CHAPTER FOUR
DISCUSSION
The purposes of this study were (1) to describe cultural assumptions in the student travel industry, relying upon protocols previously established within the functionalist perspective and (2) to explain how these assumptions may have evolved by examining the basic communicative processes (performances) wherein industry culture has been made manifest. The study identified eight members of the student travel industry and used qualitative methods that consisted of in-depth interviews with the industry's "elite" members, as well as content analysis of selected historical and contemporary documents. Data were analyzed, first by thematic coding and then by interpretive analysis of codes that emerged. To frame the analysis, Phillips' (1990) functional "reporting structure" (categories) for cultural assumptions was cross-referenced with Pacanowsky and O'Donnell-Trujillo's (1983) heuristic listing of Performances of Passion — e.g. storytelling and repartee (constructs, jargon, vocabulary, and metaphor). One result of adopting this "paradigm interplay" as a metatheoretical perspective has been to demonstrate that the functionalist "side of the aisle" may serve as an heuristic frame for interpretation, while the rich description and depth of understanding generated by interpretive analysis may enhance the scope and understanding of the emerging frame. Not an original goal of the research, this phenomenon nonetheless materialized as the study progressed.
Beyond that, this study joins the growing body of empirical evidence suggesting that industry cultures underlie corporate cultures (Chatam & Jehn, 1994; Gordon, 1985, 1991; Huff, 1982; Levsen, 1992; Moreley and Shockley-Zalabak, 1997; Phillips, 1990, 1994; Reynolds, 1986). Moreover, this study describes how an industry's culture has evolved by examining communicative "performances" of its cultural assumptions; in doing so, it uncovers a primary source of these assumptions, and provides insight, not only into existing theories of organizational and industry culture, but also into the relationship of communication and culture, per se. Because of its qualitative nature, this study can make no claim as to the generalizability of its findings. Even so, it seems reasonable to assume that findings generated by this research may at least suggest the existence of comparable phenomena in industries both similar and dissimilar, and perhaps especially within emerging, entrepreneurial industries resembling the student travel industry.
Limitations of the Study
Despite its abundance of findings and implications, this study was not immune to limitations.
First, the informant pool was necessarily limited in size and composition, having included only elite members of the industry. However, this study has set the stage for future inquiries to include non-elites and to thereby gauge (among other things) the depth and breadth to which common assumptions are held.
Moreover, a few of the elites identified were unable to participate, mostly for logistical reasons, and one member entity did not participate other than by virtue of its publicly circulated marketing documents and its website. Even so, the data gathered were cohesive enough to suggest that had these informants been included, the findings would not have been significantly different.
A similar limitation concerned the fact that some interviews had to be conducted via telephone rather than face-to-face. Interviews conducted face-to-face tended to produce considerably more, and in fact richer, text than did phone interviews, even when both types were taped. Two informants preferred not to be taped, thus limiting the richness, and in fact the actual quantity, of text in their interviews. Nonetheless, all but two interviews were taped, and only four were conducted by telephone; thus, it may be safely assumed that these limitations did not bias the study in any significant manner.
In addition, geographic distance between the researcher and the industry's members proved to be somewhat delimiting. Certainly, the fact that the industry itself is contained within relatively close geographic quarters was both convenient and conducive to the research. However, logistical "bridges" of the space between the researcher, who lived in Tennessee, and the industry, located in Massachusetts, were troublesome, and expenses incurred were formidable.
Yet another limitation, more intangible perhaps, may have been the researcher's position as an erstwhile member of the industry herself. However, had she not been in that position, it is safe to assume that she would not have enjoyed the access to elites that was necessary to conduct the study. Thus, "familiarity" may be the trade-off for entry, in which case the researcher must make every effort to mitigate any potential bias that might result.
Finally, the reporting process may have been somewhat limited by the necessity to preserve informants' anonymity. If indeed a limitation, it is one that that would likely beset any similar study. Like most industries, this one is very competitive (albeit somewhat collegial); thus, to honor the near-sacred trust accorded the researcher, it is imperative that the eventual reporting of data do no harm, either to individual informants or to the entities they represent. To this end, the researcher chose not to report a good portion of data that was thought to be potentially injurious (and in some cases even explosive). This is not to suggest that the withholding of this data biased either the findings or the reporting thereof; it did not. It is merely to point out that the researcher must be both scrupulous and careful in balancing the interests of academic research and reporting against the best interests of the informants and their companies.
Despite these limitations, it is thought that that the data were sufficient to meet the goals of the instant study, and more besides.
Describing Industry Culture
By uncovering an identifiable culture in the student travel industry, this study provides empirical support for the notion that "industry culture" is a real and observable phenomenon, and that it applies to emerging, entrepreneurial industries as well as to Fortune 500 type industries. To a significant degree, the instant study was able to replicate Phillips' (1990) general structure (typology) for reporting cultural assumptions common across an industry, suggesting that this categorical mode of description continues to be an effective way to frame investigations of industry culture. Moreover, as Phillips (1990) predicted of future research, this study has "fleshed out" several of the categories suggested by her original investigation and has suggested several modifications thereof. This process was fostered largely by the "value added" as a result of going beyond traditional thematic coding and examining how the culture is performed. Put another way, only when Phillips' (1990) categories were cross-referenced with performance types, and language was thereby scrutinized, did any significant "fleshing out" occur. For example, a whole new category (The Practice of Work) emerged as a result of examining language that informants used to describe environmental issues endemic to the industry.
Modifications to the Phillips Typology
To begin with, Phillips' (1990) original category titled The Relationship between the Group and the Environment did not adequately frame this study's findings, because it did not seem to provide for a discussion of assumptions about the industry's product and/or its product delivery practices In this study, data on these points were very explicit and therefore seemed to warrant a category of their own. Thus, The Relationship between the Group and the Environment retains the original subcategorical distinctions that Phillips (1990) originally assigned: (1) membership and group boundaries; (2) the competitive environment; and (3) critical elements in the environment, while The Practice of Work has been created to frame the discussion of assumptions about (1) sales and marketing practices and (2) operational and/or logistical norms.
The Relationship between the Group and the Environment
This study suggests that additional dimensions may exist within Phillips' (1990) original subcategories. For example, subsumed in the subcategory of "identification of group boundaries," are not only those dimensions that indicate "why" and "where" the group is circumscribed, but also how membership is conferred. In this industry, actual membership includes all educational travel organizations whereas symbolic membership is linked to each entity's perceived affinity for and adherence to the industry's mission to "educate" and thereby to "change the world." At the time of this study, all "student travel" organizations included are accorded symbolic membership by their peer institutions. However, given the relatively dynamic nature of the industry, that situation bears monitoring; symbolic membership does not appear to be something that is automatically conferred. In addition, this study found evidence of a commonly perceived industry hierarchy, largely based upon the size of an entity and/or upon the perceived quality of its product and services. Thus, data suggest that these dimensions — how membership is conferred and perceived industry hierarchies — should be included in the reporting structure.
In addition, Phillips' (1990) study of California wineries and art museums found that different industries exhibit "substantially different approaches to the conceptualization of the competitive environment" (215). However, the instant study suggests that a more holistic approach to the competitive environment may foster a more universal coding scheme. In the student travel industry, informants' perceptions of the competitive environment ranged along a continuum from hostile to collegial — which may also be described by using the more generalized polarities of threatening and non-threatening or empowering and constraining. However labeled, a similar continuum seems apropos to a discussion of Phillips' (1990) findings as well . Thus, the competitive environment of an industry may perhaps be described as resembling a perceptual continuum between extremes of empowerment on the one hand, constraint on the other, and harmony the middle.
Indeed, Phillips used this language to describe critical elements in the environment, which were said to be classifiable as either empowering, constraining, or harmonious. The instant study generally supports this notion which, taken together with the competitive continuum (above), may further suggest a parallel between assumptions regarding the competitive environment and those regarding the larger business environment, per se. Moreover, the instant study also suggests that critical elements in the environment may be classified either as being internally driven or externally driven — further suggesting that separate continua may describe the internal environment as opposed to the external environment. On the other hand, environmental performances of both types are, in this industry, embodied in the construct of control; command of internal and/or external practices and events is perceived to be empowering while loss of command is disabling. In and of itself, this insight is not rare. What it may suggest, however, is that the degree to which the industry as a whole is fundamentally in control of its environment(s) may shape its members' assumptions regarding which environmental elements are "critical" and which are not. Thus, critical elements may be subsumed in assumptions regarding the environmental continuum and may therefore not warrant treatment as a separate dimension thereof. In short, assumptions about the environment, competitive or otherwise, seem to arrange themselves within a common perceptual continuum.
The Practice of Work
As previously mentioned, two subcategories emerged with regard to assumptions surrounding the practice of work; moreover, these assumptions are so intimately associated with performances (e.g. with the specialized language endemic to their existence) that they may be described in just those terms: (1) the language of sales and marketing; and (2) the language of operations and logistics. Indeed, it is doubtful that this category would have emerged at all, had it not been for the study's "paradigm interplay" that allowed the interpretive analysis of performances to enhance previously conceived categorical distinctions. More than anything else, the emergence of this category, with its particular dependence upon the "surfacing" and analysis of common jargon and constructs, emphasizes the key role that language plays in "spinning" an industry's common mindset (or a single organization's, for that matter). In fact, this author would argue that unless one analyzes communicative processes (performances) per se, an important (if not critical) "window" to the "mind" of the entity will remain closed. As one informant recognized,
What this means, among other things, is that much of the "glue" that holds industry culture together may be found in its common vocabulary, especially that used to denote work practices.
The Purpose of Work
Closely related to the Practice of Work is the Purpose of Work, and in the student travel industry, assumptions regarding the latter are performed in the wider context of the corporate (or in this case, the industry's) mission. In fact, in the student travel industry, work is perceived to be a mission. An analysis of metaphors used to perform this assumption indicate that this industry has a common mission, perceived to be a quasi-religious, perhaps even evangelistic mandate to "educate" and thereby to "change the world." From this category emerged the study's root metaphor, that is to say, its "enacted symbolic process" that ultimately "shapes [its] cultural patterns" (Mohan, 1993, 57). Thus, this study suggests that an entity's root metaphor may reside within — or at least be understood in terms of — previously existing functional categories! Why would this finding be significant, were it confirmed by future research? For one thing, if it is determined that the shaping of cultural patterns occurs "within" a specific assumption category — be it Purpose of Work or otherwise — then that finding would no doubt have implications for the way in which founders and/or managers attend performances relative to specific assumption sets. Moreover, such a finding would also have implications for identifying the "driver" of the industry's (or the organization's) cultural assumption set, which in turn could enhance strategic planning.
Beyond that, this study's findings are consistent with Phillips' (1990) suggestion that the Purpose of Work may be described in terms of a continuum between extremes of doing and being, and in terms of whether tangible or intangible rewards are sought and/or accrued. However, whereas Phillips originally indicated that assumptions about the industry's "mission" (e.g. the "why" of membership) are implicit in assumptions regarding the identification of group boundaries, this study's data places "mission assumptions" squarely within the context of Purpose of Work. Intuitively, in fact, that would seem to be the case. For example, if one perceived the company's (or industry's) mission to be that of "making money" first and foremost, then assumptions about the purpose of work should follow along similar lines. This finding may have implications for the strategic and philosophical alignment of the corporate mission statement with rewards or incentive systems, among other things. Regardless, this study's data suggest that a strong relationship exists between performances of "mission" and performances of the purpose of work.
Nature of Work Relationships
Data in this category were consistent with Phillips'(1990) finding that work relationships may be described as either hierarchical, collective/collaborative, or individualistic. Members of the student travel industry were found generally to engage in collaboration, but within somewhat of a hierarchical structure; "teamwork" was regularly touted as crucial to effective functioning, for example. However, the instant study also implies that the relative prominence of internal hierarchies may be linked in some way to an individual entity's position within the perceived industry hierarchy. For example, and as might be expected, the larger companies tended to be more hierarchical than the smaller ones, even though all companies were notably collaborative in nature. This may suggest that some industries naturally lend themselves to collaboration more than others; it may also offer an industry-level perspective of the "widening gyre" of managerial layering that occurs when companies grow and/or age. In sum, Phillips' (1990) original dimensions seem sufficient to describe assumptions in this category, the instant study having simply extended these notions somewhat.
The Origins of Truth
Phillips (1990) noted that it would be "necessary to look beyond the means by which 'truth' is determined to the origins of those means, in order to flesh out assumptions within this category" (216). The instant study's data does just that. First, it suggests that "truth" is subject to temporal dimensions. That is to say, truth may be perceived as being "historical" or "contemporary," implying among other things that some truths may endure while others do not. Moreover, and in keeping with the root metaphor that emerged from the interpretive analysis (work as religion), contemporary truth is widely perceived to be redemptive in nature because it corrects erroneous notions advanced in the past (e.g. by historical truth). Intuitively, this notion seems to apply to most industries (and to their member entities), as evidenced in the promulgation of the "new and improved model" syndrome — i.e., what used to be "good" is no longer even acceptable. Data in this study also suggest that locating the source of historical truth may in fact be synonymous with locating the source of cultural assumptions. Data further suggests that historical truth may be a phoenix-like forerunner (if not actual source) of contemporary truth. Finally, from this category's data emerged the notion of truth as being engendered by individual improvisation and/or collective corporate ingenuity. In other words, truth does not emanate from "experts" but instead from the application of individual inventiveness in an "improvisational" manner — an interesting paradox, especially when considered in the context of historical truth. Taken together, these findings suggest that the Origins of Truth may be described as ranging along a continuum between improvisation versus planning — or perhaps between theoretical versus practical.
Innate Nature of Human Nature
Although this study's data did not address Phillips' (1990) "level of aggregation" dimension, it did provide strong support for the notion that human beings are "mutable" — i.e. that "consumers can learn and therefore can change" (219). Whereas Phillips' data suggested, however, that some qualities cannot be "learned," the instant study uncovered a difference between the qualities or inherent talents one might possess and his/her innate human nature, the latter being inherently educable or mutable while the former may or may not be. Indeed, implicit in this industry's raison d'être is the notion of mutable human beings. Beyond these comments, Phillips' (1990) categories remain unchanged by the instant study.
Nature of Time
Although they proved to be unrelated in her study, Phillips (1990) classified assumptions regarding the "physical dimensions" of time and space within the same general category. However, this study's data suggest that both of these assumption sets also possess a spiritual dimension, and that these are even more unrelated to each other than are assumptions about their physical dimensions. Thus, this study separates these assumption sets into two disparate categories, beginning with assumptions regarding the nature of time.
Data support Phillips' (1990) subcategories, as originally conceived: Assumptions about time have to do with its basic nature as well as with the organization's/industry's temporal orientation (past, present, future). The student travel industry perceives time in terms of cyclical activity; moreover, and perhaps somewhat uniquely, it is oriented at once to all three temporal dimensions: past, present, and future. Intuitively, it seems that these assumptions would be unique to different industries. Some — for example the computer industry — might perceive time in a more linear fashion and might be more oriented to the future — further suggesting that this assumption set may be key to characterizing the distinctive assumption set of discrete industries. Moreover, in the "redemption" motif of their performances, the student travel industry's assumptions regarding the nature of time exhibit a spiritual dimension as well as a physical one: The basic nature of time (cyclical) symbolizes the life cycle, as manifested in opportunity to "start over," to begin anew, and in fact to re-invent the entity (if not the industry). Thus, assumptions about the Nature of Time may be performed in both physical and spiritual terms.
Nature of Space
Whereas Phillips' (1990) data did not produce cohesive sub-categories that could be compared across industries, the instant study surfaced two: assumptions regarding internal space as opposed those regarding external space. Almost universally, the proxemics of internal space provide and promote opportunities to commune with fellow workers, further underscoring the importance of "teamwork" across the industry as a whole.
Assumptions about external space encompassed another set of issues entirely; as with The Nature of Time, these assumptions also exhibited both physical and spiritual dimensions.
Physically, assumptions about the nature of external space are performed in terms of a concern with geographical distance and logistics. More specifically, this industry must overcome the potential restraints of marketing and delivering products to clients that may literally be half a world away. Attempts to "bridge" the space in part reveal the spiritual dimension of these assumptions: couriers/tour guides, in particular, are described in redeemer-like terms, for it is they who metaphorically hold the key to the bridge. Here again, assumptions in this category are likely quite distinctive in different industries.
Thus, as revised and expanded herein, the Phillips (1990) model remains a viable framework for examining industry culture. Although the nature and limitations of the current investigation advance this framework but a figurative step beyond its original exploratory stages, this study nonetheless provides continuing empirical evidence of the model's utility. Table 4-1outlines the updated model and compares it with Phillips' (1990) originally-proposed typology.
Describing How the Culture Has Evolved
As mentioned earlier, the study's most heuristic and provocative findings surfaced only when performances came under interpretive scrutiny. In this context emerged a description of how the culture has likely evolved.
To begin with, data suggest that cultural assumptions are propelled through the industry's time and space continuum by communicative performances. More specifically, similar stories and repartee (Performances of Passion) imply common mindsets; thus, understanding the way language is used is key to understanding cultural assumptions, and more to the point, to interpreting the significance of these "enacted symbolic process . . . [that shape] cultural patterns" (Mohan, 1993, 57).
To this end, the industry's root metaphor emerged: work is perceived, metaphorically, to be a religion that may be described as a singular devotion to the transformative value of educational travel. Unearthing the root metaphor was critical to the study, because "this 'dominant myth' is the fundamental generator" (Mohan, 1993, 55) of a group's assumptions, and thereby of its characteristic behaviors, policies, and practices. Indeed, the notion of work-as-religion seemed to "generate" or at least contextualize most of the other assumptions that emerged. For example, membership in the industry is "legitimized" by member entities' symbolic allegiance to the industry's mission. Metaphorically, member entities are thus part of the "family of believers" (albeit distant relatives, at times!); alternatively, some competitors are perceived to have "crossed the line" into heretical behavior. The language of redemption was endemic to performances regarding the origins of truth, the nature of human nature, and the nature of space, while the "bridge motif" &# a universal symbol of spiritual illumination (Gaskell, 1981) &# and the "life cycle" motif characterized performances about the natures of space and time, respectively. Throughout the data, the root metaphor was performed both explicitly and implicitly, suggesting that this "dominant myth" exerts a gravitational-like force upon industry's assumption set and thereby upon its "way of doing things." In fact, one informant actually described the industry as "motion around the sun of learning, or more accurately, [around] the romance of learning" (Y, 2-15). Likewise, the notion of "industry gravity" not only emerged during interpretive analysis, but was also explicitly acknowledged by several informants. Although little more than heuristic in this regard, this study nonetheless implies that the "force" of "cultural gravity" within an industry may be formidable.
Another finding concerns the "creation" or "source" of the industry's culture. Extant cultural assumptions, and in fact the earliest manifestations of the root metaphor, are primarily traceable to ALSG, to its founder, Dr. Gilbert Markle, and/or to his co-founder, Dr. Theodore Voelkel. Some informants may not agree with this conclusion, and indeed may be offended by it, particularly those who think that the "paradigms have shifted," (A, 1-15) that the ALSG/Markle/Voelkel culture is at best no longer relevant or that it represents sheer apostasy, at worst. Here, however, one must remember that the bedrock of culture, its proverbial "ground zero," resides within that most abstract level of taken-for-granted reality (Schein 1985), i.e, within the "group's basic assumptions . . . tacit beliefs members hold about themselves, their relationships to others, and the nature of the organization" (Mohan, 1983, 15) — or to use the interpretivist's language, within the root metaphor or the dominant myth. That being the case, evidence accrued from informants' stories, jargon, vocabulary, and constructs is irrefutable: Assumptions generated within the ALSG/Markle culture are, at the most abstract level of taken-for-granted reality, widely shared across the industry today, whether or not informants consciously perceive that to be the case, and/or whether they reject the ALSG/Markle culture as being in any way relevant to the present time.
This finding suggests that the "founder phenomenon" is as relevant to industry culture as it is to individual organizations, and even more so. As well, this study suggests that the "integration" perspective — wherein the founder's "personality, his dreams, his flaws, and his talents" are largely responsible for what occurs (Kimberly, 1979, emphasis added) — may be most descriptive of the founder's role in shaping industry culture. Data also suggest that the cultural founder(s) of an industry may not be synonymous with its actual founder(s). In other words, the "spider" or the "webmaster" (here used in an organic sense) may not be the person who actually establishes the enterprise; instead, it is the cultural founder(s) who set the stage (as it were), who "create the mindset" (Z, 1-19), who spin the web of significance.
