions of how departmental policies and practices shape their performance and ability to create student learning at four-year institutions. Research in Higher Education, 54(5), 571-598. [DOI]
23. Kezar, A., DePaola, T., & Scott, D. T. (2019). The Gig Academy: Mapping Labor in the Neoliberal University. Johns Hopkins University Press.
24. Kolko, J. (2010). Abductive thinking and sensemaking: The drivers of design synthesis. Design Issues, 26(1), 15-28. [DOI]
25. Kolko, J. (2018). The divisiveness of design thinking. Interactions, 25(3), 28-34. [DOI]
26. Lewis, J. M., McGann, M., & Blomkamp, E. (2020). When design meets power: Design thinking, public sector innovation and the politics of policymaking. Policy & Politics, 48(1), 111-130. [DOI]
27. McLaughlan, R., & Lodge, J. M. (2019). Facilitating epistemic fluency through design thinking: A strategy for the broader application of studio pedagogy within higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(1), 81-97. [DOI]
28. Micheli, P., Wilner, S. J. S., Bhatti, S. H., Mura, M., & Beverland, M. B. (2019). Doing design thinking: Conceptual review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(2), 124-148. [DOI]
29. Mintrom, M., & Luetjens, J. (2016). Design thinking in policymaking processes: Opportunities and challenges. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 75(3), 391-402. [DOI]
30. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations. Prentice-Hall.
31. Nakata, C., & Hwang, J. (2020). Design thinking for innovation: Composition, consequence, and contingency. Journal of Business Research, 118, 117-128. [DOI]
32. National Equity Project. (n.d.). Liberatory design. https://www.nationalequityproject.org/frameworks/liberatory-design [Article]
33. Parker, M., Cruz, L., Gachago, D., & Morkel, J. (2021). Design thinking for challenges and change in K–12 and teacher education. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 24(1), 3-14. [DOI]
34. Pope-Ruark, R., Moses, J., & Tham, J. (2019). Iterating the literature: An early annotated bibliography of design-thinking resources. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 33(4), 456-465. [DOI]
35. Post, L. A., Raile, A. N. W., & Raile, E. D. (2010). Defining political will. Politics & Policy, 38(4), 653-676. [DOI]
36. Ran, F. X., & Xu, D. (2017). How and why do adjunct instructors affect students’ academic outcomes? Evidence from two-year and four-year colleges (CAPSEE Working Paper). Center for Analysis of Postsecondary Education and Employment. [Article]
37. Schibik, T., & Harrington, C. (2004). Caveat emptor: Is there a relationship between part-time faculty utilization and student learning outcomes and retention? AIR Professional File, 91, 1-10. [Article]
38. Schuurman, D., & Tõnurist, P. (2017). Innovation in the public sector: Exploring the characteristics and potential of living labs and innovation labs. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(1), 7-14. [DOI]
39. Scott, D., Kezar, A., & Bates, M. (2019a). Redesigning teaching evaluations to support professional development for faculty at Harper College. The Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success. [Article]
40. Scott, D., Kezar, A., Celly, K., & Robinson, P. (2019b). Equity for lecturers and counseling faculty at California State University, Dominguez Hills. The Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success. [Article]
41. Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. SAGE Publications, Inc.
42. The Delphi Project. (n.d.). Delphi award. https://pullias.usc.edu/delphi/award/ [Article]
43. von Thienen, J., Royalty, A., & Meinel, C. (2017). Design thinking in higher education: How students become dedicated creative problem solvers. In C. Zhou (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Creative Problem-Solving Skill Development in Higher Education (pp. 306-328). IGI Global. [DOI]
44. Yin, R. K. (1994). Discovering the future of the case study method in evaluation research. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 283-290. [DOI]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
