Starr L. Owen, Ph.D.
Research Associate, University of British Columbia,
Distance Education and Technology,
1170-2329 West Mall, Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1Z4
UBC Tel: 604-822-1340 Fax: 604-822-8636
E-mail: starr.owen@ubc.ca
 
 

In this paper, I report on some aspects of a thematic analysis and on the perspective it offered. In the first phase of a case study, I tentatively identified a number of themes. Each was a theme in the ordinary language sense: it recurred as a topic and seemed important to people. Over time, I wondered if each was a theme in the anthropological sense, as well. Cultural themes affirm an understanding of how we do things; they specify the links among values, beliefs, actions (Opler, 1945; Smircich, 1983 a, b). I came to develop an emergent thematic analysis that allowed me to paint a rich and coherent portrait of an organizational culture. It opened a window on faculty meanings and behaviour in a particular setting and on understanding the nature of organizational culture generally. Before describing the analysis, First, I situate it within the research project, as follows.

The case study was conducted at Multisite College (a pseudonym), an organization making a major institutional change. Multisite is an established community college which has attained status as a university college and hence is adding degree programs. In its Canadian context, where colleges and universities historically have been different types of institutions, this is seen as an inherently difficult transition. The research purposes were to explore the organizational culture and how faculty members interpret the change.

I used the nested perspectives of organizational sensemaking and organizational culture as the theoretical frame. I took an interpretive approach. Interpretive organizational research assumes that what matters is not so much what is happening but how people interpret what is happening. Human understanding and action are based on the interpretation of information and events by the people experiencing them (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991, p. 435, citing Rabinow & Sullivan, 1979). Interpretive research emphasizes personal, interpersonal and organizational meanings (Putnam, 1983, p. 31). I described personal and organizational meanings on the basis of observations and interviews with 39 faculty members.

In this paper, I develop what I label the theme of participation: the belief that, at Multisite, everyone participates in decision-making. First, I describe what I learn about participation, first as an observer, later, as an interviewer. Then, I show how my exploration of the meaning systems I label participation help me to understand what I see and hear at Multisite. (For purposes of brevity, I illustrate the utility of the analysis by describing only a few questions it helped to answer. Similarly, I quote one or a few individuals to provide evidence; I do not attempt to provide all the supporting data.) Third, I link the broader thematic analysis to two outcomes. One is a rich cultural portrait of a real institution. The other is recognition that organizational culture is best understood in terms of multiple meanings and multiple perspectives on those meanings.

I learn about participation over time. In the first phase of fieldwork (the institutionâs winter term), I take the role of observer. At first, I seek an overview of what is happening. Later (still as an observer), I follow the gaze of people at Multisite as they focus on dealing with a budget shortfall. In the last phase of fieldwork (the institutionâs fall term), I interview as well as observe. As I watch, listen and ask questions, I develop both a sense of what participation means in context and a sense of puzzlement about what participation means in context.

Early Observations: First Impressions

I recognize early on that people at Multisite spend a lot of time in meetings. In my first day at Multisite, for example, I attend two meetings and my first conversations are about meetings. This excerpt from the account of my first day as an observer outlines these conversations.

I hear frequent comment on organizational values, institutional history and decision-making process. At my first meeting of the Advisory Council, for example, people discuss the difficulty some members have in finding time to attend meetings and prepare for meetings.

Into the second month of fieldwork, the topic of budget becomes the centre of attention at Multisite in meetings and in conversation. I switch from a wide angle lens on organizational activities to a finer focus on the events of the budget making period.

Later Observations: Focus on Budget

Early in April, people learn that the college faces a budget shortfall. Budget is the sole focus of three specially scheduled forums and it frequently is a major topic at regular meetings and in conversation. In this section, I outline some of what happens, organized chronologically.

President's Budget Forum (Day 1). In this session, Multisiteâs president, presents a proposal that has been prepared by a subcommittee of management. George Greensmith (a pseudonym) says that the proposal will be "the subject of debate" in this forum and that "a formal discussion" will occur at the next Advisory Council meeting. He indicates that the proposal has been approved in principle by the College Board. Its recommendations include elimination of a number of staff and administrative positions, reduced funding for a two-year Career program, an increase in tuition fees, and the addition of some new positions.

