Regulating sociology: Threshold learning outcomes and institutional isomorphism

Institutional isomorphism and global higher education

Simon Marginson has characterised higher education as a:

complex combination of (1) global flows and networks of words and ideas, knowledge, finance, and inter-institution dealings; with (2) national higher education systems shaped by history, law, policy and funding; and (3) individual institutions operating at the same time locally, nationally and globally. (2006: 1)

Thus, higher education can be thought of as a global organisational field, a collection of organisations that together constitute ‘a recognised area of institutional life’ and includes ‘key suppliers, resource and product consumers, regulatory agencies, and other organisations that produce similar services or products’ (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983: 148). The global higher education field includes higher education providers, students, academic discipline groups and regulators and has national sub-fields, comprising the body of higher education institutions within a particular nation. It has regulatory structures, consumer protection (quality assurance) policies and standards which are being mirrored around the world.

Sociology, also a global organisational field, is a (primarily) university-based research discipline with undergraduate and postgraduate teaching programs. It is located within the higher education context, but its field is also separate from the broader higher education field, with its own infrastructure through its national and international associations. The global higher education industry is concerned with the education of students and research and teaching practices of staff, among other things. Sociology is primarily concerned with sociological research and, to a lesser extent, teaching, and includes sociologists working outside of academia as well as academics. The fields of sociology and higher education intersect although higher education is, obviously, much broader than sociology.

Looking at sociology and higher education as intersecting organisational fields enables us to consider the parameters of each and how they shape each other. Sociology and other disciplines operate largely within higher education, where they also compete with each other. For sociology to continue to exist it must continually reinforce its legitimacy and value to students, parents, employers and future staff. Having a strong global profile as a discipline, then, is in the interest of sociology.

Institutional isomorphism is a process whereby organisations come to appear and behave in a similar fashion (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Duina, 2011). DiMaggio and Powell (1983) argue that once an organisational field such as sociology or higher education is established, homogenisation and isomorphism become the norm across the field. They identify three types of institutional isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983): mimetic isomorphism, coercive isomorphism and normative isomorphism.

Mimetic isomorphism occurs when there is an uncertain environment and organisations look to each other to determine how best to act. For example, a new organisation will look to more established and successful organisations for well trampled paths to follow. Isomorphism occurs coercively when there is pressure on an organisation from other organisations upon which it is dependent or when cultural pressures are placed on an organisation to conform. Coercive isomorphism occurs where there is a power imbalance. It is driven by the more powerful party which requires subordinate institutions to become isomorphic or similar. A government mandate is an example of this type of isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Normative isomorphism results from the pressures of professionalisation. This type of isomorphism comes about through trying to establish legitimacy for a profession and is associated with developing organisational norms and networks. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) note that the three types of isomorphism are not mutually exclusive. While they can operate independently, they can also interact. The precise ways in which they interact are contingent, dependent on the specific context under consideration and requiring empirical examination.

Examining isomorphic processes in higher education and sociology can help to explain why and how a discipline can come to be similar around the world. Looking at isomorphic processes brings to the fore issues of power, including identification of who is able to make decisions about institutional change, and how those changes advantage and disadvantage different stakeholders. Perhaps counter-intuitively, identifying and highlighting organisational isomorphism can lead to resistance and hence encourage diversity (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).

The standardisation of global higher education

An emerging norm in global higher education is the importance of standardisation of the degrees offered (e.g. bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees). The standardisation follows the lead of the Euro-American metropole. Marginson (2006) argues that this is due to the hierarchy of the global higher education market which favours elite US and UK universities. This isomorphism has both benefits and potential pitfalls for universities and academic disciplines. Benefits include the portability of qualifications, so that, for example, a degree earned in Italy can be recognised in Australia, and increased opportunities for cross-national research collaborations as researchers are proficient in similar research methods and in knowledge of similar theoretical and analytic frameworks. Potential negative outcomes include a reduction in the types of qualifications that are viewed as legitimate. Also possibly at risk are local innovations in both research and teaching. Isomorphism may result in pressures to conform, which make innovation in teaching and research difficult to achieve.

An example of how the standardisation of degrees has led to isomorphism is the ongoing Bologna process which has, since 1998, attempted to develop a common higher education framework across Europe so that qualifications are of similar quality and recognisable across borders (European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, 2005). The stated rationale of the Bologna process was that standardisation would lead to greater student, graduate and staff mobility (European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, 2005). Embedded in the process was the idea that standardisation was positive for the organisational field and would improve higher education.

