RE: [xmca] A Culture of Safety at Work

Wonderful to see an issue like this put in its larger context, Helena, into
the conflict-ridden world that seems to have generated all this behaviour,
which otherwise just seems odd. Well said, all of it!
Andy
At 11:21 AM 18/01/2008 -0600, you wrote:
>Hello -- I just finished reading Gary Fine's article that Andy discusses
>below. I was pretty disappointed.
>
>I agree with Andy about the necessity of noting and giving weight to the
>material basis of culture. But I can't believe that someone goes into a
>workplace and studies what's going on there without taking a good look at
>why people are there in the first place. These offices of the National
>Weather Service are employers and the people working there are employees.
>
>The employees are federal employees and they have a union. There is only
>ONE mention of this, and it's in a footnote -- where a new MIC -- does
>that mean "man in charge"? -- tried to institute a dress code and it
>became "a union issue". So that means that there is a complex contract,
>dispute resolution procedure, whole armature of laws, that is going to
>govern the relationship between the worker and the employer. All of these
>are on paper if not actually on the web so it's easily available. The
>whole bundle is one of the cultural forms that Steve talks about.
>Certainly this is as much a part of the material culture as the scorched
>bunny rabbit. How could Fine miss that? (although he doesn't, since he
>mentions it in his footnote). So these two workplaces operate under rules
>that everyone knows about and uses, but he doesn't mention it.
>
>So we have employers and employees and there is -- as Fine clearly points
>out -- a struggle between employers and employees for control of the
>work. Don't we want to know why? It's probably not just fun and games or
>kidding around. Don't we want to know what it is that management wants to
>see happen, as compared to what the workers want to see happen? That might
>give us a clue about this "science" business, which Fine seems to view
>with friendly amusement. A hint about what management wants to see happen
>is again in a footnote -- Flowerland, apparently, gets more media
>attention. Why does that matter? The NWS (and if a researcher is going to
>be thorough about giving us the material context of his subject, we should
>know about this) provides weather forecast information to TV stations and
>they in turn sell ads, so the more exciting the weather news, the more
>viewers will tune in and the higher price they can sell their ads for. So
>there is a struggle for control of the content of what is produced and it
>has to do with market pressures.
>
>So maybe we can figure out that the NWS management encourages the more
>frequent, dramatic weather predictions for this reason, and the Chicago
>office takes refuge in their claim of being scientists so that they can
>resist that pressure. That's why the tension and the joking in the culture
>is around whether they are scientists or not -- becuase their claim to the
>certainty of the knowledge that they have produced by doing their work is
>what they place in opposition to the power of their supervisors, who are
>in turn supervised by politically appointed bureaucrats. This resistance
>on the part of the Chicago workers, based in the scientific nature of
>their work, is useful whether they are being asked to produce more
>dramatic predictions or wear button-down shirts.
>
>I have found the same phenomenon among EPA employees, who also have a
>culture of being scientists, and who draw on their professional knowledge
>to resist when their supervisors and especially when Bush appointed
>bureaucrats re-write or ignore their reports, which happens.
>
>I would like to know exactly when Fine's research was taking place. It
>looks as if it was after 9/11. In the last 5 years the question of whether
>global warming is happening and whether it's related to human activity has
>gone from being a discussion only among crackpots to being something that
>pretty much everybody accepts. When a TV meteorologist reports that the
>weather in Chicago is 74 degrees Fahrenheit in January and calls it "a
>beautiful day," don't you wonder why he's smiling? My guess is that there
>are questions that Fine didn't ask, about the 21-inch long Flowerland
>discussion (long enough to contextualize a peculiarly warm day or
>unseasonal storm), about "science", and about the actual content of what
>ends up in the reports. From the Chicago office point of view, what is the
>problem with a 21-inch discussion? Does it open the door to unscientific
>rambling? What's the problem with that? If someone in the Chicago office
>had said, "We don't like to see a TV meteorlologist going on and
>on becuase you send a message during that rambling that may or may not be
>consistent with what we know about the weather. When someone goes on and
>on about how great it is for kids to be able to play outside in January,
>that's a message. Do you think you're going to hear a TV meterollogist
>say, 'There will be more hurricanse like Katrina unless we cut car
>emissions?' No, you won't hear that. So we try to stick to just what we
>can say science tells us, and keep it short." -- But Fine didn't ask them.
>
>Basically, I don't see how someone can research a workplace and not look
>at who has what kind of power over whom, for what purpose, and how that
>power gets implemented. And then the rules that govern the workplace are
>mentioned in the footnotes -- along with the market pressures on that
>workplace? Does anyone think that this is not part of the material culture
>of a workplace?
>
>Helena
>________________________________________
>From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf
>Of Andy Blunden [ablunden@mira.net]
>Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 2:22 AM
>To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>Subject: Re: [xmca] A Culture of Safety at Work
>Gary Fine's paper may serve to show why I have emphasised the role of
>"material culture," that is to say the mass of artefacts, in the formation
>of activity and consciousness. I am certainly not criticising the findings
>of this paper, which are extremely interesting, just its methodological
>self-description.
>Fine uses the word "culture" in the usual sense derived from anthropology,
>and "idioculture" is a neolog using "idio-" in the sense of "idiom," that
>is idiosyncratic, local culture. The question, from whence does this
>idioculture arise and how is it sustained?
>In the opening section of the paper, Fine says that:
> "Cultures are ultimately grounded in interaction."
>which is the axiomatics of what is now known as "intersubjectivity" and so
>far as I can see dominates sociology and social philosophy, at least in the
>US. He goes on:
> "It is essential to conceptualise culture as grounded in
> interaction ... through focus on a group's idioculture,
> a system of meaning that arises from and contributes
> to group dynamics. ... Idioculture, as used here, signifies
> a system of knowledge, beliefs,. behaviours, and customs,
> shared by members of an interacting group to which members
> can refer and serves as the basis for further interaction."
>and
> "Group culture incorporates traditions and routine
> practices, that is tied to background knowledge, common
> values, group goals, and status systems ... but also
> serves as a space in which new _cultural items_ are
> created that complement previous traditions."
>He does not explain what is meant by "cultural items," only "moral tales"
>are mentioned at this point, and it has to be said that in this
>methodological introduction this is the only mention of "material culture"
>or artefacts.
>But when we move on to the substance of the research we find that the
>following are used by people to create and maintain the relevant idioculture:
> * Nicknames
> * a food store for shared snacks
> * a staff member's dog
> * "public" computer passwords
> * selected ambient music from the radio
> * the title "Doctor"
> * laughter
> * magazine pages on science stuck to the wall
> * a staff member's garage and a microwave
> * a scorched rabbit named Sparky
> * NCPR business cards
> * a "training video"
> * a "mad scientist" web page
> * a collection plate
> * altered lettering on the building's name plate
> * monocles and black-rimmed glasses
> * a fish belonging to a female employee,
> - referred to as a "boundary object"
> * electrodes placed in this fish tank
> * the locality in which the office is located
> * the warning and reports issued by the office, including
> their size and the statistics of their accuracy
> * the spatial layout of the offices, windows, etc.
>That is, a whole host of artefacts, all with publicly available meaning,
>are used by the individuals involved, together with the idiosyncratic
>interpretations and usages to which the artefacts are subject, in order to
>create and sustain the idiocultural consciousness and activity.
>The writer then concludes with some further methodological remarks on the
>work of George Simmel.
> "... culture is not merely a set of collective
> representations, but an enactment based on social
> coordination. For Simmel and the small group
> tradition, culture is always grounded in action.
> ... the Symbolic Interactionist tradition
> proposes that culture derives from the active
> creation of meaning and interpretations by social
> actors. ... Groups ... are arenas of action,
> incorporating situated meaning, embodies action
> and the power of copresence."
>Now what is remarkable is that in his methodological introduction, Fine
>claims that culture is created by interaction and there is virtually no
>mention of the use of material culture or symbols. This is in complete
>contrast with the body of the research where it turns out that the
>participants in these group cultures use 22 distinct material artefacts not
>to mention the normal spoken words and gestures which constitute so much of
>any culture.
>The body of the research is really interesting and would be of immediate
>interest to anyone in the CHAT tradition, drawing attention, as it does to
>the creation, use and redeployment of so many "tools-in-use" )symbols,
>artefacts, signs or material culture or whatever you want to call them).
>The concluding methodological reflections cite _Symbolic Interactionism_
>without any attention being given to the central idea of Symbolic
>Interactionism, originating from the work of GH Mead, that individuals draw
>upon a repertoire of publicly available, symbols which are subject to
>differing interpretation in the course of use.
>The quote that Steve Gabosch has drawn off the internet accurately
>represents what Fine has done in the body of this research, viz.:
> "... the meanings of cultural items in a small
> group must be considered in order to comprehend
> their continued existence as communication. ...
