World culture theory

In the 1970s and 1980s, world culture theory arose at Stanford University under John W.

Meyer as a framework for understanding the global diffusion of schools (Meyer, 1971, 1977;

with Brian Rowan (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). This theory proposes that educational diffusion came about due to the current world trends and tendencies impacting all states globally, rather than due to local or national political, economic, and social factors (Meyer et al. 1977). The concept known as world culture theory or world polity perspective belongs to the varied field of new-institutional theory. These cultural foundations are thought to be universal and to impact

78

organizations of various fields and locations similarly. Comparable rationalized elements can be observed increasingly in religious and governmental institutions, universities, and private businesses.

World culture theory stresses the role of globalization in national educational policies and structures formation, as a result of the diffusion process for educational models and ideas.

This theory has invited researchers to explain these global changes by studying the role of global institutions and international organizations in the diffusion process of educational models. Meyer and Rowan (1977) explained, particularly from a macro perspective, the isomorphism in the organizational structure as a result of legitimacy-seeking in modern society;

that is, the organization has to comply with the requirements of the external rationalized myths. Meyer and Rowan (1977) define myths as commonly agreed upon cultural ideals that prescribe acceptable behavior for individuals as well as for larger groups and institutions based on models and scripts. The world culture theory sees these myths as providing models and ideas for society and citizen, thus fulfilling an important societal function and legitimizing local society in line with global society’s orientation.

According to this theory, the world society, including international organizations and models, has historically been built up to institutionalize cultural models and perpetuate a global culture (Schofer, Hironaka, Frank, & Longhofer, 2012). Moreover, one of Meyer’s students, Robert Arnove, promoted using world-systems analysis as an essential basis for discerning and interpreting worldwide educational trends and studying the top-down process of policy diffusion, which carries global models and discourses to the nation-state(Arnove, 1980).

The education sector is considered to be a vital means for offering the tools for a nation to achieve progress and justice in legitimated and scripted patterns. In light of how strongly the world education culture has established itself, all kinds of principles, policies, and expertise are closely linked to this culture (Meyer & Ramirez, 2012). On the other hand, the policies that are well known internationally as a result of their global adoption tend to be more favorably selected by the policy decision makers (Steiner-Khamsi, 2004).

The world culture theory has been used in two different areas of research: studying and determining the globalized models and trends in education and exploring how the local

79

meanings for the global norms are divergent (see Anderson-Levitt, 2003; Schriewer 2011;

Steiner-Khamsi 2004). The world culture offers a framework for scholarship for explaining how certain so-called “global norms” spread worldwide. Bray and Thomas (1995) also emphasize that when a study applies multi-level analysis it provides “complete and balanced understanding” of the subject of study. Along the same lines, Schriewer (2000) contends that the basic premises of world culture are both essentially valid, and that a more complete picture of education phenomena could be created by combining insights about the massive international nature of globalization with observations on micro-level conflicts and resistance.

The current study based on world culture theory explores in one aspect how the macro-structures of the supranational can shape the socio-political environment of quality assurance and accreditation policy at the national level both in the phases of adoption and implementation. It also examines how local conditions and factors exert effects at each level. As Zucker (1977) this research will apply macro-level institutionalism in studding the world society identifying the common norms and similar structures of the quality assurance and accreditation practices and on the other hand, the research by applying the micro-level institutionalism seeks to detect the different parallel reaction made by two meso- micro contexts to these global trends which led to the divers isomorphism.

In general, from a new institutionalist perspective, an institutional environment or social context is given more attention than the individual social actors in shaping actions or changes (Schofer et al, 2012). New institutionalism clarifies the contributions of the external environment in structuring social organization. The external environment does this by offering organizational patterns that include formal structures and policies, thus leading to more legitimacy for the organization in the local and global context (Powell & Bromley, 2013). It sees local environments as having indirect influence on the process of modeling their educational organizations. The new-institutional perspective stresses that the environment influences the conceptualization of an organization (rules, behavior, structures, routines, myths, and taken-for-granted assumptions), which leads to greater uniformity within educational systems worldwide (Baker & LeTendre, 2005). It also continues to influence reforms to adopt new

80

policies and programs and apply new procedures (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991; Meyer & Rowan, 1977).

On the other hand, the culture of the particular context represented in its norms, expectations, and practices still plays a role in keeping a certain level of variation on both a micro-level and meso-level. In other words, even though Western countries such as Germany and non-Western countries such as Saudi Arabia are all able to structure their education policy and system in line with a Western model, they still maintain important aspects of their own respective culture.