OERlabs Openbook/Power relations in higher education (Student Participation)

Excerpts from Birgit Schlotter's bachelor thesis at OERlabs

Power relations at universities: An introduction against the background of OERlabs

In the future, current and future teachers at the University of Cologne will have to deal more closely with open educational resources and the associated practices in both studies and teaching. This is the declared goal of the BMBF-funded OERlabs project. In order to achieve this, no committees or task forces should be set up which would develop a concept for implementation without the involvement of those affected. The OERlabs team has deliberately opted for a multi-stakeholder dialogue in which people from different stakeholder groups and hierarchies can exchange ideas and discuss. In this way, it should be possible to introduce OERlabs into everyday university life on a sustainable basis at the macro level.

Even if hierarchies and backgrounds should not play a role in a format such as multi-stakeholder dialogue, the question arises as to whether this can really be ignored in reality. Students know their professors, university employees, the dean or the rector. Is it therefore possible to hide both one's own role and that of others during a few hours? Can it be avoided that the person who occupies the highest position within a hierarchy steers the group discussion in such a way that the result corresponds to their wishes? Can it be ruled out that only this person is addressed because he has the greatest power to solve problems?

The bachelor thesis on this topic therefore examined the question of whether power positions and means are played out during the multi-stakeholder dialogue, which actor relationships arise and whether these change. The starting point was OERlabs' multi-stakeholder dialogue. Since persons from different hierarchies of the university were present at this multi-stakeholder dialogue, the discourse could be empirically examined and used to answer the question.

Of opportunities for participation and power relations in the organisation of the university

If decisions regarding changes are to be made in an organisation or institution, task forces, committees, round tables, etc. can be convened or external consultants called in. However, this results in organisational groups which are given responsibility for an entire organisation or institution and which are then to implement a change. If a plan has been worked out, it is imposed on the system and the employees inside are to submit and implement what others have decided for them. This can quickly lead to fear spreading and own experiences and internal know-how remain unused. So it can happen that the faculty first evaluates the decision negatively, because it was not included in the decision-making process and it is not clear whether it can be implemented at all on all levels.

Participation is therefore regarded as one of the "classic" success factors in change management. In principle, motivation is increased by involving employees and resistance is reduced. If a change is imminent, it should be pursued from within, if possible, in order on the one hand to increase the efficiency of the organisation and on the other hand to humanise the working world (cf. Lauer, 2014).

A central question concerning the behavior of individuals, however, is the question of power. Koch (2007) According to the journal, joint action is inconceivable without the exercise of power. As a rule, the actors pursue two objectives: The attainment of power with the aim of reaching as far up as possible on the hierarchical levels and the exercise of power with regard to the leadership of social groups. The development of power requires a consensus between the powerful and the less powerful and thus also has a collectivist facet (cf. Koch, 2007). In order to break up existing power relations, an internal stakeholder analysis was carried out for the multi-stakeholder dialogue of OERlabs. Participants from various fields, such as students, professors, young academics, deans and representatives of university institutions, took part. But to what extent could power relations actually be broken up? Which ones can be observed and described in the project?

Discourse analysis to investigate the balance of power in the OERlabs

In my bachelor thesis, I examined the first date of the multi-stakeholder dialogue at OERlabs to determine which power positions are played out during the four-hour kick-off event, which actor relationships emerge and whether these change in the course of the afternoon. For this purpose, a knowledge sociological discourse analysis was carried out with the help of the dialogue recordings.

In the group examined, persons from the stakeholder groups Stud, Young Scientists (WN1, WN2) and representatives of university institutions (UE) were present, one of whom held a managerial position and was therefore anonymised with Mgmt.

Overall, it can be emphasized that despite different hierarchical positions within the investigated group, none of the stakeholders has asserted its will against the resistance of the other participants. This may be due to the fact that the format of the multi-stakeholder dialogue is designed to bring together different hierarchies and that it was clearly communicated to the OERlabs that hierarchies should not play a role. Or also because of the definition work that took place at the beginning, in which each participant had to interpret the thoughts of the other persons and explain them to the next person. This "warm-up exercise" was intended to minimise fears regarding the different power relations in the university environment, which could have a positive effect on the discourse within the small groups afterwards.