Related to this drive to standardisation is the idea that educational quality is important and should be ensured, indicating the presence of a separate but related global norm around quality assurance. This idea emerges from the intersection of the interests of the higher education system (to attract and retain good students), and pressure from potential students and their families, and from governments and society more generally, who consider education to be an important aspect of society. Quality assurance processes aim to protect individual students and, more broadly, the global higher education field by ensuring that degrees, which are now portable, meet minimum standards. Moves to require measurable outcome standards have become institutionalised; the need for quality assurance is not questioned, and outcome standards are a vehicle for ensuring that it occurs.

The Bologna process has identified qualifications frameworks as one of the elements to be focused on in its next phase (see European Commission, n.d.). Some locales have already developed outcome standards, notably Great Britain where the UK Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) has developed benchmark standards for graduates in numerous discipline areas including sociology (see www.qaa.ac.uk). In the United States, the US National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA) was established in 2008 for a similar purpose. These international quality assurance efforts were explicitly referenced in the Australian documentation surrounding the development of Australian discipline-based TLOs (see ALTC, 2010a).

The Australian context

The need for measurable quality assurance standards in Australian higher education reflects its participation in the global higher education field and the need to comply with its norms. Led by the federal government, Australian higher education institutions will now be required to be able to show that their graduates meet the minimum outcome standards put forward in the AQF (Australian Qualifications Framework Council, 2013).

To supplement the AQF, discipline-specific TLOs have been and are being developed. While the AQF graduate attributes are broad, the TLOs reflect the discipline-specific knowledge, skills and abilities that students must achieve in their degrees. TLOs are measurable outcomes and universities will be audited by TEQSA to ensure that their graduates meet them.

In its documents, the ALTC, the government body which developed and led the quality assurance standards process, argued that TLOs were needed because of ‘Brand Australia’ and its intersection with global trends (ALTC, 2010b). ‘Brand Australia’ is Australia’s sub-field within the global higher education organisational field (see Marginson, 2004 for a discussion of Australia’s place in the global higher education market). Standardisation processes, in part, aim to protect Australia’s reputation as a provider of high-quality tertiary education and as a destination for international students. In recent years there has been in increase in the number and types of students, higher education providers and modes of provision in Australia. These increases have been one factor that has led to the development of regulations to ensure that educational quality is maintained (ALTC, 2010b).

Australian sociology and its TLOs

Sociology as a discipline seeks to systematically examine and explain the social world. The global field of sociology is dominated by European and North American sociology, or the sociology of the metropole (Connell, 2005). This metropolitan sociology is centred around what Connell terms the ‘professional ritual’ of invoking the ‘cult of sociological classics’, particularly the theories of Marx, Weber and Durkheim (Connell, 2005: 4). The importance of the classics in sociology is one of its norms. Another is the importance of using systematic, usually empirical, research methods to examine the social world. These two norms, the importance of theory (particularly classic social theory) and the importance of empirical research methods, are represented and reinforced in leading journals and textbooks and characterise the global field of sociology (see Harley, 2012 for a discussion of disciplinary coherence). Sociology is not organised around standardisation. However, the dominance of global sociology by the metropole means that sociology, as a global field itself, is rather standardised in its approaches.

Sociology in Australia emerged slowly. It was not established as a discipline in any Australian university until the University of New South Wales opened its department in 1959 (Harley, 2005). As Harley found in her analysis of the establishment of Australian sociology, it emerged out of metropolitan concerns and struggled to become institutionalised (Harley, 2012). Connell (2005) argues that there have been few purely Australian contributions to social theory because of its position vis-a-vis the metropole. Australian sociologists in the mid-20th century followed the norms of the metropole, importing both its theory and methods (Connell, 2005). So when we think of an Australian sociology, we are already imagining one that is isomorphic with metropolitan, particularly North American and British, sociology. Indeed, in this article I am drawing on the metropolitan theory of new institutionalism.

The broader institutional environment of Australian higher education encourages this type of disciplinary isomorphism. Australian universities and their academics are rewarded for international engagement in the form of publishing in international outlets and collaborating with international researchers. For Australian sociologists this means: ‘conforming to metropolitan styles, addressing metropolitan literatures, and offering credible interventions in metropolitan debates’ (Connell, 2005: 20). This leaves little space for a particularly Australian sociology. It also has a tendency to mean that international collaborators with certain institutions or nations are more highly valued than others, and that particular types of sociology are valued more than others.

The TLOs

As the peak body for sociology in Australia, TASA developed the TLOs for sociology. I was asked by the TASA Executive to chair the process and in so doing make sure that it met the requirements put forward by the ALTC. TASA was provided by the ALTC with a virtual pack of documents that outlined the recommended process for developing TLOs and described the intended outcomes (see ALTC, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2010d). The process of developing the sociology TLOs is described in Sociology: Threshold Learning Outcomes (TASA, 2012).

