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-7sgmh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-19T07:31:51.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Interpretive approaches to organizational discourse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2009

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

Summary

As discussed in chapter 1, interpretive approaches to organizational discourse view language as constructive of social and organizational reality, and seek to gain an in-depth understanding of this process and of the actors' own frame of reference. This chapter discusses the main tenets as well as analytical implications of five prominent interpretively oriented approaches to organizational discourse hermeneutics, rhetoric, metaphor, symbolic interactionism, and storytelling. Critical discourse analysis and the structurational approach, as further interpretively oriented approaches, are respectively discussed in detail in chapters 4 and 5.

Interpretivism and the Linguistic Turn

There is a broad range of theoretical approaches within the interpretive tradition characterized by varying ontological and epistemological positions (Burrell and Morgan, 1979). However, a key unifying factor is their focus on achieving a meaningful understanding of the actors' frame of reference, which Weber (1922) referred to as verstehen. In Weber's view, this ability and desire to achieve an in-depth, first-order understanding is what distinguishes the social from the natural sciences. Meaningful understanding is often contrasted with explanation (Ricoeur, 1991), the search for causal, law-like deterministic regularities as in the positivist tradition—a tradition based on the methodology and ontology of the natural sciences. This simple contrast, however, does not do justice to the potential for meaningful understanding and explanation to operate in a complementary manner (notwithstanding the debate on paradigm incommensurability).

At the outset we must be clear that interpretivism should not be equated with subjectivism.

