1.1 Cohort doctoral preparation programs: neo-institutional  (Page 12/16)

Given the similarity of professional behavior and norms, Powell and DiMaggio (1991) also noted that the professionalization of management tends to proceed in tandem with the structuration of organizational fields. It could be logically asserted then, that the creeping homogenization within the professorate in general, and, the pervasive use of cohorts, in particular (Barnett, et. al., 2000; McCarthy&Kuh, 1997; Scribner&Donaldson, 2001) may be the result of acquisition of structure (Scott, 1987). Acquisition occurs under conditions of uncertainty and in an attempt to maintain legitimacy. It may also be the result of a normative process of management transference (e.g., movement of personnel from one organization to another). We propose acquisition as a plausible explanation because of the recentness and prevalence of student cohorts in these settings. Even though cohorts are perceived to add value and provide program coherence and integrity in leadership programs (Cordeiro, et. al., 1993; Weise, 1992), scant evidence is available that empirically maintains that this structure is effective in preparing leaders. In addition, as Powell and DiMaggio (1991) pointed out“these isomorphic processes can be expected to proceed in the absence of evidence that it increases internal organizational efficiency”(p. 73).

Conclusion

University leadership preparation programs find themselves responding to relentless and pervasive national attention focused on the quality of their programs and their graduates (Young&Petersen, 2002; Levine, 2005; Shulman, et al., 2006). In this paper we pointed to the fact that in times of external turbulence (shock)“organized anarchies”(Cohen, et. al., 1972) fill the void of uncertainty by imposing their own definitions of the best goals, teaching/learning technology, and standards of excellence (Hanson, 2001). One example of this, it could be logically argued, is the ubiquitous implementation of student cohort models in doctoral programs that prepare educational leaders (Barnett, et. al., 2000; Cordeiro, et. al., 1993; Hart&Pounder, 1999; McCarthy&Kuh, 1997; Norton, 1995). The focus of this exploratory inquiry is conceptual. The outcome of this analysis, however, is a range of notable research implications given the unanswered questions that have been generated.

We note that little empirical evidence exists that clearly delineates that the growth in the use of cohorts is the sole result of a coercive processes, or a mimetic function of institutions within the organizational field. Nor does the literature indicate that the substantial increase in cohort use is solely the result of the normative mechanisms of organizations promoting professional norms and values or seeking external legitimacy. What appears to be evident from our examination of this issue is that student cohorts are likely the result of all three mechanisms, each acting on and within the organizational field in particular ways. Also, we do not claim that neo-institutional factors alone are responsible for the growing use of cohorts. Indeed, as even major proponents of this theoretical perspective admit, environmental adaptation for economic purposes, not just social fitness, also plays a role in organizational adoption of particular structures. Still, we believe our analysis points to the value of neo-institutional theory as a lens for inquiry into this and other isomorphic tendencies in the field.