A methodology to surface aspects of organizational culture to facilitate Lean Implementation within SMEs

Abstract

There is a scarcity of research about cultural aspects and organisational culture related to lean implementation (LI) (Pakdil and Leonard, 2015). In order to addressing the need for organisational culture (OC) to better facilitate lean and propel its success among small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Saudi Arabia as a case, requires a methodology which supports the research and analysis of OC. Grounded theory, action research and an inductive approach has been selected. Due to the nature of the topic requiring the exploration of culture, it is beneficial to utilise qualitative research which is provided by grounded theory that has been adopted. Thus, adhering to the grounded theory process utilising an issue focused approach (Sackmann, 1991). Semi-structured interviews, observations and focus-groups were chosen to conduct this exploratory study. 37 aspects have been identified from semi-structured interviews. All these aspects have been aggregated through focus groups to seven main themes.

Full text

Int. J. Operational Research, Vol. X, No. Y, xxxx 1
Copyright © 20XX Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
A methodology to surface aspects of organisational
culture to facilitate lean implementation within SMEs
Abdullah Abdulaziz Alkhoraif* and
Patrick McLaughlin
Manufacturing Department,
School of Aerospace, Transport and Manufacturing,
Cranfield University,
Cranfield, Bedfordshire, MK43 0AL, UK
Email: a.a.alkhoraif@cranfield.ac.uk
Email: p.mclaughlin@cranfield.ac.uk
*Corresponding author
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to provide an instructional guidance on
how to surface aspects of organisational culture (OC) that effect lean
implementation within small and medium sized manufacturing organisation.
This paper describes how grounded theory and action research can be used
inside each other. The paper suggests to not only using a translation method to
validate the result but to use also inter-rate reliability to increase the validity
and reduce the subjectivity. The paper also demonstrates how different
technique can help management research by including in a time effective way.
Keywords: lean implementation; LI; organisational culture; OC; grounded
theory; action research; small and medium-sized enterprises; SMEs.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Alkhoraif, A.A. and
McLaughlin, P. (xxxx) ‘A methodology to surface aspects of organisational
culture to facilitate lean implementation within SMEs’, Int. J. Operational
Research, Vol. X, No. Y, pp.xxx–xxx.
Biographical notes: Abdullah Abdulaziz Alkhoraif is a PhD researcher
assistant at the School of Aerospace Transportation and Manufacturing,
Cranfield University. He holds degree in BEng Engineering and Business and
MSc Engineering Project Management form the Bournemouth University.
Recently, he published two books in The Process of Quality Material Selection
and Contractual and Sub-contractual risks: Project Management Perspective.
He was involved in oil industry for 10 years.
Patrick McLaughlin is a Course Director: Operations Excellence MSc, School
of Aerospace Transportation and Manufacturing, Cranfield University. He is a
Chartered Engineer and Eur. Ing. He is a fellow of both the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers and the Institution of Engineering and Technology, as
well as a fellow of the Higher Education Academy. He has an MSc in Industrial
Engineering and Production Management and a Doctorate in Business
Administration (DBA), both from the Cranfield. He has worked at director
level in manufacturing operations for over 20 years, and has been responsible
for several plant-wide lean manufacturing implementations. He has experience
of implementing and managing change programmes to improve manufacturing
performance in automotive, capital goods, industrial equipment and consumer
durables. This experience includes responsibility for integrating the design and
development of new products into a lean operations environment and
developing a continuous improvement culture to facilitate performance gains in
lean implementations.

2 A.A. Alkhoraif and P. McLaughlin
This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled ‘A
methodology to surface aspects of organizational culture to facilitate lean
implementation within SMEs’ presented at 2nd International Conference on
Business and Social Sciences, Cambridge University, UK, 11–12 November
2017.
1 Introduction
Developing a framework addressing the need for an OC to better facilitate a lean culture
and propel its success among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) requires a
methodology that supports the research and analysis of OCs regarding lean
implementation (LI) (Alkhoraif and McLaughlin, 2018; Kumar et al., 2018; Wood et al.,
2018). Therefore, for the purposes of this research it is crucial to incorporate suitable
research methods that address OCs and its issues. The way in which the methodology
was implemented is discussed and analysed in the following sections, evaluating the pros
and cons of methodological options such as case study, phenomenology, grounded
theory, laddering, action research, cognitive mapping and ethnography.
The aim of the research is to develop a methodology to surface aspects of
organisational culture (OC) that facilitate LI within SMEs manufacturing sector. There is
a need of a methodology to improve LI within SMEs (Alkhoraif and Mclaughlin, n.d.,
2017, 2018; Ravikumar et al., 2016; Wood et al., 2018). In addition, Ravikumar et al.
(2016) state that in terms of OC, a clear methodology is required to surface aspects of
culture. The research was based on grounded theory methodology and a participative
action research approach to uncover issues that clearly illustrated both the presence and
intensity of aspects of organisation culture that enabled and inhibited LI within an
inductive approach. Due to the need to explore OC it is beneficial to utilise qualitative
research (Graham and Thomas, 2008). An inductive approach enables the researcher to
become fully engaged within the research environment, thus improving the understanding
of the culture being studied, facilitating more of an insider’s view of the culture (Walker
and Myrick, 2006).
Furthermore, it is important to note that most methodologies require extensive
literature reviews to inform the research and identify the research question, as most
research methodology is conducted with a deductive approach, (Dick, 2006). In contrast,
grounded theory being inductive ends with a theory as opposed to beginning with a
hypothesis and instead is used as a method for reviewing literature (Trochim and
Donnelly, 2001). Hence, why research hypotheses are made redundant in grounded
theory is that the literature is generally used as a comparator (Dick, 2006).
A combination of issues and phenomenological approaches proposed by Sackmann
(2006) was utilised due to its suitability to analysing OC. In addition to this, the grounded
theory method of Strauss and Corbin (1994) was adopted. Action research tends to be
used for prompting conscious change within a somewhat controlled environment (Collis
and Hussey, 2013). In this approach the participants and the researcher collaborate to find
a solution to a problem (Coghlan and Brannick, 2014).

A methodology to surface aspects of organisational culture 3
1.1 OC and research issues
OC is a social science that has been discussed and brought up in many business
disciplines. Yet, there is a lack of empirical research that adequately uncovers the integral
nature of OC and its impact on organisations and their functioning (Pearse and
Kanyangale, 2009). This is partly the result of the existence of abstract concepts in OC
making it more complicated to research, (Sackmann, 1991). However, the following will
attempt at proposing an appropriate research methodology suitable for researching OC.
In part, the problem exists in adequately defining culture and that in a number of
cases, many of the fundamental aspects of culture which include beliefs, customs, value
systems, behavioural norms and tangible or visible artefacts can be easily missed in
research methods or over-simplified (Pearse and Kanyangale, 2009). Schein (1984)
suggests that a number of methods utilised by those analysing OC take the approach of
merely asking the correct questions. The other alternative might be to adopt a structured
questionnaire, although the limitation with this is that it needs a strong understanding of
the cultural context in which the OC is set (Sackman, 1991). This is usually not the case
when approaching this kind of research (Bryant, 2009). Therefore, the issue of very thinly
distributed empirical knowledge and research on OC and its context leads towards the use
of a more inductive research approach (Golden-Biddle and Locke, 2007). This is because
an inductive approach is better able to facilitate the establishment of a theory of culture
within an organisational context, although, it can be difficult making comparisons
between organisations with this approach (Sackmann, 1991).
Figure 1 The cultural iceberg model
Source: Adopted from Sackmann (2006)
Among the many different definitions of culture, it can be defined as “… a set of
assumptions commonly held by a group of people. The set is distinctive to the group. The

4 A.A. Alkhoraif and P. McLaughlin
assumptions serve as guides to acceptable perceptions, thought, feeling and behaviour,
are tacit among members, are learned and are passed on to each new member of the
group” [Phillips, (1994), p.6]. With this definition in mind, it requires revealing
assumptions or beliefs, which serve as the premise behind how people perceive things,
think, feel and behave (Golden-Biddle and Locke, 2007). Artefacts and behaviours tend
to be more surface level and not necessarily reflective of the underlying cognitive
components (Birkinshaw et al., 2011). One way to consider culture is like an iceberg (see
Figure 1), with artefacts, behaviours and espoused assumptions at the tip, and below the
surface lies the tacit, commonly held, habitually used an emotionally anchored
component which are structure of cultural realities (Birkinshaw et al., 2011). Gaining an
understanding of these is critical in order to work out the visible aspects but to draw these
out requires special techniques (Allard and Anderson, 2005). The following section will
highlight the methods best suitable to help reveal these deeper, structural components of a
culture.
2 Research paradigm
It is essential to select an appropriate research paradigm that reflects the nature and
characteristics of the area of study (Strauss, 1987). According to Strauss (1993), “This is
a universe where nothing is strictly determined. Its phenomena should be partly
determinable via naturalistic analysis, including the phenomenon of men [and women]
participating in the construction of the structures which shape their lives” [Strauss,
(1993), p.19]. Thus, it would make sense to consider the type of methodological
philosophy that encompasses the complexity and ambiguity of inbuilt events and
behaviour as described in Strauss’s quote above. It suggests that what essentially is
considered ‘done procedure’ and works today is quite likely to be problematic in the
future (Guba and Lincoln, 1989). This necessitates a theory that helps to answer the
questions of today but takes into account that these may likely turn back into questions in
the future (Guba and Lincoln, 1989). Table 1 provides descriptions of paradigms which
tend to compete for selection in guiding an inquiry in qualitative research.
Table 1 Methodological philosophical options
Positivism Post positivism Constructivism
Ontology ‘Naive realism – ‘real’
reality but apprehendable’
‘Critical realism – ‘real’
reality but only imperfectly
and probabilistically
apprehendable’
‘Relativism, local
and specific
constructed
realities’
Epistemology ‘Dualist/objectivist findings
are true’
‘Modified dualist;
objectivist critical
traditional/community
findings probably true’
‘Interpretivist’
Methodology ‘Experimental/manipulative
verification of hypotheses;
chiefly quantitative
methods’
‘Modified
experimental/manipulative
critical multiples;
falsification of hypotheses
may include qualitative
methods’
‘Hermeneutical/
dialectical’
Source: Guba and Lincoln (1989)

A methodology to surface aspects of organisational culture 5
Ontology – naïve realism (Table 1, column 1) is propelled by unchanging natural laws.
Knowledge of the way things are is comprised over time and can sometimes show up in
cause and effect laws (Hesse, 1980). Epistemology – dualist and objectivist operate as
independent units, and the researcher is able to study the object without influencing it or
being influenced by it (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). Methodology – experimental and
manipulative involves stating questions or hypotheses and go under empirical testing
(Guba and Lincoln, 1994).
Ontology – critical realism (column 2) is considered critical because its claims about
reality is heavily scrutinised to facilitate the reality as closely as possible (Guba and
Lincoln, 1994). Methodology – modified experimental emphasises triangulation as a way
of falsifying hypotheses (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). It aims to address some weaknesses
such as those discussed above by facilitating an insider view to help identify the context
and purpose surrounding the actions. These are mainly achieved through a greater use of
qualitative techniques (Hesse, 1980).
Figure 2 Philosophical methodological process for the current research (see online version
for colours)
For this study, the constructivist approach has been selected. Ontology – constructivist
(column 3) considers non-physical, mental constructions that are socially and
experimentally-based, which might be local and specific in nature. Constructions can be
altered because they are linked to realities (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). Epistemology –
interpretative considers the researcher and the object are interactively linked, which
means the results are created as the research proceeds, (von Wright, 2004). In this case,
the distinction between ontology and epistemology is eliminated. Methodology –
hermeneutical and dialectical suggests that individual’s construction can only be drawn
out by interaction between the researcher and the object (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). The

6 A.A. Alkhoraif and P. McLaughlin
aim is to identify a consensus construction which is more informed than the earlier
construction. The red square in Figure 2 indicates the selection of the research approach.
2.1.1 Ontology
Ontology refers to the ‘nature of reality and its characteristics’ [Creswell, (2013), p.20]. It
poses the questions relating to the form and nature of reality and what can be discovered
about it (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). Researchers tend to show their ontological options
along a continuum with the polar opposites being positivism and constructionism and the
middle being realism (Blaikie, 2009). Where a positivist view was taken it considered
that an “external reality existed, which could be discovered and totally understood”
[Howell, (2012), p.4]. Thus, is it also referred to as ‘naive realism’.
Under a post-positivism view, reality is believed to be understood imperfectly and
thus emphasises a more critical evaluation of the existing reality (Howell, 2012). Thus,
the notion is that reality is moulded by ‘social, political, cultural, economic and ethnic
and gender values’, which are formed over time (Guba and Lincoln, 1994).
Easterby-Smith et al. (2012) suggests the main characteristic of positivism is where the
observer is independent from what is being studied and forms the choice of what to study.
Thus, the choices are made by an objective criterion as opposed to human beliefs and
decisions. The positivist position aims to find casual explanations and by testing
hypotheses. Due to this in order for concepts to be measured they need to be simplified.
There are two main strands of realism in social sciences; one is transcendental and
critical realism and the other is constructivist realism. According to Howell (2012, p.51)
critical realism takes into account “a distinction between the knowledge of human being,
which can change and knowledge that is of things…which is discovered.” Realism sits
between the pure positivist and constructionist views of reality (Marcos-Cuevas, 2006).
According to realists, social sciences should adopt the anti-positivist position, suggesting
there are distinct differences between natural and social phenomena (Marcos-Cuevas,
2006). Realists tend to accept an interpretative view that society is produced and re-
produced by the members within it, thus ‘are both a condition and an outcome their
reality’ [Blaikie, (2009), p.59]. Realism is more concerned with distinguishing between
‘causal laws’ and ‘patterns of events’ (Marcos-Cuevas, 2006).
Tsang and Kwan (1999, p.762) provide a summary of the three aspects of realism.
First, it is focused on the structures and mechanisms as opposed to empirical events.
Second, ‘The structures and mechanisms are only contingently related to observable
empirical events’. Third, it is always possible to generate knowledge via creative
construction and critical testing of theories. Thus, in a constructivist approach, reality is
created by both the researcher and the research participants (Ibrahim, 2013). This,
according to Howell (2012), is founded on the phenomenological positions because this
approach considers reality to be integrated with the integrations between subjective and
objective perspectives. In relation to qualitative research the ontological perspective is
constructivist, implying that the social factors are the result of interactions between
peoples as opposed to a phenomena and it is separate from those constructing it (Bryman
and Bell, 2015).

A methodology to surface aspects of organisational culture 7
2.1.2 Epistemology
According to Guba and Lincoln (1994, p.108), epistemology can be defined as ‘the
relationship between the knower or the would-be knower and what can be known’, thus,
explaining the relationship between the researcher and the people being researched and
relating this to how one comes to know what they know (Creswell, 2013). The
epistemological perspective is interpretative, as it emphasises exploring the social world
by analysing how the world is interpreted by the actors within it. That taking a positivist
view, the researcher is objective and his findings are considered what is true. The
post-positivist view considers that findings which can be replicated are most likely to be
true (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). In the constructive approach, it considers the findings to
be created and developed as the research progresses (Ibrahim, 2013).
Each of these philosophical positions for inquiry share a common element among
them which is ‘human construction’ (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). They each provide their
own specific approaches demonstrating how they work together within a situational
research project. This can be seen in the way the post-positivism perspective emphasises
cause and effect, while the latter mentioned paradigms place greater emphasis on
understanding the world in which a phenomenology occurs (Ibrahim, 2013).
2.1.3 Constructivist method of inquiry
Any of the approaches for inquiry could be selected for this research project in order to
explore the phenomena occurring within the OCs under investigation. However, the real
impact would become evident in the final results. Recently the constructivist approach
has gained more credence among social-science methodologists (Ibrahim, 2013).
However, the constructivist view takes the assumption that what is considered to be
objective knowledge and truth ultimately results from the researcher’s perspective
(Schwandt, 1998). Moreover, it emphasises the phenomena of the research and considers
both the data and its analysis as a combined result from the researcher and those
researched, stemming from shared experiences and relationships (Charmaz, 2011). In
light of the research objectives and the issues associated with uncovering culture it
appears the constructivist paradigm was the most suitable in fulfilling the aims of this
research, due to its focus on shared experiences and its interpretation of reality as being
locally constructed (Howell, 2012).
3 Research approach
Two main research approaches used by researchers are inductive and deductive. This is
heavily linked to the philosophical assumptions of the researcher (Saunders et al., 2009).
The deductive approach tends to sit with the positivist paradigm, while the inductive
tends to be utilised more as an option for interpretive research (Creswell, 2009). The
deductive approach is advantageous for establishing casual relationships (Fisher, 2007). It
particularly involves testing a theoretical position by utilising a research strategy for this
purpose (Saunders et al., 2009). In a deductive approach, the researcher is independent of
the phenomenon being studied (Ibrahim, 2013). Criticisms of this approach have been
that it does not fit with many theoretical models and due to its tendency to require a strict
methodology it does not allow freedom for alternative explanations (Ibrahim, 2013).

8 A.A. Alkhoraif and P. McLaughlin
Figure 3 Deductive approach
This is particularly important in studies in the field of business and management or where
human behaviour is a primary element (Ibrahim, 2013). The inductive approach however,
is rooted in qualitative research (Saunders et al., 2009). In this approach, greater
emphasis is given to individual interpretations and the experiences of the research
participants. The inductive approach focuses on the relationship between theory and
research, where the theory is generated from the research (Bryman and Bell, 2015). The
inductive approach tends to be more flexible than the deductive approach, as it better
facilitates for the researcher to make more informed decisions as to the research design
and its strategies while taking into account limitations (Easterby-Smith et al., 2012). For
these reasons, the inductive approach was selected for this research.
4 Research design
In the past, quantitative research has been labelled as ‘hard’ while social sciences have
been considered ‘soft’ and associated with less precision and dependability (Miles and
Huberman, 1994). However, criticisms of merely quantitative methods have emerged,
which include: stripping variables of their context, excluding meaning and purpose,
disjunction of outsider and insider approaches to study and inapplicability of general
findings to individual cases (Miles and Huberman, 1994). These weaknesses of
quantitative research can be significantly mitigated by utilising qualitative research.
Furthermore, an important aspect of this is to ensure the researcher does not influence the
phenomena, which is also a disadvantage of quantitative research (Miles and Huberman,
1994). This is particularly the case where an outsider approach can have very little
meaning within the single view of researched groups or cultures. Qualitative research is
confirmed to be useful for uncovering such insider views (Corbin and Strauss, 1990a).
Although qualitative approaches are also not without criticism, it is important to consider
the paradigms and their underlying assumptions.
In this research study, the aim is to explore OCs and how they can influence the
success or failure of lean philosophy in SMEs in manufacturing industry. This topic has
not previously been heavily researched. Thus, in line with Creswell’s definition below, a
qualitative approach has been selected. According to Creswell (2013), in qualitative
studies much exploration needs to be done into the research problem as the variables are
rather unknown and the general aim is to research the context that might shape the
understanding of the phenomenon that is under investigation. According to Denzin and
Lincoln (2011), it is important for qualitative researchers to conduct their research within
their natural setting in order to interpret the phenomena in accordance with the meanings
the research participants attribute to things (Javadi, 2013). Qualitative research tends to
involve the use of a number of empirical materials such as observations, interview, focus
groups and life stories (Javadi, 2013).

A methodology to surface aspects of organisational culture 9
Table 2 Characteristics of qualitative and quantitative research
Criteria Qualitative research Quantitative research
Purpose To discover and interpret meaning and perceptions of social
inte ractio ns.
To test hypotheses developed before research begins, look at cause and
effects, and make predictions.
Focus Wide-angle lens, examines the breadth and d epth or phenomena. Narrow-angle lens, and tests specific hypo theses.
Group studied Particular to the subject group. Smaller and not randomly selected.
Rep lication is rare .
Larger and randomly selected. replication across different sites is possible.
Variables Study of the whole, and not variables. Specific variables studied.
Data type Words, images or objects. Numbers and statistics.
Data collection method Qualitative data such as open-ended responses, interviews, participant
observations, field notes, and reflections.
Quantitative data based on precise measurements using structured and
validated data collection instruments.
Data analysis type Identify patterns features, and th emes. Identify statistical relationships.
Res earch s cope Part icular t o the s ubjec t gro up. Replic ation is r are. Stand ard ised so that replica tion ac ross d ifferen t sites is possible.
Units of analysis Subjects are selected to fit the purpose of the study. Subjects are selected randomly.
Obj ectivity and s ubjec tivity Sub jectivit y is ex pected . Obj ectivity is cr itic al.
Role of researcher Researcher and their biases may be known to participants in the
study, and participant characteristics may be kno wn to the researcher.
Researcher and their biases are not kno wn to participants in the study and
participant characteristics are deliberately h idden from the researcher.
Question Are typically open ended allowing flexibility in response. Asked in such a way that the answers are a fixed set of choices.
Scientific method Exploratory or bottom-up: the researcher generates a new hypothesis
and theory from the d ata collected.
Confirmatory or top-down the researcher tests the hypothesis and theory with
the data.
View on human behaviour Dynamic situational, social and personal. Regular and predictable.
Most common research objectives Explore discover and construct Describe, explain and predict.
Contact with the subject Research takes place in the field and invo lves face to face encounters
with the subject.
Research can not take place withou t direct contact with subject, as in the case
of telephone or mailed surveys.
Nature of observation Study behaviour in a natural environment. Study behaviour under controlled conditions; isolate causal effects.
Nat ure of re ality Mult iple re al itie s; s ubjec tive. Sing le rea lity; o bj ect ive.
Final repo rt Narrative report with contextual description and direct quotations
from research partic ipants.
Statistical report with correlations , comparisons of means, and statistical
sign ifican ce o f findin gs.
Results Particular or specialised findings that is less generalisable. Generalisable findings that can be applied to other population s.
Role of theory in research Inductive, and generating theory. Deductive, and testing of theory.
Ontological orientation Constructionism Objectivism
Epis temolo gical o rienta tion Inte rpr etiv ism Nat ura l sc ience mode l
Source: Javadi (2013)

10 A.A. Alkhoraif and P. McLaughlin
Figure 4 Inductive approach
Creswell (2007, p.15) defines qualitative research as ‘an inquiry process of understanding
based on distinct methodological traditions of inquiry that explore a social or human
problem’. This research puts together a complex but holistic image of analysis through
words, and detailed accounts from participants within their natural setting (Creswell,
2007). Many researchers have made distinctions between qualitative and quantitative
research as a result of their characteristics (Javadi, 2013). The most significant
quantitative and qualitative characteristics are outlined in Table 2.
Qualitative research utilises a more descriptive method for gathering and interpreting
information in order to understand the broader phenomenon (Javadi, 2013). There are
numerous advantages to utilising a qualitative approach, in that it gives far more depth in
terms of understanding the phenomenon. It helps to find answers to questions by studying
a number of social situations and the individuals within that environment (Bruce and
Berg, 2001). There is however, another perspective on qualitative research. Babbie
(2015) suggests it is a suitable strategy for researching subtle nuances in the attitudes of
people and their behaviours for the purpose of understanding the development of social
processes over a longer period of time. Furthermore, more flexibility and greater validity
are other associated advantages of qualitative research (Babbie, 2015). It also provides
the researcher with a greater level of flexibility to identify numerous variables across a
number of OC environments (Javadi, 2013). According to Audet and D’Amboise (2001)
when the main objective is to improve knowledge about a phenomenon, qualitative
research methods are normally favoured. Here, this research involves the study of OC
and depends heavily on qualitative techniques as opposed to quantitative in order to
understand the phenomenon.
5 Research methodologies
There are many strategies available to researchers to conduct their research. As the aim of
this study is to build a theory and a framework as opposed to testing a theory, the choice
of methodology most appropriate for this is the Grounded theory of Glaser and Strauss
(1998). An action research approach was adopted to determine the factors that affect LI
processes. As stated by Weber (2004), the main aim of research is to improve knowledge
about particular phenomena. Moreover, there are many research strategies and
methodologies mentioned in literature. In the following sections, the different research
methodologies will be outlined.
5.1 Case study
An important aspect to consider is why the choice of grounded theory and not the ‘case
study’ as a research methodology. If a case study were selected, then only one
manufacturing company (SME) would be researched. However, by selecting grounded
theory it opens the scope to including more manufacturing SMEs into the research

