View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Challenging Isomorphic Mimicry with Human-Centred Design to Build Capacity in Three African Higher Education Institutions

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Challenging Isomorphic Mimicry with Human-Centred Design to Build Capacity in Three African Higher Education Institutions
Language: English
Authors: William Heinrich (ORCID 0000-0002-2104-4788), Timothy Silberg, John R. Bonnell, Sera Gondwe, Andrew Safalaoh, Cait Goddard, Kurt Richter
Source: International Journal of Training and Development. 2025 29(3):356-372.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Capacity Building, Higher Education, Universities, Educational Development, Educational Innovation, Scholarship, Organizational Development, Design, Organizational Learning, Problem Solving, Organizational Change
Geographic Terms: Africa
DOI: 10.1111/ijtd.12366
ISSN: 1360-3736
1468-2419
Abstract: The Innovation Scholars Program (ISP) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) targets the issue of organizational capacity development in higher education institutions (HEIs). HEI's are susceptible to patterns of isomorphic mimicry, manifested where institutions often replicate behaviors perceived to be ideal without developing internal capacities for maintaining or adjusting. ISP addresses these patterns through individual and organizational capacity development leading to a focus on institutional function. Isomorphic mimicry is characterized by a focus on form over function (e.g., a new classroom building with no classes scheduled vs. building capacity of instructors to deliver relevant learning outcomes for their society); and incentives for leaders to use new resources to maintain the status quo (agenda conformity). Isomorphic mimicry is driven by global pressures but felt in part by HEI leaders and faculty. To address these issues, the ISP employs human-centered design (HCD) as a cornerstone of its approach. HCD is a user-focused problem-solving methodology that involves understanding the needs of the end-users whom we include as faculty, administrative leaders, and community-based stakeholders. Participants in ISP design and create prototypes and refine solutions through iterative, interdisciplinary, cross-hierarchical, feedback loops. Within the ISP, HCD was operationalized through workshops matched to design phases which led participants to deploy a working prototype. We measured individual and organizational learning, including participants' outcomes and collective patterns of organizational responsiveness, observed in part through a cross-case comparative analysis. As participant observers, we noted individual and organizational outcomes and conducted interviews, document analysis, and field observations to identify and understand new patterns. In each of the three ISP programs, individuals developed capacity, faculty and administrators learned to use HCD together (organizational capacity) as a problem-solving approach. Participants built trust in the process of local problem identification. Specifically, we observed where HCD ideas and principles appeared in locally identified use cases. The HCD approach fostered a shared language for making change, built trust among participants, and led to changes that outlasted project funding. By integrating individual learning and organizational change through HCD principles, HEIs established a new pattern of work, and focused on function, moved away from intensification (more of the same spending) toward repeatable processes and the needs of end-users. Integrating individual and collective learning with function in mind was key to interrupting components of isomorphic mimicry. The ISP helped ensure that organizational novelty was aimed at functional outcomes rather than status quo actions. Several of the initiatives begun in ISP continue to resonate and evolve post-project funding and have become self-sustaining in the local HEI ecosystem.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1479216
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFR2tUvfijqTVnnHyxC3huZAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBJvsn00KiKW75ZfCQIBEICBm_ysg2qUw7hDNh3jFJjMKMJMwlM0NInrKEJ4LgTnZKgCeJ8cq7rT6T4Su6h2vgby7mWCnW0TyRm9YT4CAdHQY39bsPENvm8LOYIbb7RFk30b6z2XeAcVYh3OV1WRTB_g9e6QSchPdZe3790v3JnlcsUP8wLT5tg_wj6E32vvyyuCO3Ta41Zi3nCNc3rDvmiAsoak_yxdTu3kC5az
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187144487;bpu01sep.25;2025Aug07.03:49;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187144487-1">Challenging Isomorphic Mimicry With Human‐Centred Design to Build Capacity in Three African Higher Education Institutions </title> <sbt id="AN0187144487-2">Introduction</sbt> <p>The Innovation Scholars Program (ISP) in sub‐Saharan Africa (SSA) targets the issue of organizational capacity development in higher education institutions (HEIs). HEI's are susceptible to patterns of isomorphic mimicry, manifested where institutions often replicate behaviors perceived to be ideal without developing internal capacities for maintaining or adjusting. ISP addresses these patterns through individual and organizational capacity development leading to a focus on institutional function. Isomorphic mimicry is characterized by a focus on form over function (e.g., a new classroom building with no classes scheduled vs. building capacity of instructors to deliver relevant learning outcomes for their society); and incentives for leaders to use new resources to maintain the status quo (agenda conformity). Isomorphic mimicry is driven by global pressures but felt in part by HEI leaders and faculty. To address these issues, the ISP employs human‐centered design (HCD) as a cornerstone of its approach. HCD is a user‐focused problem‐solving methodology that involves understanding the needs of the end‐users whom we include as faculty, administrative leaders, and community‐based stakeholders. Participants in ISP design and create prototypes and refine solutions through iterative, interdisciplinary, cross‐hierarchical, feedback loops. Within the ISP, HCD was operationalized through workshops matched to design phases which led participants to deploy a working prototype. We measured individual and organizational learning, including participants' outcomes and collective patterns of organizational responsiveness, observed in part through a cross‐case comparative analysis. As participant observers, we noted individual and organizational outcomes and conducted interviews, document analysis, and field observations to identify and understand new patterns. In each of the three ISP programs, individuals developed capacity, faculty and administrators learned to use HCD together (organizational capacity) as a problem‐solving approach. Participants built trust in the process of local problem identification. Specifically, we observed where HCD ideas and principles appeared in locally identified use cases. The HCD approach fostered a shared language for making change, built trust among participants, and led to changes that outlasted project funding. By integrating individual learning and organizational change through HCD principles, HEIs established a new pattern of work, and focused on function, moved away from intensification (more of the same spending) toward repeatable processes and the needs of end‐users. Integrating individual and collective learning with function in mind was key to interrupting components of isomorphic mimicry. The ISP helped ensure that organizational novelty was aimed at functional outcomes rather than status quo actions. Several of the initiatives begun in ISP continue to resonate and evolve post‐project funding and have become self‐sustaining in the local HEI ecosystem.</p> <p>The capacity for institutions to change according to their context is needed to overcome challenges that Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) face across sub‐Saharan Africa (SSA) (Kruss et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref1">22</reflink>]). In development contexts, international funders ask HEIs to generate such innovations based on expectations grounded in experiences of global paradigms. Yet HEIs in many SSA institutions lack the tools, skills, resources, or the supportive ecosystem to change their underlying assumptions about why they should change. In turn, HEIs tend to emulate or deliver outputs of what they think is a correct form (i.e., instructional reform) without understanding the function (to improve student capacity for economic change) (see Andrews et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>]). This phenomenon is known as <emph>isomorphic mimicry</emph> (Andrews et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>]; Meyer et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref4">26</reflink>]). Once project funding concludes, underlying challenges are often left unaddressed as there is no incentive or supportive ecosystem to sustain the changes. While some individual interventions may appear successful, neither the system nor staff and administrators' expectations of the system have changed. But some individuals in the system are rewarded for simply obtaining the funding, aligning incentives to more of the same. External funding is not bad, but the internal incentives aligned to inputs rather than outcomes becomes troubling. This sequence of events leads to a perpetuating feedback loop of dependency on funding and goals set by outsiders, followed by individuals incentivized to mimic outsider forms of policy/action rather than responding to local needs. This process jeopardizes the sustainability of and confidence in the HEI to deliver the functions needed in the local context (Bridges and Woolcock [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref5">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>Isomorphic mimicry affects state‐level actors and outcomes through a related ecosystem of institutions, NGOs, policies, and government functions, including universities (Bridges and Woolcock [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref6">8</reflink>]). Implementation leaders such as HEI administrators and frontline operators such as HEI faculty are important actors and potential change agents. Universities are often incentivized to adopt novel approaches, but less often incentivized to modify their environment within their context (Grabill et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref7">14</reflink>]). Adopting novel approaches in a conducive change environment, though, begins to break down the cycle of emulation (Senge [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref8">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>Approaches are needed to address challenges at HEIs by innovators who are local institutional actors or champions well‐suited to make these changes (Johansson‐Sköldberg et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref9">19</reflink>]; Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, Stanford d.school [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref10">15</reflink>]). Given the right mix of environment and incentives, HEI leaders and faculty (anyone in the system) can learn to be innovative (Tschimmel and Santos [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref11">32</reflink>]). However, HEIs and the individuals that comprise them do not necessarily learn innovation from formal training, nor are they currently incentivized to share or develop novel capacities that push against status quo incentives.</p> <p>The innovation scholars program (ISP), employed in three HEIs, began to address novelty/emulation challenges. The primary objective of the ISP was to develop individual and organizational capacity to interrupt patterns of isomorphic mimicry that prevented sustained program adoption. A multidisciplinary team drawn from across continents facilitated this approach. The ISP‐funded faculty and administrative actors co‐identified problems with local stakeholders, developed appropriate technology known as innovation projects (Hoffecker and Douthwaite [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref12">18</reflink>]), and tested their applications in local environments (e.g., classrooms) with the end‐users they wished to assist (e.g., students). In the ISP, cohorts of faculty and administrative leaders attended workshops together, learned, applied, and undertook individual, organizational and systems level projects at their respective HEIs. At the request of each cohort, facilitators added institutionally relevant system toolset content focused on teaching, assessment, organizational change, experiential learning, community‐engaged learning, leadership and budgets. ISP facilitators consider their end users the faculty and administrators at the HEI. In turn, faculty and administrators identified key end users for their innovation projects, such as students, other faculty, and community stakeholders. The unique contributions of the ISPs were HCD‐driven workshops for simultaneous learning experiences for cohort members, of being an individual innovator as well as being a member of an innovation system with mutual understanding of a common problem‐solving approach.