Native-View Paradigms: Multiple Cultures and Culture Conflicts in Organizations

I would like to thank my colleagues who read an earlier draft of this paper and/or offered insights, critiques, and suggestions. In particular, I acknowledge Howard Becker, Mike Boehm, Douglas Chene, Adele Clarke, Joan Fujimora, Judith Remington, Helen Schwartzman, Leigh Star, Gwen Stern, Rachel Volberg, and Oswald Werner. Several anonymousASQ reviewers also made suggestions that were very much appreciated and led to some changes in the paper. I also gratefully acknowledge Eleanor Wynn's encouragement and assistance in gaining access to research settings, and thank those who participated as interviewees. Tremont Research Institute, and especially its president, Eli hu Gerson, provided technical support during crucial early months that was very much appreciated. This paper is dedicated to the memory of James P. Spradley who introduced me to the cultural perspective presented here. The views expressed in the paper are, of course, my own. This paper describes and critiques organizational culture studies done in industrial settings, some of which were based on anthropological paradigms, including the structural-functional and configurationist holistic paradigms. Most failed to explore multiple native views. In this paper, a multicultural model is proposed for large organizations, and problems of cross-cultural contact are described. Native-view paradigms from anthropology, especially ethnoscience ethnography, are recommended for exploring multiple perspectives in detail. An illustration from a recent study of Silicon Valley technical professionals' native views is presented to demonstrate how ethnoscience methods, in particular, can be applied to the task of studying culture.