Again and again, George reiterates the value of openness: "This place has always worked best in an open way ... I want to be as open as possible." He emphasizes that the proposal is a discussion paper: "The floor is still open for better ways to do it." George seems very clear on what types of responses are and are not appropriate. The discussion "will only be helpful if it is realized that for every item that is taken out of the 'cuts,' an item of similar value must be put back in." That is, to object to a recommended reduction or elimination, one must offer either an alternative "cut" or a way to generate additional revenue to cover the item. The process "must be constructive:" people must not compare programs and positions. It is unacceptable, for example, to suggest saving Tom's job by laying off Harry.

There is an extended question and answer period which includes lively exchanges between George and some of the students in the program that faces being reduced. Four days later, at a meeting of the College Board, and Linda (the course instructor) and the students present a proposal to maintain their program. They label it "a modest proposal" and repeatedly use the phrase "respectfully submit."

Regular Advisory Council meeting (day 13). (This Council advises the Board on matters of academic policy and related educational matters.) George gives the Presidentâs report (a regular agenda item) and summarizes budget process to date. Later in the discussion, Elizabeth asks why the proposal was taken to the Board before being brought to the Council. George responds that, in universities, financial concerns are taken to the Board, not to the academic council. George continues: "What is seen as the primary responsibility (of the College Board) is to be fiscally sound .. it is not instructional." "Then how meaningful is our discussion?" Elizabeth asks, "If management says it looks like some impact on programs, either we're having a discussion .. or legitimizing something that no one has been a part of .. what discussion did you expect?"

George replies in a tone that seems defensive. Then he says, "to be perfectly honest, I don't know how you come to a committee like this and say we have a shortfall, we have to cut some programs, we have to cut some positions." Fred Wilcox (a member of the Council and of the Union executive) seems to agree, " it's very difficult ... the union can't lay off its own, .. still .. if, when it's clear cuts are going to happen, if a group could come together with management ... ." George interjects that the document is still open to comment, "it's not a closed door." Fred says, in what seems a gentle manner, that he is not trying to make anyone defensive or to denigrate any effort. He just wants to understand what's happening. He says he'd rather have a role in shaping decisions and then seek a response than just be reacting to something already shaped.

At this meeting, Council decides to schedule a special meeting to discuss budget.

The unionâs workshop at the Junction (day 19). The Union announces a forum; it asks people to bring suggestions on how to deal with the shortfall without laying off employees. This meeting is held off-campus, at a business complex called the Junction. As the session begins, Peg Wilson, the president of the Union, explains what will happen. People will work in small groups to generate ideas for cutting costs or increasing revenue; then there will be a discussion with the whole group. The administrators are present as resource people; they will report at a later time on what use will be made of suggestions. An implicit message seems to be that they will not be put on the spot in the session. The session seems not to generate suggestions that will have much impact on the shortfall.

Council's special meeting (day 22). Elizabeth says there are two topics: the present situation and the parameters of this committee's role in budget discussions in the future. George outlines the budget process to date. He says that discussions with the union have been constructive. "They asked tough questions," he says, "but the tone was respectful, by and large." However, "there is no pot of gold; I can't say there will be no layoffs. There are some changes; frankly, not highly substantive ones."

There seems a reluctance to move from this year's process to the role of the Council in the future. There seems an ambivalence about what has happened this year. Mike, a Council member says: "On the one hand I feel we've been circumvented as a committee. On the other, there has been wide opportunity for input."

College Wide Committee (day 27). At CWC, chairs of various committees report on recent meetings. Elizabeth Thomas, reporting on the Council's two most recent meetings, emphasizes the need to clarify roles. Peg Wilson, giving the union report, expresses her appreciation for the opportunity for consultation. She says that real consultation is time consuming, however, and there was not enough time.

George presents the budget proposal here. It is essentially the original management proposal, slightly modified: in George's words, "amended but not substantively." One change is that "the modest proposal" to retain the Career program will be implemented. This proposal is ratified at the Board meeting (day 33). In a practical sense, at least, Multisite has "settled" the matter of dealing with the budget shortfall.

The Interviews: Speaking of Participation

I go into the interviews with many questions. I am unsure what participation means to people at Multisite and how they interpret the budget making process (and other organizational processes). I also am unsure how best I can interpret what I see and hear.

Participation in the past. Multisite was founded in the mid-1970s. When people speak of the early years, they speak of idealism, of clarifying values and of being deliberate in determining process. They often speak of how decisions were made.

Much of what is said about the decision making process in the early years is consistent with Beckyâs "we just get everything on the table" comment. However, some comments describe something less than the participatory ideal. Some faculty report that the process was more open to some individuals than to others. Some people say that certain categories of organizational members participate less than other members.

Participation in the present. Faculty offer multiple perspectives when they speak about participation in the present. One perspective is that the premise and the practice of participation are more or less the same.

A final perspective is that the premise of participation has no counterpart in practice. Cindy, for example, says, "I've always thought participation was a myth that long time employees believe."

The perspectives of people present on participation are complex, diverse and sometimes contradictory. There is a practice that people say is consistent with the premise at least sometimes, at least for some people. There is also experience that people say is at odds with the premise, at least sometimes, at least for some people. In a related way, the historic participatory values (i.e., respect, openness, collegiality) continue to be expressed at least sometimes, at least for some people. They also are seen to be eroding or at risk of doing so, at least sometimes, at least for some people.

As the thematic analysis progresses, I move reiteratively among asking questions of the data, exploring the data, and identifying emergent questions. In this section, I select a few questions and show how the thematic analysis helped me answer them. First, I deal with a question arising from a specific comment: I try to make sense of Susanâs puzzling "façade" remark. Second, I consider two related questions concerning budget process; one is the question of how people at Multisite interpret budget process. The other is how I can best interpret budget process at Multisite.

The Puzzling "Façade" Comment

When people speak of the early years, they speak of founding a college, of decision making, of values, of a style of interacting. When I ask about participation, people speak of founding a college, of decision making, of values, of a style of interacting. Over time, I infer that the establishment of the college and of the participatory process are intrinsically linked in the experience of many founding members. I also come to recognize that participation has multiple meanings. Like most words, participation has connotations as well as denotations. Its denotation concerns the degree of involvement of organizational members in decision making.

Barley and Knight (1991) describe connotations as broader, more reflexive, less immediate than the "standard" definition or denotative meaning. Connotations have more encyclopedic contents associated with the expression's use; they are layered on top of denotations. Symbols are connotatively rich and typically communicate multiple meanings in a layered fashion. The denotation may be the least important meaning among these multiple meanings (Barley and Knight, 1991).

I am suggesting the following. The distinctive style of interacting and the organizational values that are associated with participation have become connotations of participation. Connotations such as a respectful manner and the maintenance of harmonious relations have come to be valued in and of themselves. For some people, these connotations may have come to be the most important meaning associated with participation. For some people, decision making may have become the "background" that is ignored; the participatory values are the "figure" that is the focus of attention.

This idea, of an emphasis on connotation, answers my earlier question, What does it mean to say, that if the appearance of participation is all you can get, thatâs better than nothing? What does it mean to say, that we will always have the facade of participation and thatâs a good thing? It means that the speaker values a connotation (or connotations) of participation, such as the style of interacting, in and of itself.

Interpreting Budget

As I complete the observations-only phase of the study, I find I am puzzled by some of what I have observed. I see participatory decision making, I think, in certain forums, concerning certain issues. I do not see a process I would describe as participatory as I watch budgetmaking process (and certain other organizational processes, such as Strategic Planning), however.

To observe that people do not "walk" exactly as they "talk" is not in itself remarkable. Systems of ideas and beliefs that pervade organizations are abstractions from the concrete situations; they are maps of the territory rather than the territory (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1966, p. 562). The discrepancy claims my attention because I sense a lot of tension around the process. I retain an image of the faces of people at budget meetings (and at other meetings, including strategic planning committees) and my sense that response is constrained. As I observe the events of the budget period, I have a persistent sense of opinions unexpressed, of people inhibited and restrained. If a question is not answered, for example, it is rarely asked again. No one ever says, "Did that answer your question?" Some issues seem to be circled again and again and left unresolved (e.g., the Councilâs role in decisions to cut programs, above p. 4).

I come out of the observational phase wondering (a) how people at Multisite interpret budget process and (b) how I can best interpret budget process at Multisite. I consider the interpretations of faculty first. The perspectives people present on the budgetmaking process are considerably less diverse than those they present on participation, in general. Among the faculty who participate in the budget process, no one speaks as if they see the process as participatory, for example. People speak of anger, of feeling set up, of a loss of trust.

