Mike Zapp

How to Construct an Organizational Field: Empirical Educational Research in Germany, 1995-2015.

Over the past two decades, educational research in Germany has undergone unprecedented changes. Following large-scale assessments such as the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), and a political interest in evidence-based policy-making, quality assessment and internationalization, direct involvement of national decision-makers has led to the establishment of new organizations, programs, funding structures, professorships, and training programs. Thus, a markedly different educational research field has emerged in contrast to the traditional philosophy-rooted, hermeneutics-trained and humanities-based German pedagogy or educational science. Instead, the new paradigm refers to itself as empirical educational research (EER). Thus, we trace institutionalization processes of EER from 1995 through the foundation of the new Empirical Educational Research Association (GEBF), which rivals the long-standing German Educational Research Association (DGfE). Official documents shed light on policymakers’ and funding agencies’ motivations and rationales as they successfully engage in building new research infrastructure. Expert interviews conducted with (inter)national representatives illuminate perceptions of crucial actors involved in the organizational field’s institutionalization. What are the causes and consequences of the emergent EER field in Germany? Extending the neoinstitutionalist organizational field literature, particularly about incipient stages of such fields, we show that a new division of labor transcends national and international as well as governmental and non-governmental borders.

The Diffusion of Educational Ideas among International Organizations: An Event History Analysis of Lifelong Learning, 1990–2013

This article investigates the precipitants of the diffusion of lifelong learning among 88 governmental and nongovernmental international organizations from 1990 to 2013 within an event history framework. Research on the diffusion of educational ideas among and within international organizations usually uses small-n approaches. This work looks at the large-scale interorganizational diffusion of lifelong learning, an important concept that has until now only been analyzed at the national level where worldwide adoption has occurred around the millennium. This study identifies astonishingly rapid and wide contagious diffusion of lifelong learning originating in core large, global, and Northern organizations with a long history before spreading to smaller, regional, more peripheral and younger ones. Recently, established organizations enter a world rife with legitimized educational models ready to be adopted. This article argues that the massive interest in lifelong learning needs to be explained by the highly institutionalized character of education and the hierarchical organization of the field around core and peripheral knowledge producers.

How Does Research Evaluation Impact Educational Research? Exploring Intended and Unintended Consequences of Research Assessment in the United Kingdom, 1986-2014.

Research evaluation systems in many countries aim to improve the quality of higher education. Among the first of such systems, the UK’s Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) dating from 1986 is now the Research Excellence Framework (REF). Highly institutionalised, it transforms research to be more accountable. While numerous studies describe the system’s effects at different levels, this longitudinal analysis examines the gradual institutionalisation and (un)intended consequences of the system from 1986 to 2014. First, we analyse historically RAE/REF’s rationale, formalisation, standardisation, and transparency, framing it as a strong research evaluation system. Second, we locate the multidisciplinary field of education, analysing the submission behaviour (staff, outputs, funding) of departments of education over time to find decreases in the number of academic staff whose research was submitted for peer review assessment; the research article as the preferred publication format; the rise of quantitative analysis; and a high and stable concentration of funding among a small number of departments. Policy instruments invoke varied responses, with such reactivity demonstrated by (1) the increasing submission selectivity in the number of staff whose publications were submitted for peer review as a form of reverse engineering, and (2) the rise of the research article as the preferred output as a self-fulfilling prophecy. The funding concentration demonstrates a largely intended consequence that exacerbates disparities between departments of education. These findings emphasise how research assessment impacts the structural organisation and cognitive development of educational research in the UK.

Two worlds of educational research? Comparing the levels, objects, disciplines, methodologies, and themes in educational research in the UK and Germany, 2005–2015:

Embedded in social worlds, education systems and research reflect distinct national trajectories. We compare two contrasting traditions of educational research (ER). Whereas British ER exhibits a multidisciplinary and pragmatic character, German ER reflects pedagogy and mainly humanities-based traditions. Yet, in both countries, policymakers’ growing demand for evidence in ER resulted in increased funding, specific research programs, and mandatory large-scale assessments. These have reshaped the field, suggesting more similar ER agendas. Based on a comprehensive original dataset of basic ER projects funded by the main grant-making agencies in both countries (2005–2015), we analyze five dimensions: levels, objects, disciplines, methodologies, and themes. We find epistemic drift, with partial convergence characterized by a multi-level focus, multidisciplinary approach, strongly empirical and quantitative methodology, and a premium on teaching and learning themes. The cases remain distinct in exploring systemic questions in a wider contextual frame (UK) or concentrating more narrowly on the individual learner (Germany).

Vorwort der Autoren

Dieses Buch soll in die vergleichende Verwaltungswissenschaft einführen, die in den letzten Jahren in dem Maße an Relevanz, ja Dringlichkeit gewonnen hat, wie die Europäische Integration und die Internationalisierung der öffentlichen Verwaltung fortschreiten. Dies wirft die Frage auf, ob und in welchem Umfang sich nationale Verwaltungen inzwischen angeglichen haben oder ihre historischen Prägungen und institutionellen Eigenheiten weiterbestehen. Angesichts internationaler Reformdiskurse und Modernisierungskonzepte bilden sich zudem neue Ländergruppierungen heraus, die spezifische gemeinsame Merkmale ihrer öffentlichen Verwaltungssysteme aufweisen und die die Verwaltungswissenschaft damit vor neue konzeptionelle und empirische Herausforderungen stellen. Die vorliegende Einführung in die vergleichende Verwaltungswissenschaft ist das erste Lehrbuch dieser Art in deutscher Sprache und möchte verschiedene Leserund Nutzerkreise erreichen. Es zielt zum einen darauf, als „Textbuch“ an den Hochschulen unter Lehrenden und Studierenden Interesse und Verwendung zu finden. Zum anderen soll ein Publikum angesprochen werden, das Politiker, Verwaltungspraktiker, Journalisten ebenso wie an komparativen Fragen der öffentlichen Verwaltung, Verwaltungspolitik und -reform allgemein Interessierte umfasst. Das Buch beruht auf langjährigen Forschungsarbeiten, die wir, teilweise in gemeinsamen Projekten, über unterschiedliche Aspekte des internationalen Verwaltungsvergleichs durchgeführt haben. Es stützt sich darüber hinaus auf Materialien, die wir in unseren Lehrveranstaltungen zur Einführung in verschiedene Themenbereiche der vergleichenden Verwaltungswissenschaft erarbeitet und eingesetzt haben. Der Text knüpft an eine frühere Fassung an, die in Lehrveranstaltungen der FernUniversität Hagen und der Deutschen Universität für Verwaltungswissenschaften Speyer einen ersten „Praxistest“ erlebte. Für die konstruktiven Hinweise der Studierenden möchten wir uns bedanken. Bei der Überarbeitung des nunmehr vorgelegten Textes waren uns außerdem die zahlreichen Anregungen und kritischen Kommentare überaus hilfreich, die wir von unseren Kolleginnen und Kollegen aus Deutschland und dem Ausland zur ersten Textfassung des Buches erhalten haben und für die wir an dieser Stelle – ohne namentliche Hervorhebungen – danken möchten. Unser besonderer Dank gilt ferner den Speyerer Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeitern, Philipp Richter, Tim Jäkel, Matthias Leowardi, Tobias Ritter, Christina Rostek, Tilman Graf, Una Dakovic, Marcus Dittrich, Michael Opitz und Leif Weinel, für ergänzende Recherchen, die Erstellung von Verzeichnissen sowie sonstige technische und formale Unterstützungsleistungen. Irene Wagener (Speyer) sei für ihre Sorgfalt gedankt, mit der sie die Bearbeitung des Manuskripts bis zur Druckvorlage vornahm. Verbleibende Fehler und Schwächen der Schrift haben selbstredend wir allein zu verantworten.