A methodology to surface aspects of organisational culture 11
sample (Javadi, 2013). Table 3 depicts the characteristics and contrasts between case
study and grounded theory approaches.
Table 3 Characteristic of case study and grounded theory
No. Question Case study Grounded theory
1 What is the purpose of
the research?
To examine a single ‘case’ in
depth in order to understand
the person or phenomenon
To drive a theory that
links participants’
perspectives to general
social science theories
2 What is the nature of the
research process?
Studies on bounded cases, and
focus on natural context
Studies ‘process’ focus on
interactions
3 What are the methods of
data collection?
Interactive fieldwork, formal
and informal interviews, and
some use of quantitative
measures.
Draws from historical
records interviews,
observations, and
variable, multiple units
4 What are the methods of
data analysis?
Interpretational search for
themes, structural search for
patterns in discourse, and
reflective rich portrayal of
participants views
Concept oriented open
axial and selective coding
constant comparative
method
5 How are the findings
communicated?
Analytical (objective)
narrative, and reflective
(literary) narrative
Analytical story
Source: Leedy (1997, Table 7.2, p.166).
One aspect which is important to note is that grounded theory can be utilised in
conjunction with a case study (Javadi, 2013). It could be utilised as a mode of inquiry and
unit of analysis for the case study. Table 6 also identifies some overlap between the
characteristics; however, a case study approach would limit the research to one single
organisation.
5.2 Ethnography
Ethnographic research in a methodological sense refers to studying the manner in which
people interact (Gill and Johnson, 2010). In addition, it aims to study people’s behaviour
and their culture (Oates, 2009). This methodology offers insights about a group of people
and provides the chance to observe and understand their environment (Boyle, 1994). In
this mode of inquiry the researcher immerses themselves in the social setting for a longer
span of time observing the behaviour and conversations between individuals and at times,
asking questions (Fisher, 2007). Current research methods utilised to study culture
include in-depth ethnographies at one end of the spectrum and at the other, pragmatic
questionnaires (Cameron and Freeman, 1991). Both of these methods suggest studying
culture, yet what they tend to discover is rather different (Allard and Anderson, 2005).
The advantages however, of utilising a detailed ethnography method is that it does tend to
provide in-depth information specific to the context, which can be useful in identifying
paradoxes or any inconsistencies (Allard and Anderson, 2005).
However, the main disadvantage associated with ethnographic research is it requires a
high level of participation from the researcher for the full extent of the data collection.
The researcher is required to be a full-time group member as well as a researcher. In

12 A.A. Alkhoraif and P. McLaughlin
addition, the researcher needs to spend more time in the field in order to understand the
culture under study (Collis and Hussey, 2013; Merriam and Tisdell, 2015; Oates, 2009).
In addition, the reflexive nature of ethnographic research is a characteristic that implies
that the researcher is part of the world under study and consequently affected by it
(Boyle, 1994; Goulding, 2005). Also, it is difficult to gain access for long periods in the
field (Punch, 2005; Bryman, 2008). In addition, the disadvantages to utilising this method
is that it is generally extremely time consuming and the nature of the information does
not easily enable comparisons to be made between cultures (Birkinshaw et al., 2011)
Moreover, it does not facilitate making generalisations beyond the context the situation
was researched in Cunliffe (2010), thus, rendering it an unsuitable approach for creating a
framework.
5.3 Cognitive mapping
Cognitive mapping (also known as mental mapping) is a method that can be used to
explore a person’s beliefs about a topic as well as relationships that exist among the
beliefs. Cognitive mapping ‘is a process composed of a series of psychological
transformations by which an individual acquires, stores, recalls, and decodes information
about the relative locations and attributes of the phenomena in his everyday spatial
environment’ (Downs and Stea, 2011). Eden et al. (2009) define a cognitive map as:
“A model designed to represent the way in which a person defines an issue. It is
not a general model of someone’s thinking, neither is it intended to be a
simulation model of decision making. It is a network of ideas linked by arrows.
The arrows indicate the way in which one idea may lead to, or have
implications for, another.”
The disadvantages of cognitive mapping are the interviewer’s ignorance, knowledge,
misconceptions and biases are all encoded in the map (Kosko, 1992); it cannot deal with
co-occurrence of multiple causes such as expressed by ‘and’ conditions, and ‘if-then’
cannot be coded as well (Schneider et al., 1998).
5.4 Action research
Action research is a strategy that allows practitioners to examine and improve their own
working practices (Baskerville and Wood-Harper, 1996; Oates, 2009). It is intended to
solve existing problems in the professional environment (Collis and Hussey, 2013).
Collaboration is needed between the researcher and members of the field of work under
investigation in order to identify the problem and provide the solution (Bryman, 2012).
Action research tends to be used for prompting conscious change within a somewhat
controlled environment (Collis and Hussey, 2013). In this approach, the participants and
the researcher collaborate on a problem to find a solution (Coghlan and Brannick, 2014).
This is an inquiry mode generally utilised to help solve organisational issues by dealing
with those experiencing the problems (Ibrahim, 2013). Some main weaknesses associated
with action research is the assumption that the behaviour of a person is only able to be
changed by testing them, and moreover, it tends to require set timelines and is usually
expensive to conduct over the full research period (Fisher, 2007). The researcher in this
approach is concerned with performing actions, not only describing or observing.
Therefore, it is ‘research into action’ – planning for change, performing the change,

A methodology to surface aspects of organisational culture 13
reflecting on what happened then starting another cycle [Oates, (2009), p.155]. It aims to
investigate and bring change to phenomenon [Punch, (2005), p.160]. This approach
requires the researcher to work in the field of study and involves a continuous cycle of
improvement (Partington, 2002). Alderfer and Smith (1982) stated that when action
research is part of the contract between researcher and organisation then the microcosm
group also plays a key role in the design and conduct of data feedback.
5.5 Phenomenology
Phenomenology is a qualitative research method propounded by Husserl (1970) that
studies people’s experiences (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015). It fits small-scale research best
and gives descriptions reflecting the complexity of the social world (Denscombe, 2010).
It has a ‘focus on the experience itself’ and is concerned about the experiences of our
lives [Merriam and Tisdell, (2015), p.24]. However, participants in this study may lack
the required experience, which may prevent the researcher from gathering the required
data. Also, in phenomenology studies, the words of information are considered the one
valid source of data (Goulding, 1998). However, in this research multiple data sources,
which include interviews, observation and published reports were gathered and applied.
5.6 Grounded theory
Grounded theory is a research methodology that aims to create a theory from data that
have been systematically researched and analysed (Javadi, 2013). This methodology was
originally used by (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), undertaking an observational field study
with patients who were soon facing death. They defined grounded theory as ‘the
discovery of theory from data’ [Glaser and Strauss, (1967), p.1]. According to
Golden-Biddle and Locke (2007), grounded theory has been the most often utilised
qualitative methodology in social science research. Its popularity can be attributed to:
first, its suitability for developing new theory or new insights form old theory; second, it
generates theory which stems from what the research participants consider important;
finally, it is able to expose micro-management processes in complex situations and
environments (Locke, 2001). Goulding (1998) suggests grounded theory is particularly
useful for making new discoveries, thus its usefulness for theory generation. Furthermore,
Locke (2001) and Goulding (2005) also consider grounded theory as useful where there
is a clear lack of integrated theory in an area of literature.
According to Stern (1980), ‘grounded theory becomes an answer were other
methodologies did not work well enough, especially in the sensitive dependant variable
fields within the health science and business and management’ [Stern, (1980), p.30].
Goulding (1988) suggests that grounded theory becomes particularly useful when a
subject matter has been rather ignored or dealt with superficially. Corbin and Strauss
(2014) also provide an example of when and when not to use grounded theory. They
suggested that if one wants to know if a drug trial is more effective than another in that
case it would be more useful to use a double-blind clinical trial as opposed to grounded
theory. However, if one wanted to know what it is like to participate in a drug study, then
grounded theory or some other form of qualitative research approach would be most
suitable. Thus, it is particularly useful for theory generation from social processes and

14 A.A. Alkhoraif and P. McLaughlin
actions which have been through situations from people who have experience in the
phenomenon being studied (Goulding, 1998).
The main feature of this approach is to develop categories that highlight the data and
develop the categories to create a framework (Silverman, 2006). This approach has been
most commonly utilised for qualitative research in social sciences since its inception
(Altheide and Johnson, 1994). Grounded theory tends to be inductive, as it seeks out the
interpretations and perspectives of those in the situation under research (Charmaz, 2011).
A differentiating factor of grounded research from the other inquiry modes is in its
investigation into the questions of ‘why’ and ‘how’ in a way that is grounded in the data
rather than deduced logically (Jones, 2009). Another great advantage to grounded theory
is that in allows the researcher more flexibility and to utilise interviews as a data
collection tool (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).
6 Methodology chosen for the research
While ethnographic or a case study method might have been suitable for this research,
grounded theory grounded theory better facilitates a suitable methodology and mode of
analysis, (Ibrahim, 2013). This is particularly due to its suitability for researching deeply
into the area of OC and its influence on lean philosophy and its suitability for generating
a theory (Goulding, 1998). Robson (2002, p.165) describes “Grounded theory based
research as one of the influential qualitative methodologies besides case studies and
ethnography.” Furthermore, it provides the benefit of allowing the researcher to explore
deeply into an unknown area such as human behaviour (Robson, 2002). Howell (2012)
suggests grounded theory emphasises the interpretation of a situation and “it is these
interpretations which result in theory building” [Ibrahim, (2013), p.123]. Considering the
need of the topic at hand to enable the generation of a theory and framework, grounded
theory presents itself as the most suitable method (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). In addition
to this, it allows for a broader range of data sources to be utilised which enhances the
opportunity to collect various perceptions and viewpoints on the topic being researched,
(Glaser and Strauss, 1967).
The history of grounded theory begins at its inception in 1967 and founded by Glaser
and Strauss. It was published in their book Discovery of Grounded Theory. Glaser and
Strauss were originally influenced by the ideas of Dewey (1922), Mead (1934) and
Blumer (1969). Glaser and Strauss suggested that scientific truth lies from both observing
and emerging consensus within a group of observers to make sense of what has been
observed (Suddaby, 2006). The authors aimed to build abstract theoretical explanations
for social processes which became revolution at the tome challenged many ideas
(Charmaz, 2011). Some of the main ideas challenged include; beliefs that qualitative
methods were unsystematic, the separation research phases involving data collection and
analysis, ideas that qualitative research is merely a ‘precursor’ to more rigorous
quantitative research, the notion that qualitative research was incapable of creating a
theory (Charmaz, 2011).
Glaser and Strauss (1967) were pioneers in providing written guidance for conducting
systematic qualitative data analysis with clear analytic procedures and research strategy
(Ibrahim, 2013). Although later, Glaser and Strauss took different paths with their own
distinctive versions of grounded theory (Javadi, 2013). In (1990) Strauss together with
Corbin wrote a book called Basics of Qualitative Research, 1st ed. announcing their

A methodology to surface aspects of organisational culture 15
perspective and their own version of grounded theory. Strauss and Corbin’s (1994) and
Corbin and Strauss (1990b) paradigmatic position relates to an interpretative approach as
opposed to Glaser (1978, 1992), and Denzin and Lincoln (1994) lean more towards a post
positivist position, (Ibrahim, 2013). In 1992, Glaser provided further elaboration on
grounded theory in his new book Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis and in this he
responded to version Strauss and Corbin published challenging their ideas, (Javadi,
2013). In (1998) Strauss and Corbin then launched their 2nd edition providing more
details on their coding system as a response to Glaser’s challenges in 1992. After 1998
numerous other researchers and writers have added to the grounded theory debate
proposing new perspectives which include, Locke (2001), Heath and Cowley (2004),
Charmaz (2011) and Corbin and Strauss (2008). These developments make it very
important for researchers to make clear which version of grounded theory they are
utilising. For the purpose of this research the Strauss and Corbin (1998) approach towards
grounded theory has been selected and the rationale for this is discussed below.
7 Data analysis
The sections below will outline the data analysis procedures from simultaneous,
concurrent data collection, content analysis and grounded theory coding analysis.
7.1 Simultaneous and concurrent data collection
In grounded theory, data collection and analysis occur concurrently, enabling the research
to being analysis as soon as the data emerges (Corbin and Strauss, 1990a). According to
Corbin and Strauss (1990b, p.6) “data collection and analysis systematically enables the
research process to capital all potentially relevant aspects of the study as soon as they are
perceived.” Thus, the data is analysed looking for all the possible interpretations from the
very beginning (Goulding, 1998). To ensure nothing is missed it is recommended that the
researcher should start analysing the first set of data for ideas and leads (Ibrahim, 2013).
The benefit of this is it provides the researcher with cues on what to include in the next
stage of interviews (Goulding, 1998). Thus, demonstrating the process of data collection
and analysis in concurrent as opposed to linear and conceptual theorising occurs from the
inception of the research process (Boychuk Duchscher and Morgan, 2004).
7.2 Constant comparative method
The constant comparative method is utilised by the researcher to create concepts from the
data gathered, which involves coding and analysing at the same time (Taylor and
Bogdan, 1998). This method “combines systematic data collection, coding and analysis
with theoretical sampling in order to generate theory that is integrated, close to the data
an expressed in a form clear enough for further testing” (Scott et al., 1993).
The constant comparative method involves four stages:
• comparing incidents applicable to each category
• integrating categories and their properties
• delimiting the theory

16 A.A. Alkhoraif and P. McLaughlin
• writing the theory [Glaser and Strauss, (1967), p.105].
During these four stages the researcher is continuously sorting through the data
collection, analysing and coding the data and reinforcing theory creation by theoretical
sampling (Kolb, 2012). Therefore, incidents that are deemed to be similar are grouped
together under concepts (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). Constant comparison is designed to
help the researcher in creating a theory which is fully integrated and consistent with the
data, which has also, be a source of validity in grounded theory research (Silverman,
2006).
7.3 Content analysis
Content analysis was selected as a method for analysing the data gathered in the present
research. According to Krippendorff and Weber (1987), content analysis uses a set of
procedures that ensures valid inferences. It helps to tell the story of the data through
analysing the content of the raw data, the themes and main ideas. In this study, a list of
aspects had already been highlighted in the initial conceptual framework. Therefore, a
technique of pattern matching was applied (Yin, 2009); according to Yin, pattern
matching strengthens the internal validity. Further, the analysis allowed more aspects to
emerge from the data and hence new factors were identified and the initial framework
revised. Another advantage that justified the selection of content analysis is the
possibility to go back to the original raw data and check for missing codes or aspects or
wrong categorisation (Woodrum, 1984). Woodrum (1984) also maintains that content
analysis has the potential to study attitudes, organisations and human relations. However,
Yin (2009) argues that in case study research much of the analysis depends upon the
author’s own style of rigorous thinking. This makes the analysis process prone to
researcher bias; therefore, measures were undertaken to overcome this issue in the
present research.
7.4 Coding procedures
Corbin and Strauss (2008) refer to the analysis of data as coding. This involves three
different levels of analysis, open coding, axial coding and selective coding, which are
discussed below.
7.4.1 Open coding
Open coding can be defined as, ‘the analytic process through which concepts are
identified and their properties and dimensions are discovered in data’ [Strauss and
Corbin, (1998), p.101]. Throughout this process the data are analysed very closely and
compared against each other to detect similarities or differences (Strauss and Corbin,
1998). Open coding is the first stage of grounded theory analysis which according to
Strauss and Corbin is to ‘open up the inquiry’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). During this
phase the data is broken down into smaller segments, reviewed and developed into
concepts and categories (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Open categories refer to concepts
generated from the data which help to describe the phenomena which is held important
by the participants (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).

A methodology to surface aspects of organisational culture 17
Properties are the narrowed down attributes of a category and dimensions refer to the
location or positioning of a property across a continuum (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). A
number of techniques are available in order to assist to open up the line of enquiry, such
as basic questions like Who? What? When? Where? Why? and How? Also available is
temporal questioning such as frequency and duration or timing (Javadi, 2013). The
‘flip-flop’ technique refers to the consideration of opposite characteristics, and ‘red flags’
refers to when an interviewee mentions a situation, which according to them never occurs
or always occurs, requiring the researcher to determine any possible exceptions (Javadi,
2013). Open coding can be done by line-by-line analysis, sentence or paragraph analysis
or also by going through an entire document and looking at it as a whole (Strauss and
Corbin, 1998).
7.4.2 Axial coding
Axial coding refers to the process of linking themes and issues together based on a
relationship and are usually done on an inductive and deductive basis (Strauss and
Corbin, 1998). In this process, according to Corbin and Strauss (1990b), is to put the
information together in a new way by identifying links between categories and
subcategories. This is done via the coding paradigm which includes conditions, action
and consequences (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). However, Glaser (1992) criticises this by
instead utilising selective coding, which codes around a core category with a greater
emphasis on theoretical coding (Stern, 1994). Glaser suggests that coding for solely what
is in the data and allowing for emergence then verification will occur automatically
(Stern, 1994). Although according to Dey (1999), Strauss and Corbin emphasise the
importance of implementing the ‘doing paradigm’ in axial coding and the paradigm
includes most of Glaser’s (1978) 18 coding families. Essentially Glaser puts theoretical
coding after selective coding, but Strauss puts axial coding before selective coding. If the
coding paradigm is intended to replace the theoretical codes, it is unclear as to why
Strauss and Corbin changed the original order (Walker and Myrick, 2006). Walker and
Myrick (2006) suggest that Strauss and Corbin aim to make the procedure more obvious,
albeit somewhat more complicated.
7.4.3 Selective coding
This refers to selecting one category as the core concept and linking all other categories
to this particular one. Glaser’s (1978) work is brought together using theoretical coding
and Strauss and Corbin (1994) use selective coding. Theoretical coding can be defined as
using theoretic codes ‘to conceptualise how the substantive data may relate to each other
as hypothesis to be integrated into a theory’ (Glaser, 1978). These come from cues in the
data that help to bring the pieces together. Selective coding, according to Strauss and
Corbin (1998), is ‘the process of integrating and refining the theory’. In their process, the
core category relates to all other categories. Selective coding is similar to axial coding,
only that integration happens at a more abstract level on analysis (Corbin and Strauss,
1990b). Strauss and Corbin’s selective coding revolves around selectively coding around
a core category (Walker and Myrick, 2006).

18 A.A. Alkhoraif and P. McLaughlin
8 Data gathering methods
Data analysis in qualitative research deals with words, and the meanings implied by them
(Miles and Huberman, 1994). The analysis of the information gathered is done by
discovering categories and their interrelationships. The program utilised for this in this
research was NVIVO software for coding. The ability to identify categories and
interrelationships is referred to as ‘theoretical sensitivity’. Theoretical sensitivity is the
‘ability to recognise what is important in data and to give it meaning’ [Corbin and
Strauss, (1990b), p.46]. Certain techniques can be utilised to help enhance this theoretical
sensitivity.
8.1 Issue-focused investigation
In order to obtain a better understanding of the nature of OCs within SMEs in the
manufacturing industry, this study will focus on three main criteria: First, to expose the
implied components of culture from an insider’s perspective; second, to be mindful of
structural aspects of the culture for example sub-cultures (Babbie, 2015); and third, to
facilitate comparisons to be made among individuals and research settings (Birkinshaw
et al., 2011). The use of these criteria has enabled an issue-focused interview style that is
founded upon phenomenological orientation leading to successive comparison
(Birkinshaw et al., 2011). In addition, these focus groups and observations were utilised
to provide triangulation of results. Issue-focussed investigation allows for the fulfilment
of the above criteria. Due to the nature of culture being omnipresent, this makes it
difficult for people to often reflect and describe when asked a question about it directly
(Dey, 1999). Therefore, in order to draw this out it often requires a response to a stimulus
requiring respondents to interpret something, which is naturally done according to their
own cultural basis as opposed to that of the researcher (Sackmann, 1991).
The choice of stimulus is also important. It should present a specific type of context
yet be broad enough to allow freedom of interpretation (Willis et al., 2007). This is
important because when people are presented with something unusual they tend to access
categories that already exist in their minds enabling them to process, understand and
interpret (Denzin and Lincoln, 2011). The implied components of the culture are then
usually made apparent in the interpretations provided by the respondents. Furthermore,
issue-focussed investigation is particularly suitable because, by presenting them with a
stimulus with a specific context, the respondents then tend to access the same library of
knowledge already existing in their minds (Sackmann, 1991). This helps to uncover their
framework about a specific issue. This then enables comparisons of the interpretations to
uncover individual opinions from cultural beliefs that are common among the group
(Willis et al., 2007). It is possible this can also help bring up subcultures (Denzin and
Lincoln, 2011). The specific issues selected should be ones that are relevant to the
participants and their roles within the organisation.
It is important for the selected participants to have some knowledge about the topic at
hand so they can reliably discuss it as opposed to just guessing (Plummer and Young,
2010). The issue/stimulus selected can be considered relevant for the organisational
participants when they can provide three examples relating to this situation. The
comparisons of the answers can reveal commonalities, themes or clear differences.
Culturally-based notions are mostly described in a consensual way as opposed to facts
(Bryant, 2009). Thus, when presented with something unusual, people then seek out

A methodology to surface aspects of organisational culture 19
means of interpretation which pre-exist in their mind from their understanding of the
organisation’s reality. Issue-focussed investigation needs to be conducted cleverly to
ensure the participants do not realise that particular issue is under investigation
(Sackmann, 1991). Otherwise, the responses can end up skewed or biased (Patton, 2014).
In a longitudinal study, such biases may reveal interesting aspects, but it is too ambitious
for a short-term study. Thus, the questions asked were issues focussed in accordance with
Sackman’s (1991) grounded theory approach:
• Tell me about an example you have seen LI work well?
• Tell me about a situation where LI has not worked well?
8.2 Phenomenological orientation
The phenomenological orientation has its focus on the insider’s perspective and their
beliefs and concepts, ideas of the OC and life within it. It places emphasis on the insider’s
view of what is considered important and relevant within that setting (Goulding, 2005).
The researcher will put aside their own assumptions so these do not interfere or influence
the respondent’s answers. The emphasis is to allow the respondents to gradually unravel
their own experiences. In order for the researcher to avoid making judgments based on
their own beliefs, these should first be made clear (Annells, 1996). The interview
procedure in a phenomenological orientation is close in style to an in-depth or intense
interview. This usually consists of a longer introduction and a period of becoming better
acquainted. This also gives the researcher the chance to gently introduce the subject of
the discussion (Srubar, 1998). The aspects that are brought up by the respondent are the
points that are then delved into with more detail. In doing so, the researcher is better able
to explore together with the respondent and identify the cognitive frameworks that come
up (Bryant, 2009). This process of an established dialogue also enables the researcher to
check they have understood the respondent’s point of view correctly. This can be done by
the researcher mentally answering the question in their head before the respondent has a
chance to check their own accuracy (Goulding, 2005). This type of research requires not
only flexibility but a rapport to have been well-established between the researcher and the
respondent because for in-depth issues to come to light the interviewee needs to feel
comfortable, safe and that a mutual trust exists (Goulding, 2005).
8.3 The combination of issue focus and phenomenological orientation
There are some advantages to employing both an issues-focussed investigation and a
phenomenological orientation. The latter is much unstructured and broad; however, the
issue-focussed investigation works to narrow the scope giving more structure to the
process. Furthermore, the researcher takes their cue from the respondents as to the most
important aspects to be further explored (Sackmann, 1991). The respondents were asked
to mention the aspects of lean principles they considered most important in their
organisation (for example). They were also asked to explain why these were the most
important. This enabled a cross-comparison of the responses of the individuals,
increasing reliability. In the phenomenological phase, the researcher ensures all aspects
of the factors brought up by the respondents are investigated (Bryant, 2009). Therefore,
this particular approach by Sackmann (1991) was been selected for this research.

