An Institutional Analysis of Differences : The Design of Masters' Programs in Public Affairs

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Early studies in the sociological stream of new institutionalism contributed much to the study of organization, especially in illuminating organizational isomorphism that might appear in organizational fields. Yet, at the same time, they were limited in accounting for organizational differences in the design of institutions.
To help explain such differences, this study introduces a conceptual framework that brings together the Selznick tradition of old institutionalism with recent studies in new institutionalism. The framework includes multiple institutional logics, organizational positions, and organizational belief systems, all of which generate particular contexts that convey varying identities and produce organizational variations in institutional design.To examine the utility of the conceptual framework, I applied it to the design of 240 masters’ programs in public affairs that are members of NASPAA, APPAM, or both. I
found much variation in the coverage and structure of the programs’ curricula. I discovered, for example, that programs that are affiliated only with NASPAA tend to be located in political science, public administration, and public affairs units; to be ranked in the lower-tier; to have been established in 1970 or later; to have the program mission of producing public leaders; to offer MPAd degrees; and to require higher proportions of core hours to be taken in public management. In contrast, programs affiliated only with APPAM or with both NASPAA and APPAM typically are housed in public policy units,
ranked in the upper-tier, were founded in 1969 or earlier, focus on generating policy analysts, offer MPP degrees, and require higher proportions of core hours in public policy.
Among the implications of these findings are that public affairs education continues to be polarized into two camps, traditional public administration and public policy. The field still lacks agreement about the courses that should be taken and how they should be taught. It seems that differing interpretations of what public affairs is and how it should be taught have helped generate the variation in the design of masters’ programs in public affairs.
The results of the empirical analyses also demonstrate the utility of the conceptual framework for explaining institutional differences (and similarities). More importantly, the concept of identity may offer a helpful way to combine several key features in studying organizations, including micro versus macro approaches, old versus new institutionalisms, and organizational theory versus organizational behavior. Eventually, this idea promises to enrich the analysis of institutional similarities and differences.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• ABSTRACT
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS = iv
• TABLE OF CONTENTS = ⅵ
• LIST OF TABLES = ix
• LIST OF FIGURES = xiii
• CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION = 1
• Purposes of the Study = 1
• Theoretical Focus = 2
• Empirical Application = 3
• Scope of Study = 4
• Contributions = 6
• Theoretical Contributions = 6
• Practical Contributions = 8
• Organization of Dissertation = 9
• CHAPTER TWO THEORETOCAL OVERVIEW = 11
• Early Studies in the “New Institutionalism” of Organizational Sociology = 11
• Early Studies in the New Institutionalism and Organizational Isomorphism = 12
• Discussion of Early Studies along Four Dimensions = 16
• Strengths and Limitations of Early New Institutional Studies = 21
• Search for an Alternative Model of Organizational Diversity = 27
• “Old Institutionalism”: The Selznick Tradition = 27
• Recent Works in Sociological New Institutionalism = 33
• Comparisons of the Different Approaches = 41
• Elements for Constructing a Comprehensive Conceptual Framework = 43
• Conceptualization of Environment = 43
• Level of Analysis = 46
• Relationship between Environment and Organizations = 47
• Conceptualization of Institution and Institutionalization = 48
• CHAPTER THREE CONSTRUCTING CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK = 52
• Building Blocks of a Comprehensive Conceptual Framework = 53
• Dependent Variable: Institutional Designs (“Institutional Identities”) = 54
• Independent Variables: Multiple Institutional Logics and Organizational Positions = 55
• Intermediate Variable: Organizational Belief Systems (“Organizational Identity”) = 64
• Identity Relationship as an Organizational Response Mechanism = 71
• Concepts of Organizational Identity = 71
• Selznick’s Organizational Character Formation = 75
• Choice, Sensemaking, and Identity = 77
• Constructing a Comprehensive Conceptual Framework: Integration of Old Institutionalism and Recent Works in New Institutionalism = 81
• CHAPTER FOUR RESEARCH DESIGN = 86
• Variables, Propositions, and Hypotheses = 87
• Dependent Variable: Program Design = 87
• Independent Variables: Multiple Institutional Logics and Organizational Positions = 94
• Intermediate Variable: Organizational Belief Systems = 113
• Additional and Alternative Explanations of Variations in Program Design = 121
• Unit and Levels of Analysis = 123
• Data = 124
• Selection of Academic Units = 124
• Sources of Data = 126
• Limitations of the Study = 127
• CHAPTER FIVE FINDINGS = 129
• Current Features of Masters’ Programs = 129
• Characteristics of Masters’ Programs (Independent and Intermediate Variables) = 129
• Program Design (Dependent Variables) = 137
• Tests of the Hypotheses = 143
• Multiple Institutional Logics and Organizational Belief Systems = 144
• Multiple Institutional Logics and Program Design = 147
• Organizational Positions and Program Designs = 154
• Organizational Belief Systems and Programs Designs = 168
• Alternative Explanatory Factors = 174
• Program Size and Curricular Structure = 174
• Student Types and Curricular Requirements = 176
• Performance of Hypotheses and Conceptual Framework = 176
• Multiple Institutional Logics and Organizational Belief Systems = 177
• Multiple Institutional Logics, Organizational Positions, Organizational Belief Systems, and Program Designs = 182
• CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS = 200
• Summary of Findings = 200
• Current Feature of Masters’ Programs = 200
• Multiple Institutional Logics = 201
• Organizational Positions = 202
• Organizational Belief Systems = 203
• Performance of the Framework = 203
• Implications = 205
• Public Affairs = 205
• Organizational Theory = 206
• Suggestions for Future Study = 209
• REFERENCES = 215
• APPENDIX I PROGRAM RANKINGS = 234
• APPENDIX II INSTITUTIONAL MEMBERSHIPS AND ACCREDITATION STATUS = 238
• VITA = 252