isomorphism in institutional discourse: summary

Tue Oct 24 12:33:59 UTC 2000

Here are the suggestions we've received on this topic.  Many thanks to
everyone!

Barbara

Carrie Kinney carriek at erols.com: There has been some discussion on the
FedWeb listserv (for federal
webmasters) on the extent to which responses to feedback to webmasters from
the public should be standardized.

"cheryl malgay heath" <cmalgayh at mtu.edu>: I am using discourse analysis and
critical theory to consider similarities
and differences in the discourse within sexual harassment (sh) law and
within institutional (sh) policies and women's narratives regarding their sh
experiences.

"Julia L Evans" <jevans2 at facstaff.wisc.edu>: Sarah Keisler (in SDSS at CMU)
and Pam Hinds(@ Standord)  might be helpful.
I know there is some work on dynamical systems theory as applied to
organizational level discourse that might be helpful.

"Ellen Barton" <ellen.barton at wayne.edu>: I wrote a paper on
slogans and sayings in the discourse of a support group (I think you gave
me comments on an early version). The argument of the piece is that the
institutionally-sponsored slogans
became transmuted into sayings w/in the discourse of the group.  Some of
the sayings were in-line, so to speak, with the institutionally-ratified
slogans, but some were not.  In the latter case, sayings represented the
experience of the individual in contast to the institutional view Reference:
 "Informational and Interactional Functions of Slogans and Sayings in the
Discourse of a Support Group," Discourse and Society 10.4
(1999):  461-86.

"Kenneth N. Ehrensal" <ehrensal at KUTZTOWN.EDU>: A few years ago I published
an article titled "Discourses of Global
Competition: Obscurring the Changing Labor Processes of White Collar Work"
in the Journal of Organization Change Management (, Vol. 8, No 5, Fall
1995).  I think it may, in part, be making the kinds of arguments that you
are looking for.

"Elizabeth Traugott" <traugott at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>:
I am sure Charlotte Linde will have responded, but if not, she is the
perfect
person to talk to about this issue, since organizational self-
construction is exactly what she's working on.

"WIDMER Jean" <jean.widmer at unifr.ch>:Some years ago, I wrote a paper on what
makes a professional telephone call
to such a call and how the main division of labour in administration between
plain administrativ work and decisional work can be observed at the way
persons identify themselves responding to telephone call and the temporal
structure of the task they do in the call - but, it is published in French.
Nevertheless, here goes the reference:

Widmer, J. 1991 "Conversations et organisation du travail administratif" in
B. Conein et alii (ed.) "Les formes de la communication" Vol. 2, Réseaux,
CNET, 1991: 35-51.

Christy <standerf at ucsu.colorado.edu>: below is a citation and brief summary
of a text by
James Taylor that seems related to your question -- if it isn't i
apologize for the e-mail! also if this is related to your project you
might want to check to work of Daniel Robichaud -- he does similar work to
Taylor.

	Taylor, J.R. (1993). Rethinking the theory of organizational
communication: How to read an organization. Norwoood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing.

Clearly posits the importance of communication as constituting
organization. As the author states in the preface, "It seems self-evident
to me that organization is a product of communication, and totally
dependent on symbolic sense making through interaction for its mere
existence" (p. ix). Criticizes traditional views of
communication as a process analogous to object-world systems by
explicating the theory that communication is both constituted in the
system and constitutes the system. The author explains that traditional
views of organizational communication
have failed to account for the reflexivity and mediating function of
language: language has been treated as neutral when in fact it is not.
Explodes the myth that organizations are information processing systems
by problematizing what information is.  Develops a theory of
organizational communication that takes into account what the author
terms both the *conversation* and *text* of organization:
conversation being interaction that is always situation-specific; texts
having
fixed properties across situations. The author asserts that information is a
property of conversation, and texts are merely data; therefore,
traditional theories of communication as asituational are not about
communication at all.  Advocates an approach to organizational
communication research that starts with analyzing the
talk of people within the organization and finding the underlying
patterns in that talk -- "the 'system' which people have made for
themselves" (p. 267).

"John Bowers" <bowersj at bendnet.com>: It brought to mind something we in
communication used to call "accommodation theory," as I recall. You can find
an expression of it, I think, in H. Giles and P.F. Powesland, _Speech Style
and Social Evaluation_ (London: Academic Press, 1975). Earlier relevant
research on matching verbal behavior in interviews was by J.D. Matarazzo and
various associates and was published in many psychology journals in the
middle 1960s and in a book, J.D. Matarazzo and A. N. Wiens, _The Interview:
Research on Its Anatomy and Structure_ (Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 1972).

"Jim Wilce" <jim.wilce at NAU.EDU>: I can certainly recommend the source below
as a treasure of evidence that issues pertaining to discourse in
institutions are taken seriously and approached with rigor:
Sarangi, Srikant, and Celia Roberts, eds.
       1999    Talk, Work and Institutional Order: Discourse in Medical,
Mediation and Management Settings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

"Alena Lee Sanusi" <sanusi at UCSU.COLORADO.EDU>: Even if the analysis is not
completely useful
for this person's needs, I'm guessing that there will be citations in the
bibliography that will help at least demonstrate work in the area. In fact,
the article is part of a special issue that may help.

Bryan C. Taylor, "Browsing the Culture: Membership and Intertextuality at
Mormon Bookstore." Studies in Cultures, Organizations and Societies (1999)
5, 61-95.

"Oscar Steimberg" <steimsot at inea.com.ar>: I dont know if this note is useful
for the work , but I think (excuse me for my English), that  the pressure
for an increasing of similarity, at least in that discursive practices,  is
connected with the strength of the genres in use in the field (with their
effects of -apparent- clearness or intelligibleness), and with the hierarchy
of discursive styles related with them. Genres and styles generated, in some
cases, in other discursive universes, but useful for the process of
un-individualization necessary for the institutional verisimilization of the
discourse. The discussion of the theme of the definition of genres and
styles in that field would be interesting for me. Thanks very much.

"el don" <eldon at GOL.COM>: an online group whose interests may partly
coincide with those of your student:
t http://www.egroups.com/group/lnc-l
>

____________________________

Barbara Johnstone
Professor of Rhetoric and Linguistics
Department of English
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh PA  15213-3890
bj4 at andrew.cmu.edu
+1 412 268 6447