Advertisement

Social Barriers to Innovation in Higher Education: Key Stakeholders’ Perception

  • I. A. MartynovaEmail author
Conference paper
  • 48 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems book series (LNNS, volume 161)

Abstract

In this paper the results of an ascertaining experiment are presented. The experiment took place in Samara State University of Economics, Russia. The purpose of this study was to determine the individual barriers to technological innovations within higher educational institutions and to find possible remedies that could overcome the resistance to innovation among key internal stakeholders of universities. The methodological approach taken in this study is a mixed methodology based on content analysis of students’ interviews and mathematical statistics. The cohort of students, who previously took part in the distance learning projects, was examined for their negative perceptions of technological innovations. The students’ responses were then analysed and, the factors that could block the innovation were selected. The data analysis revealed the prevalence of non-affective barriers over the affective ones. This study suggests that innovation managers, who are responsible for implementing distance learning at universities, should closely monitor social factors that could block innovative projects, and support sustainable communication process with the internal stakeholders.

Keywords

Barriers to innovations Noncognitive skills Perception Pedagogical innovation Stakeholders 

References

  1. 1.
    Bower, E.A., Girard, D.E., Wessel, K., Becker, T.M., Choi, D.: Barriers to innovation in continuing medical education. J. Cont. Educ. Health Prof. 28(3), 148–156 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chapleo, C., Simms, C.: Stakeholder analysis in higher education: a case study of the University of Portsmouth. Perspectives 14(1), 12–20 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Heckman, J.J., Rubinstein, Y.: The importance of non-cognitive skills: Lessons from the GED testing program. Am. Econ. Rev. 91(2), 145–149 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hueske, A.K., Guenther, E.: What hampers innovation? External stakeholders, the organization, groups and individuals: a systematic review of empirical barrier research. Manag. Rev. Q. 65(2), 113–148 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ilyuk, V.V.: The methodological approach to managing innovative project stakeholders. Prod. Org. 4(71), 38–55 (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gorbunovs, A., Kapenieks, A., Cakula, S.: Self-discipline as a key indicator to improve learning outcomes in e-learning environment. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 231, 256–262 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krskova, H., Breyer, Y., Baumann, C., Wood, L.: An exploration of university student perceptions of discipline: Introducing F.I.R.S.T. discipline principles. High. Educ. Skills Work Based Learn. 10(1), 61–82 (2019)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lašáková, A., Bajzíková, Ľ., Dedze, I.: Barriers and drivers of innovation in higher education: Case study-based evidence across Ten European Universities. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 55, 69–79 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Martynova, I.A.: Development of oral reading fluency in foreign language through a blended course in a non-linguistic university. Kazan Pedag. 1(138), 128–135 (2020)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oxford, R.: Who are our students? A synthesis of foreign and second language research on individual differences with implications for instructional practice. TESL Canada J. 9(2), 30–49 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oxford, R.L.: Language learning styles and strategies: concepts and relationships. Iral 41(4), 271–278 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rahardjo, W., Juneman, S.Y.: Computer anxiety, academic stress, and academic procrastination on college students. J. Educ. Learn. 7(3), 147–152 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Serdyukov, P.: Innovation in education: what works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it? J. Res. Innov. Teach. Learn. 10(1), 4–33 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Watkins, M.: Discipline, consciousness and the formation of a scholarly habitus. Continuum 19(4), 545–557 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yaro, I., Arshad, R., Salleh, D.: Relevance of stakeholders in policy implementation. J. Public Manag. Res. 3(1), 1–16 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Samara State University of EconomicsSamaraRussia

Personalised recommendations