Editor’s note: This is Part 1 of a two-part article about the state of innovation in higher education. The author argues that the concept of innovation in higher education has been progressively corrupted, functioning less as an analytical category and more as a symbolic and legitimizing discourse – or “innovation theatre.” Part 1 demonstrates how institutions systematically reframe, absorb and neutralize potentially transformative ideas. It further identifies the structural barriers – governance complexity, professional identity, regulatory regimes, funding model, and risk cultures –  that anchor institutions to incrementalism, and analyzes the mechanisms through which innovation is co-opted, including rhetorical inflation, symbolic compliance, and technological substitution. It then argues that a set of converging forces – particularly artificial intelligence, demographic shifts, labour-market restructuring, and the rise of alternative learning infrastructures – render innovation co-option increasingly unsustainable. Part 2 of the article, to be published on June 3, 2026, outlines pathways toward genuine innovation based on structural redesign, ecosystem collaboration and a reorientation of leadership from preservation to transformation. For the full set of references, see the end of Part 2.

The corruption of innovation: rethinking the language, logics and limits of change in higher education

OPINION & ANALYSIS

Stephen Murgatroyd teaches at the University of Alberta and is Chief Executive Officer of Murgatroyd Consulting & Communications Inc. He is the former Dean of the Faculty of Business at Athabasca University, where he led the team that created the world’s first fully online MBA in 1994-94.

By Stephen Murgatroyd

Higher education is saturated with the rhetoric of innovation. Institutional strategies, government policy frameworks and sector analyses repeatedly invoke the term to signal responsiveness, adaptability and future readiness.

Yet this ubiquity has come at a cost. “Innovation” has been progressively stripped of conceptual precision. What once denoted significant shifts in value creation, governance, pedagogy or institutional design is now routinely applied to marginal adjustments – new technologies layered onto existing systems, minor assessment reforms, or incremental changes to delivery formats.

In this environment, innovation functions less as a descriptor of transformation and more as a symbolic resource that legitimizes continuity.

The concept of innovation entered higher education through economic and organizational theory. Joseph Schumpeter (1934) framed innovation as the driver of economic transformation, while Clayton Christensen and Henry Eyring (2011) suggested that universities would be vulnerable to disruptive entrants offering simpler, cheaper alternatives.

Yet higher education has not experienced disruption in this classical sense. Instead, institutions have adapted incrementally, incorporating new technologies while preserving core structures. Learning management systems, online delivery, and micro-credentials have been layered onto existing models rather than replacing them. This pattern reflects bounded experimentation – localized, small-scale innovation that signals change without altering institutional logics.

The organizational logic of sameness

Organizational theory helps explain this persistence. Institutions are subject to isomorphic pressures that drive convergence across the sector. Regulatory frameworks, accreditation systems, and professional norms incentivize alignment with established practices. Divergence carries reputational, operational and financial risks.

Path dependency reinforces these dynamics. Core structures such as the credit hour, disciplinary organization, and governance systems are historically embedded and difficult to change. These structures are tied to institutional identity and resource allocation, making transformation both complex and politically sensitive.

Audit cultures and global rankings further limit innovation. They reward measurable outputs and comparability, discouraging experimentation. Innovation becomes procedural – something to be documented – rather than transformative, which is something that transforms.

Some cases of radical transformation do exist – such as the Tec21 strategy at the Technological University of Monterrey, the creation of the Open University in the U.K. in 1969, or the recent transformation of Arizona State University into a hybrid dual-mode institution. these are all examples of significant change. But these are few and far between.

“Innovation” as signal: the political economy of the term

Innovation operates as a strategic signal within higher education’s political economy. It performs three key functions.

1. First, it signals legitimacy. Institutions use an innovation language to demonstrate alignment with government priorities, labour market needs, and public expectations.
2. Second, it supports reputation management. Innovation becomes a branding device, projecting dynamism and leadership in competitive environments, even though a lot of what is presented as "innovation" more closely resembles innovation theatre (see below).
3. Third, it enables regulatory appeasement. Institutions produce narratives and initiatives that align with policy expectations, even when substantive change is limited.

In this sense, innovation becomes a political artifact – stabilizing stakeholder relationships while masking structural inertia.