Yet another finding suggests that common cultural assumptions seem to have evolved "organically" in this industry's genetically related companies. That is to say, cultural assumptions were "carried" to newly forming companies by their founders and other elites who had previously been exposed to (and likely employed by) the ALSG/Markle culture. In fact, one informant described the industry's history as
More specifically, this informant claims:
Thus, a "genetic" model of cultural evolution seems to account for cultural assumptions held in common across genetically related companies in the industry. However, this explanation does not account for the existence of analogous assumptions that emerged from non-genetically related entities' data. Although at least one of this industry's non-genetic entities may have "adopted" assumptions engendered within the ALSG/Markle culture (by virtue of hiring an erstwhile ALSG executive to guide the newer entity's formative stage), this study found no evidence to suggest that former ALSG personnel were involved in forming other non-genetic entities. This finding is curious. For one thing, it may focus attention upon the "cultural performances" of corporate documents as potential conduits of cultural assumptions. After all, what better way for a newly forming entity to "adopt" a special "way of doing things" and/or a special way of talking about what is done, than to use as models the documents that come out of existing, accepted members of the industry? In any case, this study's support for an identifiable industry culture that includes both genetically and non-genetically related companies is perhaps best described as an "ancestral" model of culture, rather than as a "genetic" one. This "ancestral" model is pictured in Appendix F.
Taken together, the foregoing conclusions lead to a compelling question: In the preoccupation with industry culture, whatever happened to corporate culture — that is, to the idea that successful, effective companies not only have singular, identifiable cultures, but "strong" ones, at that? Posing an answer reveals what may be the instant study's most provocative finding: the concept of entity orientation.
It will be remembered that when the actual language of each performance was examined, the concept of entity orientation emerged. In this study, entity orientation has been defined as an individual company's "spin" of, its peculiar emphasis upon, or its affinity for one (or more) of the industry's commonly held assumptions. For example, Company A's "rebel orientation" may be explained as its distinctive "spin" or emphasis upon assumptions about the origins of truth. Likewise, Company B's "value orientation" and Company C's "romantic orientation" may be explained as two distinctive "spins" or emphases upon common assumptions regarding the purpose of work. Moreover, this study implies that culture may be what an industry is whereas orientation may be what an individual entity has — further insinuating that culture may be comparatively static, enduring, descriptive of the industry as a whole, and influenced most profoundly by founding individuals and/or organizations whereas an entity's orientation to that culture may be more dynamic, "manageable," and thereby more susceptible to administrative and environmental influences.
In review, this study's conclusions may be summarized as follows:
Implications for Future Research
To begin with, additional research is needed to further modify, describe, and "test" the revised categories and subcategories of the extant model — in short, to pick up where this study leaves off. For example, future investigators may, among other things,
In addition to testing the revised categories and subcategories, future research is needed to "flesh out" the description of how culture evolves across time and space. In its suggestion that culture evolves "ancestrally," in part by the "adoption" of common assumptions, and in its pursuit of these "cultural conduits," this study has focused attention upon cultural performances inherent in an entity's (or collectively, in the industry's) public documents. Thus, the use of documents — or perhaps, of text analysis — as an entrée into industry culture is a topic for future research. As well, researchers might also try to determine whether the nature of a particular business itself fosters (or even requires) operating from within a set of assumptions that are generally shared by all entities engaged in a similar line of work.
Along the same lines, research is needed to investigate more fully the phenomenon of industry founder (or more precisely, the industry's cultural founder). Is this a valid construct? If so, who or what most likely serves in this role? What, if any, assumptions are most and/or least affected by the cultural founder's vision? Do the founders of new entrants into the industry tend to emulate or reject the cultural founder's influence, and with what effects? Would the concept of cultural founder of an entire industry have implications for entrepreneurs? These questions, and more besides, are ripe for examination as a result of this study's implications.
Finally, research is needed to validate the notion of entity orientation. If this phenomenon were verified, then it would provide strong support for the notion that culture is endemic to an industry, rather than to individual organizations. Moreover, defining entity orientation as a distinctive "spin" of the industry's culture would no doubt serve to enhance theoretical consistency in the field, not least by addressing the definition chaos that has plagued research in this area to date. As Frost (1989) noted, organizational culture researchers rarely agree upon what it is that they study or why. Perhaps that is because they have not asked the right questions — e.g., they have not investigated whether it is the industry, and not the individual company, that plays the "starring role" in cultural performances, including their creation and evolution. At least one question ensuing from these investigations might be to ask whether an organization's success may be linked to its singular orientation to the industry's assumption set and/or to individual assumptions.
In conclusion, this study has provided empirical support, not only for the phenomenon of industry culture and a plethora of attendant issues, but also for the potential benefits of "paradigm interplay" as a metatheoretical perspective for cultural research. These findings imply that a virtual galaxy of research into the phenomenon, indeed, the metaphor, of industry culture remains as yet unexplored.
It remains the task of future investigators to continue the odyssey.