Consensus analysis, a technique developed in cognitive anthropology for analyzing structured interview data, produces three useful results: (1) a measure of the degree of agreement among informants about a domain of knowledge, belief, or practice; (2) the "culturally correct" information about that domain according to the pooled answers of the informants; and (3) a score for each informant representing that person's knowledge of the domain. Consensus analysis is not just for high-agreement domains, however. This article explores a typology for conceptualizing diversity in low-consensus domains, including (1) weak agreement, (2) turbulent, (3) subcultural, and (4) contested domains, using case study examples from an English social movement, a Scottish high-technology firm, and a Scottish business support and training organization. The typology helps measure and interpret diversity and change within organizations and social movements.Consensus analysis (CA) was originally developed as a technique for discovering which respondents are most knowledgeable and reliable in a particular cultural context. It is based on the assumption that individuals vary in their mastery of particular domains of knowledge Romney, Batchelder, and Weller 1987;Boster, Johnson, and Weller 1987;Weller and Romney 1988). 1 Not everyone knows the same Our thanks to two anonymous reviewers who gave us much useful guidance; we alone are responsible for any remaining errors. We are grateful for the hospitality of the Anthropology Department, University of Durham (England), which hosted us at different times. Hyatt also thanks members of the Department of Social and Economic Studies at the University of Bradford (England) for their support for this and later research projects. Caulkins acknowledges his intellectual debt to the late Michael Scott and thanks the University of Stirling (Scotland) and the

No abstract

During the 1970s, anthropologist Mary Douglas developed a twodimensional framework for cultural comparisons: (a) grid or constraint by rules, and (b) group or incorporation into a bounded social unit. According to Douglas and her colleagues, the four grid/ group types constitute stable social configurations that are associated with distinctive values or ideologies: individualism, fatalism, hierarchy, and egalitarianism. The theory has inspired a great deal of elaboration, numerous intrasocietal studies, some controlled comparisons between social units in different societies, and some limited cross-national studies. Although plausible, the framework has not been subjected to extensive cross-cultural testing. This article addresses a preliminary question in the more rigorous crosscultural testing of the framework: Are grid, group, and ideology empirically separate dimensions as Douglas contends? A pilot study employing factor analysis of precoded variables from the 60-culture Human Relations Area Files (HRAF) probability sample file suggests that they may be. Further steps in testing this theoretical framework are proposed.

The 'classical' culture concept has come under concerted attack in the last two decades for a variety of supposed weaknesses (e.g.

No abstract