Organizationaland technical communication: Terminological ambiguity in representing work

Management Communication Quarterly

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 42-71

  Irons, Larry R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI ST LOUIS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 24144475157     PISSN: 08933189     EISSN: 15526798     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0893318998121002     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Argenti, P. A. (1996). Corporate communication as a discipline: Toward a definition. Management Communication Quarterly, 10, 73-97.
2. Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. (1987). The social construction of technological systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Brockman, R. J. (1990). Writing better computer user documentation. New York: JohnWiley.
4. Cullinan, M. (1993). Business communication: Principles and processes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.
5. Doheny-Farina, S. (1992). Rhetoric, innovation, technology: Case studies of technical communication in technology transfers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227-242.
7. Eisenberg, E. M. (1986). Meaning and interpretation in organizations. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 72, 88-95.
8. Eisenberg, E. M. (1996). Hearing voices: Speculations on the future of our disciplines. Management Communication Quarterly, 10, 124-129.
9. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
10. Feldman, M. S. (1991). The meanings of ambiguity: Leaming from stories and metaphors. In P. J. Frost, L. F Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture (pp. 146-156). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
11. Frost, P. J., Moore, L. F., Louis, M. R., Lundberg, C. C., & Martin, J. (Eds.). (1991). Reframing organizational culture. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
12. Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical action. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and development (pp. 337-366). Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
13. Goubil-Gambrell, P. (1992). A practitioner's guide to research methods. Technical Communication, 39, 582-591.
14. Gunnarsson, B. L. (1997). Applied discourse analysis. In T. A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 285-312). London: Sage.
15. Horton, W. (1991). Illustrating computer documentation. New York: John Wiley.
16. Jefferson, G. (1989). Preliminary notes on a possible metric that provides for a "standard maximum" silence of approximately one second in conversation. In D. Roger & P. Ball (Eds.), Conversation: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 166-196). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
17. Killingsworth, M. J., & Gilbertson, M. K. (1992). Signs, genres, and communities in technical communication. Amityville, NY: Baywood.
18. Meyerson, D. E. (1991). Normal ambiguity? A glimpse of an occupational culture. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, and J. Martin (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture (pp. 131-144). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
19. Mirel, B. (1988). The politics of usability: The organizational functions of an in-house manual. In S. Doheny-Farina (Ed.), Effective documentation: What we have learnedfrom research (pp. 277-297). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20. Morgan, G. (1993). Imaginization: The art of creative management. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21. Mumby, D. K., & Stohl, C. (1996). Disciplining organizational communication studies. Management Communication Quarterly, 10, 50-72.
22. Murtuza, A. (1994). Procedures documentation ought to be illuminative, not just archival. Management Communication Quarterly, 8, 225-243.
23. Ochs, E. (1997). Narrative. In T. A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as structure and process (pp. 185-207). London: Sage.
24. Paradis, J. G., & Zimmerman, M. L. (1997). The MIT guide to science and engineering communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25. Pinch, T., & Bijker, W. E. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems (pp. 17-50). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. Reddy, M. J. (1979). The conduit metaphor-A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284-310). New York: Cambridge University Press.
27. Ricoeur, P. (1988). Time and narrative. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
29. Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage.
30. Smeltzer, L. R. (1996). Communication within a manager's context. Management Communication Quarterly, 10, 5-26.
31. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
32. Suchman, L. (1995). Making work visible. Communications of the ACM 38, 9, 56-65.
33. van Dijk, T. A. (1997a). Discourse as interaction in society. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 1-37). London: Sage.
34. van Dijk, T. A. (1997b). Editorial: Analysing discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 8, 5-6.
35. Wilson, T. P., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1986). The structure of silence between turns in two-party conversation. Discourse Processes, 9, 375-390.
36. Yates, J. (1989). Control through communication. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
37. Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). Genres of organizational communication: A structurational approach to studying communication and media. Academy of Management Review, 17, 299-326.
38. Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.