theoretical foundation of educational administration and...

PEDU 6209Policy Studies in Education

Topic 7The Meso Context of Policy Studies: The Institution

A. Public Policy and its Institutional Capacities: 1. Statement of the Problem:

a. Public policy has been construed as intended and deliberate actions undertaken by the modern state. In the previous topic we have discussed how the modern state generates and utilizes its sovereign governing power to carry out its policies.

b. However, in order to carry out a public policy, the modern state requires more than “the monopoly of use of physical force”, it also requires the capacities to carry out the policy in regular, consistent, continuous, and predictable manner. In short, it requires building up its institutional capacities as well as bases.

c. In fact, in recent years the studies of social institution, under the name of New Institutionalism, has retrieved as one of the prominent areas of inquiry in public policy studies and more generally in social research.

2. Conception of institution:a. To begin with, we may simply define social institution as any patterns of human

interactions which bear the features of regularity, repetitiveness, endurance and resilience. Furthermore, we can review the definitions of social institution provided by numbers of prominent social scientists.

b. In economics, Douglas North, the Nobel Laureate in Economic Science in 1993, indicates, “Institutions are rules of the game in a society or more formally, are the humanly devised constraint that shape human interaction. In consequence they structure incentives in human exchange, whether political, social or economic.” (North, 1990, p. 3)

c. Elinor Ostrom, prominent political scientist and the Nobel Laureate in Economic Science in 2009, states, “Broadly defined, institutions are the prescriptions that humans use to organize all forms of repetitive and structured interactions including those within families, neighborhoods, markets, firms, sports leagues, churches, private associations, and government at all scales. Individuals interacting within rule-structured situations face choices regarding the actions and strategies they take, leading to consequences for themselves and for others." (Ostrom, 2005, P.3)

d. In political science and public administration, James March and Johan Olsen, two prominent scholars in public administration and political science, writes, “An institution is a relatively enduring collection of rules and organized practices, embedded in structures of meaning and resources that are relatively invariant in the face of turnover of individuals and relatively resilient to the idiosyncratic preferences and expectations of individuals and changing external circumstances.” (March & Olsen, 2006, p.3) According, the suggest that in institutionsi. “There are constitutive rules and practices prescribing appropriate behavior

for specific actors in specific situations.ii. There are structures of meaning, embedded in identities and belongings:

common purposes and accounts that give direction and meaning to

1

W.K. TsangPolicy Studies of Ed

behavior, and explain, justify and legitimate behavioral codes.iii. There are structures of resources that create capabilities for action.” (ibid,

my numbering)3. Taken together, in studying public policy and administration, one essential and

necessary approach is to account for how and why a particular policy measures could have endured through time and prevailed against challenge and opposition, in short, could have institutionalized.

B. Rediscovering Institutions: The New-institutionalism 1. New institutionalism: As a theoretical perspective emerged in different disciplines

and fields in social sciences since the 1980s, new institutionalism has provide a system of conceptual and theoretical apparatuses, which have laid a promising ground for researchers to search for regularities and orders in complex and transformational social world. As for the field of public administration and policy, the perspective of new institutionalism could shed light on the problem of how to get things done in regular, consistent, continuous and predictable bases; or more specifically how can a particular mode of governance consolidate, sustain, and institutionalized.

2. What so new about the new institutionalism? a. It was in 1984, James G. March and Johan P. Olsen published an article

entitled “The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life” in The American Political Science Review that the term “new institutionalism” was coined. They underline that the perspective of new institutionalism perspective is the reaction to the prevailing perspectives in political sciences in the 1960s and 70s. One is the “old institutionalism” in point is that it focuses on studying of the political institutions on formal-legal structure and procedures of political institutions, such as the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. The other perspective in point is the political behavior approach, which applies the behaviorism in psychology and concentrate on analyzing the political behaviors of individual political actors, such as voters and their voting behaviors. In reaction to these perspectives, the new institutionalism focuses on the political meanings, symbols and cultures that constitute the regularity and durability underwriting the political institution and its structures.

b. In economics, initiative of the new institutionalist perspective is the reaction to the methodological individualism found in economics, which manifest in theories of rational choice of pure homo economicus (economic man). In reaction to tis perspective, new institutionalism put its emphasis on meanings, identity and cultures underlying human behaviors and choice (most notably Ostrom, 2014; and Sen, 1977). Hence, the new institutionalism reinstates the methodological collectivism (or more specifically methodological institutionalism) in economics by accounting for economic actions with social units such as firms, classes, status groups, ethnic groups, nation, and in more general sense the commons.

