EME6458Dolan Alexandra Disruption in Education

8/6/2019 EME6458Dolan Alexandra Disruption in Education

1/10

Summary of Theory of Disruptive Innovation:

! Disruptive Innovation is a dynamic form of industry changethat provides both economic and social gains (Christensen,

Aaron, and Clark, 2001, p. 20). Disruptive innovation harnesses

the forces of creative destruction in the generation andperpetuation of new, more efficient goods; facilitating more

efficient means of production and distribution within and across

aggregate industries and individual firms as markets shift to

accommodate change and balance access, price, and performance

(Christensen, Aaron, and Clark, 2001, pp. 20-22).! The model holds that within an industry, two considerationsdetermine the direction and performance of a market over time.

The first trajectory measures the demand for innovation, while

the second trajectory measures the markets ability to supply

innovation (Christensen, Aaron, and Clark, 2001, p. 22).

Established firms look for the highest return on theirinvestment for the least amount of output required, which over

time leads a firm to specialize on its most profitable clients,

providing sustaining innovations which are not really

innovations, so much as existing products augmented with all the

bells and whistles that top-dollar clients want (Christensen,

Aaron, and Clark, 2001, p. 23). However, the hoi polloi does

not really need all the bells and whistles. They just want a

product that is easy to use and provides enough benefits to make

it worth using (Christensen, Aaron, and Clark, 2001, p. 23).! It is in reaching this mass market that disruptiveinnovations are most likely to occur, as the masses areamendable to purchasing products that are cheap, easy to use,

and serve an immediate need or want (Christensen, Aaron, and

Clark, 2001, p. 23). The view from the top is distrorted and

firms with a leading position within an industry tend to focus

on existing clients, to the detriment of opening up a market to

new ones (Christensen, Aaron, and Clark, 2001, p. 23). There

are high barriers to entry in a saturated market, but if a

disruptive innovator finds a way to tap a new market, the well

of clients they find can be incredibly profitable (Christensen,

Aaron, and Clark, 2001, p. 24).

! There are two paths to succeeding against competition: (a)Type I Disruption: Compete against non-consumption, and (b) Type

II Disruption: Compete from the low end (Christensen, Aaron, and

Clark, 2001, p. 24) Type I Disruption involves a new product,

service, or market (Christensen, Aaron, and Clark, 2001, p. 24).

Type I disruptions require (a) targeting consumers who would

otherwise not be able to use or afford an existing product (b)

targeting consumers who embrace simple products and (c) helping

Disruptive Innovation at a Distance ! Alexandra Dolan


2/10

consumers accomplish objectives easily and effectively

(Christensen, Aaron, and Clark, 2001, pp. 30-32). Examples of

type I disruption in education are corporate universities,

virtual schools, distance learning and corporate training

programs (Christensen, Aaron, and Clark, 2001, pp. 20-39). Type

II Disruption involves getting a leg up on the existingcompetition by serving the low-end of an existing market, and

being the first-food value-menu provider for a market

(Christensen, Aaron, and Clark, 2001, p. 27). Type II

disruptions effect markets where (a)existing products are

adequate or provide surplus value relative to need, and (b)

profits can be realized through the development of a business

model that targets consumers at the lower-end of the market

(Christensen, Aaron, and Clark, 2001, pp. 35-37). Community

colleges offer an example of a Type II disruption in education.

Disruption in education has led to greater access,

affordability, and attainment for greater numbers (Christensen,Aaron, and Clark, 2001, p. 29). Disruption is a valuable tool

that can provide answers to economic and social challenges,

allowing the market to provide the greatest good for the

greatest number through the generative power of innovation

(Christensen, Aaron, and Clark, 2001, pp. 40-41).

Summary of Theory of Disruptive Innovations Influence on

Distance Education:! Two types of disruptive innovation in education exist.Those that open up an entirely new market, and those that serve

the low end of a market. Sometimes, perhaps one might be able toaccomplish both.! For instance, the iPad, recently unveiled on January 27,2010, offers up a tablet that contains so many functions that it

is in and of itself, an entirely new market. Meanwhile, it

offers different price points and features. The iPad will

enable Wi-Fi only or Wi-Fi plus 3G capabilities, along with

different levels of memory, 16, 32, and 64 GB respectively.

Some lament that it does not include a camera or video recording

capabilities, but that probably would have driven up the price

to the point where the average consumer would not have been able

to access the technology (Apple Inc. iPad, 2010). Furthermore,Apple has opened up a new platform of access that will

coordinate with its existing product platforms, while opening up

and embracing new possibilities.! Why not try to be as innovative as Apple in the field ofeducation? One could learn not just how to use the product, but

the existing architectures and technologies that it encompasses,

and become an App Developer. One could offer those Apps to a



3/10

wide range of students and consumers that extend far beyond

traditional notions of a classroom encased in four walls. One

could use such innovative Web 2.0 to provide a means to

education at anytime in anyplace. We have the technology. Why

not rebuild education into something better?

Agreement:

Christensen, Aaron, and Clark (2001) accord innovation a just

role in that they emphasize the positive side of the instability

that can accompany disruptive innovation, a process of change

which Schumpeter called creative destruction (p. 20). By

looking at innovation, disruptive though it may be, as something

to embrace, rather than fear, one puts themselves in a better

position to succeed against the destructive forces of disruptive

education, to prevail to the constructive side of innovation.

Sweeping changes that result from the adoption of innovationsmight be disruptive, but many of the firms and industries that

are unsettled by disruptive innovation deserve the unrest,

because they have failed to adapt to the changing wants and

needs of the market.

Disruption allows relatively efficient producers to blossom

and forces relatively inefficient producers to wither. This

destruction, and the subsequent reallocation of resources,

allows for the cycle of construction and destruction to begin

anew, enhancing productivity, lowering consumer prices, and

greatly increasing economic welfare. Our research indicates

that the disruption-friendly environment of the United Statesis one of the principal drivers of its recent economic

prosperity. The second way that disruption drives improved

welfare is through creative construction. This is its real

power. A disruptive company starts by creating a large, new

growth opportunity, almost always by allowing a broader group

of people to do things that only experts or the wealthy could

do in the past. Convenience goes up, prices eventually drop,

and consumption increases dramatically as a result of

disruption. The new growth opportunities that disruptive

companies spawn have historically been a primary source of

improved consumer welfare (Christensen, Aaron & Clark, 2001,p. 20).

Agreements Influence on Approach to Distance Education:

! One can either embrace innovation, and roll with its waves,or one can stand still and be overwhelmed by change. It is a



4/10

choice, to float on a sea of change, or to fight against the

current and drown in it. Survival instincts would point toward

floating as the more agreeable approach. Why mourn disruptive

innovations influence? Why sit Shiva, when you could be

celebrating new possibilities. The more practical method of

existence is to adapt and evolve, as only the fittest survive.Sure, this might mean that one is compelled to learn a new

technology as soon as they have mastered the one before it, but

life is a process of learning.! Why mourn the overgrowth of ivy on the ivory tower ofacademia, when one could be learning at a distance from inside a

stucco ranch house with its requisite number of bedrooms and

bathrooms. Some might lament the fact that traditional

institutions will dwindle as the onslaught of disruptive

innovation battles against the traditional form of education.

