1.1 Cohort doctoral preparation programs: neo-institutional  (Page 9/16)

Thus, the legitimacy of program sponsorship and programs themselves has been put into play by some members of the organizational field (e.g., accrediting bodies, foundations). The perception of potential coercive action by these and other actors can influence program decisions (Gates, 1997), including decisions made about programmatic forms needed to achieve legitimacy and avoid coercive actions. One acceptable form and image of reform–contributing to institutions’perceived legitimacy as major producers of school leaders–may very well be cohorts, a fact highlighted by Levine’s (2005, p. 51) mention of them when touting the effectiveness of the Broad Foundation’s Urban Superintendent’s Academy. Coercion does not appear to be the principal mechanism for this isomorphic tendency. Rather, the appropriateness and acceptability of cohorts appear to be more a consequence of mimetic and normative processes as we discuss below. But the condition of anticipated coercion may well have established a diffuse but powerful understanding and environmental force-field within the profession that reform is necessary. The resultant climate may have served to strengthen beliefs about the acceptability of cohorts as structures that can provide legitimacy and social fitness for the profession–i.e., creating a linkage between the two field logics of reform and cohort use.

Mimetic behavior. Organizations can purposefully acquire structures by modeling their configurations after those of other organizations within the organizational field, or what Scott (1987) has labeled“acquisition.”Mimicking occurs most frequently under two conditions–uncertainty and when other organizations are viewed as being more legitimate and successful than the one doing the copying.

Despite the widespread use of cohorts we still have little data that support their efficacy in preparing education leaders (Barnett, et al., 2000; Scribner&Donaldson, 2001). Most research has supported the contributions cohorts make to affective outcomes (e.g., development of interpersonal skills, providing emotional support to learners) (Scribner&Donaldson, 2001). The most glaring gap in evidence about cohort efficacy is in the area of their contribution to preparation of successful educational leaders (Barnett, et al., 2000). Yet, our evidence about other structures used in preparation programs is no better. As Barnett et al. (2000) have noted,“. . . little anecdotal or empirical evidence exists to support claims that preparation programs make a difference to school leaders”(p. 277). Thus, the organizational field is faced with much uncertainty about the technical effectiveness of its programs. Under these conditions, we expect organizations to mimic others they perceive to be more legitimate and more successful.

The meanings of legitimacy and success in academe are more difficult to address, in that no clear definitions of either exists, and even with the definitions we do have, the measures of these two attributes remain subjects of debate. One possibility, however, is that cohorts have been increasingly used because they mimic the traditional structures employed in the preparation programs of professions considered of higher status and more successful (e.g., medicine, law, business) than educational leadership (Abbott, 1998; DiMaggio&Powell, 1983; Miner, 2002). Similar mimicking has been observed in the case of other professions. For example, the accounting profession mimicked law and the clergy in adopting the partnership organizational form (Greenwood&Hinings, 1996). Although this form of modeling has been suggested for the adoption of cohort structures (e.g., Saltiel&Russo, 2001), we have found no data or accounts that directly support this claim, pointing to another area where research is needed.