The Great Resistance: A Discussion Series about Higher Education’s Resistance to Change

If 2023 was the yearthe Aligning Incentives with Systemic Change working group of ASCN engaged in a series of discussions about resilience, 2024 focused on another important "r" word – resistance – particularly as it pertains to higher education change processes. Using Brian Rosenberg's recent publication, Whatever It is, I'm Against It (Rosenberg, 2023) as a catalyst for engagement, spring 2024 saw discussion of chapters on the barriers to higher education changes; incentives that can drive or stop change; and potential pathways for change, even in very challenging times. In the fall of 2024, we offered a webinar on one such pathway to change, the Council on Undergraduate Research's NSF-funded Transformations project.

March 2024 Discussion:  "Whatever It Is, I am Against It",  Chapter 1 - The Case for Change and Chapter 3 - Incentives (led by Stephanie Salomone and edited by Melissa Haswell)

Rosenberg, who served as President of Macalester College after a long career as a higher education faculty member, takes on the issues of resistance to change in higher education, an industry in dire need of overhaul, with both a sense of humor and deep knowledge of problems, potential solutions, and the barriers to change. This is not a text that lays blame on any one group for the lack of responsiveness to change initiatives, but rather looks at the many players and cultural conventions in the system of higher education, their roles in potential transformation, and the anchors holding them back. He writes,

I still believe in the transformative power of higher education and the value of college. I still believe there are hundreds of thousands of people, faculty and staff, who work every day to enrich the lives of students. But there is so much about the current state of higher education that could be strengthened and so much that is unfair and unsustainable. (pp. x)

ASCN's Working Group 6 (WG6), with our focus on Aligning Incentives with Systemic Change, is made up of change agents who don't just imagine how higher ed could be strengthened, but are doing boots-on-the-ground work to make it so. We are often resisting the resistors, and for this reason and many others, Rosenberg's book is a catalyst for discussion around our roles and the roles our colleagues could play.

In Chapters 1 and 3, Rosenberg sets out an argument for the need for change and summarizes incentives (and disincentives) for purposeful, transformational change in the sector. Though he gives several economic issues that should be levers for change, he also argues, "the most compelling reasons that the sector needs to change are not economic but pedagogical," and points out that much of the professoriate "continues to rely heavily on practices that were widespread when phrenology and bloodletting were in vogue." The members of WG6 see this as a confirmation of our common work and mission, "to promote the development of institutional cultures where continuous improvement of teaching is expected, valued, assessed, and rewarded at all stages of a faculty member's career." In addition to pedagogical change towards the evidence-based instructional practices that support student learning, we promote changes to faculty evaluation to reinforce and promote what  effective teaching looks like. (Hint: it might be a didactic lecture for a handful of students, but most simply don't learn well in this model.) When it comes to incentives for change, Rosenberg is hard-pressed to describe any that are effective, for any participants in the system, to elicit change. He also explains that there are "structures, practices, and culture" preventing transformational change, even in light of a great deal of evidence that we must adapt to survive the pressures bearing down on us.  The driving commonality appears to be an ingrained bias against change due to the system that has been carefully crafted policies and "deeply embedded practices, such as departmental autonomy, shared governance, and tenure" (pg. 4, 31).

The main points that surfaced from our chapter 1 discussion centered around what was meant by "true innovation," in response to the author's description of the objective of strategic planning processes and documents, in which inclusion is prioritized over innovation to move an institution forward. Rosenberg's background as a college president certainly lends him credibility with this argument, and we questioned why so many job descriptions for executives include the need for transformational leadership, when what is expected, allowed, and supported is usually more of the status quo. If campus innovators are to create and sustain transformation, they need support from all stakeholders. As some of us have one foot in a faculty role, and another in an administrative role, we longed for collaboration between faculty and administrators from associate deans on up (also referenced as "the Dark Side"). One commenter noted, "Perhaps the most important takeaway from Rosenberg's book is his authenticity in both worlds," which demonstrates the importance of experiencing higher education from both perspectives. Finally, we reflected on the importance of changing "hearts and minds" before diving into significant efforts, in order to build community and garner engagement from campus constituencies.

Chapter 1 makes a strong case for the need for change, while chapter 3 does an excellent job at convincing us that this change will likely never happen. As Rosenberg explores the lack of incentives for higher education faculty, staff, and boards to promote new ideas, he also describes the deep and perhaps insurmountable cost of transformation. We are in an industry entrenched in structures, practices, and cultures that serve only a fraction of our population and struggles to adapt to largescale disruption such as the COVID-19 pandemic. To mitigate cost, he argues that we must address laying the groundwork for change, and in the WG6 discussion, it came to light that we don't really know how to do this well. We can look to the literature on change efforts, like the 2011 metastudy by Henderson, Beach, and Finkelstein (Henderson, 2011), but we still need to bridge the gap between theory and practice, as well as create cultural buy-in for change.

The lack of agency at all levels of university hierarchy, when coupled with the lack of extrinsic incentives for change, create barriers to the improvement of our systems. Disruptive university presidents upset the faculty. University boards provide oversight, and often care deeply about institutional success, and as such are unlikely to engage in promoting a shift to something unknown. Junior tenure-track faculty lack power and positionality, and need to focus on research and teaching to secure tenure. Tenured faculty are disinclined to be change agents "because there is little for them to gain and much for them to lose from transformation of the institution." Further, if we use adoption of evidence-based instructional practices as an example of a suggested change, faculty will dismiss mountains of conclusive evidence that such pedagogies are better for student learning, in favor of teaching in the manner that felt good to them – likely a passive lecture.

All, however, is not lost. We note that social events, such as the #MeToo movement, the murder of George Floyd, and even the pandemic, radicalized campuses and engendered new policies, new ways of teaching, and new ways of communicating. We noted that incentive structures can change, and that we can turn the multiple points of resistance to our advantage and then consider the cumulative effect of pulling several small levers, rather than one large lever. There are frameworks for this, such as the Change Leadership Toolkit (Elrod and Kezar, 2024), that we can implement, so that we can serve our future students even better than we serve those currently enrolled. Yes, we will need to take a critical lens to our policies, practices, and procedures, but who better than a group of academics to provide substantial critique to such things?

In the end, we are heartened that our work is not for nothing – it is necessary, it is timely, and it is both urgent and important. Though there are so many forces resisting change in higher education, we remember the words of Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

April 2024 Discussion: "Whatever It Is, I am Against It",  Chapter 7 - The Path to Change (led by Christine Broussard, University of La Verne)

For the April session, we discussed Chapter 7 - The Path to Change. The main message of this chapter was that incremental change is not enough to address the challenges of higher education. To survive and thrive, institutions must be willing to take bigger risks and shift from trying to be everything to everyone to specializing in what they do best. Discussants noted that while the current political climate requires diplomacy and leadership, it is important to approach change with courage, rather than fear.

The deeply entrenched resistance to change in higher education may require institutions to "clear the cache" and start over, to be more student-focused. An alternative considered in the chapter was to replace majors with "wicked problems".  Students would focus on "grand challenges" (i.e.) intractable local or global issues, rather than a particular discipline. Such as at Arizona State where programs form community partnerships focused on solving local or societal problems. This approach harkens back to the traditional liberal arts mission, in which intellectual disciplines and academic areas are merged. A challenge for this approach is to also promote community building across units of the institution. A burning question for the group was how academic institutions can effectively move toward addressing broader challenges and needs that exist in society.

Another crucial piece identified by the group was the definition of incremental change. Change efforts need to "right-size" the increment level to the institutional risk profile and comfort level. That might mean enabling a larger or smaller increment of change depending on the context. However, the size of the increment (if too small) could be outstripped by economic pressures that result in institutional closures.

Changes to teaching practice were identified by Rosenberg as necessary while at the same time being one of the most difficult aspects of the higher education system that is resistant to change. The group also struggled with the tension between academic freedom and standards for effective, evidence-based teaching practice and evaluation. Are we obligated to seek out, to learn, and to implement all possible evidence-based teaching practices in our classrooms? Flexibility is also required for institutions to support a varied teaching workforce, not just tenure-track faculty. However, a challenge with flexibility is how to evaluate effective teaching utilizing the heterogenous tools in an institution's teaching toolbox?  The ASCN Working Group 6 has developed a curated set of resources which emphasize teaching effectiveness that lead to transformational change.

October 2024 Webinar: How Do We Get On a Path to Change? (led by Beth Ambos, Ambos Consulting)

So, given the imperative for change, jarringly juxtaposed with the high resistance to change encountered in higher education ecosystems, how do we move forward? How can we proceed to create the types of high-engagement learning environments espoused by Rosenberg? One essential step is to gauge departmental and institutional readiness for this type of comprehensive change. This topic was addressed in a webinar held on October 16^th, 2024. Titled: "How Do We Start: Creating Equitable Undergraduate Degrees through Integrating and Scaffolding Research Throughout Curricula" (Malachowski et al., 2024a) the webinar attracted close to 100 registrants. The webinar was offered by faculty and administrators involved in a comprehensive NSF IUSE project to research factors that affect transformative curricular and cultural change, the outcomes of which were published in book form (Malachowski et al., 2024b), including a free on-line toolkit of questionnaires and surveys. Although the focus of the NSF IUSE project discussed on October 16^th was to scaffold and connect research skills and experiences throughout 24 undergraduate STEM degree programs at 12 diverse institutions, this work is directly relevant to ASCN community members engaged in building equitable educational structures, due to the well-documented positive impacts of undergraduate research on student success. 

Webinar presenters posed the following questions that must be answered before starting any transformation journey: (1) what is the vision and context for the change process? (2) what incentives for change exist and who will lead the effort? (3) what action research questions will be addressed, and (4) how will changes be decided? The presenters engaged webinar participants in discussion, sharing lessons learned for each of these fundamental questions through their work with hundreds of faculty members and administrators at 24 departments of biology, chemistry, physics, and psychology. Regarding question #1: one of the most important takeaways is to choose the "right moment" to initiate change, when the desired change goals at a department-level align with institutional imperatives and help solve institutional challenges, particularly relating to student retention, success, and graduation. With regard to question #2, one of the most significant "ahas" is the essential role of empowered and incentivized "nested leadership" change teams, which must include both tenure and non-tenure track faculty, administrators, and students, working in partnership over several years. The main incentives for the "nested leadership" team can be small investments such as stipends, but more fundamentally, the team needs to be thoroughly empowered, so that the work they undertake will be supported, used, and honored.

Action research (question #3) needs to be both a process of faculty, student, and administrator "nested leadership" collaboration, and a goal. Regarding the latter, action research goals that address how student learning grows through more experiential learning, and mine student success attributes such as grades through partnerships in institutional research offices, are essential. The webinar concluded with discussion of question #4: How will changes be decided? This question resonated strongly with the readings from Rosenberg's book, as answers link to faculty culture and unstated mores. If departmental faculty don't have pathways to engage in constructive dialogue, make shared curricular decisions, or even recognize that degree programs and faculty retention and promotion guidelines are "owned" by the department, comprehensive changes will be hard. In order to overcome "Whatever It Is, I'm Against It", departments may need to adjust their decision-making pathways to pivot from individually owned to department-owned curricula, address faculty workload parameters for engaged learning, deemphasize content "coverage" in favor of inquiry-driven curricula, and emphasize consent/majority vote, rather than consensus, to make department decisions. In fact, empowered department teams that are widely supported by department chair and other faculty, and have allies outside the department at the dean's level, if not at the provost's level, may have the most potential to be effective change agents. Reinholz and Apkarian (2018) and Ngai and others (2020) present helpful insights to department change theories and optimal change practices.

Summary: Reflections On the Resistance to Change at Our Own Institutions (summarized by Sharon Homer-Drummond)

     In summary, the reflections from the working group concur with Rosenberg that there is indeed resistance to change.  It appears to be bimodal - faculty are resistant, while administration is overzealous in specific directions (that may not be in the institution's best interest).  For one member, it was noted that innovation is a term continuously bandied about at her institution, which usually means pursuing the next shiny thing instead of focusing on data-driven change. Innovation for the sake of innovation is not going to improve student enrollment, retention, and success.

     Another member noted that mixed messages are common regarding what is valued in today's society by individuals, institutions, and government officials. There is some empathy towards faculty who want to put their head down and just want to teach the content because it feels safe, comfortable, and familiar. However, the challenge is that ignoring the impact of inequitable education on student outcomes and societal outcomes does perpetuate the problems that are creating those circumstances.  In other words, not providing a quality education to all students has an impact on where people work, what type of work they do, where they live, what they can afford, and what they do to survive now and after they are no longer able to work. And, these impacts are not limited to the individuals who are directly disadvantaged; the entire society is impacted. So, ignoring the problem does not make the problem go away.

When I think about why people in higher education are resistant to change and how to develop buy-in, I think about the following:

1. Sometimes people do not see or understand the problem since it is not something that they can relate to from their own experience.
2. Sometimes people don't know what they can do to make a difference.
3. Sometimes people are concerned about the cost to make a change (e.g., discomfort, time, effort) relative to the benefit (e.g., raises, recognition) or consequences (lack of support, potential scrutiny, threats to job security)

As a change agent, I need to find ways to address all of these reasons to resist change.  It takes a lot of time and energy to listen, educate, and work through processes to revise and improve on cultures, structures, policies, and practices. Of these areas of resistance, the third one: cost, benefit, and consequences seem the most difficult to overcome.

I see very different attitudes toward change from our administration than from faculty and students and staff.  Although there is some climate of fear, undergraduate and graduate students are at the forefront of calling for change. Many of our faculty are also brave change leaders, although there are some resistors.  Our administration however is very corporate and top down and does not seem to understand shared governance.

At BioQUEST and other organizations I work with, change is our focus.  From revolution and evolution, to solving wicked problems, to changing hearts and minds, we are trying to help faculty with these issues. However sometimes it feels like we are preaching to the choir!

I personally think that graduate and postdoctoral programs must add Social Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion to professional development programs. NSF once funded the GK12 program and created a new Graduate-Undergraduate curriculum development program.  Institutions moved from general statements about social justice and serving all students to investing in reward systems and data tools to assess progress toward a just system that serves society.

All types of institutions, community colleges, liberal arts institutions and research focused institutions need to  establish networks and partnerships and formal transfer agreements. Faculty tenure and promotion guidelines need to be revised to include public scholarship and reflection on open pedagogies and professional development in applying social justice principles.  Discipline based education faculty should be hired (on the tenure track) in nearly every department.

The movement to integrate research into STEM courses developed into a movement to include students as co-creators of curricular materials needs to expand. Faculty must work together across departmental boundaries to assess content, curricular frameworks, and applications of each course and program to society.  Science literacy, data literacy, and application to social issues must take priority. Revised materials call for all people to be represented in texts and OER materials. and current research.

Attributions:

We thank the members of ASCN Working Group 6 for their contributions to the 2024 discussions and to the editing of this blog post.

Suggested Citation

Broussard, C., Ambos, E., Haswell, M., Salomone, S., Homer-Drummond, S. ( January 22, 2026). The Great Resistance: A Discussion Series about Higher Education's Resistance to Change. [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://ascnhighered.org/ASCN/posts/310878.html

References

Pullias Center for Higher Education. (2020). Change leadership toolkit: A guide for advancing systemic change in higher education. University of Southern California Rossier School of Education. Retrieved from https://pullias.usc.edu/download/change-leadership-toolkit-a-guide-for-advancing-systemic-change-in-higher-education/

Henderson, C., Beach, A., Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952–984. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20439

Malachowski, M. R., Osborn, J. M., Kinzie, J. L., Ambos, E. L. & Karukstis, K. K. (2024a). How Do We Start? Creating Equitable Undergraduate Degrees through Integrating and Scaffolding Research Throughout Curricula. ASCN Webinar, October 16, 2024. https://ascnhighered.org/ASCN/webinars/2024/equitableSTEMdegrees/index.html 

Malachowski, M. R., Ambos, E. L., Karukstis, K. K., Kinzie, J. L., & Osborn, J. M. (Eds.). (2024b). Transforming Academic Culture and Curriculum: Integrating and Scaffolding Research Throughout Undergraduate Education. Routledge/Taylor & Francis, New York, NY. https://www.routledge.com/Transforming-Academic-Culture-and-Curriculum-Integrating-and-Scaffolding/Malachowski-Ambos-Karukstis-Kinzie-Osborn/p/book/9781032581675.

Ngai, C., Corbo, J. C., Quan, G. M., Falkenberg, K., Geanious, C., Pawlak, A., Pilgrim, M. E., Reinholz, D. L., Smith, C., & Wise, S. (2020). "Developing the Departmental Action Team theory of change." In K. White, A. Beach, N. Finkelstein, C. Henderson, S. Simkins, L. Slakey, M. Stains, G. Weaver, & L. Whitehead (Eds.), Transforming Institutions: Accelerating Systemic Change in Higher Education (ch. 5). Pressbooks. http://openbooks.library.umass.edu/ascnti2020/

Reinholz, D. L., & Apkarian, N. (2018). Four frames for systemic change in STEM departments. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0103-x

Rosenberg, B. (2023). "Whatever It Is, I'm Against It": Resistance to Change in Higher Education. Harvard Education Press, Cambridge, MA. https://hep.gse.harvard.edu/9781682538289/whatever-it-is-im-against-it/#generate-pdf.