Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
Learning Outcomes .......................................................................................... 1
Module Topics .................................................................................................. 2
Introduction to the Innovator Role .................................................................... 2
Problem-posing and Problem-solving Tools to Support the Change Process .. 4
Practical Activity ............................................................................................... 5
SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat) Analysis .................................. 5
Force Field Analysis .............................................................................................. 6
Six Thinking Hats .................................................................................................. 7
Card Technique ..................................................................................................... 8
Mind Mapping and Ishikawa Diagram .................................................................... 8
Scholarly Approaches to WIL Innovation ......................................................... 8
Required Reading ............................................................................................ 9
References....................................................................................................... 9

Innovation in Fieldwork and Managing Change
Hello and welcome to Innovation in Fieldwork and Managing Change
In this module you will explore innovation as part of your leadership capabilities in fieldwork education. Innovation and change cannot occur in isolation. Change usually affects others and in order to successfully orchestrate change, fieldwork coordinators need to have a sound understanding of its meanings, the needs for innovation, goals, and roles. We will discuss the drivers for innovation and change, creative models for change processes and their application.
Figure 1: Innovator role from the Integrated Competing Values Framework
On successful completion of this module participants will:

Identify the need and goals for change in WIL.

Explore creative models of WIL underpinned by scholarship.

Apply a range of problem-solving models to support the change process.
Page 1

Innovation in Fieldwork and Managing Change
This module looks at the Innovator role, adding to the other leadership roles that are explored in the
Academic Leadership for Fieldwork Coordinators Program.
The topics to be covered are:

Introduction to the Innovator role.

Background factors denoting a need for WIL innovation at the fieldwork coordination level.

The literature on WIL innovation.

Problem-solving models and tools to support the change process.
Innovations are often associated with necessary and constructive progress and improvement.
Innovations have been used as a synonym for change and creative ideas. However, innovations can also have a negative flavour and they have been associated with notions of discomfort and risk.
To start engaging with the Innovator role think about the following questions:

What innovative changes have you made lately in your role as fieldwork coordinator?

What was the change about?

What prompted it?

Who or what initiated it?

What were the goals and purposes of the change?


Who was involved?
How did you practically implement changes?

How long did it take you?
If you have not been engaged with innovative changes yet, you may want to ask yourself these questions:

What changes would you like to make?

What stops you from starting the change?

Are the obstacles within yourself, with staff around you at uni, with your students, or with your industry partners?

What support do you need to get going with change?

What leadership skills might you need to implement this change
According to Vilkinas et al. (2001, 2006) the Innovator within the ICVF:

Is creative and innovative.

Envisions changes.

Encourages, facilitates and manages change.

Continually searches for innovation and improvements.

Thinks creatively, “comes up with inventive ideas” and “experiments with new concepts and ideas”.

Solves problems in a creative way.

Accepts the need for change.

Needs to expand, change and adapt ideas and practices to external forces.

Inspires staff towards a common vision.

Is externally focused beyond the university.
When you overuse or use inappropriately your Innovator role you will be:

Changing for change sake.

Responding prematurely.
Innovators can be seen as mavericks, bold adventurers, or courageous shakers and doers. The
Innovator role for fieldwork coordinators requires participation in the environment external to their
Page 2