c. In sociology, the rise of new institutionalism is mainly in reaction to the legal-rational system model prevailing in organization studies and the structural-functionalism dominating the marco-sociological studies, such as development studies. Based on the social phenomenological perspective made popular by Berger and Luckmann in their work The Social Construction of Reality (1967), new institutionalists emphasize the informal structure and culture of

2


organization and the subjectivity, definitions of situations and roles, and identity underlying patterned interactions and enduring practices. In Berger and Luckmann’s terms, new institutionalist approach the structure─agent dilemma in soiologcial studies with a “dialectic” conception. That is society is taken as both as objective and subjective reality and these two realities are engaged in “an ongoing dialectical process composed of the three moments of externalization, objectivation, internalization.” (Berger & Luckmann, 1967, p. 149)

C. The Perspectives in New Institutionalism: Since the 1980s, the perspective of New Institution has proliferated in different disciplines within social sciences. As a result, several social scientists have attempted to form typology of new institutionalist perspectives in various way. For examples1. Peter Hall and R.C.R. Taylor have distinguished three perspectives in new

institutionalism in political science: a. Historical Institutionalism:

i. This perspective tends to see enduring human behavior-patterns as outcomes evolve from specific historical and socio-economic contexts. Hence “historical institutionalists tend to view have a view of institutional development that emphasizes path dependence and unintended consequences.” (P. 938)

ii. “Historical institutionalists define institution the formal or informal procedures, routines, norms and conventions embedded in the organizational structure of the polity or political economy. They can range from the rules of a conventional order or the standard operating procedures of a bureaucracy to the conventional governing trade union behaviour or bank-firm relations.” (P. 938)

iii. “In this perspective, the individual is seen as an entity deeply embedded in a world of institutions, composed of symbols, scripts and routines, which provide the filters for interpretation, of both the situation and oneself, out of which a course of action is constructed. Not only do institutions provide strategically-useful information, they also affect the very identities, self-images and preferences of the actions.” (p. 939)\

b. Rational-choice institutionalism: i. “The rational choice institutionalists in political science drew fruitful analytical

tools from the ‘new economics of organization’, which emphasizes the importance of property rights, rent-seeking, and transactions costs, to the operation and development of institutions. Especially influential was Willamson’s argument that the particular organizational form can be explained as the result of an effort to reduce the transaction cost of undertaking the same activity without such as institutions.” (P. 943)

ii. Rational-choice institutionalists “posit that the relevant actors have a fixed set of preferences or tastes, …behave entirely instrumentally so to maximize the attainment of these preferences and do so in a highly strategic manner that presumes extensive calculation.” (Pp. 944-945)

iii. Rational-choice institutionalists tend to see politics as a series of collective action dilemmas. The latter can be defined as instances when individuals acting to maximizing the attainment of their own preferences are likely to produce an outcome that is collectively suboptimal. …Typically, what

3


prevents the actors from taking a collectively-superior course of action is absence of institutional arrangements that would guarantee complementary behaviour by others. Classic examples includes the ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ and the ‘tragedy of the commons’ and the political situations present a varieties of such problems. (P. 945)

c. Sociological institutionalism: i. "The sociological institutionalists tend to define institutions …not just formal

rules, procedures or norms, but the symbol systems, cognitive scripts, and moral templates that provide the 'frames of meaning' guiding human action." (p. 948) Accordingly, they "argue that many of the institutional forms and procedures used by organizations were not adopted simply because they were most efficient for the tasks at hand. …Instead, they argued that many forms and procedures should be seen as culturally-specific practices, akin to the myths and ceremonies derived by many societies." (p. 947)

ii. To some sociologists of new institutionalism, individual actions are construed as role performances or prescriptive norms of behavior attached in particular institutional contexts. "In this view, individuals who have been socialized into particular institutional roles internalize the norms associated with these roles, and in this way institutions are said to affect behaviour." (P. 948) Furthermore, some sociological institutionalists "emphasize the way in which institutions influence behaviour by providing the cognitive scripts, categories and models that are indispensable for action, not least because without them the world and the behaviour of others cannot be interpreted. Institutions influence behaviour not simply by specifying what one should do but also by specifying what one can imagine oneself in a given context." (p. 948)

iii. One of the distinctive features of the sociological institutionalism is the explanation it offered for the endurance of institutional practices. Instead of accounting them for rational-choices out of game situations or traditional "dependent paths" inherited from the past, sociologists in new institutionalism strive to reveal the legitimate bases from which reciprocal practices among social actors derived and consensual arrangements among reasonable agents endure.

2. Normative Institutionalism: More recently, B. Guy Peters (2005) argue that “the root of the new institutionalism” is founded in what called “normative institutionalism”. Peters suggests that one of the basis of the endurance, resilience, and persistence of patterned actions found among a definite group of people, i.e. the institution, is the sense of appropriateness, righteousness, legitimation, and duty and calling, which are planted deeply in sense and minds of the designated group of persons. He argues that it is this “principle of appropriateness” (March, 1989) which motivate persons in particular roles in the respective institutions to perform the prescribed duties against all odds even in views of scarifying their own lives, such as firemen, civil soldiers, etc. It is this deep sense of moral appropriateness which lends an institution its endurance, resilience and persistence across space and time.

3. John Campbell has further made categorizations of perspectives in new institutionalism as follow

4


5


D. Why is institution possible? Accounting for the Institutional Endurance1. March & Olsen’s contribution: James G. March and Johan P. Olsen, professors of

political science, coin the concept of New Institutionalism in an article published in The American Political Science Review in 1984. In that article they have also injected a typology of “institutional order”, which has moved the institutional order analysis beyond the two conventional explanation, namely order by hierarchical-organization and order by competition and coercion. (March & Olen, 1984, P. 743) a. Six types of institutional orders: To advance beyond the orders by hierarchical

organization and by competition and coercion, March and Oslen suggest that new institutionalism can add in another six other types of institutional orders: i. Historical order: It refers to the essential concept of “the efficiency of

historical processes” in new institutionalism. By efficiency of historical efficiency, it refers to the way in which history moves quickly and inexorably to a unique outcome, normally in some sense an optimum.” (March & Olsen, 1984, p. 743) Accordingly, the internal order of an institution will be constrained by the particular period in history and the institutional order will strive hard to maintain a condition of optimum with its historical order. However, there may be situations in which the institutional order is lagging behind the transformation of the historical order, As a result, it will cause what March and Oslen called “inefficiency of history”.

ii. Temporal order: The concept is specifically coined by March and Oslen to stand against the concept of “causal order”, which is commonly used in theoretical perspective of means-ends rational actions and the methodological approach of positivistic deduction. March and Oslen suggest, “Temporal order provides an alternative in which linkages are less consequential than temporal. Things are connected by virtue of their simultaneous presence or arrivals. …In many human situations (such as institution) the most easily identified property of objects or events in the time subscripts associated with them.” (March & Oslen, 1984, P. 743) For example, in educational institutions things are mostly specified by their temporal orders, such as year of graduation of students, year of publication of books, examination year, school terms, etc.

iii. Endogenous orders: In response to the exogenous order commonly applied by conventional studies of political science in accounting for institutional changes, perspective of new institutionalism look into the endogenous order espoused within the internal mechanism of a social institution, such as shift in preferences and values among significant participants within an institution, upset of balance of power within an institution, unanticipated consequences espoused from conventional path of dependence in an institutional context, etc.

iv. Normative orders: In reaction to the permeation of the theory rational choice and self-interest politics in political research, March and Oslen underline that “action is often more on discovering the normatively appropriate behavior than on calculating the return expected from alternative choice.” (March & Olsen, 1984, P. 744) Accordingly, March and Oslen have coined yet another mostly-used concept in new institutionalism, namely “logic of appropriateness” (in contrast with the “logic of consequentiality”) (March & Oslen, 1989, Pp. 23-24)

v. Demographic order: Social institutions can also be reviewed by looking into

6


the demographic features of the incumbents of key positions or simple members of the organization. March and Oseln suggest that “” a human institution can be studied and interpreted as the cross-section of the lives of the people involved. …A focus on institutional demography combines such a version of organized life with attentionto a property of individual live that is itself a product of the institutional structure ─ the individual career.” (March & Oslen, 1984, P. 744)

vi. Symbolic order: March and Oslen underlines that “Symbols permeate politics in a subtle and diffuse way, providing interpretive coherence to political life.”(1984, P. 744) Hence, they suggest that in accounting for the enduring order of an institution, we should pay particular “attention to the ordering force of symbols, rituals, ceremonies, stories, and drama in political life.” (1984, P. 744) In one of the pioneer works on new institutionalist study of education, Meyer and Rowan (1977) argues that the institutional structures and organizations in modern schooling systems are products of the “ordering forces” of the myth and ideology of the modernization and rationalization project orchestrated by modern states.

b. Logic of appropriateness: March and Olsen have subsequently developed their perspective of new-institutionalism in series of work, (most notably 1989 & 1995). In those work, they have developed the conceptual dichotomy, namely the logic of consequentiality and the logic of appropriateness.i. “In logic of consequentiality, behavior are driven by preferences and

expectations about consequences. Behavior is willful, reflecting an attempt to make outcome fulfill subjective desires, to the extent possible. Within such a logic, a sane person is one who is ‘in touch with reality’ in the sense of maintaining consistency between behavior and realistic expectations of its consequences.” (March & Oslen, 1989, P. 160)

ii. In a logic of appropriateness,…behavior (beliefs as well as action) are intentional but not willful. They involve fulfilling of obligations of a role in a situation, and so of trying to determine the imperatives of holding a position. Action stems from a conception of necessity, rather than preference. Within the logic of appropriateness, a sane person is one who is ‘in touch with identity’ in the sense of maintaining consistency between behavior and a conception of self in a social role.” (1989, P. 160-161)

