Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- Preface
- 1 Images of discourse: interpretive, functional, critical, and structurational
- 2 Interpretive approaches to organizational discourse
- 3 Functional approaches: metaphor in organization change and development
- 4 Critical approaches: Michel Foucault's conceptions of discourse
- 5 A structurational approach to discourse
- 6 Analyzing discourse I: discourse as situated symbolic action
- 7 Analyzing discourse II: a tale of three discourses
- Index
- References
2 - Interpretive approaches to organizational discourse
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- Preface
- 1 Images of discourse: interpretive, functional, critical, and structurational
- 2 Interpretive approaches to organizational discourse
- 3 Functional approaches: metaphor in organization change and development
- 4 Critical approaches: Michel Foucault's conceptions of discourse
- 5 A structurational approach to discourse
- 6 Analyzing discourse I: discourse as situated symbolic action
- 7 Analyzing discourse II: a tale of three discourses
- Index
- References
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 - 54Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2006
References
1993. Organizations as rhetoric: Knowledge intensive firms and the struggle with ambiguity. Journal of Management Studies, 30: 997–1015.Google Scholar
and 2000. Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53: 1125–1149.Google Scholar
. 1991. On rhetoric. G. A. Kennedy (trans.). New York: Oxford University Press.
1962. How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
1977. Image, music, text. London: Fontana.
1972. Steps to an ecology of mind. London: Intertext.
and 1966. The social construction of reality. London: Penguin.
Black, M. 1979. More about metaphor. In , (ed.). Metaphor and thought: 19–43. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
1981. The linguistic shaping of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Blum-Kulka, S. 1997. Discourse pragmatics. In (ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, vol. 2: 38–63. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
1969. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
1991. The storytelling organization: A study of story performance in an office-supply firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 106–126.Google Scholar
1995. Stories of the storytelling organization. A post-modern analysis of Disney as “Tamara-Land”. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 997–1035.Google Scholar
and 1979. Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. Hants: Gower.
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 (ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, vol. 1: 320–347. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
and 1991. Systems of interpretation and the function of metaphor. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 21: 171–195.Google Scholar
1983. Learning the craft of organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 8: 539–546.Google Scholar
Denzin, N. 1983. Interpretive interactionism. In (ed.), Beyond method: Strategies for social research: 129–146. Beverly Hills, CA.
1977. Text and context: Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London: Longman.
van Dijk, T. A. 1990. Social cognition and discourse. In and (eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology: 163–183. Chichester: Wiley.
1990. The limits of interpretation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S. and Jacobs, S. 1997. Argumentation. In (ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, vol. 1: 208–229. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eoyang, C. 1983. Symbolic transformation of belief systems. In , , , and (eds.), Organizational symbolism: 109–121. Greenwich: JAI Press.
1993. The sad demise, mysterious disappearance, and glorious triumph of symbolic interactionism. Annual Review of Sociology, 19: 61–87.Google Scholar
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
1991b. Turning facts into stories and stories into facts. A hermeneutic exploration of organizational folklore. Human Relations, 44: 857–875.Google Scholar
1995. The unmanaged organization: Stories, fantasies and subjectivity. Organization Studies, 16: 477–501.Google Scholar
Gabriel, Y. 2004. Narratives, stories, and texts. In , , and (eds.) The sage handbook of organizational discourse: 61–77. London: Sage.
and . 1996. Organization science as social construction: Postmodern potentials. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32: 356–377.Google Scholar
1979. Central problems in social theory. London: Macmillan.
1984. The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity.
1987. Social theory and modern sociology. Cambridge: Polity.
Gill, A. M. and Whedbee, K. 1997. Rhetoric. In (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 and (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 (ed.). Perspectives in management: 197–233. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van Graber, M. 1973. Functional criticism: A rhetoric of Black power. In , and (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 , and (eds.), Discourse and organization: 1–13. London: Sage.
Gronbeck, B. E. 1973. The rhetoric of social-institutional change: Black action at Michigan. In , , and (eds.), Explorations in rhetorical criticism: 96–123. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.
and 1999. No joking matter: Discursive struggle in the Canadian refugee system. Organization Studies, 20: 1–24.Google Scholar
and 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 (ed.). Social cognition: Perspectives in everyday understanding: 211–224. London: Academic Press.
2001. An ethnographic study of culture in the context of organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37: 426–446.Google Scholar
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 , , , and (eds.), Handbook of organizational discourse: 175–192. Beverly Hills: Sage.
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 (ed.), International encyclopedia of organization studies, vol. 1. Beverly Hills: Sage, forthcoming.
Heracleous, L. 2007b. Hermeneutics. In (ed.), International encyclopedia of organization studies, vol. 1. Beverly Hills: Sage, forthcoming.
and 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
and 2000. Discourse and the study of organization: Toward a structurational perspective. Human Relations, 53: 1251–1286.Google Scholar
and 2004. Conceptualizing organizational discourse as situated symbolic action. Human Relations, 57 (10): 1285–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 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 , , and , (eds.), Organizational symbolism: 167–183. Greenwich: JAI Press.
1964. Toward ethnographies of communication. American Anthropologist, 66 (6), part 2: 12–25.Google Scholar
2003. Stories that sell, stories that tell. Journal of Business Strategy, March–April: 11–15.Google Scholar
1990. Human resource management: Rhetoric, reality and contradiction. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1: 363–384.Google Scholar
and 1987. Interpreting organizational texts. Journal of Management Studies, 24: 233–247.Google Scholar
1971. A theory of discourse. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
1990. The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image schemas?Cognitive Linguistics, 1: 39–74.Google Scholar
and 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
. 1979. Surface data and deep structure: Observing the organization of professional training. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 551–561.Google Scholar
1912. The mechanism of social consciousness. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 9 (15): 401–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1913. The social self. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 10 (14): 374–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1922. A behavioristic account of the significant symbol. Journal of Philosophy, 19 (6): 157–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1925. The genesis of the self and social control. International Journal of Ethics, 35 (3): 251–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1980. Paradigms, metaphor and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 660–671.Google Scholar
1983. More on metaphor: Why we cannot control tropes in administrative science. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 601–607.Google Scholar
1986. Images of organization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Moscovici, S. 1981. On social representations. In (ed.), Social cognition: Perspectives on everyday understanding: 181–209. London: Academic Press.
Mumby, D. K. and Clair, R. P. 1997. Organizational discourse. In (ed.), Discourse as social interaction: 181–205. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
, and 1997. Managerial discourses: Words speak louder than actions?Journal of Applied Management Studies, 6: 5–12.Google Scholar
and 1996. Conflicting uses of metaphors: Reconceptualizing their use in the field of organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 21: 691–717.Google Scholar
1969. Hermeneutics. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
and 1993. Analyzing communication in and around organizations: A critical hermeneutic approach. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 1547–1576.Google Scholar
, and 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 , , , and (eds.), Organizational symbolism: 157–166. Greenwich: JAI Press.
2002. The contest over meaning: Hermeneutics as an interpretive methodology for understanding texts. Organizational Research Methods, 5 (1): 12–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
2002. How storytelling builds next-generation leaders. MIT Sloan Management Review, Summer: 63–69.Google Scholar
1991. From text to action. Illinois: Northwestern University Press.
Ricoeur, P. 1997. Rhetoric-Poetics-Hermeneutics. In and (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 . and (eds.), Handbook of social cognition: 161–188. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
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 (ed.), Metaphor and thought: 254–283. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1987. A discourse-centered approach to language and culture. American Anthropologist, 89: 295–309.Google Scholar
Searle, J. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In and (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts: 59–82. New York: Academic Press.
1989. Industry recipes. Oxford: Blackwell.
Taylor, S. E. and Crocker, J. 1981. Schematic bases of social information processing. In , , and (eds.), Social cognition: 89–134. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
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 and (eds.), Social psychology through symbolic interaction: 154–156. Toronto: Xerox College Publishing.
1993. Analogical reasoning and knowledge generation in organization theory. Organization Studies, 14: 323–346.Google Scholar
1995. Rhetoric, discourse and argument in organizational sense making: A reflexive tale. Organization Studies, 16: 805–821.Google Scholar
1922. Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (Roth, G. and Wittich, G. transl.). NY: Bedminster.
1955. Tractatus logico-philosophicus. London: Routledge and Kegal Paul.
1968. Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.
- 2
- Cited by