Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter

Chapter
Global Themes and Institutional Ambiguity in the University Field: Rankings and Management Models on the Move
DOI link for Global Themes and Institutional Ambiguity in the University Field: Rankings and Management Models on the Move
Global Themes and Institutional Ambiguity in the University Field: Rankings and Management Models on the Move book
Global Themes and Institutional Ambiguity in the University Field: Rankings and Management Models on the Move
DOI link for Global Themes and Institutional Ambiguity in the University Field: Rankings and Management Models on the Move
Global Themes and Institutional Ambiguity in the University Field: Rankings and Management Models on the Move book
Click here to navigate to parent product.
ABSTRACT
When organizational scholars started to explore the increased similarity among organizations across countries and societal sectors (Meyer and Rowan 1977; Meyer and Scott 1983) in the context of what later became known as the new institutionalism (Powell and DiMaggio 1991) or organizational institutionalism (Greenwood, Oliver, Sahlin, and Suddaby 2008) more extensively, they based the theory on studies of different organizations, including, for example, schools, museums, the biotech industry, and public agencies. One important source for this increased homogenization was the adoption of widely diffused management techniques and management ideals (Sahlin-Andersson and Engwall 2002). At the time, universities were largely absent as an object of study in the main publications that paved the way for this line of research (e.g., Meyer and Rowan 1977; Powell and DiMaggio 1991; Meyer and Scott 1983).