Definitions and previous research

To institutionalise, Oxford Reference Online states, means to “establish (something, typically a practice or an activity) as a convention or norm in an organisation or culture.”

Stated slightly differently, to institutionalise means to “make something become part of a particular society, system, or organization” (Cambridge Dictionaries Online). Drawing on the work identified with the philosophical tradition of phenomenology, Berger and Luckmann (1967) identified institutionalisation as a core process in the creation and perpetuation of enduring social groups (Tolbert & Zucker, 1996). Accordingly, Berger and Luckmann (1987) observe that institutionalisation occurs when there is “a reciprocal typification of habitualized actions by types of actors” (p. 72). In this definition, habitualised action refers to behaviours that have been developed empirically, repeated frequently, cast into a pattern and adopted by an actor or set of actors to solve recurring problems (Berger & Luckmann, 1987; Tolbert & Zucker, 1996). Colbeck (2002), however, views institutionalisation as “a process by which a significant new structure or practice is incorporated into a system of existing structures and practices” (p. 398). Ekholm and Trier (1987) note that it denotes:

A stabilized modification, aiming at improvement of an institution or parts of it—its processes, products or capacities. It, thus, denotes a developmental process that appears during and after the implementation of an innovation. When the new process, product, or capacity is used in a routine manner and is accepted by the users as something normal that is expected to continue, it is incorporated into the organizational framework and its regulations as a “natural” pattern. (as cited in Saxl, Miles, & Lieberman, 1989, pp. 6–19.)

Pankratz et al. (1980), however, regard institutionalisation as both a goal and a process. As a goal, it denotes a “stage at which a new program or practice becomes a regular feature of the culture of an organization” (as cited in Emory, 1981, p. 52). As a process, it refers to “a set of actions consciously and deliberately taken to improve the performance and operation of an organization by impacting structures, processes or behaviors in the unit” (Emory, 1981, p. 54). Likewise, Zucker (1991) defines institutionalisation as both a process and property

21 For example, policies, structures, programmes, mission statements, formal positions and organisational rules that control how people coordinate their actions and use resources to achieve the goals of the university (Cai, 2007).

22 Because, as Meyer and Rowan (1991) observe, organisations do not necessarily function according to their formal blueprints: “Structural elements are only loosely linked to each other and to activities, rules are often violated, decisions are often unimplemented, or if implemented have uncertain consequences” (p. 43).

variable. It is, Zucker (1991) notes, “the process by which individual actors transmit what is socially defined as real, and at the same time, at any point in the process the meaning of an act can be defined as more or less a taken-for-granted part of this social reality” (p. 85).

Herein, the term ‘institutionalisation’ is used to denote a process and/or stage through/

at which “new norms, values, and structures [regarding a practice] become incorporated within the framework of existing patterns of norms, values, and structures” (Kimberly, 1981, p. 31).

Accordingly, Jepperson (1991) identifies three primary carriers of institutionalisation:

formal organisation, regimes and culture. The term ‘regimes,’ Jepperson (1991) notes, denotes “institutionalization in some central authority system—without primary embodiment in a formal organizational apparatus” (p. 150).²³ With regard to regimes,

“expectations focus upon monitoring and sanctioning by some form of a differentiated, collective, center” (Jepperson, 1991, p. 150) Institutionalisation by culture denotes “those rules, procedures, and goals without primary representation in formal organization, and without monitoring and sanctioning by some “central” authority. These rules are, rather, customary or conventional in character” (Jepperson, 1991, pp. 150–151).²⁴

Previous research

Research by Manring (1987) shows that institutionalisation involves three stages:

trial, regularisation and formalisation. Trial, Manring (1987) notes, refers to the initial experimentation of an innovation. Contrastingly, regularisation refers to the way in which the innovations become accepted into regular use and formalisation includes the ways in which the innovations are codified and described by some form of policy statement, statute and so forth. The above definition suggests that programmes, behaviours, etc.

have varying levels of institutionalisation and that “institutionalization is not an all or nothing concept” (Edelman, 1984, as cited in Manring, 1987, p. 2)—that is, that there are degrees of institutionalisation; “acts are not simply either institutionalized or not institutionalized” (Zucker, 1991, p. 86). Correspondingly, Goodman and Dean (1982) explain institutionalisation in terms of specific behaviours or acts that cannot be described by the simple labels of ‘success’ or ‘failure.’ “An act,” Goodman and Dean (1982) note, “is not all or nothing [;] it may vary in terms of its persistence, the number of people in the social system performing the act, and the degree to which it exists as a social fact” (p. 229).

Accordingly, Goodman and Dean (1982) identify five facets, the presence or absence of which explains the degree of institutionalisation:

• Knowledge – the extent to which organisational participants have common cognitive representations of the behaviour;

23 For example, a legal or constitutional system, a profession and a criminal syndicate (Jepperson, 1991).

24 Institutionalising in culture produces expectations about the properties, orientations, and behaviour of individuals, as constraining “others” (Mead) in the social environment (Jepperson, 1991, p. 151).

• Performance – the extent to which the behaviour is performed across the participants in the social system;

• Preferences for the behaviour – whether organisational participants like or dislike performing the behaviour;

• Values – the degree to which organisational participants have common social ideas of the desirable or statements about how one should or should not behave; and

• Normative consensus – the extent to which (a) organisational participants are aware of others performing the required behaviours and (b) there is consensus about the appropriateness of the behaviour. This facet represents the extent to which the behaviour has become part of the normative fabric of the organisation.

Likewise, Berger and Luckmann (1987) stress that in investigating any concrete institutional order,

One may ask the following question: What is the scope of institutionalization within the totality of social actions in a given society? In other words, how large is the sector of institutionalized activity compared with the sector that is left uninstitutionalized?

… An important general consideration is what factors determine a wider as against a narrower scope of institutionalization. (p. 97.)

Drawing on earlier phenomenological analyses of institutions, Tolbert and Zucker (1996) delineate three sequential processes involved in the formation and spread of institutions:

habitualization, objectification and sedimentation. Similarly, Braxton, Luckey, and Helland (2002) in their study, “Institutionalizing a Broader view of Scholarship through Boyer’s Four Domains,” note that institutionalisation occurs at three levels: structural, procedural and incorporation. At the structural level, the authors note, “a change is represented in several ways throughout the institution. There is a basic knowledge of the behaviors associated with the innovation, and those involved understand how to perform the behaviors” (Braxton et al., 2002, pp. 5–6). Besides new or changed behaviour, it is possible that the structure of the organisation will also change to accommodate the new programme or innovation. At the procedural level,

Behaviors and policies associated with the innovation become standard [—that is,]

they become part of the standard operating procedure of the disciplinary department or the entire institution. As for individuals in the organization, this level shows their preferences for behaviors identified at the structural level. (Braxton et al., 2002, p.

6.)

Because the realisation of the procedural level of institutionalisation occurs when behaviours and policies associated with the object of institutionalisation become the standard operating procedures of a college or university, Braxton et al. (2002) note, the extent to which organisational actors participate in an innovation or a programme can be used as an indicator of the procedural level of institutionalisation. Incorporation, Braxton

et al. (2002) stress, is “the most in-depth level of institutionalization … where the values and norms associated with the innovation are incorporated into an organization’s culture”

(p. 7).

Contrastingly, Goodman and Steckler (1989) consider institutionalisation to be the final stage in the diffusion process, during which programme innovations attain long- term viability and settle into organisations. However, the authors also observe that institutionalisation consists of three levels—passages, routines and niche saturation.

Goodman and Steckler (1989) note that passages represent the incipient, first degree, or rudimentary measures, of institutionalisation intensity. They establish benchmarks for a programme’s stability. Examples include the formalisation of programme plans, methods, evaluations and outcomes. Routines characterise a programme’s increasing permanence.

“When a program becomes routinized,” the authors note, “it no longer stands out as new

… [it] achieves greater persistency, or permanence” (Goodman & Steckler, 1989, p. 66).

Although routines, such as programme funding, budgeting, planning and evaluation, often operate on annual cycles, other routines, such as public relations strategies, agency staff and lobbying efforts for the programme, can be more intermittent. The longer the routines remain persistent, Goodman and Steckler (1989) note, the greater the degree of institutionalisation. To emphasise the significance of differences in the level of institutionalisation denoted by passages and routines, Goodman and Steckler (1989) observe,

In a public school system that implemented a substance abuse prevention program, formalization of the program, a passage, occurred through official approval by the school board. This act was highly symbolic of the status the program was accorded.

… However, the program was not incorporated into that school district’s routine enforcement mechanisms. For instance, no supervisors were assigned to monitor the program. … Consequently, its implementation in the classroom was sporadic, and its institutionalization was shallow. (Goodman & Steckler, 1989, p. 67.)

Just as routines signify a degree of institutionalisation that is greater than passages, niche saturation represents a degree of institutionalisation that goes beyond routines. Niche saturation, Goodman and Steckler (1989) note, “can be defined as an institutionalized program’s maximum feasible expansion within a host organization. When an innovation is fully institutionalized, it permeates an organization’s subsystems” (p. 67). It becomes, as Hord and Hall (1986) put it, “locked into the organizational setting … [and] part of the normal day to day routine” (p. 9). Passages and routines, then, are insufficient indicators of institutionalisation. Goodman and Steckler (1989) further observe that an innovation is institutionalised when, through mutual adaptation, it comes to equilibrium with an organisation. According to Kanter (1983, p. 229),

It is when the structures surrounding a change also change to support it that we say that a change is ‘institutionalized’—that it is now part of legitimate and on-going

practice, infused with value and supported by other aspects of the system. (as cited in Goodman & Steckler, 1989, p. 60.)

Just like Goodman and Steckler (1989), Eiseman, Fleming, and Roody (1990) stress that institutionalisation symbolises a final transition of a project or programme to an acceptable part of the regular operation of an organisation. It is the critical last step in the process of change, the end result of prior phases, initiation and implementation, but not a natural result of these phases. What, then, characterises institutionalisation? Goodman and Dean (1982) point out three defining features of an institutionalised act: performance of the act by multiple actors, persistence of the act and existence of the act as a social fact. Likewise, Miles and Louis (1987) suggest seven characteristic features, namely:

1. Acceptance by relevant actors—a perception that the innovation legitimately belongs

2. Stable, routinised implementation; widespread use of the innovation;

3. Firm expected continuation, usually accompanied by negotiated agreements;

4. Legitimacy, normality;

5. Change is no longer seen as a change, but has become “invisible,” and is taken for granted;

6. Person independence—that is, continuation does not depend upon the actions of specific individuals but upon organisational structures, procedures or culture; and 7. Routine allocation of time and money (as cited in Eiseman et al., 1990, pp. 12–13;

Saxl et al., 1989, pp. 6–24).