1.1 Cohort doctoral preparation programs: neo-institutional  (Page 3/16)

Neo-institutionalism includes four analytic categories or heuristic devices that aid in reflecting on why and by what means certain beliefs and structures come to dominate a field and contribute to its isomorphic features:“mechanisms,”“carriers,”“field logics,”and“sources of influence.”Each of these heuristic devices is explored in the paragraphs which follow.

Mechanisms and Carriers

The first two analytic devices focus on the forms that“social facts”take (i.e. regulations, norms, and/or values/beliefs), the mechanisms through which they are distributed across organizations and the“carriers”of a particular form.

DiMaggio and Powell (1983) identify three mechanisms by which institutional isomorphic change occurs: coercive, mimetic, and normative. Although DiMaggio and Powell present these mechanisms as conceptually separate, they also note that the typology is an analytic one; the mechanisms are not necessarily empirically distinct. Mizruchi and Fein (1999) support connections among the three mechanisms by noting that most research on institutional isomorphism has focused on the mimetic mechanism at the expense of the other two, thereby distorting DiMaggio’s and Powell’s original conceptualization. With this in mind, we employ these three mechanisms both separately and in concert to analyze the isomorphic nature of cohort usage in educational leadership preparation programs.

Coercion. Coercive isomorphism derives from political influence, authority, and problems of legitimacy. It is the result of formal and informal pressures to conform that are imposed on an organization by other organizations and by cultural expectations (DiMaggio&Powell, 1983). Formal pressures or“social facts”include governmental statutes, rules, and regulations, as well as standards of accrediting agencies that are generally carried by organizations and persons with some level of relevant authority. While formal, explicit coercion is the most evident form of this mechanism, subtle, informal demands may also contribute to isomorphic change. For example, Mizruchi and Fein (1999) have noted that even anticipated pressures from actors in the environment may influence an organization’s behavior.

Mimetic behavior. Mimicking other organizations occurs especially under conditions of uncertainty and ambiguity–when organizations possess characteristics of organized anarchies. The“model organization”may be unaware that others are copying it, and mimicking may occur unintentionally or intentionally. It may, for example, be the unexpected result of the transfer of personnel from one organization to another, or occur because personnel purposefully adopt practices described in the literature or heed the advice of a consultant. Due to an organization’s wish to be perceived as legitimate under conditions of uncertainty, organizations tend to model themselves after other organizations that are perceived to be highly successful and more legitimate (DiMaggio&Powell, 1983).

Normative processes. Norming relates to the processes by which a profession seeks to maintain jurisdiction over work, domains of knowledge, and the reproduction of its kind (Abbott, 1988; Larson, 1977). Three aspects of these processes are central to isomorphic change. First is the shared knowledge base of a profession, including its belief system about the reproduction of its kind. Second is the networking among professionals that cuts across organizations and is supported by professional associations through conferences, newsletters, and publications. These networks serve as robust carriers of structure within an organizational field. In their study of the philanthropic practices of corporate managers, Galaskiewicz and Wasserman (1989) found that networking was, for example, closely related to mimetic behaviors. The managers who Galaskiewicz and Wasserman studied tended to mimic persons they knew and trusted instead of individuals who worked for more successful and prestigious organizations, as purely mimetic views of isomorphism would predict. Thus, social networks, especially when related to the normative mechanism, play an important role in achievement of isomorphic change. Third, is the career track of leaders within a profession. Career tracks, themselves, tend to be somewhat homogenized across organizations and within professions. As a consequence, differences between organizational leaders tend to be bounded due to socialization and other isomorphic forces at work within a profession (DiMaggio&Powell, 1983). This normative boundedness constrains leaders’behaviors and choices in that they seek to provide legitimacy of their organization within the field by selecting structures that have been accepted as social facts by the field.