Despite being a well-known concept in neo-institutional organization theory, isomorphism (or structural similarity) has been conceptualized and empirically examined by very few studies. This paper examines isomorphism quantitatively in German higher education, using the Relative Specialization Index. Drawing on a comprehensive data set that includes information on professorial staff and students, as well as basic and grant funding, our paper shows, first, that most variables show an isomorphic pattern, and second, that German universities have become more isomorphic over time. We discuss possible explanations of this result and avenues for future research.

This paper argues that quantitative science studies should frame their data and analyses with middle-range sociological theories and concepts. We illustrate this argument with reference to the “sociology of professions,” a middle-range theoretical framework developed by Chicago sociologist Andrew Abbott. Using this framework, we counter the claim that the use of bibliometric indicators in research assessment is pervasive in all advanced economies. Rather, our comparison between the Netherlands and Italy reveals major differences in the national design of bibliometric research assessment: The Netherlands follows a model of bibliometric professionalism, whereas Italy follows a centralized bureaucratic model that co-opts academic elites. We conclude that applying the sociology of professions framework to a broader set of countries would be worthwhile, allowing the emerging bibliometric profession to be charted in a comprehensive, and preferably quantitative, fashion. We also briefly discuss other sociological middle-range concepts that could potentially guide empirical analyses in quantitative science studies.