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-5b777bbd6c-f9nfp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-18T13:26:49.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Images of discourse: interpretive, functional, critical, and structurational

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2009

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

Summary

The linguistic turn of the later twentieth century has led to a widespread and growing interest in discourse, both in organization studies and in the social sciences more generally. Since the late 1970s, organization scholars have began to move beyond a conception of language as a functional, instrumental conduit of information, and drew attention to its symbolic and metaphorical aspects as constructive of social and organizational reality (Dandridge, Mitroff and Joyce, 1980: Manning, 1979), constitutive of theory (Morgan, 1980, 1983), and enabling of shared meanings, co-ordinated action, and even organization itself (Daft and Wiginton, 1979; Louis, 1983; Pondy and Mitroff, 1979; Smircich, 1983). Subsequent scholars have adopted a wide range of approaches to the analysis of organizational discourses and have conceptualized discourse itself, and its relevance to organizational interpretations, actions and subjectivity, in a variety of ways (Grant, Keenoy and Oswick, 1998; Heracleous and Hendry, 2000; Mumby and Stohl, 1991; Phillips and Hardy, 2002).

Discourse analysis, in the broad sense of utilizing textual data in order to gain insights to particular phenomena, has had a rich and varied heritage in the social sciences, spanning the fields of sociology, anthropology, psychology, political science and history (OConnor, 1995), and this same richness and diversity is evident in the organizational sciences.

Type
Chapter
Information
Discourse, Interpretation, Organization , pp. 1 - 27
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. 1993. Organizations as rhetoric: Knowledge-intensive firms and the struggle with ambiguity. Journal of Management Studies, 30: 997–1015.Google Scholar
Aristotle. 1991. On rhetoric. Kennedy, G. A. (tansl.). Oxford: Oxford University Press
Atkinson, P. 1988. Ethnomethodology: A critical review. Annual Review of Sociology, 14: 441–465.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1961. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Barley, S. R. 1983. Semiotics and the study of occupational and organizational cultures, Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 393–413.Google Scholar
Barrett, F. J., Thomas, G. F. and Hocevar, S. P. 1995. The central role of discourse in large-scale change: a social construction perspective. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31: 352–272.Google Scholar
Barry, D., and Elmes, M. 1997. Strategy retold: toward a narrative view of strategic discourse. Academy of Management Review, 22: 429–452.Google Scholar
Barthes, R. 1972. Mythologies. A. Lavers, (trans.). London: Vintage.
Barthes, R. 1977. Image, music, text. London: Fontana.
Barthes, R. 1994. The semiotic challenge. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. 1966. The social construction of reality. London: Penguin.
Boje, D. M. 1991. The storytelling organization: A study of story performance in an office-supply firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 106–126.Google Scholar
Bougon, M., Weick, K. and Binkhorst, D. 1977. Cognition in organizations: An analysis of the Utrecht jazz orchestra. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 607–639.Google Scholar
Boyce, M. E. 1995. Collective centering and collective sense-making in the stories and storytelling of one organization. Organization Studies, 16 (1): 107–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgoon, M., Hunsaker, F. G. and Dawson, E. J. 1994. Human communication. (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. Hants: Gower.
Chilton, P. and Ilyin, M. 1993. Metaphor in political discourse: The case of the “common European house”. Discourse and Society, 4 (1): 7–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicourel, A. V. 1981. Three models of discourse analysis: The role of social structure. Discourse Processes, 3: 101–131.Google Scholar
Cleary, C. and Packard, T. 1992. The use of metaphors in organizational assessment and change. Group and Organization Management, 17: 229–241.Google Scholar
Crider, C. and Cirillo, L. 1991. Systems of interpretation and the function of metaphor. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 21: 171–195.Google Scholar
Daft, R. L. and Wiginton, J. C. 1979. Language and organization. Academy of Management Review, 4: 179–191.Google Scholar
Dandridge, T. C., Mitroff, I. and Joyce, W. F. 1980. Organizational symbolism: A topic to expand organizational analysis. Academy of Management Review, 5: 77–82.Google Scholar
Denning, S. 2004. Telling tales. Harvard Business Review, May: 122–129.Google Scholar
Dijk, T. A. 1988. Social cognition, social power and social discourse. Text, 8: 129–157.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A.1990. Social cognition and discourse. In Giles, H. and Robinson, W. P. (eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology: 163–183. Chichester: Wiley.
Dijk, T. A. 1993. Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 4: 249–283.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A.1997. The study of discourse. In Dijk, T. A. (ed.), Discourse as structure and process: 1–34. London: Sage.
Donnellon, A., Gray, B. and Bougon, M. G. 1986. Communication, meaning and organized action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 43–55.Google Scholar
Evered, R. 1983. The language of organizations: the case of the navy. In Pondy, L R., Frost, P. J., Morgan, G., and Dandridge, T. C. (eds.), Organizational symbolism: 109–121. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and text: linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 3: 193–217.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. and Wodak, R. 1997. Critical discourse analysis. In Dijk, T. A. (ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, vol. 2: 258–284. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Fiol, C. M. 1989. A semiotic analysis of corporate language: Organizational boundaries and joint venturing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 277–303.Google Scholar
Ford, J. D. and Ford, L. W. 1995. The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20: 541–70.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1972. The archaeology of knowledge. London: Routledge.
Foucault, M. 1980. Power/Knowledge: selected interviews and other writings, 1972–77. New York: Pantheon.
Gadacz, R. R. 1987. Agency, unlimited. Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 11: 158–163.Google Scholar
Garnsey, E. and Rees, B. 1996. Discourse and enactment: Gender inequality in text and context. Human Relations, 49: 1041–1064.Google Scholar
du Gay, P. and Salaman, G. 1992. The cult(ure) of the customer. Journal of Management Studies, 29: 615–33.Google Scholar
du Gay, P., Salaman, G. and Rees, B. 1996. The conduct of management and the management of conduct: Contemporary managerial discourse and the constitution of the “competent” manager. Journal of Management Studies, 33: 263–282.Google Scholar
Gephart, R. P. 1993. The textual approach: Risk and blame in disaster sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 1465–1514.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. 1979. Central problems in social theory. London: Macmillan.
Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity.
Giddens, A. 1987. Social theory and modern sociology. Cambridge: Polity.
Giddens, A. 1993. New rules of sociological method (2nd edn.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Gill, A. M. and Whedbee, K. 1997. Rhetoric. In Dijk, T. A. (ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, vol. 1: 157–183. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gioia, D. A. 1986a. Symbols, scripts and sensemaking: Creating meaning in the organizational experience. In Sims, H. P. Jr. and Gioia, D. A. (eds.). The thinking organization: 49–74. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
Gioia, D. A. 1986b. The state of the art in organizational social cognition: A personal view. In Sims, H. P. Jr. and Gioia, D. A. (eds.), The thinking organization: 336–356. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
Gramsci, A. 1971. Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. Hoare, Q. and Nowell-Smith, G. (eds.). London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Grant, D., Hardy, C., Oswick, C. and Putnam, L. 2004. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Discourse. London: Sage.
Grant, D., Keenoy, T. and Oswick, C. 1998. Organizational discourse: Of diversity, dichotomy and multi-disciplinarity. In Grant, D., Keenoy, T. and Oswick, C., Discourse and organization: 1–13. London: Sage.
Gray, B., Bougon, M. G., and Donnellon, A. 1985. Organizations as constructions and destructions of meaning. Journal of Management, 11 (2): 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. and Levinson, S. C. 1991. Rethinking linguistic relativity. Current Anthropology, 32: 613–623.Google Scholar
Hansen, C. D. and Kahnweiler, W. M. 1993. Storytelling: An instrument for understanding the dynamics of corporate relationships. Human Relations, 46: 1391–1409.Google Scholar
Hatch, M. J. 1997. Irony and the social construction of contradiction in the humor of a management team. Organization Science, 8: 275–288.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1984. The theory of communicative action, vol. 1. Boston: Beacon Press.
Heracleous, L. 2004. Interpretivist approaches to organizational discourse. In Grant, D., Phillips, N., Hardy, C., Putnam, L. and Oswick, C.Handbook of Organizational Discourse. Beverly Hills: Sage: 175–192.
Heracleous, L. 2006. A tale of three discourses: The dominant, the strategic and the marginalized. Journal of Management Studies, 43: 1059–1087.Google Scholar
Heracleous, L. and Barrett, M. 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
Heracleous, L. and Hendry, J. 2000. Discourse and the study of organization: Towards a structurational perspective. Human Relations, 53 (10): 1251–1286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heracleous, L. and Jacobs, C. 2005. The serious business of play. MIT Sloan Management Review, Fall: 19–20.Google Scholar
Hodge, R. and Kress, G. 1988. Social semiotics. Cambridge: Polity.
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: Holt, Rinchart and Winston.
Jacobs, C. and Heracleous, L. 2001. Seeing without being seen: Towards an Archaeology of Controlling Science. International Studies of Management and Organization, 31 (3): 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, C. and Heracleous, L. 2006. Constructing shared understanding. The role of embodied metaphors in organization development. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42: 207–226.Google Scholar
Kaufman, B. 2003. Stories that sell, stories that tell. Journal of Business Strategy, March-April: 11–15.Google Scholar
Keenoy, T. 1990. Human resource management: Rhetoric, reality and contradiction. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1: 363–384.Google Scholar
Keenoy, T., Oswick, C. and Grant, D. 1997. Organizational discourses: Text and context. Organization, 4: 147–157.Google Scholar
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. and Miller, D. 1987. Interpreting organizational texts. Journal of Management Studies, 24: 233–247.Google Scholar
Kilduff, M. 1993. Deconstructing organizations. Academy of Management Review, 18: 13–27.Google Scholar
Knights, D. and Morgan, G. 1991. Corporate strategy, organizations and subjectivity: a critique. Organization Studies, 12: 251–273.Google Scholar
Knights, D. and Morgan, G. 1995. Strategy under the microscope: Strategic management and IT in financial services. Journal of Management Studies, 32: 191–214.Google Scholar
Knights, D. and Willmott, H. 1989. Power and subjectivity at work: From degradation to subjugation in social relations. Sociology, 23: 535–558.Google Scholar
Kress, G., Leite-Garcia, R. and Leeuwen, T. 1997. Discourse semiotics. In Dijk, T. A. (ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, vol. 1: 257–291. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lewin, K. 1952. Field theory in social science. London: Tavistock.
Liedtka, J. M. and Rosenblum, J. W. 1996. Shaping conversations: Making strategy, managing change. California Management Review, 39 (1): 141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louis, M. R. 1983. Organizations as culture-bearing milieux. In Pondy, L. R., Frost, P. J., Morgan, G., and Dandridge, T. C. (eds.), Organizational symbolism: 39–54. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Manning, P. K. 1979. Metaphors of the field: Varieties of organizational discourse. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 660–671.Google Scholar
Manning, P. K. and Cullum-Swan, B. 1994. Narrative, content, and semiotic analysis. In Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.). Handbook of qualitative research: 463–477. California: Sage.
Marshak, R. J. 1993. Managing the metaphors of change. Organizational Dynamics, 22: 44–56.Google Scholar
Martin, J. and Powers, M. E. 1983. Truth or corporate propaganda: The value of a good war story. In Pondy, L. R., Frost, P. J., Morgan, G., and Dandridge, T. C. (eds.), Organizational symbolism: 93–107. Greenwich: JAI Press.
McKee, R. 2003. Storytelling that moves people. Harvard Business Review, June: 51–55.Google Scholar
Morgan, G. 1980. Paradigms, metaphor and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 660–671.Google Scholar
Morgan, G. 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 Forgas, J. P. (ed.), Social congnition: Perspectives on everyday understanding: 181–209. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mumby, D. K. and Stohl, C. 1991. Power and discourse in organization studies: Absence and the dialectic of control. Discourse and Society, 2: 313–332.Google Scholar
Mumby, D. K. and Clair, R. P. 1997. Organizational Discourse. In Dijk, T. A. (ed.), Discourse as social interaction: 181–205. London: Sage.
