Summary. - ERIC

[Pages:29]DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 235 581

EA 016 142

AUTHOR TITLE

PUB DATE NOTE

PUB TYPE

Allison, Derek J. Public Schools and Weberian Bureaucracy: A Summary. Dec 81 29p.; Invited paper for members of the Canadian Society for the Study of Educational Administration. Speeches/Conference Papers (150) -- Viewpoints (120) -- Information Analyses (070)

EDRS PRICE DESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. *Bureaucracy; Classification; Comparative Analysis; *Educational Administration; Elementary Secondary Education; Literature Reviews; *Models; *Organizational Theories; Public Schools; *School Organization *Weber (Max)

ABSTRACT The author's dissertation, summarized in this

presentation, was primarily concerned with the question, "Are public schools like Max Weber's conceptualization of bureaucracy?" From a survey of the literature discussing the nature of organizations, a taxonomy of organizational facets was used, first, to identify and classify the features contained in the models of bureaucracy and of public schools and second, to compare the manner in which each of these organizational facets is manifest in the two models. A table summarizes the results of the detailed discussions of congruency between the models. Comparative analysis suggests that two contrasting cultures can be identified: the craft-like technology employed by teachers and the more bureaucratic process technology of systemwide management. The study concludes teat there does not appear to be a high degree of congruency between Weber's model of bureaucracy and the model of public schools utilized in the study. Implications of the study for school management and for future research are discussed. (MLF)

*********************************************wv************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document.

***********************************************************************

CO

LrN

Le

pr\

U.S. DEPARTP1ENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INTORMATION

CENTER (ERiCI This document :ias been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it.

Minor chanties have been made to improve reproduction quality.

point, of view or opinions stated in this docu merit do not necessarily represent official NIE post:inn

M"PAETREMRIISASLIOHNASTOBEREENPRGORDAUNCTEEDTHBIYS TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND WEBERIAN BUREAUCRACY: A SUMMARY

Derek J. Allison Faculty of Education The University of Western Ontario

December, 1981.

An invited paper for members of the Canadian Society for the Study of Educational Admini:Aration.

PREFACE

To be invited to write a paper on one's dissertation for circulation to members of the Canadian Association for the Study of Educational Administration is an undoubted honour. To actually write the paper is a demanding and debilitating task, or at least I have found it so. My first draft: was discussed and disemboweled at a departmental seminar. After a week or so of reintegrating my ego a second, radically altered but overlong, draft was produced. Two scholars I respect were asked to suggest revisions. When their independent acts of editorial surgery were placed side-by-side, little of the second draft remained. This then is my third attempt to produce the required paperY a paper which I naively believed could be produced with a minimum of effort!

. The problems I encountered with the first two drafts may be endemic to the situation. Most writers of dissertations seem to experience a post-completion depression. Once the bound copy is in their hands they lose interest in its contents. Other horizons beckon and the author may turn his back, temporarily or permanently, on the work that was once so all consuming. A paper or two on some interesting findings may be diligently turned out, but the totality of the dissertation itself appears to be something which is not willingly reembraced. It was certainly thus in my case. To attempt a precis of the dissertation seemed unbearably pedestrian and retrogressive. Consequently my first two attempts at this assignment attempted to go beyond the dissertation itself. I wanted to expound on the significance of the study and present some critical comments on the established approaches to studying the bureaucratic nature of schools. In short I attempted to till several new fields using the dissertation as a plough. This was much more interesting than traversing old ground, but it was also self indulgent and dysfunctional. I realize now that there is no escape from my duty, which is to produce a workmanlike summary of the dissertation. Any critical comment I may wish to offer will be more appropriately, and better, made elsewhere, as will attempts to break new ground. What follows is a straightforward, in places terse and at times undeniably rough, summary of the dissertation.

- 1 -

2

INTRODUCTION

The study (Allison 1980) took the form of a dissertation on the organizational nature of public schools. There are many models of organizations available and my initial intent was co analyze schools through the medium of those models most commonly presented in the literature of educational administration. For the most part this literature assumes that these models help us to understand schools better, but little attention has actually been given to applying these models directly to schools. The emphasis has been on understanding them as models of organizations, rather than as models of schools. One consequence is that it is not at all clear how some of the models or their constituent elements actually apply to schools. The original intent, therefore, was to attempt an in-depth analysis of schools, using several different models of organizations as analytical frameworks.

As the study progressed it became clear that analysis would be better delimited to a single model of organization. The bureaucratic model was eventually selected on the grounds that it has found the mot. widespread recognition in the literature of educational administration. The only other real contender, the open systemsmodel, was rejected primarily because (1), it is a highly general model of social (and other) organizations, rather than formal organizations in particular and (2), it has been found relatively less used in research studies of schools, This is not to say that the open systems approach to analyzing schools is not valuable or influential, for the converse is true. However the problems inherent in seeking a better understanding of schools through the open systems model seemed less pressing than those associated with the bureaucratic model. Because of the high applicability of general systems theory, for instance, there can be little dispute over a claim that schools can be treated as open systems. However the claim that schools are bureaucratic organizations and can thus be analyzed as bureaucracies has less firm a foundation.

