stanley deetz.pdf

8/12/2019 Stanley Deetz.pdf

1/20

T h e N e w H a n d b o o k o f

ommuni tioA d v a n c e s i n T h e o r y R e s e a r c h a n d M e t h o d sF R E D R I C M.JABLINLINDA L.PUTNAM


2/20

Conceptual Foundations

ST NLEY EETZ* University ofColorado at oulder

r or al of recorded history, people have studiedanddiscussedcommunica t ionpro-cesseswithintheir dominan organizations.Inmany respects,these discussions differ littlefrom those presen during (hepast threede-cades of institutional organizational commu-nication study. They have been concernedwith thesystematic manne js by which com-municaonpracticescan beusedtohelpcoor-dnateand control theactivitiesof organiza-l ional members and relations with externaconstituencies. Ourcurrentsituaonis one ofrapidsocial and organizational changeputtinggreatpressureonresearchers today to contin-ually develop useful concepts an dstudies tomatcht hecomplex interactions charactersticof contemporaryworkplaces.

Organizationalcommunicationresearch isitself a rich communicative process. Re-searchers havedevelopedand used theirtheo-res and research activitiesf ormanypositiveorganizational outcomes.B ut therworkalsoaccomplishesavarietyofinlertwinedU fepur-poses, inc luding the distinction of the re-searcher and the development and advance-mentof specifcgroup interesls. Fundamentalassumptions about the nature of the world ,methods of producing knowledgc, and valesare developed an d advanced in the discourseof rescarchers. Such assumptions are ncces-sirytoproducean ykindof undcrs tanding andknowledge and are usually mosl conlestedduring period o' rupilchungc. Wliilc funda-mental assumptionsthcmselvcs iir no l opcn


3/20

TheoreticalandMethodological ssues

lo r ef ut at io n, they are toexplora t ion .Scholarsr ig h l fu l ly ask of an y research program,'Tosolve whal problems?" "To w h a t ends?""Whosemeanings?""Whoseknowiedge?"

This essay hopes to foster use fu l discus-sions regarding how d i f f er ent scholars con-struct knowiedge an dj u s t i f y practices aboutorganiza ions, and also about the vales,hopes, and groups' inters t hat they support.To that end,I beg in wi th anoverviewof howth e t er m organizational communication isused-what it del imi t s , organizes, or drawsou r a t t ent io n to. Following this introduction,the central par of the chapter wi l ldevelop atwo-dimens iona l scheme fo r directing atten-t io n to similaritiesandd i f f er enc esamong re -search programs.I willarge thatth emost in -t e res l ing d i f f er enc es among social researchpr o gr ams c an be d i sp layed thr o ugh lo o king at{ I ) i l i < i \ o f n i k - i . u i i n n par t i c ularrcscarch-e t J 1 1 v i n v n l nllitT groups, charactcrized a s/ / . V I I M i ; c i f v e r s u s flite/a priori concep-tmi i ' . . mu ( . ' ) i l i c i n o v f s ih r res earch a c l i v i tyn u i l i r p i u i n u i k r l o w i i n l c l o s u r c or ind ct erm i-n . i i v i i l i . n i n i r i . i i ( u n .f l i ; i i ; u - | f r i m l asconi < i n i n M r k n ^ . v e i M i s tliss nsus s c e k i n g .

l ir ' .c tw u ' l i n i i i r . i n .w h e n p ullog e lh crpro-v u l r u iw n l i y (w u i i i n i i i x ch aract er iz ingdift - i - i M - M - . i i t li | > n i } ' . N i m s . I wi l l di scu ssr m l i o lu m idt-iil lype" research programs

I . I . . . I M . n i M It l i r , ( '. ' ( I l - H K i l l y , 1w i l lconcludehy i . ' . l m j ' ut me rcsearcher's choice pro-i'csses inI hc contcmporaryconlexl an dlook-i ng al fu tu roresearch agenda.ORGANIZATIONALCOMMUNICATION

What isorganizational communication? Thepossibility of a shared answer tothat ques-tionseemsto beimpliedinproducingahand-book of organizational communicationor indetailing conceptual foundations fo rorgani-zational communication studies. Clear andsimple answerscan begiven.I couldjuslpro-videade f n i t ion ,compare it wi thaltemativedef ini l io ns , and get onwithareview.Def ini -

tions are nice; they set clear boundaries andj u s t i f y my looking at the things Iara inter-estedin, andexcludingtherest.Butsuch def-i n i t i o ns ar e inevitablyarbitrary,usuallypro-vide political advantageforsome group,andcan as easily produce blinders as ins igh t .Noto n l y is debate possible over altemative defi-n i t ions bu t also over the act of d e f m i n g(Deetz, 1992, chap. 3; Smith, 1993; Taylor,1993). U ltimately, the question "What is or-gan iza t iona l communication?"ismisleading.Amore interesting questionis,"Whatdo wesee or w h a tare we able to do if we t h i n koforganizational communication in one w ayversusanother?"Unlike a def ni t io n, the at -tetnpt here is not to get it right, but to under-s tand ourchoices.Ratherthan k i l l i ngthe bird("defnition" de f n i t io , to killormakefinal)and gettingon wi th the dissection, perhapswe should watchit fly for a while.

Three ver yd i f f er ent waysofconceptualiz-in g "organizational communication" areava i l abl e .Each of these providesd i f f er ent"at-tcntions" an d d i f f er ent boundaries regardingwhat should be covered in thisvolume an dth i schapter. Such conceptions guide researchand teaching as well as provide an identity to agroup of scholars. First, thefocuscould be onthe development of organizational communi-ca t ionas a speciality in departments of com-munica t ion and communication associations.Organizational communicat ion study is what-everanyonedoeswho is a member ofthesedi-visions or publishes in particular journa l s(see, e.g., Smeltzer, 1993). Like withother"sociologies of fields" time can be spentlooking at the history of this development,whatmembersofthesedivisions have studicdan d published, ho w many s t udent s m a j o r orachieve advanced degrees inthis speciality,an d how many Jobs are available (seeRedding, 1979). These are not unimpo r t antconcernsandsuchaconceptioneitherexplic-itly or implicitly has bccn usedto determinewhat is or is not an organizational communi-cationstudyinmanyif notmost literaturere-views (see Krone, Jablin,& Putnam, 1987;Meyers, Seibert, &Alien, 1993; Putnam &Cheney, 1985; Redding &Tompkins, 1988;

Conceptu oundations

Richetto, 1977; Wert-Gray, Center, Brashers,&Meyers, 199I).1Fromthesereviews we of-tengain more understanding ofpeople,theirrelations,careers,anduniversity poiiticsthanwedoabouttheunder iy ingconceptionsofor-ganizations and communication. Movingfromreviews of studies toexamin ing altema-tivetheoriesinorg anizational communicationstudies and the social problems suchstudiesaddress is often difcult . It is notsurprisingthatthesereviews often contain laments aboutthe disunity of the field. This ma ywellbe anartifactof the organizing principieused.

A secondapproach to conceptualizing or-ganizational communication focuseson com-municationas a phenomenonthat existsin or-ganizations.If such an object can be defined,then anyone wholooksat or talks about thatobject is st udying organizationalcommunica-tion.This is the logicbehind manytextbookdef in i t ions of organizational communication.W i t h i n thislogic, an ynumber ofindividuisfrom differentacademic un i t smightstudy thisphenomenon. In such a case,interdisciplin-arity might beexpected.Withthisfocus onemightask what is"communication"in the or-ganizationand what is somethingelse,whatare the ways the phenomenon can be usefullysubdivided, what are the variables thatafleaitor itaffects, and what theories adequately ex-plainit. Handbooks likethisone usuallyworkfrom thistype ofconcepton(see Kroneetal.,1987). They assumethat a unied pheno me-non exists, and they form chaptersbased onsubdivisions of thephenomenonoral t emat ivesites where itappears.Introductorychapterslikethisonetypicallyfocuson the varietyofways thatthesamephenomenonhasbeenex-amined.

Unfortunately forsuchataek,many ofihecontemporary theories of organizations andcommunication deny that a unitaryphenome-non exists outthere. Thus, Ihe phenomenonorganizational communicationis difier-en for different theories. "Organizaonalcommunication"is not one phenomenon withmanyexplanations; each formof cxplanationmay conceptualize and explain a different

phenomenon.Fixed subdivisionsarealwaysakind oftheoreticalhegemony(whereonethe-ory's"organizationalcommunication" ispriv-eged over undiscussed others). When thishappens,theorydebateis reduced to method-ological perspectivalism.When thoughtof as adistinct phenomenon, the conception of"or-ganiza tion" is often reduced to a"site"andth econception of "communication" often be-comesnarrow with social interaction concep-tually reduced to empirical actsof i nf o r ma-t ion transfer, often the lowest commondenominator (or dominator)in organizalionalcommunication (for discussion, see Axley,1984; Putnam, Phi llips, & Chapman, 1996;Smith, 1993; Taylor, 1993).A third way to approach the issuc is toth ink of communica l on as u way udescribean d explain organi/ations. In (h e sanie wiiythat psychology, sociology, orc c o no um-sninbe thoughto f as c apuhle o l ' e xp l n in i i i U I J M M Izations'processcs,c o mmunic at io n tmf.hi . .be thought of as a d i s t in c t modc of rxplnrtiit ion Or way o f think ing abo ut o i j ' . a iu /n l u Mr ,(see Deetz,1994a; Pearce, 1989).Co iniminicatin theory can be used to expla in(h eproduction of social structures, psychologicalstates,member categories,knowiedge,and soforthrather than being conceptualizeda s M U ply one phenomenon among these others inorganizations. The f o c uswould be on the pro-cess of organizing through symbolic interac-tion rather than on "communication" wi thinan"organization"(Hawes, 1974). From sucha perspectivethe interest is not intheoriesoforganizationalcommunicationbut in produc-inga communication theory oforganizations(Deetz, 1994a). Historically,fewscholarsinthe academic units oforganizational commu-nication have approached the issue this way.Unt i l recently, psychological or socal-cul-tural explanations havebeen more oftenusedin most studies. Gradually , since the early1980s, scholars in communication depart-mentsaswellas alargenumber of non- U.S .scholars and some scholars from other aca-demicunits have focused on organizations ascomplex d i sc ur s ivoformalions where discur-


4/20

6 4 Theoretica andMethodologica Issuessive practicesareboth"in"organizationsandproductive of them.Becauseof the tendencytodelimitorganizational communicaon as aprofessional unitor a distinctphenomenon,unti l recently non-U.S. and non-communica-tionscholars were often absentfromreviews(e.g.,the various works of Knights,Willmott,Hollway, Cooper, Burre, Gergen, Power,Townley, and Alvesson).In this review, I willaccept this thirdwayof thinkingabout organizational communica-tion. Therecursivenessof thispositionmeansthat the production of the fieldas an academicuni tand organizational communicaon as adistinct phenomenon are themselves discur-sive accomplishments. My analysis will thusworkat a metalevel from whichconceptionsoforganizations andprocessesin them byre-searchers and "organizationalmembers"canthemselves be seen "communicalionally."This viewallows adeeperanalysis that candisplayhow s tudyrcsults are produced ratherIhun jusl providinghere anothcr reviewofre-siilts I roni difieren rcsearch programs. Th ed u i l i l y o M ui ly ng I m n i . i i i inlcraction in ai- . M I lo, .mo l . u n i l n - ussumpl ion that hu-i i t i i n i n i f i . i l no n is u core fbrmat ivefcature ofw t n l i l i n u - . i i i i i io ncom pl cales analysi s muchI n i lu K o g i c n l l yuinclicsit.