Noorderhaven, N. 1995. The argumentational texture of transaction cost economics. Organization Studies, 16: 605–623.Google Scholar
O'Connor, E. S. 1995. Paradoxes of participation: Textual analysis and organizational change. Organization Studies, 16: 769–803.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. and Yates, J. 1994. Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative practices in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 541–574.Google Scholar
Ortony, A. 1979. Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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
Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T. 1986. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Berkowitz, L. (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 19: 123–205. Orlando: Academic Press.
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.
Pondy, L. R. 1978. Leadership as a language game. In , M. W. McCall Jr. and Lombardo, M. M., , M. M. (eds.), Leadership: where else can we go?: 87–101. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Pondy, L. R. 1983. The role of metaphors and myths in organization and the facilitation of change. In Pondy, L. R., Frost, P. J., Morgan, G., and Dandridge, T. C. (eds.), Organizational symbolism: 157–166. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Pondy, L. R. and Mitroff, I. I. 1979. Beyond open systems of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1: 3–39.Google Scholar
Pondy, L. R., Frost, P. J., Morgan, G. and Dandridge, T. C. (eds.), 1983. Organizational symbolism. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. 1987. Discourse and social psychology. London: Sage.
Putnam, L. L., Phillips, N. and Chapman, P. 1996. Metaphors of communication and organization. In Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C., and Nord, W. R.Handbook of organization studies: 375–408. London: Sage.
Ready, D. A. 2002. How storytelling builds next-generation leaders. MIT Sloan Management Review, Summer: 63–69.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, P. 1991. From text to action. Illinois: Northwestern University Press.
Rodrigues, S. B. and Collinson, D. L. 1995. “Having fun?” Humor as resistance in Brazil. Organization Studies, 16: 739–768.Google Scholar
Sackmann, S. 1989. The role of metaphors in organization transformation. Human Relations, 42: 463–485.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. 1983. Course in general linguistics. London: Duckworth.
Schein, E. 1992. Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.), San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
Schön, D. A. 1979. Generative metaphor. A perspective on problem-setting in social policy. In Ortony, A. (ed.), Metaphor and thought: 254–283. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smircich, L., 1983. Organizations as shared meanings. In Pondy, L. R., Frost, P. J., Morgan, G., and Dandridge, T. C. (eds.), Organizational symbolism: 55–65. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Taylor, S. E. and Crocker, J. 1981. Schematic bases of social information processing. In Higgins, E. T., Herman, C. P. and Zanna, M. P. (eds.), Social cognition: 89–134. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thachankary, T. 1992. Organizations as ‘texts’: Hermeneutics as a model for understanding organizational change. Research in Organization Change and Development, 6: 197–233.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. B. 1989. The theory of structuration. In Held, D. and Thompson, J. B. (eds.), Social theory of modern societies: Anthony Giddens and his critics: 56–76. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tsoukas, H. 1991. The missing link: A transformational view of metaphors in organizational science. Academy of Management Review, 16: 566–585.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H. 1993. Analogical reasoning and knowledge generation in organization theory. Organization Studies, 14: 323–346.Google Scholar
Watson, T. J. 1995. Rhetoric, discourse and argument in organizational sense making: A reflexive tale. Organization Studies, 16: 805–821.Google Scholar
Weick, K. 1977. Enactment processes in organizations. In Staw, B. M. and Salancik, G. R. (eds.), New directions in organizational behavior: 267–300. Chicago: St. Clair Press.
Westley, F. and Mintzberg, H. 1989. Visionary leadership and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 10: 17–32.Google Scholar
Westley, F. and Vredenburg, H. 1996. The perils of precision: Managing global tensions to achieve local goals. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32: 143–159.Google Scholar
Wodak, R. 1990. Discourse analysis: Problems, findings, perspectives. Text, 10: 125–132.Google Scholar
Yates, J. and Orlikowski, W. J. 1992. Genres of organizational communication: A structurational approach to studying communication and media. Academy of Management Review, 17: 299–326.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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
×