I read several chapters of Quinn's (2008) book on deep change. Most of those chapters focused on aspects of corporate change. I was especially interested in Quinn's description of the technical, transactional, and transformational paradigms. Quinn notes that many people gain individual technical skills that initially help them to succeed, but ultimately, as they are promoted to leadership positions, they learn to operate by a transactional paradigm. In contrast to the technical paradigm, the transactional paradigm has little to do with technical skill or expertise and more with how well that person is able to work with others and find solutions that everyone can accept. Quinn calls these "political" skills. The third type of paradigm is the transformational paradigm. This sort of person is internally motivated and willing to sacrifice themselves in order to enact their vision.
Quinn introduces the first two paradigms without suggesting that there is a third, but somehow I knew there would be a third. In my own life experience, I have not fit well into any of these paradigms. Initially, I did not have either the technical or transactional skills, but at heart I operated according to a transformational paradigm. Quinn doesn't really address this phenomenon. I wonder what he would have to say about it. From my own experience, I would say it's not really very useful and that these paradigms must build on each other (and Quinn does say that they build on each other rather than being interchangeable). I always struggled with having a vision for the world that I was incapable of achieving. I think that living out of this place for a long time undermined my self-confidence and optimism. It is now somewhat difficult for me to believe that I can make a positive change, even through self-sacrifice.
Eventually, I gained some measure of technical skill. I earned my bachelor's degree and started teaching English, a language that I know both as a native speaker and as a linguist. My struggle with my idealistic approach, however, created a strong disinclination to engage in a transactional paradigm or attempt to manage others. I have been, for many years, very happy to stick to teaching my class and let others do the managing. Then recently I was challenged to see this passivity as selfish and I started to engage, cautiously, in the managing/transactional paradigm (I joined committees and helped with negotiations). It turns out that I am fairly good at it as long as none of my principals are on the line.
The transformational paradigm still fills me with qualms, though. Those years of wanting so badly to change things and not being able to because I lacked the technical and transactional capital still haunt me. I want to stay in my shell. I want to just teach my class. I want to conduct research and write about it, somewhere further off stage. I don't know if that desire will ever change.
Quinn spends so much time talking about change for its own sake. He talks about how organizations must have change or they will die. He doesn't really give much direction on what kind of changes are necessary beyond saying something like, "Look into your heart. Face the truth and live with integrity." I wonder how much we can really fix the system as it exists, though. Maybe it needs to be taken down entirely, and we need to start over from scratch. After all, education is a servant to the status quo. Is it somewhat heretical to suggest that possibility of higher education in the United States? I think that might be an "undiscussable" topic in our program. I have to admit, I've run up against three or four of them since I came to Azusa.
Social Justice and Equity
During our orientation for this program, one of our instructors got up and presented the topic, "What is the purpose of higher education?" She had us listen to a short talk by an expert who said that higher education was in crisis in the Unites States and would be completely changed in twenty years. Then she passed around a handout of statements of purpose from maybe ten different presidents of higher education institutions in America.
As she talked, I skimmed through the various statements, and the feeling began to grow in me that these were not the people best qualified to answer this question. They represented the very establishment that was under attack and were therefore too invested to have honest answers. I flipped the handout over and wrote on the back, "Higher education exists to reinforce the established elite and to acculturate new members into that elite." After our discussion, I approached this teacher and showed her my written statement. I think I expected some kind of engagement, but that teacher glanced at what I had written and said, "Very nice," and turned away.
I have to admit, that was a very disappointing introduction to this program. I have since encountered other "undiscussible" topics, but this one troubles me the most. How can educators who say they are committed to equality and social justice ignore the intrinsic gate-keeping purpose of their own profession? If they don't believe their profession has that purpose, why don't they have a better answer for those who think it does? There seems to be so much effort to make higher education more accessible, but the more accessible we make it, the more education people will have to get in order to achieve the purpose of higher education: to join an elite who are distinguished as experts from the general hoi polloi. In this sense, pursuing equity and social justice in higher education ends up being a matter of chasing our own tail.
This is an undiscussible topic that under girds much of what we do in our program, and I know that I, for one, would very much benefit from an open discussion on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment