The theory of institutional isomorphism has been criticized for overemphasizing organizational convergence and neglecting organizational divergence. Drawing on a range of empirical data, this paper shows that multi-dimensional accounts of isomorphic change are not necessarily incompatible with accounts emphasizing divergence as a typical form of organizational response to environmental uncertainties. The specific case investigated is the proliferation of academic organizational units teaching law at Australian universities over a ten-year period (1987–1996) that saw far-reaching structural transformations of the Australian university system. The key heuristic strategy employed in this paper is to scrutinize (a) when isomorphic responses appear to occur, and (b) which specific organizational form they take. In the empirical case examined, scrutiny of each of these dimensions strongly suggests that at least some isomorphic responses of universities were driven by a dual agenda of manifesting not only similarity but also distinction.The authors state
There is a long tradition of research in the social sciences exploring processes of organizational change, including organizational homogenization. One enduringly influential approach that has been frequently applied to the organizational analysis of universities (e.g., Croucher and Woelert 2016; Diogo et al. 2015; Meyer et al. 2007; Stensaker and Norgard 2001; Gumport 2000; Marginson and Considine 2000; Townley 1997) has been the so-called ‘new’ sociological institutionalism (Powell and DiMaggio 1991). One core tenet of this institutionalism is that processes of organizational homogenization stem from the institutionalization of specific ideas and models of ‘proper’ organizational forms and practices and the associated concerns around legitimacy. This institutionalization, so the argument goes, leads to institutional isomorphism.
Several studies suggest that over recent decades universities have been particularly prone to such isomorphism as they respond to the uncertainties and pressures arising from changes in government policy and funding (e.g., Croucher and Woelert 2016; Stensaker and Norgard 2001; Marginson and Considine 2000; Townley 1997; Meek 1991 ). This is despite a widespread public policy agenda of transforming universities into organizations strategically pursuing competitive advantages through acquiring distinctive organizational forms, capacities and missions (Thoenig and Paradeise 2016; Whitley 2008 ; Krucken and Meier 2006). It has been argued that a number of specific conditions have contributed to this phenomenon.
First, the knowledge-intensive work of universities is characterized by substantial uncertainty regarding the relationship between inputs and outputs (see Whitley 2008), with the associated missions and objectives of universities often being ambiguous and multifaceted (Fumasoli et al. 2015; Krucken and Meier 2006; Gumport 2000; Kerr 1963). According to the classic account of institutional isomorphism presented by DiMaggio and Powell (1983: 154–155), such uncertainties are conducive to mimetic processes of isomorphism driving organizations to emulate other, ostensibly more successful and legitimate, organizations. Second, the continuing dependency of universities on government funding and policy setting makes them more likely to adopt specific organizational forms ‘‘to avoid sanctions available to organizations on which they are dependent’’ (Greenwood et al. 2008: 7). This organizational response is summarized under the rubric of coercive isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell 1983: 150). Third, universities continue to be professionalized organizations, mostly because in the selection of staff, considerable weight is given to academic credentials. According to DiMaggio and Powell, professionalization is a major driver for normative processes of isomorphism (1983: 155).
There is an established body of research examining isomorphic dynamics in the organizational field of universities ranging from a global perspective (e.g., Schofer and Meyer 2005) down to the level of individual institutions (e.g., Stensaker and Norgard 2001). Some of this research has employed a longitudinal approach to detect and track salient diversification and homogenization dynamics within (and across) entire university systems (e.g., Reihlen and Wenzlaff 2016; Brint et al. 2011; Schofer and Meyer 2005; Skoldberg 1991), using relevant quantitative data sets where available. If carefully designed, such longitudinal studies can add to the understanding of institutional isomorphism in the university sector in at least two important ways. First, they provide a clearer picture of the various dynamics through which isomorphism progressively occurs, thus providing a corrective to those empirical analyses that examine institutional isomorphism in more static terms (see Boxenbaum and Jonsson 2008; also Hirsch 1997). Second, they allow for identification of variation in the ways in which organizational actors belonging to one organizational field – in this case universities – respond to isomorphic pressures over an extended period of time.
Importantly, the findings generated by such longitudinal empirical analysis may serve as a corrective to the tendency to posit isomorphism as a typical response of universities without checking empirically for any variations, in timing or otherwise, of such response. Moreover, taking seriously the dynamics of, and variations in, isomorphic forms of response may help to rectify the tendentiously passive and ‘mindless’ view of organizations underlying many empirical studies of isomorphism (Powell 1991: 194; see also Lounsbury 2008; Scott 2014) – including some of the research examining isomorphism in universities. Finally, in shedding light on variation within isomorphic forms of response, this sort of empirical analysis may also enhance our understanding of the complex links between isomorphic and divergence tendencies in university systems more broadly.
Building upon these reflections, this paper analyzes change dynamics pertaining to academic organizational units (AOUs) teaching law at Australian universities over the period of 1987–1996 as a discrete manifestation of broader isomorphic dynamics. This specific period saw sweeping structural changes to the Australian university sector, most of which can be linked to a set of radical national policy reforms occurring in 1988. These reforms paved the way for significant expansion of the number of universities over the coming years, and they created environmental conditions that can be deemed conducive to isomorphism (see ‘Research Design’ and ‘Empirical Context’ sections for more detail).
The field of law and law AOU s are the analytical focus for three reasons. First, previous research has identified the proliferation of law faculties and departments as one of the mor e salient manifestations o f isomorphism in the Australian university system (Croucher and Woelert 2016; Barker 2013). Second, the consequences of this proliferation have been enduring – all the law AOUs newly created over the period of investigation have survived to this day in one form or another; and the creation of additional law schools after 1996 means that today there remains only one comprehensive university in Australia not featuring a comprehensive law AOU. Third, changes to law AOUs are of particular interest because these organizational units are import ant to universities financially and in terms of the institutional prestige and legitimacy they may yield (see Espeland and Sauder 2007).
Empirically, this paper investigates, first, the distribution and organizational forms of law AOUs across all Australian universities and within selected university groupings over the period of 1987–1996. Second, it tracks and analyzes the corresponding changes in student numbers at each AOU. The changes in the distribution and organizational forms of law AOUs are proxy for tracking formal dimensions of institutional change. Changes in law student numbers provide the means for assessing the extent to which changes in formal structure correspond to changes in the actual activity structure of law AOUs (see Meyer and Rowan 1977). These sorts of data and analyses allow the identification of salient patterns of convergence and divergence among key types of universities , including any striking variations in isomorphism. Analysis of these variations in turn enables inferences regarding universities’ potential motivations for making changes to their law offerings. The data does, however, not allow for a causal explanation of why specifically some universities decided to establish or expand their law AOUs and others did not.
In terms of findings, the 10-year longitudinal empirical analyses presented in this paper illustrate how broader isomorphic change dynamics in the organizational field of universities accommodate more localized divergence tendencies and differential patterns of institutional response to isomorphic pressures. Moreover, the specific patterns of variation in universities’ apparent responses to isomorphic pressures suggest that some isomorphic responses, at least, were driven by a dual agenda of manifesting not only similarity but also distinction.
'Assessment rubrics: towards clearer and more replicable design, research and practice' by Phillip Dawson in Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education comments
‘Rubric’ is a term with a variety of meanings. As the use of rubrics has increased both in research and practice, the term has come to represent divergent practices. These range from secret scoring sheets held by teachers to holistic student-developed articulations of quality. Rubrics are evaluated, mandated, embraced and resisted based on often imprecise and inconsistent understandings of the term. This paper provides a synthesis of the diversity of rubrics, and a framework for researchers and practitioners to be clearer about what they mean when they say ‘rubric’. Fourteen design elements or decision points are identified that make one rubric different from another. This framework subsumes previous attempts to categorise rubrics, and should provide more precision to rubric discussions and debate, as well as supporting more replicable research and practice.
Dawson states
The term ‘rubric’ has varying meanings, and evokes a range of responses from educators (Popham 1997). A secret scoring sheet, held by the teacher, and only revealed after student work has been marked, is a ‘rubric’. An articulation of the standards expected of essays in a particular faculty or department is a ‘rubric’. Rubrics can contain detailed grading logic, with numbers and even formulae; alternatively they can have no numbers, and be suggestive of broad quality levels (Sadler 2009a). One rubric may use generic quality words (e.g. ‘good’ or ‘below standard’), whereas another may explain in detail what quality looks like. Some rubrics eschew words in favour of graphics, ranging from emoji to samples of what work should look like for a particular criterion at a particular standard. Since the beginning of its use in education, ‘rubric’ has not been a particularly clear term:
A couple of decades ago, rubric began to take on a new meaning among educators. Measurement specialists who scored students’ written compositions began to use the term to describe the rules that guided their scoring. They could have easily employed a more readily comprehensible descriptor, such as scoring guide, but scoring guide lacked adequate opacity. Rubric was a decisively more opaque, hence technically attractive, descriptor. (Popham 1997, 72)
Opacity has not hindered the proliferation of research and writing around rubrics, particularly in the last two decades. Prior to 1997, the term ‘assessment rubric’ had been used in 83 scholarly papers and in 106 books (Google Books Ngram Viewer 2015; Google Scholar 2015). Since then, the term has steadily grown in use, and is now mentioned in hundreds of papers each year; Figure 1 shows the accumulation of research about rubrics since 1997. In 1997, the 100th paper mentioned ‘assessment rubrics’; in 2005 the 1000th paper mentioned the term; and sometime in 2013, the 5000th paper mentioning rubrics was published. A similar trend has existed in books, although data are only available up to 2008. ...
To provide clarity through the opacity of the term, Popham’s (1997) seminal paper proposed that a rubric must have: evaluative criteria, quality definitions for those criteria at particular levels and a scoring strategy. Empirical work later in the 1990s found that few teachers shared Popham’s understanding, and in practice the term had a constellation of meanings (Wenzlaff, Fager, and Coleman 1999).
The problem with the combination of conflated meanings and rapid proliferation of ‘rubric’ is that it has been mandated, evaluated and built into technology, often as if there was some sort of shared understanding. Some departments or institutions have adopted policies that mandate the use of a ‘rubric’ without providing a working definition of the term, leaving it open to a very diverse array of interpretations that may not be in the spirit the policy-makers intended. Researchers have conducted a range of evaluation studies about rubrics, but do not always give operational definitions of what the rubric looked like or how it was used. Learning management systems provide ‘rubric’ tools that each represent particular interpretations. Against this proliferation, everyday educators have developed enthusiasm or resistance towards rubrics based on what the term has come to mean in their context. This sort of ‘label naivety’ (Pawson 2006) is not particular to education, and is common to other social science phenomena as well.
This article aims to provide a language to discuss rubrics. Rather than seek a homogenous definition for the term ‘rubric’, it provides a framework to map out the heterogeneity of potential rubric interventions. Some work has already been undertaken to provide a language to discuss rubrics. Jonsson and Svingby’s (2007) review of 75 studies identifies two classification dimensions: whether a rubric is analytic or holistic, and if it is generic or task-specific. Further distinctions can be drawn between teacher-created rubrics and those that are co-created with students (Reddy and Andrade 2010). Combining these terms provides greater specificity. An institutional policy might mandate holistic, task-specific, co-created rubrics. A technology tool could be developed to support analytic, task-specific, teacher-created rubrics. A research study might compare holistic, generic, teacher-created rubrics with holistic, task-specific, teacher-created rubrics. As an educator, I feel comfortable with holistic, task-specific, teacher-created rubrics, but less comfortable with other types. This article proposes that rubrics vary by at least 14 such dimensions, and provides a common language to discuss different types of rubrics.
As this article’s focus is on making the opacity of rubrics transparent, some preliminary scoping and definition issues must be attended to. For the purposes of this article:
• A rubric is a tool used in the process of assessing student work that usually includes Popham’s (1997) three essential features: evaluative criteria, quality definitions for those criteria at particular levels and a scoring strategy.
• A design element is a particular variable, choice or dimension that makes one sort of rubric different to another, for example, the specificity element is concerned with the differences between task-specific and generic rubrics
• The framework proposed in this article is the combination of all of the design elements.
The entire rubric intervention is inside the scope of this framework, not just the physical artefact, for example, the decision to share a rubric with students is of interest and is included in the framework, even though this may not be written on the rubric. This article is limited in scope to the use of rubrics in the assessment process, and includes self, peer, teacher and exemplar assessment for formative and summative purposes. It does not consider rubric use for other purposes, such as the evaluation of teaching or diagnosis of disease.