Discipline peak bodies were expected to do three things: look at the AQF, ‘Negotiate national agreement on 4–6 threshold learning outcomes for discipline/degree major/program’, and engage with international and local experts in developing the outcomes (ALTC, 2010d). They were asked to pull together Discipline Reference Groups comprised of experts in the field and other key stakeholders. The Discipline Reference Group was to identify draft TLOs and oversee a broad consultation process to ensure that the final TLOs met the needs of the discipline.

The TASA Discipline Reference Group included 11 members, 9 representing universities from around Australia, 1 international academic and 1 industry representative. It was established in mid 2011 and met five times. The Discipline Reference Group drafted the TLOs, responded to feedback from the consultation process and launched the final TLOs in November 2012. The TLOs are to be regularly reviewed by TASA.

The process of developing the TLOs had two key elements. First, the Discipline Reference Group reviewed the guidelines and, as suggested, searched for existing standards developed for sociology internationally. This search resulted in the identification of the British standards developed by the British Sociological Association (Sociology 2007, 2007) as the only outcome standards we could locate developed specifically for sociology. The British standards were reviewed by the Discipline Reference Group along with standards developed by other Australian disciplines, including history and geography. Second, the Discipline Reference Group held a lengthy discussion about what we felt sociology graduates should know. This was fundamentally a discussion and debate about the nature of sociology as a particular discipline; what sociology is and therefore what types of things sociology graduates should know. The debates centred around theory and research methods, with a particular focus on whether both should be prescribed and normalised through the TLOs. This process was itself a normative one. We were developing standards for all sociology graduates that will necessarily shape all Australian sociology teaching programs. Universities will be expected to incorporate the outcomes specified by the TLOs and provide evidence that they are being achieved.

While Australian sociology is part of global metropolitan sociology, it is also very broad, both at the topic and methods levels. This breadth is evident when looking at the range of sociology subjects offered across Australia (Marshall et al., 2009) and through a perusal of research thematic groups within TASA. The Discipline Reference Group wanted TLOs that would foster that breadth and conform to the AQF while remaining specifically sociological. It was also cognizant of Connell’s (2005) critique of Australian sociology’s relationship with the metropole and did not want to prescribe a particular sociology. Feedback from the Australian sociological community and discussion within the Discipline Reference Group was diverse and thorough. Meetings were held to elicit comments, and feedback was also sought through email. The majority of feedback was provided by higher education institutions and their staff, although feedback from sociologists working outside of academia was also received. Most comments supported the inclusion of TLOs for sociological theory and methods and their application.

The Discipline Reference Group discussed the possibility that specifying TLOs could limit the types of sociology taught. Some of the feedback received raised concerns that requiring that students understand research methods would privilege methods over theory. In response, a conscious decision was made by the Discipline Reference Group not to specify which theories or methods should be taught. This would enable undergraduate sociology programs to maintain (or develop) the diversity of their approaches while also recognising the centrality of both theory and methods to the discipline.

The TLOs that were adopted are shown in Table 1. They represent an attempt to identify the characteristics of a well-trained sociologist. The TLOs are organised in three domains: Knowledge and Understanding; Skills; and Engagement. TLOs 1 and 3 require a student to develop a broad understanding of sociology as a discipline concerned with the social world. They arguably do not prescribe that students learn a particular theoretical or methodological approach.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1:

The Australian TLOs for sociology

Domain	TLO
Knowledge and understanding	Demonstrate a sociological understanding of the nature of social relationships and institutions; patterns of social diversity and inequality; and processes that underpin social change and stability. Demonstrate knowledge of sociology as an academic discipline in its social, historical and world context, including its principal concepts and theories. Demonstrate an understanding of research processes in sociology including design, methodology and methods, ethics, analysis, interpretation, and the diversity of approaches to research. Demonstrate an ability to apply sociological theories, concepts and evidence to sociological questions. Demonstrate an ability to critically review, analyse, summarise and synthesise sociological scholarship including research using quantitative and qualitative data. Demonstrate an ability to develop arguments by using evidence, evaluating competing explanations, and drawing conclusions. Demonstrate an ability to communicate sociological ideas, principles and knowledge to specialist and non-specialist audiences using appropriate formats.
Skills
Engagement

Source: TASA (2012).

The need for students to learn about key social theories (TLO 2) is one of global sociology’s norms and implicitly contributes to the influence of the metropole. However, TLO 2 does not specify which key concepts and theories are required. That is up to the individual department to determine. TLO 4 is about the application of theory and is not restricted in its approach.

