The Component of the Interpretation that Refers to Culture

Evans’s interpretation of research culture characterises the component of culture as ‘shared values, assumptions, beliefs, rituals and other forms of behaviour’ (Evans, 2007, p.2). As discussed above, the main theme of this interpretation is the

coherence of thoughts/ideologies and actions of academics in a university.

Furthermore, I also highlight that the interpretation seems unable to capture the diversified dimensions and dynamic nature of universities, which indicates its limitations in relation to describing the phenomenon of research culture. Moreover, there is also a conceptual confusion among theorists about the properties and powers of culture (Archer, 1985; 2005). For example, in one extreme (as in normative functionalism) it has been regarded as ‘exclusively super-ordinate of people’, and in another extreme (as in neo-Marxism) as ‘utterly subordinate to them’ (Archer, 1995, p.2). Margaret Archer (2005; 1996, p.6) argues that these contradictions stem from different interpretations of the ‘Myth of Cultural Integration’, propagated by various schools of thought. She also points out that the myth contains misleading

assumptions, which are the root cause of all theoretical and descriptive vagueness in the conceptualisation of culture (Archer, 1996).

Fundamentally, the myth erroneously confuses two levels: the ‘cultural system’ (henceforth CS) and the ‘socio-cultural’ (henceforth S-C), as it can be clearly seen in the anthropological version of the myth that omits ‘cultural

coherence’ (C.S) with ‘uniform practice’ (S-C) (Archer, 2005, p.18-19). The central theme of Evans’s interpretation also reflects the anthropological image of the myth, and emphasizes the coherence in thoughts/ideology (C.S) and actions (S-C) of academics (Evans, 2007). It means that Linda Evans - in line with other theorists, particularly anthologists - also conflates C.S (a logical property of the world of ideas (Archer,2005, p.24)) with S-C (a causal property of people and their interaction (Archer,2005, p.19)) while interpreting the notion of research culture.

The implications of this conflation for empirical investigation can be illustrated with an example of teaching. From a conflationist point of view, the conceptual principles of teaching (C.S) and academics’ teaching practices (S-C) have the same properties and powers. However, Willmott (2000, p. 108) argues that it is important to investigate ‘the conceptual understanding of teaching

practice[,]....the practice itself and their intertwinement’, for gaining insight into the phenomenon of teaching. This argument is equally applicable to the phenomenon of

researching. In contrast to the conflationary approach, this state of affairs indicates

that the conceptual principles/ideology (C.S) and academics’ practices/actions (S-C) in relation to teaching/researching cannot be mingled and considered as a unit. Archer is also in favour of making an ‘analytical distinction’ between C.S and S-C (Archer, 1996, p. 4) because she believes that these levels are ‘analytically and empirically’ different from each other (Archer, 2005, p.19). Moreover, this distinction is also necessary for rigorous investigation of cultural dynamics and statics (Archer, 1996; 2005). The arguments presented above lead me to revise Evans’s interpretation of research culture in a contra-canonical way and make an analytical distinction between C.S and S-C for gaining a deep understanding of the phenomenon. However, before presenting my interpretation of Evans’s definition, it is important to offset certain misleading assumptions perpetuated by the myth of cultural integration, which act as barriers in the conception of properties and powers of C.S and S-C, levels and in the theorisation of cultural transformation (Archer 1985, 1996, 2005).

2.4.2.1 The Refusal of Contradictions within C.S Level

The myth refuses to acknowledge the inconsistencies and existence of alternatives at C.S level because of the presumption that constituent elements of culture such as ideas, ideologies, theories, beliefs and values are homogeneous and coherently integrated (Archer, 1985; 1996; 2005). Evans’s interpretation also stresses coherence of ideologies/thoughts - shared values, assumptions and beliefs - of academics (Evans, 2007, p.2). However, there is no rationale to preserve this canonical presumption, therefore, the existence of inconsistencies and alternatives can be theorised at C.S level (Archer, 1985; 1996; 2005). Consequently, the locus of cultural change can be pointed out because every contradiction at C.S level

represents a possibility of social change, but it depends upon people’s activities in the S-C level whether it (contradiction) is crystallized into tangible change or aborted in favour of a continuation of existing social practices (Archer, 1985; 1996; 2005). It means that the presence of contradictions at C.S level sets the conditions for social change, which may or may not be actualised through active mediation of people at S-C level (Archer, 1996, p.15). Therefore, while re-visiting Evans’s definition of research culture, it is necessary to incorporate contradictions - in contrast to the convention of homogeneity - at C.S level along with making

analytical distinction between C.S and S-C levels, for gaining better explanatory

