1.1 Cohort doctoral preparation programs: neo-institutional  (Page 11/16)

Educational leadership faculty, like members of other professions, can find themselves subject to a third isomorphic pressure, which is the normative version originating primarily from the collective effort of members of an occupation to define the conditions and methods of their work in order to legitimize their occupational autonomy (Larson, 1977; Powell&DiMaggio, 1991). As DiMaggio&Powell (1983) have noted, "normative" pressure is especially likely to be found in the professional sectors.

As previously stated, the popular, public and unrelenting dissection of university programs that prepare educational leaders has many institutions in a precarious position. This situation has resulted in what Hanson (2001) referred to as environmental shock, "…a condition in which changes in an educational system's external environment get seriously ahead of any incremental adaptations [organizations] can make…When organizations are highly institutionalized and inflexible, they become vulnerable to environmental shock" (p. 655). Meyer (1992) argued that when organizations are confronted with fragmentation in the external environment they tend to develop elaborate internal subsystems, mechanisms, and routines in an attempt to introduce a level of enhanced internal stability as a counterbalance to the unpredictability of external events. Educational organizations’structural conformity also is rewarded when these organizations can argue that they are doing what the "best research" indicates, what the professional societies expect (Aldrich, 2000; Meyer, Scott&Deal, 1992).

Professional and trade associations are vehicles for the definition and promulgation of normative rules about organizational and professional behavior. Common expectations, values, codes, and standards about personal and professional behavior are imposed and modeled by universities and other agencies and such mechanisms create a pool of almost interchangeable individuals who occupy similar positions across a range of organizations. These individuals possess a similarity of orientation and disposition that may override variations in tradition and control that might otherwise shape organizational behavior (Perrow, 1974; Powell&DiMaggio, 1991). These agencies also act as gatekeepers, determining who gets into the profession and therefore further reinforcing normative expectations and behaviors (Hanson, 2001).

For example, in 1986, the Danforth Foundation began providing for the revitalization of principal preparation programs. The philosophy of the foundation's director sought to modify or eliminate practices that were perceived to be incompatible in the preparation of outstanding practitioners. One of these processes was the elimination of students' isolation in the university setting during graduate study (Weise, 1992). During a five-year period, twenty-two universities across the nation participated in this effort (Cordeiro, Krueger, Park, Restine,&Wilson, 1993). Although communication from the Danforth Foundation did not specify student cohorts for participating institutions in the original program objectives, all of the participating universities adopted a cohort format for their respective programs (Cordeiro, et. al., 1993). Reports from a survey sent to each institution indicated that cohorts were perceived to be highly conducive to principal-training models, mechanisms to ensure program integrity, and providers of curricular coherence.“In addition, student cohorts provided a support system and networking opportunity for participants" (Restine, in Cordeiro, et al., 1993, p.26). The redundant use of cohorts by participating institutions seems to suggest both a normative (e.g., networking, highly conducive for principal training) as well as a mimetic process (e.g., deliberate choice to employ these structures).