</p> <p>This paper addresses the research question: How and why do ISP experiences lead to organizational capacity growth for HEI's in a Southern African nation (SAN) and Eastern African nation (EAN) and what are possible interruptions to isomorphic mimicry patterns? We further elaborate on the ISP as an approach for international interventions in the CONCEPTUALIZING THE ISP section. In Section 3, we outline how we collected various data (or rather, artefacts) from the scholars' learning experiences and field activities to measure cognition and application of HCD, respectively. In addition, we present the scale we used to measure cognition and application of ISP participants, assessing their overall capacity. Afterwards, we present evidence in Section 4, detailing how sustained change occurred in three HEIs. These cases highlight the experiences of individuals who learned, adapted and assimilated their experiences in and on behalf of their organizations. Finally, we compare (and challenge) current international capacity strengthening interventions with our results in Section 6, and suggest a path forward in Section 8 for organizations wishing to implement the ISP approach and confront isomorphic mimicry in their current and future projects.</p> <hd id="AN0187144487-3">Conceptualizing the ISP</hd> <p>The ISP was created to increase individual and organizational capacity, which would in turn shift behaviours away from patterns of isomorphic mimicry. Drawing upon three decades of research on African universities and knowledge production in Africa, Zeleza ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref13">35</reflink>]) identifies six key capacity challenges facing African HEIs: institutional supply, resources, faculty, research, outputs and leadership. Upon understanding these overarching challenges in SAN and EAN higher education through the lens of isomorphic mimicry, we focused ISP designs—an interdisciplinary conceptual framework—on four areas where higher education institutions have known leverage points for change and capacity strengthening (see Bolman and Deal [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref14">6</reflink>]; Kezar [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref15">20</reflink>]) (Table 1).</p> <p>1 Table Observed challenges and theory‐driven ISP features.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Observed characteristics of isomorphic mimicry in EAN/SAN</th><th>ISP features grounded in organizational change, design and institutional theory</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Low agency over agenda and pattern of conformity.Focus on international research classification/rankings and disputes over curriculum control. Agency to make change derives from competency among individuals and teams as well as an environment conducive to local innovation (Hoffecker and Douthwaite <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr18">2022</xref>).</td><td>Design thinking reveals local priorities by centreing stakeholder needs (Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, Stanford d.school <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2017</xref>). The status quo priorities are replaced by the needs of a community as the 'agenda.' Bolman and Deal (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2014</xref>) use the term political frame to describe how actors allocate scarce resources (i.e., attention to priorities) according to community priorities.</td></tr><tr><td>High dependence on best practice.Pressures to maintain agenda conformity, via best practices, work at an individual, organizational and institution level leading to structural isomorphism (Meyer et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">1997</xref>) and best practices in SAN and EAN are usually imported from external actors or adopted from external contexts.</td><td>Best practices generally reinforce a dominant set of practices rather than a local set of needs‐based practice. Mintzberg (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr27">1979</xref>) describes organizational locations within professional bureaucracies for sustaining best practices. Talent development through faculty training is a key reinforcing loop of the system of best practices (Senge <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30">1994</xref>), while administrative training for leaders is also necessary to affect the system. Bolman and Deal (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2014</xref>) use the human resource frame to describe how talent is trained and how that training can shape the work of an organization.</td></tr><tr><td>Mimicry without functional need.Peer expectations create a strong factor in maintaining 'isomorphic mimicry' (Bridges and Woolcock <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">2017</xref>, 18, fig. 6). Faculty and leaders trained in a system of ranking and prestige, and associated policies, tend to use that system as a benchmark for success.</td><td>Systems thinking (Senge <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30">1994</xref>) helps faculty and leaders see how individual training and capacity, developed as a cohort, can be applied to a local organization,; and in turn how the local organization is part of a larger system of higher education. By demonstrating value in a local agenda and learning about broader national education systems, cohorts can begin to imagine agency over their shared priorities and how to affect change (Kezar <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr20">2018</xref>).</td></tr><tr><td>Incentives.When incentives follow externally designed practices that do not align with local needs, individuals are rewarded for repeating unaligned practice, moving a system away from ideal functions. Repeated patterns of actions and incentives lead to culture change, for better or worse (Andrews et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr2">2017</xref>).</td><td>Engaging both faculty and leaders in agenda creation and value allows first for a mutual understanding of value and second the realignment of local incentives (Bess and Dee <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr5">2014</xref>). Bolman and Deal (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2014</xref>) describe a structural frame of organizations to show role differentiation and authority, such as shared governance, which can be a structure for capacity growth versus one focused on labour/management conflict. In a shared governance environment, activities and incentives can be negotiated. Once new incentives are understood, they can become reinforced throughout a local organization and apply influence on the broader system.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The implementation plan of the ISP was built on a conceptual framework to deliver three interrelated concepts: individual innovation ability, organizational innovation and systems problem‐solving capacity. We planned an accretive approach that built on individual capacity acquired through HCD training, organizational capacity built through cohorts and trust building across faculty and administrators, and systems capacity built through systems training and network engagement. We built on the stated needs of SAN and EAN faculty and administrators: they desired more agency to address their own challenges, characterized by the need for innovation, defined in part by creating something people in SAN and EAN want (Figure 1). The ISP uses HCD to prioritize local knowledge and expertise and to surface and address an overreliance on external forces, or what Zeleza identifies as the 'seduction and sanctions of rankings and the geographies and hierarchies of knowledge production and collaboration' (p. 274).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/BPU/01sep25/ijtd12366-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ijtd12366-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Accretive change model." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The three concepts (individual, organizational and systems capacity) are coupled with exercises and workshops to help individuals practice them in real‐world contexts, so participants do not just learn the concepts from instruction, but also via application. The first layer includes human‐centred design (HCD), which involves iterative phases (Johansson‐Sköldberg et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref16">19</reflink>]) whereby an innovator understands an issue from an end‐user perspective (i.e., the person he or she wishes to assist), then brainstorms and prototypes a solution for this issue, and finally, tests and refines the solution as the issue or end‐user preferences change. The two other layers focus on systems thinking (Meadows [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref17">24</reflink>]; Senge [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref18">30</reflink>]) and organizational change perspectives (Bolman and Deal [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref19">6</reflink>]; Kezar [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref20">20</reflink>]; Mintzberg [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref21">27</reflink>]) to affect change (see Bates and Khasawneh [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref22">4</reflink>]). By acknowledging that institutional actors may see their own institutions differently, organizational perspectives can be reapplied to work together. Systems thinking training then allows institutional actors to view problems as multifaceted issues that have been established from challenging patterns (Bridges and Woolcock [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref23">8</reflink>]; Senge [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref24">30</reflink>]). Achieving organizational change involves assessing at what threshold a given population of individuals reaches a capacity to communicate and apply a concept (Bates and Khasawneh [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref25">4</reflink>]) in service of their own goals, identified by their own stakeholders (we discuss assessment further in Section 3).</p> <p>Content exercises in the approach are complemented with evidence‐based learning processes. For example, participants in the ISP are faculty members and administrators at one institution, called a cohort. Trained together, faculty and administrators practice with models of shared problem solving that can lead to innovation (see second level of Figure 1). Training on HCD focuses on an innovation process to help cohorts adopt a common language of innovation (Baldwin and Ford [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref26">3</reflink>]). Furthermore, HCD serves as a planning tool, guiding facilitators in program design, implementation and evaluation (Råheim et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref27">29</reflink>]). During the ISP program, facilitators model principles of HCD as part of their training efforts, such as seeking and responding to feedback from ISP participants. Modelling desired behaviour leads to opportunities for ongoing stakeholder engagement between facilitators and ISP participants through feedback loops. Training together in problem solving, across faculty and administrator roles, helps participants see how distinct roles in the organization coordinate to deliver solutions. Training on systems shows participants how to identify levers for change. Trust is built through facilitated conversations, sharing exercises and reflection on roles. The ideal outcome is that cohorts have a shared familiarity with systems change and experience learning together. Taken together, we expect these designs should yield opportunities for organizational capacity growth and change during the ISP as well as beyond the program timelines (Adams et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref28">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>The design of the ISP experience begins to address barriers to innovation and incentive misalignments embedded in