Type
Chapter
Information
Discourse, Interpretation, Organization , pp. 28 - 54
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
Alvesson, M. and Karreman, D. 2000. Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53: 1125–1149.Google Scholar
Aristotle, . 1991. On rhetoric. G. A. Kennedy (trans.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Barthes, R. 1977. Image, music, text. London: Fontana.
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 and Rhetoric, 1 (1): 1–14.Google Scholar
Black, M. 1979. More about metaphor. In Ortony, A., (ed.). Metaphor and thought: 19–43. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bloom, A. H. 1981. The linguistic shaping of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Blum-Kulka, S. 1997. Discourse pragmatics. In Dijk, T. A. (ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, vol. 2: 38–63. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Blumer, H. 1969. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
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
Boje, D. M. 1995. Stories of the storytelling organization. A post-modern analysis of Disney as “Tamara-Land”. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 997–1035.Google Scholar
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. Hants: Gower.
Charland, M. 1987. Constitutive rhetoric: The case of the peuple Quebecois. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 73: 133–150.Google Scholar
Condor, S. and Antaki, C. 1997. Social cognition and discourse. In Dijk, T. A. (ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, vol. 1: 320–347. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
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. 1983. Learning the craft of organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 8: 539–546.Google Scholar
Denning, S. 2004. Telling tales. Harvard Business Review, May: 122–129.Google Scholar
Denzin, N. 1983. Interpretive interactionism. In Morgan, G. (ed.), Beyond method: Strategies for social research: 129–146. Beverly Hills, CA.
Dijk, T. A. 1977. Text and context: Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London: Longman.
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
Eco, U. 1990. The limits of interpretation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S. and Jacobs, S. 1997. Argumentation. In Dijk, T. A. (ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, vol. 1: 208–229. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eoyang, C. 1983. Symbolic transformation of belief systems. In Pondy, L. R., Frost, P. J., Morgan, G., and Dandridge, T. C. (eds.), Organizational symbolism: 109–121. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Fine, G. A. 1993. The sad demise, mysterious disappearance, and glorious triumph of symbolic interactionism. Annual Review of Sociology, 19: 61–87.Google Scholar
Finstad, N. 1998. The rhetoric of organizational change. Human Relations, 51: 717–740.Google Scholar
Gabriel, Y. 1991a. On organizational stories and myths: Why it is easier to slay a dragon than to kill a myth. International Sociology, 6: 427–441.Google Scholar
Gabriel, Y. 1991b. Turning facts into stories and stories into facts. A hermeneutic exploration of organizational folklore. Human Relations, 44: 857–875.Google Scholar
Gabriel, Y. 1995. The unmanaged organization: Stories, fantasies and subjectivity. Organization Studies, 16: 477–501.Google Scholar
Gabriel, Y. 2004. Narratives, stories, and texts. In Grant, D., Hardy, C., Oswick, C. and Putnam, L. (eds.) The sage handbook of organizational discourse: 61–77. London: Sage.
Gergen, K. J. and Thatchenkery, . 1996. Organization science as social construction: Postmodern potentials. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32: 356–377.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.
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. 1986. 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.
Gowler, D. and Legge, K. 1983. The meaning of management and the management of meaning. In Earl, M. (ed.). Perspectives in management: 197–233. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van Graber, M. 1973. Functional criticism: A rhetoric of Black power. In Mohrmann, G. P., Stewart, C. J. and Ochs, D. J. (eds.), Explorations in rhetorical criticism: 207–222. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Grant, D., Keenoy, T. and Oswick, C. 1998. Organizational discourse: Of diversity, dichotomy and multi-disciplinarity. In Grant, D., Keenoy, T. and Oswick, C. (eds.), Discourse and organization: 1–13. London: Sage.
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. and Phillips, N. 1999. No joking matter: Discursive struggle in the Canadian refugee system. Organization Studies, 20: 1–24.Google Scholar
Hardy, C.and Phillips, N. 2002. Interpretive Approaches to Organizational Discourse Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social construction. Qualitative Research Methods Series, 50. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Harré, R. 1981. Rituals, rhetoric and social cognitions. In Forgas, J. P. (ed.). Social cognition: Perspectives in everyday understanding: 211–224. London: Academic Press.
Heracleous, L. 2001. An ethnographic study of culture in the context of organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37: 426–446.Google Scholar
Heracleous, L. 2003. A comment on the role of metaphor in knowledge generation. Academy of Management Review, 28: 190–191.Google Scholar
Heracleous, L. 2004. Interpretivist approaches to organizational discourse. In Grant, D., Phillips, N., Hardy, C., Putnam, L. and Oswick, C. (eds.), Handbook of organizational discourse: 175–192. Beverly Hills: Sage.
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. 2007a. Interpretive Theory. In Clegg, S. (ed.), International encyclopedia of organization studies, vol. 1. Beverly Hills: Sage, forthcoming.
Heracleous, L. 2007b. Hermeneutics. In Clegg, S. (ed.), International encyclopedia of organization studies, vol. 1. Beverly Hills: Sage, forthcoming.
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 (10): 1285–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, N. and Reicher, S. 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
Huff, A. S. 1983. A rhetorical examination of strategic change. In Pondy, L. R., Frost, P. J., Morgan, G. and Dandridge, T. C., (eds.), Organizational symbolism: 167–183. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Hymes, D. 1964. Toward ethnographies of communication. American Anthropologist, 66 (6), part 2: 12–25.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
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. and Miller, D. 1987. Interpreting organizational texts. Journal of Management Studies, 24: 233–247.Google Scholar
Kinneavy, J. L. 1971. A theory of discourse. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lakoff, G. 1990. The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image schemas?Cognitive Linguistics, 1: 39–74.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Light, D. Jr. 1979. Surface data and deep structure: Observing the organization of professional training. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 551–561.Google Scholar
Marshak, R. J. 1993. Managing the metaphors of change. Organizational Dynamics, 22: 44–56.Google Scholar
McKee, R. 2003. Storytelling that moves people. Harvard Business Review, June: 51–55.Google Scholar
Mead, G. H. 1912. The mechanism of social consciousness. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 9 (15): 401–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mead, G. H. 1913. The social self. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 10 (14): 374–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mead, G. H. 1922. A behavioristic account of the significant symbol. Journal of Philosophy, 19 (6): 157–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mead, G. H. 1925. The genesis of the self and social control. International Journal of Ethics, 35 (3): 251–277.CrossRefGoogle 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
Morgan, G. 1986. Images of organization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Moscovici, S. 1981. On social representations. In Forgas, J. P. (ed.), Social cognition: Perspectives on everyday understanding: 181–209. London: Academic Press.
Mumby, D. K. and Clair, R. P. 1997. Organizational discourse. In Dijk, T. A. (ed.), Discourse as social interaction: 181–205. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
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
Palmer, I. and Dunford, R. 1996. Conflicting uses of metaphors: Reconceptualizing their use in the field of organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 21: 691–717.Google Scholar
Palmer, R. E. 1969. Hermeneutics. Evanston: Northwestern University 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
Pinder, C. C., and Bourgeois, V. W. 1982. Controlling tropes in administrative science. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27: 641–652.Google Scholar
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.
Prasad, A. 2002. The contest over meaning: Hermeneutics as an interpretive methodology for understanding texts. Organizational Research Methods, 5 (1): 12–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prasad, P. 1993. Symbolic processes in the implementation of technological change: A symbolic interactionist study of work computerization. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 1400–1429.Google Scholar
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.
Ricoeur, P. 1997. Rhetoric-Poetics-Hermeneutics. In Jost, W. and Hyde, M. J. (eds.), Rhetoric and hermeneutics in our time: A reader: 60–72. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Rumelhart, D. E. 1984. Schemata and the cognitive system. In Wyer Jr, R. S.. and Srull, T. K. (eds.), Handbook of social cognition: 161–188. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sackmann, S. 1989. The role of metaphors in organization transformation. Human Relations, 42: 463–485.Google Scholar
Schon, 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.
Sherzer, J. 1987. A discourse-centered approach to language and culture. American Anthropologist, 89: 295–309.Google Scholar
Searle, J. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts: 59–82. New York: Academic Press.
Spender, J. C. 1989. Industry recipes. Oxford: Blackwell.
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
Thomas, W. I. and Thomas, D. S. 1970. Situations defined as real are real in their consequences. In Stone, G. P. and Faberman, H. A. (eds.), Social psychology through symbolic interaction: 154–156. Toronto: Xerox College Publishing.
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
Weber, M. 1922. Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (Roth, G. and Wittich, G. transl.). NY: Bedminster.
Williams, M. 2000. Interpretivism and generalization. Sociology, 34: 209–224.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1955. Tractatus logico-philosophicus. London: Routledge and Kegal Paul.
Wittgenstein, L. 1968. Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.

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
×