1.1 Cohort doctoral preparation programs: neo-institutional  (Page 2/16)

Theoretical Perspectives

Universities are characterized by unclear goals, ambiguous connections between technologies employed (e.g., instructional strategies) and outcomes, and fluid participation of organizational members (Cohen, March,&Olsen, 1972). In addition, educational outcomes that are achieved tend to be difficult to measure, even if agreement can be reached about which outcomes should be pursued. These characteristics of organized anarchy insert much uncertainty into organizational life within universities (Cohen et al., 1972; Hanson, 2001). Meyer and Rowan (1977) have posited that under these uncertain conditions organizations strive for legitimacy because the structural forms necessary for technical efficiency and effectiveness are either not known or are not amenable to adequate testing. Thus, organizations adopt structures that are acceptable to an organization’s stakeholders, and other members of the institution’s organizational and professional fields. These structures reflect rationalized myths that serve symbolic and theatrical functions. They serve symbolic functions by capturing and communicating meaning internally among organizational members. But they also function as theater insofar as images projected externally serve to contribute to the organization’s legitimacy within society (Meyer&Rowan, 1977; Bolman&Deal, 2003). The logic therefore is that educational preparation programs must be effective because they have legitimacy–they take on acceptable, widespread form–in this instance, a cohort structure.

The manner in which organizational structures and practices become increasingly homogenized has been the subject of much theorizing and research. In their seminal work on this topic, DiMaggio and Powell (1983) identified two forms of isomorphism, or“a constraining process that forces one unit in a population to resemble other units that face the same set of environmental conditions”(p. 149). The first, competitive isomorphism, focuses on market competition and an organization’s need for resources and customers. Competitive isomorphism is most relevant under conditions where free and open competition is characteristic of the organizational environment. In competitive isomorphism, organizations are said to adapt to changing environmental conditions in order to“fit”the environment and be able to obtain needed resources.

The other form of isomorphism is institutional, the focus of this article. In this case organizations compete not just for resources and clients, but also for“…political power and institutional legitimacy, for social as well as economic fitness”(DiMaggio&Powell, 1983, p. 150). Thus, neo-institutional theory posits that meanings in the minds of organizational participants become reified“social facts”(Meyer&Rowan, 1977; Scott, 2001, p. 42). These“social facts”undergird particular belief systems and structures that dominate an organizational field, or a population of organizations, like universities or departments of educational leadership, that offer similar services and share some common environmental pressures (Scott, 2001). Neo-institutionalism“. . . takes as a starting point the striking homogeneity of practices and arrangements . . .”(Powell&DiMaggio, 1991, p. 9) found in these organizational fields.