This stance also has significant implications for the empirical investigation of research culture, particularly in the context of universities (i.e., the aim of my own study). First, it allows for acknowledgement of the tri-dimensional functions of a university and for explanation of their consequences on academics. It can be said that the diversified goals of universities - similar to contradictions - characterise conditions at C.S level, which allows active involvement of academics at S-C level, to change or preserve the continuation of the existing image of academics’ activities. Second, in a similar fashion, due recognition of various approaches/conceptual principles/beliefs/ideologies within the domains of research can be given, and the conservation and/or modification in the existing way of their application by academics can be explained.

2.4.2.2 Unwillingness to Recognise Variations within S-C Level

Owing to the presumption that the members of a social unit are uniform in their practices, this myth also fails to incorporate consideration of recognition of differentiations in the population at S-C level (Archer, 1996; 2005). Practically, there are always varying degrees of social differences in a population, which can be observed even in a traditionalist society (Archer, 1985). In order to accommodate the myth, theorists ignore these differences in favour of shared practices or treat them as deviant, ritualistic or undesired practices (Martin, 1992). However, Archer (2005) questions this convention and argues that there is no theoretical grounding to presume uniformity of practice, therefore, the presence of a variety of practices at S- C level can be conceptualised. In this regard, Evans’s definition seems close to this stance because her inclusion of the words ‘rituals and other forms of behaviours’ (Evans, 2007, p.2) reflects a recognition of variety in academics’ practice (S-C). However, it demands certain elaboration to nullify the generic contamination of S.C. in the S-C level present in the definition. This nullification can be made by adopting the ‘non-conflationary’ approach (see 2.7.3) which recognises that S.C. and S-C are two distinct levels (Archer, 1995, p.6).

As discussed earlier, universities house a range of academics, each with unique characteristics, such as innovative practice, diversified career-related

priorities, academic freedom, etc., which have significant implications. Indeed, these characteristics propound unavoidable variation among academics (S-C). Therefore, it can be argued that the incorporation of variations at S-C level is necessary to investigate the phenomenon of research culture because it provides opportunity to understand and explain the differences in academics’ research practices.

2.4.2.3 The refusal to conceive C.S and S-C are mutually constitutive levels One of the main corollaries of the myth of cultural integration is that the

homogeneity at S-C level has been assumed as the product of coherence at C.S level, and vice versa (Archer, 1996, 2005). In other words, there is a one-way relationship between these levels; for example, organisational culture analysts (see Schein, 2004; Martin, 1992; Brenton and Driskill, 2010) consider that the central value system (C.S) of an organisation tailors the actions (S-C) of its employees. In contrast, Silver and Hannan (2003) in their study observe that academics attach high value to

research (C.S) despite their active involvement in teaching (S-C). This situation raises questions on the unidirectional relationship between C.S and S-C levels, particularly in the context of a university. Archer (1996, p.16 ) also argues that the unidirectional relationship between the S.C. and S-C level - in either direction - is unable to explain the contribution of each level to cultural change. Moreover, these are analytically different levels and can vary independently (Archer, 1996).

However, their mutual interaction and significant influence on each other is

unavoidable (Archer, 1996). It can be illustrated in this way: academics consciously apply research approach/es (C.S) to their activities (S-C) for the production of new knowledge. Consequently, new and/or refined techniques of conducting research (S.C.) may emerge along with discipline-specific knowledge, which may provide guiding principles for subsequent researchers (S-C). It means the principles of conducting research (C.S) and academics’ research practices (S-C) are mutually constitutive and have a significant impact on each other. Therefore, in contrast to the canonical assumption of a unidirectional relationship, it is essential to examine the interplay between the C.S and S-C levels for gaining an explanatory grip over cultural dynamics (Archer, 1996).

2.5 The Conception of Research Culture Applied to this Study