institutions characterized by isomorphic mimicry (Andrews et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref29">2</reflink>]; Bridges and Woolcock [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref30">8</reflink>]). First, the interests and needs of participants and their home institutions are prioritized and made transparent. For example, when ISP participants are oriented to the program, those individuals' needs and interests are assessed, weighed against current research on development programs, and then incorporated into program designs. Needs are reflected back to participants as project targets and a collective campus challenge, engaging individual and organizational goals simultaneously. At the same time, facilitators model communication and trust building behaviours overtly, leveraging lessons from Kolb's experiential learning cycle (KELC) (Kolb [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref31">21</reflink>]). KELC in practice has the effect of individual participants developing ownership and connection to new knowledge through direct experience and reflective learning (Boyatzis and Kolb [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref32">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>Addressing the context of global systems and local HEI needs is a second design feature. Individuals who can innovate, and do so together, are capable of making changes in their institutions. But trust is needed (Bolman and Deal [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref33">6</reflink>]; Bridges and Woolcock [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref34">8</reflink>]; Senge [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref35">30</reflink>]). Isomorphic mimicry results, in part, when individual incentives are not aligned with outcomes, but rather inputs (i.e., effort, funding, new policies). Such actions mimic what funders say they are looking for (e.g., new policies to yield lower corruption). By being conscious of this dynamic, the ISP facilitators build trust by asking faculty and administrators to spend time learning side by side—learning HCD in Year 1—and exploring problems together by exploring system challenges in Year 2. We specifically ask participants to be aware of and suspend their past assumptions (Senge [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref36">30</reflink>]) about their organization. ISP facilitators plan for the two groups in the cohort model and develop the ability of faculty and administrators to use a common problem solving/innovation framework (i.e., HCD) together. Since faculty and administrators have different priorities, incentives and socio‐cultural expectations held for them by the other group, trust building is part of the training. Facilitators build and model trust through setting and meeting participation expectations, through developing and communicating transparently, through budget allocations and transparency and through ongoing reflective and feedback exercises. Facilitator behaviours are designed to demonstrate commitment to the learning process, peer mentoring and organizational trust building with and for ISP participants.</p> <p>Authentic challenges are the last key feature of ISP designs. Facilitators prioritize local needs and challenges through listening sessions with participants and relevant program designs. Each ISP responds to the specific institutional and regional context, so the nature in which the program is designed and implemented will vary. ISP participants, known as scholars, choose their own design project, recruit a design team from the local community, and test solutions during the project period. While the facilitators' goals are for participants to learn HCD and <emph>work</emph> on problems, participants' goals are to <emph>solve</emph> a local problem using HCD. The ISP design allows for both goals to be met in a process‐learning approach (Engeström and Sannino [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref37">12</reflink>]). At times, regional experts in topical issues such as community engagement or sustainable agricultural processes are invited to work with the ISP participants during the program. As a path toward competency growth, participants are also coached. HCD coaches come from the facilitation team and from previous ISP participant rosters (known as ISP alumni). The features of personally and institutionally relevant projects, prioritizing participant learning and peer coaches and regional experts all point toward participants developing their own capacity for sustainable integrated authentic HEI transformation (Lozano et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref38">23</reflink>]), rather than engaging in mimicry according to external priorities (Andrews et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref39">2</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187144487-5">Features of the ISP</hd> <p>The ISP contains in‐person, human‐centred‐design workshops; topical training; customized coaching and scholar support; cohorts; field trips; peer mentors who are experts from nearby institutions; local projects; and limited funding for participant projects (see Table 2). This set of evidence‐driven approaches (see Bolman and Deal [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref40">6</reflink>]; Kolb [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref41">21</reflink>]; Meadows [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref42">24</reflink>]; Phetsombat and Na‐Nan [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref43">28</reflink>]) are arranged in a curriculum and were tailored for application in the three unique university contexts reported here. As a curriculum, these practices bring participants into a pattern of experience and reflection leading to transformative learning. Engagement expectations are set from the beginning, asking faculty to hold at bay their past assumptions (influenced in part by isomorphic patterns) and requiring them to innovate for their stakeholders, as opposed to the typical pattern of study, report, try to publish a peer‐reviewed article. Innovation, as a goal, is expected to be aligned with local and regional priorities, which shifts attention to a different incentive structure.</p> <p>2 Table Evidence‐driven features in ISP.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Practice</th><th>Description</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Human centred design</td><td>HCD principles guided decisions in every feature, guiding all actions toward understanding the end users and their needs in each situation, including outcomes that would help the participants and institutions experience success.</td></tr><tr><td>Planning with objectives in mind</td><td>Objectives were scoped via consultations and partner conversations and then reviewed before each workshop or major activity to use as participant feedback to inform the workshop or major activity.</td></tr><tr><td>Facilitating (not lecturing)</td><td>Each phase of design thinking was an experience of building empathy, defining problems and creating solutions, followed by a reflective period to apply lessons from one phase to the next. 'Experience + Reflection = Learning.' Facilitators functioned as a guide on the side rather than a sage on the stage.</td></tr><tr><td>Peers from local context</td><td>Peer institution staff and local experts delivered content and peer‐to‐peer coaching resulting in stronger networks, and mentoring pathways for ISP scholars.</td></tr><tr><td>Research/demonstration project</td><td>Small project funding allowed individual and small groups of scholars to design a project (e.g., research‐informed technology, curriculum, policy) that imagined new innovative solutions while learning HCD approaches experientially. This innovation process prepared them for larger challenges in their institutional context.</td></tr><tr><td>Regional excursion</td><td>Scholars observed positive effects of policies and investment that support innovation at other HEIs. Then, they discussed ways to implement similar policies and investments to cultivate an innovation ecosystem at their HEI.</td></tr><tr><td>Contextual capacity development</td><td>Each ISP iteration was adapted to the region, university and other contextual characteristics (e.g., challenges facing an HEI). Each ISP was implemented through a commitment to preprogram empathy building, customized program designs and feedback and engagement from previous scholars about ISP improvements.</td></tr><tr><td>Cohorts</td><td>Cohorts allowed scholars to learn and rapidly share experiences within their campus environment as they operationalized their design thinking skills in their HEI. This 'sharing of experiences' created a collaborative environment of shared language and camaraderie surrounding innovation.</td></tr><tr><td>Administrative track</td><td>This track extended the cohort model to include administrators (e.g., Deans, Directors, Heads of Departments), creating empathy between faculty and administrators for one another's roles and challenges. This act of empathy taught the tools to address complex institutional needs.</td></tr><tr><td>Coaching</td><td>Coaches were alumni from past iterations of the ISP, and context experts who guided scholars through a process of innovation. In addition, they reinforced a shared language about innovation as they held weekly/monthly meetings between in‐person workshops and project activities.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0187144487-6">Responsive Features</hd> <p>Adjustments in later ISPs were made and delivered after listening to feedback both before the program and during implementation. That is, the third ISP was implemented differently than the first. With these feedback sessions, the facilitation team developed context specific versions of these interventions and rearranged modules in the program as needed. At the same time, common measures across programs led to comparable outcomes. One of the key ways to develop trust between participants and facilitators was that the facilitation team actively and publicly modelled experiential learning (i.e., collecting feedback, reflecting together and rearranging the program), which is a hallmark of the HCD method in the program's delivery (see Kolb [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref44">21</reflink>]; Boyatzis and Kolb [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref45">7</reflink>]). As facilitators learned from experiences and examples, they updated their planning documents, implementation, monitoring and evaluation protocols as well. They also shared these updates with ISP participants to continue to model learning from experience and reflection, to encourage participants to do so in (and outside) their innovation projects.</p> <p>When we implemented these responsive features, we began to notice important differences in interest, skills, agency and later, outcomes. We began to wonder if and when ISP experiences made an impact. The challenge to interrupting isomorphic mimicry includes capacitating individual learning, organizational capacity and systems change. Therefore, the basis of this inquiry became: How and why do ISP experiences lead to organizational capacity growth for two HEI's in a SAN and one HEI in an EAN?[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref46">1</reflink>]</p> <hd id="AN0187144487-7">Methods</hd> <p>A cross‐case analysis was used to compare and contrast three cases of organizational capacity growth observed through ISP implementation and post‐program impacts. Sometimes called comparative case studies, a cross‐case analysis looks for similarities and differences between multiple case studies (Merriam [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref47">25</reflink>]). Case studies offer insights into how and why a bounded system operates or behaves in a particular way. The three cases presented here are bounded by the participants and their organizations who engaged in their respective ISP programs. Impacts were traced from person to organization to network, creating information for analysis and comparison. Cross‐case analyses also allow for the use of an analytical framework reflecting the scholar‐practitioner roles of facilitators in delivering programs while maintaining connection to theory and research. The study relied upon qualitative research methodology for multiple case studies (Merriam [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref48">25</reflink>]; Stake [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref49">31</reflink>]; Yin [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref50">33</reflink>]) to answer the main research question: How and why do ISP experiences lead to organizational capacity growth for HEI's in SAN and EAN? The research question warranted this approach because case study research is particularly useful to conceptualize the boundaries of investigation within complex systems. Stake ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref51">31</reflink>]) argued that case study methodology becomes increasingly useful 'the more the object of study is a specific, unique, bounded system' (p. 4) (Figure 2).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/BPU/01sep25/ijtd12366-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ijtd12366-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 ISP implementation." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187144487-9">Description of Cases (i.e., ISP Iterations)</hd> <p>Each ISP was conducted across an 18‐ to 24‐month period (see timelines in Table 3). The relative order of activities that emerged in ISP V.1 were adjusted and refined to plan ISP V.2 and ISP V.3. Adjustments were effective in modulating the pace and type of learning for various individual and organizational outcomes in later ISP's.</p> <p>3 Table ISP timelines and delivery patterns.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>ISP delivery milestones</th><th>Planning/scoping</th><th>Launch</th><th>Workshops, projects, coaching</th><th>Excursion</th><th>Completion ceremony</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>HEI 1</td><td>December 2015–May 2016</td><td>June 2016</td><td>June 2016–September 2017</td><td>March 2017</td><td>October 2017</td></tr><tr><td>HEI 2</td><td>June–November 2018</td><td>December 2018</td><td>Workshops and projects December 2018–May 2020<ext-link href="#ijtd12366-note-tbl3-0001" title="*" /></td><td>Scheduled March 2020 (cancelled)<ext-link href="#ijtd12366-note-tbl3-0001" title="*" /></td><td>n/a<ext-link href="#ijtd12366-note-tbl3-0001" title="*" /></td></tr><tr><td>HEI 3</td><td>May–August 2020<ext-link href="#ijtd12366-note-tbl3-0001" title="*" /></td><td>September 2020<ext-link href="#ijtd12366-note-tbl3-0001" title="*" /></td><td>September 2020<ext-link href="#ijtd12366-note-tbl3-0001" title="*" />–August 2022</td><td>May 2022</td><td>June 2022</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 * In‐person events between March 2020 and July 2021 were not available due to the COVID‐19 pandemic. Virtual and online activities continued.</p> <hd id="AN0187144487-10">Data Collection</hd> <p>We collected learning artefacts from training topics to assess a scholar's cognition, application, and resulting competency of design thinking (see Figure 3). The competency assessment framework reflects the conceptual framework in which individuals learn, begin to act in organizational interests, and develop local solutions to locally identified challenges.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/BPU/01sep25/ijtd12366-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ijtd12366-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Competency assessment framework. Figure adapted from Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, Stanford d.school ([15])." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Artefacts are considered as documents, applications and memos that were produced during activities in which scholars participated. The first artefact was an HCD competency interview. Interviews occurred at the beginning, midway and closing of the program, when we inquired about a scholar's learning journey and activities outside of the ISP. A second set of artefacts we collected were workbook entries from workshops, which included scholarly reflections about lessons learned or plans for future activities. A third artefact was a scholar's portfolio presented at the final innovation showcase. These artefacts included photos and explanations of project activities up to the later testing stages. A fourth artefact was the budget a scholar submitted to the field office to receive funding for project activities, which illustrated evidence (or not) of allocating funds to specific design thinking activities. A fifth artefact came from coaching notes, as coaches offered a third‐party view of the cognitive and application development of their scholars. The final artefact came from public‐facing media, which included publications, blogs and presentations where scholars demonstrated their understanding and application of design thinking to a public audience of their choosing.</p> <hd id="AN0187144487-12">Data Analysis and Coding</hd> <p>Qualitative cross‐case comparative analysis is advantageous for investigating a case in‐depth within its real‐life context, particularly when examining descriptive or explanatory questions (Creswell and Miller [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref52">11</reflink>]; Yin [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref53">33</reflink>]). In short, case study research positions itself in a situated context. Cross‐case study research focuses on 'contextual conditions because they [are] highly pertinent to [the] phenomenon of study' (Yin [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref54">33</reflink>], 18). Accordingly, this approach 'allows for the simultaneous examination of the role of structures, culture, organization‐wide processes, history and myriad other conditions' (Merriam [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref55">25</reflink>], 51). For this study, a cross‐case analysis allowed us to explore how particular institutions and individuals were affected by and responded to pressures, constraints and opportunities in SAN and EAN. In sum, interpretive, comparative case study methodology bore many advantages, including the opportunity to explore complexity, produce knowledge within context, and enhance the relevance and logic of research design through an iterative process.</p> <p>Scholar artefacts were either submitted to facilitators or collected by coaches during the program and loaded to an online storage platform (Sprintbase https://sprintbase.io/). Once uploaded, we logged and scored these artefacts. Each artefact was scored on a custom 10‐point competency scale that includes both cognition and application (see Table 4 below). As with most competency measurements, this scale was cumulative. When reviewing the scale on the right hand of this slide, if an artefact scored a three for application, we assessed that the scholar also achieved scores 1 and 2 prior.</p> <p>4 Table Scale monitoring and evaluating lead applied to artefacts after logging.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th>Cognition</th><th>Application</th><th>Competency</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td /><td>No definition</td><td>Not applied</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Definition from instruction</td><td>Planned project without design thinking stages</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Defines in project setting</td><td>Planned project with DT stages</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Empathy</td><td>Articulates how to empathize</td><td>Empathizes with end‐users</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Define</td><td>Talks of validating problem w/end‐users</td><td>Defines problem with end‐users</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Ideate</td><td>Connects end‐user insights to prototype</td><td>Ideates solution with end‐users</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Prototype</td><td>Speaks of innovation from brainstorming</td><td>Prototypes solution with end‐users</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Test</td><td>States adaptation from feedback</td><td>Tests solution with end‐users</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Expands on re‐engaging DT stages</td><td>Iterates between five stages</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Explains how to apply post‐program</td><td>Applies to DT outside program</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Created an instructive course</td><td>Instructed persons on DT</td><td>10</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>We analysed individual learning data according to established assessment methods for international programs (Heinrich et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref56">16</reflink>]), identifying cognition and application of HCD content. We measured individual outcomes in terms of competency attainment on two dimensions of HCD; cognition and application. A participant with competency for innovation was defined as having a combined set of knowledge (cognition), ability to use, and demonstrated use of the knowledge (application). From the organizational‐focused artefacts, we collected interviews from scholars, identifying themes and patterns of organizational innovation and problem‐solving capacity as well as changes in management processes applied to their department, college and/or university systems. Over time, the coding of artefacts could be plotted on a graph to assess design thinking competency growth over time (see Figure 4). Researchers open‐coded interview transcripts and artefacts and developed trustworthiness among multiple researchers through research discussions and member checking.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/BPU/01sep25/ijtd12366-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ijtd12366-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 Example of plotting a scholar's design competency growth overtime. Artefact 1—Design thinking competency interviews (in Months 1, 9 and 18). Artefact 2—Media published by scholar about design thinking for a research conference or a photo of form their project activity where they applied design thinking. Artefact 3—Budget submitted by scholar for a single round of found (out of 5) indicating how funds were spent regarding design thinking application." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187144487-14">Context Summary</hd> <p>For the study at hand, the cases under investigation are two public universities in SAN and one public university in EAN; each university has unique aspects such as age, mission, faculty and student composition, and academic program, while together they share attributes given their shared environment (Table 5). Pseudonyms are used for institutions and individuals throughout this manuscript. A strong benefit of purposefully bounding the case as such was to ensure 'focus on complexity within the case, on its uniqueness, and its linkages to the social context of which it is part' (Glesne [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref57">13</reflink>], 22). Hence, these boundaries (public/university/SAN and EAN) defined the scope of investigation and opened cross‐case analysis within and across broader social systems, such as innovation systems, higher education systems and developing countries in SSA.</p> <p>5 Table Sample of ISPs used in analysis.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Date and version of ISP</th><th>Country</th><th>University</th><th>Readiness characteristics</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>2016–2017 ISP V.1</td><td>SAN</td><td>HEI 1</td><td>Mature, agriculture focused university desiring to deliver innovative applied learning with students and create visible pathways for emerging leaders.</td></tr><tr><td>2018–2020 ISP V.2</td><td>SAN</td><td>HEI 2</td><td>Young university (5 years) desiring innovation HUB for students, improved administrative organization and developed faculty agendas that are better aligned with industry needs.</td></tr><tr><td>2020–2022 ISP V.3</td><td>EAN</td><td>HEI 3</td><td>Flagship university cultivating an 'innovation‐intentional' culture among students and faculty and employing student‐ and problem‐focused pedagogies.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0187144487-15">Methodological Limitations</hd> <p>While case studies can provide rich detail and transferable findings, not all data is generalizable to a larger population. A reader must adopt analytic generalizability to transfer the findings from this analysis to their own context (Yin [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref58">34</reflink>]). This analysis did not consider return on investment (ROI) of dollars and time, which could be taken up in further study. The boundaries of these cases include ISP participants. The analyses do not consider impacts on the organization members who were not participants, leaving out important impact data from each of the three contexts.