Connecting+spiral+dynamic+theory

Download a PDF of this page



**Connecting spiral dynamic theory to the study of civic engagement in for-profit higher education ** Lisa Brown, doctoral student, The University of Georgia [lisab214@uga.edu]

Lorilee Sandmann, Professor and Program Chair, The University of Georgia [sandmann@uga.edu]

Anne Bliss, Coordinator and Professor, Universidad Cat ó lica del Maule, Talca, Chile-Campus San Miguel [anne.bliss@gmail.com]

**Keywords:** Spiral Dynamic Theory, for-profit higher education, reciprocity, measuring levels of engagement, Chile

**Conference track:** Contexts and methods: Theoretical and conceptual frameworks, research designs, and methodological issues

**Format:** Research/Scholarly paper

**Summary** The civic engagement commitment and mission among the growing number of for-profit higher education enterprises remains empirically unexplored. This session proposes the use of Spiral Dynamic Theory (SDT) as a theoretical framework to examine levels of civic engagement in complex contexts associated with private, for-profit, graduate-level education. We will explain SDT and propose a research study to examine how adult civic engagement and bidirectional reciprocity occur between for-profit institutions of higher education and the communities in which they operate.

Spiral dynamic theory and its application to the study of educational engagement in for-profit higher education hold great promise. The strength of SDT for this research is that it provides a framework for contextual analysis of levels of civic engagement, which is particularly useful given the complexities (Beck & Cowan, 1996) of the macro environment of for-profit entrepreneurial education. It also provides for concomitant micro-level analysis to assist in identifying those vMEMEs (or worldview systems) which are operating among adults that may be associated with low or high levels of civic engagement.

The theory ’ s limitation is that it is not an individual personality assessment that seeks to categorize people but rather a description of how the world is viewed through a particular capacity to respond to increasing levels of life complexity. Its application in an engagement study provides a way to think about how groups of people prioritize their existence and are civically engaged commensurate with those priorities. SDT deals almost exclusively with worldviews and deep cultural value systems (Cacioppe & Edwards, 2005). Therefore, measuring levels of civic engagement based upon these ontologies in association with private for-profit contexts has significant implications for both adult education theory and practice.

**References** Beck, D. E., & Cowan, C. C. (1996). //Spiral dynamics: Mastering values, leadership, and change//. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Cacioppe, R., & Edwards, M. (2005). Seeking the holy grail of organisational development: A synthesis of integral theory, spiral dynamics, corporate transformation and action inquiry. //Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26//(2), 86-105. doi:10.1108/01437730510582536

Colby, A., Beaumont, E., Ehrlich, T., & Corngold, J. (2007). //Highlights from Educating for democracy: Preparing undergraduates for responsible political engagement//. Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., Beaumont, E., & Stephens, J. (2003) //Educating citizens: Preparing America's undergraduates for lives of moral and civic responsibility.// San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cowan, C. C., & Todorovic, N. (2000). Spiral dynamics. //Strategy & Leadership, 28//(1), 4-11.

Dawkins, R. (1989). //The selfish gene// (2nd ed.). London, England: Oxford University Press.

Ehrlich, T. (1997). Civic learning: "Democracy and education" revisited. //Educational Record, 78//(3-4), 56-65.

Graves, C. W. (1970). Levels of existence: An open system theory of values. //Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 10//(2), 131-155. doi:10.1177/002216787001000205

Graves, C. W. (1974). Human nature prepares for a momentous leap. //The Futurist, 8//(2), 72-87.

Greene, J. C. (2007). //Mixed methods in social inquiry.// San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gumport, P. J. (2000). Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives. //Higher Education//, //39//(1), 67-91.

Jez, S. J. (2011). //The role of for-profit colleges in increasing postsecondary completions//. Retrieved from http://webpages.csus.edu/~jezs/AEFP_110323.pdf.

Lopez, M. H., & Brown, B. (2006). //Civic engagement among 2-year and 4-year college students// [Fact sheet]. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED494028)

Lopez, M. H., & Elrod B. A. (2006). Civic engagement among recent college graduates [Fact sheet]. Retrieved from http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS06_college_graduates.pdf.

Millora, M. L. (2010). Market values in higher education: A review of the for-profit sector. //Interactions: UCLA Journal of Education & Information Studies, 6//(2), 1-20.

Persell, C. H., & Wenglinsky, H. (2004). For-profit post-secondary education and civic engagement. //Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 47//(3), 337-359.

Schwehm, J. S. (2011). //The impact of precollege characteristics and community college factors on the academic and social adjustments of adult vertical transfer students// (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

Sullivan, W. M. (2000). Institutional identity and social responsibility in higher education. In T. Ehrlich (Ed.), //Civic responsibility and higher education// (pp. 20-36). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. //Research in the Schools, 13//(1), 12-28.

Valverde, G. A. (2004). Curriculum convergence in Chile: The global and local context of reforms in curriculum policy. //Comparative Education Review, 48//(2), 174.


 * To access materials from this session please click on the file link(s) below:**

include component="comments" page="Connecting spiral dynamic theory" limit="50"