|
Abstract:
|
This thesis examines how the five biggest Danish cultural heritage institutions strategically have
managed the process of implementing framework agreements with the Ministry of Culture as they
are replacing the well-proven performance contracts; a process that may be viewed as a move
from New Public Management to one of (New) Public Governance. The institutions are The Royal
Library, The National Museum, The National Archives, The National Gallery, and The State and
University Library. In studying these processes, specific interest to the study is conferred to (i) how
the cultural heritage institutions have managed and positioned themselves within their networks,
and (ii) what kind of legitimation strategies they have employed. The thesis draws from new institutionalism
and network theory inspired by DiMaggio & Powell and Koppenjan & Klijn as well as an
institutional approach to organizational legitimacy studies inspired by Mark C. Suchman.
In the study a large number of documents are examined an analyzed. These range from the available
framework agreements and official organizational strategies to environment analyses and
other pertinent documents. In addition to this, as a supplement, interviews have been conducted
with the heads of administration at the five organizations. This comparative approach enables the
study to demonstrate isomorphic reactions as well as disparate strategies in the ways the cultural
heritage institutions cope with a new mandatory management tool. Of particular interest are: (i)
what kind of legitimation strategy is applied? (ii) Is the strategic positioning aggressive or defensive?
(iii) Do the institutions align their strategies with those of the Ministry of Culture? And (iv)
what term most accurately describes the framework agreement and organizational strategy of
each institution?
The results show that isomorphic impact is significantly greater in the context of the organizational
strategies than that of the framework agreements, while the strategic approach is generally more
aggressive in the official strategies than what is observed in the context of the framework agreements.
The National Archives clearly appear most aggressive while the approach of The Royal Library
is much more subdued. The National Gallery conspicuously deviates from the other four cultural
heritage institutions by shortcutting the process by being extremely defensive and unambitious
while pleading for extra funding. Legitimation strategies vary as well. The National Museum,
The National Archives, and The State and University Library all display strategies for gaining legitimacy.
The strategy of The National Library is one of maintaining legitimacy while The National Gallery
exudes a strategy of repairing legitimacy. Thus, a significant point is that the strategic documents,
despite their isomorphic stamp, gives a perhaps surprisingly precise indication of the fundamental
institutional basis of each organization. |