> "Cultural forms may be created and continue
> to be utilized in situations if they are
> * known to members of the interacting group,
> * usable in the course of group interaction,
> * functional in supporting group goals and individual needs,
> * appropriate in supporting the status hierarchy of the
>group, and
> * triggered by events which occur in group interaction.
> "These elements have impact only through the
> interpretations of group members of their situations."
>So Fine does excellent research, but when he describes his own methodology
>he omits the role of "material culture" - what he calls "cultural items" or
>we would call "artefacts" which are in fact and in the view of others
>describing Fine's work of central importance.
>So when we move to Helena's issue of the "culture of safety" this is not a
>secondary question which can be glided over - these "cultural items" may
>be dangerous machinery or warning signs which can be either ignored or
>taken note of with severe consequences. It is to a large extent only the
>material culture which managers and owners have direct control over, and
>management relies on the manipulation of material culture in order to
>control the activity of workers.
>On the other hand, as Steve pointed out, when unions are removed from the
>picture, and workers lose power, and the power of workers to subject
>written procedures to their own independent interpretation is reduced, a
>loss of safe practice results. Fine's article also reflected the fact that
>independence and social power allows people to subject the material culture
>to their own interpretation and control social practices accordingly.
>So the question of how "cultural items" or "material culture" used in
>social practice (and not just interaction!) are effective or not in
>contributing to the regulation of social practices is absolutely central,
>and must be made explicit in our methodology. If the "cultural items" (such
>as a dangerous machine or a guard rail or a warning sign) are to be taken
>for granted, as if they contained nothing other than what the partners to
>an interaction take them to mean, then we are sorely mistaken. The meaning
>and material impact of a cultural product is subject to contestation, and
>it carries quite objective affordances and constraints.
>So, let's all agree that Gary Fine's paper is really interesting and good
>research, but if his work is to be replicated, recognition has to be given
>to the materiality of the culture.
> Andy
>At 10:44 PM 17/01/2008 -0500, you wrote:
> >Dale, your thinking on workplace "personality" seems to be closely
> >related to Gary Alan Fine's concept of workplace and small group
> >"idioculture." See what you think. I found the article in Wikipedia
> >on Gary Fine helpful in grasping where he is coming from - check it
> >out (google Gary Alan Fine). His focus is on looking at the
> >"idioculture" or perhaps "personality" of small groups.
> >
> >Here is a passage from an intro I drew off the net to one of his
> >articles (he also has a book on his studies of Little League culture,
> >among other kinds of groups he has studied). This passage offers a
> >summary of his concept of what constitutes a small-group
> >"idioculture." I bolded some phrases and created separate lines for
> >them for quicker reading and (hopefully) increased clarity. Fine's
> >thinking about "idioculture" seems to deserve some careful reflection
> >from a CHAT perspective. What do you think?
> >
> >http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224(197910)44%3A5%3C733%3ASGACCT%3
> E2.0.CO%3B2-E
> >Small Groups and Culture Creation: The Idioculture of Little League
> >Baseball Teams
> >Gary Alan Fine
> >American Sociological Review, Vol. 44, No. 5 (Oct., 1979), pp. 733-745
> >doi:10.2307/2094525
> >This article consists of 13 page(s).
> >
> >Following interactionist theory, this study argues that
> >
> >cultural creation and usage can be examined by conceptualizing
> >cultural forms as originating in a small-group context.
> >
> >Those cultural elements which characterize an interacting group are
> >termed the idioculture of the group.
> >
> >This approach focuses on the content of small-group interaction, and
> >suggests that the meanings of cultural items in a small group must be
> >considered in order to comprehend their continued existence as
> >communication.
> >
> >Five characteristics of cultural items affect which items will become
> >part of a group culture.
> >
> >Cultural forms may be created and continue to be utilized in
> >situations if they are
> >
> >known to members of the interacting group,
> >usable in the course of group interaction,
> >functional in supporting group goals and individual needs,
> >appropriate in supporting the status hierarchy of the group,
> >and triggered by events which occur in group interaction.
> >
> >These elements have impact only through the interpretations of group
> >members of their situations. Support for this approach is drawn from a
> >participant observation study of Little League baseball teams.
> >
> ><end of modified quote from Gary Alan Fine>
> >
> >- Steve
> >
> >
> >
> >On Jan 17, 2008, at 3:37 PM, Dale Cyphert wrote:
> >
> >>Would it be useful to distinguish between a workplace "personality"
> >>and a more pervasive social "culture" within which that group
> >>operates? I work with this two-layer notion quite a bit when I try
> >>to explain that any organization has an idiosyncratic set of norms,
> >>behaviors, and expectations of how people ought to think, act, and
> >>communicate. At the same time, business organizations in general
> >>conform to a set of norms that is different from engineering
> >>firms...and neither is ever played out exactly within any one
> >>organization (or even within any one work-group in an organization.)
> >>Businesses themselves, in fact, reflect the social norms of the
> >>region in which they generally do business.
> >>
> >>Which doesn't really answer Helena's question directly, but I think
> >>it's easy to get hung up on what a "culture" is, when the real
> >>question is probably closer to "what are the behavior patterns and
> >>priorities that direct folks toward or away safe behaviors as they
> >>engage in day-to-day activities?" If the analogy were with
> >>psychological constructs, that sounds more like a personality than a
> >>result of culture.
> >>
> >>dale
> >>Dale Cyphert, Ph.D.
> >>Associate Professor and Interim Head
> >>Department of Management
> >>University of Northern Iowa
> >>1227 W.27th Street
> >>Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0125
> >>(319) 273-6150
> >>dale.cyphert@uni.edu
> >>
> >>Mike Cole wrote:
> >>>Its always difficult to interpret non-responses on XMCA, but the
> >>>note that
> >>>Helena sent in the middle
> >>>of the culture discussion growing out of discussion of Andy's paper
> >>>appears
> >>>not to have been given
> >>>much attention. Its a practical issue for Helena and for the
> >>>workers and
> >>>company involved.
> >>>I sent the note re "web culture" in hopes of moving discussion in the
> >>>direction of consideration
> >>>of Helena's message, but also to doubtful effect.
> >>>So, let me take a stab at being useful and thereby providing people
> >>>another
> >>>invitation to lend a hand.
> >>>In my intermittent thinking about the question, my thoughts have
> >>>returned
> >>>often to the idea of "cultural
> >>>styles" because, as in that literature, there appears to be a claim
> >>>that
> >>>there is some shared pattern of
> >>>meaning and associated practices that apply, more or less, to
> >>>condition all
> >>>of the interactions among
> >>>people in a common social group living in more or less common
> >>>circumstances.
> >>>"Culture of the classroom"
> >>>and DIFFERENT "cultures of the classroom" may be at this level of
> >>>generality. Perhaps "culture of machismo"
> >>>in some societies or parts of societies?
> >>>I also thought about the pilot's in Ed Hutchin's aircraft who have
> >>>safety
> >>>check lists and routines for going
> >>>through them, and routines for ensuring that the routines are gone
> >>>through,
> >>>and rules about how to go
> >>>through those routines, and sanctions for not going through those
> >>>routines.
> >>>A preliminary guess about how to talk about such group-specific, but
> >>>presumably within-group pervasive
> >>>phenomena in the case of a factory or workplace. In such cases
> >>>culture
> >>>refers to a combination of values
> >>>and their associated practices which members recognize, recognize
> >>>that
> >>>others recognize them, and can be
> >>>referred to with the expectation that they will be understood by
> >>>others, so
> >>>they are tools for constructing joint activity,
> >>>a "shared reality." Gary Alan Fine in more elaborated treatments
> >>>called
> >>>this sort of cutlural system an idioculture.
> >>>(Fine's definition can be interpreted a la Geertz, as an
> >>>interpretive,
> >>>idealistic approach to culture. This is not my
> >>>reading; I prefer, a s n the parts of Geertz I use, to use it as
> >>>a way to
> >>>keep both material and ideal aspects of
> >>>culture in mind).
> >>>Perhaps this way of looking at things could prove useful, Helene.
> >>>I got to
> >>>thinking that if ALL that constituted the
> >>>"Culture of the workplace" you were studying was safety, people
> >>>would enter
> >>>the building, sit down in a chair, and
> >>>not move a muscle all day to be sure they were safe. Absurd, of
> >>>course.
> >>>They are engaged in productive activity
> >>>and earning their livings, so they must, like Hutchin's pilots, do
> >>>things
> >>>that are not guaranteed safe. So as part
> >>>of many of the practices constituitive of the particular activity
> >>>system,
> >>>safety is a value that gets included, with
> >>>others, in what people do.
