Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- Preface
- 1 Images of discourse: interpretive, functional, critical, and structurational
- 2 Interpretive approaches to organizational discourse
- 3 Functional approaches: metaphor in organization change and development
- 4 Critical approaches: Michel Foucault's conceptions of discourse
- 5 A structurational approach to discourse
- 6 Analyzing discourse I: discourse as situated symbolic action
- 7 Analyzing discourse II: a tale of three discourses
- Index
- References
5 - A structurational approach to discourse
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- Preface
- 1 Images of discourse: interpretive, functional, critical, and structurational
- 2 Interpretive approaches to organizational discourse
- 3 Functional approaches: metaphor in organization change and development
- 4 Critical approaches: Michel Foucault's conceptions of discourse
- 5 A structurational approach to discourse
- 6 Analyzing discourse I: discourse as situated symbolic action
- 7 Analyzing discourse II: a tale of three discourses
- Index
- References
Summary
As noted in chapter 1, interpretive and functional conceptions of discourse tend to privilege the action level of analysis, whereas critical approaches tend to privilege the structural level, each conception illuminating certain aspects of discourse but potentially downplaying other dimensions of the fundamental social processes involved. As a basis for a more encompassing understanding of organizational discourse, this chapter draws on the work of Anthony Giddens to propose a structurational conceptualization. In this approach, discourse is viewed as a duality of communicative actions and deep structures, recursively linked through the modality of actors' interpretive schemes. The chapter concludes by exploring some of the implications of this conceptualization for theory and for the methodology of organizational discourse analysis.
Giddens's Theoretical Project and its Use in Organizational Research
Giddens's structuration theory has had a significant and growing influence in organizational research (e.g. Barley and Tolbert, 1997; Heracleous, 2006; Weaver and Gioia, 1994; Whittington, 1992). Giddens's work aims to transcend persistent dualisms in social theory, especially that of structure and action, proposing among other influential concepts, the notion of “duality of structure,” fostering a view of structure as inherent in agents' (recursive) actions rather than as a distant, external, determining factor. From the perspective of the duality of structure, daily practices (including communicative actions) are manifestations of deeper structures of signification, domination, and legitimation. These structures are not seen as separate from action but are instantiated, reproduced, and can thus potentially be changed through daily practices (Giddens, 1984: 36).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Discourse, Interpretation, Organization , pp. 108 - 132Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2006
References
. 1991. On rhetoric. G. A. Kennedy (tran.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
1961. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
and 1997. Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18: 93–117.Google Scholar
1977. Image, music, text. London: Fontana.
1994. The semiotic challenge. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
1932. Remembering. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
1984. Changing interpretive schemes and organizational restructuring: The example of a religious order. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 355–372.Google Scholar
and 1987. First-order, second-order, and third-order change and organizational development interventions: A cognitive approach. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 3: 483–500.Google Scholar
1972. Steps to an ecology of mind. London: Intertext.
and 1966. The social construction of reality. London: Penguin.
1979. The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences. Brighton, Sussex: Harvester.
1981. The linguistic shaping of thought. A study on the Impact of thinking in China and the West. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Blumer, H. 1970. Society as symbolic interaction. In and (eds.), Symbolic interaction: A reader in social psychology: 139–148. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
. 1993. Accounting and the interpretive act. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18 (2/3): 125–146.Google Scholar
. 1996. Why shared meanings have no place in structuration theory: A reply to Scapens and Macintosh. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21 (7/8): 691–697.Google Scholar
, and 1977. Cognition in organizations: An analysis of the Utrecht jazz orchestra. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 607–639.Google Scholar
1977. Outline of a theory of practice. R. Nice (trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
and 1991. Giddens' theory of structuration: A critical appraisal. London: Routledge.
Byrne, R. 1991. Power-knowledge and social theory in the systematic misrepresentation of contemporary French social theory in the work of Anthony Giddens. In and (eds.), Giddens' theory of structuration: A critical appraisal. London: Routledge.
1981. Three models of discourse analysis: The role of social structure. Discourse Processes, 3: 101–131.Google Scholar
and 1994. Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5: 121–147.Google Scholar
Donnellon, A. 1986. Language and communication in organizations: bridging cognition and behavior. In and (eds.), The thinking organization: 137–164. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
1992. Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3: 179–202.Google Scholar
Eoyang, C. 1983. Symbolic transformation of belief systems. In , , , and (eds.), Organizational symbolism: 109–121. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
1993. Principles of cognitive psychology. Hove: Erlbaum.
1992. Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 3: 193–217.Google Scholar
1959. A theory of cognitive dissonance. London: Tavistock.
1972. The archaeology of knowledge. London: Routledge.
1964. How to ask for a drink in Subanun. American Anthropologist 66 (6): 127–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1973. The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
1991. Revolutionary change theories: Multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16: 10–36.Google Scholar
1979. Central problems in social theory. London: Macmillan.
1984. The constitution of society. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
1987. Social theory and modern sociology. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
1993. New rules of sociological method (2nd edn.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Gill, A. M. and Whedbee, K. 1997. Rhetoric. In (ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, vol. 1: 157–183. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gioia, D. A. 1986. Symbols, scripts and sensemaking: Creating meaning in the organizational experience. In and (eds.), The thinking organization: 49–74. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
Goffman, E. 1972. The neglected situation. In (ed.), Language and social context: 61–66. London: Penguin.