TLOs 5 and 6 attempt to ensure that sociology graduates are aware of (and critical consumers of) a range of qualitative and quantitative research methods. They codify that sociology is an empirical discipline and that research findings should be based on particular forms of empirical evidence. The TLOs are broad enough that a department could tailor its approach toward training, but they do require engagement with both qualitative and quantitative research methods.

Australian sociology is already part of the global metropole, and with the TLOs that relationship continues. However the TASA Discipline Reference Group did attempt in the TLOs not to preclude the emergence of a specific Australian sociology while still aligning the content with global norms. The Reference Group’s wording of the TLOs was specifically attempting to counter isomorphism, although it was not discussed in those terms. The TLOs were intentionally broad enough for the diversity of sociological theories and research practices to be included even while the principle that all students should learn about theory and methods was maintained.

Isomorphic processes

All three types of isomorphism were involved in the development of the sociology TLOs. First was the coercive isomorphism associated with the broader standardisation of higher education, a global project that is leading higher education systems around the world to become similar. Australia is an early adherent to the emerging global norm that academic disciplines should be standardised. The Australian government initiative that disciplines must develop TLOs contributed to this project of normalising what each discipline looks like on a global scale by both including generic skills and specifying the types of discipline-specific knowledge, skills and abilities that graduates should develop over their course of study. This was achieved in part via the requirement that the TLOs must conform to the Australian guidelines put forward in the AQF (Australian Qualifications Framework Council, 2013). While the AQF guidelines are generic enough to apply to any graduates, they do require that graduates have particular knowledge, skills and abilities, such as (for a bachelor level graduate) demonstrating in-depth knowledge of a discipline, and the ability to analyse information and identify solutions to problems, and engage in self-directed learning (Australian Qualifications Framework Council, 2013).

As long as the TLOs conformed to these very broad outcomes, the ways that they did so could be discipline-specific. So a sociology graduate’s skills, abilities and knowledge should be specific to sociology. However the need to conform to the AQF criteria applies to all disciplines, which in turn leads to degrees that are broadly similar, so a bachelor’s degree in sociology has outcomes that are congruent with other disciplines. This contributes to a broader homogenisation of higher education in Australia, part of the global standardisation process. The requirement that the TLOs align with the AQF can be understood as a form of coercive isomorphism; the alignment is required by government regulation and the discipline must conform.

The types of generic attributes in the sociology TLOs included: critical thinking skills, problem-solving skills and communication skills. We might argue, as the AQF does, that these attributes are and always have been important aspects of a university education. Indeed, they are likely to be included already in undergraduate degrees such as sociology. The TLO process, though, codified these skills in sociology and other degrees. This codification will be furthered through the AQF/TEQSA review process.

The requirement that local TLOs refer to international benchmarks is also arguably a form of coercive isomorphism. While there was no requirement that the local standards match up with international ones, embedded in this requirement is the implicit expectation that the local standards would at least align with the global ones (a form of mimetic isomorphism), and where they did not there should be a solid reason. Underlying this is the notion that the international benchmarks are good and appropriate. The key international reference point for the sociology TLOs was the British outcome statements for sociology (Sociology 2007, 2007). The Chair of the British National Benchmark Panel in Sociology, which developed the British benchmark statements, Professor Rob Mears, was a member of the TASA Discipline Reference Group and provided advice about both the development and consultation processes and the content of the actual TLOs themselves. Discipline Reference Group members used the British benchmark statements as a base from which to build the Australian TLOs. In this regard, differences between Australian and British sociology and society were downplayed.

As part of the process of developing the draft TLOs, the Discipline Reference Group looked at TLOs previously developed by other Australian disciplines including geography, history and the creative arts. While the content of the other disciplines’ TLOs was specific to those disciplines, the type of wording used provided guidance for the sociology TLOs, particularly in terms of how specific the sociology TLOs could be. This can be viewed as a type of mimetic isomorphism. The sociology TLOs were at a similar level of specificity as other disciplines’ TLOs. While this benchmarking against AQF and other disciplines was not necessarily an isomorphic process for sociology as a discipline, it aligned sociology with the broader higher education standardisation project. Generic communication, critical thinking and problem-solving skills also become a formal part of sociology; a competent sociologist is able to communicate, problem solve and think critically, just like a competent geographer, chemist or literary theorist.

The third isomorphic process was the discipline-specific process of determining what constituted the TLOs. It is to this normative element that I will now turn. Normative isomorphism involves standardisation across a field. According to DiMaggio and Powell (1983), normative isomorphism results from moves towards professionalisation. Although sociology is already a legitimate discipline, it is arguably not as prestigious as some other disciplines, particularly in Australia. The development of threshold standards could possibly increase its profile in a positive way by highlighting its strengths, potentially raising its profile for a range of audiences including prospective students and parents, employers and industry.

