Abstract
Any successful innovation creates a body of practice, policy, lore and belief that becomes harder to change the longer it survives. Indeed, it could not endure without a record of what worked and why. Thus the history of an innovation tends to define its future; what once was new tends over time to be defined by its tradition, hence to become rigid. The consequences of this paradox can be calamitous. Using case studies to illustrate, the essay outlines a conceptual model for institutional self-assessment of its innovative health and recommends strategies for keeping the innovative spirit alive.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. (1985).Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. New York: Harper and Row.
Clark, B.R. (1970).The Distinctive American College: Antioch, Reed, Swarthmore. Chicago: Aldine.
Foster, R.N. (1986).Innovation: The Attacker's Advantage. New York: Summit Books.
Peters, T.J. & Waterman, R.H. (1982).In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies. New York: Harper and Row.
The Chronicle of Higher Education. (July 27, 1988).
Additional information
Dr. Douglas B. Johnstone, Ph.D., has been Dean of Empire State College's North Central Regional Center since 1979; he has also been responsible for the College's Center for Distance Learning since 1981, and in 1988 he served as Acting Vice President for Policy and Planning. His scholarly interests include both nontraditional education and literature, especially the novel.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Johnstone, D.B. The challenge of self-renewal in the innovative college. Innov High Educ 14, 107–122 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00889612
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00889612