A clearer understanding of innovation requires distinguishing between different types of change:

• Incremental adjustment involves minor improvements that leave institutional structures intact.
• Adaptive modernization introduces new tools and practices, but remains within existing logics.
• Architectural reform reconfigures systems – such as competency-based learning or new governance models – by altering linkages between components while preserving core assumptions.
• Disruptive redesign challenges foundational assumptions and envisions networked, AI-enabled learning ecosystems.

Most institutional activity remains concentrated in the first two categories, while communication and marketing rhetoric frequently invokes the latter two. This creates a persistent gap between discourse and practice.

A contemporary illustration of this rhetorical-structural gap can be found in the rapid expansion of micro-credentials across higher education systems. Governments, institutions and sector bodies have widely positioned micro-credentials as transformative innovations capable of reshaping lifelong learning, improving labour-market alignment and increasing flexibility. Policy documents frequently describe them as enabling “just-in-time learning” and “skills-based pathways” that will “disrupt traditional degree structures” (OECD, 2023).

However, empirical evidence suggests that most institutional implementations remain bounded within existing logics. Micro-credentials are typically developed as add-ons to traditional programs, non-credit offerings or continuing education products, rather than as components of fundamentally redesigned learning architectures.

As I argued in a November 2024 paper, micro-credentials are often “not working as advertised,” in that they fail to deliver on claims of system-level transformation and instead “reproduce existing structures in modular form.”

Similarly, Gallagher and Palmer noted that while micro-credentials are frequently framed as alternatives to degrees, in practice they are “layered onto existing systems rather than replacing them.”

In many jurisdictions, micro-credentials have been incorporated into institutional portfolios without altering core elements such as credit-hour frameworks, program sequencing, or governance arrangements. They serve as instruments of adaptive modernization – supporting recruitment, employer engagement and continuing education – while leaving the dominant architecture of higher education intact.

The result is a pattern in which the language of disruption is mobilized to describe initiatives that function primarily as incremental or adjacent innovations.

This case reinforces the broader argument that higher education has developed a capacity to absorb potentially transformative ideas and reconfigure them in ways that preserve institutional stability.

Micro-credentials, like MOOCs before them, illustrate how the discourse of innovation can outpace – and ultimately obscure – the reality of limited structural change.

Why transformation rarely happens: structural constraints

Transformation is constrained by governance, culture, regulation and finance. It is also highly impacted by leadership and project management capabilities. In colleges and universities, governance systems are decentralized and consensus-driven, which slows decision-making and dilutes change initiatives. Faculty identity, rooted in disciplinary autonomy, can resist externally driven reform.

Regulatory frameworks emphasize stability through accreditation and quality assurance processes. Funding models tied to enrolment and output reinforce continuity. Risk aversion – shaped by reputational and political pressures – further constrains innovation.

Technological limitations and uneven digital capacity hinder transformation, while cultural expectations reinforce traditional models. Together, these factors create a system optimized for continuity rather than redesign.

Innovation is not only constrained; it is actively co-opted. Rhetorical inflation expands the term to include minor changes. Symbolic compliance satisfies external expectations without altering structures.

Bureaucratic processes absorb and dilute transformative ideas. Risk translation reframes innovation into low-risk forms. Pilot projects isolate innovation from core systems.

Managerial reframing translates disruption into efficiency language. Technological substitution layers tools onto existing systems. Ecosystem deflection shifts innovation to external partners.

Together, these mechanisms create a system in which innovation reinforces stability rather than transformation. Indeed, the example of micro-credentials reinforces the broader argument that higher education has developed a capacity to absorb potentially transformative ideas and reconfigure them in ways that preserve institutional stability.

This pattern is not unique to higher education. Across sectors, large-scale transformation initiatives have a well-documented failure rate: studies consistently suggest that between 60 percent and 70 percent of major organizational change efforts do not achieve their intended outcomes.

In higher education, the rate of meaningful structural transformation appears even lower, given the compounded effects of governance complexity, regulatory constraint, and professional autonomy. Most initiatives stall at the level of implementation, are diluted through consensus processes, or are absorbed into existing practices without altering the underlying logic of the business models and processes deployed by the college or university.

The implication is clear. What appears as a proliferation of innovation activity is, in many cases, a system-level pattern of failed or contained transformation – one in which ambition is high, rhetoric is expansive, but structural change remains elusive.

Innovation theatre: performance without transformation

Across higher education, a recognizable pattern has emerged in which institutions actively perform innovation while preserving underlying structures.

