“Anything Can Be Done With Anything”: Innovative Universities with Dara Melnyk

Alex Usher: Hi there, I'm Alex Usher and this is the World of Higher Education Podcast. There's a joke about innovation in higher education. It goes like this. How many universities does it take to change a light bulb? Change? Maybe that's a bit unfair, but it's unquestionable the sector isn't famed for welcoming change, in particular, radical change.
Universities are famous for their isomorphism, the tendency of all institutions to look the same because they're copying some ideal model university, think Harvard or Oxford. Indeed, it's often thought institutions which don't copy the model used by prestige universities must ipso facto lack quality. Innovation does happen. It's just not always widely noticed or celebrated. But there's one regular webinar that's trying to change that, and that's the Innovative University's Global Webinar series. Based at Constructor University in Germany, it's co-hosted by two fantastic higher education researchers. One is Isak Froumin, who you may remember, joined our podcast last year to talk about post-Soviet universities, and the other is today's guest, Dara Melnick.
We invited Dara on the show today to discuss what she and Isak have discovered about innovative universities over the course of their webinar series. What are the catalysts for innovation in universities? What kinds of structures or leadership types are required to sustain innovation? Does the innovation process look the same around the world, or does it differ from one region to another?
I found this an absolutely delightful conversation, mainly because Dara's job allows her to delve deeply into topics I wish I could spend more time on myself, and this was a chance for me to live that life vicariously. I hope you find her as insightful as I did, and so without further ado over to Dara.
Dara, how did the, uh, innovative University's global webinar come about? What was the motivation to create a platform specifically focused on institutional innovation in higher education?
Dara Melnyk: Uh, so there were practical reasons. I would say three of them and one completely impractical reason. Um, regarding practical reasons, the first one, we truly believe that innovative universities are important. They're useful because they test new approaches and if this approach is so successful, other universities pick them up and this is how you upgrade higher education systems. It's, I think, one of the most powerful mechanisms and also one of the most ethical for institutions, as compared to strict policies. Then the second practical reason was linked to, uh, my occupation. I've been consulting and advising universities for the last decade, and it's simply easier to talk, about universities when you can use extreme cases. Because extreme cases provide good examples, um, and also innovative universities really have to get that one thing that is at the core of their distinction right, and typically they can articulate what they do really well. So, uh, this is why it's efficient to learn from them. For example, a lot of universities practice PBL, but if you want to truly learn how it works, it makes sense to go to the court, to McMaster, Maastricht University, Brook University, whatever you prefer. Um, then the last practical reason, uh, innovative universities lead these private battles with regulators, with, um, the, the conflict between their vision and every day that they're constantly trying to bridge. And that can get pretty isolating. So we saw that it would be a good idea to create a gallery of cases, where university leaders would speak about their ideas and challenges, and others could learn about that and feel a bit better about their practice. Finally, impractical reason, I promised you that as well, um, Isak, my co-host and I have this acute curiosity about higher education, and, uh, innovative universities intrigue us. They surprise us. They’re hopeful and most importantely they make us question what we believe about higher education.
Alex Usher: So how do you go about, selecting cases? Uh, is it, you know, what is it that makes a university truly innovative? Is it technology, governance, pedagogy? And how long do you have to wait to know if it's an innovation worth copying?
Dara Melnyk: Okay, so there are two questions here. First about selecting cases. I would love to tell you that we have this long list, a strict list of criteria that, that we run them through models in maybe our Excel files or something that, but truly we just follow our gut feeling. Um, if something gives us a pause, it might do the same for the audience as well. So this is how we select, uh, somebody tells us about an institution, we're like, okay, this is interesting, how do they do it? And that's how we decide to feature it. Now, in terms of what makes a university innovative, uh, we mostly focus on innovations that are, constitutive not auxiliary, meaning that they are absolutely necessary for that specific university model to function. And secondly, we do like looking into innovations in the operational model as well. But typically we concentrate on innovations incorporated, so in teaching and learning, because that seems to be the very essence of the idea of the university.
Alex Usher: So in your experience, I'm I'm wondering the extent to which institutions innovate for, uh — how can I put this — internal reasons as opposed to external, uh, challenges. Like what, what kinds of external challenges or, or, you know, changes in the environment, I guess force institutions to rethink their model, and how often is it those external forces that are decisive in making institutions take that turn to innovation?
Dara Melnyk: So I feel it's not that cut and dried. Uh, while universities do sometimes respond to external forces, external challenges, they often also just stand idly by disallowing what's happening, not in the sense of ignoring it, but rather addressing it, and then denying any responsibility for action. That is just as often as a response. What I think triggers innovation, um, more reliably is what I would call inflection points. So periods in history when norms start shifting and people start questioning what they believe in and what is right. And while that is happening, you can sneak in something truly unusual.
So the largest and the longest probably, period that we see, uh, is the 1960s, 1970s when a lot of things were changing. So gender norms, gender durations were questioned. There was general discontent with the foreign policy and equality level in the US, and religious rebellion in Europe to a degree, which is how we got I think, almost half of the cases in our collection. And, uh, possibly we are living, in this inflection period now as well when, we observing technology shifts and a new political order or how, uh, the economists recently aptly put it, disorder emerging, as well as, uh, climate wars. Institutions are responding to that but they are also enabled to respond because no one is sure what is correct, what is the correct university model — for a time. I think at some point it will settle again and innovating will become difficult.
Alex Usher: So it seems to me that innovations, uh, require a pretty careful mix of institutional structures, leadership styles, funding mechanisms. Could be internal, could be external. Is there any particular configuration that you think, is more likely to support long-term change?
Dara Melnyk: So first of all, um, anything can be done with anything. We've seen, uh, the most fascinating cases of innovation that happen under really severe constraints. But at the same time, there are factors that significantly contribute to innovation. I would, classify them as stories, leaders, and policy. So talking about stories, if a university community believes it must innovate for whatever reason, to be a pathfinder, to show other universities the way or, to problem solve because it has a vision, it must implement, and to do so, it must keep solving issues. Talking about leaders, personal drive matters, and you actually need several people who have it because they will argue, they will compete, they will collaborate, and ultimately drive the university forward. Um, no university leader is an island, to paraphrase John Johnson. No team, no vision, no innovation, uh, ultimately. And finally, policy. I think you would agree that there should be sufficient autonomy to experiment. It sounds like a basic statement, like something you hear in, uh, every second university President's speech, but universities are really quite limited by licensing and accreditation regulations. And as well by something that I would call self-arrest, so to say, borrowing from Antony Rain, um, playing safe just in case, keeping still, not, not shaking the boat. So autonomy is really important. I, um, love the title of the book by Bartlett Giamatti, um, about universities, the free and ordered space, and I, I've been obsessed about that phrase. It seems incredibly relevant to universities for me because, well, there is no order if you don't have freedom. Freedom is the basis of order for universities.
Alex Usher: Interesting. We're gonna take a short break. We'll be right back.
Advertisement: Student success at scale with a proven ROI of 4. 4 times return for universities and colleges. Studiosity's AI for Learning is designed specifically for post secondary students to develop real skills, critical thinking, agency, belonging, and retention, to empower educators with reporting and insights into learning progress, and to build human connection, made possible with Studiosity's strictly help not answers Formative feedback and integrated humans in the loop design In partnership with post secondary institutions in Canada and around the world, Studiosity is for future ready graduates and future ready institutions. With over 200 post secondary partners and more than 2 million student users, Studiosity is grounded in an academically driven evidence base, leading the way to increasing life chances for students everywhere. Learn more about the world's leading ethical AI student support at studiosity.com.
Alex Usher: And we're back. Dara, your series features universities from all over the world. I've been so impressed by the way that you've been able to, uh, you know, to go to the various corners of the globe. What's your impression about how the approach to innovation differs regionally?
So is there a North American path to institutional innovation, which is different from what you see in Europe or Asia? Is it about philosophy? Is it about, uh, you know, traditions? I mean, what are the differences that you see globally?
Dara Melnyk: I think it's about problem fields. Um, so the problem field would be a cluster of issues that you have to navigate and you have to somehow address, somehow, quote in your design, for sponsors to even consider investing, for students to consider coming, et cetera. And if I were to walk you through the regions, this is really rough typology at the moment, but still for Africa, that would be the trifecta of affordability, quality and regional relevance, which is sometimes interpreted as decolonization, but it's more than that, I think.
Um, Asia is incredibly diverse economically and culturally. I'd say that China seems to be concerned with identifying its own way and making universities economic drivers in the sense of actual partnership between higher education institutions and the industry. And for developing countries, I think it's mostly about securing social lifts for students. Now traveling to North America, we've only looked at the US — Canada pending. Um, it's also very much centered on affordability, but, with the University of Austin, not to be confused with the University of Texas at Austin, we see this return to thinking and experimenting with what a university should be in the first place, which, uh, sounds a bit like sixties to me, so let's see what's, uh, what will be happening there. And finally, Europe is all about Europe, Europeanness. Its largest innovation, European University Networks, is centered on this. And apart from Europeanness, there is a lot of attention to innovative and experimental pedagogies to respond to demographic changes, among other reasons.
Alex Usher: Yeah. So about a year ago we had, uh, a guest on the show, Brian Rosenberg. You've probably read his book, Whatever It Is, I'm Against It. And he painted a picture of American institutions anyway as being, uh, very resistant to, innovation. Basically 'cause there were too, there are too many points of veto inside the institution.
What are the biggest obstacles that you see preventing universities from adopting innovative practices? Are, are you as pessimistic as, as Brian? Like how do you get around that tendency towards inertia?
Dara Melnyk: Uh, I am definitely not as pessimistic as Brian. Um, maybe because I don't live in the U.S. I hope that, the land down to Canada will not get upset. Now talking about obstacles, there are external and internal obstacles. Externally, they're quite plentiful, but I think it boils down to the conflict between open and closed systems. So a high education system is either welcoming in narrative and policy to innovations or not. And the way to overcome the barrier lies through promotion, often lobbying for the importance of innovative universities.
According to our observations, successful, innovative universities are typically led by talented lobbyists. You have to be able to fight back, to be an actor, not just an agent, in this national discussion. Now, for internal obstacles, the largest one is a lack of critical discussion about the organization. If people cannot, voice issues and share ideas, for example, because they are afraid to, then nothing changes, nothing will change. So your step one would be to create a platform for that discussion. And your step two would be to not just invite, or embolden if you can, if you're able to do that, people to share their opinions, but to actually drive the conversation up to real projects. So you can try something out. It may or may not work, but at least you've tried. And then you can try again. And this is how you became an innovative institution.
Alex Usher: What's the most innovative institution you've seen? I know you've, you've, you've done dozens of, of these around the world. What's the one that really, you know, affected you the most, thought was, was the most interesting to, to, to think about, to, uh, to look at.
Dara Melnyk: Uh, it, it doesn't work like that, we tend to get excited about every single institution we look at, because the more attention you pay to it, the, the, the more fascinated you get. And for me it's uh, typically the last case. So either the case that we've just covered or the case that we are just going to cover. So the case that we just covered is, uh, Roskilde University in Denmark, which is a cousin of, uh, Iain McMaster University. And, uh, they're just wonderful. They have their own proprietary methodology, problem oriented project learning. They keep introducing new innovations. If you look at their news page on their website, it’s not just news about new research outcomes and student results, it's also we are going to introduce this, we're thinking about that. And uh, the case that we're going to cover very soon, um, in a couple of days is, uh, Tidelines Institute, which is a micro college. There is a proper definition, but I like to define micro colleges as institutions where everybody knows everybody. So this is a micro college in Alaskan wilderness, that is view that, that views itself almost as complimentary to traditional higher education institutions. It's not a disruptive institution, it's a compliment. It’s a, a, an addition, uh, it offers experiential learning, in short-term projects for students. They can come for six months or a couple of weeks and learn something amazing by doing.
Alex Usher: So based on all these conversations that you've had, I mean, what are the big themes that you think might affect, for lack of a better word, the, the university of the future. And obviously there's not one university of the future, there's, there's lots of different, possibilities and roles for univer, individual institutions to play.
But are there specific themes emerging from your research that you think, might become a more hegemonic or, or dominant blueprint for higher education in the coming decades?
Dara Melnyk: So, some things are clear, uh, first affordable university models will keep appearing because everybody wants them to. For this, you might look at NewU University in Washington, DC which is a, a really brave and persistent case, that I admire deeply, or African Leadership University, for which Brian Rosenberg, he mentioned is one of the advisors. Second, universities will implement more technology. We all know it. Uh, everybody talks about it. And I think I would recommend to look at MEF, uh, a Turkish university to see what they're doing. They, uh, are quite systemic in, uh, uh, implementing new technological solutions. Third, and at the same time, almost as a mirror to this technology implementation, uh, universities also have to compete with online platforms. They have to offer something that no one else does. And I like the idea of Forward College, which is an itinerant college in Europe. So students study in Lisbon and then they study in Paris for their second year, and for their third year they come to Berlin. So, Forward College believes that relational pedagogy should lie at the core of education. The relationship between a teacher and a student as a driver for learning. And I think that that has, its own place, maybe a central place for universities because, they're the places where generations meet, and that should be used and leveraged. But, um, having said that, I also want to make, uh, maybe a slightly extended comment about innovations. I, I, I'm not sure about Isak, but um, even though I research innovative universities, I talk about them, I write about them, I don't truly believe in innovations in higher education, I don't think they are possible. I've been listening, reading about ancient Greece and ancient Greek education lately, and, uh, listening to, uh, Bastille, because for me that's connected. And there is a line in the song, Pompeii, 'But if you close your eyes, does it seem like nothing changed at all'. So the more I learn about innovative higher education, the more I believe in two things. First, nothing will fundamentally change. And second, nothing should. So, talking about lack of fundamental change, uh, the majority of innovations are reimaginings. We keep reimagining what has already been discussed, what has already been tried through the couple of thousands of history of higher education. And about the second point, maybe it's not a bad sign, actually. Maybe it's something that universities should retain. They are organizations that manage knowledge. They gain knowledge research, they transmit knowledge education, they apply knowledge via technology transfer. And the formats might change, but at the very essence, they should remain this one organization that is responsible for the complete knowledge cycle, and everything else seems secondary to me.
Alex Usher: Dara Melnyk, thanks so much for joining us today. And it just remains for me to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek, and you, our viewers, listeners, and readers for joining us today. If you have any questions or concerns about today's episode or suggestions for future ones, please don't hesitate to get in contact with us at podcast@higheredstrategy.com.
Run, don't walk to our YouTube channel, subscribe to it, never miss an episode of the World of Higher Education. Join us next week when I'll be joined by Nicolas Badré. He's the Chief Operating Officer of the Galileo Global Education Group. We'll be talking about the rise of private higher education in Europe and the Galileo Group's fascinating experiments with artificial intelligence in teaching and learning. Bye for now.