</p> <p>Scoring across three programs showed consistent improvements. This could be explained in several ways which all merit further attention. One question we raised was whether improvements in instruction and familiarity with coding artefacts influence scoring. Since ISP facilitators became more familiar with the instruction, the instruction improved. At the same time, ISP educators became more familiar with the signals of learning HCD and so rendered scores in a more nuanced way.</p> <p>An alternative explanation for scoring could be that the individuals we recruited from subsequent ISPs were better at coaching than the last, but we reject this explanation on the grounds that all participants were well‐educated, capable learners, and any low scores were the result of an interaction between recruitment, program design, instruction, scoring and participant engagement.</p> <hd id="AN0187144487-16">Findings</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187144487-17">Individual Outcomes</hd> <p>Individual learning was documented across three cases using a competency goal that encompassed a range of HCD cognition and application. ISP Scholars consistently demonstrated growth in cognition across a variety of applications of HCD, from mid‐program evaluation to end‐of‐program evaluations (see Table 6 and Appendix A for full scoring rubrics).</p> <p>6 Table Average competency score for three ISP programs.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Iteration of innovation scholars program</th><th>Number of scholars</th><th>Mid project HCD (COG/APP) competency</th><th>End of project HCD (COG/APP) competency</th><th>% Change</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>V.1<ext-link href="#ijtd12366-note-tbl6-0002" title="*" /></td><td>17</td><td>5.21/4.64</td><td>5.00/5.43</td><td>−4.03/17.03</td></tr><tr><td>V.2<ext-link href="#ijtd12366-note-tbl6-0003" title="**" /></td><td>10</td><td>4.45/3.95</td><td>7.05/6.25</td><td>58.43/58.23</td></tr><tr><td>V.3<ext-link href="#ijtd12366-note-tbl6-0004" title="***" /></td><td>12</td><td>4.25/3.50</td><td>9.41/8.83</td><td>121.41/152.29</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 <emph>Note:</emph> Individual competency scores are listed in Appendix A. The rubric developed for V.1 was in its prototype versionduring project implementation and has since been revised. Max/Min Values for each HEI are listed below.</item> <item>3 * V.1 Mid Project: Cognition Min/Max = 2.00/9.00 Application: Min/Max =2.00/7.50 & End of Project: Cognition Min/Max = 1.00/9.00 & Application: Min/Max = 2.00/8.00.</item> <item>4 ** V.2 Mid Project: End of Project: Cognition Min/Max = 2.00/7.00 & Application: Min/Max = 2.50/7.00, End of Project: Cognition Min/Max = 5.00/8.00 & Application: Min/Max = 4.00/8.00.</item> <item>5 *** V.3 Mid Project: Cognition Min/Max = 3.00/7.00 & Application: Min/Max = 2.00/5.00, End of Project: Cognition Min/Max = 7.00/10.00 & Application: Min/Max = 8.00/10.00.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0187144487-18">Organizational Outcomes</hd> <p>Across three programs, we observed a pattern that showed seven sequential and interrelated categories of impact that began during ISP experiences and continued after the close of the formal program. The sequential and interrelated qualities of this pattern are consistent with Andrews et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref59">2</reflink>]) focus on a linkage between individual, to organizational, to local system/network in which a decision‐making process is visible and localized. We present a list and subsequent explanation of each step.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. Individuals experiment with ISP tools in non‐ISP programs demonstrating competency development with the ISP approaches,</item> <p></p> <item> 2. Promotions,</item> <p></p> <item> 3. Individual and institutional grants (some mention ISP, HCD and related content),</item> <p></p> <item> 4. Individual and institutional reputational gains as ISP participants became coaches and facilitators,</item> <p></p> <item> 5. Innovation in academic programs, for example, curriculum application,</item> <p></p> <item> 6. New engagement between HEIs and local stakeholders,</item> <p></p> <item> 7. Multi‐country strengthening.</item> </ulist> <p>The steps followed the individual learning gains made with HCD content. As individuals gained competence with HCD, they gained confidence with novel and scalable applications of HCD, which led to additional opportunities.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. Individuals experiment with ISP tools, methods and approaches in non‐ISP contexts (Table 7). One of the first extended outcomes we observed was ISP scholars' use of HCD principles in non‐program applications. While we had collected data about cognition and application, we did not anticipate early transfer to nonprogram applications. Once we observed said applications, we modified monitoring and evaluation protocols. Many scholars in multiple ISP instances told us they applied HCD principles with family, in community groups, and at their places of worship. We then began to ask if HCD was relevant in their nonprogram academic work.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. Promotions to greater leadership positions, recognitions and/or awards. Due to their own career trajectories, participants in ISP often gained promotions or other professional advancement during or shortly after their program participation. ISP tended to attract motivated faculty and administrators, so we were not surprised, nor do we take credit. However, promotion creates access to decision‐making. A promotion in conjunction with innovation‐centred learning led to current or former ISP participants making decisions that included HCD principles or other program content.</item> <p></p> <item> 3. Individual and institutional grants. Faculty also applied for grants. We observed when faculty in ISP programs applied for and/or received grants and if they leveraged any of the ISP content (HCD, organizational learning, systems change) (Table 8). Grants and other leadership activities are indicators of success for staff or faculty. Grants leveraging or using ISP content have the effect of extending the ISP beyond the initial program efforts into other parts of the institution. In the longer term, more members of the institution thinking about innovation or HCD represents a deeper change process.</item> <p></p> <item> 4. Individual and institutional reputation gains, reinforced as ISP participants became ISP coaches and facilitators. A key marker of individual success is when faculty become recognized as regional leaders. In early planning conversations, faculty told us they would rather have regional peers/experts talk to them about the work of community engagement than a western expert. We invited regional experts from our networks, who became a model of coaching. In an example of facilitators learning and adapting, coaches for ISP #2 were recruited from ISP #1 to serve in roles of network building, regional expert and evaluating innovation plans and activities. Coaches learned to apply HCD in new contexts, transforming their own understanding.</item> <p></p> <item> 5. New innovative academic programs, innovation centres, attracting new funding within institutions. An important indicator of relevance was when we observed participants from ISP #1 utilize their newly learned and shared HCD framework in their campus curriculum redesign. We also observed participants from ISP #2 adapt HCD in plans for an innovation centre and a COVID‐19 relief effort. We observed ISP #3 participants leverage HCD in two different degree program changes. These programs leveraged an important layer of ISP designs: the administrative track. Having administrators present and participating in HCD content and organizational change conversations helped them gain perspective on their staff's view of the campus. Having the administrators (attempt to) create a change project helped develop empathy among themselves for the work of making change. And having administrators and staff learn the same process for problem solving (HCD, organizational learning, systems change) allowed proposals from staff to be heard in familiar terms, and to leverage existing trust built during ISP.</item> <p></p> <item> 6. New engagement between HEIs and key local stakeholders. In all ISP cases, participants were encouraged to engage private sector partners, community members, national groups and other non‐profit stakeholders as members of their design teams. These individuals were also oriented to HCD processes for the individual projects. We also observed evidence of these external stakeholders remaining in working relationships with ISP participants beyond the program. In two different ISP locations, external stakeholders began to host internships for experiential learning initiatives led by ISP scholars. ISP participants reported creating advisory boards for their research and community outreach, creating a welcome new set of public engagements for the campuses.</item> <p></p> <item> 7. Multi‐country network strengthening (SAN, EAN, Kenya, Ghana, South Africa and Nigeria).</item> <item>onprogram use of HCD ideas by scholars across three ISP programs.</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Iteration of innovation scholars program</th><th>Classroom instruction or curriculum committee</th><th>Research methodologies (not their ISP project)</th><th>HCD frameworks in grant proposals or scholarship</th><th>Nonacademic business management</th><th>Community or charitable organization</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>V.1 (n = 17)</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>V.2 (n = 10)</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>V.3 (n = 12)</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>8 Table HCD driven outputs post‐funding (verified through content analysis).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Iteration of the innovation scholars program</th><th>Grants awarded</th><th>Innovation centres established</th><th>Nonacademic programs created</th><th>Courses/degree programs developed</th><th>Manuscripts published</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>ISP 3.0 (n = 12)</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>ISP 2.0 (n = 10)</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>ISP 1.0 (n = 17)</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>7</td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Participants in three different ISPs engaged in regional experiential learning field trips and networking with regional experts. This external networking helped elevate the institutional profile of individuals with HCD training and their ability to use elements of their ISP experience in new areas of work.</p> <p>We planned for individual and organizational impact, but we did not expect the pattern to emerge so consistently in three different contexts. While ISP program design was consistent, and improved from experience each time, it is notable that the ISP encouraged innovative ideas for redesigning educational experiences in addition to administrative processes aimed at organizational efficiency.</p> <hd id="AN0187144487-19">Comparing Cases: How HEIs Interrupted Patterns of Isomorphic Mimicry</hd> <p>Three narratives give life to how individual and organizational data from the ISP manifest in the experience of participants. All names and institutions below are pseudonyms for scholars that participated at each iteration of the ISP. These stories locate and describe the system impacts of ISP activities on HEIs made up of people with motivations, rewards, and challenges, We define <emph>impact</emph> as activity outside the ISP program timeline and beyond expected outcomes with demonstrable connection to ISP.