1.1 Cohort doctoral preparation programs: neo-institutional  (Page 5/16)

Analysis

We used two sources of information to explore the strength and penetration of cohorts in educational preparation doctoral programs, change in use of cohorts over time, and the factors and processes that have led to the“strength”and“penetration”of cohort structure in the field. The first information source was extant research literature that reported the range of cohort use in educational leadership programs.

The second source of information was the frequency with which cohorts have been a focus of the field’s literature for a twenty year period (1985-2005). We used data on frequency of cohort focus to supplement information from existing studies on cohorts (first source of information). Key word searches for“cohort”and related terms (such as doctoral, educational leadership, and superintendency) were conducted in (a) Google Scholar, (b) the Emerald database, (c) ERIC, and (d) the Educational Administration Quarterly. In addition, we conducted a search on the term,“cohort,”in the title or abstracts of presentations made at the annual meetings of the University Council for Educational Administration from 1985-2005. We checked across all sources to ensure there were no duplicate entries. This analysis not only permitted a focus on the overall volume of literature about cohorts but also an exploration about how the frequency of attention to cohorts has changed over time. The value of this type of analysis is predicated on three assumptions. The first is that the frequency with which cohorts are a focus in the literature is a function of their use in educational preparation programs (i.e., if they are used by educational leadership departments they will become a focus of research and writing). Second, their appearance in the literature is a demonstration of individual faculty members’interest in this programmatic form–they are of sufficient merit to attract the interest of those who design and teach in them. Third, a focus on cohorts in the literature demonstrates a shared belief in the field (acted on by reviewers of manuscripts and paper proposals) that cohorts are of sufficient interest and importance to merit the allocation of scarce resources (publication space, paper presentation slots) to their consideration. Thus, the literature of the field serves as a way to gauge the strength and the level of penetration that a field logic, such as cohorts, has achieved in an organizational field.

The remaining issue of what factors and processes have led to the strength and penetration of cohorts in the field was addressed by applying the heuristic devices introduced earlier to the field’s research about cohorts and other factors at work in the field. Our analysis and presentation of it were guided primarily by the three mechanisms of isomorphic change (coercive, mimetic, and normative). The analysis led to the identification of a number of questions about the processes by which cohort use has become so prevalent in the field. These questions, as well as the findings and analyses that led to them, allow us to propose a framework for further inquiry into this phenomenon.