Innovation in Fieldwork and Managing Change university (Broker). The Innovator role emphasises that contemporary fieldwork educators must be able to demonstrate a diverse repertoire of skills in response to rapidly changing circumstances. The
Innovator will see the need for new delivery approaches and creative ways of engaging and working with stakeholders of WIL (work integrated learning).
University education in the 21st century is changing. It needs to be effective in meeting labour market needs and universities have to operate within a demands-driven economic system. There are increasing pressures on universities to produce work-ready graduates. As a response universities are focusing on providing more WIL and capstone experiences. This focus on skills formation, practicebased education, achievement of competency thresholds and the importance of producing employable graduates, has strengthened the WIL agenda in university education. However, before we launch into innovation we should ask ourselves why should we seek to innovate? The need for innovation in WIL is full of challenges and contested agendas (Boud & Garrick, 1999). For example, student demographics are changing: many students already bring work experiences to university education. Similarly, students may not appreciate the value of WIL if their part-time work clashes with required fieldwork, if they are time-poor, or if they are mature-age with family responsibilities. Also, host agencies might be willing to provide students with work experiences yet may neglect the educational aspects of these experiences seeing students as a burden and a time-intensive investment with little return.
Traditionally, research has been the mainstay of universities and a shift in focus towards practice and work readiness can create identity crises for universities and their staff. Academic colleagues may view WIL as the poor cousin of research and consider a focus on WIL as career suicide. Professional accrediting bodies may impose a narrowly prescribed competency framework that favours a technical and knowledge-based approach to practice while neglecting the relational, social and ethical aspects of professional practice. There is a danger in straight-jacketing WIL into tightly outlined competency and accountability frameworks. Many competing interests, therefore, have the potential to collide when it comes to WIL. Developing and maintaining fieldwork programs that are pedagogically and procedurally sound remains a complex challenge and requires innovative ways of working and engaging with key stakeholders. WIL requires fieldwork coordinators who are able to work well with others including: students, academic and administrative colleagues, and stakeholders external to the university; these include fieldwork educators and their managers and colleagues (Developer).
Working well means to understand and respond to stakeholder expectations, needs, and the differing work cultures and drivers of external stakeholders. Innovation can be a challenge, however, it is an opportunity to shape, transform and change fieldwork programs creatively. The Innovator role is vital in driving effective, responsive and sustainable fieldwork programs, and may often be ignored due to a focus on the more day to day operational demands (Deliverer).
The literature on university teaching and learning confirms that there is a current trend toward increasing WIL at universities world-wide and it lists many diverse benefits for all stakeholders
(Brown, 2010). There is a dearth of literature that critically discusses the pedagogical rationale and need for the shift toward more WIL and its multifaceted impacts on stakeholders. The current interest in, and drive for, WIL programs is a demanding and challenging undertaking. It is interesting to note that the literature on WIL innovation rarely discusses leadership capabilities or innovation in fieldwork coordination (Patrick et al., 2009). Instead the literature pays attention to the types of innovation in
WIL in terms of pedagogy and curriculum, stakeholder engagement, and technical innovation in managing WIL placements (Knight & Yorke, 2003, McAllister et al., 2010, Roberts, 2009). The focus is strongly on improving student learning experiences, yet the crucial academic leadership role of WIL coordinators in managing innovative change processes with diverse stakeholders is overlooked
(Brown, 2010).
Innovation in WIL pedagogy and curriculum have focused on supervision models (Rodger et al.,
2009), reflective practice approaches (Clouder, 2000, Mann et al., 2009), student learning (Billett,
Page 3