l .nir1y I In l luw ihe inslruclion given byTh e sntial icicnccs dcal wiih prcnamed,] n i - c l ; i s s i h f ( l i c . i l i l i i - s wli ichhuarproper nontisand commonn ouns, iitles, signs and acronyms.Al the risk of unwiltingly assuming responsi-bilityfor theactsof constitution ofwhose logicand nccessity they areunaware,thesocialsc-encesmusttakeastheir objectofstudythe so-cial operationsofnaming and theritesof ins-tution through which they are accomplshed.(p.106)

Attention can be drawn to how both they whostudy and theywho particpate "in" orga-nizatioas produce phenomena in theworldsuch as"organizations," "communication,""needs,""motivations,""informaton,""prof-its,"andvarious personalandsocialdivisions

suchas"men"and"women,""workers"and"management." Following thistack requiressomeunderstandingof a nonrepresentationalorconstitutive viewoflanguagethat cannotbe developed here at any length but ought tobefamiliarenoughto most readers thatashortdevelopment will suffce (see Deetz,1992, chap.5).Inlinewithmodem discoursetheory,con-ceptions are always contests for meaning (seeEpstein, 1988; Weedon, 1987). Languagedoes notameobjects in the world; it is coreto the process of constituting the inde-terminantand ambiguousexternal world intospecific objects. The appearance of labelingor categorizing existing objects is derivedfrom this morefundamentalact of object con-stitution through language. The world thuscan be consttuted in manyways dependingonalternative systems of valuing. The mostsignificant part of this contest for object con-slitutionis the capacity to enact the linesofdistinction producing some th ings asalikeandothers as different. Only secondarily is thecontest over thepositiveornegativevalanceascribedto the produced things. Forexample,feminist writers foryears have shown howmale dominance ismaintained by the domi-nantgroup'sability todefinethe dimensonsof difference and position themselves at thepositiveend ofeachdimensin (seeTreichler,1989; Weedon, 1987).Marginalizedgroups,following this analysis, are defined as"theother" thus acquiring an identy andvaluedfuncn'onsbut only as given by theoppositionpoleinIhe dominantgroup'sconceptual map(e.g.,"emotionally supportive"ratherthan"ra-tional" or "private" rather than "public").Theyacquire a type of autonomy butonlyin alanguage/concepnial game not of theirownchoosing. Inaccepting the state of "other,"theyhavelittle self-defnitionand the game isstacked(seeBourdieu,1977,1991).

Fromthecommunicativemetaperspectivetakenhere,thecoreprocessin understandingalternative researchprogramsis tounderstandtheir discoursehow they perceive, think,and talk about organizational life. Under-standing adiscourse includesidenFicatinof

Concepta/ oumtationsthe object distinctions diey make, whose lan-guage is used intnaking thoseobject distinc-tions, whatand whose val es and interests arecarried withthose distinctions, and how theconflictingdescriptionsof Ihe world are han-dled as well as exploring theirprocessesofself-justification and distinction from alterna-tive research programs. Further, research pro-gramsdifferin theextentto which theyrecog-nizeandmake explicit theirowncons titutiveactivities.Manyresearchersassume maltheyaremerelydiscoveringandnamingreal-worldobjects. To he extent that this is done much ofthemicropracticeofresearchis missed.M PPING PPRO CHESTOORG NIZ TION LGOMMUNIC TIONSTUDIES

Trying to produce any organizingschemeofthesediscoursesaccounting fordifferentthe-oretical conceptions, methodological prefer-ences, and valucommitmentsis filied withdifficulties. Each research program mightwell use different ways of comparing andcontrastingitselfwith other programs. Infacta primary way that anyresearchprogram es-tablishes itself is initsmeans of distinction,bolh in the sense of producing a differenceand giving itself the positive terms (seeBourdieu,1991).

ny schemeshavebeenproposedfor or-ganizing and ihinking about alternative re-search programs.Most ofthese classify stud-ies based on subdivisions of the organiza-tionalcommuicationphenomenonor differ-ences in research methods. For example,Wert-Grayet al. (1991)suggestthreedomi-nantreasofwork:(1) information flow andchannels,(2) climate, and (3)superior/subor-dinate.And Redding and Tompkins (1988) di-videthework into (1) formal channels. (2)superior/subordnate communication, (3) in-forma]channels,and (4) measurng anddatacollection_[Putnarn and Cheney (1985) sug-gest(1)channels,(2)communicaon climate,(3)superior/subordinate,(4) network analy-

s i s , and (5) communication media with addi-tionalemergingperspectives.And inperhapsthe most exhaus t ivo study, Alien, Gotcher,andSeiben (1993)review 17reasof work:(1) interpersonalrelations, (2)communicationskills,(3) culture and symbolism, (4) informa-tionflow andchannels,(5) power and in f iu-ence,(6) decisin making and problem solv-mg ,(7) communicat ion networks, (8) com-municat ionand managemcnt styles, (9) or-gani/at ion-cnvironment interfacc, (10) Icch-nology, ( 1 1 ) language an d mcssaRes, (12)struclurc,(13)unccrliiinly mu in to t i i ia l ion miequacy, ( 1 4 ) groups, (15) c thics, (16) cross-cullunil,a nd(17) climale.iThcsc divisionsan dstudycounlsareinterestinj;a ndrepresen waysof th inking aboul the field that are fairlycom-m o n . Bu tsuch arjproaches tend toreify tpicadivisionsthal are theconstructed outcomes ofdiscursivoprocessesthustreating them asnatu-ralraiherthanproduced, hidingvales and as-sumptions,anddisowningthe waymesedivi-sions preferenceparticularstudiesofcommu-nication.Letusconsider for a moment thesepreferences.

First, thetpica orientation isitselfnot aneutralclassificatontoo .Itassumesand re-producesaparticular viewofcommunicationand organizations. For example, it assumes anatomstic orientation to the world like the19th-century naturalscience model and ad-vantages studies that follow that model.Studies based in holistic assumptions, suchasethnographicapproaches, may get put in acategory like "culture" or "climate." Thismakes"culture"intoonephenomenon amongolhers in organizations that can be studied.Notonly do cultural studies deny thatcultureison e l l i i i i ) amongmany inorganizations;th eclassication hurestheimportant things thatetKnographicresearchers said about organiza-lions' structuresand aclivities likechannelsand interpersonalrelatiom.Only sludies thatexplicitly studychanncls and intcrpcrsonalre -lationsas Kolatcd phenonu-nnappeur inthosecalegorics. ILlhnonraphtc rescnrchcrs rarelys tudy a lopic, ihcy Mudy ,. particular site.Whal would wc Iran il wc clnfisificd hysite.


5/20

8 4 Theoreticaland Methodological ssues

the social problem considered, group alle-giance, or the moral stanceratherthan topic?Topical divisions probably made sense whenthe vast majority of researchers believedthattheelements of organizationswere a tomis i icrather than holistic, that organizaons wereprimarily a thing rather than aprocess, andtha t communica t ion was a phenomenonamong others rather than an approach onetakesto organization studies. Asthesechangeso mustour waysof accounting for similari-tiesan ddifferencesi norganizationstudies.

Second, the devices of data collectionshapet hereview in further ways. In someo fthesereviews, thedata poolislimitedtostud-ies published in communication journalsand the mannero fdisplayi susua l lythenum-ber of essays. The c la ssify ing processesmatch a ssumptions o f the natu ra l sciencemodel thus both normalizing its preferredmannern frtiport andovcrcmphas iz ing itsim -pucl. llie "field" lontts di f fcrcn t in reviewslluil considcr scholarlybook chaptcrs, schol-urly buoks, iind/or unpublished research re-p u i K tu u impan ics inslcad of Journalanieles,h u i l l n ,Ih o iTonccplo f"studies" itself tendst o|[cl d r l m r d in t c rm s ofdata collection,thusmu yie un d conceptual work, which oftenl iave grcal impucl on the field and its prac-n < - . lund tu b e left out . And fu r ther yet, th econccpi of llie communicat ion field" has of-len Icd lo the oniission of non-North Ameri-can studies that organize"fields" differentlyand important "communication studies" ontopicsthataredefinilionally excluded.For ex-ample, the discursivo studies in such journalsas rganizacin or Organization Studies,communication-based studies inAccouning,Organizations and Society, and interactionstudies in"sociology"are left out,and worksby authors in management schools in suchjournals as Management CommunicationQuartery are included. The tendency is tobiasthe counts toward studies froma psycho-logical andmanagerial perspectiva. And fi-naliy,quantity ofstudiesas ameasure favorsnarrow quantitativeanalyses.What if wemea-sured significance of impact, transformative

potential, orapplicabilityto wide r stakeholderinterests? Eachofthese wouldprovide differ-ent pictures of "our" studies and contributionan dpressurethe field'sdevelopmentin differ-entways.

Ithinkwe getfurtherif welookat theprac-tice of research and researchercommitmentsrather than looking attopics as if they couldbe freed from theresearcher'sorientation.Aswe becomemore diverseas apeopleand asresearchers, a consideration of general re-search assumptionsbecomesmore instructive.Reviewers looking at research assumptionsand orientations have tended to focus more onmethodological/epistemologicat differencesthan study topics.Andrarely havetheygonebeyond methodological choicesto afull con-sideration of the way theoretica and valucommi tmen tsare carried with them.

Reviewsthathave considered research ori-entationshave fairly high agreement incate-gories of classification. Putnam (1982;Putnam & Pacanowsky, 1983), for example,describes studiesasfunctionalist, interpretive,and critical. Redding and Tompkins (1988)describe them in a parallel fashionasmodern-i s t , naturalisc , and critical (a scheme fol-lowed by Wert-Gray et al.. 1991, in theirmethodological orientations).These authorswould probablyadd "postmodernist" if theywerewritingthese essays today. I suspect thatthesedivisionsare largely aresultoftheinf lu-enceof Burrell and Morgan's(1979)populardiscussionof sociological paradigms as func-tionalist, interpretive, radical humanist, andradical structuralist. Theirparadigm descrip-tionshave been very influential n manage-ment and communication studies, and the in-fluence is well deserved. While I believefundamentally fiawed, their approach servesas a useful pointofdeparturefor further de-velopment(seeDeetz, 19%).

Importantly, Burrell and Morgan's discus-sion of paradigmatic differences in the late197Qs gave legitimacy to fundamentally dif-ferent researchprograms and enabled the de-velopment ofdifferent criteria for the evalua-tion of research. Their exhaustive review was

Conceptu Foundotions 9

notonly valuable in itself, but they wereabletoprovide an analysis thatprobeddeeply intothe assumptions on which different researchprograms were based. But harms were alsocreated. I believe thaltherearereasonsforthissignificanlinfluencebeyond theclarityof pre-sentation andexhaustive compilationoflitera-ture.Whcnthegridanddiscussion were pub-lished in 1979, thoseof us doing alternativework readily embraced the grid for it gaveeachof us akindofasylum. While someof uswere uncomfortablewiththedimensionsandphilosophical analysis, we happily acceptedthe new-found capacitytopresent ourselvestomaitistream critics as doing fundamentallydifferent,but legitmate, kinds of research andbegan to work on concepts and evaluation cri-teria withinour nowproducedasdifferent andunitary communies. M a n y of those doingmore mainstream work also found it appeal-ing since, as Iwillarge, the conceptual dis-tinctions Burrell and Morgan used to producethe grid were the same distinctions (he main-stream tradition had used todiscuss differentresearch agendas. Thus, theyreaffirmthat tra-dition's conceptual map and provide a"safe"understanding of the developing alternatives.Further, the conceptionof paradigms as dis-tinctschoolsofthough twith theirownprob-lem statementsand evaluative criteria couldbe used by the dominant "functionalists" toprotect themselves from growingcriticism(the isolationist strategy noted by Reed,1985). They toowould haveasafeandsep-rateplace(see Rodrguez&Ca,1994).

