Thursday 11 November 2010

Trowler - cultures and change in h. e. - notes 1

What is culture
Lazy science because you can't define it - gerth and mills 1970
'the way we do things around here' geertz 1983

Look at it phenomenalistic - kuh and whitt 1988 but this looses and coherent narrative Could use a 'nomothetic' approach by naming different possible cultures Or
'inductive derived categorising' which build categories of culture from ground up.

Nomothetic
Name some possible cultures and slot examples later. This tends to be functionalist 'for a reason' looking to better the system
The approach is defind in waterman 1993

Handy has a go in 1993
-power culture
-role culture Task culture -person culture

Berquist has a go in 1992 looking specially at universities
-Collegial culture
-managerial culture -developmental culture -Negotiating culture Mcnay 1995 mirrors berquist Collegium, bureaucracy, corporation and enterprise Inductively derived categorising [idc]
Nomothetic is imposed - idc reverses this, built from observation but avoids phenomenologic perspective. Uses participants to build frame work. Bill tierney 1988 builds framework from college over an academic year. framework includes -environment - what external pressures -mission, eg how is it decided Socialisation - how do newbies get inducted
Information - ownership and dissemination
Strategy - decision making
Leadership - formal and informal This framework is missing sub-cultures and tends to be all at the same corporate level. Withcomb and deshler 1983 conducted 83 interviews at CSU and distilled this frame work
Ccommitment to institution Unity/community Humanistic values
Academic quality
Educational freedom Ethical values
Institutional indentity

This is still corporate in nature, but does go deeper than tierney Henry et al 1992 - EVA study of uclan. This uses a rae of tool to develop a deep and higly interlated set of themes that support values

Posted via email from abstractrabbit's posterous

No comments:

Post a Comment