Interrogating the Diversity of School Options in District Reform Via Institutional Logics: Affordances and Challenges

• In Event: Exploring the Opportunities, Challenges, and Dilemmas of Institutional Logics as a Tool of Educational Research

Abstract

In our article, we draw on institutional logics (ILs) to examine a central claim of “portfolio” district reform: that choice, accountability, and autonomy will foster a diversity of schooling options. Using the case of a large urban school district, we asked: In what ways do the espoused values and reported practices of schools vary among schools and what explains these patterns?

Drawing on interviews, survey data, and documents from six case study schools, we found limited evidence of variation across schools, suggesting that broader policies and governance changes at the district may not yield the intended diversity of within-school practices. We concluded that institutional forces appear to be shaping a similar set of values and practices related to academics, whole child support, community, and professionalism.
Applying ILs as the framework for this research presented both affordances and challenges. First, ILs provided useful conceptual guidance for a study of school-level variation, as logics serve as unstated frames of reference, shaping the way actors choose to behave (Thornton & Ocasio, 2008). These broad, underlying cultural forces at the macro and meso-levels influenced how school actors at the micro level thought about students and teachers, constructed their missions, and lived their values in practice.

However, this framework proved difficult to operationalize. In surveys, we took a deductive approach to measuring institutional logics by designing items to align with broader macro-level institutional values. These data provided only a limited view of ILs at play. In case studies, by contrast, we adopted an inductive approach that allowed ILs to emerge organically and which enabled a more nuanced investigation of differences. Connecting these micro level logics to field level logics led us to theory suggesting that, in order to remain legitimate, schools must adhere to broader norms and standards (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).

Another vexing puzzle we faced in conducting this work was distinguishing between what constituted a genuine adoption of logics, or what represented symbolic strategies to recruit and market without corresponding authenticity in practice. This called attention to the analytic challenge of distinguishing between symbolic dimensions of ILs, which much easier to capture in research, and material dimensions embodied in complex practices. Our study would have benefited from observations over time to provide stronger evidence of embedded organizational values, routines, and practices to enhance our understanding of “lived logics.”
A final consideration in using ILs is how to disentangle agency and structure. ILs purports to allow for a consideration of both by highlighting the role of individual agency in shaping the nature of lived logics in organizations. That duality of agency and structure allowed us to see that while organizational context can affect the salience of particular field-level logics (Bridwell-Mitchell and Sherer 2017; Greenwood et al. 2011), there is nothing deterministic about this relationship. We could actually see that a few faculty influenced the salience of particular logics, rather than organizational type.

Authors

• Julie A. Marsh, University of Southern California

• Kate Kennedy, University of Cincinnati