Chapter 3: Theoretical framework
3.3. Conceptualisation of the theoretical framework
As was argued (3.1), values are core elements of OC (Schein, 2004; Zaka, 2018). It is from the organisation values that research norms and guidelines and prescriptions of appropriate behaviour for the faculty or researchers are developed. Therefore, despite OC in its deepest sense is a cognitive process, it is manifested through the behaviours of the actors while following the guidelines and norms prescribed for them. Moreover, the rituals (e.g., research seminars and proposal defence programs) and artifacts indicate the observable aspects of culture, according to Schein’s conceptualisation of OC. The research values and strategies (e.g., research thematic areas and the need to focus on applied research) indicate the espoused values the university requires the faculty to focus on. Hence, espoused values are aspirations or rationalisations (Kuh & Whitt, 1988) the university expects the faculty to attain through their research activities. However, according to Schein (2004), because values can be questioned, debated and challenged, the perceptions of faculties towards the university’s aspirations, goals and rationalisations of its mission are decisive.
24
Therefore, the case university’s performance in general and the faculty members’ research performance, in particular, rely on the underlying values and deeply held assumptions of the actors. These values and deeper assumptions can also be expressed through the OC dimensions developed by Tierney (1988) (see fig. 1 below): the decision-making processes or strategies, information process or communication, leadership performance, environmental contexts (both physical and psychological), mission or overarching ideology of the university and socialisation activities of the university regarding research activities. Tierney’s model dissects OC into manageable dimensions that provide the holistic picture of a university. The research strategies, leadership interventions, mission statements, communication process and other similar issues provide day-to-day operating systems for faculty members. It is the repeated success of implementing these values (Schein, 2004) that form the shared and taken-for-granted assumptions of faculties about research (Méndez & Cruz, 2014).
The dimensions in Tierney’s model are vital in understanding the core aspects of OC in a simplified and practical sense. Simultaneously, because culture can be analogised to an onion – as a phenomenon with multiple layers (Kuh & Whitt, 1988), one has to employ Schein’s model to deeply investigate the values held by faculties and how they perceive, think and feel regarding their research practices and performance. Therefore, each dimension in Tierney’s model is a diagnostic mechanism to deeply enquire the values, norms, assumptions and beliefs faculties have on the processes and practices of research in their university (see fig. 1 below).
It is here that both Tierney’s and Schein’s OC models intertwine to provide a framework to analyse the bigger picture of OC. For example, when we talk about Tierney’s dimension of information, one has to ask the values and deeper-assumptions of the faculty towards the information processes (who is in charge of the information process? how does information disseminated?) about research and their interactions with their leaders and to each other.
Figure 1. Conceptualisation of the theoretical framework Source: own construction based on the theoretical framework
25
Therefore, the perceptions of faculties about the roles of each of these dimensions in their research engagement give the general impression regarding the role of OC in their research performance. By their very nature, these dimensions of culture in particular and OC, in general, exert a powerful influence on the behaviour of organisational members. As shown in fig. 1 above, the influence, however, is under the aegis of the individuals’ perceptions and shared assumptions. The rationale is that organisations are creations of a human collection. Humans also have values, expectations, beliefs and assumptions about the context in their organisation.
Thus, exploring the perceptions of faculties towards the role of OC in their research performance means investigating and interpreting the values, assumptions and expectations faculties have about the research practice in the case university. In simple terms, it is about scrutinising the impression of faculties about the way research is practised at their university.
As indicated in fig. 1 above, mainly because culture is both enacted and constructed, some cultural elements that guide research activities, for example, values embedded in the organisational philosophies, are “played out according to structurally-provided scripts” (Becher
& Trowler, 2001, p. 24; see also Schein, 2004). However, it is the perception of faculty members towards each of the dimensions (i.e. Tierney’s model) and espoused values and rationalizations of the university that hinder or help their research performance. The perceptions of the faculties towards these aspects form their underlying assumptions about the congruence between their (individual) aims and the organisational goals. Hence, the perceived fit between the personal and organisational aims guides their behaviour.
Moreover, according to Akilagpa Sawyerr (2004), when we talk about research performance and capacity, there are two key components – the active component and the environmental component. In Sawyerr’s classification, the active component refers to human or individual factors. The environmental component represents, among others, the social and environmental factors. Following this classification, Schein’s perspectives of espoused values and taken-for-granted assumptions of actors are helpful to understand the nuances of the human component – i.e. the ‘active’ component of research capacity and performance. On the other hand, the OC dimensions of Tierney expound culture as an organisational or environmental component.
