General Education Models: Continuity and Change in the US Undergraduate Curriculum., 1975-2000
General Education Models: Continuity and Change in the US Undergraduate Curriculum., 1975-2000
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/00221546.2009.11779037
复制
发表时间：
2009-11-01
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
Hanneman, Robert A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Brint, Steven;Proctor, Kristopher;Hanneman, Robert A.
应对高等教育扩张和多样化的深层次力量，正如系统中有影响力的行为者所解释的那样。我们的研究沿袭了社会史和制度史的传统。我们感兴趣的是普通教育模式的起源和传播，以及对本科教育领域的变化做出贡献的教育和政治利益集团。同时，我们的分析提供了一个有用的视角，可以用来评论组织变革的其他方法。特别是，我们的发现与组织研究中的“新制度主义”的主题有重要的对比(见DiMaggio&Powell，1991)。与理性-法律官僚主义的韦伯模式不同，新制度主义像我们一样，把重点放在组织和组织元素上，这些组织和组织元素的成功与它们相对于替代组织形式的更高效率或技术优势几乎没有关系。然而，与我们的分析不同，新制度主义强调组织形式围绕主导模式的趋同，这些模式的类别和叙述与“西方文化账户”所推崇的进步和正义的理想产生共鸣(Meyer，Boli，&Thomas，1987)。新制度主义还将寻求合法性确定为组织领域趋同的主要原因，因为与主导模式的一致性鼓励公众信心和资源，使组织能够复制和蓬勃发展(DiMaggio&Powell，1983；Meyer&Rowan，1977)。通识教育的案例揭示了一组不同的结果：我们发现形式不趋同，而不是趋同；我们发现竞争模式，而不是单一的主导模式；我们发现，不是寻求合法性作为变革的主要原因，而是发现多个利益集团在该领域寻求影响力，取得了不同程度的成功。我们的分析在某些方面更接近于Selznick(1953,1957)和他的学生发展的早期形式的制度分析。这种制度分析的早期形式，有时被贴上“旧制度主义”的标签，强调组织领导人的价值承诺和强大的外部行为者的利益作为制度变革的来源的稳定影响(见佩罗，1986年，第5章)。我们的发现与这些重点是一致的。然而，我们对作为分析单位的组织领域的关注，对领域内相互竞争的模式的持久性的关注，对变革要素缓慢增长以及重大变革的重要性的关注，以及对发生变革的多层次结构的关注，都与塞尔兹尼克学派的重点形成了对比，因此使我们的方法有别于“新的”和“旧的”制度主义。
responses to the deeper-lying forces of expansion and diversification of higher education, as interpreted by influential actors in the system. Our study is in the tradition of social and institutional history. We are interested in the origin and diffusion of models of general education and the educational and political interest groups that have contributed to changes in this field of undergraduate education. At the same time, our analysis provides a useful perspective from which to comment on other approaches to organizational change. In particular, our findings contrast in important ways with themes of the “new institutionalism” in organizational studies (see DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). Against the Weberian model of rational-legal bureaucracy, the new institutionalism focuses, as we do, on organizations and organizational elements whose success has little to do with their greater efficiency or technical superiority over alternative forms of organization. However, unlike our analysis, the new institutionalism has emphasized the convergence of organizational forms around dominant models whose categories and narratives resonate with the ideals of progress and justice favored by the “western cultural account”(Meyer, Boli, & Thomas, 1987). The new institutionalism has also identified legitimacy seeking as a primary cause of convergence in organizational fields, because conformity with dominant models encourages public confidence and resources that allow organizations to reproduce and thrive (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977). The case of general education reveals a different set of outcomes: instead of convergence, we find non-convergence of forms; instead of a single dominant model, we find competing models; and instead of legitimacy seeking as a primary cause of change, we find multiple interest groups seeking influence in the field, with varying levels of success. Our analysis is, in some respects, closer to the earlier form of institutional analysis developed by Selznick (1953, 1957) and his students. This earlier form of institutional analysis, sometimes labeled the “old institutionalism,” emphasized the stabilizing influence of the value commitments of organizational leaders and the interests of powerful external actors as sources of institutional change (see Perrow, 1986, chap. 5). Our findings are consistent with these emphases. However, our focus on the organizational field as the unit of analysis, on the persistence of competing models within the field, on the importance of slow accretions of change elements as well as major transformations, and on the multiple levels of structure in which change occurs all contrast with the emphases of the Selznick school, and therefore set our approach apart from both the “new” and the “old” institutionalism.