I develop an answer that I outline as follows. First, I identify a number of constraints on participation. The first is a set of interrelated circumstances (i.e., time pressure, information overload, increased workload, and fatigue) that come up again and again when faculty speak of how participation is changing. I consider these circumstances to be limiting factors (Opler, 1945, p. 201) that restrain the expression of the theme of participation. People say they do not have sufficient time and energy to participate fully in matters that concern the whole organization. Many people say they are participating less and differently; they take part in fewer group processes and when they take part, they focus more on specific issues they believe likely to have an impact on their own unit. However, the current circumstances do not explain fully the discrepancy between premise and practice at Multisite. The discrepancy existed, at least for some people, in earlier periods.

I also identify cultural norms that encourage a non-confrontational approach as another constraint. I come to identify these on the basis of what people say when I ask what are and are not acceptable ways to respond in meetings. Eva, for example, says, "I always struggle with that. I'm not really sure what to say, because I don't know what the boundary would be, I don't know what is allowed, put it that way, and so I say what I think is safe."Some people recognize that norms of "niceness" can be used strategically to limit discussion. Leah, for example, says, "We're very nice to each other around here but I'm not sure we should be as nice all the time. ... Some people cultivate that as a deliberate strategy, like, if you disagree with me, you're not being nice to me."

As I proceed with this analytic process, I have the persisting sense that there is something other than the circumstances and norms that act as limiting factors on participation. There is something else I need to tug out.

Two comments pique my interest; each uses the word subtle.

From what I see and hear, I come to infer that decision making at Multisite is increasingly done on the basis of hierarchical authority. There is a great deal of evidence in the texts of the interviews to support this.

This hierarchical theme helps me to interpret the budgetmaking process (as well as other organizational processes, such as Strategic Planning). I suggest the budget process is, in essence, an instance of hierarchical decision making. It can be seen as involving a degree of consultation or as essentially autocratic. It cannot be seen as a participatory process, at least in the denotative sense. The hierarchical nature of the process is consistent with the idea that hierarchical values are becoming more influential within Multisiteâs network of meanings.

In this section, I outline how the progress of the thematic analysis helps me to understand Multisiteâs culture and idea of culture.

From Theme to Cultural Portrait

As noted above, I identify a number of topics (along with participation, I notice frequent reference to "we are like family here" and "our institutional mission") as themes in the ordinary language sense. Often, there is a taken-for-granted quality to the comments, as if shared meaning is assumed. Over time, I come to identify them as cultural (i.e., organizational culture) themes as well. Each is "a postulate or position, declared or implied, and usually controlling behavior or stimulating activity, which is tacitly approved or openly promoted (Opler, 1945, p. 198). Beckyâs statement, that " This is how we do things. Itâs our participatory style" seems like an explicit statement of a cultural theme, in Oplerâs (1945) sense of the term.

The analysis began with my perusal of extensive field notes (based on observations conducted over the course of a year) and interviews with 39 faculty members (which produced 400 pages of interview transcripts). Initially, I was overwhelmed by the material. I re-read material on content analysis; I tried this and that. What moved me beyond that stage was finding Marshallâs (1981) comments on her approach.

Using this approach, I compared responses among respondents. I found that what I had tentatively identified by the end of the period of observations as three cultural themes (i.e., participation, family, mission) emerged in the interviews as important "chunks of meaning" to many faculty. As I proceeded, I found was increasingly analyzing the data in terms of themes, in the sense of primary cultural understandings, and the values and symbols associated with themes.

The thematic analysis became the means by which I described and explored the culture and by which I drew a cultural portrait "piecing together a picture of the meaning systems" (Smircich, 1983c). I begin to describe and explore what people say about participation and find that doing so offers me a window on beliefs and values that concern decision making, more generally. In a related way, I find that exploring what people say about family opens a window on the nature of social relations at Multisite. Exploring what people say about mission focuses attention on beliefs and values that concern institutional purpose. In the case of each theme, then, I begin with a topic that I have tentatively identified as a cultural premise and find I am exploring systems of meaning broader than the sense of premise with which I begin.

When people speak of the past, they often speak of being family and of being participatory and they speak as if clarity on institutional values and purpose is taken for granted. I label these premises and their associated values the traditional cultural themes of mission, participation, and family, respectively. They seem to entail mutually supportive beliefs and values and seem to have comprised an integrated system of meanings.