Butasorganizationscienceand organiza-tional communication research have contin-ued toevolve,problems withthe Burrell andMorgangrid and itsadaptationshavebecomemorepressing.Whilenotprimarily aresultofthe original analysis, the four-paradigm solu-tionhasoftenledto quickcategorizationsandto debates around paradigm commensurabil-ity andappropriateuse of the different para-digms (Hassard, 1991; Jackson & Crter,1991; Parker & McHugh, 1991; Willmott,1993). Some of these problemsand debatesarisefrom the tendency toreifyconcepts,es-

pecially in educationalprogramsand malcri-is. The Burrell andMorgan gridcan easilyproducefour unitaryparadigms,rather thanprovide two Unesofdifferentiation that drawattention toimportant differences in researchprograms.Burrell and Morgan invitereifica-tion by claims ofparadigmatic incommen-surabil i ty,bystayingat theleveloftheoryandreconstructed science, and by acceptingKuhn's lose conception of paradigms. Thedimensionsof contrast can be used as a way offocusing attention to differences thatmakc adifference rather than as a mcans of classi-fication, bu t few writers and leachers h:wedoneso.

But my n i .m i concern r. mtl pi mu l i ^Micommcnsurab i l i tyor reificiilion bul i;illin i l u -dimensions of contras) llicmst-lvcs Ailrrpria n d more in lc ics t in ^ uiulcstandui}> l . < > .tempora ry rescind prut lu /rs ml d i - l > . i h .i .possible b y (uctisiiif, on o t l i n m u n i . n - i i .mensions.Tlic i ]ues lum is r u . i A ir i d - M i hrightcategories or w ho M - . in c < l i ' hu A nthesedifferences lluil ninhr . .di l l r i r i i tr1.' 11 ,thesed imen.so ns provuk*niMgli l indi fdiffercnccs in rescind pioxtuiiiN1 ' I 1m | -ai d i i th i n k i i i j . l l i r |inwiilies,wilhihraim of makingour conflicls and tlisaminnsmoreproductive rather than smiply rc|>hicingfourboxes with four diffcreni boxcs. In iii;myways, the various adaptations of Uurrcll andMorgan have hampered thedevelopmentofnew research agendaand Icd to Icss than pro-ductive conceptionsin thefield.

Burrell and Morgan, and subsequentlymanyorganizadonalcommunication scholars,largely accepted the conceptual distinctionsfrom sociological mctionalism and itssup-porting philosophy of science. Burrell andMorgan performed apolilicalinterventionasthey spokeon behalf of theoppositions, thenegave terms, the "others** in"sociologicalfunctionalism's" conceptual map. Forexam-ple, theyacceptedthe traditional functionalist"subjective/objective" distinction but pro-videdacareful development of "subjective"research. Thus, using the dominant concep-


6/20

1 TheoreticalandMethodologicalIssues

t i o n s , they merely asked , Wh o is 'other'?"an d In w h a t w a y sare they 'other'TB ul theynever ques t ioned w h e t h e r d is t inc t ions basedon s uch concep t ions as subjective/objectivew er euse ful ata ll (see Deetz, 1994a). In con-trast to the i r analys i s , each "other" (eachraarginalized paradigmatic group l ike nter-pretivists"or"radicalhumanis t s ) would havedefined itsd i f ferencefrom th e dominant func-t ionai i s t concep t ions d if fe re n t ly , that is , ifthey accep ted the i r "groupness" at all (seeBer ns t e in , 1983; Natter, Schatzki, & Jones ,1995).This pos i t ion ing , as I have suggested,partly accounts for the rapid acceptance of theBurrell an d Morgan ' s gr id into the main-stream of managementscience and organiza-l i onal communical ion discussions.Furthcr , t h s move p ro tec ted funct iona l is trcscarchcrs from th e m o s t d a m n i n g critiques( a n d in cs l l icy would nol under s t and,e.g-,t he ar l i fac l iml q ual i ty of t h e i r"facts") in favorof I h c i i prcfcrrcd bal t l cs (e .g . , be tween the i r o h j r c l v i l y an d othcrs ' subject ivity ) . A tIh o samet ime , ilu- nios l innova t ive of the newn . u . d.r. l u i u i t l ii no w i - v i r i l more diff icult

\ v l i i i t t u - y i l u l sincc ihey had t o u s en I n n i . i i . i f . f in w l i ich t h e i rm c a n i n g s did not ftn . .i M U a l ilwori.sts a n d phenomenologi s t swlio tl id nol iicccpt subjcct/object dualismhnil le ncccpl Ih c cla ss i f ica t ion a s subjectivel i i i i i i . i n i . t . i l t l i c y wer cl o h a v e a h o m e a t a l l ) .Tlu-y had loc h o o s e bc tween mis represen t ingt l icmsclvcs clcar lyt b r o u g h B u i c l l an d Mor-gan or rep resen t ing themselves wel l butbeingconsidercd obscure or bad writers. Thus, theeffect was to normal ize the emergingresearchpar adigms favor ing rather t rad i t ional direc-t i ons even wi th in them. For example, w h e nBur r e l l and Morgan , and subsequen t lyPutnam an d others, provided "interpretive"w o r k wi tht he"subjective"ascription(even ifno w positively valued) they,perhapsu n w i t -tingly,tended to favorcul tura ls tud ies that fo-cused onmember's mean ings that were moresub jec t to cul tura l management andmanage-rial control. At the same t imeth e"objective"ascr ipt ion p ro tec ted func t ional i s t s tud ies

from a thoroughanalys i s o f the i r h idden val -es and sources of sub jec t iv i ty , as i f theymight be too objectivea preferred flaw-rather thanto osubjectivea flaw t h e y w o u l dno t unders tand .Similarly, th e m a n y criticaltheorists with s t rong susp ic ions o f humanis tphilosophies suddenly f o u n d themselves ei-t he rconceptualized as radical hum anist s or in-visible (lost in some hole in paradigmaticspace). Th eFrankfurt school's attack on thesubjectivedomina t i on in science all to o of t engo t los t in the rad ical humanis t concep t ion .My po in ti s no tthat Burrel la nd Morgan an dthei rfollowers were representationally w r o n gin the presentation of organization and organi-zational communication studies (for (here aremany representationally "right"schemes an dsurelyt henearly20 years since their workh asled to many changes), but their conceptionscon t inutofosterlessin teres t inga nd produc-tive conflicts an ddevelopments than are pos-sible.Th eprocessesof differentiaon in main-streamfunctional is t sociology m u s t be aban-doned before more challenging differentia-t ionsarepossibleand alternative research pro-grams can be given afullcomplementary role.By focusing on the cons t i tu t ive moves ofdiscourse in organizational research an d orga-nizationalpraclce rather than inpsychologi-cal, sociological,o reconomic theories of or-ganizational behavior , more in teres t ingdifferences can bedisplayed. In mydevelop-mentbelow,Iwillprivilegeprogrammatic dif-ferentiationsrootedinw h a tIwi l ldevelopas a"dialogic" perspective. What Burrell andMorgan called funct iona l i s t research wi l lthusbeimplicitlyrepresented as an"other."Indoingso, both thelineso fdivisin and the ar-gumentstbat extendfrom thi scan beredrawn."Functionalist" style work can be reclaimedas legitmateand useful (though neither cu-mulative or "trae") in specifiable w a y s asreunderstood from dialogic conceptions.Nondialogic research programs wi l l not beseenasal te rn at iveroutesto truth, but asspe-cif ic discourses that specify an d provide an -swers tospecific typeso fproblems. B ysetting

on ceptual Foundations 4 11

Re atonto DominantSocialDiscourse

Drssensus

Diaogc studiesPostmoderndeconstructionist

Local/Emergent

InterpretivestudiesPremodern traditional

CriticalstudiesLatemodem.r ormist

Elite/APriori

Norrnaiive studiesModern, profraiive

Consensu

Figure 1 1 Contrasting DimcnskmsFrom theMetalhcoryofRepresenta mul l'rucliccsSOURCE: Adaptedfrom u(1994d).

aside typicalresearch claims o f un ive rsa l i tyand/or certainty,di f f e r ent research traditionscan p rovide p roduct ively complementary andconfl ictual ins ight s in to o rgan izat ional life.The test of my suggested d if fe re n t ia t ions isno t whether they p rovide a better map, bu twhether they provide an interesting (orw h a tRorty, 1989, developed as edifying ) way totalk about what ishappen ing inresearchpro-gr ams .ALTERNATIVES FROMACOMMUNICATIONPERSPECTIVE

A more contemporary look at alternativecommunicat ion research programs can begained by locating research differences inwhat was conceptualized earlier as dis-courses"that is, the l i n g u i s t i csystems ofds t inct ion , the vales enacted inthose dis-t inc t ions , th eorientations to conflict an dre-lations toothergroups. Tw o dimensionso fcontrast willbedevelopedhere. Laterin theessay, four prototypical discourses or re-search approachesnormative interpretive

critical an d dialogicwill be dcvdopcilfromt h e s e c o n c e p l i o n s .Ser l- 'igure 1 . 1 .First , ( J i f f c r c n c v N anxiii] ' , H - M M I I - I I n r i c n l . it i ons can be s h o w n by conl r as l i nn locul/emergen " research conceplions w i l h cliti'/npriori ones. This d i m e n s i n focuses on theor ig in o f concep ts and p rob lem s tatemcnts aspart of the constitutive process in research.

Second, research or ienla t ions can be c o n -trastedin the exten t to wh ichthey w o r kw i t h i na dominan t se t o fs t ructu r ings of knowledge,social relaons, an d identit ies (a reproductivepractice), called here "consensus" discourse,and theexten tt o which they work to disruptthese structurings (a product ive practice),called here "dissensus" d iscourse . This di-mens in focuses on the relation of researchpractices to the d o m i n a n t social d iscourseswi th in the organization studied, the researchc o m m u n i t y , and/or w i d e r c o m m u n i t y . I seethesedimensions as analytic ideal types inWeber'ssensemapp ing ou t two d is t inc t con-tinua.Whilecategoriesof research programsare derivativelyproduced by the d imens ions ,th e intent here is to aid at ten t ion to meaning-fu l d i f ferencesan d s imila r i t ies among differ-en tresearch a d i v i n e s rather than c lass i f ica-t on


7/20

12 heoretlcalandMethodologicalIssues

TABLE 1 Characterizationsof theLocal/Emergent-EHte/APriori Dimensin allEmergcntComparativa communitiesMltiple language gamesParticularisticS/stematic philosophyas ethnocentricAtheoreticalSitualionallj'orstructural determinisirNonfoundationalLoca narrativasSensuality and mcan ing ascentralconcern:Situated,practica knowledgeTendstobefeminineinattitudeSeesth estrangeProceedsfromtheotherOntologyof"otherness" overmethod

Oe/A Prior/Privileged communiryFixedlanguage gameUniversalistaGroundsd inhoped for systematic philosophyTlieorydrivenMethodobgical determinismFoundationaGrand narrativoof progress and emancipationRationaity an dtruthas centra concernsGenera abie,th eore ic aiknowledgeTendsto be masculine in attitudeSees the familiarProceeds(romthe selfEpistemogca andproceduralissuesruleoversubstantiveassumptioni

Th e LocaUEmergentElite/A rioriDimensinTh e k e y q u e s t io n s th i s d i m e n s i n a d -

dresses are, w h e r e an dh ow do research con-cepls arise, and th u s , implicitly whose con-ceptions a reused? In the two extremes, ei therconcepts are developed in relation w i t h orga-n iz a t io n a ln i em bers and uansforraed in the re-search process or they are b r o u g h t to the re-search " n t e rac t i on" b y th e researcher an dheld stat icth r o u g hth eresearch p rocesscon-cepts can be developed withor appliedto th eo r g a n iz a t io n a l me mb e r s an d activities beings tu d ie d . Th is d ime n s i n can becharacterizedby a set of paired co n ce pt io n s th a t flesh ou tcontrasts e m b e d d e d in th e tw o poles, T able1.1 presents an array of these contrasts. Th echoice of and s t ab i yo f th e l a n g u a g e sy s te mare of central i m p or t ance s in ce th e l in g u is -t ic/conceptuat system directsth e s ta te me n t o fproblems, the observational process itself inproducing objects and highlighlingan d hidin gpo te n t ia l exp er i ences , th e ty pe o f c la imsma d c , th e report to external groups, and he

l i ke l y generalizat ions (w h e th e r appropriateo rn o t ) readers w i l lm a k e .T he loca l /em ergent p ole d r a w s a t te n t io nt oresearchers w ho w o r k w i t h a n o pe n l a n g u a g esy s te m a n d pr o d u ce a form o f k n o w le d g echaracterized more by in s ig h t in to empricae v e n ts I h a n large-scale emp irical generaliza-t io n s . Ce n tr a l to th e i r w o r k i s th e s i tu a te dn a tu r e of t he research enterprise . Problemstatements, the researcher's a t te n t io n ,and de-sc r ipo n s ar e worked out as a p la y b e tw e e nc o m m u n i t i e s .T he theoretical vocabulary car-red into the research activity is o f t e n consid-ered b y th e r e sea r ch er a s se n s i t iz in g o r a g u id eto getting started constant ly open to ne wm c a n i n g s , t ransla t ions , a n d r e d i f fe r e n t ia t io nbased on interact ions in the research process.Produced in s ig h ts in to o r g a n iz a t io n processesm ay b epart icularist icr e g a r d in g b o th t ime a n dpla ce e v e n th o u g h th e e me r g in g a n a ly t icf r a m e i s d e s ig n e d to aid in th e d e e pe r u n d e r -s ta n d in g of other particular set t ings.C u m u l a -t iveund ers t and ing happens in providing sto-r ie s o r a cco u n ts th a t ma y pr o v id e in s ig h i in too th e r s i te s r a th e r th a n cu m u la t iv e u n iv e r sa l a s -

p i r i n g c l a i m s . T h e r c s c u r d i u l t c i u l ' . i i > i h r l u in g s , i n t u i l i o n s , an d m l t i p l e O M I I S u t ' > n a l i t y o f both th e rcsearclicd m i l i c w a u l i nr a th e r th a n u s i n g a s i n g l e l o g i c i) f oh -jectificaon or p u r i f i e d r a l i o n a l i l y .T he s t u d ys g u id e d mo r e by co n ce pt f o r m a t i o n t r i a nco n cept a ppl ica t io n . Dis ta n a t io n a n d th e"otherness" o f th e o th e r ( th e w a y peoplea ndevents exceed categoriesa nd classificationso ft h e m j are sought by the researcher to forcreconception a n d l in g u is t icc h a n g e . Th is i sconsidered more valuable than the ident i f i c a-t i o n a n d n a min g o f preconceived traits, attrib-utes, or groupings. Objectivity , to the extentthat it isconsidered atall, arises out of the in-terplay and the co n s t an a b i t i ty o f th e r e -searched to object and correct.T he researcheris mo r e a skilled collaborator in k n o w le d g ep r o d u c t i o n th a n a nexpert observen

The eli te/a priori pole d r a w s a t te n t io n toth e te n d e n cy in so me types of research pro-g r a m st oprivilegeth epa r t icu la r l a n g u a g e sy s -tem of the researcher and the expert ise of ther e sea r ch co mmu n i ty a s wel l a s h o ld th a t l a n -g u a g e sy s te m const an t h r o u g h o u t he re-search process. Su ch research t e n d s . t o beheavily theory driven w i t h c a r e fu l attention todefinitions prior to theresearch process. Theexperiences of t he researched becom e codedi n to th e researcher ' s l a n g u a g e sys l em. D e-m a n d s o f co n s is te n cy and/or reliability re-qui re ch a n g e s in th e co n ce pt io n a l sy s te m tota k e p la ce o u ts id e o f r a th e r th a n in h e re -search process.

W h e th e r in te n t io n a l o r n o t , th e co n ce ptu a lsystem of the researcher is considered bettero r m o r eclearlyrepresents w h a t "reatly"is thecase than that of everyday people an d s eeksgenerality beyond thevarious localsy s te ms o fm e a n m g . In privi leging a l a n g u a g e sy s te m,|here i s f u r t h e r ate n d e n cyt ou n iv e r sa l iz ean dj u s t i f y such moves by appeals to f o u n d a t i o n sor essent ialist a ssu mpt io n s . Re se a r ch c la ims ,thus, are seen as freed f r o m their local andte mpo r a l condi l i ons o f pr o d u c t io n . In m o s tcases, these research approachesfolio*an en -llghtenment hop e fo r pr o d u c in g rationalk n u w le d g e n o tconstrainedby tradition orpar-

Lonceptual r ourxjutlorn t IJ

I n i i l . i i l - r l i r l ' . y - l n i i t i l l l u i i M - I I I I I i< I I I | I I L | llir |iini1 l l iniu l i . lp i l n . i i i . 1

. i ' . i ' i M j - i , / i I .1 in , un r|illii I ' Im i ' ( n u n M M ' . r i l > , i | i . n M u , u i w r l I n i ) - 1 I nmore i i o i i i i i i l i v r v c i - . n n i - . < i ] - n l y J I K H I t i i i n o b j c c t i v i l y n u i l v n l m * n n i l i a l i l y l i a s n l i i n l i l ish r l l : i n } ' , i i ; i ( ' , c ( ? . ; u n r m u i L ' s n u c h m c l l u x l s ,an d t e n dl o o v c r l o o k t l ic p o s i l i o n s n f i h c i r ow nc o m m u n i t y or a l l i a n c e s w i t h o t h e r g r o u p s .T he m o re cri lica l v e r s i o n s q u i c k l y n o t e t h epresence o f va l e s a n d d i s t o r t i o n s i n n o r m a -tive w o r k , a n d h o l d o u t t he h o p e fo ra better,purer fo r m o f k no w l e d g e b as e d in p ro c e s s e sthat i n c l ud emorei n t e r e s t sa n d m e a n so fa n a l -y s i s i n t h ew o r k.

Fo cu s in g o n th e origin of co n ce pts an dpr o b le ms u s in g a d ime n s i n o f "loca l / em er -gent -e l i t e fa priori" allows t h ree i m p or t an tgains. First, i t a ck n o w le d g e s l in g u is t ic / so c ia lconstructi onism n all research position s anddirects attent ion to whose concepts are used inobject pr o d u c t io n a n d d e te r min a t o n o f w h a tis problematic (see D eetz , 1973). Second, th efocus on the origin of concepts helpsd i s t i n -g u i s h f u n d a m e n t a l ly d i f f erent k i n d sof k n o w l -edge. Eli te/a priori conceptions lead more toth e d e v e lo pme n t of " t heore t i ca l cod i f i ed"k n o w le d g e , a k in d of "b o o k" k n o w le d g e or" k n o w i n g about . " Loca l / em ergent concep-t io n s lead more to thed e v e lo pme n t of "pract i -cal" k n o w le d g e ,a k i n d of "streetw s d o m " o ra "k n o w in g h o w ." T h i rd ,th is d ime n s i n h e lpsu s r e me mb e r t h a t both the application anddis-covery of concepts can demnstrate implicitor explicit political alliances with d i f f e r e n tg r o u ps in th e o r g a n iz a t io n o r larger society.Fo re x a mple , t o t hee x te n t th a t o r g a n iz a t io n a lresearchers ' co n ce pts a l ig n w i th ma n a g e r ia lconceptions and problem s ta te me n ts a n d a r eapplied a priori in s t ud i es , th e k n o w le d g ec la ims a r e in t r in s ica l ly b ia se d to w a r d th e seinterests as they are applied w i t h i n the sitec o m m u n i t y (Mu mb y , 19 8 8 ) . Th e k n o w le d g eclaims become parof t he s a m eprocessest h a ta r e b e in g s tu d ie d , r e pr o d u c in g w o r l d v i e w san d personal iden titiesa nd fostering particu-la r in te r e s ts w i t h i n th e o r g a n iz a t io n {secK n i g h t s , 1992).


8/20

U TheoreticalandMethodological Issues

TABLE 1.2 Characterizationsof theConsensus-DissensusDimensinConsenus D/isensusTrustHegemoncorderanaturalstateNaturalizaronofpresentIntegrationandhanuonyarepossible

esearchfocus esonrepresentation

rror(reflecting)dominant metaphorValidty central concernTheoryasabstractionUn iedcienceandtriangulationScience isneutralLifeisdscoveryResearcheranonymousandoutoftimeandspaceAutonomous/free agent

SuspidnConflicts overorder snaturalstatePresentorderishstoricizedandpoliticizedOrderindcatesdominationandsuppressedconflicts

Research focusesonchallengeandreconsideration (representation)

Lens(seeng/readngas)dominantmetaphorInsight and praxiscentral concernTheoryas way of seeingPositionalcomplementan /ScienceispolticaLifei struggle and creationResearchernamed and positionedHistorically/socialfy siiuated agent

he ConsensusissensusDimensin

The "consetisus-dissensus" dimensindraws attention toihe relation of research toe xi s t i ngsocialorders. Consensosor dissensusshould no l be understood as agreementandd isagr e e me nt bu l rather as presentaron ofun i l yor of difference, the continuationordis-rupl i on of any prevail ingdiscourse.SeeTable1.2 for conceptual za t i on o f thisdimensin.Thisdimensinissimilarto Burrell andMor-gan's use of the trad tional sociolgica dis-tinctionbetweenan interesl in"change"and"regulation," bu t enab les some advantages.R ath e r thanb e i n gclassbased, contemporaryconccrns wih confl ict andpower focuson theways predominan discourses ( though oftendisorganized and d i s junct ) place limitationson people ingeneral i n c l ud i n g managers an d m i t th e successfu fun c t i on i n g of organiza-t io ns in me e t ing h u m a n needs. Th e focus ismoreon ihesupprcssionofdiverse valesan dIhe presence of destructve control processesth an o n con f l i c i a m o n ggroups.T heprocessesof dom i n a t i on loday are less often seen as

macros oc io log ical an d more often seen asa r i s ing n no r mat ive or unoblrusive controls(seeBarker,1993;Etzioni, 1961;TompkJns&Cheney, 1985)a ndinstantiatedasroutinem i-cropractcesin thework siteitself(Ashcraft&Pacanows ky, 1996; Deetz, 1994b, 1994c,1998; Knigh t s &Willmott, 1989).The focuson discursive rather than group relationsaidstheunderstandingof domination and the vari-ou s ways importan o r ganiz a t io na l stake-holders are left out of discussionsa s wel l asthe ways suchforroso fde ci s io na l skewinga rereproduced.