> >>>If this is approximately correct, the place to start may be with the
> >>>explicit practices where safety is named and
> >>>included. And then work to ferret out implicit practices where
> >>>it is
> >>>present, although perhaps not explicitly
> >>>named. And , passim Yrjo, look for the contradictions that arise
> >>>when
> >>>this value and its associated practices
> >>>and shadings of practices conflict with other, co-existing cultural
> >>>features of the setting.
> >>>A glance at google suggests that there is a n existing literature
> >>>applied
> >>>to workplaces where some such approach
> >>>as I am gesturing toward may live.
> >>>mike
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>xmca mailing list
> >>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>xmca mailing list
> >>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >xmca mailing list
> >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
>mobile 0409 358 651
>_______________________________________________
>xmca mailing list
>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>________________________________________
>From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf
>Of Peter Smagorinsky [smago@uga.edu]
>Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 5:24 AM
>To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
>Subject: RE: [xmca] A Culture of Safety at Work
>
>I don't have my copy here at home, but I know that Mike Cole talks about
>idiocultures in Cultural Psychology--I've referenced it in my own work. I'll
>attach a manuscript version of a book chapter that employs the construct in
>the context of a high school English class. The citation for the publication
>is:
>
> Smagorinsky, P., & O'Donnell-Allen, C. (2000). Idiocultural
>diversity in small groups: The role of the relational framework in
>collaborative learning. In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian
>perspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning through
>collaborative inquiry (pp. 165-190). New York: Cambridge University Press.
>
>Peter Smagorinsky
>The University of Georgia
>125 Aderhold Hall
>Athens, GA 30602
>smago@uga.edu/phone:706-542-4507
>http://www.coe.uga.edu/lle/faculty/smagorinsky/index.html
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
>Behalf Of Steve Gabosch
>Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:44 PM
>To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>Subject: Re: [xmca] A Culture of Safety at Work
>
>Dale, your thinking on workplace "personality" seems to be closely
>related to Gary Alan Fine's concept of workplace and small group
>"idioculture." See what you think. I found the article in Wikipedia
>on Gary Fine helpful in grasping where he is coming from - check it
>out (google Gary Alan Fine). His focus is on looking at the
>"idioculture" or perhaps "personality" of small groups.
>
>Here is a passage from an intro I drew off the net to one of his
>articles (he also has a book on his studies of Little League culture,
>among other kinds of groups he has studied). This passage offers a
>summary of his concept of what constitutes a small-group
>"idioculture." I bolded some phrases and created separate lines for
>them for quicker reading and (hopefully) increased clarity. Fine's
>thinking about "idioculture" seems to deserve some careful reflection
>from a CHAT perspective. What do you think?
>
>http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224(197910)44%3A5%3C733%3ASGACCT%3E2.
>0.CO%3B2-E
>Small Groups and Culture Creation: The Idioculture of Little League
>Baseball Teams
>Gary Alan Fine
>American Sociological Review, Vol. 44, No. 5 (Oct., 1979), pp. 733-745
>doi:10.2307/2094525
>This article consists of 13 page(s).
>
>Following interactionist theory, this study argues that
>
>cultural creation and usage can be examined by conceptualizing
>cultural forms as originating in a small-group context.
>
>Those cultural elements which characterize an interacting group are
>termed the idioculture of the group.
>
>This approach focuses on the content of small-group interaction, and
>suggests that the meanings of cultural items in a small group must be
>considered in order to comprehend their continued existence as
>communication.
>
>Five characteristics of cultural items affect which items will become
>part of a group culture.
>
>Cultural forms may be created and continue to be utilized in
>situations if they are
>
>known to members of the interacting group,
>usable in the course of group interaction,
>functional in supporting group goals and individual needs,
>appropriate in supporting the status hierarchy of the group,
>and triggered by events which occur in group interaction.
>
>These elements have impact only through the interpretations of group
>members of their situations. Support for this approach is drawn from a
>participant observation study of Little League baseball teams.
>
><end of modified quote from Gary Alan Fine>
>
>- Steve
>
>
>
>On Jan 17, 2008, at 3:37 PM, Dale Cyphert wrote:
>
> > Would it be useful to distinguish between a workplace "personality"
> > and a more pervasive social "culture" within which that group
> > operates? I work with this two-layer notion quite a bit when I try
> > to explain that any organization has an idiosyncratic set of norms,
> > behaviors, and expectations of how people ought to think, act, and
> > communicate. At the same time, business organizations in general
> > conform to a set of norms that is different from engineering
> > firms...and neither is ever played out exactly within any one
> > organization (or even within any one work-group in an organization.)
