Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research pp 275–348Cite as

Organizational Learning in Higher Education Institutions: Theories, Frameworks, and a Potential Research Agenda

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research ((HATR,volume 31))

Abstract

Organizational learning is a conceptually rich construct that can inform understandings of a wide range of organizational phenomena. The field of higher education, however, lacks a sufficient body of empirical research on organizational learning in colleges and universities. Moreover, the limited set of organizational learning publications in higher education is weighted heavily toward the functionalist paradigm. This lack of paradigm diversity can be problematic in terms of how the organizational learning construct is applied to practice. In the context of the corporatization of higher education, where the authority of central management has been strengthened, functionalist approaches to organizational learning can reinforce top-down power dynamics and exacerbate tensions between faculty and administrators. This chapter calls for higher education researchers not only to conduct more studies of organizational learning, but to do so from the vantage point of multiple research paradigms.

First, the chapter discusses how organizational learning is relevant to the unique contexts of higher education institutions. Second, the chapter examines the wide variety of definitions used in the organizational learning literature, and highlights some of the paradigm debates that have emerged among scholars in this field. Next, the chapter explains and critiques some of the prominent functionalist theories that have guided the study of organizational learning. To complement these long-standing functionalist perspectives, the chapter introduces several organizational learning theories that have emerged in other paradigms. Finally, the chapter concludes with a proposed research agenda for studying organizational learning in colleges and universities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja, G., & Lampert, C. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 521–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akgun, A., Byrne, J., Lynn, G., & Keskin, H. (2007). Organizational unlearning as changes in beliefs and routines in organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20, 794–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alstete, J. (1995). Benchmarking in higher education. Washington, DC: George Washington University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (2000). Doing critical management research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ancona, D., & Caldwell, D. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. (1996). Unrecognized defenses of scholars: Impact on theory and research. Organization Science, 7(1), 78–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balay, R. (2012). Effect of learning organization perception to organizational commitment: A comparison between private and public university. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(4), 2474–2486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balbastre, F., & Moreno-Luzon, M. (2003). Self-assessment application and learning in organizations: A special reference to the ontological dimension. Total Quality Management, 14(3), 367–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banta, T., & Palomba, C. (2015). Assessment essentials: Planning, implementing, and improving assessment in higher education (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, G. (2005). Promoting organizational learning in higher education to achieve equity in educational outcomes. In A. Kezar (Ed.), Organizational learning in higher education (New directions for higher education no. 131, pp. 25–35). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beach, A., & Cox, M. (2009). The impact of faculty learning communities on teaching and learning. Learning Communities Journal, 1(1), 7–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual inquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press/Society for Research into Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, R., & Carroll, S. (1998). The implications of the changed environment for governance in higher education. In W. Tierney (Ed.), The responsive university: Restructuring for high performance (pp. 92–119). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bensimon, E. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational learning perspective. In A. Kezar (Ed.), Organizational learning in higher education (New directions for higher education no. 131, pp. 99–111). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bensimon, E., Polkinghorne, D., Bauman, G., & Vallejo, E. (2004). Doing research that makes a difference. Journal of Higher Education, 75(1), 104–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2006). Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 175–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berends, H., & Lammers, I. (2010). Explaining discontinuity in organizational learning: A process analysis. Organization Studies, 31(8), 1045–1068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernbom, G. (Ed.). (2001). Information alchemy: The art and science of knowledge management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bess, J. (2006). Strategic ambiguity: Antidote to managerialism in academia. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 491–533). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bess, J., & Dee, J. (2008). Understanding college and university organization: Theories for effective policy and practice, volume II: Dynamics of the system. Sterling, VA: Stylus Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bess, J., & Dee, J. (2014). Bridging the divide between faculty and administration: A guide to understanding conflict in the academy. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, R. (2001). Management fads in higher education: Where they come from, what they do, why they fail. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work, and organizations: An overview and interpretation. Organization Studies, 16, 1021–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borden, V., & Kezar, A. (2012). Institutional research and collaborative organizational learning. In R. Howard, G. McLaughlin, & W. Knight (Eds.), The handbook of institutional research (pp. 86–106). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois, L., & Eisenhardt, K. (1988). Strategic decision processes in high velocity environments: Four cases in the microcomputer industry. Management Science, 34(7), 816–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyce, M. (2003). Organizational learning is essential to achieving and sustaining change in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 28(2), 119–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. New York: Monthly Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bui, H., & Baruch, Y. (2012). Learning organizations in higher education: An empirical evaluation within an international context. Management Learning, 43(5), 515–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoyne, J., & Jackson, B. (1997). The arena thesis: Management development as a pluralistic meeting point. In J. Burgoyne & M. Reynolds (Eds.), Management learning: Integrating perspectives in theory and practice (pp. 54–70). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, R. (2012a). Leadership and learning: A critical reexamination of Senge’s learning organization. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 25(1), 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, R. (2012b). Systems thinking, organizational change, and agency: A practice theory critique of Senge’s learning organization. Journal of Change Management, 12(2), 145–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casey, A. (2005). Enhancing individual and organizational learning: A sociological model. Management Learning, 36(2), 131–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y., Yang, P., & Chen, M. (2009). The determinants of academic research commercial performance: Towards an organizational ambidexterity perspective. Research Policy, 38(6), 936–946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. (1983). The higher education system. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. (1998). The entrepreneurial university. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, S. (1989). Frameworks of power. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, S., Kornberger, M., & Rhodes, C. (2005). Learning/becoming/organizing. Organization, 12, 147–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M., & March, J. (1974). Leadership and ambiguity: The American college president. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Contu, A., & Willmott, H. (2003). Re-embedding situatedness: The importance of power relations in learning theory. Organization Science, 14(3), 283–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, S., & Yanow, D. (1993). Cultural and organizational learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2(4), 373–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, S., & Yanow, D. (1996). Culture and organizational learning. In M. Cohen & L. Sproull (Eds.), Organizational learning (pp. 430–459). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coopey, J. (1995). The learning organization: Power, politics, and ideology. Management Learning, 26, 193–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coopey, J., & Burgoyne, J. (2000). Politics and organizational learning. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), 869–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, M. (2004). Introduction to faculty learning communities. In M. Cox & L. Richlin (Eds.), Building faculty learning communities (New directions for teaching and learning, no. 97, pp. 5–23). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossan, M., Lane, H., & White, R. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522–537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossan, M., Maurer, C., & White, R. (2011). Reflections on the 2009 AMR decade award: Do we have a theory of organizational learning? Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 446–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R., & March, J. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R., & Huber, G. (1987). How organizations learn: A communication framework. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 5(2), 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R., & Lengel, R. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness, and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R., & Weick, K. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dee, J., & Daly, C. (2009). Innovative models for organizing faculty development programs: Pedagogical reflexivity, student learning empathy, and faculty agency. Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge, 7(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deeg, R. (2005). Change from within: German and Italian finance in the 1990s. In W. Streeck & K. Thelen (Eds.), Beyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies (pp. 169–202). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deem, R., Hillyard, S., & Reed, M. (2007). Knowledge, higher education, and the new managerialism: The changing management of the UK universities. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dill, D. (1999). Academic accountability and university adaptation: The architecture of an academic learning organization. Higher Education, 38, 127–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowd, A. (2005). Data don’t drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry to assess community college performance (Research report). Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation for Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowd, A., & Tong, V. (2007). Accountability, assessment, and the scholarship of “best practice”. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 57–119). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Duderstadt, J. (2009). Aligning American higher education with a twenty-first century public agenda. Higher Education in Europe, 34(3), 347–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterby-Smith, M., Crossan, M., & Nicolini, D. (2000). Organizational learning: Debates past, present, and future. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), 783–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K., & Martin, J. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, S., Margalit, D., & Segev, E. (2012). Effects of organizational learning mechanisms on organizational performance and shared mental models during planned change. Knowledge and Process Management, 19(2), 91–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y., Kerosuo, H., & Kajamaa, A. (2007). Beyond discontinuity: Expansive organizational learning remembered. Management Learning, 38(3), 319–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epple, D., Argote, L., & Murphy, K. (1996). An empirical investigation of the microstructure of knowledge acquisition and transfer through learning by doing. Operations Research, 44(1), 77–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (1983). Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities in American academic science. Minerva, 21(2), 198–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewell, P. (1997, December). Organizing for learning: A new imperative. AAHE Bulletin, 50, 3–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang, C., Lee, J., & Schilling, M. (2010). Balancing exploration and exploitation through structural design: The isolation of subgroups and organizational learning. Organization Science, 21(3), 625–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenwick, T. (1998). Questioning the concept of the learning organization. In S. Scott, B. Spencer, & A. Thomas (Eds.), Learning for life: Canadian readings in adult education. Toronto, ON: Thompson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenwick, T. (2003). Emancipatory potential of action learning: A critical analysis. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16(6), 619–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiol, C., & Lyles, M. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 803–813.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flood, R., & Romm, N. (1996). Diversity management: Triple loop learning. Chicester, UK: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N., Lyngsie, J., & Zahra, S. (2013). The role of external knowledge sources and organizational design in the process of opportunity exploitation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(12), 1453–1471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freed, J. (2001). Why become a learning organization? About Campus, 5(6), 16–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (trans: Bergman Tramos, M.). New York: Seabury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulop, L., & Rifkin, W. (1997). Representing fear in learning in organizations. Management Learning, 28, 45–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galagan, P. (1997). Smart companies (knowledge management). Training and Development, 51(12), 20–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garratt, R. (1987). The learning organization. London: Fontana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garvin, D. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 78–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiple perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 584–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giroux, H. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society (Vol. 1). Boston: Beacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, M., & Nohria, N. (2004). How to build collaborative advantage. Sloan Management Review, 46(1), 22–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, M. (2003). “There is no way without a because”: Revitalization of purpose at three liberal arts colleges. Review of Higher Education, 27(1), 75–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatch, M. (1997). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedberg, B. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn. In P. Nystrom & W. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design (pp. 3–27). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedberg, B., Nystrom, P., & Starbuck, W. (1977). Designing organizations to match tomorrow. In P. Nystrom & W. Starbuck (Eds.), Prescriptive models of organizations (pp. 171–181). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heimans, J., & Timms, H. (2014). Understanding “new power”. Harvard Business Review, 92(12), 48–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holley, K. (2009). Understanding interdisciplinary challenges and opportunities in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingvaldsen, J. (2015). Organizational learning: Bringing the forces of production back in. Organization Studies, 36(4), 423–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ireland, D., & Webb, J. (2007). Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating competitive advantage through streams of innovation. Business Horizons, 50, 49–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iverson, S. (2007). Camouflaging power and privilege: A critical race analysis of university diversity policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(5), 586–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeris, L. (1998). Intervening for transformation: An organizational learning perspective. ERIC Document, 420295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karatas-Ozkan, M., & Murphy, W. (2010). Critical theorist, postmodernist, and social constructionist paradigms in organizational analysis: A paradigmatic review of organizational learning literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(4), 453–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kezar, A. (2005). What campuses need to know about organizational learning and the learning organization. In A. Kezar (Ed.), Organizational learning in higher education (New directions for higher education no. 131, pp. 7–22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kezar, A. (2012). Bottom-up/top-down leadership: Contradiction or hidden phenomenon. Journal of Higher Education, 83(5), 725–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kezar, A. (2014a). Higher education change and social networks: A review of research. Journal of Higher Education, 85(1), 91–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kezar, A. (2014b). How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kezar, A., & Elrod, S. (2012). Facilitating interdisciplinary learning: Lessons from project Kaleidoscope. Change, 44(1), 16–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krücken, G., & Meier, F. (2006). Turning the university into an organizational actor. In G. Drori, J. Meyer, & H. Hwang (Eds.), Globalization and organization: World society and organizational change (pp. 241–257). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lattuca, L. (2005). Faculty work as learning: Insights from theories of cognition. In E. Creamer & L. Lattuca (Eds.), Advancing faculty learning through interdisciplinary collaboration (New directions for teaching and learning no. 102, pp. 13–21). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J. (1996). Teaching, as learning, in practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(3), 149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, T., Mauws, M., Dyck, B., & Kleysen, R. (2005). The politics of organizational learning: Integrating power into the 4i framework. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 180–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leifer, R., & Delbecq, A. (1978). Organizational/environmental interchange: A model of boundary spanning activity. Academy of Management Review, 3(1), 40–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leišytė, L., & Dee, J. (2012). Understanding academic work in a changing institutional environment: Faculty autonomy, productivity, and identity in Europe and the United States. In J. Smart & M. Paulsen (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 27, pp. 123–206). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Leišytė, L., & Enders, J. (2011, January). Understanding knowledge disclosure of life scientists: A question of contextual and organizational ambidexterity? Paper presented at the RESUP conference, Paris: Science Po.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D., & March, J. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, B., & March, J. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, M., & Moultrie, J. (2005). The organizational innovation laboratory. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(1), 73–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, D. (2005). Beyond faculty development: How centers for teaching and learning can become laboratories for learning. In A. Kezar (Ed.), Organizational learning in higher education (New directions for higher education no 131, pp. 87–98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipshitz, R. (2000). Chic, mystique, and misconception: Argyris and Schön and the rhetoric of organizational learning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36(4), 456–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lounamaa, P., & March, J. (1987). Adaptive coordination of a learning team. Management Science, 33, 107–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsick, V., & Watkins, K. (1990). Informal and incidental learning in the workplace. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R., Manning, K., & Ramaley, J. (2001). The self-study as a chariot for strategic change. In J. Ratcliff, E. Lubinescu, & M. Gaffney (Eds.), How accreditation influences assessment (New directions for higher education, no. 113, pp. 95–115). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milam, J. (2005). Organizational learning through knowledge workers and infomediaries. In A. Kezar (Ed.), Organizational learning in higher education (New directions for higher education, no. 131, pp. 61–73). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K., Pentland, B., & Choi, S. (2012). Dynamics of performing and remembering organizational routines. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1536–1558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miner, A., & Mezias, S. (1996). Ugly duckling no more: Pasts and futures of organizational learning research. Organization Science, 7(1), 88–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Museus, S., & Jayakumar, U. (Eds.). (2012). Creating campus cultures: Fostering success among racially diverse student populations. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musselin, C. (2007). Are universities specific organizations? In G. Krücken, A. Kosmützky, & M. Torka (Eds.), Towards a Multiversity? Universities between global trends and national traditions (pp. 63–84). Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, A. (1995). Context, cognition, and culture: A case analysis of collegiate leadership and cultural change. American Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 251–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, A. (2005). Taking seriously the topic of learning in studies of faculty work and careers. In E. Creamer & L. Lattuca (Eds.), Advancing faculty learning through interdisciplinary collaboration (New directions for teaching and learning, No. 102, pp. 63–83). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 96–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Banion, T. (1997). A learning college for the 21st century. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Meara, K. (2005). The courage to be experimental: How one faculty learning community influenced faculty teaching careers, understanding of how students learn, and assessment. Journal of Faculty Development, 20(3), 153–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Meara, K. (2007). Striving for what? Exploring the pursuit of prestige. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 121–179). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orr, J. (1996). Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortenblad, A. (2002). Organizational learning: A radical perspective. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(1), 87–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortenblad, A. (2009). Achieving organizational independence of employees’ knowledge using knowledge management, organizational learning, and the learning organization. In D. Jemielniak & J. Kociatkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of research on knowledge-intensive organizations (pp. 229–242). New York: Information Science Reference.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ortenblad, A., & Koris, R. (2014). Is the learning organization idea relevant to higher educational institutions? A literature review and a multi-stakeholder contingency approach. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(2), 173–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrides, L. (2002). Organizational learning and the case for knowledge-based systems. In A. Serban & J. Luan (Eds.), Knowledge management: Building a competitive advantage in higher education (New directions in institutional research, no. 113, pp. 69–84). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (2000). Organizational learning: Mechanisms, culture, and feasibility. Management Learning, 31(2), 181–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramaley, J., & Holland, B. (2005). Modeling learning: The role of leaders. In A. Kezar (Ed.), Organizational learning in higher education (New directions for higher education, no. 131, pp. 75–86). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rendón, L. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19(1), 33–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhoads, R., & Szelényi, K. (2011). Global citizenship and the university: Advancing social life and relations in an interdependent world. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romme, A., & van Witteloostuijn, A. (1999). Circular organizing and triple loop learning. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(5), 439–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sá, C. (2010). Redefining university roles in regional economies: A case study of university-industry relations and academic organization in nanotechnology. Higher Education, 61(2), 193–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schilling, J., & Kluge, A. (2009). Barriers to organizational learning: An integration of theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(3), 337–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, C. (Ed.). (2011). Coming in from the margins: Faculty development’s emerging organizational development role in institutional change. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, M., & Hatch, M. (1996). Living with multiple paradigms: The case of paradigm interplay in organizational culture studies. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 529–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuster, J., & Finkelstein, M. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of academic work and careers. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senaratne, C., & Wang, C. (2009). Unpacking the organizational competence trap and developing a typology of opportunity exploration and exploitation. In J. Braet (Ed.), The proceedings of the 4th European conference on entrepreneurship and innovation. Reading, MA: Academic Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. (2000). The academy as learning community: Contradiction in terms or realizable future? In A. Lucas (Ed.), Leading academic change: Essential roles for departmental chairs (pp. 275–300). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shipton, H. (2006). Cohesion or confusion? Towards a typology for organizational learning research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(4), 233–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1957). Administrative behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1972). Theories of bounded rationality. In C. McGuire & R. Radner (Eds.), Decision and organization: A volume in honor of Jacob Marschak (pp. 161–176). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 125–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 597–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D., & Parker, S. (2005). Organizational learning: A tool for diversity and institutional effectiveness. In A. Kezar (Ed.), Organizational learning in higher education (New directions for higher education, no. 131, pp. 113–125). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suk, J. (2012). Gender parity and state legitimacy: From public office to corporate boards. ICON, 10(2), 449–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J., Clark, S., & Gioia, D. (1993). Strategic sensemaking and organizational performance: Linkages among scanning, interpretation, action, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 239–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, W. (2006). Trust and the public good: Examining the cultural conditions of academic work. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, W., & Rhoads, R. (1994). Faculty socialization as cultural process: A mirror of institutional commitment (ASHE-ERIC higher education report, no. 93–6). Washington, DC: George Washington University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinto, V. (1997). Universities as learning organizations. About Campus, 1(6), 2–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W. (2002). Social structure of competition within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intra-organizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13(2), 179–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H. (2011). How should we understand tacit knowledge? A phenomenological view. In M. Easterby-Smith & M. Lyles (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management (2nd ed., pp. 453–476). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M., & O’Reilly, C. (1996). Evolution and revolution: Mastering the dynamics of innovation and change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Spek, R., & Spijkervet, A. (1997). Knowledge management: Dealing intelligently with knowledge. In J. Liebowitz & L. Wilcox (Eds.), Knowledge management and its integrative elements (pp. 31–59). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vera, D., Crossan, M., & Apaydin, M. (2011). A framework for integrating organizational learning, knowledge, capabilities, and absorptive capacity. In M. Easterby-Smith & M. Lyles (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management (2nd ed., pp. 153–180). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. (1991). The nontraditional quality of organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 116–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K., & Westley, F. (1996). Organizational learning: Affirming an oxymoron. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 440–458). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westerheijden, D., Epping, E., Faber, M., Leišytė, L., & Weert, E. (2013). Stakeholders and quality assurance. Journal of the European Higher Education Area, 4, 71–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willmott, H. (1997). Critical management learning. In J. Burgoyne & M. Reynolds (Eds.), Management learning: Integrating perspectives in theory and practice (pp. 161–176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, Z. (2005). Toward a multilevel knowledge transfer paradigm: Acquiring engineering capabilities in the Chinese automotive industry. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, Z., & Anand, J. (2013). Beyond boundary spanners: The collective bridge as an efficient inter-unit structure for transferring collective knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 34(13), 1513–1530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zietsma, C., Winn, M., Branzei, O., & Vertinsky, I. (2002). The war of the woods: Facilitators and impediments of organizational learning processes. British Journal of Management, 13, S61–S74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Higher Education, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, 02125, USA

    Jay R. Dee

  2. Center for Higher Education Studies (ZHB), Technical University Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany

    Liudvika Leišytė

Authors
  1. Jay R. Dee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Liudvika Leišytė
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jay R. Dee .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education, The University of Iowa, IOWA CITY, Iowa, USA

    Michael B. Paulsen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dee, J.R., Leišytė, L. (2016). Organizational Learning in Higher Education Institutions: Theories, Frameworks, and a Potential Research Agenda. In: Paulsen, M. (eds) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol 31. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26829-3_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26829-3_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-26828-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-26829-3

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation