Consensus analysis, a technique developed in cognitive anthropology for analyzing structured interview data, produces three useful results: (1) a measure of the degree of agreement among informants about a domain of knowledge, belief, or practice; (2) the “culturally correct” information about that domain according to the pooled answers of the informants; and (3) a score for each informant representing that person’s knowledge of the domain. Consensus analysis is not just for high-agreement domains, however. This article explores a typology for conceptualizing diversity in low-consensus domains, including (1) weak agreement, (2) turbulent, (3) subcultural, and (4) contested domains, using case study examples from an English social movement, a Scottish high-technology firm, and a Scottish business support and training organization. The typology helps measure and interpret diversity and change within organizations and social movements.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ali, M.1987. The coal war: Women’s struggle during the British miner’s strike. In Women and political conflict, edited by R. Ridd and H. Callaway, 84–105. New York: New York University Press.
2.
Allen, S., and F. Measham. 1991. In defense of home and hearth? Families, friendship and feminism in mining communities. Paper presented at the Coal, Culture and Community Conference, Sheffield Polytechnic, September.
3.
Bauman, G.1996. Contesting culture: Discourses of identity in multi-ethnic London. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Bohannan, P.1995. How culture works. New York: Free Press.
5.
Borgatti, S. P.1992. ANTHROPAC 4.0. Natick, MA: Analytic Technologies.
6.
Borgatti, S. P.1993. Cultural domain analysis. Journal of Quantitative Anthropology4(4): 261–278.
7.
Boster, J. S., J. C. Johnson, and S. C. Weller. 1987. Social position and shared knowledge: Actors’ perceptions of status, role, and social structure. Social Networks9:375–387.
8.
Caulkins, D.1991. Measuring diversity in organisational culture. Dyn: Journal of the Anthropological Society of Durham University10:1–21.
9.
Caulkins, D.1992. The unexpected entrepreneurs: Small high technology firms and regional development in Wales and Northeast England. In Anthropology and the global factory: Studies in the new industrialization of the late twentieth century, edited by F. A. Rothstein and M. Blim, 119–135. New York: Bergin & Garvey.
10.
Caulkins, D.1995a. High technology entrepreneurs in the peripheral regions of the United Kingdom. In Economic futures on the North Atlantic margin: Selected contributions to the Twelfth International Seminar on Marginal Regions, edited by R. Byron, 287–299. Aldershot, UK: Avebury Press.
11.
Caulkins, D.1995b. Stumbling into applied anthropology: Collaborative roles of academic researchers. Practicing Anthropology17(1–2): 21–24.
12.
Caulkins, D.1998. Consensus analysis: Do Scottish business advisers agree on models of success? In Using methods in the field: A practical introduction and casebook, edited by V. DeMunck and L. Sobo, 179–195. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
13.
Caulkins, D., and M. Scott. 1991. Measuring organisational culture. Confidential report to the directors of a Scottish high-technology firm.
14.
Caulkins, D., and E. S. Weiner. 1998. Finding a work culture that fits: Egalitarian manufacturing firms in mid-Wales. Anthropology of Work Review19(1): 27–37.
15.
Deal, T., and A. Kennedy, 1982. Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. London: Penguin.
16.
Escobar, A.1992. Movements. Critique of Anthropology12(4): 395–432.
17.
Evans, J., C. Hudson, and P. Smith. 1985. Women and the strike: It’s a whole way of life. In Policing the miner’s strike, edited by B. Fine and R. Millar, 188–203. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
18.
Eyerman, R., and A. Jamison, 1991. Social movements: A cognitive approach. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
19.
Farnell, B., and L. Graham. 1998. Discourse-centered methods. In Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology, edited by H. R. Bernard, 411–457. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
20.
Gamst, F. C.1989. The concept of organizational and corporate culture: An ethnological view. Anthropology of Work Review10(3): 12–19.
21.
Handwerker, P., and S. P. Borgatti. 1998. Reasoning with numbers. In Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology, edited by H. R. Bernard, 549–593. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
22.
Hyatt, S. B., with D. D. Caulkins. 1992. “Putting bread on the table”: The women’s work of community activism. Occasional Paper No. 6. Bradford: University of Bradford Department of Social and Economic Studies.
23.
Johnson, J. C.1990. Selecting ethnographic informants. Qualitative research methods 22.New-bury Park, CA: Sage.
24.
Leonard, A.1991. Women in struggle: A case study in a Kent mining community. In Working women: International perspectives on labour and gender ideology, edited by N. Redclift and M. T. Sinclair, 125–148. London: Routledge.
25.
Romney, A. K.1994. Cultural knowledge and cognitive structure. In The making of psychological anthropology, Vol. II, edited by M. Suárez-Orozco, G. Spindler, and L. Spindler, 254–283. New York: Harcourt Brace.
26.
Romney, A. K., W. H. Batchelder, and S. C. Weller. 1987. Recent applications of cultural consensus theory. American Behavioral Scientist31(2): 163–177.
27.
Romney, A. K., and S. C. Weller. 1984. Predicting informant accuracy from patterns of recall among individuals. Social Networks6:59–77.
28.
Romney, A. K., S. Weller, and W. H. Batchelder. 1986. Culture as consensus: A theory of culture and informant accuracy. American Anthropologist88(2): 313–338.
29.
Spradley, J. P.1979. The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
30.
Weller, S. C., and A. K. Romney. 1988. Systematic data collection. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
