embedding sustainability in organizational culture - Network for ...
embedding sustainability in organizational culture - Network for ...
embedding sustainability in organizational culture - Network for ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
appeNdIx Chapter 1: a: Introduction Methodology<br />
61<br />
Although one term might have been mentioned <strong>in</strong> the abstract or author-supplied<br />
keywords, a l<strong>in</strong>k between <strong>culture</strong> and <strong>susta<strong>in</strong>ability</strong> was rarely <strong>in</strong>dicated <strong>in</strong> the<br />
abstract, thus requir<strong>in</strong>g a quick scan of each of the 13,756 articles. We determ<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
that because we were look<strong>in</strong>g <strong>for</strong> the antecedents of a <strong>susta<strong>in</strong>ability</strong> <strong>culture</strong>, or an<br />
<strong>in</strong>dication of a relationship between the variables, we needed to elim<strong>in</strong>ate all articles<br />
that did not <strong>in</strong>clude an empirical component, whether qualitative or quantitative.<br />
There<strong>for</strong>e, we determ<strong>in</strong>ed that our searches should filter out non-empirical articles<br />
and articles with fewer than 7 pages. This decision reflects some of the trade-offs <strong>in</strong><br />
terms of the <strong>in</strong>clusion and exclusion of studies. In this case, we made the decision<br />
that articles with fewer than 7 pages were highly unlikely to discuss empirical<br />
f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> any depth sufficient to be useful <strong>for</strong> the review.<br />
The follow<strong>in</strong>g criteria <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>clusion/exclusion were used to determ<strong>in</strong>e whether<br />
empirical studies should be <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> the systematic review:<br />
• Is the study greater than six pages?<br />
• Does the article have empirical f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs?<br />
• Does the study exam<strong>in</strong>e antecedents of a <strong>susta<strong>in</strong>ability</strong> <strong>culture</strong>?<br />
• Does the study identify practices aimed at <strong>embedd<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>susta<strong>in</strong>ability</strong>?<br />
• Does the study address antecedents of an analogous cultural<br />
<strong>in</strong>tervention?<br />
For all excluded studies, we documented the reason <strong>for</strong> exclusion (e.g., no<br />
relationship between <strong>susta<strong>in</strong>ability</strong> and <strong>culture</strong> or no empirical f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs). When<br />
<strong>in</strong> doubt, we always erred on the side of <strong>in</strong>clusion. At this stage, we favoured false<br />
positive errors over miss<strong>in</strong>g potential studies. Given that we conducted a second<br />
round of screen<strong>in</strong>g, we were com<strong>for</strong>table <strong>in</strong> apply<strong>in</strong>g this bias at this stage.<br />
As we progressed through the list of search term comb<strong>in</strong>ations, we found many<br />
results had already been added to the ma<strong>in</strong> cod<strong>in</strong>g set <strong>in</strong> previous searches. Thus,<br />
over time, we progressively added fewer unique articles to the set <strong>for</strong> cod<strong>in</strong>g. This<br />
<strong>in</strong>dicated that we were converg<strong>in</strong>g on the core studies and reach<strong>in</strong>g a saturation<br />
po<strong>in</strong>t with regard to our search <strong>for</strong> empirical studies.<br />
The follow<strong>in</strong>g criteria <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>clusion/exclusion were used to determ<strong>in</strong>e whether<br />
practitioner studies should be <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> the systematic review:<br />
• Does the study exam<strong>in</strong>e antecedents of a <strong>susta<strong>in</strong>ability</strong> <strong>culture</strong>?<br />
• Does the study identify practices aimed at <strong>embedd<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>susta<strong>in</strong>ability</strong>?<br />
After elim<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g duplications, the prelim<strong>in</strong>ary screen<strong>in</strong>g identified 526 academic<br />
sources related to <strong>susta<strong>in</strong>ability</strong>, 115 sources related to analogous cultural<br />
<strong>in</strong>terventions, 56 books and 4 practitioner reports. All of the sources were loaded<br />
<strong>in</strong>to a reference management software system (Zotero), which was web-based and<br />
available to all of the researchers. The metadata (author, year, journal, etc.) were<br />
added <strong>for</strong> each source and we obta<strong>in</strong>ed text-searchable PDF copies of every source,<br />
except <strong>for</strong> the books. In the case of the books, one author read all of the books <strong>in</strong><br />
their entirety and <strong>for</strong> those books that met the <strong>in</strong>clusion criteria, research summary<br />
notes from 5 to 12 pages were produced that summarized any practices aimed at<br />
<strong>embedd<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>susta<strong>in</strong>ability</strong>. (We made use of these research notes <strong>for</strong> the analysis<br />
process and returned to the orig<strong>in</strong>al sources to write the report as a f<strong>in</strong>al quality<br />
check.)