Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wpx84 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-14T15:56:41.293Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Analyzing discourse I: discourse as situated symbolic action

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2009

Loizos Heracleous
Loizos Heracleous
Affiliation:
National University of Singapore
Get access

Summary

This chapter presents a conceptualization of organizational discourse as situated symbolic action, drawing from the fields of speech act theory, rhetoric, ethnography of communication, and social constructionism. It is suggested that speech act theory presents a theory of discourse as action, but essentially remains at the microlevel of interaction, without sufficient attention to context and intertextual analysis. Rhetoric is introduced as an approach that can address both text and context, viewing discourse as a situated social practice. Further support for discourse as a situated practice comes from ethnographies of communication. Finally, social constructionism is discussed as a perspective that emphasizes the symbolic nature of discourse, both at the level of discursive action and bodies of discourse and their “metacommunicative” effects of framing issues in particular ways.

The conceptualization of organizational discourse as situated symbolic action is illustrated through analysis of an episode of negotiated order, a meeting of senior managers of Systech, a major information technology (IT) organization where a new business model for its advanced consulting division was being debated. The business model favored by the recently hired Group President entailed a move from the more traditional, functionally based, distributed model of client engagement employed at the division to a “principal-centered” consulting model involving principals who “owned” clients and were responsible for all aspects of the client engagement. This move would entail substantial reallocation of power, status, and influence within the division and was hotly contested.