</p> <hd id="AN0187144487-20">V.1, Mary Misomali, Faculty and Program Director at SAN HEI</hd> <p>Dr. Mary Misomali exemplifies the trajectory of an individual learning and applying HCD to make a great impact on an academic program. Dr. Misomali was already an established expert and came to ISP seeking to develop experiential methods for her classroom instruction work. She completed a prototype of an agri‐business experiential learning program as part of her ISP project. She started applying project findings to her wider teaching duties within a year of completing the ISP. Dr. Misomali then joined as a coach in 2018–2019 for ISP at HEI 2, taking her planning, facilitation and applied HCD knowledge to a regional level. During interviews for ISP assessment, she shared how her personal learning journey continued through reflection while she was coaching scholars at HEI 2. Dr. Misomali then received a promotion internally at HEI 1 and intensified her applications for grants and funding. In 2020–2022 Dr. Misomali served as a coach and facilitator for HEI 2 and 3, further expanding her network, sharing her expertise, and strengthening her reputation. Dr. Misomali shared that one of her early students in the agri‐business program is now focusing on SAN business innovation using the HCD methods and experiential approaches learned in Dr. Misomali's program. We see how an already‐talented staff member leveraged the ISP experience to advance work in her own department, develop grants, build networks, train students for meaningful careers, and attract sustainable funding for a new program apart from the ISP award. Faculty and institutional reputation are often precursors to innovative academic programs within institutions. Dr. Misomali leveraged her own reputation to pivot from participation in an initial award to a spin‐off innovation training centre in the agri‐business program. The centre, in turn, attracted new funding within her HEI. By establishing and attracting internal funding for experiential learning, Dr. Misomali shifted the methods of learning toward more hands‐on approaches. Hands‐on and other applied approaches were key outcomes desired by students and local employers to increase functional outcomes of HEI graduates. The centre has since attracted innovation grants from several other countries, serving hundreds of students in the college who, in turn, continue to contribute to the local and national economy after they graduate.</p> <hd id="AN0187144487-21">V.2, George Sichali at SAN HEI</hd> <p>Dr. George Sichali is an example of how administrative projects attract funding from international donors. Dr. Sichali was an upper‐administrative track scholar and led the development of an <emph>innovation curriculum</emph> that used modules from phases of HCD for innovation in business management planning, patenting, commercialization and network building. The intention of the curriculum was to provide a one‐semester course entailing reading, reflection, and field activities for students, staff and faculty. Participants enroled if they wanted to develop a prototype and/or receive a certificate in innovation processes. He completed this curriculum prototype with other ISP members as part of his ISP demonstration project. He also recruited faculty from HEI 2 outside of his ISP cohort to collaboratively develop modules as well as deliver individual modules to enrollees. The curriculum, in many forms, was modelled after the ISP approach. For example, Dr. Sichali assigned an individual mentor to a scholar as both individuals progressed through various phases of innovation. In addition, he had mentors develop modules via HCD (i.e., testing assignments and reading material with students to assess their applicability). Once the curriculum was ready, students enroled and developed innovations, some of which caught the attention of international donors. Given the country‐wide success of these innovations, significant investments (> $200,000 USD) were allocated to his HEI to furnish an Innovation Garage (with 3D printers and other equipment) where students could complete the curriculum he developed under the mentorship of coaches. We see here how HCD training led to teaching for innovation, which yielded innovative outcomes, and finally, attracted the attention of both program and infrastructure investments at a HEI from outside investment. This centre now functions as a hub for curriculum, equipment, and ideas that facilitate future innovation. Stories of innovations developed in this hub, in the hands of end users, now inspire new students to enrol, creating a functional outcome for the use of innovation in HEI 2.</p> <hd id="AN0187144487-22">V.3, Gloria Kyoshabire EAN HEI</hd> <p>Professor Kyoshabire's ISP project was focused on improving the function of HEI 3's leaders to respond to legislative mandates and make university education more relevant to economic needs of EAN. In her HCD‐centred project, Prof. Kyoshabire led a top management team in designing and co‐creating a <emph>Transformation Pact</emph>. The goal of the pact was to invite campus participants (e.g., faculty, students) into a design process of their own. To do this, Prof. Kyoshabire asked participants to suggest avenues for nurturing creativity, exploration, discovery and commercialization of knowledge as well as improving the application of academic outcomes with needs of the community. As the pact created an impact on national EAN priorities outside of academia, participants assessed their own skill sets, experiences and environments that could contribute to an innovative development. Based on findings, Prof. Kyoshabire compiled and applied a list of localized best practices for training and encouraging innovation experiences in students and faculty. The short‐term success of the pact included eight innovative agricultural solutions (see Table 7).</p> <p>The long‐term gains and success of the pact included the contribution of adoptable innovations in the agricultural and environmental sectors (e.g., a handheld organic produce scanner using near‐infrared spectroscopy technology), consequently improving the livelihoods of individuals residing in surrounding communities (e.g., 1000 s of organic farmers across EAN) and contributing to the country's wider economic development. Prof. Kyoshabire credited the program success to her ISP participation, specifically methods presented to her at workshops related to the empathy and ideation stages of design thinking. The organizational changes in policy and practice were supported by her ISP coach, a current Vice Chancellor (VC) in SAN. Her ISP coach, an alum of ISP 1.0 at HEI 1, implemented similar changes several years prior at his HEI. His functional experience led to giving advice to Dr. Kyoshabire, illustrating the positive effects that policy and practice can have across an entire HEI.</p> <hd id="AN0187144487-23">Discussion</hd> <p>Consistent with appropriate and localized development goals (Hoffecker and Douthwaite [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref60">18</reflink>]), the ISP focused on the needs of participants, modelled desired learning processes, and encouraged the identification of local needs and solutions. Findings across three HEIs included individual capacity (learning), organizational capacity (faculty and administrators learning and practicing their new skills together) and network building (participants supporting and sharing experiences across HEIs). These findings collectively helped us understand how and why ISP experiences led to interrupting isomorphic mimicry (Meyer et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref61">26</reflink>]; Bridges and Woolcock [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref62">8</reflink>]). The ability for actors to collectively apply innovation began to improve the function, not just the form, of their institutions. Individual faculty and administrators made HCD‐driven changes that challenged or interrupted isomorphic mimicry. By focusing on changing functions, like shared governance (Bess and Dee [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref63">5</reflink>]) and innovation capacity (Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, Stanford d.school [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref64">15</reflink>]), in environments that previously rewarded agenda conformity, ISP scholars began to notice how their change efforts impacted their departments and institutions. Instead of a silver bullet, we were delivering 'silver buckshot'. The distribution of activities in ISP workshops was not random, rather it reflected faculty and administrator requests—aligned with key capacity challenges observed across African HEIs (Zeleza [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref65">35</reflink>])—including teaching, budgeting, organizational change, leadership, community engagement and assessment.</p> <p>We noted similar patterns across three HEIs, showing similar challenges with agenda conformity and the potential for networks to reinforce changes. The interventions yielded both individual organizational outcomes including new communication approaches between faculty and administrators, as well as a process for solving problems and making decisions together, which is essential for developing agency over agendas (Andrews et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref66">2</reflink>]). By engaging in change processes that identified local needs and yielded local solutions, there were clear links between the ISP and the interruption of agenda conformity.</p> <p>We further identified similar progression patterns among individuals as they developed both individual and organizational capacities with the goal of improved functions. These patterns included experimenting with HCD, individual promotions, efforts at grants, reputation gains, academic innovation, new stakeholders and network strengthening. This finding, as seen in three individual narratives, is consistent with literature where sustainable change requires individual talent and training (Bolman and Deal [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref67">6</reflink>]), organizational learning and systems change (Senge [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref68">30</reflink>]). By layering changes among individuals and organizational entities (e.g., committees, curriculum), the HEIs gained redundant capacity that protects itself against agenda conformity. For example, if a change champion (i.e., a leader at the HEI) (Kezar [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref69">20</reflink>]) leaves their post, there are other staff and administrators in the environment to carry the change priorities forward, with their own competencies to rely on for completing tasks. If one area fails or lags, the others can still sustain the innovation ideal and allow the individuals within the HEI to move forward collectively.</p> <hd id="AN0187144487-24">How ISP Outcomes Impacted Isomorphic Mimicry</hd> <p>For individual and organizational changes to help an institution address or interrupt isomorphic mimicry, we have to discuss connections between an ISP intervention, HEI outcomes and a broader focus on improved functions over maintaining forms. Guided by national and global understanding of isomorphic mimicry (Andrews et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref70">2</reflink>]; Cardona Mejía et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref71">9</reflink>]), we observe how changes at three HEIs and within their regional network yield early signals of improved functions and a willingness to sustain changes. We connect outcomes from ISP with four key ideas needed to challenge or interrupt isomorphic mimicry. Required first is improved agency over agenda conformity (Andrews et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref72">2</reflink>]). Next, institutions need to overcome dependency on best practices, which lead to structural isomorphism (Meyer et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref73">26</reflink>]); moving past practices prescribed by global actors, institutions must instead rely on local networks for problem identification and provision of solutions (Andrews et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref74">2</reflink>]; Zeleza [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref75">35</reflink>]). Third, addressing peer expectations for agenda conformity or improvement agenda is necessary to build confidence and capacity for sustaining change (Bridges and Woolcock [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref76">8</reflink>]). And finally, addressing incentive signals and alignments can help shift rewards and norms in the system (Andrews et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref77">2</reflink>]). The ISP delivered all of these elements.</p> <p> <emph>Agency over agenda conformity</emph>: Agency to make change derives from competency among individuals and teams as well as an environment conducive to local innovation. Varying interventions and innovations have been tried in the past, such as a new policy, or an advanced degree training, or even communities of practice. In isolation, these interventions give some individuals an increased sense of competence, but agency requires multiple parts working in alignment (Hoffecker and Douthwaite [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref78">18</reflink>]). Competence, therefore, is not the same as agency. Even if an institution has one highly innovative person who successfully overcomes the pressures of the status quo from their colleagues about teaching pedagogy, the system still can pull them back toward agenda conformity through other mechanisms (described below). An influential individual might even change part of their department for a while, but once they leave, the innovative ideas leave with them.