Cultures and Change in Higher Education

Theories and Practices

Paul Trowler

• Publisher: Bloomsbury Academic
• Year: 2008
• ISBN:
  9781350306226
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Higher Education

Describes approaches to understanding cultures in higher education, paying particular attention to cultures and cultural construction at departmental level. Implications of cultural characteristics for issues around change initiatives, including the enhancement of teaching, learning and assessment are a key focus of this book.

1 Understanding Cultures in Higher Education

This chapter explores alternative approaches to understanding cultures. It begins at the organisational (‘macro’) level and describes some of the common understandings of culture, most of which are addressed at that level. The chapter then goes on to show the ways in which a social practice-based understanding of culture differs from these. The level of analysis then shifts to the individual (‘micro’) level to explore the ways in which individual subjectivities intermesh with their social locale: in other words, to explore the ways in which the micro and macro dimensions of culture are related.

A third and final shift in the level of analysis takes the chapter to the meso level, showing how workgroups at the departmental level in universities are particularly significant in the construction and enactment of cultures. Here a specific example of teaching and learning regimes¹ is used to illustrate the importance of culture at this level. This introduces the following chapter, which provides a more detailed overview of this area.

Culture at the organisational level

‘Culture’ is an extremely slippery word. Like ‘discourse’, it is much used, and misused, in social science. Gerth and Mills (1970, p. xxii) suggest that it is a ‘word for the lazy’. Perhaps this is not surprising given that some approaches to its use have lacked precision. Phenomenological approaches in particular consider cultures to be uniquely created in each social situation and to be in a state of constant flux. Given this they cannot be easily defined or described. As a result ‘culture’ is usually understood to mean something like ‘the way we do things around here’ (Geertz, 1983), involving ‘webs of significance’ spun by men and women in their daily lives which can only be interpreted, not analysed.

While intuitively comprehensible, this approach offers little analytical purchase. And yet social scientists have long recognised the value of a cultural perspective which ‘permits coherent interpretations of events that may seem, at first glance, to be atomistic’ (Kuh and Whitt, 1988, pp. 2–3). Thus some writers have attempted to develop approaches to culture that are more easily operationalised. Two of these are the ‘nomothetic’ approach and the ‘inductively derived categorising’ (IDC) approach to culture.

Categorising approaches to culture in organisations

‘Nomothetic’ approaches to organisational culture attempt to categorise types of culture in generalised terms, providing a typology in which to slot specific examples. The term ‘nomothetic’ also implies that universal, general laws can be established. In this case the laws are about the causal relationship between culture and change. Nomothetic approaches provide a theory about the significance of culture for organisations, particularly in terms of their aims, the significant people and sub-groups within them, the nature of interactions there, and so on.

The nomothetic approach is distinct from idiographic ones such as the phenomenological perspective mentioned above. Idiographic approaches see each example as having unique characteristics which cannot be categorised into a universal schema, and consider it impossible to establish universal laws in the area being considered. Thus each organisational culture found in a university is particular to that institution and must be studied on its own terms.

Nomothetic approaches tend to be functionalist in character. That is, they suggest that organisational culture conditions behaviour and, if it is strong and coherent enough, can facilitate united action towards common and agreed goals. Here ‘strength’ means the degree to which patterns of behaviour, values, and attitudes permeate an organisation with very little deviance from them. In this way a strong, coherent, and shared set of values and behaviour in an organisation can improve its effectiveness. The role of management, in this view, is to use as many levers as possible to foster strong unitary cultures which are oriented to achieving the vision that leaders set out for organisations. This approach is very clearly set out in Peters and Waterman (1982).

The work of Charles Handy (1993), though not original, is probably the best-known example of a nomothetic approach to culture, though many others have followed his lead. Almost all of them – like him – identify ‘four’ cultural types. The following outline is drawn from Handy’s work.

Handy’s four cultures

The power culture. A power culture is frequently found in small entrepreneurial organisations. Its structure is best pictured as a web. This culture depends on a central power source, with rays of power and influence spreading out from that central figure. If the centre chooses the right people, who can think in the same way as it thinks, they can be left to get on with the job. There are few rules and procedures, little bureaucracy. Control is exercised by the centre largely through the selection of key individuals and by occasional forays from the centre or summonses to the centre. These cultures, and organisations based on them, are proud and strong. They have the ability to move quickly and can react well to threat or danger. Whether they do move or whether they move in the right direction will, however, depend on the person or persons in the centre. The quality of these individuals is of paramount importance in those organisations and the succession issue is the key to their continued success. Individuals employed in them will prosper and be satisfied to the extent that they are power-orientated, politically minded, risk-taking, and rate security as a minor element in their psychological contract. Resource power is the major power base in this culture with some elements of personal power in the centre.

The role culture. The role culture is often stereotyped as bureaucracy. The accompanying structure to a role culture can be pictured as a Greek temple. The role organisation rests its strength in its pillars, its functions or specialities. These pillars are strong in their own right; the finance department, the purchasing department, the production facility may be internationally renowned for their efficiency. The work of the pillars, and the interaction between the pillars, is controlled by procedures. They are co-ordinated at the top by a narrow band of senior management, the pediment. It is assumed that this should be the only personal co-ordination needed, for if the separate pillars do their job, as laid down by the rules and procedures, the ultimate result will be as planned. In this culture the role, or job description, is often more important than the individual who fills it. Individuals are selected for satisfactory performance of a role, and the role is usually so described that a range of individuals could fill it. Performance over and above the role prescription is not required, and indeed can be disruptive at times. Position power is the major power source in this culture, personal power is frowned upon and expert power tolerated only in its proper place. Rules and procedures are the major methods of influence.

The task culture. The task culture is job- or project-orientated. Its accompanying structure can be best represented as a net, with some of the strands of the net thicker and stronger than the others. Much of the power and influence lies at the interstices of the net, at the knots. The so-called ‘matrix organisation’ is one structural form of the task culture. The culture seeks to bring together the appropriate resources, the right people at the right level of the organisation, and to let them get on with it. Influence is based more on expert power than on position or personal power, although these sources have their effect. Influence is also more widely dispersed than in other cultures, and each individual tends to think she has more of it. It is a team culture, where the outcome, the result, the product, of the team’s work tends to be the common enemy obliterating individual objectives and most status and style differences. The task culture utilises the unifying power of the group to improve efficiency and to identify the individual with the objective of the organisation. This culture is extremely adaptable. Groups, project teams, or task forces are formed for a specific purpose and can be reformed, abandoned, or continued. The net organisation works quickly since each group ideally contains within it all the decision-making powers required. Individuals find in this culture a high degree of control over their work, judgement by results, and easy working relationships within the group with mutual respect based upon capacity rather than age or status.

The person culture. In this culture the individual is the central point. If there is a structure or an organisation it exists only to serve and assist the individuals within it. If a group of individuals decide that it is in their own interests to band together in order for the better to follow their own bents, to do their own thing, and that an office, a space, some equipment, or even clerical and secretarial assistance would help, then the resulting organisation would have a person culture. It would exist only for the people in it without any super-ordinate objective. Barristers’ chambers, architects’ partnerships, hippy communes, social groups, families, and some small consultancy firms often have this ‘person’ orientation. Its structure is as minimal as possible, a ‘cluster’ is the best word for it, or perhaps a ‘galaxy of individual stars’. Clearly, not many organisations can exist with this sort of culture, since organisations tend to have objectives over and above the collective objectives of those who comprise them. Furthermore, control mechanisms, or even management hierarchies, are impossible in these cultures except by mutual consent. The psychological contract states that the organisation is subordinate to the individual and depends on the individual for its existence. The individual can leave the organisation but the organisation seldom has the power to evict the individual.

Berquist’s four cultures

The depictions above are clearly drawn in such a way as to apply to any category of organisation. Berquist’s work (1992) applies the nomothetic approach to the study of universities in particular. The categories he discerns are the ‘collegial’, ‘managerial’, ‘negotiating’, and ‘developmental’ cultural types in the higher education system. They are briefly described as follows

Collegial culture. Universities characterised by the collegial culture are centred around the disciplines represented by the academic staff of the institution. Their collaborative work is the key to this cultural form. Research and scholarship are highly valued and there is general agreement that the institution’s primary role is the generation, interpretation, and dissemination of knowledge. Great significance is attached to the development of specific values and qualities of character among the young men and women who are students in collegial universities.

Managerial culture. The managerial culture, by contrast, is one that finds meaning primarily in the organisation. Specific goals and purposes are clearly identified and the extent to which they are achieved is carefully evaluated. Economy and efficiency are highly valued and effectiveness as well as supervisory skills are seen as ensuring that these are achieved. The university’s primary role is conceived as the inculcation of specific knowledge, skills, and attitudes in students so that they might become successful and responsible citizens.

Developmental culture. The developmental culture is one that finds meaning primarily in the creation of programmes and activities furthering the personal and professional growth of all members of the collegiate community. This culture stresses the value of personal openness and service to others, as well as systematic institutional research and curricular planning. The institution’s primary role is conceived as the encouragement of potential for cognitive, affective, and behavioural maturation among all students, faculty, administrators, and other staff. Developmental cultures are sub-species of collegial cultures rather than being a completely distinct category.

Negotiating culture. Finally, the negotiating...