As mentioned before, collective action is inconceivable without the exercise of power. Thus in the observed group no obvious exercise of power was carried out, e.g. by coercion, but nevertheless forms of power were used which can be called manipulative power and are difficult or not fully recognizable by the participants. The means of manipulative power are e.g. power through reward, identification power, expert power or information power. Depending on the objectives of the actors, different means of power were used. Thus Mgmt mainly used the power of identification, which is based on a position within the group and the esteem in which he is held. WN2 often used expert power, which can be used when knowledge is superior to that of others. This power helped the stakeholders to influence others.

WN2 has, for example, achieved a position through the use of this means of power that allows it to carry out actions without consulting the group members, who however represent the entire group.

Mgmt was equally successful with his strategy, as many of his thoughts were written down without resistance or after a short discussion. He could distribute tasks without compulsion. The fact that he involved most of the group members in decisions brought him a lot of esteem.

In the group analysed, it was found that two stakeholders with different objectives had used different means of power. Thus, Mgmt pursued the goal of group leadership, while WN2 had the goal of reaching the top at the hierarchical level. It could be seen that Mgmt chose his words from the beginning in such a way that he was appreciated and given a position in the group which made him attractive and allowed the other group members to identify with him. This can be seen in sentences like 'Yes, if that's okay with all of you? Maybe a very stupid, trivial quality' or 'No, I think it's very nice'. So shortly after the beginning of the dialogue he can fall back on the power of identification. It helps him to lead the discourse of the group in the direction which he considers the right one.

WN2 acted differently. She did not express herself cautiously like Mgmt, but wanted to rise up in the group and take the leading role. She is familiar with the topic and therefore often uses the means of expert power. This can be seen in sentences such as 'But honestly, English teachers are already doing that now', 'The innovation would be if a teacher could [...] competently teach me what I can learn from it now' or 'I'm not saying that I think the whole thing is right'. She was successful because she hardly allowed any objections and was therefore not contradicted.

While the leadership position within the Group was negotiated between Mgmt and WN2, the other stakeholders increasingly receded into the background. Again and again, discussions took place almost exclusively between the leaders of the discourse, which is why the remaining members of the group were excluded. In addition, questions, suggestions or ideas from these individuals often ended in discussions between the dominant stakeholders. Two notable actor relationships thus emerged: The ones who guided the discourse and those who followed. The development of the relationships can be connected with the fact that there was no clear ranking within the group. This point naturally contradicts the approach that hierarchies and thus ranks should not play a role in multi-stakeholder dialogue. Nevertheless, in the analysed group it was found that Mgmt and WN2 fought for their position within the group. This competition neglected the remaining members. While the discourse-directing members used means of power, little or no use was made of them in the group of those following the discourse.

The actor relationship remained in place until the end. It was no longer possible to completely pick up the following discourses, but a discourse developed which mainly took place between two group members. What is striking here is that those following the discourse had not joined forces to form the antithesis to WN2 and Mgmt. They accepted that they dominated the group and that they themselves only participated in part of the discussion.

Finally, the questions asked at the beginning can be answered: No positional power was played out, but means of power of manipulative power were used, which better control those persons who stand higher within the hierarchical structures and were thus able to steer the group result in their favour. The result was an actor relationship that determined the discourse, including the person with the highest hierarchical position in the group. This relationship developed very quickly and could not be dissolved until the end. Consequently, the remaining members of the group were increasingly excluded from the discourse.

Next steps

In order to obtain more precise results, the further dates of the multi-stakeholder dialogue would also have to be analysed. Among other things, it should be examined how the leading stakeholders and the leaders behave in a different group composition. Another point would be the clothing of those present, as it has been shown that people from higher hierarchies were dressed differently. It is therefore interesting to examine whether the participants' clothing would also have an effect on their behaviour. Is a person wearing a jacket more respectful than a person wearing a hooded sweater? Is it more likely that a person wearing a jacket belongs to a higher hierarchy? What would be the results of combining clothing with age and gender? However, a discourse analysis alone is not enough. Instruments such as observations would have to be combined with discourse analysis.

Even if not all power relations could be dissolved in the first step of this form of dialogue, it makes sense in my opinion to take all stakeholders on board. In the following dates the groups were put together differently and ideas and thoughts could be taken up (again) with the knowledge from the previous dates. If, however, it should turn out in the subsequent appointments that the same people are always the leaders and the guided ones, one should consider oneself as an organizer in my opinion to intervene actively and to prevent this by regular speaking time or similar. Otherwise even the best prepared multi-stakeholder will not lead to more valuable results than a dialogue among the same stakeholders. This kind of investigation helps to find out whether the multi-stakeholder is really an enrichment or whether only the beautiful appearance of the other approach dazzles.