Complexity in higher education politics: bifurcations, choices and irreversibility

Abstract

Taking complexity as an epistemic starting point, this article enhances understanding of dynamics in higher education. It also reviews the relevant literature on path dependency, complexity research, and studies of political change and contingency. These ideas are further developed with reference to the political situation and political possibilities as concepts. It is claimed that the key issues in understanding irreversibility on a system level are institutional change and politicisation. It is deduced from two case studies in the Finnish context that founding new institutions created bifurcations in both. Then again, the politicisation for disbanding existing institutions has proved rather futile. The key findings are that the choices in higher education politics increase the complexity of the system, and that many of the choices made are irreversible for reasons to do with contingency.

Keywords:

• complexity
• dynamics
• contingency
• bifurcations
• politics of education
• institutional structure

Acknowledgements

The author has benefited from the Funding of the Academy of Finland in terms of the projects Power, Supranational Regimes and New University Management (2007–2010) and Expanding the Theoretical Frontiers – Contrasting the Dynamics in Education Politics in England and Finland (2012–2015).

Notes

1. More relaxing and uncritical reports of bifurcations appear in popular culture. The film Sliding Doors (1998) presents two possible event progressions based on whether the main character catches a train. A more complex example of branching paths is to be found in the novel (1999, Robert J. Sawyer) and the TV series Flash Forward (2009).

2. The theme of ‘irregularity’ is not among the clusters, although it is a conceptual aspect of politics (Palonen 2006).

3. For policy-makers, the restrictions are even visible in understanding politics to happen in a ‘piecemeal and pragmatic fashion’ (Bird 1994, 83).

4. This is different from Becher and Kogan's (1992) model in which the delineation of norms and operations catalyse change. Becher and Kogan's idea actually comes close to the idea of how politicisation is understood in this paper.

5. Funded by the Academy of Finland.

6. I conducted the interviews together with Risto Rinne and Hannu Simola, who were the responsible leaders of the project.