> > Businesses themselves, in fact, reflect the social norms of the
> > region in which they generally do business.
> >
> > Which doesn't really answer Helena's question directly, but I think
> > it's easy to get hung up on what a "culture" is, when the real
> > question is probably closer to "what are the behavior patterns and
> > priorities that direct folks toward or away safe behaviors as they
> > engage in day-to-day activities?" If the analogy were with
> > psychological constructs, that sounds more like a personality than a
> > result of culture.
> >
> > dale
> > Dale Cyphert, Ph.D.
> > Associate Professor and Interim Head
> > Department of Management
> > University of Northern Iowa
> > 1227 W.27th Street
> > Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0125
> > (319) 273-6150
> > dale.cyphert@uni.edu
> >
> > Mike Cole wrote:
> >> Its always difficult to interpret non-responses on XMCA, but the
> >> note that
> >> Helena sent in the middle
> >> of the culture discussion growing out of discussion of Andy's paper
> >> appears
> >> not to have been given
> >> much attention. Its a practical issue for Helena and for the
> >> workers and
> >> company involved.
> >> I sent the note re "web culture" in hopes of moving discussion in the
> >> direction of consideration
> >> of Helena's message, but also to doubtful effect.
> >> So, let me take a stab at being useful and thereby providing people
> >> another
> >> invitation to lend a hand.
> >> In my intermittent thinking about the question, my thoughts have
> >> returned
> >> often to the idea of "cultural
> >> styles" because, as in that literature, there appears to be a claim
> >> that
> >> there is some shared pattern of
> >> meaning and associated practices that apply, more or less, to
> >> condition all
> >> of the interactions among
> >> people in a common social group living in more or less common
> >> circumstances.
> >> "Culture of the classroom"
> >> and DIFFERENT "cultures of the classroom" may be at this level of
> >> generality. Perhaps "culture of machismo"
> >> in some societies or parts of societies?
> >> I also thought about the pilot's in Ed Hutchin's aircraft who have
> >> safety
> >> check lists and routines for going
> >> through them, and routines for ensuring that the routines are gone
> >> through,
> >> and rules about how to go
> >> through those routines, and sanctions for not going through those
> >> routines.
> >> A preliminary guess about how to talk about such group-specific, but
> >> presumably within-group pervasive
> >> phenomena in the case of a factory or workplace. In such cases
> >> culture
> >> refers to a combination of values
> >> and their associated practices which members recognize, recognize
> >> that
> >> others recognize them, and can be
> >> referred to with the expectation that they will be understood by
> >> others, so
> >> they are tools for constructing joint activity,
> >> a "shared reality." Gary Alan Fine in more elaborated treatments
> >> called
> >> this sort of cutlural system an idioculture.
> >> (Fine's definition can be interpreted a la Geertz, as an
> >> interpretive,
> >> idealistic approach to culture. This is not my
> >> reading; I prefer, a s n the parts of Geertz I use, to use it as
> >> a way to
> >> keep both material and ideal aspects of
> >> culture in mind).
> >> Perhaps this way of looking at things could prove useful, Helene.
> >> I got to
> >> thinking that if ALL that constituted the
> >> "Culture of the workplace" you were studying was safety, people
> >> would enter
> >> the building, sit down in a chair, and
> >> not move a muscle all day to be sure they were safe. Absurd, of
> >> course.
> >> They are engaged in productive activity
> >> and earning their livings, so they must, like Hutchin's pilots, do
> >> things
> >> that are not guaranteed safe. So as part
> >> of many of the practices constituitive of the particular activity
> >> system,
> >> safety is a value that gets included, with
> >> others, in what people do.
> >> If this is approximately correct, the place to start may be with the
> >> explicit practices where safety is named and
> >> included. And then work to ferret out implicit practices where
> >> it is
> >> present, although perhaps not explicitly
> >> named. And , passim Yrjo, look for the contradictions that arise
> >> when
> >> this value and its associated practices
> >> and shadings of practices conflict with other, co-existing cultural
> >> features of the setting.
> >> A glance at google suggests that there is a n existing literature
> >> applied
> >> to workplaces where some such approach
> >> as I am gesturing toward may live.
> >> mike
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> xmca mailing list
> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>_______________________________________________
>xmca mailing list
>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

  Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
mobile 0409 358 651

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Fri Jan 18 18:36 PST 2008