They do not realize that while one may have to give up the

brick-and-mortar building, one is handed the keys to the worldin return.! Aside from teaching one to embrace change, the theory ofdisruptive innovation in education can also influence ones

approach to distance education, by allowing them to develop a

strategy to meet the needs of a the segment of the student

population that one is trying to reach. Does one need to

develop an entirely new product or service, and compete against

no competition or does one want to use an existing resource to

compete from the low end (Christensen, Aaron, and Clark, 2001,

p. 24). Should educators make a product tailored to a new

market, or should educators make a product designed to makeeducation cheaper, easier, and more attainable? Sometimes, one

can accomplish both, both opening up distance education to a new

market in a way that makes learning less expensive, more

accessible, and leads to higher achievement.! Take the case of Carmen Sandiego, the video game. CarmenSandiego made Geography, long the Achilles Heel of many a

student, and made it a fun interactive game, where one was able

to learn almost effortlessly. One could play Carmen Sandiego in

a brick-and-mortar classroom, or one could play from their home

computer. Carmen Sandiego was potentially everywhere that there

was a computer. Why not take the Where in the World is CarmenSandiego? approach to education?

Disagreement:

Christensen, Aaron, and Clark (2001) state:



5/10

Disruption is a tool for change often overlooked by

policymakers and industry bodies. Consider the seemingly

intractable problem of the uninsured poor and their lack of

access to quality healthcare. The response thus far has

been to finance ever-increasing amounts of healthcare from

the pockets of the wealthy. Would not a better solution beto make healthcare more affordable so that the poor can

actually pay for it themselves without the help of

insurance? Unlocking a wave of innovation through

disruption could be a powerful way to achieve this outcome

(p. 40).

! In what ways do the wealthy finance ever-increasing amountsof healthcare for the poor? Through philanthropy? Or, are

Christensen, Aaron, and Clark asserting that the wealthy finance

healthcare for the poor through taxes. Guess what? The poor pay

taxes too! The poor pay taxes that help maintain the highwaysthat the wealthy drive around on in luxury cars, to get to

venues that the poor cannot afford. The poor pay taxes that pay

for public schools that supply the wealthy with workers whose

labor is exploited for its surplus value, which provides the

wealthy with further profits. Meanwhile, the wealthy send their

children to private school, which caters to a different set of

values and entitlement than the poor and middle class are

accustomed to.! The poor pay taxes that provide money to fund defenseprojects whose costs overruns allow the wealthy to become more

wealthy, while soldiers fight in wars that they did not start,without the necessary armor to adequately protect them when

budget shortfalls force the military to cut corners. Then the

poor get hit with IEDs that cause them to lose limbs, or leave

them disfigured and disabled, unable to be soldiers in a war not

of their making. The wounded veterans come home to a healthcare

system run by the Veterans Administration, because that is all

they can afford after honorably serving their country. Are

Christensen, Aaron, and Clark implying that Veterans do not

deserve these healthcare benefits? ! The very least that thewealthy can do is pay a proportionately fair share of their

income back in taxes, which help prop up the labor force thatthe wealthy exploit. Maybe Christensen, Aaron, and Clark would

rather we just put them down like dogs? Although that would be

an unwise option, given that the wealthy do not pay a

proportionately fair share of their income in taxes like the

poor and the middle-class do. Though the wealthy pay more in

taxes according to the dollar amount that they earn, the poor



6/10

pay substantially more in taxes as fraction of their income, and

as an aggregate amount contributed.! Warren Buffett, is the third wealthiest man in the world.Buffet, speaking at a fund-raiser attended by other wealthy

notables addressed the crowed saying:

The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in

taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies,

for that matter. If youre in the luckiest 1 per cent of

humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about

the other 99 per cent (Buffet, 2007, as cited in Bawden,

2007).

! Warren Buffett pays 17.7% of his income of $46,000,000, whilehis secretary paid 30% of her $60,000 income in taxes. Warren

could have paid less, but he does not try to avoid paying taxes

as other wealthy people do (Bawden, 2007). The poor and middleclass do not have the luxury of loopholes and tax-shelters that

the wealthy do, they are too busy trying to afford one roof over

their heads, not managing a portfolio worth of real-estate.! Christensen, Aaron, and Clarks (2001) theory of disruptiveinnovations focuses too readily on consumption to be a viable

model for innovation. Christensen, Aaron, and Clark rests too

heavily on the invisible hand as a means of achieving greater

good through consumption. The authors never mention

conservation. There model is purely consumption-driven, which

makes the model unsustainable in the long-run. Our world is a

world of scarce resources and unlimited wants, and Christensen,Aaron, and Clarks model is more focused on providing the poor

with only those stripped-down innovations that they can afford,

or that provide them with enough utility to make consumption of

that good or service worthwhile.! The theoretical foundation that the theory of disruptiveinnovation rests on is also similarly flawed in its thinking.

In An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of

Nations Smith (1776) theorized that:

The annual revenue of every society is always precisely

equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produceof its industry, or rather is precisely the same thing with

that exchangeable value. As every individual, therefore,

endeavors as much as he can both to employ his capital in

the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that

industry that its produce may be of the greatest value;

every individual necessarily labors to render the annual

revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally,



7/10

indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor

knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the

support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends

only his own security; and by directing that industry in

such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value,

he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in manyother cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end

which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the

worse for the society that it was no part of it. By

pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of

the society more effectually than when he really intends to

promote it. I have never known much good done by those who

affected to trade for the public good. It is an

affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and

very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it

(Bk. 4, Ch. 2, para. 9).

! Smiths argument was that if each individual acted in hisown self interest, individual actions would aggregate into an

invisible hand that would serve the greater good. However,

Boyle (2008) contends that: the market measures the value of a

good by whether people have the ability and willingness to pay

for it, so the whims of the rich may be more valuable than the

needs of the destitute (p. 4). In other words, Adam Smiths

invisible hand might only apply if that hand is carrying cash.

It might not be an invisible hand, so much as an invisible cage.

Consumer culture silences working people and the middleclasses. They are busy buying or planning to buy.

Although their fragile hold on economic self-sufficiency is

slipping, they still cling to the dream of a class-free

society where everyone can make it to the top. They are

afraid to face the significance of dwindling resources, the

high cost of education, housing, and health care. They are

afraid to think too deeply about class (Hooks, 200, p. 6).

! The Invisible Hand assumes a sort of paternalism andpatriarchy that was supported by the legal and social framework

that existed at the time, wherein women were not allowed tovote, own property, obtain higher education, or have a

meaningful life outside of the home. It was assumed that the

male, working on behalf of his own self-interest, would make

decisions that were by extension, beneficial to the family unit

as a whole. Smiths view implies that work and efforts by men

were the only industry that produced exchangeable value, while

womens industry of homemaking and child-bearing produced



8/10

nothing of exchangeable value, and was thus exempt from market

considerations (Smith, 1776, bk. 4, ch. 2, para. 9). The gains

from specialization in Smiths economic system, benefit the

males, at the expense of the females. Smiths attitude was that

women benefited from not having to trouble their pretty-little

heads with knowledge that was not related to their roles asmothers and wives, saying:

There are no public institutions for the education of

women, and there is accordingly nothing useless, absurd, or

fantastical in the common course of their education. They

are taught what their parents or guardians judge it

necessary or useful for them to learn, and they are taught

nothing else. Every part of their education tends evidently

to some useful purpose; either to improve the natural

attractions of their person, or to form their mind to

reserve, to modesty, to chastity, and to economy; to renderthem both likely to become the mistresses of a family, and

to behave properly when they have become such. In every

part of her life a woman feels some conveniency or

advantage from every part of her education. It seldom

happens that a man, in any part of his life, derives any

conveniency or advantage from some of the most laborious

and troublesome parts of his education (Smith, 1776, bk. 5,

ch. 1, para. 175).

! It was not until 1920 that the Amendment XIX of the UnitedStates Constitution afforded women the right to vote. Untilthen Smiths invisible hand worked like a dream for building

wealth and power, because it was an economic engine that was

reliant upon, and driven by, the surplus value that the unpaid

labor of women provided.! The truth is that their model is backwards. It ignores thefundamental motivation and drive that propels true innovation

and paradigm shifts, which are aggregate unmet needs and

innovative individuals. Industry and corporations are a by-

product of these aggregate needs, and individual innovators.

Christensen, Aaron, and Clarks (2001) theory of disruptive

innovations is mistaken in that they base their theory ofinnovation primarily on the economic value that a potential

innovation produces. In the disruptive innovation model, gains

in social welfare are a byproduct of, and not a reason for,

according a favorable status to disruptive innovation. The

bottom line is everything, in their conception of a dynamic

form of industry change that unlocks tremendous gains in

economic and social welfare (Christensen, Aaron & Clark, 2001,



9/10

p. 20). However, the model neglects all the negative

externalities that result from a system where those who can best

afford to pay are catered to and given preferential treatment,

while those who do not belong to the upper echelons must pay the

aggregated costs of the negative externalities of this system of

preferential treatment of the wealthy.! Economic gains must be realized in order for innovation tohave any value that the creators of Disruptive Innovation would

consider real. Yet, what they neglect to understand is that

money is only accorded value because the people, aggregated by

the social contract that binds individuals together as a

society, consent to give that money value. Without a real

basis, grounded in the met basic needs of all the people, not

just those with the most money, the money is just worthless

paper, an innovation past its prime.

Disagreements Influence on Approach to Distance Education:!! Disagreements with the theory of disruptives innovationcan influence ones approach to distance education. Does one

have to look at it as serving the low-end of a market, when one

can look at it as distance education serving a high-need end of

the market for education? One can choose to motivated by

primarily financial motives, or one can shift their thinking

towards a new market: the market for altruism. This is a market

in which one can compete against no competition, because in

large part, there is not one, at least not since Mother Theresa

passed on.! Why not access a new Type I market for a disruptiveinnovation, wherein one thinks of not what one receives in terms

of money, but instead what one gives in terms of enabling

education that allows people to lead better lives. Education is

a fundamental right, and one is deserving of a high-quality

education regardless of their ability to finance it according to

their present socioeconomic position. Why not work to be

innovators and educators who will have an impact beyond the

balance sheet?

References:

Apple Inc. iPad. (2010). Apple - iPad - Price starting at $499.

Apple - iPad- Price Starting at $499. Retrieved fromhttp://

www.apple.com/ipad/pricing/

http://www.apple.com/ipad/pricing/http://www.apple.com/ipad/pricing/http://www.apple.com/ipad/pricing/http://www.apple.com/ipad/pricing/http://www.apple.com/ipad/pricing/http://www.apple.com/ipad/pricing/


10/10

Bawden, T. (2007, June 28). Buffett blasts system that lets him

pay less tax than secretary. The Times (UK). Retrieved from

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

Christensen, C. M., Aaron, S., & Clark, W. (2001). Disruption in

Education (ID: FFPIU013). In Technology Lifecycles (pp. 19-44).Presented at the Forum for the Future of Higher Education,

Educause. Retrieved fromhttp://www.educause.edu/Resources/

DisruptioninEducation/158712

Boyle, J. (2008). The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of

the Mind. New Haven: Yale University Press. Retrieved from

http://www.thepublicdomain.org/

Hooks, B. (2000). Where We Stand: Class Matters. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth

of Nations. Edwin Cannan, ed. 1776. Library of Economics and

Liberty. Retrieved from: http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/

smWN13.html

http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN13.htmlhttp://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN13.htmlhttp://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN13.htmlhttp://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN13.htmlhttp://www.thepublicdomain.org/http://www.thepublicdomain.org/http://www.educause.edu/Resources/DisruptioninEducation/158712http://www.educause.edu/Resources/DisruptioninEducation/158712http://www.educause.edu/Resources/DisruptioninEducation/158712http://www.educause.edu/Resources/DisruptioninEducation/158712http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ecehttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

Documents

EME6458Dolan Alexandra Disruption in Education