Type
Chapter
Information
Discourse, Interpretation, Organization , pp. 133 - 164
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alvesson, M. and Karreman, D. 2000. Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53: 1125–1149.Google Scholar
Argyris, C. 1996. Actionable knowledge: Design causality in the service of consequential theory. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32: 390–408.Google Scholar
Aristotle, . 1991. On rhetoric. Kennedy G. A. (trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Atkinson, P. 1988. Ethnomethodology: A critical review. Annual Review of Sociology, 14: 441–465.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an ecology of mind. London: Intertext.
Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. 1966. The social construction of reality. London: Penguin.
Bitzer, L. F. 1968. The rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 1 (1): 1–14.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. 1997. Discourse pragmatics. In Dijk, T. A. (ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, vol. 2: 38–63. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Charland, M. 1987. Constitutive rhetoric: The case of the peuple Quebecois. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 73: 133–150.Google Scholar
Checkland, P. and Holwell, S. 1998. Action research: Its nature and validity. Systemic practice and action research, 1: 9–21.Google Scholar
Cicourel, A. V. 1981. Three models of discourse analysis: The role of social structure. Discourse Processes, 3: 101–131.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. 2003. Intonation and discourse: Current views from within. In Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., and Hamilton, H. (eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis: 13–34. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cunliffe, A. L. 2001. Managers as practical authors: Reconstructing our understanding of management practice. Journal of Management Studies, 38: 351–371.Google Scholar
Dickens, L. and Watkins, K. 1999. Action research: Rethinking Lewin. Management Learning, 30: 127–140.Google Scholar
Dijk, T. A. 1977. Text and context: Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London: Longman.
van Dijk, T. A. 1997. The study of discourse. In Dijk, T. A. (ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, vol. 1: 1–34. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Eco, U. 1990. The limits of interpretation. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 3: 193–217.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. 2003. “Political correctness”: The politics of culture and language. Discourse & Society, 14: 17–28.Google Scholar
Fine, G. A. 1984. Negotiated orders and organizational cultures. Annual Review of Sociology, 10: 239–262.Google Scholar
Foster, M. 1972. An introduction to the theory and practice of action research in work organizations. Human Relations, 25: 529–556.Google Scholar
Frake, C. O. 1964. How to ask for a drink in Subanun. American Anthropologist, 66: 127–132.Google Scholar
Gergen, K. J. and Thatchenkery, T. J. 1996. Organization science as social construction: Postmodern potentials. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32: 356–377.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
Giddens, A. 1987. Social Theory and Modern Sociology. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
Gill, A. M. and Whedbee, K. 1997. Rhetoric. In Dijk, T. A. (ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, vol. 1: 157–183. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Goffman, E. 1961. Asylums. New York: Anchor.
Grant, D., Keenoy, T. and Oswick, C. 2001. Organizational discourse: Key contributions and challenges. International Studies of Management and Organization, 31 (3): 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gronbeck, B. E. 1973. The rhetoric of social-institutional change: Black action at Michigan. In Morhmann, G. P., Stewart, C. J., and Ochs, D. J. (eds.), Explorations in rhetorical criticism: 96–123. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Gumperz, J. J. and Levinson, S. C. 1991. Rethinking linguistic relativity. Current Anthropology, 32: 613–623.Google Scholar
Hardy, C. 2001. Researching organizational discourse. International Studies of Management and Organization, 31 (3): 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heracleous, L. 2004. Interpretivist approaches to organizational discourse. In Grant, D., Hardy, C., Oswick, C., and Putnam, L. L. (eds.), Handbook of organizational discourse: 175–192. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Heracleous, L. and Barrett, M. 2001. Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of information technology implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 755–778.Google Scholar
Heracleous, L. and Hendry, J. 2000. Discourse and the study of organization: Toward a structurational perspective. Human Relations, 53: 1251–1286.Google Scholar
Heracleous, L. and Marshak, R. 2004. Conceptualizing organizational discourse as situated symbolic action. Human Relations, 57: 1285–1312.Google Scholar
Hodge, R. and Kress, G. 1988. Social semiotics. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
Hirsch, P. M. 1986. From ambushes to golden parachutes: Corporate takeovers as an instance of cultural framing and institutional integration. American Journal of Sociology, 91: 800–837.Google Scholar
Huxham, C. and Vangen, S. 2003. Researching organizational practice through action research: Case studies and design choices. Organizational Research Methods, 6: 383–403.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. 1964. Toward ethnographies of communication. American Anthropologist, 66 (6), part 2: 12–25.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. 1972. Models of the interaction of language and social life. In Gumperz, J. and Hymes, D. (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication: 35–71. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Jakobson, R. 1960. Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok, T. (ed.), Style in language: 350–77. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Keenoy, T., Oswick, C. and Grant, D. 1997. Organizational discourses: Text and context. Organization, 42: 147–157.Google Scholar
Kerr, S. 2004. Introduction: Bringing practitioners and academics together. Academy of Management Executive, 18, 1: 94–96.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. 1947. Frontiers in group dynamics: Channels of group life: Social planning and action research. Human Relations, 1: 143–153.Google Scholar
March, J. G. 1962. The business firm as a political coalition. Journal of Politics, 24: 662–678.Google Scholar
Marshak, R. J. and Heracleous, L. 2005. A discursive approach to organization development. Action Research, 3: 69–88.Google Scholar
Marshak, R. J., Keenoy, T., Oswick, C. and Grant, D. 2000. From outer words to inner worlds. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36: 245–258.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 2003. Cohesion and texture. In Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., and Hamilton, H. (eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis: 35–53. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mead, G. H. 1934. Mind, self and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mintzberg, H. 1983. Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Morgan, G. and Smircich, L. 1980. The case for qualitative research. Academy of Management Review, 5: 491–500.Google Scholar
Oswick, C., Keenoy, T. and Grant, D. 1997. Managerial discourses: words speak louder than actions?Journal of Applied Management Studies, 6: 5–12.Google Scholar
Perry, C. and Zuber-Skerritt, O. 1994. Doctorates by action research for senior practicing managers. Management Learning, 25: 341–365.Google Scholar
Peters, M. and Robinson, V. 1984. The origins and status of action research. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 20: 113–124.Google Scholar
Phillips, N. and Brown, J. L. 1993. Analyzing communication in and around organizations: A critical hermeneutic approach. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 1547–1576.Google Scholar
Phillips, N. and Hardy, C. 2002. Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social construction. London: Sage.
Samra-Fredericks, D. 2003. Strategizing as lived experience and strategists' everyday efforts to shape strategic direction. Journal of Management Studies, 40: 141–174.Google Scholar
Schein, E. 1987. The clinical perspective in fieldwork. Qualitative Research Methods, CA: Sage.
Searle, J. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts: 59–82. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Searle, J. 1995. The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.
Strauss, A. 1967. Language and identity. In Manis, J. G. and Meltzer, B. N. (eds.), Symbolic interaction: A reader in social psychology: 322–328. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Strauss, A., Schatzman, L., Ehrlich, D., Bucher, R. and Sabshin, M. 1963. The hospital and its negotiated order. In Freidson, E. (ed.), The hospital in modern society: 147–169. New York, NY: Free Press.
Strauss, A., Schatzman, L., Bucher, R., Ehrlich, D. and Sabshin, M. 1964. Psychiatric ideologies and institutions. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Weick, K. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Whorf, B. 1941. The relation of habitual thought and behaviour to language. In Spier, L. (ed.), Language, culture and personality: Essays in memory of edward sapir: 75–93. Menasha, WI: Sapir Memorial Publication Fund.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×