The consensus poledrawsattenlionto thewa ysome research programs bothseck orderan d treat order production as the d o m i n a nfeature of natural an d social systems. Wi lhsuch aconcept ion ,thep r imar ygoalof the re-search is todisplay adiscovered order w thah i ghdegree of fidel i ty or veri simil ilude. Th edescriptions h o peto"mirror"entitiesand re-l a t io ns t ha texistou tthere in a relatively f ixedstate reflecting their "real" character. In the"normative" versin this realtyis treated likethe natural world while in "interpretive"workt is a social wortd. Language istreated as a

system of representations, to be neutralizadan dmade transparent,usedonlytodisplaythepresumed sharedwor d.Existingorders arelargely treated as natural and unp r o ble mat i c .To alargeextent throughtheh igh i igh t ingofordering principies, such orders are perpetu-ated.Random events anddeviance aredown-played insignifcancei nlookinga tnormsan dthe normal, and attention is usuaily to pro-cesses reducing deviance, uncertainty, anddissonance. In mostcaseswhere deviance isitself of attention, it tends to be no r mal i z e dthrough looking at the production ofdeviantgroups (i.e.,other orders). Conflictand frag-mentation areusuailytreatedassystemprob-lems andattentionisgivento howordersdealwiththeminattemptsat maintenance.

Thedissensus pole draws attention to re-search programs that consider struggle, con-flict,and tensions to be thenaturalstate.Re-search itselfisseenasine v i t ab lya move in aconflicrual site. The existing orders indcatethesuppression of basic conflicts and alongwith that the domination of people an d theirfull varietyofinterests.Researchaimsatchal-lengingmechanismsofordermaintenance toreclaim conflicts and tensin. The nonnor-mativeaspectsofhumanconduct andextraor-dinary responsesare emphasized along withthe importance of largely randomand chanceevents.Ratherthan languagenaming and de-scribing,researcherconceptions are seen ass trikingadifference,de- and redifferentiatingexperience(Cooper,1989; Cooper & Burrell,1988; Deetz, 1992; Martin, 1990; Weedon,1987).The"mirror" giveswayto the"lens"asthe dominantmetaphor forlanguage andthe-ory notingthe shif t inganalytic attempt to seewh at could no t be seen before and showingtheresearcheraspositionedandactive (Deetz,1992, chap. 3; Rorty, 1979). For dissensusstyle research, Ihe generative capacity (theability tochallengegu id ingassumptions,val-es, social practices, and routines)of an ob-servation is more importan than representa-tional validity (see Gergen, 1978). Theresearch is, in K n i g h t s ' s (1992) sense,"antipositive."Dissensus workdoesnotdeny

Concepta/Foundations 15

th es ign i f canceof anordered observedworld,ratherit takesit as a powerful (power fi l led)product and works tobreak reifications andobjectifications to show ful ler potenlial an dvariety thanis mme d ia te lyapparent. For ex-ample, consensus orientations in cultura)studies seek to discover the organizationalculture or cultures. Dissensus orientationsshow the fragmenlation inherent in anyclaimofcultureand th ework required forsite sub-jectst o main ta incoherence in thefaceo f thisas well as subjects' own forras of resistance(see Calas & Smircich, 1991; Holmer-N ade san , 1996; Martin, 1990,1992;Smircich& Calas, 1987; Trethewey, 1997). Consensusorientationsapp lyrolea ndidentity classif ica-tions and relate them to olher variables;dissensusorienlalionsseeidentityasml t ip l e ,con f i i c t ua l , and inprocess.

W h i l ediese differences can be character-ized clearly inabstraction, incontinuous timeevery consensus arises out of and falls todissensus, an d every dissensus gives away toe me r ging(iftemporary)consensus.Theissueis not theultmateoutcome desired o rlikelybu trather whichpart of t h i s flowthrough timeisclaimed in the research process.For exam-ple,whilecritica theorists clearly seeka so-cial consensus thatismore rational, theirre-search tries to produce this through thecreationofdissensusinplaceofdominantor-ders.For example, ideolgica critiquein thecritical theoryconception of thenegativedia-lecticis toreclaim confl ictanddestroya falseorder rather than produce a newone.Thus, Iplacethemon the dissensusend.Critica theo-ries di ffer from manydialogic or "postmod-ern"positions in theproductionof dissensus.In critical theories,dissensus isproduced bythe use ofliteunderstandings and procedures(as in Habermas, 984, 1987; K u n d a , 1992;M u m b y , 1987; orsevera essays inAlvesson& Willmott, 1992). While in dialogic re-search,deconstnictiveprocessesare used tounmaskliteconceptions thereby a l lo wingor-ganizationalaclivities to begiven new, mlti-ple, and co nf l i c t i ng descriptions (Calas &Smircich, 1991; Kilduff, 1993; Laclau &

.


9/20

16 $ TheoreticalandMethodological Issues

M o u f f e 1985;Linstead, 1993; Mart in, 1990).Th e d i a l o g i c o u t c o m e requ i re s a const ande di f f e r e n t i a t i on an d r e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n for thesake of d e m y l h o l o g i z i n gand en r ic h ingna t u -ra l langu age and c onsequen t lyopen i ng t o re -c ons ide ra t ion t he m o s t basic and certain expe-riences ofeveryday w orkl ife .P A R A D I G M S L O S TO R I E N T A T I O N S ST LL

Th e g r i d p rodu ced f r om t hese tw o d i m e n -s ions p rov i des aspa t i a l lyand v isua l lyconve-n i e n t , d isc ur s iv e f ou r-space so lu l ion (heneew e s h o u l d a lw ays be eas i ly r e m i n d e d of itsa rb i l r a ry and f i c t i v e charac t er ) . I w i l l de -sc r i be t hese as d i f f e ren t d i scou rses t o no t e aw a y o f ar t i cu la t i ng argu ment s an d engag i ngin research pract ices rather than a means ofreconst ru c t i ve s e l f - n a m i n g . Each d i scou rseprov i des an o r i en t a t i on to o r g a n i z a d o n s , away of const i t u t i ng peop le an d event s inth em, and a way of repo r t i ngo n t h e m . I h op eth a t t h i s also l e a d s us to t h i n k a b o u t w h i c hdi scou rse i s be i ng u sed o r how i t s jo i nedw i t h o t hers ra t her t hanp i g e o n h o t i n g sp ec i f ica u t h o r s . Tab le 1 .3 p rov i des ske t chy p ro to -ty p ic a l descript ions ofeach research orienta-t ion related to a dozen d i mensi onso f in te re s ts h a p i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n r e -search p rog rams.

Cal l ing these discourses "pa r ad igms"w o u l d be a mistake for several reasons. First ,each of these fourdiscourses, w h i c hare provi-s iona l l y held apart fo r v i ew i ng ,is fi l led withi n t e r n a l conf lict and s t r i fe inc lud ing th eorydebat es , moment s of in c omm ensurab i l i ty , d i l-e t tan le s , an d ty ran ts . Second, t he edges areno t demarca t ed . Mosl researchers and t each-ers do no t c lu s t era round a prototype of each,bu t ga th e r at the c rossroads , m ix met aphors ,an d bo rrow l ines from o th e r discourses, d o d g -ing cri t icism by co-optation. Often praclicingresearchers happ i ly move f r om one d i scou rseto ano t her wi th ou t ac c oun t ing for t he i ro wnlocal iot:. They opra t e l i ke o t her o rgani za-l i ona l m e m b e r sb o r r o w i n g on d i scou rses t ha t

suit t he i r i mm edi a t e pu rposesand th ef ash i onsof t h e m o m e n t see Deetz, 1994b), There ar ec e r ta in ly more and less serious p lays ac rossth e l i nes , b u t th e i s sue i s not crossing b u t th eser i ou sness o f t he p lay . Third, the discoursesare not themselves sealed off from each other.They pose p rob lems f o r each o t her and s t ea lin s igh ts across th e lines. Fo r example , th ephi lo sophi ca l f i gh t s be t w een H abermas andG adamer , H abermas and Lyo t ard , H abermasan d L u h m a n n , and Fou cau l t and ev e ry b odyh av ele ftthe ir t races in each one ' s work. From[hese s t ru gg les , t he var i ou s o rgani za t i onalc o m m u n i c a t i o n research programs based inthesew orks have ga i nedenr i ched concept ionsof power, knowledge, agency, andpoli t icala c-t ion (see, e.g.,M u m b y& P u t n a m , 1992).

P rov i s i onal o rder i ng o fdiscourses is not toplice the lines, but to provide a view of thesocialr e sour ce s f r o m w h i c hresearchers drawand an unde rs tand ing of th e s t ock argu ment sused in develop i ngan dj u s t i f y i n g researcha c-tiv ities and c la i ms. The i dea l t ypes a i d t he u n-de rs tand ingo fd i f f e rences t ha t mat t e r t ha ta rehard to see in the f l o w of research activity .C la r i fy ing th e t endenc i esi n speci f ic typeso fresearch pos i t i ons h e l p s c la r i fy debates an dth e relat ion of d i f f e r e n t g rou ps to t h e m . Fo rexample, the interpret ive, c r i t i c a l , an d dia-logic cri t iques of normative research are qui tedifferent. N ormat i ve researchers w ho are ac -cu s t omed t o mak i ng argu ment s agai ns t su b-j e c t iv i ty an d t r ad i t iona l i sm s i mply mi ss t hepoint of each of these cri t iques; t h e y o f t en re-du ce t hem t o abs t rac t and conf u sed p resent a-t ions o f w h a t they t h i n k "opponen t s " sh ou ldbe saying rather than concrete bu t d i f f e r e n t ar -g u m e n t s f r o m w hat t heyexpec t ed .Fu r t her , w hi le m o s t researchers are no tpurists, their work carnesassu mpt i ons and re-sp ons ib i l i t i e s t ha tar ecentral to u n d e r s t a n d i n gan d eva lu a t i ng t he i r w ork , bu t a re ra re ly ex -plici t in sludy reports . Fo r example , manyfemin is t s ' wri t ings carry a genera l sy mp a th ywi th th e concep t u a l an d ana ly t i c pow er ofdi logic research p rog rams, w hi le t hey stil lw ish to have a poli t ical agenda tha t requ i rescrit ic preconcep t i ons t ha t a s sume social di -

o n c f y t u l fbundot /ons 7

TABLE 3 PrototypicalDiscursive Features

ssueBaslegoal

MethodHope

Metaphor ofsocialre lat icns

ormativa

LawllkerelationsamongobjectsNomothetlc sclence

ProgressiveemanclpatlonEconomc

iscoursenterpretlveDlsplayunlfledculueHemeneulics,ethnographyRecoveryontegrarlevalesSocial

ritical

UnmaskdomnaranCultuialcriticism,Ideology critiqueRefoimatlon ofsocialordeiPolitical

D/atoateReclaimconflict

Deconstructlon,genealogyCaima spacetor lostvoleesMa ss

OrganlzatlonmetaphorProblemsaddiessed

Concern withcommunlcallon

Narrativostyle

TmeIdentltyOrganlzaltonalbeneflt

MoodScclal fear

Marketplace Communlty Polty

Inetflctency, dlsorder Meanlnglessness, Domnallon,lllegltlmacy consent

Fidellty,Influence,Informationneeds

Sclenlifte/technlcal,strateglcModemControl, expertise

OptimsticDlsorder

Social Mlsrecognltlon,acculturatlon, svstematlcgroupafflrmallon dtslortlonRomanttc,embraclngterno em

Tierapeutic.dlrecllveLatemodem

Commtlment. Portlclpatlon.qualitvworlcUfe expendedknowledgeFriendly SusplclousDepersonalizallon Authorlty

Carnlval

Marglnallzatlon,conflictsuppresslonDiscursivoclosure

Ironic,amblvalentPostmodernDlverslty,creatlvity

PlayfuTotallzation,normalliatlon

visions an d gender-based do mina t ion to begeneral (see Rax, 1990; Fr a se r & N i c h o l s o n ,1988; Mu mby, 1996).Such works (e.g. , Mar-t in, 1990 ,1992)can beclassi f ied as dialogic,but the tnica an d pol i t ical charactero f manyo fthesestudies cannot be just i f ied easily withdialogic concep t i ons a lone . Th e dist inct ionsdeveloped in this essay can he lp display th etensions and t her e sour ce s from w hi ch suchresearchers draw to conduct an d justify theirwork.

This c an fu r th e r b e sh own u s i ng m y o w nw ork as an example . I o f t en draw on concep-ons f rom cri t ical and dialogic wri lings. Form e, cr i t ical theory concept ions of ideologyand distorted communicat ion provide use fu lsensit izing concepts and an analyt ic f r ame-work for lookingfo r micropracticeso f u nw ar-ranted control , d i scu rs i ve c lo su re , ideology,and skewed representaron in organizationalsites. But rarely are these concept ions closelytied to the f u l l cri t ical theory agenda. They re-


10/20

18 Theoretlcal andMethodological I ssues

q u i r econs iderabl e rcw o rki ngi n speci fics i t e s ,an d thc r esu l l s o f m ys tud i e s a i mm o r eat f ind-in g an d g i v i n g s uppres sed pos i t i ons a m e a n sof cxpres s i on i b an rea l i z i ng an i dea l speechs i l u a l i o n o r reach i ng a purer consensos (seeDectz, 1995b, 1998).W h a t i s i m p o r t a n t i s n o twt i c i hcr I am a late-modern cri t ical theoristo r d i a lo g i c p o s t m o d e m i s t ,bu t rathert hem e a n -ing an d i m p l i ca t i o n s of concepts th a t Idrawfrom the sc t wo com pet i t ive research or i ent a -t i o n s . M y degrceo fcons i s t ency i s of less in -l e res t th an h o w I h and le th e ten s i n andw h c t h e rt he lw o concep tua l r e sou rce s p rovidean i n te rc s l i ng ana ly s i s o r i n te rv en t i o n . Someclar i l y an d genera l unde r s tand i ng i n al terna-l i v e research or i ent a t i ons p r o v i d e g u i d a n c eand accoun lab i l i t yor atleasta c o m m o n stockof m a te r i a l fo r b u i ld i ngand ev a lua t i ng newa r-g u m e n t s in these cases. Fu rher, explorin ggene ra l or i ent a t i ons can h e lp reveal a s s u m p -l i o n s h i dden in one's o w n w ay o f w o rki ngs ince they r e m a i n unprobl emat i ci none ' sow nresearch communi t y .

In an ideal research p r o g r a m , w e m i g h tidenti fy acomplementary relat ion among re-sea rch o r ien ta t ions w th each asking di fferentques t i ons a t di fferent m o m e n t s a n d each, atthc appropr i a t e m o m e n t ,answer ing t o t hespe-c i f i c cri teria of a p a r t i c u l a ro r i ent a t ion. Th i sm i g h l oprate in a rolat iona m o n g n c o m p a t i -bl eo r i cnl a t ions w i t h o u t an y orientat ion beingprivi leged or any o r ien ta t ion be ingreduced t oa p rc l i m i na ry or supplementary role. For ex-am p le , m y work rel ies m u c h on aconcep t ionof d i s curs i ve closure,a co ncep t i o n tha td rawsaltcnlion t oplacesw h e r ecooperativedec i s i nr n a k i n g is hamp ered by arbi t rary l imi t s en -ac t ed i n t he d i s cus s i on (see Deetz, 1992,p p.187ff . ) . As a critical researcher I mus t showhow i hesec lo su re sar ei n t ru s i o n sof power re-lal ons u s u a l l y based i n or s upport i ng soc ia ld i v i s i o n s th a tl ead t o d i s tor t ed comm unica t i onand a false consensu s . M y s t u d y ap p ea l s toreason, lgica ana ly se s ,and acoherent d e m -o ns t ra t i o n .As adiatogicresearcier1 s ee the sec l osures as t he s uppres s i on of conf l i c t s andsee m y o w n concerns w i th consensu sand ap -pcals to r ea son as s i m p l y d ifferent acts of

privilege and polent ial closure.M y ana ly s i sisno w judged by t he way indet erminacy is al-lowed to reemergeand t hecomp e l l ingqua l i lyof recoveredc l a ims andvo ice s .But a t anot herm o m e n tyet,I m a y w e l lp o senormative q u e s -t ions:W h i c h means of closure are used m o s toften? Who u se s them? When a re they u sed?Ca n peopie be t aughtto avo id them?A s t u d ydes i gned t o answer such ques t i ons now ap-peals tostandardsof de f i n i t i o n , mea su rement ,s ampl ing , and quan t i ta t i v eda ta ana ly s i s .Andfurther yet, there are interprelive conce rns :W h a t sensedo the se d i scu r s ive move s haveina c o m m u n i t y ? To w h a t ends ar e they u sed?How are they s e l f - unders t ood and jus t i f i ed?What a retheir actualconsequence sin specif icc i r cumstance s? In t erpre t i ve research stan-dards are now relevan .

One can ea s i l y see how s uch a ro t a t ionth ro ugh o r i en ta t i o n s m i g h t b e cons t an an dproduct i ve w i t h o u t lo s ing the separaion andt ens ina m o n g th e m .S ucht ens ionscou l d he l penr i ch work from each orientat ion. Yet, to behones t ,f ew research programsa re treated thi sw ay a ndmostresearchers,l ike myself, fol lowtheir own l ines of inters ,c o m m i t m e n t s , an dt r a i n i ng , which e i the r leads to an ec l ip seo fq u e s l i o n s a n d concerns from other orienta-t i o n sor a tleast leaves them fo r someoneelsewho i s in t e re s t edi n tho se p rob lems , Tak ingser i ous l y other works does no t mean that w efm d o the r g roup s ' i s sue s an d p rocedu re sa snecessarily interestingor helpful or shouldw ena i v e lybe l i evethatal l ofthem a re .But ourc la ims and t he relat ion between ou r c la i m san d s t udy p rocedu re s shou ldb eclear so thatobjections an d co nf l i c t s can be on tho seg r o u n d s rather than on imp osed t radi t ionalp robl em statementsa nd me thods .T he pointi sfor th eresearcher to beclear about w h a t t ypeof q u e s t i o n sor claims drives th e w o r kat anypar t i cu l ar t i m e and how t he work addressesthe standards and criter ia appropriate to i t .

A ba s ic unde r s t and ingo f a l t e rna t iver e-search orientat ions enables shorthand ac-coun t s and he l ps d i s t i ngu i sh i n ten t i o na land/or productive a m b i g u i t ie s from carelessand/or unp ro duc t i v eones. As a review er, I am

onceptu o u n d a t i o n s 9

often frusirated by nonref l ec t i ve mix ing ofmetap hor s and concep t ions in subm i t t ed e s -says. Often the c l a ims madew o u l d require adifferent k ind of study based on di fferent as -s u m p t i o n s and research activit ies. Partly, Ith i nk thisarises from authors t rying to ant ic-pate reviewerneedsfo rnormative type gener-al izat ions wh i l ebeing committed to a nonnor-mat i ve researchorientaton, but italso comesfrom i na t t ent i onto wha t make sdi fferentk indsof research different . Clearly,a ba lance mus tbe struckbetween (1) reityingresearchorien-t a t ions th rough s imp l i s t i c grids and sub se -q u e n t ove rcha rac ter i za t ions an d r igid stan-dards and (2) h a v i n g each study try to betotal ly sel f- just i fying and cut lose from an ycommuni ty .While I do notthinkthere is anyea sy way ou t o f th i s t en s i n , having good di-m e n s i o n s of contras and good character-izat ions helps. A very brief sketch of the fourorientat ions aids f u r th e ri nh igh l igh t ingdi ffer-ences andsimilariliesin these com mu ni ty d i s -cou r se s a long the suggested d imens ions o fdifference.

Th e iscourseof ormative Studies^Norma t iveresearchtends to accept organi -

zat ons as na t ura l l y exist ing objects open todescription,predict ion, and control.Goalses-tablished by somesp ec i fi c g roup , u sua l l y up-permanagement,are largelyaceeptedas thegoals of the organizat ion and most often theresearch either i m p c i t l y or explicit ly sup-p o r t s more efficent accomp l i shment o f Ihesegoa l s . Becau se o f th i s , c o m m e r c i a l corpora-t i onsar eu s u a l l ydiscussedi neconomic termswith i s sue s discussed in relation lo"rational"economic goals' The researchers producingthis discourse have been described asfunct i onal i s t s ,cove r ing- l aw theorists or s im-ply practicingthe v ariable analyt ic tradit ion. Idescribe thisdiscourseas"normative"toem -p ha s i ze the central ity of codif icat ion, thesearch fo r r egu la r i t y and normal i z a t i on, andt he imp l ied p re sc r ip t ive c l a ims (see Deetz,1973; Hollway, 1984). This discourse is

largely don nant i nNorth Americaand i n ap -plied organizat ional research eve rywhere .Anieles published by U.S. researchers em-p loyed by com munica t ion dep a r tmen t s andpublished in "communication" journa l s havebeen mostly of this sort, t h o u g h th e m ix ischang ing .Mosltextbooks are writ ten in thisdiscourse emp has iz ing top ica l d iv i s ions andresearch f indings even when they review re-searchestablishedin o ther tradi'ons.

Th e discourse i s dec i s ive ly mode rn inGergen's (1992) senseand the knowledge i sconsidered posive,c u m u l a ti v e , an dprogres-sive. A grandnarrativeo f p rogre s s ive emanc i -pat ion f ro mdisease,disorder, an d materialde -pr i va oni s shap ed by a commi tmen t to makea betterworld throughdiscovery of funda-mental processes an d increased producton(Lyotard, 1984). While the organizaron isusually treatedas an exist ing object producedfo rin s t r umen ta l ends , u sua l l ymak ingmoney ,some conception of the invisible hand make sthat goal well- integrated with other socialgoals of development and widespread avail-abilityofgoodsandservices.Generally, theresearch is expressly apolit ical and va l uneu -tral, bu t a s already shown, vales reside inlite conceptions, choiceof problems to s tudy ,an drelat ion to other groups .

Most of this work has impl ici t lysupportedan orderly, well- integrated world, w i th c o m -p l ian t member s and regu l a t ed co nf l i c t s , an dha s aceeptedw i thou t ex amina t ion ex i s t ing o r -ganizat ional goals and m e m b e r p o s i t i o n s .They represen c o m m u n i c a t i o n p r imar i l y i ninformat ion and admin i s t r a t ion t e rms (seeBeniger, 1986). M u c h of the d i scu s s ion ofcommunica t ion in ll i nformat on" t e rms as -sumes a control orientat ion and theories ofpersuasin and information transfer domnat emuch of the concern wi t h m o s t f requent l ystudiedtopics sucha s sup e rvi so r / subo rdna tecommunication, compliance ga in ing , ne t -works, power, and relat ions w i th the public.Normative works appear inthree basic var i -eties eachwid d i s t inc t a s sump t ions and g oa l sof their owncovering iaws, sys t ems theory,an dskil ldevel opmenL


11/20

2 Theoretfcaland ethodological ssues

over ing Law sR e s e a r c h mode l ed on the search fo r

l a w l i k e g ener a l i z a t i ons in organ iza t ions u n t i lf a i r l y recen l l y ha s domina ted organ iza t iona lc o m m u n i c a l i o n s tudy. Resea rch of th i s typew as mos t expl i c i t l y de f ended inc o m m u n i c a -t i o n s t u d i e s by Berger (1977) an d recon-s t r uc tcd and w el l j us t i f i ed i n Dona ldson(1985; s ee a l so Ba r l ey & K u n d a ,1992;D i M a g g i o , 1995;O 'K ee f e , 1976) . The re -search prac t i c e s mi r ror 19 th-century concep -L i o n s of ih e na tu ra l s c ience s o f t e n i n v o l v i n gih e mos t r e cen t advance s in ope ra t iona l -i z a t i o n , h y p o t h e s i z a t i o n , s ta t i s t i c a l data re-d u c t i o n , and pa t te rn "recogni t ion"p rocesses .Concept ions of ope ra t iona l i za t ion , "ob jec t iv-ity,"a nd l a w l i k e r e la t i ons a r e m ere ly th em o s to b v i o u s form ofp rac t ice . Convent ional prac-tices and me thodolog ica l( asi f ' ) de te rmin -i s m have i n m os lcasesrep l acedany s t rong a l -l eg iance to the pos i t i v i s t ph i iosophy ofsc ience I h a tg r o u n d sm any o f the m ethods anda s sumpt ions .

Th e "objects"cons t ruc ted by th e prac t i c e so f t h i s s c i e n c eare g iven qua t i e so f cons tancyan d p e r m a n e n c e (un ive r sa l a c ros s t ime andplace), as i f na tur e endowed them wi thspe-c i f i c a t t r i b u tes . The com b inat ion o f a pr ior iconcep t ions and the f ocus on cons ens us leadsih e arti facls oft hese research prac t i c e s to bedcsc r ibed a s facts . Th is d i s cou rse t y p i f i e s th ed c v e l o p m e n t of m a n y da ta r e t r i eval sys temsa n d i n f o r m a l i o n t echno log i es s ince i nf o rm a-t i o n c a n b e treated as f i x edt ru th c l a ims f reedf r o m th e t ime , p l a ce , an d procedu re s of pro-d u c l i o n .Facts become commodi t i e sa ndc o m -m u n i c a i i o n can b ereduced to a t r ans m i s s ion/r e l r i eval p rocess (fordi scu s s ion of conse -q u e n c e s ,see Bol and, 1987; Coomb s , Knig h t s ,& W i l l m o t t , 1992; L y y t i n e n & Hi r schhe im,1988) .

Theory and th eory t es t ngare central (o thelog ic o f m eresearch an d m a n y o f thes ta t i s t i -ca l procedu re s ofd a t a r e d u c t i o n . N o r m a t i v es tud i es o f i h i st y p ear e exp l i c i t lyd e p e n d e n tonihco ry , h o u g h inprac t i c et heth eore t i c a l con -c c r n s m a y h ereduced to a mere r e f er ence lis to f p r i o r s t u d i esa nd theo ry te s t ingt omere ly

add ing to a l ist of relationsa m o n gvariables ofin te re s t . One cha rac te r i s t i c s e l f -c r i t i c i s m isthe lament over the lackof deve lopmen t or u seof th eory . Mos t of th e s tudie s w orka s i / t h eyw ere in a deducve th eory te s t in g mode evenw h e n their theoretical commitmen ts a re l e s st h a n clear. Recen t l y , Su t ton and S taw (1995)demons t ra ted how re f e rence s , da ta , va r i ab l e s,d iag rams , an d hypothe se s ar e o f t e n u sed tocover up the lack of theory an dac tua l th eorytesting.

This discourse i s exem pl i f i ed i n s tudie sofcompl iance ga in ing (e ,g . , Su l l ivan &Taylor ,1991) , s t r a teg ic message de s ign and pe r sua -s in (e . g . , A l exande r , Pen l ey , & J e r n g a n ,1991) , supe rv i s in /subord na te i n t e r ac t i on( I nf ante , A n d e r s o n , M a r t i n , H e r i n g t o n , &K i m ,1993; Jabl in, 1979; Sias & Jabl in, 1995),an d othe r p l ace s more comple te l ydescr ibedby Bur re l l an d Morgan (1979)i nth e i r d i s cu s -sion of "functional ist." Bul it is also clearlypre sen t in those advocat i ng th e m a n a g e m e n tof cu l tu re (e.g., Deal & K e n n e d y ,1982;Sche in , 1992) th roug hth e i r concept ion of cu l -t u r e as an ob jec t to b e s t r a t eg i ca l ly deployed(a sBa r l ey , Meye r ,& Gash , 1988, h ave show n ,t h i s became ve ry common i n the 1980s). Mos to f th e w ork on cu l tu re , c l ima te , or va r i e t i e s ofto t a l q u a l i t y m a n a g e m e n t(TQM)i norgan iza -t i onal c o m m u n i c a t i o n ar e more n o r m a t i v et h a n in te rpre t ive ow ing to the way c u l t u r e ist r e a ted a s a va r i ab l e or ob jec t ive ou tcomew i t h i n alargerstrategic m ove o f cu l tur a lm a n -agemen t (seeShockl ey-Za l abak & M o r l e y ,1994) . Manyo ft h o s e w o r k i n g w t h n e w c o n -c e p t i o n s of organ iza t ions a s "pos tmode rn"( r a ther th an pos t -m odern approaches ; Pa rke r ,1992) haveadiscourse p r im ar i ly s t r uc tur ed i na norma t ive f as h on (e.g. , B e r g q u i s t ,1993;Pet e rs , 1987) . Many Marx i s t s tudie s , espe-c i a l l y those donei nc o n t e x t sofM a r x i s t d o m i -na t i o n of social discourse, us e norma t ivethemes , bu t the l ite group that gives rise toth e concep t s d i f f e r s f r o m t h o s e s uppor t i ngm o s tEu ropean an d Nor th Amer ican s tudie s .Len in ' s embrac ing of s c i e n t i f i c m a n a g e m e n tw a s i n n o w a y i nco ns i s t en t .S t ra teg ic manage -m e n t in v i r tua l lyevery way i sh i g h l y depend-en on th i s d i s cou rse (K n igh ts , 1992; K n igh ts

& M o r g a n , 1991). Of ten te am, qua l i ty , andpar t i c ipa t i on p rogramsa re assessed us ng re -search procedu res grounded in this perspec-tive(e.g.,C o r d n , In f an te ,& G r a h a m ,1988;Mil l e r & Monge , 1985).S t u d y i n g c o m m u n i c a t i o n i n the organiza-t i onal c o n t e x t poses some u n i q u e p r o b l em sfo r this app roach .T he complex i ty and inter-dependence of organ iza t iona l r e l a t ionsh ipscha l l enge th e r a th e r a tom sc and un idi re c -t ional model s of both th e th eor ie s and me th -ods. And such relations are hard to duplcatein l abora tory settings an d con t rol f o r n u m e r -ou s "ex t raneous" f a c tor s . Researchers h a v ere sponded to th i s w i th much more soph i s t i -cated mode l ing and s ta t i s t i c a l ana lys i s . Un-f o r tunate ly ,th e o u tcomes of th i s a re f a i rl ya b-stract relations that lead to que s t ions ofvalidi ty and u se fu l ne s s . Fu r th e r , much of th eresearch ha s tu rned to data collection f romse l f - repor t in te rv iew s and su rvey ques t ion -na i rc s r a th e r th an d i r e c t obse rva t ion(seeK n a p p ,P u t n a m , & Dav i s , 1988).This has ledto ap reoccupa t ion w i th measu rem en t dev ice san d w i th many s tudie s that ar e more in s t ru -m e n t than theory d r iven leaving th e re su l t sd i f f i c u l t to unders t and or u se in any sys tem-atic way.F ina l l y , most researchers conduc t suchs tudie s p r ima r i l y for gene ra l i za t ion and u sestatistical signif icance tests, w h i c ha l ow gen -eral ization from t he research samp le t o somepopu l a t ion . Bu t th e ques t ioni s of tenraiseda sto w ha t i s th e app rop r ia t e"popula t on"for thegene ra l i za t ion . Many of the studies draw asample f rom a s ing l e organ iza t ion ; p re sum-ably, th i s w ou ld ind ca te th a t th i s pa r t i cu l a rorgan iza t ion i s th e popu l a t ion abou tw h ich th egene ra l i za t ion i s proposed. Bu t mos t r e -s ear cher s w an t togenera l izo their f indings toorgan iza t ions in genera l . There th e s am-pl e /popu l a t ion relat ion does no t hold.Ra re lyhas any p rogram of w ork draw n a sampleo fenough organ iza t ions to w a r ran l th e typeo fgeneral izations made al lowable wit hin the as-sumpt ions o f t he s tudie s th emse lve s . Pe rhapsthe As ton s t ud iesand th e "commun ica t ion au -dit"sponsored by t heIn te rna t iona l Comm un i -

Conceptuol o u n d a t i o n s 21

c a i o n Assoc ia t ion modeled a f te r th e As tonstudies are partly used excep t ions .Th e im por -t an tpoin t i s th a t many norma t ive s ty l e s tudie su se th e rh e tor i c a lp o w e rof th e n a t u r a l sc iencem o d e l and pr inc ip ie s of gene ra l i za t ion andve r i f i c a t ion , bu t of ten c annot suppor t th e i rstudies in organ izaons ba sed on i t . Thedis-course o f t e n conceals this(seeSu t ton & Staw ,1995). M a n y at tempts have been made tosummar ize f indings a c ros s s tudie s , of ten u s -in gme ta -ana lys i s . Such s tudie s a re o f t e n con -t radictory and inconclusive and even f ur therr e m o v e f i n d i n g s f r o m theoretical commit-men ts an d specif ic site cha rac te r i s t i c s (seeBake r , 1991; Mi l l e r & Monge , 1985; W agne rf cGooding , 1987;W i lk in s& Ande rson , 1991) .

1 Systems TheoryDur ing 1970sa nd 1980s,much th eoret i c a la t ten t ion w as g iven to deve lop ing " sys t ems"

th nking in organ iza t ions , e spec ia ll y r ega rd-ing th e organ iza t ion -envi ronmen t r e l a t ionspaw ned inpa r t b y the inf luence ofL a w r e n c ean d Lorsch 's (1967) w ork and th e develop-m e n t of con t ingency th eory (seeK a t z &K a h n , 1978;M o n g e , 1977, 1982;M o n g e ,Farace , E isenbe rg , Mi l l e r , & W hi te , 1984) .More re cen t l y , th i s w ork ha s b e c o m e theoreti-cal ly more sophist icated th rough concept ionsof s e l f -organ z ing sys tems and chaos th eory(see Bellman & Roost a , 1987;C on t rac tor,9 9 4 ; S en g e , 1990; Weick, 1979).W h i l e sys tems approaches c o n t i n u th esearch for orde r and r eg ular i ty an d u l t im ate lyinc reasedcon t rol by advan taged g r o u p s , , A h e yt end to emphas ize hol i sm ove r a t o m i s m an ddynamic m u tua l c au sa l i ty ove r law l ike u n i d i -r e c t iona l causa l i ty . Ra the r th an seekingsur-face-level , predictive variables the f o c u s is onthe deep processeso f t r ans f o rm at ionth a t p ro-d u c e and in te rpre t ove r t pa t t e rns of behav-iorthe proces s es of organ iz ing ra th e r th anorgan iza t ions . As P et t i g r ew (1990) described:" W h a ti s c r i t i c a l i s not ju s t even ts , bu t th e un -de r l y ing l og ic s th a t g ive events mean in g ands ign i f i c ance . . . l og ic s w h ich m a y e x p l a i nh o w a n d w h y th e se pa t te rn s occu ri npa r t i cu -l a r ch ronolog ca l sequence" (p. 273). In some


12/20

22 Theorcticalan dMethodological Issuescases,inWeick'swork, forexample, the focusissos tronglyonemergen properties,thepar-t icularselting, and interpretiveprocessesthatthe research begins to sound muchlikeinterpretive studies(seeDaft &Weick,1984).B utst i l l , Ihework s heavily guidedb yresearcherconceplions, the searchfor regularities antici-pated by the researcher, the interpretationofpattcrns in theresearcher's logic,the view fromtheoutside,thehopeforenduringregularities,and theassumptionof managerialgoals.Theassumptions an d regularities sought di ffer,however, fromthose soughtby coveringlawsandevenearly systems theories.

Contractor (1994) has done an excellentJob of making these differences clear. Fiveconceptions areimportant.

1 Dynamic inferences: Covering-law theoristsdevelophypothesesthat posit adirecor in-directcasuallink between variables.Thesecan be testedusngrather standard slatisticalpackages (SPSS). Dynamic hypotheses,however, posit anunderlying logic or rela-lional mathematical rather ihan quantilaliveconnection. Similar hypotheses developedby covering-law and systems theorists arethe sameonly whenone of tw ocentralcov-ering-law assumptions are empiricallypres-en (or methodologically produced): (a)There is nochangein the twovariables overtime, or (b) the changes exactlyequal.

2. M utual causal ty:While covering-law theo-ries posit unidirectional causality, systemstheory suggests that many variablesexist inmutual or circular causal relations. In suchcases, Ihere can be no separation betweenindependen and dependen variables sincethe casual relalion between the variablesrunsboth ways.3. Hisloricily: Systems theory suggests ihatthe relation beiween variablesis often limedependen , henee universalizingclaimso reven general izat ions cannol be assumedacross time and place. Thus, variable rela-lions (e.g., between trust andcompliance)presen early in the history of anorganiza-

lion can become qu i t e difieren as theorganizaronages. A generalization aboutorganizational communicatonmustalwaysreferencet hetimein Iheorganization'shs-lory duringwhichi was Irue.4. Time irreversibility: M ost covering-lawmodels assume thal social syslemsworklikeclosedmechanical systems, heneejfanincreasein the quantity of a variableleadslo anexpecled oulcomethendecreasingthequal i ty of that variablewillleadto lessout-come.Rarely, however, are organizationalrelations simply transitve or slable likeibis.5. Disconl inui ty : Covering- law Iheories as-sume that changes are usuallyqu ant i tat iveand incremental. Syslemstheorist sdisplaythe presence of sudden qualitativechangesa certainthresholds.

Systemsconceptions haveclearlychangedthe waypeopleandscholarsthinkabout orga-nizatons.Muchtheoretical writing ispresent.Bu tgenerally,theempirical researchh asbeenmore disappointing.Part of thisarises fromthedominance covering-law conceptions havehad ondefining the nature of"empirical"re-search. Frequently, process conceptions insystems theory are reduced to concept ionswherecovering-law datagatheringandstatis-tical analysis are applicable (see Everett,1994; Monge, Cozzens, & Contractor, 1992).In many respects, systems conceptions aremore productive in providing interesting andusefulconceptions ofcomplex organizationaprocesses and interventions into them thanthey are in generating studies that result injourna publications(see Cecchin& Stratton,1991). The conceplion of u se fu l empiricalwork ma y well bebiased in favor of cover-ing-law stylestudies.ommunic tonSkillsTh enormativeorientation no ton ly gu ide smuch organizational communicatonresearch

bul alsoteachingandcnsulting activities.Ar-guably,muchof thework goingo nundert he

Concepta oundations * 23

tle"organizational communication" is moreskill development than research directed. In-cluded is everything from interpersonal andbasic management skills to pub l i c speakingandpublic relation skills. Whileit is not myintent to provide any review of this work, Ithink that it is important to show howtext-books as well as training and developmentprograms have traditionally been connectedwilh the normaveapproach to organizationstudies.

Inmostcases,the implied pedagogy in thewritings has been didacticandrelianton thepresumption of anexpertbodyofknowledge.An d most of the research onskillshas usedcovering-law style assumptions to test hy-potheses and measure effectiveness. Further,whilethere is a directive quality to this work,the skills and the knowledgebasefromwhichthey are drawn are usually treated as valuneutraland asequally availableandvaluablefor different organizational members. In do-ing so, theinfluenceandcontrol orientationofthis work are treated as naturaland self-evi-dent,andother human goals andcommunica-tionpurposes are rarely considered. Usually,upper management's goals for the organiza-tion are accepted as given and legitmate.Even when the skills arepromoted primarilyfor self-interests, generally those interests areseen as well integrated with uppe r manage-ment's organizational goals. Recently, asteams,stakeholderparticipation,and organi-zational creativity and learning havebecomeof greater concern there is increasingly criti-calattention to understandingskillneedscul-turally,to the power relations in teaching andtextbooks, and to theneeds and perspectivesof alternative organizational stakeholders(Argyris, 1994; Eisenberg & Goodall, 1993;Grunig&H unt ,1984;Sprague, 1992).

t Th e iscourseof nterpretive Studies

The ntimber andimportanceof interpretivestudies grew rapidly during the 1980s. For

most interpret iveresearchcrs,th eorganizationis a social site, aspecial type of c om m un i tythat shares important characteristics wilhother types of communities. Theemphasis son asocial rather thaneconomicviewoforga-nizational activities.'Traditional methodsofstudying communities are seen asespeciallyu se fu l . Theexpressedgoal ofmany interpre-tivestudiesis toshowhowparticular realitiesaresocially produced and maintained throughordinary talk, stories, rites, rituals,andotherdailyactivities: Mostof theearly attentionfororganizational commun ication researcherswa s derived from interest in the work of an-thropologists such as Geertz (1973; seePacanowsky & O'DonnelI-Trujillo, 1982),phenomenological andsymbolicinteractionist-inspired work in sociology (Bantz, 1983;Bormann, 1983; Douglas, 1970; Strauss,1978),and thegrowing interestinhermeneu-tics and qualitative research methods(Trujillo, 1987).

Whiletheoretical tensionsandcompetitivetraditions havegrown along withthis work,likethesesources,muchof the writingshaveaclear preservationist, naturalistictone.Al lowme to start with the more "naturalistic" as-sumptions held by interpretive researchers intheir studies of organizational culture beforeturningto some of thetensions that havede-veloped, Like many of themore natural is t icanthropologicalstudies, interpretive researchoften appearsmotivated to saveorrecord al i fe form with itscomplexityan dcreativitybefore it is lost to modern, instrumental l i fe .Th e concern with communityis often con-nected with the maintenanceof a tradit ionalsenseofsharedvalesandcommon practicesand the presumed simple ha rmoniou s innerlife ofpeoplew holivedi ns uc hcommunities.Gergen (1992) described the romantic senseofthisdiscoursewithits depth andconnectionto theinnerlife borderingonsentimentalityattimes.BecauseofthisIreferto thet ime frameas premodeminTable1.3 Thissuggesismoreaconcern with ihoseaspectsof l i fe ihathaveno tyet been systematized, instrumentalized,


13/20


14/20

26 4 Theoretical andMethodologicalIssues

W h i l e organizationscould be positive socialinsl i tut ions providing forums for th earticula-lion and resolution of importan group con-flicts ovcr the use of naturalresources, distri-bul ion of income, production of desirablegoods and services, the development of per-sonal qu a l i t i e s , an d Ih edrection of society,various forms of powerand dominat ion haveIcd lo skewed decisin mak ing and fosteredsocial harmsa nds ignif icant wastea nd inef f i -ciency. Either explic it orimp l i c i t intheirpre-sentat ion is agoalt o demnstratean dc r i t iqueforms of domina t ion , asymmetry, an d dis-torted communica t ion through showing howreal i ty can become obscured and misrecog-nized . Such ins ights he lp produce fon imswhere the conflicts can b e rec la imed ,open lyd i s c us s e d , an d re so lved w i th fa i rness andjus t i ce .

Critical research a ims at produc ingdissensus and providing fonims for and mod-elsof discussion to aid in thebu i ld ingof moreopenconsensos.Of special concern are formsof false consciousness, consent, systemati-cally distorted commun ica t ion ,routines, andnormalizations tha t producepartial interestsand keep people 'from g enu ine ly unders tand-ing or act ing on th e i r ow n in te rests .Of th efour orientations, critica s tudie s have th emost expi ic i t ly statedva lu commi tm ents andIh emost explicitattentiontomora land ethicalissues. Wi th Ibis, much of the discoursehas asuspicious an diherapeutic tone,butalsoathe-ory of agency thatprovidesan activisl tone,ascn.sc t ha lpeople can and should act on theseconditions and ihat improved unders tand ingas wcl la s accessto comm unica t ion forums i score lo posi t ive aclion. Theory developmenti cr i t ica theoryoften has an "en l igh tenment"i |ual i ly,i nDiM aggio's (1995)sense, wherebyc u p h e m i s m sare developed or exposed"clear-in g away conventional notionsto makeroomfor i i r l u l and exc i l i ng in sigh ts"(p . 391; se eilso Bourd icu , 1991, for the power of re-nunluj

The ccnl ral goalof critical tfieory inorga-n /n t i nna l communica t ionstudies has been toacule a society an d workplaces that are free

from domina t ionan d wh e r eall members ca ncon tr ibute

stanley deetz.pdf

Documents