20 A.A. Alkhoraif and P. McLaughlin
9 Data collection
The tools generally employed to study culture consist of observations, structured,
semi-structured or in-depth interviews, both with individuals and focus groups (Pearse
and Kanyangale, 2009). Each of these qualitative tools have their own strengths and
weaknesses. The types of methods generally utilised for studying culture in organisations
are either a deductive mode of inquiry, which adopts an outsider’s perspective, or an
inductive approach, which is from an insider’s perspective (Pearse and Kanyangale,
2009). Hypotheses are then established according to the relevance to the specific
questions asked and tested. Therefore, the researcher is the onlooker and culture is
considered a controllable variable (Sackmann, 1991).
For the purposes of this study an inductive approach was selected. When an inductive
approach is utilised, the inquiry is conducted from the inside to better understand
occurrences within the environment being researched (Golden-Biddle and Locke, 2007).
In this case, the information gained is specific to that particular context and is not able to
be generalised. It is possible for concepts or hypotheses to emerge and this inductive
approach treats culture as an integral part of the organisation (Golden-Biddle and Locke,
2007), this is why it was chosen for this study and fitted within the constructivist
approach.
9.1 The use of the literature review
According to Corbin and Strauss (1990b), there are two types of literature, technical and
non-technical literature, and both are of equal usefulness and can be used at the same
points in grounded theory analysis procedures. Technical literature, which includes
theoretical and philosophical papers as well as other empirical studies, can be used as
background resources for comparison against the results of grounded theory (Corbin and
Strauss, 1990b). Non-technical literature includes other resources such as reports,
manuscripts, and diaries and can be used to supplement the gathered data or as primary
data (Corbin and Strauss, 1990b).
In this study, previous literature, including theories and empirical studies relating to
lean culture, were reviewed to explore current thinking in this area of research. Although
the review of the previous literature did not lead to any hypotheses, it helped to gain
insight into the data, which made the grounded theory methodology the appropriate
approach for this study. Moreover, the technical literature was used as background
resources for comparison against the results. Nontechnical literature was used as well for
the purpose of supporting several emerging issues resulting from the empirical study.
9.2 Interviews
Interviews are open-ended questions gaining in-depth responses about people’s
experiences, perceptions, opinions and feelings and knowledge (Taylor, 2005). Structured
interviews have been criticised for their reliability, because similar to questionnaires,
respondents tend to conform to the culture of the researcher as opposed to the culture
being researched (Pearse and Kanyangale, 2009), although this can be mitigated if they
are developed on a foundation of knowledge gained within the research setting (Patton,
2014). In depth interviews/unstructured interviews are often utilised to help expose
culturally-based values (Patton, 2014). The key here is, the researcher should not

A methodology to surface aspects of organisational culture 21
introduce cultural values, but instead use open-ended questions and the insider’s own
language, which helps evoke responses revealing the aspects of everyday life in that
cultural setting (Creswell, 2013).
The weaknesses associated with in-depth interviews are: first, the process of trying to
separate an individual’s opinion and cultural information; and second, ensuring
objectivity and reliability of the information (Taylor, 2005). It is important for the
researcher to be conscious of their own biases and influences in the information-gathering
process (Patton, 2014). Objectivity in the information analysis phase can be created by
utilising different people to analyse the same information (Patton, 2014).
It is important however, for the assisting analysts to also have an understanding of the
research setting from an insider’s perspective (Sackmann, 1991). For this research
semi-structured interviews were also utilised. The advantage with semi-structured
interviews is that they ensure certain topics are covered making them more comparable
and easier to obtain reliable qualitative information (Patton, 2014). Furthermore, it allows
the interviewee to bring up other aspects that they also consider relevant or important,
which is key to grounded theory methodology (Miles and Huberman, 1994). For the
interviews, the participants selected from each company included managers, production
engineers and factory floor employees. It is considered important to include all levels of
employees in the interview process as all are equally important to LI as well as the
overall OC (Angelis et al., 2011). The semi-structured interview in this research was
utilised to explore the factors that affecting LI in terms of OC, by using an issue-focused
investigation approach (Sackmann, 1991).
9.3 Observations
Participant observation involves ‘fieldwork descriptions of actives, behaviours, actions,
conversations, interpersonal interaction, organisational or community process, or any
other aspect of observable human experience’ (Taylor, 2005). This generally involves
spending an extended period of time being immersed in the research setting. An
advantage with observations is that they do not require prior knowledge and the concepts
are established inductively (Cook and Yanow, 1993). However, it is a very time-
consuming process and can be very expensive. Teams of researchers can be utilised,
although this can create issues because each person does discrete as opposed to
replicative work, which creates validity and reliability problems (Taylor, 2005).
Furthermore, researchers have the challenge of looking beyond their own cultural biases
and interpreting and reporting information about another culture (Patton, 2014). During
the observations, the interactions between colleagues and managers were observed. Also,
interactions between colleagues themselves, participant behaviour during the interview,
reports and any other printed materials were also observed. Also, their working style,
how they process systems, the kinds of relationships between them and even notice
boards and the layout of the offices and factory and their emotions and moods will all be
noted (Taylor, 2005).
9.4 Focus groups
Focus groups are another tool for revealing cultural assumptions, according to Schein
(1985), “because the group provides the stimulus to bring out what is ordinarily hidden.”

22 A.A. Alkhoraif and P. McLaughlin
This data gathering tool was first developed in the 1920s and has since been utilised in
social sciences (Fontana and Frey, 1994). Although focus groups may not always achieve
the same depth as one-to-one interviews, they are still very useful (Fontana and Frey,
1994). Focus groups are considered to be useful particularly in exploratory studies, which
aim to gain a greater understanding of a social context (Fontana and Frey, 1994). The
group dynamic can create clearer distinction of individual opinions from cultural beliefs
and reveal taboos (Sackmann, 1991).
A particular advantage associated with focus groups is the opportunity for
participants to hear other’s views, which can generate varied responses as the discussion
develops (Kolb, 2012). Focus groups also serve to validate any ideas the researcher may
be wishing to confirm (Jones and Noble, 2007). Furthermore, it helps to provide an
opportunity for understanding group dynamics which might affect individual’s
perceptions (Jones and Noble, 2007). Researchers need to be skilled in order to draw out
the more hidden aspects while also being aware of their own cultural biases (Taylor,
2005). The researcher conducted the focus groups in each company in a meeting room,
and they were also being recorded to enable accurate revision and analysis of the data.
For this research the researcher organised groups of around eight to 12 participants and
time frame was set between one to two hours (Gray, 1998). They were conducted face to
face with everyone together in a meeting room and snacks and beverages provided.
The main premise of the focus groups for this research was to utilise an action
research approach in that the participants refined the aspects, named the categories while
providing the data under each category, thus, it reflected the ideas and perceptions of
what is important to the employees.
10 Rigour in the research
“A trustworthy study is one that is carried out fairly and ethically and whose
findings represent as closely as possible the experiences of the respondents.”
[Padgett, (2008), p.184]
Between qualitative and quantitative research there are many differences with respect
with evaluation (Guba and Lincoln, 1989). Quantitative research is evaluated on the basis
of reliability and validity [Lietz and Zayas, (2010), p.190]. Mason (1996) suggests that
reliability, validity and generalisability vary in terms of measurement of the quality and
rigour of the study and its potential to be applied to broader situations. Validity can be
defined as ‘whether you are observing, identifying, or measuring what you say you are’
[Mason, (1996), p.24].
In contrast, LeCompte and Goetz (1982) refer to reliability and validity by
distinguishing between ‘external reliability’ and ‘internal reliability’. External reliability
refers to the extent to which a study is able to be replicated. Some recommended
strategies for duplicating qualitative research is to take on a comparable role taken on by
the original researcher (Bryman and Bell, 2015). Internal reliability refers to if there are
numerous observers or just one, and the agreement among the observers of what they are
exposed to. Internal validity refers to how well the observations made by the researcher
match the theories they comprise (Bryman and Bell, 2015).
According to LeCompte and Goetz (1982), internal validity is a key strength available
to qualitative research, especially where the researcher spends a high period of duration
within the research environment thus helping to ensure the strength of compatibility

A methodology to surface aspects of organisational culture 23
between concepts developed and observations. External validity refers to the extent to
which the results are able to be generalised over various social situations (Bryman and
Bell, 2015). According to LeCompte and Goetz (1982) this is the most problematic area
for qualitative research, as it tends to utilise smaller sample populations and is used for
case study purposes. However, Guba and Lincoln (1994) propose a further method for
evaluating qualitative research based upon four criteria:
1 credibility, which refers to internal validity
2 transferability, referring to external validity
3 dependability, paralleling reliability
4 confirmability, which refers to objectivity.
Table 4 Criteria for ensuring rigour in qualitative research
Rigour-critical Criteria for rigour Research strategy Techniques to insure rigour
Field notes/memo Purposeful/theoretical
sampling
Tape recorder Negative/deviant case
Thematic log Constant comparison
Member checking
Triangulation
Credibility Truth value
Auditing transcript
Audit trial
Data display Purposeful/theoretical
sampling
Transferability Applicability
Simultaneous literature
review
Thick description
Field notes/memo Negative/deviant case
Tape recorder Member checking
Thematic log Triangulation
Auditing transcript
Reflexivity
Dependability Consistency
Researcher’s story
Audit trial
Confirmability Neutrality Filed notes/ memo Audit trial
Source: Liamputtong (2009)
Their reasoning for challenging the notion of merely assessing reliability and validity is
due to its assumption that an absolute count of a social situation is possible (Bryman and
Bell, 2015). Guba and Lincoln (1994) however, hold that more than one absolute truth is
possible in multiple situations. Therefore, this emphasis on multiple accounts for social
realities is particularly relevant when considering the criteria of credibility in qualitative
research. Furthermore, if a number of possible accounts of an aspect of a social situation
are possible, it is the credibility of the account that will ultimately determine how
acceptable it is. This is essentially where respondent validation becomes an important
factor. Triangulation is also another technique that is recommended to deal with this issue
(Bryman and Bell, 2015).

24 A.A. Alkhoraif and P. McLaughlin
Since qualitative research is more subjective, reliability and validity are in compatible
with it. Consequently, validity and reliability are not are not suitable measurement in
qualitative research, because the measurement change position to the positivist approach
instead of the approach of interpreted [Angen, (2000), p.379; Liamputtong and Ezzy,
(2009), p.21]. Guba and Lincoln (1989) and Lincoln and Guba (1985) have developed
four criteria as mentioned above. These guiding principles are used to evaluate qualitative
research and should not be rules for using validity and reliability inside positivist research
[Carpenter and Suto, (2008), p.150; Lietz and Zayas, 2010]. These criteria are listed in
Table 4.
10.1 Credibility
“Interpretations must be authentic and accurate to the descriptions of the
primary participants.” (Drisko, 1997)
Reliability and authority of the research is judged by its credibility [Liamputtong and
Ezzy, (2009), p.21]. The idea here is the description should be fitted with the explanation
[Tobin and Begley, (2004), p.391]. Credibility should fit between how the researcher
represents their viewpoint and what the participants said so as to control the risk of
reactivity and bias (Padgett, 2008). Lietz and Zayas (2010, p.191) define reactivity as:
‘The potential for the researcher to exert an impact on the participants thereby changing
the findings of the study.’ The way the researcher behaves or asks questions during the
interview can raise reactivity.
To achieve credibility in the current research two main strategies were adopted:
1 Applying selection techniques to the participants regarding their knowledge,
characteristics and their experience. Moreover, theoretical sampling gives credibility
to the research (Carpenter and Suto, 2008).
2 When the interpretation and description can be recognised by the participants, i.e.,
‘when the multiple realities held by participants are represented as accurately and
adequately as possible’ [Liamputtong and Ezzy, (2009), p.21]. Therefore, it can be
achieved (Johnson and Waterfield, 2004).
10.2 Transferability
Transferability is the capability to apply the findings of the research to other settings,
situations, contexts, events, individuals or groups (Padgett, 2008). In other words, it is the
degree to which finding can be applicable to other settings or contexts [Carpenter and
Suto, (2008), p.149]. In-depth descriptions about the phenomenon being studied should
enable other researchers to understand whether the findings are applicable to fit into other
settings and contexts (Devers, 1999; Lietz and Zayas, 2010).
10.3 Dependability
Dependability (auditability) is the degree to which the study is documented to allow other
researchers to trace and follow the research process (Padgett, 2008). Dependability is
confirmed when the research process is well documented and tractable [Tobin and
Begley, (2004), p.392]. Therefore, it can be compared to reliability [Liamputtong and

A methodology to surface aspects of organisational culture 25
Ezzy, (2009), p.22]. Dependability thus means to make sure that the findings fit to the
derived data [Carpenter and Suto, (2008), p.150].
The idea behind dependability is based on repeatability. Consequently, it is concerned
whether the researcher is capable or able to obtain the same result from the findings of
the research if he/she observes the same phenomenon or more than one. However, a
researcher cannot obtain the same output from the research because he/she is measuring
two or more than two different things. Therefore, the researcher should give in detail a
description of the changes that take place and how these changes influenced the way the
research was approached. For example Lietz and Zayas (2010, p.196) state, “one way of
addressing the need to make decisions and changes along the way is to provide detailed
documentation throughout the research project.” Therefore, ‘keeping an audit trail and
engaging in peer debriefing’ are two strategies that shape dependability [Lietz and Zayas,
(2010), p.196].
The audit trail is a written, detailed report of the research process that should describe
what exactly happened during the research. Here, a journal of observations and
significant event was maintained throughout the research. This journal suggested by
Coghlan and Brannick (2014) to record reflections and thoughts on observed events and
also to write down any comments made and to support a timeline for the significant
events that occurred during the research process. This provided an opportunity to observe
and record all teams in the firms and their actions that were relevant to the research. The
use of a journal facilitated triangulation of events and observations on aspects related to
the OC.
In addition, peer debriefing is used to consult other experts (colleagues) in qualitative
research approaches, discuss and explain procedures and decisions to obtain feedback
that can enrich the quality of the research (Padgett, 2008).
10.4 Confirmability
Confirmability is the ability and capability of other researchers to confirm the research
result (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). It confirms that the results from the research are linked
to the data (Padgett, 2008). It can also be defined as the degree to which result are
specified by respondents and not by the perspective of the researcher [Lincoln and Guba,
(1985), p.290]. Therefore, confirmability can be achieved by presenting the data from the
research and the analysis steps leading to the result.
10.5 Respondent validation
This refers to the process where the researcher reports back to the population from which
the research was gathered an account of the findings. Thus, ensuring sufficient correlation
between their result and the perspectives of the research population (Bryman and Bell,
2015). This also gives the research the opportunity to identify aspects of the observations
that might be incongruent to the social reality. It is important to realise that this can at
times prompt defensive reactions or even for information to be made ‘off the record’
from research participants. This is sometimes due to personal accounts leaving
individuals too vulnerable (Bryman and Bell, 2015). Another criticism involving this
approach is whether research participants are appropriate to validate the analysis of a
researcher as the findings are designed for a completely different audience (Bryman and

26 A.A. Alkhoraif and P. McLaughlin
Bell, 2015). Therefore, while this approach might achieve a corroborative response from
the research participants, the researcher will still be required to move forward through
concept development and theories. Thus, there needs to be clear boundaries regarding
research results that participants have control over and which material is crucial for
academic reasons (Silverman, 2006).
10.6 Triangulation
The term triangulation was coined by Webb et al. (1966) and refers to ‘using more than
one method or source of data in the study of social phenomena’ [Bryman and Bell, 2015,
p.397]. It was established as a method for the development of measures to create a higher
level of confidence in research findings. Ethnographers will often utilise this method to
cross check their observations with interview questions to mitigate any
misunderstandings (Bryman and Bell, 2015).
Because qualitative research tends to involve the study of smaller groups with greater
emphasis on depth as opposed to breadth, the contextualisation and uniqueness of the
findings is generally high (Silverman, 2006). Therefore, researchers are encouraged to
adopt ‘thick description’ of a culture, which involves creating a comprehensive database
for others to make their own judgements for the transferability of the results (Bryman and
Bell, 2015).
In terms of dependability, Guba and Lincoln (1994) propose that detailed records of
each research phase are kept to enable ease of auditing the research gathering and
findings. Although this is often troublesome with qualitative research, which tends to
gather particularly large datasets. Furthermore, Guba and Lincoln (1994) encourage the
use of the authenticity criteria. This includes attributes such as fairness in terms of
representation of viewpoints, discerning how well the research enables a better
understanding of the social situation, its ability to create a better appreciation for the
perspectives within the social situation, its ability to prompt change among its members,
and how well it empowers the members to make appropriate changes (Bryman and Bell,
2015). Thus, the practical outcomes of the research are emphasised.
Denzin (2017) located four kinds of triangulation, which were all applied and adopted
to this research.
1 Using multiple methods such as observation and in-depth interview together in the
research (Padgett, 2008). This drives the validity of the research, as the same results
are alignment and confirmed through different methods in the research.
2 Researcher triangulation, which refers to there being more than one researcher
conducting the research either by collecting data, observing and analysis (Winston
and Heiko, 1990).
3 Source triangulation or data triangulation, by using multiple quotations, collecting
data from many different locations and involving multiple participants [Carpenter
and Suto, (2008), p.153; Winston and Heiko, (1990), p.238].
4 The last kind is called theoretical triangulation, using different theoretical
frameworks within the same research or study in order to interpret the result from the
study (Padgett, 2008).

A methodology to surface aspects of organisational culture 27
10.7 Inter-rater reliability
Cohen (1960) discussed that according the psychology area there is some situation in
clinical-social-personality, it occasionally occurs that the best useful level of
measurement degree attachable in nominal sealing. In this research, assessment of the
inter-rater reliability took place in early stage of the analysis process. The procedure is
that having two or more judges independently to determine the significance, degree and
sample stability of agreement (Rashid, 2010). Gwet (2002) provide that evaluation of the
extent of the agreement between two or more raters is commonly used in social, medical
and behavioural sciences. He gave an example of a reliability experiment where two
raters (A and B) classify N subjects into one or two potential responses, i.e., (1 or 2) (yes
or no); the categories are suggested as being disjointed (no overlap) (Rashid, 2010).
Table 5 shows how Gwet’s categories are modelled.
Table 5 Distribution of subjects
Rater A
Rater B Yes No Total
Yes A b B (yes) = a + b
No C d B (no) = c + d
Total A (yes ) = a + c A (no ) = b + d N
Source: Gwet (2002) adapted from Rashed (2010)
where a: total number of subjects classified as (yes) units by both raters; b: total number
of subjects classified as (yes) units by rater B and as (no) units by rater A; c: total number
of subjects classified as (yes) units by rater A and as (no) units by rater B; and d: total
number of subjects classified as (no) units by both raters.
Table 6 The degree agreement between the raters
K value ranges Degree of agreement between raters
0.08–1.00 Almost perfect
0.60–0.79 Substantial
0.40–0.59 Moderate
0.20–0.39 Fair
0.00–0.19 Slight
≤ 0.00 Poor
Source: Huddleston (2003) and Rashed (2010)
There are two measures commonly used in inter-rater reliability, namely Cohen-Kappa
(K) and percentage of agreement (%) (Gwet, 2002; Hsu and Field, 2003). Their
formulations are shown below:
1 Cohen’s Kappa method
K (F1 F2) / (N F2), K 0.00 to 1.00=− − =

28 A.A. Alkhoraif and P. McLaughlin
where F1 = a + d
[
]
F2 (a b)(a c) (b d)(c d) N=+ +++ +
Nabcd=+++
The degrees of agreement indicated by Kappa are given in Table 6.
2 Percentage of agreement method
The formula of percentage of agreement is [(a + d) / N] * 100%.
Table 7 shows the level of agreement between raters according to their percentage of
agreement.
Table 7 Percentage level of agreement between the raters
Percentage ranges Level of agreement between raters
91–100 Very high
81–90 High
71–80 Moderate
61–70 Fair
51–60 Slight
≤ 50 Poor
Source: Huddleston (2003) and Rashed (2010)
11 Framework validation
Expert opinion was used in this research. According to the Oxford Dictionary (2014), the
definition of an expert is ‘a person who is very knowledgeable about or skilful in an
area’, or a person ‘having or involving a great deal of knowledge or skill in a particular
area’. The reason behind using an expert panel’s opinion and knowledge is to add
trustworthiness about the findings of the research, which enhances the robustness of the
outcome as well as guides the researcher’s perspective (Achanga et al., 2006). The
experts should be knowledgeable in the subject matter addressed and discussed in the
research (Fink, 2005).
12 Research process phase
The research process was divided into three phases as shown in Figure 5. The following
sub-section will explain each phase.

A methodology to surface aspects of organisational culture 29
Figure 5 Research process phases (developed by researcher)

30 A.A. Alkhoraif and P. McLaughlin
12.1 Phase one
To begin this phase, a literature review was conducted in order to increase the
researcher’s understanding of the scope of research on the topic of the enablers and
inhibitors of LC in SMEs; much of the literature pointed to OC as being an important
factor as to why LI was largely unsuccessful (Angelis et al., 2011). Therefore, this
prompted the researcher to further explore what has been studied regarding lean
philosophy and OC to identify enablers and inhibitors in this area. The literature review
has also helped to broaden the researcher’s scope of knowledge and theories pertaining to
the topic.
In relation to the literature review the researcher has also utilised Scopus,
ABI/INFORM Collection, EBSCO, IEEE, and Website Science, ScienceDirect, Emerald,
SAGE, Inderscience and Taylor and Francis as sources for OC, enablers and inhibitors of
LI overall and specifically for SMEs. After the review, the researcher commenced a pilot
study. Two SMEs in the manufacturing sector were selected in which interviews with
managers and employees were conducted. From these results, the researcher was able to
gather a list of OC enablers and disablers for lean practices in SMEs. The researcher then
compared this list with the information found in the literature review.
The new data that emerged from the pilot study identified aspects which appeared
from the perspectives of the participants not the researcher (Strauss and Corbin, 1998).
The data was analysed with NVIVO software. The pilot study also provided the
opportunity to test the questions provided in the seven interviews conducted in the
organisation to help to reduce bias and research errors in terms of types of questions
provided. An important task is for all researchers to make known their perceptions and
thoughts on the issues and topics before research formally begins. This is crucial to
mitigating bias in the research process (Annells, 1996).
Then, the research moved to the main study to conduct 29 interviews including the
pilot study interviews. Then, all the interviews were analysed and compared with the
literature review. Tests of inter-rater reliability were utilised in this stage to evaluate the
results. When the results reached the saturation level, the researcher moved to the first
focus group to refine the aspects that were analysed from interviews. The final step in
first phase was focus group two, the purpose for this was to involve the participants in
aggregating the aspects into high level themes and locate all the themes within Schein’s
model.
12.2 Phase two
The second phase was marked by the beginning of developing an instrument to gauge the
current perception of the participants against the ideal position of the themes. This
involved the participants from focus group three and the literature review to design the
assessment. This drove a joint review of the assessment results and their relevance to the
OC. In order to gauge the OC more specifically, an assessment tool based on the OC
theme description was participatively developed with the participants. A Likert scale was
used for this questionnaire to gauge current perception of participants against the ideal
positions. A series of short statements relating to each of the seven themes were
developed with the team in focus group three to describe an ideal position of the required
OC. Statements for each theme indicated the ideal position OC for LI. The participants
assessed their perception of the OC by gauging how close they perceived they were to

A methodology to surface aspects of organisational culture 31
ideal position of the seven themes, reflecting the ideal position of the OC for
manufacturing SMEs. The questionnaire was sent to the participants by email. A total of
71 responses were returned. All the scores were added together and averaged to produce
a group perspective of the participants’ position against an ideal position for OC.
12.3 Phase three
In this phase, the researcher conducted selections of possible interventions from literature
review, work place and from focus group four. The selection of interventions were based
on themes and ideal positions that were generated from focus group three and from the
literature review. It was during this phase that the framework development began. Here,
the researcher selected the proposed interventions and systematically related this to
themes and validate those relationships by expert judgments as the final phase of the
research (Corbin and Strauss, 1990b).
13 Framework development
According to Glaser (1978), the aim of grounded theory is to create a conceptual theory
that includes a pattern of behaviour which is both relevant and problematic for the
participants. The continual resolving is ‘designated by a category called the core
category’ [Glaser, (1978), p.199]. With regard to the role of grounded theory in terms of
theory development, the methodological boost provided by grounded theory to qualitative
research is in the development of theory, which necessitates developing concepts and
their linkages to identify variations characterising the phenomenon (Strauss, 1987). In
addition, theoretical sampling is a process that is often used alongside the coding process
(Kolb, 2012). Whilst open coding (aspects) is taking place, sampling has a clear direction
and it is systematic.
From the interviews, all the results were constantly compared to the information
found in the literature review. During the focus group, the process of themes became
more structured in order to validate relationships within the data and the agenda becomes
more deliberate in order to integrate the findings within the themes to achieve data
saturation (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). Data saturation refers to the stage when the data
collected in the research is now redundant (Bogdan and Biklen, 2007). This is necessary
to ensure enough data has been collected to reflect the perspectives of the research
participants (Kolb, 2012).
From a research perspective, grounded theory can promote sensitivity, prompting of
research questions, pointing to direct theoretical sampling and assists in providing valid
outcomes (Corbin and Strauss, 1990b). It is these benefits which according to McGhee
et al. (2007) assist the researcher to give a justification for the research and avoid any
conceptual and methodological obstacles (Ibrahim, 2013). According to Strauss and
Corbin (1998), ‘this method aims to understand the nature of human activity within
organised setting and supports the construction of theory from the qualitative data
gathered’ [Ibrahim, (2013), p.141]. Thus, theory is constructed from the themes, and data
within each theme.
A series of short statements relating to each of the themes were developed with the
team in focus group three to describe an ideal position of the required OC. Finally, a

32 A.A. Alkhoraif and P. McLaughlin
suitable set of interventions was developed that would be applicable to SME
manufacturing in the form of a strategic action plan, based on empirical examples of
interventions designed to develop a lean culture to facilitate LI. The proposed
interventions comprised a series of linked management actions in the form of a
framework to shift the lean culture of the SMEs closer to an ideal position of a desired
lean culture. The desired outcome from the research is an outline of a framework of
interventions designed to create the conditions of an OC that will facilitate lean culture.
The framework can be planned and put together fitting centrally around the theory that
has been generate.
Figure 6 Schein’s model of OC
14 Conceptual framework
A useful framework to understand lean culture in terms of OC is Schein’s model (1984).
Schein (1984) modelled the existence of ‘artefacts, values and beliefs and the behaviours
which are commonly shared and accepted by members in the organisation’ [Detert et al.,
(2000), p.851]. Schien’s model suggests that OC is established from a group working
together and developing patterns as they collaborate to solve problems and ensure
organisational survival (McLaughlin et al., 2010). His model is comprised of three levels.
The first level is artefacts which are the objects and elements which can be seen or
experienced such as the company building and logos, the processes, communication, etc.
The second level is espoused values that are comprised of the principles and standards

A methodology to surface aspects of organisational culture 33
within an organisation belonging to their employees; these describe what is considered
important by the organisation. Finally, the third level is underlying assumptions, which
refers to beliefs, thoughts and feelings. Schein’s model emphasises the way in which
artefacts and values can expose things regarding underlying assumptions (Schein, 1990).
Schein’s models have proved to be powerful in understanding and measuring OC.
Schien’s model helps in understanding OCs at different levels such as artefact, espoused
values and basic underlying assumptions by fully describing the organisational
behaviours as norms and relationships between group members. It is found to be more
about observing than collecting data. An organisation could be judged by observation of
people and their dress code. Schein’s model is shown in Figure 6.
15 Conclusions
This chapter has outlined the ontological and epistemological approaches adopted as
constructivist, and the research methodology selected for this research was grounded
theory as well as a participative action research approach with an inductive stance. The
advantages and disadvantages of quantitative and qualitative research are discussed with
the latter being the choice for this research. The various methodological inquiry modes
are also discussed which include, case study, ethnographic research, action research and
grounded theory. Grounded theory was selected as the most appropriate inquiry mode for
qualitative research, as it is highly recognised for its ability to generate theory from the
data (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Furthermore, Sackmann’s approach (1991) is discussed
and applied, which combines both issues-focussed and phenomenological focussed
research as a highly suitable approach for researching OC. Semi-structured interviews,
observations, literature review and focus groups were selected as data gathering methods.
The research was conducted and analysed in three phases. The contribution of this study
to the body of knowledge on LI is expected to be significant. Considering the
nonexistence of LI by leveraging aspects of OC studies within the SMEs manufacturing
context by developing a methodology to surface aspects of OC.
The research methodology followed is primarily qualitative. The main weaknesses of
qualitative research are potential bias from the participants and from the researcher as
well. The research followed a grounded theory methodology. This bias nature can affect
the validity and reliability of results. To mitigate these weaknesses, the author took many
actions. By applying action research. In addition, one of the actions is to use of a variety
of methods in the data collection phase. Moreover, the researcher considered in this
research to use the credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. The
qualitative nature of the research required a sufficient understanding of the suitable
methods to be used when collecting data. The author used face-to-face interviews, focus
group and observation. The information captured from different sources was triangulated
to minimise bias. In addition, the researcher has used Sackmann approached during data
gathering. Moreover, the author triangulated the data collected by means of semi-
structured with different experts from different organisations. In addition, the
questionnaires used in this research to gauge current perception of participants against
ideal position. After collecting and analysing the required data from different sources, the
key findings were summarised and presented to the participants to reduce the researcher’s
bias. Moreover, it been observed that no previous research has used a grounded theory

34 A.A. Alkhoraif and P. McLaughlin
inside action research for LI within SMEs manufacturing sector. In addition, the research
contributes to knowledge concerning aspects of OC that facilitate LI. This knowledge is
transdisciplinary and adds to the domains of LI, OC and lean culture. The researcher has
deployed a grounded participative methodology, within a ‘live’ SMEs manufacturing
sector teams to surface key aspects of lean culture. The research can be a live
experimental approach to organisational development. This approach adds to the
theoretical knowledge of organisational development for transformational change as the
research is participative; it is well placed in its potential for developing theory that will be
relevant to practice (Huxham and Vangen, 2003). This participative approach to
developing knowledge of the members’ perceptions of lean culture and on creating LI
capability from an insider perspective contributes develop framework. Moreover, due to
the diversity of data-collection sources used, this study added new insight to the
inhibitors faced by SMEs which may not enable them to implement lean, and addressed
the source of those inhibitors. Finally, the framework does not currently exist in the
literature, which facilitate LI by leveraging aspects of OC relating to SMEs presented
here thus represents a unique effort in LI.
The findings of this study are limited in terms of generalisability to SMEs, as the
study mainly considered SMEs in manufacturing sector. There is also a lack of
information and published studies regarding SMEs manufacturing industries in terms or
methodologies; further, there is an absence of research regarding LI within SMEs
countries, and this meant that it was not possible to compare the findings with those of
other researchers. In this study, a semi-structured interview technique was adopted, along
with other data collection methods. Semi-structured interviews and focus group may lead
to bias, however, different techniques were employed to keep this bias limited.
For future research, the main opportunity for further research is in observing the
impact of the methodology implemented over time on the development to surface the
aspects of OC that effected LI.
15.1 Future work
In the future, an empirical study will be carried out in order to explore the OC that inhibit
LI within SMEs manufacturing firms. Furthermore, a framework of LI will be developed
by leveraging aspect of OC will be explored.
Acknowledgements
This research presented in this article is a part of the research project of A Framework to
Improve Lean Implementation by Leveraging Organisational Culture.
References
Achanga, P., Shehab, E., Roy, R. and Nelder, G. (2006) ‘Critical success factors for lean
implementation within SMEs’, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, edited by
Saad, S. Vol. 17, No. 4, pp.460–471, doi: 10.1108/17410380610662889.
Alderfer, C.P. and Smith, K.K. (1982) ‘Studying intergroup relations embedded in organizations’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 1, p.35.

A methodology to surface aspects of organisational culture 35
Alkhoraif, A. and Mclaughlin, P. (2017) ‘Organisational culture -enablers and inhibitors factors for
the effective implementation of lean within SMEs’, International Journal of Lean Thinking,
Vol. 8, No. 2, pp.65–96.
Alkhoraif, A. and McLaughlin, P. (2018) ‘Lean implementation within manufacturing SMEs in
Saudi Arabia: organizational culture aspects’, Journal of King Saud University - Engineering
Sciences, Engineering Sciences. doi: 10.1016/j.jksues.2018.04.002.
Alkhoraif, A. and Mclaughlin, P. (n.d.) ‘Organisational culture aspects that facilitate lean
implementation: a pilot study’, Int. J. Agile Systems and Management Agile Systems and
Management, Vol. X, No. Y.
Allard, F. and Anderson, E. (2005) ‘Ethnography’, Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, Vol. 1,
No. 4, pp.833–843.
Altheide, D. and Johnson, J. (1994) ‘Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative
research’, in Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp.485–499, Sage Publications, Inc,
Thousand Oaks, CA, US.
Angelis, J., Conti, R., Cooper, C. and Gill, C. (2011) ‘Building a high-commitment lean culture’,
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp.569–586.
Angen, M. (2000) Evaluating Interpretive Inquiry: Reviewing the Validity Debate and Opening the
Dialogue, SAGE Publications.
Annells, M. (1996) ‘Grounded theory method: philosophical perspectives, paradigm of inquiry, and
postmodernism’, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.379–393.
Audet, J. and D’Amboise, G. (2001) ‘The multi-site study: an innovative research methodology’,
The Qualitative Report, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.1–18.
Babbie, E. (2015) The Practice of Social Research, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, London.
Baskerville, R.L. and Wood-Harper, A.T. (1996) ‘A critical perspective on action research as a
method for information systems research’, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 11, No. 3,
pp.235–246.
Birkinshaw, J., Brannen, M. and Tung, R. (2011) ‘From a distance and generalizable to up close
and grounded: reclaiming a place for qualitative methods in international business research’,
Journal of International Business, Vol. 42, No. 5, pp.573–581.
Blaikie, N. (2009) Designing Social Research, 2nd ed., Polity Press, Cambridge.
Blumer, H. (1969) ‘Fashion: from class differentiation to collective selection’, The Sociological
Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp.275–291.
Bogdan, R. and Biklen, S.K. (2007) Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to
Theories and Methods, No. 3, Pearson A & B.
Boychuk Duchscher, J.E. and Morgan, D. (2004) ‘Grounded theory: reflections on the emergence
vs. forcing debate’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 48, No. 6, pp.605–612.
Boyle, J. (1994) ‘Styles of ethnography’, Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods, Vol. 2,
pp.159–85, SAGA publication, London.
Bruce, B. and Berg, M. (2001) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, SAGA
publication, London.
Bryant, A. (2009) ‘Grounded theory and pragmatism: the curious case of Anselm Strauss’, Forum
Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum, Vol. 10, No. 5.
Bryman, A. (2008) Social Research Methods, Oxford University Press, pp.69–75, doi: 10.4135/
9781849209939.
Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods, Social Research, SAGE Publications, London, doi:
10.4135/9781849209939.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2015) Business Research Methods, Oxford University Press, New York.
Cameron, K. and Freeman, S. (1991) ‘Cultural congruence, strength, and type: relationships to
effectiveness’, Research in Organizational Development, Vol. 5, pp.5–23–58, JAI Press.

36 A.A. Alkhoraif and P. McLaughlin
Carpenter, C. and Suto, M. (2008) ‘Qualitative research for occupational and physical therapists: a
practical guide – Google scholar’, The Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, Vol. 77,
No. 1, p.6, Ottawa.
Charmaz, K. (2011) Grounded Theory Methods in Social Justice Research, SAGE Publications,
London.
Coghlan, D. and Brannick, T. (2014) Doing Action Research in your Own Organization, Sage,
London.
Cohen, J. (1960) ‘A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales’, Journal of Educational and
Psychological Measurements, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.37–46, Google Scholar.
Collis, J. and Hussey, R. (2013) Business research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and
Postgraduate Students, Palgrave Macmillan, London .
Cook, S.D.N. and Yanow, D. (1993) ‘Culture and organizational learning’, Journal of Management
Inquiry, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp.373–390.
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (1990a) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures
and Techniques, Sage, London.
Corbin, J.M. and Strauss, A. (1990b) ‘Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and
evaluative criteria’, Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.3–21, doi: 10.1007/BF00988593.
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2008) ‘Basics of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.): Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, SAGE Publications, Inc, Newbury, 2455 Teller
Road, Thousand Oaks, California 91320, USA, doi: 10.4135/9781452230153.
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2014) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory, SAGE Publications, London .
Creswell, J.W. (2007) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design, Chapter 4, SAGE Publications,
London .
Creswell, J.W. (2009) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches, Research Design Qualitative Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, doi:
10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2.
Creswell, J.W. (2013) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches, SAGE Publications, London.
Cunliffe, A.L. (2010) ‘Retelling tales of the field’, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 13,
No. 2, pp.224–239, doi: 10.1177/1094428109340041.
Denscombe, M. (2010) The Good Research Guide for Small-Scale Social Research Projects,
Psychological Science, 4th ed., p.356, Saga, London.
Denzin, N. (2017) The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods,
Routledge, Saga, London.
Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (1994) Handbook of qualitative research. SAGE Publications.
Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (2011) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, London.
Detert, J.R., Schroeder, R.G. and Mauriel, J.J. (2000) ‘A framework for linking culture and
improvement initiatives in organizations’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 4,
pp.850–863.
Devers, K. (1999) ‘How will we know ‘good’ qualitative research when we see it? Beginning the
dialogue in health services research’, Health Services Research, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp.1153–88.
Dewey, J. (1922) ‘Education as politics’, New Republic, Vol. 32, No. 409, p.409.
Dey, I. (1999) Grounding Grounded Theory: Guidelines for Qualitative Inquiry, Academic Press,
Saga, London.
Dick, B. (2006) ‘Grounded theory: a thumbnail sketch’, Action Research Resources, Vol. 25, No. 6,
pp.1–19, doi: 10.1109/DATE.2008.4484729.
Downs, R.M. and Stea, D. (2011) Cognitive maps and spatial behaviour: process and products’, in
The Map Reader, pp.312–317, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK.

