In and Out of Iron Cage:
Analyzing Educational Change in LIS from an Institutional Theory Perspective
Sung Jae Park
Doctoral Student, College of Information, 142 Collegiate Loop, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
32306, sp07@fsu.edu
Introduction
Online learning provides people with opportunities to learn with fewer time and space
limitations. With the development of technologies, people can take courses via the Internet and access
resources online. Of course, there are many other factors related to online learning. These include:
globalization, student employment situation, and the underlying economics of attending face-to-face
courses (Dykman & Davis, 2008). These factors prompt LIS schools to strive to develop online courses
for distant students. In particular, because some students have already become employed in information
organizations, traditional teaching and learning methodologies restrict their ability to develop their future
career. Some schools, however, have an online master degree program, but others sustain traditional
teaching approaches. To identify and explore the reason for this difference, this study employs an
institutional theory.
Theoretical perspective
Institutional theory can explain and analyze social phenomena relative to institutional changes in
the various perspectives. These perspectives “are composed of cultural-cognitive, normative, and
regulative elements that, together with associated activities and resources, provide stability and meaning
to social life” (Scott, 1995, p. 33). People live in a social world which is composed of values, norms, laws,
beliefs, and rules. Institutional theory is primarily concerned with the interaction between those issues and
human behavior, the effects of institutional environment and the internalization of these effects (Martinez,
1999). It assumes that human beings communicate with external environments and decide the direction of
their action through the reconciliation of these various issues.
Scholars define institution with their own meaning and words, and in some cases, a contradictory
definition can be seen (Hall & Taylor, 1996). This study uses the definition by Barly and Tolbert (1997);
they refer to institutions as “historical accretions of past practices and understandings that set conditions
on action” (p. 99). This definition includes several features of institutions: stability and action constraints.
First, institutions have some degree of stability over time. Levitt and March (1996) explain that based on
interpretations of past experience, organizations create and develop routines and finally become ‘forces
for stability.’ Another feature from this definition is that an institution constrains human actions. As
Meyer (1992) points out, schools with complex authority structures and multiple funding sources have
elaborate internal systems. These characteristics of institutions tend to enforce the homogenization of
schools. DiMaggio and Powell (1991) call this phenomena isomorphism - “a constraining process that
forces one unit in a population to resemble other units that face the same set of environmental conditions”
(p. 66).
DiMaggio and Powell (1991) identify three mechanisms toward isomorphism in institutional
environments: coercive, mimetic, and normative. Coercive isomorphism is related to rules and laws
legally sanctioned. These pressures coercively constrain human action, and if people do not follow them,
they would be punished or constrained by others. Therefore, force, fear and expedience are key
components of regulative institution (Scott, 1995). Mimetic isomorphism is the process to mimic other
successful organizations. Hanson (2001) suggests that the process is:
encouraged and reinforced by: (a) educational consultants who vigorously (and profitably)
spread the latest news about exciting things taking place on the other side of the fence, (b)
academic conferences that function as supermarkets for new idea, and (c) the rapid movement by
administrators between schools or districts near and far (p. 649).
Normative isomorphism encompasses both values and norms. In particular, professionalism is strongly
rooted in this mechanism. Professional certification and accreditation agencies (ex. American Library
Association) strengthen normative expectations by deciding who gains professional membership.
According to Scott (1987), institutions are socially produced, maintained, and reproduced
through interaction between action and structures. He refers this production/reproduction process to
‘institutionalization’ and defines it as a “social process by which individuals come to accept a shared
definition of social reality” (p. 496), i.e., individuals attempt to not only accept expected institutionalized
practices, but also to manipulate institutional environments. In terms of institutional process, another
important concept is ‘deinstitutionalization,’ which is referred to as “the processes by which institutions
weaken and disappear” (Scott, 2001, p. 182). For Scott, institutional change can occur through replacing
weakened and disappeared institutions with new institutions. As an empirical research, Zilber (2002)
investigates how organizational change is incubated in a rape crisis center in Israel. As a result, the shift
of participants with different interpretive schemes is likely associated with the rejection of taken-forgranted rules or resources and the acceptance of alerted or new beliefs.
Method
From literature review, I have developed research questions as follows:
(1) Why the shift from traditional education to online education is happening?
(2) Why does such change tend to be infrequent?
As a data collection method I employ interviews from two LIS school directors; one is from the
school with a distance education program for master’s degree and another from the school with only
traditional face-to-face courses in its master’s program. In the poster, findings and implications will be
included.
References
Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between
action and institution. Organization Studies, 18, 93-117.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The
new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dykman, C. A., & Davis, C. K. (2008). Online Education Forum: Part one - The shift toward online
education. Journal of Information Systems Education, 19(1), 11-16.
Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political
Studies, 44, 952-973.
Hanson, M. (2001). Institutional Theory and Educational Change. Educational Administration Quarterly,
37(5), 637-661.
Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1996). Organizational learning. In M. D. Cohen & L. S. Sproull (Eds.),
Orgnizational learning (pp. 515-540). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Martinez, R. J. (1999). Efficiency motives and normative forces: Combining transaction costs and
institutional logic. Journal of Management, 26, 27-43.
Meyer, J. W. (1992). Centralization of funding and control in educational governance. In J. W. Meyer &
W. R. Scott (Eds.), Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality (pp. 179-197). Thousand
Oaks: CA: Sage.
Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 493511.
Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage