Analyzing discourse I: discourse as situated symbolic action

Loizos Heracleous

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511488573.007

6 - Analyzing discourse I: discourse as situated symbolic action

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009

Loizos Heracleous

Show author details

Loizos Heracleous: Affiliation:
National University of Singapore

Book contents

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

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511488573.007 [Opens in a new window]

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.