1.1 Cohort doctoral preparation programs: neo-institutional  (Page 7/16)

Results of our analysis of the literature are portrayed in Table 1. As noted there, within the time period explored, mention of cohorts was first found in 1987, but significant mention of them in the literature we reviewed was not found until 1992. The frequency with which cohorts were addressed increased especially between the late 1990s through 2004 after which a decline was witnessed in 2005 (which may be a function of delay in data entry in some of the data bases we explored). Although certainly a limited gauge of cohort use, these data nonetheless suggest that interest in cohorts within the field has increased over the past twenty years.

Existing survey data about cohort use, as well as our analysis of the literature, lead to two observations. First, cohorts have indeed become widespread in doctoral programs and if our analysis of the literature is any indication, interest in them, if not their use has grown steadily in the past two decades. Therefore, it would appear that this particular programmatic structure or field logic has achieved at least a moderate level of penetration for doctoral programs in a relatively short amount of time. However, cohorts have yet to become an exclusive field logic for educational leadership doctoral programs. This lack of absolute homogeneity in reported use highlights the continuous, rather than the dichotomous, nature of institutionalization (Krasner, 1988), as well as the possibility for alternative structures and field logics to coexist within the same organizational field (Greenwood&Hinings, 1996). Still, the apparent growth in the use of cohorts over the past several years requires exploration of reasons for their increase. This question is addressed later in our analysis of the mechanisms of isomorphic change.

Second, results reported in extant research literature on cohorts raise questions about whether differences exist among different types of higher education institutions in the use of cohorts. Although McCarthy and Kuh (1997) reported no difference in use between types of institutions, Barnett et al. (2000) suggest that differences do exist, with larger, research oriented institutions using cohorts more frequently than other types of institutions. Whether these conflicting results are a function of different data collection times and procedures, the use of different typologies to categorize institutions, or differences in who responded to the two surveys cannot be discerned from the information provided. More research is required about cohort use by different types of institutions. As noted later, the results of such research would contribute in important ways to the understanding of mimetic pressures within the field.

Isomorphic Mechanisms

As noted earlier, three forms of isomorphic pressure lead to increasing levels of homogeneity in structures and field logics employed by organizations to gain legitimacy in a field. Each of these is explored below with reference to cohort use.

Coercion. Coercive processes require either explicit or implicit influence from an agent on an organization to comply with its wish for a particular organizational structure. As noted earlier, this influence may actually be exercised or organizational personnel may anticipate becoming subjects of future coercion, if they fail to comply with coercive pressures. In addition, agents of coercion can act either from a basis of authority (to which the target organization acquiesces) or by using coercive power, threatening sanctions and other forms of punishment for failure to comply.