March and Oslen has written two “litanies for action” to illustrate the differences between these two logic

Anticipatory Action(Logic of Consequentiality)

Obligatory Action(Logic of Appropriateness)

1. What are my alternatives? 1. What kind of a situation is this?2. What are my values? 2. Who am I?3. What are the consequences of my

alternatives for my values?3. How appropriate are different

actions for me in this situation?4. Choose the alternative that has the

best consequences.4. Do what is appropriate

c. Conceptions of rules, role and identityIn light of the conception of the logic of appropriateness, March and Oslen further develop a conceptual framework to account for political and social

7


actions within the institutional context. To March and Oslen, political and social actions are not solely derived from self-interest calculations and anticipation of consequences, instead actions should be allocated “within a broader framework of rules, roles, and identity.” (March & Oslen, 1995, P.29; see also Pp. 49-89) i. Rules: In new institutionalist perspective, rules are not simply construed as

formal regulations governing actions of members of an institution. They are further defined as identifications, interpretations, evaluation, and believes that members of an institution attribute to these regulations and their actual enforcements.

ii. Roles: Within a particular set of rules, an individual will define what he/she is expected to do or not to do within that specific “rule set” i.e. “situation”. In short, he/she should define his/her roles in accordance with the rules found in the situation. However, an individual is not free to define his/her role and its sequent performance as he/she pleased. He/she have to negotiate, balance and practice with his/her role-partners and hopefully be able to settle in with a “routine”. As a result, in each rule set, a respective set of rights and obligations will emerge and subsequently routinized.

iii. Identity: As incumbent of a role has got used to or even felt committed to the respective role performances, he/she will have forged an identity with the respective role. In other words, the role and its subsequent obligations and duties will have become part of his/her own self.

To March and Oslen, institutional endurance should not be attributed simply to the capability and efficiency of the institutional structure in enforcing the formal regulations upon members of an institution. Instead, we should also look into subjective meanings attribute to rules and role ascriptions at work within the institution. Furthermore, we should reveal the identity and commitment that members have pledged to their institution.

3. The Social Phenomenology contributionIn the 1960s, Alfred Schutz’s The Phenomenology of the Social World was translated and published in English (1967, the German edition was published in 1933) and Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann also published their work The Construction of Reality (1966). These two works has elaborated the conceptions of institution and institutionalization significantly. a. The concept of institutionalization: Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann follow

Schutz’s conceptions has defines that “institutionalization occurs whenever there is a reciprocal typiifcation of habitualized actions by types of actors. Put differently, any such typification is an institution. What must be stressed is the reciprocity of institutional typifications and the typicality of not only the actions but the actors in institution. The typifications of habitualized actions that constitute institutions are always shared ones. They are available to all members of the particular social group in question, and the institution itself typifies individual actors as well as individual actions.” (Berger & Luckmann, 1966, p. 72)

b. Externalization and objectivities of social institutions: These typified and habitualized social actions in the forms of social routines among specific human groups will in time be externalized and objectivated into “social facts”. They will in turn impose social constraints upon the subjectivities and agencies of individual, which were once the “geneses” of the objective social facts. As a result, social institutions gain their objectivity and become the main

8


parts of the social world. c. Formalization and regularization of social structure: These objective social

facts, in the forms of social constraints, will in time be formalized and regularized into social structure. They may be conceived as social organizations, institutions, system, etc. These objectively existing social structures will constitute the main bloc of the social world.

d. Internalization of the social structure: The objective social world with its social structure will in turn be internalized by new members of the respective human aggregates, by means of socialization, formal education and social control.

