The fit between e-learning policy and institutional culture

Universities tend to exhibit different cultural characteristics. The classifications of Yetton et al. (1997; old, new and divisional) and McNay (1995; corporation, collegium, bureaucracy and enterprise) are used to explore the diversity between, and complexity of, universities in the 21st century. Increasing financial stringency in university budgets has brought quite rapid changes to university culture and this relatively new cultural fluidity needs to be understood. We postulate a rise in the divisional/enterprise aspect of university culture. The development of eLearning policy in two universities in Hong Kong with very different overall cultures is used to illustrate these points. The applicability of the discussion to universities in other regions of the world is explored. The strategies of consultation, support and evaluation can assist with the development of a reflective and responsive university community; such strategies may assist in optimising the fit between e-learning policy and institutional culture.

[1]  J. P. Singh,et al.  Information Technologies and Global Politics: The Changing Scope of Power and Governance , 2002 .

[2]  R. Nisbett.  The Geography of Thought , 2003 .

[3]  John Henry Newman,et al.  The Idea of a University , 2017 .

[4]  M. Bond.  Beyond the Chinese face : insights from psychology , 1991 .

[5]  M. Morton,et al.  The corporation of the 1990s: Information technology and organizational transformation , 1993 .

[6]  P. Ramsden.  Managing the Effective University , 1998 .

[7]  S. Marginson,et al.  Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic , 2002 .

[8]  The dilemma of case‐based teaching and learning in science in Hong Kong: Students need it, want it, but may not value it , 2005 .

[9]  George F. Gilder,et al.  Telecosm: How Infinite Bandwidth Will Revolutionize Our World , 2000 .

[10]  Rob Phillips,et al.  Developing a framework for a useable and useful inventory of Computer-facilitated learning and support materials in Australian universities , 2000 .

[11]  Tony Becher.  Academic Tribes And Territories , 1989 .

[12]  Tony Becher,et al.  Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines , 2001 .

[13]  Charles E. Bidwell,et al.  Bureaucracy in Higher Education. , 1966 .

[14]  Ann F. Lucas.  Leading Academic Change: Essential Roles for Department Chairs , 2000 .

[15]  Carmel McNaught,et al.  Excellent University Teaching , 2006 .

[16]  E. Rogers.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[17]  Thomas H. Davenport,et al.  Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology , 1992 .

[18]  Jan Currie,et al.  Australian universities as enterprise universities: Transformed players on a global stage , 2002 .

[19]  Douglas R. Vogel,et al.  Sociocultural Learning: A Perspective on GSS-Enabled Global Education , 2001, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[20]  Sheldon Rothblatt,et al.  The Modern University and its Discontents: The Fate of Newman's Legacies in Britain and America , 1997 .

[21]  J. Downey.  The university as trinity: Balancing Corporation, Collegium, and Community , 1996 .

[22]  Patrick Kunz.  The Next Generation of Learning Management System (LMS): Requirements from a Constructivist Perspective , 2004 .

[23]  M. Oliver,et al.  Does E‐learning Policy Drive Change in Higher Education?: A case study relating models of organisational change to e‐learning implementation , 2005 .

[24]  Douglas R. Vogel,et al.  Exploratory research on the role of national and professional cultures in a distributed learning project , 2001 .

[25]  J. Bennett.  Academic Life: Hospitality, Ethics, and Spirituality , 2003 .

[26]  Lars Groth,et al.  Future Organizational Design , 1999 .