In the present, the meaning systems entail, on the one hand, a set of traditional premises that are less often expressed and on the other hand, emergent premises that are more often expressed. There are dichotomous sets of beliefs that concern social practices and multiple interpretations that concern those beliefs. The sets of beliefs that concern mission include emergent beliefs that may support, contradict, or be ambiguously related to traditional beliefs. It is not the case, however, that there are two clearly incompatible sets of beliefs, the traditional and emergent, in the present. The relations among the traditional and emergent beliefs are not clear. The meaning systems in the present, which I describe as fragmented, lack the integration that seemed to characterize these systems in the past.

I also describe the meaning systems that constitute the organizational culture at Multisite now as a kaleidoscope of multiple and shifting and sometimes contested meanings. When I hear people speak of openness or respect, I sometimes hear evolving meanings and I wonder if I sometimes hear equivocal or slippery meanings. (By equivocal, I mean subject to two or more interpretations, sometimes with the intention to mislead or confuse. By slippery, I mean not firmly fixed, not to be trusted. I take each to entail ambiguity concerning intention.)

Openness, for example, is used to describe an approach in which anyone can choose to participate. It often is used to indicate that most organizational business is conducted in public. Openness also is used to describe the availability of information at Multisite. George reiterates the value of openness, for example, in the first budget forum. Some people see the great amount of information available on budget as a positive indication. Others, however, seem to say all the details are not useful. One council member, for example, questions whether the group needs to deal with "the business details, the minutiae". It may be that the availability of information has come to be labeled openness, regardless of the relevance of the information, regardless of how participatory the process. I wonder if the following fallacy underlies some of the positive comments: if participation means information, then information means participation.

The primary sense of respect as a historic value at Multisite seems to be positive and high regard for the other, regardless of organizational role. A primary emphasis was that members of staff, faculty, and administration met as equals as participants in the discussion. I wonder, as I reflect on the first phase, if George and Linda use respect with a meaning different from that historic meaning, however. To respectfully submit a modest proposal (p. 5, above), for example, seems to me the language of overt ingratiation; it is language that affirms a significant difference in power. George describes discussions with the union as

" respectful, by and large" (p. 6, above), which makes me wonder what his expectations are. I suggest that respect may be taking on a new meaning in the context, a meaning more compatible with hierarchical decision making than with equal participation of all members. I suggest that the values of respect and openness originally were defined in ways that supported democratic process at Multisite and now sometimes seem to be used in ways that support hierarchical process.

The Nature of Organizational Culture

Any succinct statement on what culture means is likely to be challenged on one front or another. Although there is no consensus on exactly what it includes and excludes, most definitions and descriptions entail the following. Culture includes shared meanings (with various labels, such as values, beliefs, assumptions) and various organizational practices, norms and rituals. It develops during the course of social interaction and it evolves over time; it is rooted in the organizationâs history (e.g., Morgan, 1986, p. 121). Meanings are understood to exist within networks or systems, sometimes described as value systems (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991), coherent meaning systems (Louis, 1983) or contextually-based systems of meaning (Morgan, 1990). Organizational meanings (i.e., contextually-based systems or networks of organizational meanings) are the essence of organizational culture.

A cultural perspective defines what culture is and by implication, what is not. It determines what is seen and what is not recognized or noticed. Each is a "subjective perspective that researchers and cultural members adopt when they perceive, conceive, and enact a culture" (Martin & Meyerson, 1988, p. 120). All definitions of culture recognize the importance of shared (i.e., widely held, consensual or nearly so) meanings. Those conceptions of culture that recognize only shared meaning constitute the integration perspective (Martin & Meyerson, 1988; Martin, 1992).

But a lack of consensus on a range of issues is a fact of organizational life. The differentiation perspective emphasizes lack of consensus, inconsistency, and the development of meaning by persons other than managers. Ambiguity is channeled; consensus is seen to lie only within subcultures, each of which is ambiguity free. The integration perspective, which denies ambiguity, and the differentiation perspective, which channels it, have dominated research in organizational culture to date (Martin & Meyerson, 1988, p. 95).

In the ambiguity or fragmentation perspective, the third cultural perspective, ambiguity can be acknowledged and even made the focus of attention. Consensus, dissensus, and confusion coexist, making it difficult to draw subcultural boundaries. Individuals are connected by some shared concerns but not others. The pattern of connections that is relevant depends on what issue is salient at the time. This is as distinct from the organization-wide connections of the integration perspective and from the connections by membership in subcultures of the differentiation perspective (Martin & Meyerson, 1988).

Each perspective implies different ways of understanding what culture means. In an integrative view, consensus is clear and organization wide. In a differentiation view, there is clear consensus within subcultures and clear conflict across subcultures (Martin & Meyerson, 1988). In an ambiguity perspective, the meaning of culture itself is ambiguous; it is unclear where, if at all, there is consensus and whether there are shared values. People may see similar problems but different solutions; they may have comparable experiences but multiple meanings around those experiences (Meyerson, 1991). Culture may be less specific than shared values; it may be a more general sharing of an orientation, of an overarching purpose. Members of an organization may be held together by "a common frame of reference or a shared recognition of relevant issues. There may not be agreement about whether those issues should be relevant or about whether they are positively or negatively valued" (Meyerson, 1991, p. 154).

Within this context, culture is defined as follows. Members of organizations interpret the various manifestations of culture (e.g., norms, stories, rules, informal codes). Because their perceptions, memories, beliefs, experience and values vary, their interpretations vary. The patterns of these interpretations and the ways they are enacted constitute culture (Martin, 1992, p. 3).

The meaning systems that constitute the organizational culture at Multisite now are a kaleidoscope of multiple and evolving meanings. That kaleidoscope is a picture of an organizational culture as understood in the fragmentation perspective, more accurately, as understood in terms of multiple perspectives (i.e., the integrative, differentiative and fragmentation perspectives). The patterns of interpretations include meanings on which there is consensus, dissensus, and confusion. Traditional and emergent themes that concern decision making, social relations, and institutional mission are a part of the common frame, in which there is shared recognition of beliefs that are salient in the context. They are not the subject of consensually held interpretations on how to understand what is happening or how it is valued, however. The picture of the culture was once of shared meanings; it is less specific than that now. It is more a picture of the culture as a shared recognition of salient meanings.

My exploration of what I label the theme of participation offers a window on the culture in this particular setting and on the nature of organizational culture itself. It is a part of a larger thematic analysis that allows me to describe the network of meanings at Multisite in a holistic and coherent way. This collegeâs culture, and organizational culture generally, emerge as richer, more complex and more ambiguous than I had anticipated. (The analysis also helps explain the interpretations faculty have of the transition the institution was making, thereby fulfilling the second purpose of the research project. For purposes of brevity, however, that topic was not considered here.) The thematic approach also illustrates the importance of using multiple perspectives when exploring subjective organizational phenomena.

References

Barley, S. & Knight, D. (1992). Towards a cultural theory of stress complaints. Research in organizational behavior, 14, 1-48.

Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 433-448.

Lacity, M. C. & Janson, M. A. (1994). Understanding qualitative data: A framework of text analysis methods. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11(2) 137-155.

Louis, M. R. (1983). Organizations as culture bearing milieux. In L.R. Pondy, P. J. Frost, G. Morgan, & T. Danbridge (Eds.), Organizational symbolism (pp. 39-54). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press

Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.

Martin, J. & Meyerson, D. (1988). Organizational cultures and the denial, channeling and acknowledgment of ambiguity. In L. Pondy, R. Boland, & H. Thomas (Eds.), Managing ambiguity and change. (pp. 93-123). New York: Wiley.

Meyerson, D. (1991). "Normal" ambiguity? A glimpse of an occupational culture. In P. Frost, L. Moore, M. Louis, C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture (pp. 131-143). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publishers.

Opler, M. E. (1945). Themes as dynamic forces in culture. American Journal of Sociology, 51, 198-206.

 Owen, S. L. (1996). Now Weâre a University College: A Kaleidoscope of Meanings. (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia, 1996).

Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organizations. New York: Sage Publishers.

Morgan, G. (1990). Paradigm diversity in organizational research. In J. Hassard and D. Pym (Eds.), The Theory and philosophy of organizations: Critical issues and new perspectives (pp. 13-29). London: Routledge.

Putnam, L. (1983). The interpretive perspective. In L. Putnam & M. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organization: An interpretive approach (pp. 31-53). Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publishers.

Roethlisberger, F. and Dickson, W. (1966). Management and the worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Smircich, L. (1983a). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 339-358.

Smircich, L. (1983b). Implications for management theory. In L. Putnam & M. Pacanowsky (Eds.). Communication and organization: An interpretive approach (pp. 221-233). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishers.

Smircich, L. (1983c). Studying organizations as cultures. In G. Morgan (Ed.), Beyond method: Strategies for social research (pp. 160-171). New York: Sage Publishers.