e. Role and identity: Accordingly the sociological concept role can be defined as a typification that has been formalized and regularized in a particular situation. (Berger & Luckmann, 1966, P. 91) For example the roles of teachers and students in the situation of classroom, doctor and patients in the situation of clinic and/or hospital. And the outcome of socialization is to internalize the role expectation and role performance of a particular role. As a role, with its expectation and performance, has been internalized to the extent that the individual in point has made them as his own i.e. the role expectation and performance are parts of his own self. As a result, it constitutes an identity. (Berger & Luckmann, 1966, P. 151)

e. Reproduction of the social structure: The objectivity of the social structure will gain its continuity and consistence unless it can successfully reproduce itself to the coming generations. In Berger and luckmann’s own world, "One may further add that only with the transmission of the social world to a new generation … does the fundamental social dialectic appear in its totality. To repeat, only with the appearance of the new generation can one properly speak of a social world." (Berger & Luckmann, 1966, p. 79)

f. Legitimation: Apart from the formal structural aspect of the institution and institutionalization, Berger and Luckmann have also analyzed the normative base of social institution. Berger and Luckmann build this normative base on the conception of legitimation. Accroding to Berger and Luckmann’s conceptualization, legitimation is “best described as a ’second-order’ objectivation of meaning.” (Berger & Luckmann, 1966, p. 110) That is, if meanings are externalized, objectivated and typified through continuous human interactions and practices in the first place, they further need the “second” round of meaning-endowing efforts in order to be formally institutionalized within a given society. Berger and Luckmann suggest that there are mainly two way to establish legitimation in institutional context:i. Explanation of cognitive validity: “Legitimation ‘explains’ the institutional

order by ascribing cognitive validity to its objectivated meaning. …It always implies ‘knowledge’. ” (1966, p. 111)

ii. Justification of normative dignity: “Legitimation justifies the institutional order by given normative dignity to its practical imperatives. ….Legitimation is …a matter of ‘value’.” (1966, p. 111)

g. Sedimentation: The cultural legitimation constituted with social institutions will accumulate its validity and dignity over time. Berger and Luckmann have called the process sedimentation. (Berger & Luckmann, 1966, P. 87)

4. Institutional economists’ contribution a. One of the classical scenarios in rational-choice theory in economics is the

tragedy of the common, which stipulate that there will be detrimental effect for 9


all if every participants pursue their “rent-seeking” project” and maximize that gains at the expenses of the “common”. New-institutionalists in economics have rendered a resolution, which Ostrom characterizes “the governance of the commons” or the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) model.

b. Definition of institution: For economists in new-institutionalist perspective, if the rules of the game have been adequately stipulated the rent-seeking actions and the tragedy of the commons could be resolved. Accordingly, they define the rule of the game as institution. i. Douglas North, the Nobel Laureate in Economic Science in 1993, writes,

“institutions are rules of the game in a society or more formally, are the humanly devised constraint that shape human interaction. In consequence they structure incentives in human exchange, whether political, social or economic.” (North, 1990, p. 3)

ii. Elinor Ostrom, the Nobel Laureate in Economic Science in 2009, also suggests, “Broadly defined, institutions are the prescriptions that humans use to organize all forms of repetitive and structured interactions including those within families, neighborhoods, markets, firms, sports leagues, churches, private associations, and government at all scales. Individuals interacting within rule-structured situations face choices regarding the actions and strategies they take, leading to consequences for themselves and for others." (Ostrom, 2005, P.3)

iii. Accordingly, one of the primary focuses of institutional analysis and development is to design and implement the adequate kind of “rule configuration”, which generally consists of seven types of rules governing seven aspects of the IAD model.

c. Taking together the economists contributions, they have rendered yet another explanatory account for the constitution of institutions in competitive situations among rational actors or even rent seekers.

10


10

5. Institutional sociologists’ contributiona. Richard Scott’s conception of pillars of institution: Richard Scott, professor of

sociology in Stanford university, has published one of the most popular text on social institutions. The book has extended to its fourth edition since 1995 (1995; 2014) One of the most oft-quoted conception is the three pillars of institution. The concept has provided a framework to account for the enduring order constituted in institutional context.i.. Scott defines institution that “Institutions consist of cognitive, normative, and

regulative structures and activities that provide stability and meaning to social behavior. Institutions are transported by various carries ── cultures, structures, and routines ── and they operate at multiple levels of jurisdiction.” (Scott, 1995, p.33)

ii. Scott has summarized the differences between these pillars as follows.

b. Concept of path dependence: Apart from the features of endurance, institutionalists have also rendered explanation for the continuity of institutional features over time. Paul Pierson has put forth the concept of path dependencei. Path dependence indicates that “once a country or region has started down

a track, the costs of reversal are very high. There will be other choice points, but the entrenchments of certain institutional arrangements obstruct an easy reversal of the initial choice. Perhaps the better metaphor is a tree, rather than a path. From the same trunk, there are many different branches and smaller branches. Although it is possible to turn around or to clamber from one to the other ─ and essential if the chosen branch dies ─ the branch on which a climber begins is the one she tends to follow. (Levi, 1997; quoted in Pierson, 2004, p. 20)

ii. Simply put, path dependence refers “to social possesses that exhibit positive feedback and thus generate branching patterns of historical development.” (ibid, p.21)

iii. Accounting for path dependence (ibid, p. 24)- Large set-up or fixed cost: “When setup or fixed costs are high,

individuals and organizations have a strong incentive identify and stick with a single option.”

