Research Forum 2003

Adrianna J. Kezar
University of Maryland, College Park

Radical Change in Governance: More Harm than Help?

The purpose of this study and article are to provide evidence about the consequences of engaging in radical alteration of one's governance system. Because of the importance of context to governance and because a bounded activity was being studied, a case study methodology was chosen. Because no earlier studies have been conducted of radical change within a governance system, a grounded theory approach to analysis and data collection was adopted. Another reason that a grounded theory approach was adopted is that it has been noted in the literature that there is a paucity of inductive studies that might develop new theoretical perspectives (Birnbaum, 1988). The main research questions that guided this inquiry were: What are the consequences of radical change to a governance system? What lessons can be learned for other campuses considering a radical change in their approach to governance? The article is organized as follows: I first describe the methodology of the study because grounded theory affected the way that theory or literature was drawn upon to inform the study. Second, I review four frameworks related to radical change and the scant literature on proposed outcomes of radical change. Third, I present the results of the grounded theory case study, organized around three theoretical propositions and end with the implications of these propositions for policymakers and institutional leaders involved in governance.