1926. Aphasia and kindred disorders of speech. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
and (eds.) 1989. Social theory of modern societies: Anthony Giddens and his critics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
2006. A tale of three discourses: The dominant, the strategic and the marginalized. Journal of Management Studies, 43: 1059–1087.Google Scholar
and 2001. Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of IT implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (4): 755–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2000. Discourse and the study of organization: Toward a structurational perspective. Human Relations, 53: 1251–1286.Google Scholar
1985. The interaction between national and organizational value systems. Journal of Management Studies, 22: 347–57.Google Scholar
and 1997. Social movement rhetoric and the social psychology of collective action: A case study of anti-abortion mobilization. Human Relations, 50: 261–286.Google Scholar
1990. Mapping strategic thought. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Jones, M. Structuration theory. 1999. In and (eds.), Rethinking management information systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
1995. Rhetoric, ritualism and totemism in human resource management. Human Relations, 48: 367–385.Google Scholar
and 1987. Interpreting organizational texts. Journal of Management Studies, 24: 233–247.Google Scholar
and 1989. Power and subjectivity at work: From degradation to subjugation in social relations. Sociology, 23: 535–558.Google Scholar
and 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
1987. Key issues in structuration theory: Some critical remarks. Current Perspectives in Social Theory, 8: 25–46.Google Scholar
. 1979. Surface data and deep structure: Observing the organization of professional training. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 551–561.Google Scholar
1979. The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 539–550.Google Scholar
and 1990. Structuration theory in management accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15: 455–477.Google Scholar
Malinowski, B. 1970. The context of situation. In and (eds.), Social psychology through symbolic interaction: 158–160. Toronto: Xerox College Publishing.
McCann, C. D. and Higgins, E. T. 1990. Social Cognition and Communication. In and (eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology: 13–32. Chichester, England: Wiley.
1980. Paradigms, metaphor and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 660–671.Google Scholar
1983. More on metaphor: Why we cannot control tropes in administrative science. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 601–607.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. 1981. On social representations. In (ed.), Social cognition: Perspectives on everyday understanding: 181–209. London: Academic Press.
and 1994. Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative practices in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 541–574.Google Scholar
, and 1997. Managerial discourses: Words speak louder than actions?Journal of Applied Management Studies, 6: 5–12.Google Scholar
1969. Hermeneutics. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Pomerantz, A. and Fehr, B. J. 1997. Conversation analysis: An approach to the study of social action as sense making practices. In (ed.), Discourse as social interaction: 64–91. London: Sage.
Pondy, L. R. 1983. The role of metaphors and myths in organization and the facilitation of change. In , , , and (eds.), Organizational symbolism: 157–166. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
, and 1980. The structuring of organizational structures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 1–17.Google Scholar
1983. A structurationist account of political culture. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 314–37.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E. 1984. Schemata and the cognitive system. In and (eds.), Handbook of social cognition: 161–188. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
1992. Collective cognition and collaborative work: The effects of cognitive and communicative processes on the organization of television production. Discourse and Society, 3: 61–86.Google Scholar
1983. Course in general linguistics. London: Duckworth.
and 1996. Structure and agency in management accounting research: A response to Boland's interpretive act. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21: 675–690.Google Scholar
Schon, D. A. 1979. Generative metaphor. A perspective on problem-setting in social policy. In (ed.), Metaphor and thought: 254–283. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
1991. Transitions betweem symbolic domains in organisations. Organization Studies, 12: 489–506.Google Scholar
1970. The theory of organizations. London: Heinemann.
Taylor, S. E. and Crocker, J. 1981. Schematic bases of social information processing. In , , and (eds.), Social cognition: 89–134. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
1992. Organizations as ‘texts’: Hermeneutics as a model for understanding organizational change. Research in Organization Change and Development, 6: 197–233.Google Scholar
Thomas, W. I. and Thomas, D. S. 1970. Situations defined as real are real in their consequences. In and (eds.), Social psychology through symbolic interaction: 154–156. Toronto: Xerox College Publishing.
Thompson, J. B. 1989. The theory of structuration. In and (eds.), Social theory of modern societies: Anthony Giddens and his critics: 56–76. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
and 1994. Paradigms lost: Incommensurability vs structurationist inquiry. Organization Studies, 15: 565–590.Google Scholar
Weber, M. 1991. The nature of social action. In (ed.), Weber: Selections in translation: 7–32. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Weick, K. 1977. Enactment processes in organizations. In and (eds.), New directions in organizational behavior: 267–300. Chicago, IL: St. Clair Press.
1979. Cognitive processes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1: 41–74.Google Scholar
1992. Putting Giddens into action: Social systems and managerial agency. Journal of Management Studies, 29: 693–712.Google Scholar
1981. The structuring of organizational structure: A note. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26: 470–474.Google Scholar
1986. Unconscious sources of motivation in the theory of the subject; an exploration and critique of Giddens' dualistic models of action and personality. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 16: 105–121.Google Scholar
1997. Rethinking management and managerial work: Capitalism, control and subjectivity. Human Relations, 50: 1329–1359.Google Scholar
and 1992. Genres of organizational communication: A structurational approach to studying communication and media. Academy of Management Review, 17: 299–326.Google Scholar
1996. More fragmentation? Unfinished business in linking the social sciences and the humanities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 251–261.Google Scholar