Our analysis of why cohorts are prevalent and the processes through which their use has grown has raised many additional questions (illustrating, we believe the value of this lens for further inquiry). In Figure 1 the potential relationships among the three mechanisms of coercion, modeling, and norming for the use of cohorts is illustrated. This figure also incorporates the external environmental events, pressures, and shocks that have been addressed in our analysis. Therefore, this figure serves as a framework for future research. It identifies the range of salient factors associated with exploration of this phenomenon. It details questions that can be asked about relationships among these factors. Very importantly, rather than simply focusing on the prevalence of isomorphic organizational structures, it focuses attention on the processes through which these isomorphic structures are achieved (Mizruchi&Fein, 1999). It highlights the directionality of anticipated or real pressures, and it draws attention to the result of all these processes–change. Some examples of questions that the present analysis and Figure 1 highlight are the following:
- What is the relationship between external environmental shocks, pressures from professional associations that are dissatisfied with the preparation of school leaders, and isomorphic mechanisms, the qualities of the field logic(s) about cohorts, and sources of isomorphic change?
- All twenty-two institutions that participated in the Danforth Foundation program adopted student cohort models, although the communication from the project director did not require them to adopt such structures. What process initiated the use of student cohorts in these settings? Why did all of the programs adopt this model? Was quantity and quality of communications among these institutions a contributing factor to this isomorphism? To what extent did“Danforth Institutions”become the models mimicked by other programs, and what processes accounted for these isomorphic pressures and processes?
- Are there differences in cohort use by different types of institutions? To what extent have programs mimicked those that are perceived to be of higher status and more successful? How are higher status and success defined by those doing the mimicking?
- To what extent has the educational leadership field modeled preparation programs of other professions, especially those considered to be more prestigious?
- Research discussing cohorts was minimal until about 1990. What was the impetus for the sudden growth in the adoption of cohorts? Why are they so prevalent in educational leadership doctoral programs today?
- What is the source of cohorts–is their presence a function of acquisition or other sources and processes?
- Cohorts do not appear to be an exclusive field logic. What other field logics compete for acceptance within the organizational and professional fields? How strong and deep is the penetration of these other field logics? How have these other field logics developed and been promulgated? Has their penetration followed similar or different processes than those for cohorts?
- What is the true content of cohorts as a field logic? Is their use based on the premise that they contribute to improved educational leader performance? Or, are they simply a mechanism for use by administrators to effectively organize students and use the limited resources of faculty, time, and money effectively and efficiently?
- What linkages exist between cohorts as a field logic and other values, beliefs, and conventions of the field?
- No empirical evidence indicates that student cohorts are the most effective way to prepare educational leaders. Therefore, are students who participate in student cohorts better leaders than students who do their graduate work in more“traditional programs?”