In the study of organizations the term bureaucracy is generally reserved to identify social systems which display a particular set of characteristics such as a well defined hierarchy of authority and a

3

system of rules covering the rights and duties of employees (Hall 1963). Several different specifications of bureaucratic features are given ,in the literature, thus there is no single model of bureaucracy. However there is widespread agreement that the detailed account given by.Max Weber (1922/1978) provides the foundation from which most contemporary conceptual and research based models are derived. For this reason Weber's exemplar account was adopted as the sole source for the model of bureaucracy used in the study.

Problem and Conceptual Framework

The research problem was formally stated as, To critically discuss the congruency between

a model of the organizational nature of public schools and Max Weber's writings on bureaucratic forms of organization. The notion of congruency was taken from Kenneth Boulding's (1966) outline of how knowledge is produced and validated. In his analysis knowledge takes the form of images of reality held by participants in that reality. The validity, that is the accuracy or truthfulness of this knowledge, is determined by the degree of agreement between an image and the element of reality it purports to represent. Two methods of establishing congruency between the image and reality are discussed by Boulding. In the case of 'folk' processes images formed by individuals are tested through direct action and then retained, modified or abandoned contingent on the results obtained. For example, a principal will likely have a personal understanding of his school: what it is, why it exists, how it works and so on. His administrative actions will be based on and constrained by this image and depending on the results of his actions, elements of the total image will be confirmed or modified. In the scientific pursuit of knowledge original understandings of reality must first be cast into a form which can be communicated to others in a relatively unambiguous way. This requires the translation of images into models or theories. The congruency of these models to the phenomena they purport to explain is then tested through carefully controlled observation and measurement, a process which usually requires

4

the use of special instrumentation. In this case our prinCipal's image of his school, or key elements of this image, would be cast into a model before being subjected to careful testing. Development of thii model allows for other interested persons to incorporate the idea into their folk knowledge and to conduct their own independent assessments of congruency to their realities. Furthermore by clearly specifying the original image in model format the validity of the knowledge can be unambiguously judged.

Figure 1 applies this epistemological framework to the study.

DMUS

INSTANCES )F ;EAL:71,

ORGANIZATIONS

4000ts of

roan I za clons

3ureau- Tesu

cricles for

congruency

C

--is

****** !I

!UREA/.

CRAG:ES

7

Scnoo Is

III SCtOCLS

OCIUL EDGE

fluence on actIon

Figure 1

OVERVIEW OF THE CONCEPTUAL BASIS FOR THE STUDY

5

Schools and bureaucracies were assumed to be members of the larger set of social systems known as organizations, with the degree of similarity (congruency) between the two unknown. Images of these phenomena were considered to be held by participants in and observers of their reality and to thus influence their actions and perceptions. The scholarly study of educational administration has produced refined models of some of these images which, together with related discussions and research applications, are presented in the literature. Insofar as these models are known to administrators, they must provide an influence on their perceptions of and actions towards schools. Judging from the literature, models of bureaucracy, and particularly Weber's model, are reasonably well known to educational administrators. There must be concern, therefore, with how well this model accommodates the reality of schools. The congruity between the models in Figure 1 and the instances of reality they represent is, according to the Boulding schema, subject to scientific testing. Although a relatively substantial number of research studies and critical discussions of the bureaucratic nature of schools are available in the literature (? iskel, Fevurly and Stewart, 1978, Ratsoy 1973) the emphasis has not generally been placed on investigating the

congruency between bureaucratic models and schools. Most analyses assume congruency and then attempt to utilize the tureaucratic model to identify relationships between practice and policy relevant variables. Several studies, for example, have tested relationships between 'degree of school bureaucratization' and 'teacher satisfaction'. To date these and other studies have produced contradictory results. The contradictory findings from these studies could be attributed to design weakness (Minkel, et al. 1979, p. 98), but' what ever the immediate cause it would seem that incongruity between the models and the realty exists. A contributing factor to this incongruity could be what Greenfield (1981, p. 17) has referred to as the discipline's acceptance of "a trivialized version of Weber's insight into bureaucracy". Thus it appeared that an in-depth analysis of the congruency between Weber's model and schools would be worthwhile.

6

As indicated in the research question, the study did not attempt to i :.vestigate congruity between Weber's model (B in Figure 1) and real schools (III in Figure 1). The current tendency to trivialize Weber's model and the lack of attention paid to schools qua schools, suggested that an empirical investigation of congruency would be precipitous. What appeared to be appropriate at this time was the development of accurate models of the phenomena in question, and this was taken as the first objective for the study. The second objective was an analysis of the congruency between the models (B and C in Figure 1). This was an analysis of the conceptual congruency and as such can be seen as a necessary preliminary to empirical investigation.. Furthermore this analysis allowed sufficient scope for a reasonably detailed discussion of the organizational nature of public schools to be attempted.

Method

Throughout the study schools were treated as one type of organization, while Weber's account of bureaucracy was taken as describing a particular form of organization, the question at issue being the degree to which these twc manifestations of the more general phenomenon of formal organization are in accord. The appropriate method for pursuing this question appeared to be that of comparative analysis. Burns 61967,

P 118) asserts that:

The object of comparative study is to provide answers to the question "What is it?" - answers that are more comprehensive, more meaningful, and, eventually, more useful than those in common currency. The procedure of comparative study is to analyze the object of study ... into components and then to translate the question "What is it?" into cwo others: "What is .t like?" and "What is it not like?" The reasoning process is essentially analogical.

This provides an alternate view of the research problem, for the study was primarily concerned with the question "Are public schools like Weber's conceptualization of bureaucracy?" Burns (1967, p. 127) continues:

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download