How to construct an organizational field: Empirical educational research in Germany, 1995–2015

European Educational Research Journal

Volumn 15, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 537-557

  Zapp, Mike ^a   Powell, Justin J W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LUXEMBOURG   (Luxembourg)

Author keywords

Educational research in Germany; evidence based policy making; institutionalization; international large scale assessments; organizational fields

Indexed keywords

EID: 84988484541     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14749041     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1474904116641422     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Aldrich HE, Ruef M, (1999) Organizations Evolving. London, UK: SAGE.
2. Aljets E, (2015) Der Aufstieg der Empirischen Bildungsforschung. Ein Beitrag zur institutionalistischen Wissenschaftssoziologie. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS.
3. Banks G, (2009) Evidence-Based Policy Making: What it is? How do we get it? Canberra, Australia: ANU Public Lecture Series, presented by ANZSOG. Available at: http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/85836/cs20090204.pdf (accessed 15 November 2015).
4. Ben-David J, Collins R, (1966) Social factors in the origins of a new science: The case of psychology. American Sociological Review 31(4): 451–465.
5. Biesta GJJ, (2009) Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 21(1): 33–46.
6. Biesta GJJ, (2015) On the two cultures of educational research, and how we might move ahead: Reconsidering the ontology, axiology and praxeology of education. European Educational Research Journal 14(1): 11–22.
7. Bogner A, Littig B, Menz W, (2009) Interviewing Experts. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
8. Bromley P, (2010) The rationalization of educational development: Scientific activities among international non-governmental organizations. Comparative Education Review 54(4): 577–601.
9. Bromley P, (2016) Policy and administration as culture: Organizational sociology and cross-national education trends. In: Mundy K, Green A, Lingard B. (eds) The Handbook of Global Policy-making in Education. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.470–489.
10. Buchhaas-Birkholz D, (2009) Die “empirische Wende” in der Bildungspolitik und in der Bildungsforschung: Zum Paradigmenwechsel des BMBF im Bereich der Forschungsförderung. Erziehungswissenschaft 20(39): 27–33.
11. Bundesministerium für Forschung und Bildung (BMBF) (2008) Rahmenprogramm zur Förderung der empirischen Bildungsforschung. Bonn/Berlin. Available at: https://www.bmbf.de/pub/bildungsforschung_band_zweiundzwanzig.pdf (accessed 15 September 2015).
12. Busemeyer MR, Vossiek J, (2015) Reforming Education Governance Through Local Capacity-building: A Case Study of the “Learning Locally” Programme in Germany. OECD Education Working Papers No. 113. Paris: OECD Publishing.
13. Campbell JL, (2002) Ideas, politics and public policy. Annual Review of Sociology 28: 21–38.
14. Chabbott C, (2003) Constructing Education for Development: International Organizations and Education for All. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.
15. Cozzens SE, Woodhouse EJ, (1995) Science, government, and the politics of knowledge. In: Jasanoff S, Markle GE, Petersen JC. (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. London, UK: SAGE, pp.533–553.
16. Cruz-Castro L, Sanz-Menéndez L, (2007) New legitimation models and the transformation of the public research organizational field. International Studies of Management and Organization 37(1): 27–52.
17. Dacin MT, Goodstein J, Scott WR, (2002) Institutional theory and institutional change: Introduction to the Special Research Forum. The Academy of Management Journal 45(1): 43–56.
18. Dale R, (2005) Globalisation, knowledge economy and comparative education. Comparative Education 41(2): 117–149.
19. Dedering K, (2009) Evidence-based education policy: Lip service or common practice? Empirical findings from Germany. European Educational Research Journal 8(4): 484–496.
20. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) (2002) Stellungnahme zur strukturellen Stärkung der empirischen Bildungsforschung. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 48(5): 786–798.
21. Dezalay Y, Garth BG, (1996) Dealing in Virtue: International Commercial Arbitration and the Construction of a Transnational Legal Order. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
22. DiMaggio PJ, (1986) Structural analysis of organizational fields: A blockmodel approach. In: Staw BM, Cummings LL, (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior 8: 335–370. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
23. DiMaggio PJ, (1988) Interest and agency in institutional theory. In: Zucker LG, (ed.) Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp.3–32.
24. DiMaggio PJ, (1991) Constructing an organizational field as a professional project: U.S. art museums, 1920–1940. In: Powell WW, DiMaggio PJ, (eds) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp.267–292.
25. DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW, (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147–60.
26. DIPF Bildungsforschung und Bildungsinformation (2015) Leibniz-Forschungsverbund Bildungspotenziale. Available at: http://www.dipf.de/de/forschung/projekte/leibniz-forschungsverbund-bildungspotenziale (accessed 20 October 2015).
27. Edelman LB, (1990) Legal environments and organizational governance: The expansion of due process in the American workplace. American Journal of Sociology 95(6): 1401–1440.
28. Faulstich-Wieland H, Horn KP, Thole W. (2012) Datenreport Erziehungswissenschaft 2012. Opladen, Germany: Verlag Barbara Budrich.
29. Fenwick T, Mangez E, Ozga J, (2014) Governing knowledge: Comparison, knowledge-based technologies and expertise in the regulation of education. In: Fenwick T, Mangez E, Ozga J, (eds) World Yearbook of Education 2014. London, UK and New York, NY: Routledge, pp.3–10.
30. Gesellschaft für empirische Bildungsforschung (GEBF) (2012) Satzung der Gesellschaft für Empirische Bildungsforschung. Available at: http://www.gebf-ev.de/%C3%BCber-die-gebf/satzung/ (accessed 10 September 2015).
31. Gläser J, Aljets E, Gorga A. (2014) Path dependence and policy steering in the social sciences: The varied impact of international large scale student assessment on the educational sciences in four European countries. Research in the Sociology of Organizations 42: 267–295.
32. Gonon P, (1998) Das internationale Argument in der Bildungsreform. Die Rolle internationaler Bezüge in den bildungspolitischen Debatten zur schweizerischen Berufsbildung und zur englischen Reform der Sekundarstufe II. Berne, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
33. Gorur R, (2014) Towards a sociology of measurement in education policy. European Educational Research Journal 13(1): 58–72.
34. Greenwood R, Hinings CR, (1996) Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. The Academy of Management Review 21(4): 1022–1054.
35. Greenwood R, Suddaby R, Hinings CR, (2002) Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. The Academy of Management Journal 45(1): 58–80.
36. Heyneman SP, Lykins C, (2008) The evolution of comparative and international education statistics. In: Ladd HF, Fiske EB, (eds) Handbook of Research in Education Finance and Policy. NewYork, NY: Routledge, pp.105–127.
37. Hoffman A, (1999) Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal 42(4): 351–371.
38. Hoffman A, Ocasio W, (2001) Not all events are attended equally: Toward a middle-range theory of industry attention to external events. Organization Science 12(4): 414–434.
39. Howlett M, (2009) Policy Analytical Capacity and evidence-based policy-making: Lessons from Canada. Canadian Public Administration/Administration Publique du Canada 52(2): 153–175.
40. Kerstan T, Spiewak M, (2013) Ranglisten sind gefährlich. Die Zeit, 17 January, 4.
41. Koller H-C, Faulstich-Wieland H, Weishaupt H. (2016) Datenreport Erziehungswissenschaft 2016. Opladen, Germany: Verlag Barbara Budrich.
42. Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK) (1997) Grundsätzliche Überlegungen zu Leistungsvergleichen innerhalb der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Konstanzer Beschluss. Available at: http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/1997/1997_10_24-Konstanzer-Beschluss.pdf (accessed 10 September 2015).
43. Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK) (2006) Gesamtstrategie der Kultusministerkonferenz zum Bildungsmonitoring. Bonn/Berlin. Available at: http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2006/2006_01_01-Gesamtstrategie-Endf.pdf (accessed 10 September 2015).
44. Lawrence TB, Suddaby R, (2006) Institutions and institutional work. In: Clegg SR, Hardy C, Lawrence TB. (eds) Handbook of Organization Studies (2nd edition). London, UK: SAGE, pp.215–254.
45. Lawrence TB, Suddaby R, Leca B, (2009) Introduction: Theorizing and studying institutional work. In: Lawrence TB, Suddaby R, Leca B, (eds) Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp.1–27.
46. Lenzen D, (1998) Eine neue erziehungswissenschaftliche Zeitschrift! Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 1(1): 3–5.
47. Lounsbury M, (2001) Institutional sources of practice variation: Staffing college and university recycling programs. Administrative Science Quarterly 46(1): 29–56.
48. Maguire S, Hardy C, Lawrence TB, (2004) Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of Management Journal 47(5): 657–679.
49. Martens K, (2007) How to become an influential actor: the ‘Comparative Turn’ in OECD education policy. In: Martens K, Rusconi A, Leuze K, (eds) New Arenas of Education Governance: The Impact of International Organisations and Markets on Educational Policymaking. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.40–56.
50. Martens K, Jakobi AP, (eds) (2010) Mechanisms of OECD Governance: International Incentives for National Policy-Making? Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
51. Meyer H-D, Benavot A, (2013) PISA, Power, and Policy: The Emergence of Global Educational Governance. Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.
52. Meyer JW. (1997) World society and the nation-state. American Journal of Sociology 103(1): 144–181.
53. OECD (2007) Evidence in Education: Linking Research and Policy. Paris: OECD.
54. Parreira do Amaral M, (2011) Emergenz eines Internationalen Bildungsregimes? Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
55. Powell WW, (1999) The social construction of an organizational field: The case of biotechnology. International Journal of Biotechnology 1(1): 42–66.
56. Powell WW, DiMaggio PJ, (eds) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
57. Power M, (2004) Counting, control and calculation: Reflections on measuring and management. Human Relations 57(6): 765–783.
58. Radtke FO, (2015) Methodologischer Ökonomismus. Organische Experten im Erziehungssystem. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 26(50): 7–16.
59. Roth H, (1963) Die realistische Wendung in der pädagogischen Forschung. Die Deutsche Schule 55: 109–119.
60. Schavan A, (2009) Zur Bedeutung von Bildungsforschung für eine wissensbasierte Politik und Praxis. Speech at Inauguration Ceremony of NEPS. Available at: https://www.uni-bamberg.de/fileadmin/inbil/Publikationen/0203_Bamberg.pdf (accessed 10 September 2015).
61. Scott WR, (1994) Conceptualizing organizational fields: Linking organizations and societal systems. In: Derlien H, Gerhardt U, Scharpf F, (eds) Systemrationalitat und Partialinteresse. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos, pp.203–221.
62. Scott WR, (1995) Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
63. Scott WR, (1998) Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
64. Scott WR, Ruef M, Mendel PJ. (2000) Institutional Change and Healthcare Organizations: From Professional Dominance to Managed Care. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
65. Sellar S, Lingard B, (2014) The OECD and the expansion of PISA: New global modes of governance in education. British Educational Research Journal 40(6): 917–936.
66. Tillmann KJ, Dedering K, Kneuper D. (2008) Schule und Gesellschaft 43. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
67. Trist E, (1983) Referent organizations and the development of inter-organizational domains. Human Relations 36(3): 269–284.
68. Tröhler D, (2014) Tradition oder Zukunft? 50 Jahre Deutsche Gesellschaft für Erziehungswissenschaft aus bildungshistorischer Sicht. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 60(1): 9–31.
69. Waldow F, (2009) What PISA did and did not do: Germany after the ‘PISA-shock’. European Educational Research Journal 8(3): 476–483.
70. Wissenschaftsrat (WR) (2001) Empfehlungen zur künftigen Struktur der Lehrerbildung. Cologne. Availabe at: http://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/download/archiv/5065-01.pdf (accessed 10 September 2015).
71. Zentrum für Internationale Bildungsvergleichstudien (ZIB) (2015) About the ZIB. Available at: http://zib.education/de/ueber-das-zib.html (accessed).
72. Zietsma C, Lawrence TB, (2010) Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work. Administrative Science Quarterly 55(2): 189–221.
73. Zymek B, (1975) Das Ausland als Argument in der pädagogischen Reformdiskussion. Ratingen, Germany: Henn.