The online survey asked the participants an intriguing question: Are you aware of a current example of disruptive innovation at your institution? To avoid diversion from the working definition of disruptive innovation, A short text was inserted at the very beginning of the survey:
Classic Clayton Christensen’s disruptive innovation theory suggests that a disruptive innovation is a simpler and cheaper solution for customers that, by virtue of technological advancement and following the marketing principles of non-competition, job-to-be-done, and unbundling, emerges to challenge an existing solution that is more complex and expensive. Disruptive innovation is antithetical to sustaining innovation which brings about steady and incremental change. Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) is an example of disruptive innovation in higher education. This survey examines the context of U.S. liberal arts higher education institutions (HEIs) in order to better understand DI’s practical implication on the U.S. higher education sector.
Of the 94 participants who responded to this question, 43 (or 41 percent) responded Yes and 61 (or 59 percent) responded No. Without neglecting the fact that 17 of the 97 participating LACs have more than one individual participant, the percent is high enough for examining examples of disruptive innovation in the LAC context.
Figure 13. Are you aware of a current example of disruptive innovation at your institution?
When asked to briefly describe the examples of disruptive innovation, the 43 participants covered 17 themes after coding. The 17 themes are online program (5), interdisciplinarity (4), partnership (4), location (3), summer program (3), digital liberal arts (2), doctoral program (2), financial model (2), demographic needs (2), cloud-based administration (1), competence-based education (1), faith (1), library services (1), new campus (1), outsourcing (1), R&D (1), and survival (1). 8 of the 43 responses are not coded either because of insufficient information or because the example is nowhere near a disruptive innovation. Here is an example:
We are cohorting entering first year students into quadrants that indicate high or low risk for academic success and high or low risk for retention. We are using data from a variety of sources to cohort students (high school GPA, socio-economic factors, history of engagement with [our institution] prior to application, etc.). We then have created advising tracks for students in each quadrant.
Although it is a fine innovation for improving student retention, it suggests nothing disruptive. It does not deal with issues related to new value (or non-competition), new need (or job-to-be-
done), or new model (or unbundling) that are part of the 3+1 DI model. In comparison, the following is a fine example of disruptive innovation:
Our institution itself is an example. While not a disruptive innovation yet, it has the potential to become such as we have entered a niche market seeking to attract students who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and others of similar values. While we do not seek to displace other like institutions, there is no other institution like us our size. Hence, we offer another, and only, alternative to much larger Church affiliated institutions.
Besides articulating disruptive innovation in his/her response, this participant touched upon components of the 3+1 DI model. Particularly, a new value (small LAC for LDS-affiliated students) is introduced when the participant mentioned that “we offer another, and only, alternative to much larger Church affiliated institutions.”
Institutional survival is another theme for the examples of disruptive innovation. Sweet Briar College is a women’s liberal arts college on the verge of closure in 2015 due to insurmountable financial challenges. While much is known about the legal action involved to rescind the closure decision, less attention is paid to the disruptive but effective measures to help sustain the college after the rescission, which includes increasing enrollment beyond its highest record in the past. According to the participant,
Our school was almost closed down by a former administration. The school was saved by passionate alumnae, faculty, staff, students and the local community. Our existence is coming out of the ultimate disruptive innovation and many things are changing in terms of how we are conceiving the future of the college.
The lesson learned from Sweet Briar College is not readily applicable to other LACs, nor is it a proven approach to sustainable development. However, it allows a peek into a scenario where DI helps deliver the much-needed result (financial stability) and provides opportunities for change.
The college had its 13th president instated on 15 May 2017 to kick off a new journey that would not be possible without disruptive innovation. There are certainly other LACs that endure financial constraints, some even to the point of closure such as Burlington College in 2016, for which Sweet Briar College will serve as a useful reference.
Disruptive innovation is also believed to exist in a less turbulent environment. One participant shared an example of how DI facilitates interdisciplinarity by disrupting the traditional notion of academic department.
We are bringing 13 humanities and social studies departments together in a new, interdisciplinary academic complex. Faculty will office and work in "neighborhoods" with a mix of disciplines and an array of learning spaces. There will be no clear department-specific areas anywhere in the facility. The intent is to mirror the diversity of the real world and create an environment ripe for interdisciplinary teaching, learning, and intellectual "collisions".
Norm-to-need transitions are frequently mentioned as the LACs use different strategies to satisfy emerging student needs. In one case, the needs entail reimagining the norm of summer semester, as one participant shared that “online summer course offering is being driven by student demand [while] previously summer courses were only available on campus and very, very limited in offering.” In another case, liberal arts education extends beyond the norms of undergraduate education and residential education to accommodate learning needs of a more diverse student body. On that note, a participant shared that their institution is “experimenting with developing programs for adult learners at corporate partner sites [and] have also developed [its] first online degree program for adult learners.”
The growth of doctoral programs was also mentioned as an example of DI that is likely to disrupt the norm of undergraduate education when they compete for space and resources. A second campus is uncommon to LACs, even more so when the expansion comes to graduate
programs at the expense of undergraduate programs. One participant shared about the disruptive changes that came from a new doctoral program:
The implementation of a physical therapy doctoral program happened rapidly and led to a graduate health sciences school being established and a second campus being developed. This has led to a number of undergraduate program changes in order to "feed" students to these graduate programs.
Finally, information technology has an increasingly disruptive impact on the traditional management practices of the LACs. One participant shared about how cloud-based information technology helps shape a “collaborative connectivity” with peer LACs and students:
On the administrative side that impacts all, the move of IT/technology from local-based to cloud/global. Recent broadband connectivity has opened up the ability to manage technology infrastructure seamlessly throughout on-prem and cloud-based environments as well as provide “collaborative connectivity” with other institutions, broadening the campus footprint to one of a more global nature. Managing ERP’s in the cloud, with students accessing via any device is another outcome of this disruption.