Innovation in Fieldwork and Managing Change
2002), and professional based learning curriculum that produces work ready graduates (Clarke,
1995).
According to the literature, stakeholder engagement and collaborating closely with host agencies is vital for innovative WIL programs (Trede, 2010). Innovative approaches include using established workplace practices as pedagogical opportunities for WIL students (Gardner et al., 2010), conducting roundtable discussions (Brown, 2010), and viewing all stakeholders of WIL as part of a learning community where creative possibilities are discussed collaboratively (Barnett et al., 2010).
There are many factors that afford innovations in WIL. The need for innovation in WIL is driven by: economic pressures, university-wide marketing of WIL, the need for sound pedagogy, the workplace cultures in host agencies, workload issues, and the logistics of managing WIL programs (McAllister et al., 2010, Patrick et al., 2009). Furthermore, there are shortages of WIL placements, increasing mandatory WIL components in degree courses which increase the required numbers of WIL placements, reduced funding, changing workplace demands, and the pressure of meeting customer needs (McAllister et al., 2010).
Brown (2010) who conducted a study in Tasmania reported on an institution-wide roundtable discussion on WIL which identified many factors that influence WIL programs and afford innovator capabilities. Her paper identified challenges such as finding appropriate placements for students, providing supervision and support for students, managing academic workloads and resources to support visits, communication, integrating or embedding workplace learning with coursework, managing differing expectations of industry and university, and ensuring consistent assessments of student learning. It is interesting to note that this list does not mention the professional development needs of WIL coordinators, such as fieldwork coordinators, or their need for creative and innovative capabilities.
Drew et al. (2008) explored innovation as transformational academic leadership that encourages and inspires staff. She identified a need for formal university wide leadership programs. Leaders have interpersonal people skills and use strategic thinking to enhance organisational effectiveness. This paper mentions that leaders need to have a vision and they need to be able to inspire others.
However, there is no explicit discussion on creativity and change management strategies.
In this section you will be exploring tools that enable innovative approaches to change. The Innovator role emphasises the importance of firstly exploring and understanding the need for change, secondly, discussing and negotiating this need to agree on actions and, thirdly, to manage change. It is human nature to resist change. People tend to be more comfortable with continuing the way they work and relate to each other rather than changing to new ways which are unfamiliar. Remind yourself that it is quite normal to initially be met by resistance to innovation. In addition, people usually are not as rational in their thinking and decision making as you would like them to be. Questioning, changing and transforming existing models of practice requires more than rational objective arguments. It is about engaging with others and resonating your goals with theirs. Einstein once said “linear thinking brings you from A to B but creative thinking gets you anywhere.
” It might not be helpful to concentrate single mindedly on how to get to B when there might be better places than B. Successful innovations are based on principles of engagement, participation, shared ownership and dialogue. To work successfully as an Innovator means to acknowledge that innovations do have all sorts of impacts and consequences for different participating fieldwork stakeholders. The varied impact of actions and change on others should not be underestimated. Change processes that focus strongly on solutions and neglect the importance that all people involved understand the need for change may not allow people to fully engage and take responsibility for change. Change also takes time.
The Innovator is creative and searches for new possibilities. Creative thinking has been related to divergent thinking, making unique associations when approaching a certain stimulus or problem, lateral thinking and creating new ideas. Creative thinking requires a certain environment that gives
Page 4

Innovation in Fieldwork and Managing Change people permission to play with ideas. It is difficult to deliver within a short time frame. Creative processes can conjure up feelings that vary from joy, to ambivalence and anxiety. All of these issues around creativity imply that innovators need to be open, courageous and willing to try something different.
Before you choose which of the below mentioned strategies for change you want to try, conduct this simple practical activity. It will get you focused on one innovative idea, challenge or problem that is important to you in this workshop:
1. Think of one of your identified needs for change in your fieldwork program. As a group share individual needs for innovation and record them on a white board. As a group, agree to work on one of the fieldwork issues identified that requires innovation.
2. Form small groups according to what change issue participants are interested in exploring more deeply. Each small group decides to apply one of the problem-posing and problem-solving tools below to their change issue or situation.
3. Following the group work, select one spokesperson from each small group to feed back the main points of your discussion to the whole group.
The following problem-posing and problem-solving tools should be helpful in developing your repertoire as Innovator. They have not been developed within a WIL context but they are widely applied across disciplines and settings.
A SWOT analysis is a strategy that can help you to identify key issues and to move a change management initiative forward. This strategy allows you to build on Strengths, minimise or manage
Weaknesses, take advantage of Opportunities and work towards counteracting Threats. This website offers a very quick overview of the SWOT analysis concept.
QuickMBA http://www.quickmba.com/ . Go to Strategy and select SWOT Analysis.
In a group situation involving change, such as a fieldwork program team, participants are given a draft SWOT for completion before the meeting. A brief description is provided about the issue, with an example under each category. You can use the SWOT Analysis as a brain storming activity or ask individuals to complete their own SWOT analysis and bring their results to the group for discussion.
Let’s use one of your innovation issues that you have identified in the practical activity as an example.
Strengths:
Write down all the strengths that you can think of, that relate to your innovation issue.
Weaknesses:
Write down all the weaknesses that you can think of, that relate to your innovation issue.
Opportunities:
Write down all the opportunities that you can think of that would help achieve the changes you envisage in relation to your innovation issue.
Threats:
Write down all the possible threats that you can think of that would block the changes you envisage in relation to your innovation issue.
Page 5

Innovation in Fieldwork and Managing Change
When your group meets, all the participants enter their thoughts under each category into a master list. The lists are then prioritised and aligned to the program strategy. In larger review systems smaller groups compile a list and then merge these lists with other groups until the entire group reaches consensus for each category. At the end of the process the group is clear about their fieldwork program strengths, their weaknesses, opportunities and threats...and the actions needed to move forward.
The intent is to improve decision-making and to manage change, without assigning blame. It may also be important to have ground rules, such as noting every idea is worthwhile, all ideas have merit, some may not be adopted, and all members must participate.
By the end of this analysis it is much easier to identify priorities for each list and to assign accountabilities. Useful questions for each list include:
1. How can we capitalise on our strengths to maximise further opportunities?
2. How can we use our strengths to overcome threats and weaknesses, in order that we can further maximise opportunities?
3. What actions can be taken to minimise weaknesses and thereby overcome any threats?
The SWOT analysis enables you as a fieldwork coordinator to work through complex change issues, develop some coherence, and gain commitment of the group to work through these challenges.
Kurt Lewin (cited in Quinn et al., 2003) first proposed a model called Force Field Analysis which stems from physical laws. Objects, at rest, stay at rest unless a force acts upon them, which is greater than the force which allows it to be stable. For example, a small child may not push an adult aside because they cannot generate enough force. However, a body builder may easily generate enough force to push aside an average person.
The Force Field Analysis model places a fieldwork program and associated practices and behaviours in a force field. It analyses what forces influence current practices. It identifies the driving forces, all those aspects that would promote change, and the restraining forces, those aspects that hinder and slow down change. By applying these concepts to change within a fieldwork program, forces can be identified which will support and move individuals along in the change process. It is important to understand what forces are at play and how strong each force is compared with others. In other words, if a fieldwork coordinator can identify forces which are stronger than restraining forces, change will likely be supported. Similarly, if restraining forces are greater than the forces supporting change, it is unlikely that change will occur. In this case, attention needs to be afforded to reducing the restraining forces first. A key strength of this model is that it provides a broad picture of what and who is involved in change. The focus is away from individual perspectives and on more social, economic and other forces. This model can demonstrate multiple causes and advocates a holistic approach to innovation.
Let’s look at your innovation issue as an example once again.
Pressures for Change Pressures Against Change
Driving Forces
Restraining Forces
It is important to consider not only the length of the list but also the weight of each item. In order to support the change process, the drivers for change must exceed the resisting forces. As a result, additional driving forces may be needed along with removal of some of the restraining forces.
Research as noted by Quinn et al. (2003) suggests that minimising or removing the restraining forces are most effective in driving change forwards. In examining the lists the group also needs to identify which items they can control or manage.
Page 6

Innovation in Fieldwork and Managing Change
Edward de Bono developed his thinking model called the Six Thinking Hats in the 1980s. It is a very celebrated model that is very useful for structuring individual or group thinking and for promoting creativity during the change process. There are 6 hats which represent a specific way of thinking.
Everyone puts on the same coloured hat during the thinking process and aligns their thinking accordingly. By structuring the thinking process in this manner, a fieldwork coordinator can reduce
'ego's and power' in the process because everyone is required to 'think' in the same manner.
The group works through the discussion in the sequence listed below. At each phase, everyone wears the same coloured hat, and can literally or metaphorically put on the hat. Once the discussion is completed under the colour of the hat, the group then moves on. The process facilitates creativity and thinking and can move a group forward during a change process.
Hat
White
Red
Black
Yellow
Green
Blue
Summary: Six Thinking Hats thinking facts, figures and objective information emotions and feelings logical critical thoughts positive constructive thoughts creativity and new ideas overview and control of the other hats
If a fieldwork coordinator was to apply the Six Thinking Hats to your identified innovation issue example, they would see that there are six different ways of thinking about the innovation, each in relation to one of the hats.
Red
Blue
Page 7

