The institutional role of business school accreditation agencies: a systematic literature review.
| Autor | Teixeira, Gislaine Cristina dos Santos |
-
Introduction
Discussions on the influence of institutions on organizations address recurring themes. However, when someone announces that they are conducting an institutional analysis, it is necessary to clarify on which aspects of institutional theory their research is based (Scott, 1987). Considering the different possible interpretations, scholars would need to explore, or at least recognize, the multiple flows resulting from the development of this theory or risk ignoring implicit assumptions that would alter the result of their research (Bruton et al., 2010). Theoretical controversies notwithstanding, the core of the institutional approach was discussed initially by Philip Selznick in the late 1940s, when he questioned organizational behavior as the exclusive fruit of rational and formal actions. To this author, the organization is subject to the pressures of the social environment with which it interacts and adapts to this environment in search of survival and legitimacy. The author referred to this process as institutionalization (Selznick, 1996).
Debates on institutional expressions have for some time permeated research on education. The more modern analysis observes that for higher education institutions, maintaining public trust is more important than a logic of efficiency. In other words, gaining legitimacy by conforming to institutionalized values and norms (Meyer and Rowan, 2006). In the organizational field of higher education, business schools (BS) stand out because they suffer external pressures similar to those of the market, which makes appearing in educational rankings or earning seals awarded by accreditation agencies ways of distinguishing themselves from their competitors (McKee et al, 2005). Functioning as a system of quality guarantees that certify in an international environment that BS meet certain requirements in terms of objectives, processes and structures (Zammuto, 2008), accreditation agencies are institutional bodies that provide legitimacy (Durand and McGuire, 2005).
Historically, BS have experience a legitimacy paradox. The drive for legitimacy creates both opportunities and challenges in their management (Alajoutsijarvi et al, 2015). To these authors, there have been three transitions in the ethos and practices of BS that were intended to strengthen their legitimacy and ended up producing threats: scientification, politicization and corporolization. The latter term, known as Academic Capitalism, was triggered in 1980s and instituted practices to measure and increase efficiency in academia. The evaluation of education, which used to be a social phenomenon, began to be conducted by accreditation agencies and rankings based on economic values and judgments. Legitimacy, previously a means of demonstrating academic assets, is now a form of issuing messages with regard to the ideal location for a course (Alajoutsijarvi et al, 2015). Despite the voluntary nature of the process, obtaining international accreditation has become a key solution for the legitimacy of BS (Istileulova and Peljhan, 2015). This new process of gaining legitimacy has raised concerns, both practical and academic, regarding the influence of these agencies on the practices of qualifying managers (Wedlin, 2007).
In 2006, Julian and Ofori-Dankwa claimed that, given the influence of these agencies on BS policies and programs, there was a need for further theoretic and empirical analyses concerning their implications. Accreditation, as a growing and global phenomenon, has permeated scientific studies, although these studies have concentrated on discussing the positive or negative effects of the process on BS (Elliott, 2013). With the exception of a line of research that applies the institutional theory, most studies are limited to using quantitative methods to gather the opinions of American deans or directors on the process, with little discussion from the perspective of other stakeholders or of the context in which accreditation occurs (Elliott, 2013). Our preliminary research indicated that classification or accreditation mechanisms can have a positive or negative influence on the field of BS. Positive examples include, but are not limited to, specifying criteria for performance and comparison, providing clues for similarity and rivalry (Wedlin, 2007) or the improvement of programs that are sometimes obsolete (Gioia and Corley, 2002). A negative example was shown by Istileulova and Peljhan (2015), who claimed that BS seek accreditation to achieve legitimacy rather than to improve their performance.
Given the uncertainty and lack of consensus on the role of accreditation agencies in the organizational field of BS, we sought to answer the following question: How is institutional theory debated in research on business school accreditation? Unlike previous studies of a descriptive nature, institutional theory stands out because of its plausibility when it comes to explaining the phenomenon. It should be emphasized that, despite the multiple definitions of organizational field, in this study we adopt that of DiMaggio and Powell (1983, p. 148): "those organizations which, in the aggregate, constitute a recognized area of institutional life: key suppliers, resources and product consumers, regulatory agencies, and other organizations that produce similar services or products", to better describe the relationship between accreditation agencies and schools. Our aim is to identify the institutional role of accreditation agencies in the global direction of the practices, structures and values of the BS field. We also add that our intention is not to criticize the evaluation promoted by these agencies, but rather to explore their role in the organizational dynamic of BS.
A systematic literature review enabled us to identify scientific publications since 2002 that have used institutional theory when discussing BS accreditation agencies. An in-depth reading of these articles led us to identify the most frequent, similar and contrasting perspectives. Seven aspects were analyzed in each article: theme, research assumption, theoretical basis, method, research context, result and suggestions for future studies. By investigating how the actions of accreditation agencies can be interpreted, our study contributes to the development of institutional theory. Inspired by the concern raised by Bruton et al. (2010), claiming that studies should include a richer set of institutions in several countries, our study focuses on accreditation agencies, institutions that operate globally and, thus, enable a broader scope of research of institutional theory, going beyond traditional discussions on the dynamics of interaction between local actors that influence the field and are influenced by it. Furthermore, it contributes to the discussions on the contradictory role of accreditation agencies in the organizational field to which BS belong.
In addition to this section, this paper has four more sections: first, Theoretical Framework of institutional theory and the operations of accreditation agencies; second, Method, describing the process followed to execute the systematic literature review; third, Presentation and Discussion of the Results, including the compilation and comparison of data extracted from the articles in the scientific database; and fourth, Final Considerations.
-
Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework of this study addresses institutionalization in broad terms, the multiple strands of institutional theory and the accreditation of higher education, in which we describe the international operations of the five major BS accreditation agencies.
2.1 Institutional theory
Institutional theory is possibly the dominant approach when it comes to understanding organizations. However, theoreticians and researchers have explored the effects of institutions on organizational behavior differently (Greenwood et al, 2008). In the late 1940s, Selznick questioned the fact that the theories in vogue at that time did not consider non-rational dimensions in organizational behavior, which had hitherto concentrated on formal roles and structures. This concept, today referred to as "old" institutionalism, defined institutionalization as a process closely linked to the need for survival, social recognition and the adaptability of the organization to the interests that existed in its environment (Selznick, 1996).
In the late 1970s, institutional theory began to be discussed in terms of a new conceptual foundation, known as neoinstitutionalism, constituted by three sub-fields: historical, rational choice and sociological. In all three cases, institutions determine organizational results, although they are differentiated through the images of the political world (Hall and Taylor, 1996).
In the historical sub-field, whose main authors are March and Olsen, 1989 cited in Hall and Taylor, 1996 and Steinmo et al., 1992 cited in Hall and Taylor, 1996, institutions are procedures, norms and official and officious conventions inherent to the structure of the community or political economy that confer more power on some actors than others (Hall and Taylor, 1996). Rational choice, headed by Williamson, 1975, 1985 cited in Hall and Taylor, 1996, North (1990) argues that institutions structure relationships between actors, influencing a sequence of alternatives on the agenda or offering information that reduces transaction costs for concluding agreements and reducing uncertainty with regard to the behavior of others (Hall and Taylor, 1996). In the sociological sub-field, the most notable, institutions consist of cognitive, normative and regulatory structures and activities that provide stability and meaning to social behavior (Hall and Taylor, 1996). Greenwood et al. (2008) highlight as the following authors as the leading lights in this line of research: DiMaggio and Powell (1983), Meyer and Rowan (1977, 1983), Meyer and Scott, 1983 cited in...
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃOCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