- Learning effects: “Knowledge gained in the operation of complex 11


11

systems also leads to higher returns from continuing use.”- Coordination effects: “These occur when the benefits an individual

receives from a particular activity increase as other adopt the option. If technologies embody positive network externalities, a given technology will become more attractive as more people use it. Coordination effects are especially significant when a technology has to be compatible with an infrastructure (e.g. software with hardware, automobiles with an infrastructure of roads, repair facilities and fueling stations).”

- Adaptive expectations: “It derives from the self-fulfilling character of expectations. Projections about future aggregate use pattern lead individuals to adapt their actions in way that help to make those expectations come true.”

c. The concept of isomorphism: Apart from accounting for the feature of endurance and continuity, institutionalists has also provided explanatory account for the institutional features of community, and to a less extent standardization and formalization among organizations in the same institutional context.i. Concept of isomorphism: New institutionalists stipulate that organizations in

modern rational institutional environment and/or organizational field tend to develop similar structures, procedures and practices (organizational elements in Meyer & Rowan's terminology). They term this process of homogenization of organization isomorphism. "Isomorphism is a constraining process that forces one unit in a population to resemble other units that face the same set of environmental conditions." (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991, p.66)

ii. Distinction between competitive and institutional isomorphism: DiMaggio & Powell (1991) and Meyer & Rowan (1991) have made similar distinctions between competitive and institutional isomorphism.- By competitive isomorphism, it refers to the process of homogenization

of organizations taken place in "those field which free and open competition exists." (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991, p.66) Organizations in these fields usually possess "clearly defined technologies to produce outputs" and therefore those "outputs can be easily evaluated" (Meyer & Rowan, 1991, p. 54) As a result, development of common organizational elements, i.e. isomorphism, can be attained through market competition, competitive niche, standardized output performance and organizational efficiency. (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991, p. 66)

- By institutional isomorphism, it refers to the process of homogenization of organizations invoked in the context of "collective organized society" (Meyer & Rowan, 1991, p. 49) in which institutional environment of modern bureaucratic states have replaced market mechanism to act as institutional rules of the field. As a result, in institutional organizations, the development of common organizational elements can not be attain by market competition and internal efficiency, instead "they incorporate elements which are legitimated externally" and "they employ external or ceremonial assessment criteria to define the value of structural elements." (Meyer & Rowan, 1991, p. 49) "For example, American schools have evolved from producing rather specific training that was evaluate according to strict criteria of efficiency

12


12

to producing ambiguously defined services that are evaluated according to criteria of certification." (Meyer & Rowan, 1991, p. 55)

d. Mechanism of institutional isomorphismDiMaggio & Powell identify three mechanism through which institutional isomorphism are achieved, maintained or changed. The thesis can be taken as analysis apparatus to study how schools, as institutional organization, adopt to education policy changes.i. Coercive isomorphism: "Coercive isomorphism results from both formal and

informal pressures exerted on organizations by other organizations upon which they are dependent and by cultural expectations in the society within which organizations function. Such pressures may be felt as force, as persuasion, or as invitations to join in collusion." (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991, p. 67)Organizational restructures undertaken by HK schools in response to Quality-Assurance Inspection, School Self Evaluation, External School Review, Senior-Secondary Curriculum reform, School-based Management and Incorporated Management Committee, etc. may be analyze in light of the concept of coercive isomorphism.

ii. Mimetic isomorphism: Apart from coercive authority, "uncertainty is also a powerful force that encourages imitation. When organizational technologies are poorly understood, when goals are ambiguous, or when the environment creates symbolic uncertainty, organizations may model themselves on other organization." (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991, p. 69) Confronted by collective puzzlement in policy implementation, such as those initiated by Senior-Secondary curriculum reform or more specifically the teaching of Liberal Studies, or School-Self Evaluation, most HK schools could only imitate, model or simply copy from other schools.

iii. Normative isomorphism: Instead of compliance with modern institutional environments of competitive market or bureaucratic-rational state, isomorphism may take the form of professionalization. Organizations and their operations, which are predominately identified with a profession, such as hospitals with doctors and schools with teachers, can incorporate cognitive, normative and regulative bases of that profession into their organizations and apply them as criteria in assessing the performance as well and legitimation bases of their organization.

e. The concept of social capital: New institutionalism at interpersonal level: i. In recent years sociologists have initiated concepts such as social network

and social capital to depict the enduring interpersonal relationship in institutional context. For example Lin conceptualizes that "social capital as …is rooted in social network and social relations, and must be measured relative to its roots. Therefore social capital can be defined as resources embedded in a social structure which are accessed and/or mobilized in purposive action." (Lin, 2001, p.12)

ii. Homophily: Lin further specifies that one of the structural foundations of social capital is the principle of homophily. "The principle of homophily, also known as the like-me hypothesis, is that social interactions tend to take place among individuals with similar lifestyles and socioeconomic characteristics." (Lin, 2001a, p. 39) Lin's the principle of homophily basically echoes Berger and Luckmann's indication that identity as the basis of

13


13

"reciprocal typification of habitualized action" in institutional setting.iii. Portes and Sensenbrenner (1998) have specified four sources from which

enduring interpersonal co-operations, i.e. social capitals, are constituted.-. Value introjection: It refers to "moral character" and "value imperatives"

individuals learned in the process of socialization. (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1998, p. 129) This resource is basically in congruent with Beger and Luckmann's conception of internalization in the process of institutionalization at individual level.

- Reciprocity transactions: It "consists of an accumulation of 'chits' earned through previous good deeds to others, backed by the norm of reciprocity." In comparison with value introjection, in this type of social capital "individuals are not expected to behave according to a higher group morality but rather to pure selfish end." (p. 130)

- Bounded solidarity: It refers to social capitals invoke from "situational circumstances leading to the emergence of principled group-orientated behavior. …Its classic sources are best exemplified by Marx and Engels's analysis of the rise of proletarian consciousness and the transformation of workers into class for themselves." (p. 130)This type of collective sentiments grown out of common (usually socially inferior) situations can also be found in unions, minority groups, etc.

- Enforceable trust: It refers of social capitals grown out of community, in which "particularistic rewards and sanctions" are enforceable on its members in the form of collective expectation and trusts. This type of social capitals may manifest in informal institutional settings such as peer group pressures or solidarity within new immigrant communities or in formal institutional setting such as community sanction in professional associations.

E. Why institution changes? 1. Identifying types of institutional changes

a. Categorization of institutional changesi. Evolutionary or incremental changes: It has been signified within the

perspective that "Institutions are sticky and prone to inertia and, as a result, change quite gradually." Hence, changes undertaken by institutions have commonly been characterized as evolutionary changes. By evolutionary changes, it refers to "continuous change that proceeds in small, incremental steps along a single path in certain direction." (Campbell, 2004, p. 33)

ii. Revolutionary changes or punctuated equilibrium: Despite the institutional inertia and resistance to change, "some scholars recognize, nonetheless, that relatively rapid and profound institutional change does occur sometimes. They often describe this discontinuous pattern of change as punctuated equilibrium." (Campbell, 2004, p. 34)

iii. Punctuated evolution: Some scholars further specify that "The periods of equilibrium occurring between punctuations are better characterized as evolutionary rather than static." Hence, they prefer to characterize change in institutions as punctuated evolution. That is, there are evolutionary changes in terms of self reflection and social learning within periods of equilibrium and equilibrium may be "punctuated occasionally by crises that involve open struggle over the very core of the institutional status quo and the eventually

14


14

result in truly fundamental institutional transformation." (p. 34) b. Identifying the dimensions of changes

i. Scott’s conception of three pillars- Changes in regulative dimension of pillars- Changes in normative dimension of institutions- Changes in cognitive dimension of institutions

ii. Levels of abstraction- World systemic level- Societal level- Discursive level- Organizational level- Interactive level- Individual cognitive level

c. Identifying the time frame: Time frame refers to the duration of time within which institutional changes are set against for investigation.

2. Explaining institutional changesExplaining institutional changes: John Campbell (2004) has stipulated the causal mechanism accounting for institutional changes as followsa. Negative feedbacks and critical junctures on dependence path: As indicated

above the maintaining and sustaining of institutional patterns depends on the continuous feedbacks from the prevailing "dependence path" of the institution. (Pierson, 2004) However, as negative feedbacks from the dependence path appear and subsequently accumulated to a critical point. It may then trigger fundamental changes in institution. (Campbell, 2004, p.65-68)

b. Bricolage: It refers to innovations in combining existing repertoire of institutional principles and practices so as to solve crises or dilemma confronting an institution. (Campbell, 2004, p. 69) According to March and Olsen's conception, bricolage can be categorized intoi. Substantive bricolage: It refers to innovative combination of well-established

technical principles or practices within an institution in order to bring about adjustment or fundamental change.

ii. Symbolic bricolage: It refers to innovative combination of normative and cognitive principles and practices so as to reconcile normative or cognitive conflicts invoked by changes.

c. The role of institutional entrepreneurs or bricoleurs: The conception of institutional entrepreneurs or bricoleurs can specify the agent of change in the causal explanation of institutional changes. The performance entrepreneurs depend basically on two factors, namely their connectivity within the institution and the availability of repertoires to be combined. As Campbell indicates "entrepreneurs with more diverse social, organizational, and institutional connections tends to have more expansive repertoires with which to work. In turn, the broader their repertoire, the more likely they are to create a bricolage that is very creative and revolutionary rather than one that is less creative and evolutionary, (Campbell, 2004, p.75)

e. Diffusion, translation and enactment: i. Changes in punctuated equilibrium may not be invoked by bricoleurs from

within an institution. It may be triggered by input from other institutions. In other words, institutional innovation or changes may diffuse and circulated among institutions. Hence, institutional changes can be copies and learnt.

15


15

ii. However, input of changes or innovations from outside will not be copied automatically and totally by a given institution. They must be translated and innovatively combined with existing principles and practice.

iii. Finally, in order for any principles and practice input from without to substantiate within a given institution, they must be internalized cognitively or normatively by members of the institution to become part of their daily routines and practice. In other words, changes have to be enacted by members on daily basis.

f. Normative and cognitive ideas about institutional changesi. In accounting for institutional changes, new institutionalists play particular

attentions to how agents accept (interpret, identify, internalize, enact, etc.) new ideas and in turn make changes in their practices, i.e. agencies.

ii. Typology of ideas about institutional change: Campbell has constructed a framework to classify ideas into paradigms, public sentiments, programs and frames.

iii. Typology of actors and their ideational roles: According to the classification of ideas, Campbell has further differentiated actors within an institution into five

16


16

G. Education Policy Changes as Education Institutional Changes1. Policy changes at the level institutional environment: Policy changes can be

conceived as changes in the institutional environments of modern societies. a. The transformation of monarchical state to formal-rational bureaucratic state in

the 18th to 19th centuries have brought fundamental changes to the institutional environment to the educational sector, i.e. organizational field of schooling. As a result, education policy assumed the role of part of the apparatus of modern-state formation. It in turn triggered global education reform which changed schooling into state-controlled, bureaucratic organized, specialized and standardized, universal and compulsory schooling systems. (Boli and Ranirz, 1986; Boli and Meyer, 1985; Meyer and Ramirez, 2000; Ramirz and Boli 1982 & 1987)

b. The recent education reform undertaken by governments in most of the developed countries in the last two decades, can be account for as the another waves of changes in the technological and institutional environments of the rise of network society and information age and subsequent transformations of Keynesian Welfare National State (KWNS) to Schumpterian Workfare Postnation Regime (SWPR) (Campbell and Pederson, 2001; Rowan, 2006; Harvey, 2005)

2. Policy changes at the level of societal sector:In response to the changes in institutional environments, different organizational fields, such as those of basic education and/or higher education, have to undertake correspondent changes in their regulative, normative and cognitive elements/pillars.a. The institutionalization of modern education system taken place since the 18th

century in the forms of (i) standardization of examination and certification system; (ii) formalization of curriculum and instructional practices, and (iii) legal-rationalization of school management can all be construed as responses

17


17

to the institutionalization of the rational imperatives of institutional environments of modern state as well as industrial-capital economy.

b. Recent education reforms in the forms of (i) modularization and flexiblization of curriculum and instructional practice, (ii) deregualtion, devolution, performance-based evaluation of school management, (iii) privatization and liberalization of school place supply can all be understood in the institutional contexts of competition state and global-informational economy.

3. Policy changes at the level of organization:In responses to the changes in institutional environments, societal sectors, and organization fields, individual organizations have to re-institutionalization their regulative, normative and cognitive elements. As a result, isomorphism among organizations, such as schools, began to take shape.a. The school organizations, which take the forms of centralized, bureaucratized,

standardized and publicly funded, can be understood as the result of isomorphic changes in the societal sector or organizational field of education.

b. The school re-structuring reforms, which take the directions of decentralization, de-bureaucratization, and privatization, can also be account for as responses to the isomorphic pressures from the organizational field of education in the network society.

4. Policy changes at the level of human interaction levelThe fundamental effects of any policy and institutional changes have to be institutionalized into patterns of human interactions. They will affect the “reciprocal typifications and interpretations of habitualized actions” among members of a given organization and institution.a. Since the 19th century, the “reciprocal typification and interpretation of

habitualized interactions” between role occupants of teachers and students, teachers and school management staffs, teachers and government official have been institutionalized according to the centralized and bureaucratized organizational structure in industrial society.

b. In response to the rise of the network society and network organization in the new millennium, the interaction patterns including its respective cognitive, normative and regulative bases, have to undertake correspondent changes, which can be characterized as compatible, flexible, dispensable, delete-able and even virtual.

18


18

theoretical foundation of educational administration and...

Documents