Advertisement

Social Science Disciplines in Complex Development Contexts—The Professional Dimension of Reputation Management

  • Tom Christensen
  • Lars Klemsdal
Chapter
Part of the Public Sector Organizations book series (PSO)

Abstract

The chapter addresses the dynamics of reputation management at the operational level of universities, specifically the level of local organization of disciplines within departments. Through a comparative historical study of the political science and sociology departments, respectively, at the University of Oslo, covering a period of approximately 50 years (1965–2016), we disclose changing concerns and audiences between the local disciplines as well as within them when it comes to managing their professional reputation. We find that the dynamics of reputation management at the local operational level of university disciplines are contingent upon their local institutional environment, but also their disciplinary cultural and cognitive traits. However, we also find that the effect of the disciplinary cultural and cognitive traits fades in favor of the local institutional environment and specifically the institutionalized expectations of presenting themselves as organizations, as we move historically from the 1965–2016.

Keywords

Cultural and symbolic explanations Institutional theory Professional reputation management Reputation management at the operational level University disciplines 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank S. Gabriela Gavrila and Lars Erik Kjekshus for valuable comments to a late draft of the chapter.

References

  1. Abbott, A. (1993). The Sociology of Work and Occupations. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 187–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aubert, V. (1985). Om metoder og teori i sosiologien [About Methods and Theory in Sociology]. In V. Aubert (Ed.), Det skjulte samfunn [The Hidden Society]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  3. Bagge, S. (1996). Samfunnsvitenskapenes historie [The History of the Social Sciences]. In Universitetet i Bergens historie [The History of the University of Bergen], No. 2. Bergen: University of Bergen.Google Scholar
  4. Barnes, B. (1974). Scientific Knowledge and Sociological Theory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  5. Becher, T. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bell, D. (1999). The Coming of Post-Industrial Society. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  7. Bergh, T., & Hanisch, T. J. (1984). Vitenskap og politikk. Linjer i norsk sosialøkonomi gjennom 150 år [Science and Politics. Development Features in Norwegian National Economy During 150 Years]. Oslo: Aschehoug.Google Scholar
  8. Bleiklie, I. (Ed.) (1996). Kunnskap og Makt. Norsk høyere utdanning i endring [Knowledge and Power. Changes in Norwegian Higher Education], LOS Series. Oslo: Tano Aschehoug.Google Scholar
  9. Blume, S. S. (1985). After the Darkest Hour. Integrity and Engagement in the Development of University Research. In B. Wittrock & A. Elzinga (Eds.), The University Research System. The Public Policies of the Home of Scientists. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
  10. Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo Academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  11. Boys, C. J., Brennan, J., Henkel, M., Kirkland, J., Kogan, M., & Youll, P. (1988). Higher Education and the Preparation for Work. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  12. Carpenter, D. (2010). Reputation and Power: Organizational Image and Pharmaceutical Regulation at the FDA. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Carpenter, D., & Krause, G. A. (2012). Reputation and Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 72(1), 26–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Christensen, T. (2011). University Governance Reforms: Potential Problems of More Autonomy? Higher Education, 62(4), 503–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Christensen, T., & Gornitzka, Å. (2017). Reputation Management in Complex Environments. A Comparative Study of University Organizations. Higher Education Policy, 30, 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Christensen, T., Lægreid, P., Roness, P. G., & Røvik, K. A. (2007). Organization Theory and the Public Sector. Instrument, Culture and Myth. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Department of Political Science. (1965). Innstilling om innføring av embetseksamen i statsvitenskap. 26/11-1965. In SV-fakultetet v/ UiOs arkiv. Diverse: Om embetseksamen III 1948–75. Oslo The Norwegian State Archive.Google Scholar
  19. Department of Sociology. (1965). Innstilling om embetseksamen i sosiologi ved UiO. 2/12-1965. In SV-fakultetet v/ UiOs arkiv. Diverse: Om embetseksamen II 1958–68. Oslo: The Norwegian State Archive.Google Scholar
  20. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Engelstad, F. (1996). Norsk sosiologi siden 1969: problemer og utfordringer [Norwegian Sociology Since 1969: Problems and Challenges]. Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning, 37(2), 224–252.Google Scholar
  22. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., & Scott, P. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  24. Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Achor Books.Google Scholar
  25. Gouldner, A. W. (1970). The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. New York and London: Basic Books Inc.Google Scholar
  26. Kalleberg, R. (1994). Et fag mellom tradisjon og visjon. Institutt for sosiologi 1963–1993 [A Discipline Between Tradition and Vision]. In SV-fakultetet ved Universitetet i Oslo 1963–1993 [Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Oslo, 1963–1993], Report 13. Oslo: Department of Sociology, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  27. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar
  28. Klemsdal, L. (2001a). Visjoner og praksis: en studie av studiereformer i sosiologi og stats-vitenskap ved UiO, 1964–1992 [Vision and Practice: A Study of Educational Reforms in Sociology and Political Science]. Oslo: University of Oslo, Forum for universitetshistorie.Google Scholar
  29. Klemsdal, L. (2001b). Visjoner og praksis: Da sosiologi skulle bli profesjonsstudium i Norge [Vision and Practice: When Sociology Should Be a Professional Education in Norway]. Sosiologisk tidsskrift, 10(1), 48–74.Google Scholar
  30. Klemsdal, L. (2013). From Bureaucracy to Learning Organization: Critical Minimum Specification Design as Space for Sensemaking. Systematic Practice and Action Research, 26(1), 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kyvik, S., & Skoie, H. (1982). Recent Trends in Norwegian Higher Education. European Journal of Education, 17(2), 183–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Merton, R. K. (1968). On Sociological Theories of the Middle Range. In R. K. Merton (Ed.), Social Theory and Social Structure (pp. 39–72). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  33. Ministry of Education. (1960). White Paper on the Expansion of the Universities and Colleges in Norway from the Appointed University and College Committee (Also Called the Kleppe-Committee). Oslo: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  34. Mjøset, L. (1991). Kontroverser i norsk sosiologi [Controversies in Norwegian Sociology]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  35. Parsons, T., & Platt, G. M. (1973). The American University. Cambride, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pavalko, R. M. (1971). Sociology of Occupations and Professions. Illinois: F. E Peacock Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  37. Ramirez, F. O. (2006). The Rationalization of the University. In M.-L. Dejelic & K. Sahlin-Anderson (Eds.), Transnational Governance: Institutional Dynamics of Regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rokkan, S. (1972). Statsvitenskap og political science. In Nordisk håndbok i Bibliotek-kunnskap. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  39. Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the Grass Roots. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  40. Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in Administration. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  41. Thue, F. W. (1997). Statsvitenskapen 50 år - et kapittel av norsk samfunnsvitenskaps historie [Political Science 50 Years—A Chapter of the History of Social Sciences]. Norsk statsvitenskapelig tidsskrift, 3(13), 187–214.Google Scholar
  42. Wæraas, A., & Maor, M. (2015). Understanding Organizational Reputation in a Public Sector Context. In A. Wæraas & M. Maor (Eds.), Organizational Reputation in the Public Sector. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Weick, K. E. (1976, March). Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
  44. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Whitley, R. (1984). The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.Department of Sociology and Human GeographyUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations