Mapping the organizational culture research in nursing: a literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper reports a critical review of nursing organizational culture research studies with the objectives of: (1) reviewing theoretical and methodological characteristics of the studies and (2) drawing inferences specific to the state of knowledge in this field. BACKGROUND: Organizational culture is regarded as significant in influencing research use in clinical practice yet it is not understood how culture shapes practitioners' behaviours. Only one review of this empirical literature in nursing has been completed. METHOD: Using selected computerized databases, published nursing research studies in English that examine organizational culture were accessed. Organizational culture studies were categorized using Hatch's three perspectives on organizational culture: (1) modern, (2) symbolic-interpretive and (3) postmodern. The review was conducted in 2005. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies were in the final data set. Results pointed to variations in cultural definitions and incorporation of organizational sciences theory. In classifying the studies, modern perspectives dominated (n = 22), symbolic-interpretive approaches were an emerging group (n = 6) and one study was unclassifiable. Our results expand current cultural instrument reviews by pinpointing tools that have been previously overlooked and by identifying ongoing theoretical and methodological challenges for researchers. CONCLUSION: An exclusive reliance on modernistic approaches in organizational culture research cannot yield a complete understanding of the phenomenon. Rather, the field could benefit from a variety of cultural approaches. In a similar vein, researchers need to be mindful of the terminology and the unit of analysis they use in their research, as these are the two largest research challenges.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".