Identifying TLOs homogenises and normalises what constitutes sociology. The Discipline Reference Group embedded the normative values that sociology should include both social theory and sociological research methods in the Australian TLOs. Sociological training now requires students to be competent in both theory and methods, making it incumbent upon sociology departments to teach both. This represents a shift from an informal understanding that such training is appropriate to a formal agreement that these attributes are what defines a sociology graduate.

The TLOs and the teaching of sociology in Australia

There are consequences associated with the requirement for such quality assurance standards. One consequence is a possible narrowing of a discipline; new ideas and approaches may be marginalised. Sociology is a broad church in terms of its topical breadth and methodological approaches. It is a field characterised by debate, even about its most fundamental principles. Nevertheless, western sociology has some shared values, including the importance of social theory and sound research methods.

Connell (2007) has criticised western sociology for already being too narrow with its focus on classic social theory in the form of Marx, Weber and Durkheim. She argues that western sociologists should be looking to the south for progressive and helpful theories. Will instituting threshold outcomes further solidify the hold that the big three have on contemporary social theory? Engaging with questions of isomorphism provides a means of bringing such issues to the surface and of critically engaging with them. At this point, it is unclear whether having TLOs will serve to limit Australian sociology, a sociology which is already part of the metropole. The TLOs themselves do not prescribe the types of theory and methods taught. It would be interesting to examine the content of Australian sociology courses to see how isomorphic they already are (see Marshall et al., 2009) and whether that changes in the future now that they are being regulated more closely by the TLOs.

The issue of institutional isomorphism in sociology suggests that, as part of a global institution, sociology needs to consider its theoretical and methodological scope. It also suggests that sociologists need to critically engage with issues around what sociology is and does, maintaining loose theoretical and methodological boundaries while also maintaining a strong disciplinary identity. Contests from other related disciplines mean that if sociologists are to ensure their continued relevance, there is a need to engage proactively with regulatory activities.

Conclusion

The isomorphism that occurred via the TLO development process was primarily a normative one, but with both coercive and mimetic elements. The coercive element was the government imperative, embedded in the guidelines, that the TLOs refer to both the AQF and international benchmarks. The Discipline Reference Group’s engagement with other (non-sociology) Australian TLOs and the British outcome statements had a mimetic element; TASA looked to Great Britain and other disciplines for guidelines on how to behave. While the Australian TLOs are fewer in number and somewhat different from the British outcome statements, they embody similar values about the nature of sociology, suggesting that the mimetic process was also a normative one.

The field of Australian sociology intersected with the broader higher education field through the process of developing the TLOs for sociology. The process of developing the TLOs further reinforced metropolitan sociology’s norms of the importance of theory and methods in the field of sociology. In Australia, these norms are now embedded in the training of sociology students and tied to measures of quality assurance in higher education. While individual universities can elect to teach theory and methods in their own ways, the norms that theory is about classic theorists and that methods are empirical are likely to be further embedded in the institution of Australian sociology.

The norms that higher education must be standardised and that sociology must include theory and methods mutually reinforce each other through the process of developing, owning and maintaining TLOs. However, although the TLOs potentially reinforce the sociology of the metropole, individual sociology departments have the scope to engage with metropolitan sociology from a critical perspective. The TLOs specify that students should be aware of the standard disciplinary norms, not that they must conform to them.

The TLOs are already shaping Australian sociology. I have received positive feedback from colleagues at other universities who have used the TLOs to respond to their own institutions’ AQF audits of their courses. This anecdotal evidence suggests that having TLOs puts sociology in a strong position relative to university administration, enabling departments to justify the types and numbers of subjects taught in sociology programs. It appears, then, that the regulatory effort to standardise might result in the unexpected outcome that rather than standardisation occurring, sociology departments use the regulations to reinforce existing practices. This is a positive outcome where the regulation supports practice rather than constrains it.

Institutional isomorphism is the result of these globally occurring processes of standardisation and quality control. In the case of Australian sociology, a discipline already isomorphic with global metropolitan sociology, the TLOs reinforce the isomorphism. They also increase the attributes that sociology graduates share with other graduates, making the various disciplines potentially less distinct than they might otherwise have been. However the standardisation of sociology also provides a pathway to increased prestige and legitimacy for the discipline as the sharing of norms across an organisational field tends to lead to legitimacy and enhance a field’s survival prospects (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). This is a potentially positive outcome for sociology from these isomorphic processes.