IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cep/cepdps/dp0095.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On Elephants and Blind Researchers: Methods for Accessing Culture in Organisations

Author

Listed:
  • V Locatelli
  • M West

Abstract

This research compares two pre-existing methodologies for accessing culture, repertory grids and focused group discussions, with a modified version of the Twenty Statements Test (Kuhn and McPartland, 1954), a method originally developed to measure self concept. The comparison is made on the basis of three criteria: the levels and elements of culture accessed by the different methods; the amount and usefulness of the information gathered; and finally, the ease of use of the methods. The comparison of the methods is based on information gathered from 158 participants in a major UK company and the results clearly suggest that the modified Twenty Statements Test has most potential as a method for accessing culture in organisation. The results also suggest that the conceptualisation of aspects of culture needs to be clearer and more focused if progress in understanding about the content and consequences of culture is to be made.

Suggested Citation

  • V Locatelli & M West, 1992. "On Elephants and Blind Researchers: Methods for Accessing Culture in Organisations," CEP Discussion Papers dp0095, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
  • Handle: RePEc:cep:cepdps:dp0095
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cep:cepdps:dp0095. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://cep.lse.ac.uk/_new/publications/discussion-papers/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.