A methodology to surface aspects of organisational culture 37
Drisko, J. (1997) ‘Strengthening qualitative studies and reports: standards to promote academic
integrity’, Journal of Social Work Education, Vol. 33, No. 1, p.185.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Jackson, P.R. (2012) Management Research, SAGE
Publications, London.
Eden, C., Ackermann, F., Bryson, J.M., Richardson, G.P., Andersen, D.F. and Finn, C.B. (2009)
‘Integrating modes of policy analysis and strategic management practice: requisite elements
and dilemmas’, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp.2–13.
Fink, A. (2005) Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper, 2nd ed.,
London.
Fisher, C. (2007) Researching and Writing a Dissertation: A Guidebook for Business Students,
Pearson Education, New York.
Fontana, A. and Frey, J. (1994) ‘The art of science’, in The Handbook of Qualitative Research,
pp.36–76, Saga, London.
Gill, J. and Johnson, P. (2010) Research Methods for Managers, Sage, London.
Glaser, B. (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory, Saga,
London.
Glaser, B. (1992) Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs. Forcing, Mill Valley,
Sociology Press, Calif.
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967) ‘The discovery of grounded theory’, Strategies for Qualitative
Research, Weidenfeld, London.
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1998) Grounded Theory: Strategien Qualitativer Forschung, pp.53–84,
Sage, Bern.
Golden-Biddle, K. and Locke, K. (2007) Composing Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., Sage
Publications, Inc., London.
Goulding, C. (1998) ‘Grounded theory: the missing methodology on the interpretivist agenda’,
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.50–57.
Goulding, C. (2005) ‘Grounded theory, ethnography and phenomenology’, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 39, Nos. 3/4, pp.294–308.
Graham, B. and Thomas, K. (2008) ‘Building knowledge – developing a grounded theory of
knowledge management for construction’, 7th European Conference on Research
Methodology for Business and Management Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.169–176.
Gray, R. (1998) Organisational Culture and the Psychological Contract: A Review of the
Literature, Kumpania Consultancy.
Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation, Sage, London.
Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. (1994) ‘Competing paradigms in qualitative research’, in Handbook of
Qualitative Research, pp.105–117, Saga, London.
Gwet, K. (2002) ‘Kappa statistic is not satisfactory for assessing the extent of agreement between
raters’, Statistical Methods for Inter-Rater Reliability Assessment, Vol. 1, No. 6, pp.1–6.
Heath, H. and Cowley, S. (2004) ‘Developing a grounded theory approach: a comparison of Glaser
and Strauss’, International Journal of Nursing Studies, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp.141–150.
Hesse, M.B. (1980) Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science, Harvester Press,
London.
Howell, K. (2012) An Introduction to the Philosophy of Methodology, Sage, London.
Hsu, L.M. and Field, R. (2003) ‘Interrater agreement measures: comments on Kappa n, Cohen’s
Kappa, Scott’s π, and Aickin’s α’, Understanding Statistics, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp.205–219.
Huddleston, J. (2003) An Evaluation of the Training Effectiveness of a Co-Fidelity Multiplayer
Simulators for Air Combat Training, Cranfield University.
Husserl, E. (1970) The crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology: An
Introduction to Phenomenological Philosophy, Evanston, Northwestern University Press.

38 A.A. Alkhoraif and P. McLaughlin
Huxham, C. and Vangen, S. (2003) ‘Researching organizational practice through action research:
case studies and design choices’, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 6, No. 3,
pp.383–403.
Ibrahim, U. (2013) Investigating the Effects of Corporate Governance of Banks in Nigeria: A
Grounded Theory Approach, Plymouth University.
Javadi, S. (2013) Performance Management in Higher Education: A Grounded Theory Study,
Doctoral dissertation, University of Southampton.
Johnson, R. and Waterfield, J. (2004) ‘Making words count: the value of qualitative research’,
Physiotherapy Research International, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.121–131.
Jones, J. (2009) ‘Selection of grounded theory as an appropriate research methodology for a
dissertation: one student’s perspective’, Grounded Theory Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp.23–34.
Jones, R. and Noble, G. (2007) ‘Grounded theory and management research: a lack of integrity?’,
Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 2,
No. 2, pp.84–103.
Kolb, S.M. (2012) ‘Grounded theory and the constant comparative method: valid research
strategies for educators’, Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy
Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.83–86.
Kosko, B. (1992) Neural Networks and Fuzzy Systems: A Dynamical Systems Approach to Machine
Intelligence, Saga, London.
Krippendorff, K. and Weber, R.P. (1987) ‘Basic content analysis’, Journal of the American
Statistical Association, Vol. 82, No. 397, p.354.
Kumar, M., Vaishya, R. and Parag, P. (2018) ‘Real-time monitoring system to lean manufacturing’,
Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 20, pp.135–140, doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2018.02.019.
LeCompte, M. and Goetz, J. (1982) ‘Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research’,
Review of Educational Research, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp.31–60.
Leedy, P. (1997) Practical Research: Planning and Design, 6th ed., Merrill, London.
Liamputtong, P. and Ezzy, D. (2009) Qualitative Research Methods, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Lietz, C. and Zayas, L. (2010) ‘Evaluating qualitative research for social work practitioners’,
Advances in Social Work, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.188–202.
Lincoln, Y. and Guba, E. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, London.
Locke, K. (2001) Grounded Theory in Management Research, Sage, New York; London.
Marcos-Cuevas, J. (2006) Learning and Knowledge Processes in an Academic-Management
Consulting Research Programme: The Case of the MC Centre, Cranfield University.
Mason, J. (1996) Qualitative Researching, Sage, London.
McGhee, G., Marland, G.R. and Atkinson, J. (2007) ‘Grounded theory research: literature
reviewing and reflexivity’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 60, No. 3, pp.334–342.
McLaughlin, P., Bessant, J. and Smart, P. (2010) Developing an Organizational Culture that
Facilitates Radical Innovation in a mature Small To Medium Sized Company: Emergent
Findings, pp.1–29.
Mead, G. (1934) Mind, Self and Society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Merriam, S.B. and Tisdell, E.J. (2015) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and
Implementation, John Wiley and Sons, London.
Miles, M. and Huberman, A. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Sage,
London.
Oates, B.J. (2009) Researching Information Systems and Computing, Sage Publications, London,
Thousand Oaks, Calif.
Oxford Dictionary (2014) Gamete: Definition, Oxford dictionary (British {&} World English)
Oxford University Press.
Padgett, D. (2008) Qualitative Methods in Social Work Research, Sage Publications, Los Angeles.

A methodology to surface aspects of organisational culture 39
Partington, D. (2002) Essential Skills for Management Research-Grounded Theory, Sage, London.
Patton, M.Q. (2014) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and
Practice: Integrating Theory and Practice, Sage Publications, London.
Pearse, N. and Kanyangale, M. (2009) ‘Researching organizational culture using the grounded
theory method’, The Electronic Journal of Business Research, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.67–74.
Phillips, M. (1994) ‘Industry mindsets: exploring the cultures of two macro-organizational
settings’, Organization Science, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.384–402.
Plummer, M. and Young, L.E. (2010) ‘Grounded theory and feminist inquiry: revitalizing links to
the past’, Western Journal of Nursing Research, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp.305–321.
Punch, K.F. (2005) Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches,
Vol. 2, p.320, UK.
Rashid, H. (2010) Human Factors Effects in Helicopter Maintenance: Proactive Monitoring and
Controlling Techniques, Cranfield University.
Ravikumar, M.M., Marimuthu, K., Parthiban, P. and Zubar, H.A. (2016) ‘Evaluating lean execution
performance in Indian MSMEs using SEM and TOPSIS models’, International Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 26, No. 1, p.104.
Robson, C. (2002) Real World Research, 2nd, ed., Blackwell Publishing, London.
Sackmann, S. (1991) ‘Uncovering culture in organizations’, The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.295–317.
Sackmann, S.M. (2006) Success Factor: Corporate Culture: Developing a Corporate Culture for
High Performance and Long Term Competitiveness: Six Best Practices, Verlag Bertelsmann
Stiftung, Gütersloh.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2009) Research Methods for Business Students,
Financial Times Prentice Hall, London.
Schein, E. (1985) Organisational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View, San Francisco.
Schein, E.H. (1984) ‘Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture’, Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp.3–16.
Schein, E.H. (1990) ‘Organizational culture’, American Psychologist, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp.109–119.
Schneider, M., Shnaider, E., Kandel, A. and Chew, G. (1998) ‘Automatic construction of FCMs’,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 93, No. 2, pp.161–172.
Schwandt, T. (1998) Constructivist, Interpretivist Approaches to Human Inquiry, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Scott, P., Haworth, J., Conrad, C. and Neumann, A. (1993) ‘Notes on the classroom as field setting:
learning and teaching qualitative research in higher education’, Qualitative Research in
Higher Education, Vol. 3, No. 6, pp.3–24.
Silverman, D. (2006) Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and
Interaction, 3rd ed., Sage, Los Angeles.
Srubar, I. (1998) ‘Phenomenological analysis and its contemporary significance’, Human Studies,
Vol. 21, No. 2, pp.121–139.
Stern, P. (1994) ‘Eroding grounded theory’, in Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods,
p.212–223, Saga, London.
Stern, P.N. (1980) ‘Grounded theory methodology: its uses and processes’, Image, Vol. 12, No. 1,
pp.20–23.
Strauss, A. (1987) Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists, Cambridge University Press, London.
Strauss, A. (1993) Continual Permutations of Action, Aldine De Gruyter, New Your.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1994) ‘Grounded theory methodology’, in Handbook of Qualitative
Research, pp.273–285, Saga, New York.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Procedures and Techniques for
Developing Grounded Theory, Sage, New York.

40 A.A. Alkhoraif and P. McLaughlin
Suddaby, R. (2006) ‘From the editors: what grounded theory is not’, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 49, No. 4, pp.633–642.
Taylor, G.R. (2005) Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in Research, University
Press of America, New York.
Taylor, S. and Bogdan, R. (1998) Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A Guidebook and
Resource Saga, London.
Tobin, G.A. and Begley, C.M. (2004) ‘Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework’,
Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp.388–396.
Trochim, W. and Donnelly, J. (2001) Research Methods Knowledge Base, Saga, New York.
Tsang, E.W. and Kwan, K. (1999) ‘Replication and theory development in organizational science: a
critical realist perspective’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp.759–780.
von Wright, G.H. (2004) Explanation and Understanding, Cornell University Press, Saga, New
York.
Walker, D. and Myrick, F. (2006) ‘Grounded theory: an exploration of process and procedure’,
Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.547–559.
Webb, E., Campbell, D. and Schwartz, R. (1966) Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in
the Social Sciences, Rand McNally, Chicago.
Weber, R. (2004) ‘The rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism: a personal view’, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 3–12.
Willis, J., Jost, M. and Nilakanta, R. (2007) Foundations of Qualitative Research: Interpretive and
Critical Approaches, Sage Publications, Saga, New York.
Winston, R. and Heiko, L. (1990) ‘Just-in-time and small business evolution’, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.51–64.
Wood, L.C., Wang, W.Y.C. and Duong, L.N.K. (2018) ‘A review and reflection on inventory
management of perishable products in a single-echelon model’, International Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 31, No. 3, p.313.
Woodrum, E. (1984) ‘Mainstreaming content analysis in social science: methodological
advantages, obstacles, and solutions’, Social Science Research, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.1–19.
Yin, R.K. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Thou (ed.) Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA.