Generating possibilities, incubating and promoting at Innovation in Education and Vocational Education and Training

Over the past decade, theory and research on the adequate conditions for the generation of innovation at the system level have grown in sophistication, yet this research has focused much more on education than on vet.
using longitudinal analytic techniques, education scholars have remedied the methodological limitations that accompanied early reliance on cross-sectional designs. Scholars also have developed models that are increasingly comprehensive in their explanatory scope and trespass old divisions. indeed, some studies now provide integrated social, economic (e.g. many studies emphasise that socio-economic development is likely to influence the adoption of innovations in education, as they can be resource-intensive), political (e.g. degree
of centralization, degree of professionalization of civil servants, and levels of inter-party competition for instance), and diffusion-related explanations of innovation (mcLedon et al., 2005).

Among political determinants of innovation in education, the role of organizing the public sector along the centralisation-decentralisation continuum is a key factor in generating innovation in education. in this respect, countries such as the united States have experimented with radically different  models, and their experience can be enlightening. in the 1950s and 1960s, united States states centralised decision-making processes by granting regulatory co-ordinating boards greater power and responsibility to make centralised academic and fiscal decisions for an entire state, supplanting advisory coordinating boards that interfaced previously with governmental institutions. among the supposed benefits of centralised planning and policy development, it was argued, was greater state policy innovation (Callan, 1975; mcConnell, 1962; mortimer and mcConnell, 1982). the nonpartisan professionals that would staff the new state-level boards would bring increased technical knowledge and analytical capacity to bear on the management of postsecondary systems, thereby providing elected officials (e.g. legislatures and governors) and their staffs with new ideas for improving postsecondary access, quality, affordability, and productivity (mcLedon et al., 2005). in the 1980s and 1990s, however, there was a re-structuring of the system governance patterns (marcus, 1997) with a tendency toward “deregulation” and “decentralization” to the local level (campus) (Couturier, 2003; mactaggart, 1998; Schmidt, 2001). a frequent argument at the time was that centralised governance might inhibit policy innovation in the postsecondary arena because government bureaucracies are inherently resistant to new ideas (Berdahl and mactaggart, 2000; hebel, 2000; mactaggart, 1998). mcLedon et al., (2005) provides one of the few studies that test empirically how decentralisation affects innovation, covering the case of the uS. they report that centralised governance arrangements are positively – albeit weakly – associated with governmental adoption of new postsecondary financing policies, but not accountability policies. this finding appears to offer modest support for the claim made during the 1960s, and subsequently tested by hearn and griswold (1994), that centralised governance structures may spur state governments to adopt certain innovative postsecondary policies. no similar study looking at the relationship between governance patterns and innovation in vet was found d uring t his r eview. Stasz and Bodilly (2004) do explore how the degree of centralization of a system (measured by the number, and degree of authority, of agencies involved in decision-making and delivery of educational services) affects its capacity for policy change – including innovative change – but with a methodology less sophisticated than those of studies conducted for education, such as mcLedon et al. (2005). it concludes – as do mcLedon et al. (2005) – that centralised systems were more likely to implement innovations in certain areas, i.e. case standards, graduation requirements and assessment.

As already mentioned, the use of pilots has played an important role in incubating, promoting, and generating possibilities for innovation in vet. there indeed exists a more extensive use of pilots as incubators of future innovations in vet in relation to education as well as a greater role by international organisations in this area, particularly the eu. Looking at the role of international organisations and their piloting approach in incubating and promoting innovation, the evaluation of the LeonarDo ii programme (eCoteC, 2008) found that the role of the programme has been greater in the incubation and promotion of innovation than in the diffusion of innovation (see also next subsection). a substantial proportion of LeonarDo pilot projects had only had a modest impact on policy making, particularly in old member states – impact was greater in new member states, given their initial conditions. Project co-ordinators described the limited scope of their projects as the main reason for low impact. Whereas the programme created many valuable outcomes, they must still be better embedded into policy making processes to achieve their full impact. in this respect, greater dissemination and valorisation of results could prove useful (Janssen, 2002; eCoteC, 2008), although this approach still faces some limitations.

Examples of government initiatives to promote innovation in vet can also be found at the national level (see, for examples across a large number of countries, gill et al., 2000). Stasz and Bodilly (2004) provide an evaluation of the role of uSa federal and state policies in improving the quality of vet in secondary schools within the context of the Perkins vocational and technical education act of 1998 (Perkins iii act), which included innovation initiatives, such as the ill-defined (Stasz and Bodilly, 2004; Stasz and grubb, 1991 for a discussion in relation to Perkins ii) but central concept of integration of vocational and academic education through, amongst other tools, curricular innovations. however, this review offers limited specific information on the role of governance patterns in generating possibilities for innovation at the policy level in vet. Callan (2004), in a study based on the experience of australian vet providers, outlines specific suggestions on how to incubate and promote innovation below the policy level, namely in individual vet organisations (see also section below in this chapter on the conditions that facilitate innovation and barriers for a more general discussion, as well as Chapter 4 specifically on barriers and drivers). these are as follows:

• Bring new ideas into the organisation, encourage staff to attend conferences and workshops, to join professional groups, and to bring in outside experts who have different or new opinion about issues.
• Provide seed funding, which can be applied to initiate new projects. initially, this funding might be limited to buying-out staff time to allow them the time to progress their ideas to some form of innovation or concept plan.
• Select and promote those partnerships that allow the organisation to develop its skills and knowledge, and to have staff work closely with partners through shared working arrangements, job rotations, and exchanges of staff.
• Ss an organisation, identify whole-of-enterprise issues that can best be resolved through cross-functional teams with members from various business divisions in the organisation.
• Encourage the broad concept of communities of practice, including time for staff to meet informally and socially with others from inside and outside the enterprise to facilitate the sharing of knowledge and practical experiences.
• Build the expectation among staff and members of the institution’s board of management that staff will be putting new ideas and projects to the board for consideration, debate, and potential endorsement.
• Define and publicise a simple process which staff can work through to propose new ideas for initial consideration.
• Include within organisational websites details about innovations being considered, and invite those from both inside and outside the organisation to email comments and advice about how the idea might be further progressed. 
• Implement recognition programs that publicly support and celebrate innovative solutions to teaching and learning and to partnering and related activities.
• Encourage innovative ideas from students though the sponsorship of enterprise competition in which students can compete for cash and in-kind support to take their innovations to market.

Erlt and kremer (2006) note that the greater degree of stability (e.g. less staff fluctuation ) of german vocational colleges (Berufsschulen), as compared to english Fe colleges, also seems to allow lecturers to reflect more freely on innovative practices in general. the next subsection looks at innovation diffusion.