</p> <p>In the ISP, agency arose when a cohort of faculty and administrators learned similar innovation competencies together while practicing trust building among one another. When it came time for the institution to make a change such as curriculum, there were many actors who shared a common language for change. Some participants were faculty who could organize teaching differently in the curriculum, and some were administrators who could build budgets differently to support the teaching changes. In this way, any agency to make change engaged both organizational and individual outcomes (Bolman and Deal [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref79">6</reflink>]).</p> <p> <emph>Lower dependence on best practice:</emph> When pressures to maintain agenda conformity work at an individual, organizational, and institutional level, a version of structural isomorphism occurs (Meyer et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref80">26</reflink>]) and best practices can be assigned from external actors. However, when a path to change relies on multiple participants in an HEI and their local community, then dependence on best practices is lower. As our study demonstrated, shared competence in HCD as a problem‐solving method increased agency. ISP scholars, in turn, applied their agency to identifying local needs and then ideating with stakeholders to develop local solutions. Local solutions (e.g., pedagogy, policy, novelty) exist in a local network due in part to shared governance and professional norms similar to Mintzberg's managerial theory ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref81">27</reflink>]). Rather than adopt singular best practices—solutions assumed to be appropriate by many funding agencies (Bridges and Woolcock [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref82">8</reflink>])—locally identified ISP interventions were distributed across the organization. Interventions were able to influence multiple parts of the system in small increments, and aggregately enact meaningful change. We identified a pattern of seven interconnected outcomes that linked to build toward sustainable change across three HEIs. If the ISP had only supported or intervened in one area, the effort may have only yielded competence (or application), but not sustained change. Since the patterns were not prescribed but emerged from ISP activities, we see a new practice that uses a shared process (i.e., HCD) to identify local needs and solutions, followed by an organizational uptake and reinforcement needed to deliver functional outcomes.</p> <p> <emph>Managing peer expectations:</emph> Peer expectations create a strong factor in maintaining isomorphic mimicry (Bridges and Woolcock [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref83">8</reflink>], 18, fig. 6). Typical peer expectations in a global isomorphic mimetic system would include an expectation to adhere to the global agenda, such as global HEI rankings (Zeleza [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref84">35</reflink>]). At the HEI level, expectations come first from peers on campus to adhere to the agenda. By intervening with both faculty and administrators, the ISP created a new set of peer‐to‐peer and leader‐to‐peer expectations for communication, using the HCD process as a demonstration, and acknowledging (and temporarily suspending) power differentials during parts of the process. Through shared training experiences, faculty and administrators could see one another wrestling with the same challenges in their own ways. In shared discussion groups, we observed increased levels of mutual understanding between faculty and administrators. With shared language and workshop experiences came a shared confidence to propose non‐conforming solutions to innovation challenges (Hervy and Gilboy [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref85">17</reflink>]). Ironically, the ISP 'required' the use of a novel intervention, which gave all participants permission to operate outside of local norms. Importantly, different actors were never punished for their participation. As individuals developed empathy for their colleagues' situations and learned HCD together, they began to understand their own role in the system and helped each other develop novel solutions.</p> <p> <emph>Shifting incentive signals:</emph> When incentives follow new practices, the signals of quality or correct action begin to change. With repeated patterns of action and incentive realigning, the beginning of a cultural shift occurs (Andrews et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref86">2</reflink>]). In the ISP, when the system of participants gained agency to deliver innovations, project demonstration led to confidence in new practices. We observed curricular changes, academic centres, and research priorities changed proximally to ISP training. As policies changed, practice changed. As practice changed (yielding success), expectations held by faculty and administrators changed. Over time, the reward system shifted. With more grant funding based on early successes, ideas about sustainable funding changed. Once funding changed, more confidence was gained through important reputation gain (Christensen and Eyring [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref87">10</reflink>]). Collectively, these steps represented a shift in norms, policies and reward systems. While we did not observe changes to faculty recruitment or promotion processes, we anticipate that HEIs with agency can decide effectively how to encourage further innovation for sustained change across their campuses.</p> <hd id="AN0187144487-25">Conclusion</hd> <p>By understanding how previous, isolated, evidence‐driven practices were not successful on their own, ISP designers aggregated intervention activities in one program. We developed people, in cohorts, so they had more knowledge and skills to be innovative. When those people continued in their careers in their HEIs, they had tools/skills in innovation and an environment in which they could practice their innovation. By working in cohorts, a more receptive ecosystem developed, where their new skills could thrive. By understanding the importance of agency (best) practices, peer expectations, and incentive alignment in overcoming patterns of isomorphic mimicry, we could bundle interventions and expect innovative outcomes later down the line.</p> <p>Scalability for ISP programming will come from a network approach. As individuals become proficient with HCD methods, and their organizations become accustomed to delivering HCD‐driven outcomes, the strength of network nodes will build. When those individuals become coaches and mentors, the network grows and strengthens. ISP after three instances shows a strong additive growth curve. The multiplier of growth is yet to be realized, but it can be anticipated in growing regional interest and demonstration of impacts in various systems such as curriculum and innovation centres. Since the end of ISP 3.0, the program has received funding to implement 10 new programs, beginning in 2023. We believe this uptake reflects a shared interest in the EAN region for localized innovation. Broad practice with localized agency among organizations will lead to increasingly less external influence and new pathways for HEIs to meet the needs of their own communities.</p> <hd id="AN0187144487-26">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The authors wish to thank the participants in each ISP for their dedication to student and institutional success in their own contexts. We further wish to thank the leaders of these institutions for making their staff available for evidence driven improvement efforts. We acknowledge in‐kind support from Michigan State University and the Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources to make these efforts possible. This research was made possible with support from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Higher Education Solutions Network (HESN) 2.0 and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Borlaug Higher Education for Research and Development (BHEARD) program. This investigation was deemed to be 'not research' (exempt) by Michigan State University's Office of Regulatory Affairs' Human Research Protection Program [45 CFR 46.102(l)].</p> <hd id="AN0187144487-27">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0187144487-28">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>Data may be made available upon request.</p> <hd id="AN0187144487-29">A Appendix Data entry and scholar averages</hd> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/BPU/01sep25/ijtd12366-gra-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ijtd12366-gra-0001.jpg" title="." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187144487-31">B Appendix Plot scores</hd> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/BPU/01sep25/ijtd12366-gra-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ijtd12366-gra-0002.jpg" title="." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187144487-33">C Appendix Logging of artefacts</hd> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/BPU/01sep25/ijtd12366-gra-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ijtd12366-gra-0003.jpg" title="." /> </p> <p></p> <ref id="AN0187144487-35"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref28" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Pseudonyms are used for institutions and individuals throughout this manuscript.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0187144487-36"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Adams, R., S. Jeanrenaud, J. Bessant, D. Denyer, and P. Overy. 2016. " Sustainability‐Oriented Innovation: A Systematic Review." International Journal of Management Reviews 18, no. 2 : 180 – 205.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Andrews, M., L. Pritchett, and M. Woolcock. 2017. Looking Like a State: The Seduction of Isomorphic Mimicry. Oxford Scholarship Online. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747482.003.0003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref26" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Baldwin, T. T., and J. K. Ford. 1988. " Transfer of Training: A Review and Directions for Future Research." Personnel Psychology 41 : 63 – 105.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref22" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bates, R., and S. Khasawneh. 2005. " Organizational Learning Culture, Learning Transfer Climate and Perceived Innovation in Jordanian Organizations." International Journal of Training and Development 9 : 96 – 109.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref63" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bess, J. L., and J. R. Dee. 2014. Bridging the Divide Between Faculty and Administration: A Guide to Understanding Conflict in the Academy. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref14" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bolman, L. G., and T. E. Deal. 2014. How Great Leaders Think: The Art of Reframing. John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref32" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Boyatzis, R. E., and D. A. Kolb. 1995. " From Learning Styles to Learning Skills: The Executive Skills Profile." Journal of Managerial Psychology 10, no. 5 : 3 – 17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref5" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bridges, K., and M. Woolcock. 2017. "How (Not) to Fix Problems That Matter Assessing and Responding to Malawi's History of Institutional Reform." Working Paper No. 8289. World Bank Policy Research. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3092439.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref71" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cardona Mejía, L. M., M. Pardo del Val, and À. Dasí Coscollar. 2020. " The Institutional Isomorphism in the Context of Organizational Changes in Higher Education Institutions." International Journal of Research in Education and Science 6, no. 1 : 61 – 73.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Christensen, C. M., and H. J. Eyring. 2011. The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education From the Inside Out. John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creswell, J. W., and G. A. Miller. 1997. Research Methodologies. Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engeström, Y., and A. Sannino. 2012. " Whatever Happened to Process Theories of Learning? " Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 1 : 45 – 56.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glesne, C. 2011. Becoming Qualitative Researchers. Pearson Education. Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grabill, J. T., S. D. Gretter, and E. Skogsberg. 2022. A Playbook for Designing Change in Higher Education. John Hopkins UP.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, Stanford d.school. 2017. "A Virtual Crash Course in Design Thinking." https://dschool.stanford.edu/resources-collections/a-virtual-crash-course-in-design-thinking.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heinrich, W. F., L. Cherchiglia, T. R. Abalo, and J. R. Bonnell. 2019. " Learning to Innovate: A Case Study of Malawian Faculty Improving Food Systems With Human Centered Design." International Journal 5, no. 1 : 225 – 241.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hervy, A. C., and A. Gilboy. 2014. " Good Practices in Leveraging Long‐Term Training for Institutional Capacity Strengthening." In Association of Public and Land Grant Universities. Knowledge Center on Higher Education for African Development.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoffecker, E., and B. Douthwaite. 2022. " Solving Problems and Strengthening Systems: How Local Innovation of Appropriate Technology Contributes to Development." In Handbook of Innovation & Appropriate Technologies for International Development, edited by P. Regnier, D. Frey, S. Pierre, K. Varghese, and P. Wild, 22 – 45. Edward Elgar Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johansson‐Sköldberg, U., J. Woodilla, and M. Çetinkaya. 2013. " Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures." Creativity and Innovation Management 22, no. 2 : 121 – 146.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kezar, A. 2018. How Colleges Change: Understanding, Leading, and Enacting Change. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kolb, D. A. 1984. Experiential Education: Experience as the Source of Learning. Prentice Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kruss, G., J. O. Adeoti, and D. Nabudere. 2015. " Bracing for Change: Making Universities and Firms Partners for Innovation in sub‐Saharan Africa." In Developing National Systems of Innovation, edited by E. Albuquerque, W. Suzigan, G. Kruss, and K. Lee, 31 – 54. Edward Elgar Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lozano, R., M. Merrill, K. Sammalisto, K. Ceulemans, and F. Lozano. 2017. " Connecting Competences and Pedagogical Approaches for Sustainable Development in Higher Education: A Literature Review and Framework Proposal." Sustainability 9, no. 10 : 1889.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meadows, D. H. 2008. Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Chelsea Green Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merriam, S. 1998. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Jossey‐Bass Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer, J. W., J. Boli, G. M. Thomas, and F. O. Ramirez. 1997. " World Society and the Nation State." American Journal of Sociology 103, no. 1 : 144 – 181.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mintzberg, H. 1979. The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of the Research. Prentice Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phetsombat, P., and K. Na‐Nan. 2023. " A Causal Model of Ethical Leadership Affecting the Organizational Citizenship Behavior of Teachers in the Office of the Basic Education Commission." Sustainability 15, no. 8 : 6656.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Råheim, M., L. H. Magnussen, R. J. T. Sekse, Å. Lunde, T. Jacobsen, and A. Blystad. 2016. " Researcher–Researched Relationship in Qualitative Research: Shifts in Positions and Researcher Vulnerability." International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well‐Being 11, no. 1 : 30996.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Senge, P. M. 1994. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. Crown Currency.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stake, R. E. 2000. " Program Evaluation, Particularly Responsive Evaluation." In Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation, edited by D. L. Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus, and T. Kellaghan, 343 – 362. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47559-6_18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tschimmel, K., and J. Santos. 2019. Design Thinking Applied in Higher Education. Education Applications & Developments IV Advances in Education and Educational Trends Series, Edited by Mafalda Carmo, 236.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yin, R. K. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yin, R. K. 2013. " Validity and Generalization in Future Case Study Evaluations." Evaluation 19, no. 3 : 321 – 332.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeleza, P. T. 2021. " The Six Capacity Challenges of African Universities." In Africa and the Disruptions of the Twenty‐First Century, 257 – 264. CODESRIA. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1j55h48.27.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By William Heinrich; Timothy Silberg; John R. Bonnell; Sera Gondwe; Andrew Safalaoh; Cait Goddard and Kurt Richter</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref87"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1479216
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Challenging Isomorphic Mimicry with Human-Centred Design to Build Capacity in Three African Higher Education Institutions
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22William+Heinrich%22">William Heinrich</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2104-4788">0000-0002-2104-4788</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Timothy+Silberg%22">Timothy Silberg</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22John+R%2E+Bonnell%22">John R. Bonnell</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sera+Gondwe%22">Sera Gondwe</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Andrew+Safalaoh%22">Andrew Safalaoh</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cait+Goddard%22">Cait Goddard</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kurt+Richter%22">Kurt Richter</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22International+Journal+of+Training+and+Development%22"><i>International Journal of Training and Development</i></searchLink>. 2025 29(3):356-372.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Capacity+Building%22">Capacity Building</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Universities%22">Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Development%22">Educational Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Innovation%22">Educational Innovation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scholarship%22">Scholarship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Organizational+Development%22">Organizational Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Design%22">Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Organizational+Learning%22">Organizational Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Problem+Solving%22">Problem Solving</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Organizational+Change%22">Organizational Change</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Africa%22">Africa</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/ijtd.12366
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1360-3736<br />1468-2419
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The Innovation Scholars Program (ISP) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) targets the issue of organizational capacity development in higher education institutions (HEIs). HEI's are susceptible to patterns of isomorphic mimicry, manifested where institutions often replicate behaviors perceived to be ideal without developing internal capacities for maintaining or adjusting. ISP addresses these patterns through individual and organizational capacity development leading to a focus on institutional function. Isomorphic mimicry is characterized by a focus on form over function (e.g., a new classroom building with no classes scheduled vs. building capacity of instructors to deliver relevant learning outcomes for their society); and incentives for leaders to use new resources to maintain the status quo (agenda conformity). Isomorphic mimicry is driven by global pressures but felt in part by HEI leaders and faculty. To address these issues, the ISP employs human-centered design (HCD) as a cornerstone of its approach. HCD is a user-focused problem-solving methodology that involves understanding the needs of the end-users whom we include as faculty, administrative leaders, and community-based stakeholders. Participants in ISP design and create prototypes and refine solutions through iterative, interdisciplinary, cross-hierarchical, feedback loops. Within the ISP, HCD was operationalized through workshops matched to design phases which led participants to deploy a working prototype. We measured individual and organizational learning, including participants' outcomes and collective patterns of organizational responsiveness, observed in part through a cross-case comparative analysis. As participant observers, we noted individual and organizational outcomes and conducted interviews, document analysis, and field observations to identify and understand new patterns. In each of the three ISP programs, individuals developed capacity, faculty and administrators learned to use HCD together (organizational capacity) as a problem-solving approach. Participants built trust in the process of local problem identification. Specifically, we observed where HCD ideas and principles appeared in locally identified use cases. The HCD approach fostered a shared language for making change, built trust among participants, and led to changes that outlasted project funding. By integrating individual learning and organizational change through HCD principles, HEIs established a new pattern of work, and focused on function, moved away from intensification (more of the same spending) toward repeatable processes and the needs of end-users. Integrating individual and collective learning with function in mind was key to interrupting components of isomorphic mimicry. The ISP helped ensure that organizational novelty was aimed at functional outcomes rather than status quo actions. Several of the initiatives begun in ISP continue to resonate and evolve post-project funding and have become self-sustaining in the local HEI ecosystem.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1479216
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1479216
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/ijtd.12366
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 356
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Capacity Building
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Innovation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scholarship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Organizational Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Organizational Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Problem Solving
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Organizational Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Africa
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Challenging Isomorphic Mimicry with Human-Centred Design to Build Capacity in Three African Higher Education Institutions
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: William Heinrich
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Timothy Silberg
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: John R. Bonnell
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sera Gondwe
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Andrew Safalaoh
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cait Goddard
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kurt Richter
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1360-3736
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1468-2419
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 29
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: International Journal of Training and Development
              Type: main
ResultId 1