A structurational approach to discourse

Loizos Heracleous

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511488573.006

5 - A structurational approach to discourse

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009

Loizos Heracleous

Show author details

Loizos Heracleous: Affiliation:
National University of Singapore

Book contents

HTML view is not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

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).

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Discourse, Interpretation, Organization , pp. 108 - 132

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511488573.006 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2006

References

Aristotle, . 1991. On rhetoric. G. A. Kennedy (tran.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Austin, J. L. 1961. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Barley, S. R. and Tolbert, P. S. 1997. Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18: 93–117.Google Scholar

Barthes, R. 1977. Image, music, text. London: Fontana.

Barthes, R. 1994. The semiotic challenge. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Bartlett, F. C. 1932. Remembering. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Bartunek, J. M. 1984. Changing interpretive schemes and organizational restructuring: The example of a religious order. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 355–372.Google Scholar

Bartunek, J. M. and Moch, M. K. 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

Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an ecology of mind. London: Intertext.

Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. 1966. The social construction of reality. London: Penguin.

Bhaskar, R. 1979. The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences. Brighton, Sussex: Harvester.

Bloom, A. H. 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 Manis, J. G. and Meltzer, B. N. (eds.), Symbolic interaction: A reader in social psychology: 139–148. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Boland, R. J. Jr. 1993. Accounting and the interpretive act. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18 (2/3): 125–146.Google Scholar

Boland, R. J. Jr. 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

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

Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. R. Nice (trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bryant, C. G. A. and Jary, D. 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 Bryant, C. G. A. and Jary, D. (eds.), Giddens' theory of structuration: A critical appraisal. London: Routledge.

Callinicos, , , A. and Giddens, A. 1985. A contemporary critique. Theory and Society, 14: 133–166.Google Scholar

Cicourel, A. V. 1981. Three models of discourse analysis: The role of social structure. Discourse Processes, 3: 101–131.Google Scholar

DeSanctis, G. and Poole, M. S. 1994. Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5: 121–147.Google Scholar

Dijk, T. A. 1988. Social cognition, social power and social discourse. Text, 8: 129–157.Google Scholar

Donnellon, A. 1986. Language and communication in organizations: bridging cognition and behavior. In Sims, H. P. Jr. and Gioia, D. A. (eds.), The thinking organization: 137–164. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

Dougherty, D. 1992. Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3: 179–202.Google Scholar

Eden, C. 1992. On the nature of cognitive maps. Journal of Management Studies, 29: 261–265.Google Scholar

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, CT: JAI Press.

Eysenck, M. W. 1993. Principles of cognitive psychology. Hove: Erlbaum.

Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 3: 193–217.Google Scholar

Festinger, L. 1959. A theory of cognitive dissonance. London: Tavistock.

Foucault, M. 1972. The archaeology of knowledge. London: Routledge.

Frake, C. O. 1964. How to ask for a drink in Subanun. American Anthropologist 66 (6): 127–32.CrossRef Google Scholar

Geertz, C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gersick, C. 1991. Revolutionary change theories: Multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16: 10–36.Google Scholar

Giddens, A. 1979. Central problems in social theory. London: Macmillan.

Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society. Cambridge, MA: Polity.

Giddens, A. 1987. Social theory and modern sociology. Cambridge, MA: 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. 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, CA: Josey-Bass.

Goffman, E. 1972. The neglected situation. In Giglioli, P. P (ed.), Language and social context: 61–66. London: Penguin.

Head, H. 1926. Aphasia and kindred disorders of speech. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Held, D. and Thompson, J. B. (eds.) 1989. Social theory of modern societies: Anthony Giddens and his critics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

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.CrossRef 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

Hofstede, G. 1985. The interaction between national and organizational value systems. Journal of Management Studies, 22: 347–57.Google 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. 1990. Mapping strategic thought. Chichester, England: Wiley.

Jones, M. Structuration theory. 1999. In Currie, W. and Galliers, R. (eds.), Rethinking management information systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kamoche, K. 1995. Rhetoric, ritualism and totemism in human resource management. Human Relations, 48: 367–385.Google Scholar

Vries, Kets M. and Miller, D. 1987. Interpreting organizational texts. Journal of Management Studies, 24: 233–247.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

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

Layder, D. 1987. Key issues in structuration theory: Some critical remarks. Current Perspectives in Social Theory, 8: 25–46.Google Scholar

Light, D. Jr. 1979. Surface data and deep structure: Observing the organization of professional training. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 551–561.Google Scholar

Maanen, J. 1973. Observations on the making of policemen. Human Organization, 32: 407–18.Google Scholar

Maanen, J. 1979. The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 539–550.Google Scholar

Macintosh, N. B. and Scapens, R. W. 1990. Structuration theory in management accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15: 455–477.Google Scholar

Malinowski, B. 1970. The context of situation. In Stone, G. P. and Faberman, H. A. (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 Giles, H. and Robinson, W. P. (eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology: 13–32. Chichester, England: Wiley.

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 cognition: Perspectives on everyday understanding: 181–209. London: Academic Press.

Orlikowski, W. J. and Yates, J. 1994. Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative practices in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 541–574.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

Palmer, R. E. 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 Dijk, T. A. (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 Pondy, L. R., Frost, P. J., Morgan, G., and Dandridge, T. C. (eds.), Organizational symbolism: 157–166. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Ranson, S., Hinings, B. and Greenwood, R. 1980. The structuring of organizational structures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 1–17.Google Scholar

Riley, P. 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 Wyer, R. S. Jr. and Srull, T. K. (eds.), Handbook of social cognition: 161–188. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Saferstein, B. 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

Saussure, F. 1983. Course in general linguistics. London: Duckworth.

Scapens, R. W. and Macintosh, N. B. 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 Ortony, A. (ed.), Metaphor and thought: 254–283. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Schultz, M. 1991. Transitions betweem symbolic domains in organisations. Organization Studies, 12: 489–506.Google Scholar

Silverman, D. 1970. The theory of organizations. London: Heinemann.

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.

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, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Weaver, G. R. and Gioia, D. A. 1994. Paradigms lost: Incommensurability vs structurationist inquiry. Organization Studies, 15: 565–590.Google Scholar

Weber, M. 1991. The nature of social action. In Runciman, W. G. (ed.), Weber: Selections in translation: 7–32. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Weick, K. 1977. Enactment processes in organizations. In Staw, B. M. and Salancik, G. R. (eds.), New directions in organizational behavior: 267–300. Chicago, IL: St. Clair Press.

Weick, K. 1979. Cognitive processes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1: 41–74.Google Scholar

Whittington, R. 1992. Putting Giddens into action: Social systems and managerial agency. Journal of Management Studies, 29: 693–712.Google Scholar

Willmott, H. 1981. The structuring of organizational structure: A note. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26: 470–474.Google Scholar

Willmott, H. 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

Willmott, H. 1997. Rethinking management and managerial work: Capitalism, control and subjectivity. Human Relations, 50: 1329–1359.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

Zald, M. N. 1996. More fragmentation? Unfinished business in linking the social sciences and the humanities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 251–261.Google Scholar

Xu, S. 1992. Argumentation, explanation, and social cognition. Text, 12: 263–291.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.