{"id":24,"date":"2017-06-03T12:46:06","date_gmt":"2017-06-03T19:46:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/webspace.royalroads.ca\/sgrundy\/?p=24"},"modified":"2017-06-14T11:11:39","modified_gmt":"2017-06-14T18:11:39","slug":"mimetic-and-normative-isomorphism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/webspace.royalroads.ca\/sgrundy\/mimetic-and-normative-isomorphism\/","title":{"rendered":"Mimetic and Normative Isomorphism"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
University administrators, faculty and staff?<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

A complicated academic title about which plenty that has been written in organizational and educational theory books and journals but a relatively simple concept when applied to post-secondary institutions. Simply put, it is the tendency of institutions to try to look alike over time and model themselves on the perceived segment leader. It can be led by the faculty (normative) or the administration (mimetic) – at least this is my loose interpretation. So we all want to be Harvard. My experience tells me that this is a powerful force especially with our predisposition to league tables or rankings. It is clear (maybe) that the best students go to the top ranked universities and wouldn’t we all like to teach those students. A previous president of mine called this “the homing instinct” and his advice was to resist it at all costs.<\/p>\n

So is the homing instinct a valid notion about what a university should be or a complete absence of the recognition of today’s realities?\u00a0I would argue the latter, certainly for most institutions. In fact, it has to be blindingly obvious that:<\/p>\n