Given the contemporary context in which scholars debate the "crisis in the humanities," this study addressed how and why arts and humanities fields in higher education are changing. An overarching theme to much of these debates, crisis or no crisis, is neoliberalism, a political and economic philosophy that is pervasive to higher education in the United States. Changes in arts and humanities that manifest neoliberal effects may serve as a bellwether for broader changes in higher education and threaten the positive qualities of arts and humanities education. Thus, this study takes up the following questions: 1) how and why do arts and humanities curricular changes proceed in a neoliberal higher education context, and 2) how do individuals understand and enact agency in arts and humanities curriculum change processes? To address these questions, this study considered three cases of significant curriculum change (e.g., development of a new major) in arts and humanities at public regional universities that occurred in the last five years. Neo-institutional theory (i.e., organizational theory suggesting that institutions within a field become more alike over time) undergirded the conceptual approach to the study, which specifically brought to bear the concepts of sensemaking and institutional logics to emphasize agency in organizational change. The three cases presented in this study considered each the development of the Artistic Media Technologies (a pseudonym) major at Snowy Valley University, the development of the digital humanities minor at University of Northern Waters, and the development of the writing major at Little Falls State University (all university names are pseudonyms). For each case, data included semi-structured interviews, documents, and additional information collected during the time the researcher spent on site. Manifestations of academic, democratic, family, and neoliberal (i.e., managerial and market) logics emerged as salient in arts and humanities curriculum changes. These logics were evident in three categories: collaboration and hierarchy; doing what's "cool and good for students;" and advancing academic fields, scholarship, and arts and humanities. Within these three categories, evidence of coexisting and combined (i.e., hybrid) logics emerged, suggesting that faculty and academic staff strategically combine aspects of multiple, competing institutions to manage disparate pressures on arts and humanities curriculum. These findings suggest arts and humanities programs take various paths through curriculum change, including aggressively asserting the value of arts and humanities, passively accepting changes, adapting to neoliberal pressures, developing grassroots resistance to neoliberal norms, and collaborating with other fields outside the scope of arts and humanities.
Read