Innovation in Fieldwork and Managing Change
Fieldwork coordinators can use the Six Thinking Hats methodology to move a group through an exploration process during the change cycle while managing some of the interpersonal dynamics which emerge, particularly when someone is offering a 'yellow hat' idea and someone criticises it because they are wearing a 'black hat'.
This technique requires a facilitator who asks everybody to write down facts, nuances, details to consider that relate to the identified need for change; one item per card. You can write as many cards as you like.
Pass the card to the person on your left, and receive cards from the person on your right. Read the cards and pass on. If you are inspired by one idea that you read, write your new inspired idea on another card.
Collect all the cards. Then sort the cards into sets. Sets are shared items. Give each set a name. The group needs to discuss and debate with the aim to find agreement and shared understanding for each set.
The groups may then merge their sets and cards. The aim is to identify a final list of challenges associated with the need for change.
Then each participant writes solutions on cards, again only one solution per card. Pass the card to the person on your left, read it and pass on. If you are inspired by one idea that you read, write your new inspired idea on another card.
Collect all solution cards and follow the process as above: sort the cards into solution sets. Sets are shared items. Give each set a name. The group needs to discuss and debate with the aim to find agreement and shared understanding for each set. At the end there are several solution sets. Ask the group what the conditions, dispositions or qualities are that are indispensable to these solution ideas?
The title of each solution set should capture the essence of all the suggestions.
The groups may then merge their sets and cards. The aim is to identify a final list of solutions associated with the need and challenges to change aspects of fieldwork.
From the group’s contributions build a visual conceptual picture. This illustration can be used to move to the next steps which include developing action plans and allocating tasks and responsibilities.
Such a collaborative, participatory and negotiated approach enables ownership of innovation by all involved. (Adapted from http://www.virtualsalt.com/crebook1.htm
)
The Card Technique can be used by a fieldwork coordinator to solicit ideas about the complexity of the change needed and the change process. The technique allows for quieter and perhaps more reflective participants to share their ideas as these may be lost by more vocal, extroverted types.
These are other problem-posing and problem-solving tools which have been discussed in the module exploring the Monitor role titled “The role of quality in fieldwork programs”.
As you can see there are endless ways of being creative and innovative in fieldwork. The crucial question is how do you know that you have made your innovative changes scholarly? Scholarly work is characterised by making your work available to the public, accessible and transferable to others and through peer-review (Shulman, 1998). It is important in the advancement of WIL to gather evidence and contribute to the scholarly knowledge of WIL innovations (Boyer, 1990). To be scholarly in the Innovator role means to explore the value of creativity and innovation in projects that intersect between university and real-world conditions of work, and to contribute to practical
Page 8

Innovation in Fieldwork and Managing Change scholarship (Raelin, 2007). The following are some questions that can guide your scholarly exploration around your innovative and creative WIL practice:

What evidence have I gathered to show the value of this change (content or process)?

How I can measure the impact of this innovation on self, colleagues, students, WIL partners, etc?

What have I learnt from this innovation and what can others learn from it?

How can I deeply reflect on the innovation to better understand what happened?

How does this innovation relate to the existent literature?

How and when do you know that the innovation has made a difference?

What is the value and limitation of this innovation?
WIL innovations can be located within educational development practice and there is little evidence concerning its impact (Donnelly, 2006). It is a good first step to identify theoretical frameworks in the literature that underpin learning theories. Higgs et al. (2010) have discussed such theories and frameworks as community of practice, activity theory, narrative inquiry, critical pedagogy, and blended learning approaches. The following are some articles that exemplify scholarly WIL:
Miller’s article (2005) discussed the continuing professional development and reflective practice of a
WIL facilitator and is an example of scholarly teaching in a practicum setting. Beveridge (2010) described the planning, implementation and evaluation of a school’s operation with a focus on professional learning. This article is an example of scholarly action research. Stenfors-Hayes et al.
(2010) explored how WIL educators conceptualised a good teacher and discusses curriculum, context and pedagogical view points.
Morgan, G. (1993). Strategic termites. In G. Morgan (Ed.), Imaginization , (pp. 41-62).
Newbury Park, California: Sage.
Russo, F. (2006). The hidden secrets of the creative mind. Time, 167 (3), 89-90.
Barnett , T., Cross, M., Shahwan-Akl, L., Jac, E. (2010). The evaluation of a successful collaborative education model to expand student clinical placements. Nurse Education in Practice, 10 , 17 –21.
Beveridge, L. (2010). Implementing pedagogical reform through action learning: Emerging issues from the local experience. Action Learning and Action Research Journal, 16 (1), 39-64.
Billett, S. (2002). Workplace pedagogic practices: Co-participation and learning. British Journal of
Educational Studies, 50 (4), 457-481.
Boud, D., & Garrick, J. (1999). Understanding learning at work.
London, UK: Routledge.
Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate.
Princeton, New Jersey:
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Brown, N. (2010). 'WIL[ling] to share: An institutional conversation to guide policy and practice in work-integrated learning'. Higher Education Research & Development, 29 (5), 507-518.
Clouder, L. (2000). Reflective practice: Realising its potential. Physiotherapy, 86 (10), 517-522.
Donnelly, R. 2006. Exploring lecturers’ self-perception of change in teaching practice. Teaching in
Higher Education , 11(2), 203-217.
Drew, G., Ehrich, L., & Hansford, B. (2008). An exploration of university leaders' perceptions of learning about leadership. Leading and Managing, 14 (2), 1-18.
Page 9

Innovation in Fieldwork and Managing Change
Gardner, G., Woollett, K., Daly, N., Richardson, B., & Aitken, L. M. (2010). Innovation in clinical learning for the acute hospital environment: Nursing grand rounds. Nurse Education Today,
30 (8), 737-741.
Higgs, J., Fish, D., Goulter, I., Loftus, S., Reid, J., & Trede, F. (2010). Education for future practice .
Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Knight, P. and Yorke, M. (2003). Employability and good learning in higher education. Teaching in
Higher Education. 8 (1), 3-16.
McAllister, L., Paterson, M., Higgs, J., and Bithell, C. (2010). Innovations in allied health fieldwork education: A critical appraisal . Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
McAllister, L., Bithell, C., and Higgs, J. (2010). Innovations in fieldwork education. In L. McAllister, M.
Paterson, J. Higgs, and C. Bithell (Eds.), Innovations in allied health fieldwork education: A critical appraisal (pp. 1-16). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Miller, A. (2005). Reflection on the preparation and implementation of a practicum design for a junior physiotherapist in primary care. Reflective Practice, 6 (1), 15-32.
Patrick, C., Peach, D., Pocknee, C., Webb, F., Fletcher, M., & Pretto, G. (2009). The WIL [Work integrated learning] report: A national scoping study. Australian Learning and Teaching Council
(ALTC) Final Report.
Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology. Available online at: www.altc.edu.au and www.acen.edu.au
The evolution of management models: A new approach. (2003). In R. E. Quinn, S. R. Faerman, M. P
Thompson, and M. R. McGrath. (2003). Becoming a master manager: A competency framework
(pp. 1-28). London, UK: J Wiley & Sons.
Raelin J. A. (2007). Toward an epistemology of practice. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 6 (4), 495-519.
Roberts, A. (2009). Encouraging reflective practice in periods of professional workplace experience: the development of a conceptual model. Reflective Practice, 10( 5), 633-644.
Rodger, S., Thomas, Y., Holley, S., Springfield, E., Edwards, A., Broadbridge, J., Greber, C.,
McBryde, C., Banks, R., & Hawkins, R. (2009). Increasing the occupational therapy mental health workforce through innovative practice education: A pilot project. Australian Occupational
Therapy Journal, 56 (6), 409-417.
Shulman, L. (1998). Teacher portfolios: A theoretical activity. In N. Lyons (Ed.), With portfolio in hand:
Validating the new teacher professionalism (pp. 23-37). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Stenfors-Hayes, T., Hult, H., and Dahlgren, L. O. (2010). What does it mean to be a good teacher and clinical supervisor in medical education? Advances in Health Sciences Education , Online
First, 26 October.
The card technique.
(1998). Retrieved from http://www.virtualsalt.com/crebook1.htm
Trede, F. (2010). Enhancing communicative spaces for fieldwork education in an inland regional
Australian university. Higher Education Research and Development , 29 (4), 373-387.
Vilkinas, T., & Cartan, G. (2006). The integrated competing values framework: Its special configuration. Journal of Management Development 25, 505-185.
Vilkinas, T., & Cartan, G. (2001). The behavioural control room for managers: The integrator role.
Leadership and Organisation Development Journal 22(4), 175-185.
Page 10