Role of Institutional Theory and Quality Prevalence in Higher Educational Institution
The progressing research is intended to comprehend the endeavors made by higher learning foundations (coercive weight, mimetic weight, normative pressure) to execute the QUAL PRVLANC quantifies in it. Case study investigation (aggregate 9) was directed to assemble data and meetings were the device for gathering information. Further, the investigation was finished with the assistance of Nvivo11 by making various topics. The discoveries recommend a blended perspective on QUAL PRVLANC by the people who can impact the choice to actualize it. In conclusion, the indicator factors were seen as not factually altogether connected with responsiveness, a finding that can't help contradicting Roger's (1995) perception that the view of a development anticipate the pace of its reception and execution.
Boxenbaum, E. & Jonsson, S. (2008). Isomorphism, Diffusion and Decoupling. In: The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, pp. 78–98.
Braunscheidel, M.J., Hamister, J.W., Suresh, N.C. & Star, H. (2011). An institutional theory perspective on Six Sigma adoption, Emerald insight. vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 423–451.
Csizmadia, T.G. (2006). Quality Management in Hungarian Higher Education, Doctoral Dissertation, University of twente, Greece, pp. 381.
DiMaggio, P.J. & Powell, W.W. (1983). The Iron Cage revisited: Institutional isomprphism and collective rationality in organizational fields, American Sociological Review, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 147–160.
Feilzer, M. Y. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, vol. 4, pp. 6 – 16.
Ghafoor, A., Zainudin, R., & Mahdzan, N. S. (2019). Corporate fraud and information asymmetry in emerging markets: Case of firms subject to enforcement actions in Malaysia. Journal of Financial Crime, Vol. 26 Issue: 1, pp. 95-112.
Kanji, G. K., Malek, A., & Tambi, A. (1999). Total Quality Management in UK Higher Education Instiutions, Total Quality Management, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 129 - 153.
Meyer, J. & Scott, R. (1983). Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality, Sage, Beverly Hills.
Meyer, J. & Rowan, B. (1977). InstitutionalizedOrganizations :Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 340–363.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes, Academy of Management Review, vol. 16, pp. 145-179.
Pinkovetskaia, I., Lyubovtseva, E., Arbeláez-Campillo, D., & Rojas-Bahamón, M. (2019). Small and medium enterprises in Russia and other countries. Amazonia Investiga, 9(25), 99-106.
Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. [Online]. Available from:http://hollis.harvard.edu/?itemid=%7Clibrary/m/aleph%7C006256656.
Samburskiy, G., & Grodzenskiy, S. (2019). Approaches to risk assessment and selection of water treatment technologies to provide consumers with quality drinking water. Amazonia Investiga, 9(25), 33-43
Santana, S., Moreira, C., Roberto, T. & Flavia A. (2010). Fighting for excellence: the case of the Federal University of Pelotas, Higher Education, vol. 60, pp. 321-341.
Scott, W. R. (1981). Organizations:Rational, natural,and open systems, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Selznick, P. (1957), Leadership in Administration, Peterson, Evanston, IL.
Tam, M. (2001). Measuring Quality and Performance in Higher Education, Quality in Higher Education, vol. 7, pp. 47–54.
Yin, R.K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods. [Online]. Available from: http://unisa.aquabrowser.com/?itemid=%7Cunisa-bibs%7C1104221.