This can be understood as innovation theatre: the systematic presentation of change as transformative, when in practice it remains bounded, incremental, and structurally conservative. The term “innovation theatre” refers to the systematic presentation of bounded, non-structural change as transformational, in order to satisfy external expectations while preserving institutional stability.

Innovation theatre is not simply exaggeration or poor implementation. It is an institutionalized response to competing pressures – governments demanding modernization, employers seeking alignment, and institutions seeking stability. It allows universities to signal responsiveness without incurring the risks associated with structural redesign.

This pattern is visible across several widely adopted initiatives. The expansion of micro-credentials, for example, has been framed as a fundamental rethinking of lifelong learning and credentialing systems.

Yet, as noted earlier, most micro-credentials are delivered as add-ons to existing programs or as continuing education offerings, leaving credit-hour frameworks, degree hierarchies, and governance arrangements intact. What is communicated as disruption is operationalized as a modular extension.

A similar dynamic can be observed in institutional approaches to artificial intelligence. Universities frequently announce “AI strategies,” establish task forces, or introduce pilot tools for assessment and student support. However, these initiatives often result in the layering of AI onto existing pedagogical models rather than a rethinking of curriculum design, assessment regimes, or faculty roles. AI becomes an efficiency tool rather than a catalyst for redesign.

Even large-scale digital transformation initiatives tend to follow this pattern. Investments in learning management systems, analytics dashboards or hybrid delivery models are framed as transformative, yet they typically reproduce existing course structures, semester timelines and assessment practices in digital form. The architecture remains unchanged; only the interface evolves.

Across these examples, a consistent logic is at work. Potentially transformative ideas are translated into forms that are compatible with existing governance, funding and cultural norms. Innovation is rendered visible, communicable, and reportable, but not structural. The result is a widening gap between discourse and practice - between what institutions claim to be doing and what they actually change.

The end of innovation theatre

The conditions that have historically enabled this pattern are now eroding at speed. What is emerging is not simply a continuation of prior pressures, but a convergence of forces that collectively undermine the viability of symbolic or performative responses.

Artificial intelligence represents the most immediate and structurally disruptive force. Unlike earlier waves of educational technology, AI does not simply augment existing practices; it reconfigures the core functions of pedagogy, assessment, and knowledge production. Personalized tutoring, automated feedback and dynamic content generation reduce the centrality of traditional instructional models and challenge long-standing assumptions about faculty roles and curriculum design. This is not a marginal enhancement – it is a redefinition of the value proposition of higher education.

At the same time, demographic shifts are destabilizing the financial foundations of the sector. Declining youth cohorts in many jurisdictions, combined with increasing volatility in international student flows, are weakening enrolment-driven funding models. Institutions can no longer assume stable demand for traditional, time-bound programs. The result is not simply competitive pressure, but existential strain in systems heavily dependent on volume-based revenue.

Labour-market dynamics further intensify this disruption. Employers are increasingly decoupling hiring from formal credentials, moving toward skills-based recruitment and in-house capability development. Major firms now recruit directly from secondary education and offer integrated “earn-and-learn” pathways that bypass traditional degree structures.

This represents a fundamental shift in the signalling function of higher education. When employers no longer rely on degrees as proxies for capability, the institutional monopoly on credentialing begins to erode.

These shifts are compounded by economic and political pressures. Governments facing fiscal constraints are demanding clearer evidence of public value, productivity and labour-market alignment.

At the same time, public trust in higher education is becoming more fragile, shaped by concerns about cost, relevance, and equity. In such an environment, rhetorical claims of innovation carry diminishing credibility. Stakeholders increasingly expect demonstrable outcomes rather than symbolic gestures.

What distinguishes this moment from earlier periods is not the presence of any single force, but its interaction. Technological acceleration, demographic contraction, labour-market restructuring and legitimacy pressures are converging to create a structural break.

The system is no longer able to absorb and neutralize innovation through the mechanisms described earlier – rhetorical inflation, pilot sequestration, and managerial reframing. The gap between what is claimed and what is experienced is becoming too visible, and too consequential, to sustain.

The implication is stark. Innovation can no longer function as a performative discourse through which institutions signal responsiveness while preserving underlying structures. The conditions that made such innovation theatre viable are disappearing.

What remains is a narrowing set of choices: either engage in substantive redesign of institutional models, or face a progressive erosion of relevance, legitimacy and economic viability.

R$