As mentioned previously, Lewin (1951) is a social scientist who introduced a three-step change model viewing human behaviour as being able to balance opposing forces that strive for change. Field Theory is referred to as such because Lewin put forth the idea that group behaviour influences individual behaviour, therefore, his postulation is that “individual behaviour is a function of the group environment or ‘field’ as he termed it” (Burnes, 2004, p.
311). This field consists of forces aimed at maintaining behaviour or changing it. These forces are described to be driving forces which enable change and restraining forces which serve to challenge or prevent change from occurring. If these forces are in balance, the status quo
50
remains the same. According to Lewin (1951), for there to be a change, one of these forces need to not be in balance (forces need to be unbalanced in order to sway change in either direction). This concept of forces is as a result of his Force Field Theory which goes hand in hand with his three-step model. The effect of forces influence change in one of two ways. It would either promote change or serve to hinder and prevent change from occurring. Diving forces promote change, whereas restraining forces oppose and inhibit change.
The diagram below provides an illustration of the interaction of forces to enact change or remain balanced.
Fig. 3.6. Force Field Theory by Lewin
The diagram above represents a view of the Force Field Theory model. In the diagram, the positive side indicates all enabling factors or the driving forces that can enable movement to the desired change result. On the negative side, there are restraining forces which can result in change not being successful. If there are excess positives, the change will be successful. If there are excess negatives, the change will not take place. However, if the positives and negatives were to balance, or in Lewin’s terms, if the driving forces and restraining forces were to be equivalent, then we would see the “status quo” remain the same. The status quo would be the same in that no change would take place and what was taking place prior in the organisation would continue to thrive.
These ideas surrounding driving and restraining forces serve the purposes of this study well due to the fact that one of the key areas being explored is that of identifying the enabling factors
Driving forces enable change (can be referred to as enabling forces)
Restraining
forces inhibit and challenge change (can be referred to as challenges)
Problem that needs to be solved
OR Current situation
needing to be changed
51
and challenges being experienced when trying to enact change in schools, through the use of the Curriculum Planner and Tracker as a change tool.
3.6. Combining Lewin’s Three Step Model, Force Field Theory and Rogers’
Theory of Change
The combining of these three theories can be used to arrive at the final product of the theoretical framework for this study. At the heart of this theoretical framework are Lewin’s models (the three step and the force field theory). The backbone upon which Lewin’s model can sit firmly is that of Rogers’ (2014) change theory, a linear one which is called the pipeline model. To refresh, the pipeline model as proposed by Rogers (2014) consists of inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impact. In the case of this study, the input is the curriculum planner and tracker, whilst the activities stem from what is being done by the various stakeholders in order to enact the purposes of the CPT in its entirety. These activities or motivations would either enable or hinder the usage of the CPT. The activities link to Lewin’s Force Field Theory in which there are driving or restraining forces. In this study, those activities are linked to enabling forces and challenges. What are some of the activities taking place that allow teachers to make use of the CPT and what are the challenges experienced that prevent the use of the CPT? These questions posed outline for us what the activities are, in accordance with the pipeline model and Lewin’s models.
Fig. 3.7. Combined Theoretical Framework using Lewin’s and Rogers’ Change Theories
1. INPUTS
2. ACTIVITIES
5. IMPACT 3. OUTPUT
4. OUTCOME
2. ACTIVITIES
52
The diagram, Figure 3.7, is a combined diagram comprising the work of Kaminski (2010) in which the works of the 3 Step Model and Field Theory were neatly incorporated. In addition, it has been overlaid with the pipeline model of Rogers (2014) using green blocks and red arrows. In evaluating the final theoretical framework for this study, we need to analyse the diagram above. Inputs stem from Rogers Model of Change which is the start of the pipeline model. The inputs (number 1 in red) are all the resources and material provided by PILO in order to effect change. The inputs needed are the curriculum planner and tracker, HOD monitoring tools and the PILO coaches who are driving forward the process of bringing the CPT to the schools and to the attention of the relevant stakeholders. At the heart of this model, lies a combination of Kurt Lewin’s change model and field theory courtesy of the work done by Kaminski (2010).
The set of activities (number 2 in green) point to the unfreezing of old ideas and ways of doing things in a counterproductive manner. In order to unfreeze and move onto the desired output (number 3 in green) of achieving change: there are activities that need to take place which would be supportive forces or enabling factors to drive the change. The diagram (in Fig 3.4.) depicts these driving forces; however, to inhibit change there would be an excess of complicating forces that hinder change and are the restraining forces. Examples of driving forces could be activities that promote skills development through workshops and training, whilst restraining forces could be present in the form of poor self-efficacy and lack of training, or other contextual issues that withhold positive change. For activities to lead to equilibrium, it would mean that the sum of driving and restraining forces is equal and the status quo and current method of doing things will remain the same. In that instance the way things were prior to unfreezing would be the same as the status quo after refreezing.
After having gone through the input and activity stages, this would lead to output (number 3 in green) which would be the result of whatever activities took place and would be an adoption or adaptation to the change initiative. Once the output has been set, it moves onto outcome of the initiative (number 4 in green). The outcome would be the refreezing step of Lewin’s 3 Step Model in which the change initiative is accepted, in use and fully incorporated. This refreezing step is, however, dependent on what activities took place prior in order to achieve this level.
Lastly, Rogers’ last stage of the pipeline model which is impact (number 5 in red): the impact on the change initiative that was our initial goal would either be positive or negative. The impact would be positive if there were enough driving forces behind the change allowing the
53
change to refreeze towards a positive adoption of the change. Conversely, if the restraining forces were in excess, then the impact of the change initiative would be negative and the change initiative can be unsuccessful. For the change impact to yield no impact, it would be we have ended where we began with the status quo remaining intact and no change having been accomplished.
This final framework provides an in-depth portrayal of how a change initiative goes through its various stages in order to be successful and is not a process that happens by itself. Many factors are to be considered in order to establish change.