Similarly, it is the second key component, “constituted by the social, institutional, and material factors that provide a setting for the research enterprise and condition its success or failure”
(Sawyerr, 2004, p. 216). However, as was argued (1.2), although it might be misleading to untangle them, many studies discuss these components separately in an atomistic manner. They obscure or overlook the fact that the two components interact continuously. According to Sawyerr, the two components are in a continuous interaction because “[t]he human factor contributes critically to the creation or generation of the requisite environmental conditions, while the environmental conditions enhance or inhibit the development of individual capacity”
(2004, p. 222). The agentic capacity of individual faculty members and the organisational contexts are in a state of mutually dependent interplay (Becher & Trowler, 2001). Therefore, the concept of culture and the opinions of culture bearers are the glue to fuse these personal and institutional factors for a holistic understanding of research performance. It implies that culture is an important factor to discern personal and organisational context as well as the actors’ tacit and scientific knowledge in unison. It defines for the actors (faculties) what to pay attention to,
“what things mean, how to react emotionally to what is going on, and what actions to take” in their situations (Schein, 2004, p. 32, emphasis added). Thus, individuals’ perception towards themselves (self-knowledge) and their organisation is the channel through which we can understand their experiences (i.e. experiential understanding) (Stake, 2000).
26 3.3.1. Why combining two theories?
According to Kuh and Whitt (1988, p. 56), exploring a culture of an organised setting (e.g., a university) can be likened to peeling an onion. Thus, as indicated in Fig. 2 below, the three levels of culture devised by Schein (the circle) help to work through the different layers of culture – from the outer skin to the core – guided by the specific cultural dimensions of Tierney (in the box). Tierney’s dimensions are vital to ask specific questions, while Schein’s layers of culture indicate how deeply the issue is analysed. If only Tierney’s dimensions of culture are employed, it is difficult to know the ‘thicknesses of the analysis. As indicated by the colours of the circles – the outer layer, which is artifacts, is represented by light grey to signify that it is easy to observe. The grey part indicates the espoused values – the gateways to the black circle representing the crux of culture as invisible and unconscious aspect, hence challenging to unveil. The number of arrows also signifies the level of efforts one has to expend to observe the cultural manifestations at each level – i.e. the higher the number of arrows, the higher the level of effort required.
Figure 2. Synthesis of Schein’s and Tierney’s OC frameworks
Simultaneously, if one uses only Schein’s model, it is challenging to understand which form of cultural manifestation or dimension is analysed. On the other hand, the six dimensions of Tierney might dramatically differ in the forms they take in different contexts (Taye et al., 2019;
Tierney, 1988). Therefore, the layers devised by Schein are essential platforms to capture the context of manifestations of culture. These layers are also crucial to understand the webs of structure and values that made the case university. However, according to Tierney, analysis of OC of a university “cannot be understood unless one looks not only at the structure and natural laws of that web, but also at the actors' interpretations of the web itself” (1988, p. 4; see also Coman & Bonciu, 2016). Therefore, the six dimensions helped describe the role of OC in the research activities of faculties and to synthesise the cognitive components of the respondents with the observable behaviours (e.g., artifacts and espoused values).
27
The other rationale to combine the two frameworks is related to a paradigmatic assumption.
Martin (1992) and McAuley et al. (2007) argue that combining different paradigms of culture is vital to convey various aspects of culture for a comprehensive analysis of a given context. As McAuley et al. (2007, p. 458) state, in the study of OC, "it is preferable to take a 'both/and' position" rather than craving for the 'best way’ to investigate and understand culture. Moreover, Kuh and Whitt (1988) suggest that the framework of a study that uses the cultural lens to investigate actions and events in a university should accommodate multiple and even conflicting theoretical perspectives. Hence, the two frameworks represent different perspectives on OC. Schein’s model reflects the positivists’ perspective, which in turn, according to McAuley et al. (2007), represents the neo-modernist approach to the study of OC. Accordingly, among other issues, the modernist and/or post-modernist approach is pivotal to analyse structural elements and established procedures. Tierney’s framework is an example of a social constructionist perspective on OC (Bess & Dee, 2008). Tierney and Lanford (2018) assert that the applicability of Tierney’s OC model relies on the view that HEIs are socially constructed.
Hence, it acknowledges the plurality of views and understanding of individuals’ interpretations of their world within an organisation. The final reason is that as Maassen (1996) cited in Taye et al. notes, Tierney does not “operationalise each concept of culture” despite providing the diagnostic questions for each dimension (2019, p. 79). Accordingly, criticisms like this hint to synthesise Tierney’s OC model with other well-crafted models (e.g., Schein’s). These are the main reasons that this qualitative exploratory single case study prefers to synthesise the two OC frameworks.