Theoretical Framework
4.7 Theoretical framework, study paradigm, and the study’s questions
This part uses the theories and perspectives that are mentioned above (world culture theory, policy diffusion, and the new-institutionalism perspective) to draw up a conceptual framework to apply to the study’s questions. At first, it would be appropriate to briefly summarize these concepts again.
From a macro perceptive, the world culture theory emphasizes the role of globalization in the national educational policies and structure formation as a result of the diffusion process for educational models and ideas such as quality assurance of higher education and accreditation, which leads to isomorphism in education policy and structure worldwide.
Diffusion comes about through the current world trends and tendencies impacting all states globally, rather than local or national political, economic, and social factors (Meyer et al. 1977, 255).
World system analysis is an essential basis for discerning and interpreting worldwide educational trends (Arnove, 1980) and studying the top-down process of policy diffusion, which carries global models and discourses to the national state. On the other hand, countries, international organizations, and professional elites are regarded as the source of ideas and practices which are transported into national policy carried by networks of politicians, professionals, and scientists (Dobbin, Simmons, & Garrett, 2007; Fourcade-Gourinchas & Babb, 2002; Haas, 1992; Hironaka, 2014; Strang & Meyer, 1993). For studying the top-down policy diffusion process, Page (2000) determines the basic variables, as follows: “What?” includes which policies or procedures were transferred (the procedure of quality assurance and accreditation); “Why?” refers to the reasons behind these policy reforms which are about the local conditions and situations as well as the effect of the international trends and orientations;
“Who?” identifies the actors who carry out the transfer; “When?” defines the timeframe; and
“How?” analyzes the mechanism of this reform.
From a new institutional point of view, shifting the focus from the international level to the institutional level explains the institutions’ behavior in integrating structures and polices which are predetermined by their wider environment as searching for legitimacy. The concept of isomorphism (convergence) treats the way institutions adopt innovations, such as quality
87
assurance and accreditation practices, as response to environmental pressures, to achieve competitiveness and legitimacy. In the work of DiMaggio and Powell (1983), an explanation of the causal force underlining the processes of diffusion and isomorphism was identified by specifying channels through which ideas and structures flowed. Coercive forces were found to stem from political or legal influences and the search for legitimacy. Mimetic forces were found to result from standard responses to uncertainty, and normative forces were found to be associated with professionalization and shared understanding of practices.
The second question of the study is the first empirical question. It asks why the quality assurance and accreditation practices were adopted in higher education institutions’ reforms in both Germany and Saudi Arabia.
First of all, the source of this idea should be ascertained, followed by the way of moving this idea to the national context, which was the situation when it entered the policy making area. From the world culture theory point of view, the world culture system, which includes international agencies and models and scripts, plays a vital role in providing the national education policymakers with the idea of adopting quality assurance and accreditation in higher education. This idea is regarded as a global trend and at the same time as fulfilling an important management and educational function in the national higher education system, leading to the legitimization of the local higher education institutions in line with the global higher education orientation. This theory also indicates that this process of policy diffusion leads to isomorphism in education policy and structure worldwide, seen in Germany and Saudi Arabia.
Table 7 below provides suggested answers in line with the theoretical framework for each sub-question of study question 2, why were the quality assurance and accreditation
practices adopted in higher education institution reform in both Germany and Saudi Arabia?
88
Table 7. The suggested answers for the sub-questions of the 2nd research question Sub-Questions of the 2nd Study Question Suggested Answers based on the
Theoretical Framework a. Where did the idea come from?
b. When and why did it enter the national policy?
c. What drove the policy change?
d. What were the local situations?
- The world culture system (models and scripts provided by international agencies) - As a global trend to fulfilling local functions - Legitimacy seeking
- Seeking a solution for the local problems and needs which is imposed by the global trend
In light of the study’s theoretical framework, we can assume the answer to the third study question: How do German and Saudi higher education institutions differ in the adoption and implementation of the quality assurance and accreditation practices? Table 8. They differ as follows: the adoption of quality assurance and accreditation system in Saudi Arabia and Germany occurred after a policy diffusion process, the ideas and practices were transported into the national policy from other countries or international organizations by networks of politicians or professionals. In addition, the theoretical framework illustrates the causal force underlining the processes of policy diffusion and isomorphism, while there are three suggested channels through which ideas and structures flow: coercive, normative, and mimetic. Hence these steps took place in different ways and through different actors in the two countries of study. Moreover, Western countries such as Germany and non-Western countries such as Saudi Arabia adopt the quality assurance and accreditation practices in line with global trends, yet they still maintain important aspects of their own respective culture represented in the norms and expectations. Hence, they have a certain level of variation on both a micro-level and meso-level in their implementation of these practices.
89
Table 8. The suggested answers for the sub-questions of the 3rd research question
Sub-Questions of the 3rd Study Question Suggested Answers based on the Theoretical Framework a. What were the perspectives/orientations
that influenced the formation process of the national accreditation framework?
b. How did they become new procedures ready to be used and introduced in the national policy?
-Political/legal pressure-
professionalization pressure- mimicking other organizations
- By formation, putting them in line with the local norms and expectations
The aforementioned insights and suggestions of world culture theory, policy diffusion, and new-institutionalism provide a model linking macro-meso-micro levels, macro and the local and organizational mechanisms. The social phenomenon can be well investigated by studying its multi-level perspectives (i.e., macro: global and world system, meso: national higher education systems and the policy formation processes, and micro: universities).
Another aspect to developing and applying new institutionalism in comparative education involves the discussion about the significance and influence of both globalization and contextualization. While globalization is clearly linked with new institutionalism and its research, contextualization is equally significant and should remain in view as well (Wiseman and Chase-Mayoral, 2014).
In order to investigate the social phenomenon and provide a clear image for it, it is important to analyze it not only at one level but using a multi-level perspective. In order to obtain an integrated and balanced understanding of the research’s subject (the adoption of quality assurance and accreditation system), multilevel comparative analysis is an urgent requirement (Bray and Thomas, 1995). Consequently, Bray and Thomas (1995) stress the value of multilevel comparative research. They find that, although comparative education researchers generally exhibit a solid grasp of macro-level phenomenon, they are less experienced with micro- level
90
researchers’ tools and perspectives (Bray & Thomas, 1995). On the other hand, the micro context often ends up fulfilling a normative function, despite being seen as outside of macro- level normative isomorphism. Each of these levels depends on the other one.
This explains the selection of the vertical case study to be the overall paradigm of the current study. By principally drawing on this research paradigm, this approach means treating the research problem as a complex one with several sites by not by only focusing on local actors and relations, but by seeing it as the result of different intertwined relations and networks at the global and local levels (Vavrus & Bartlett, 2006).