Developing the political perspective on technological change through rhetorical analysis

Management Communication Quarterly

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 74-98

  Symon, Gillian ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Argument; Organization; Politics; Rhetoric; Technology

Indexed keywords

EID: 47749122253     PISSN: 08933189     EISSN: 15526798     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0893318908318514     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2000). Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53, 1125-1149.
2. Ball, K., & Wilson, D. (2000). Power, control and computer-based performance monitoring: Repertoires, resistance and subjectivities. Organization Studies, 21, 539-565.
3. Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (2001). Interpersonal conflict and its management in ISD. MIS Quarterly, 25, 195-228.
4. Bijker, W., Hughes, T., & Pinch, T. (Eds.). (1987). The social construction of technological systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Billig, M. (1991). Ideology and opinions. London: Sage.
6. Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7. Bloomfield, B., & Danieli, A. (1995). The role of management consultants in the development of information technology. Journal of Management Studies, 32, 23-46.
8. Brown, A. (1998). Narrative, politics and legitimacy in an IT implementation. Journal of Management Studies, 35, 35-58.
9. Callon, M. (1987). Society in the making. In W. Bijker, T. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems (pp. 83-103). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Dawson, P., & Buchanan, D. (2005). The way it really happened: Competing narratives in the political process of technological change. Human Relations, 58, 845-865.
11. Edwards, D., Ashmore, M., & Potter, J. (1995). Death and furniture: The rhetoric, politics and theology of bottom line arguments against relativism. History of the Human Sciences, 8, 25-49.
12. Gill, A., & Whedbee, K. (1997). Rhetoric. In T. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse: Structure and process (pp. 157-184). London: Sage.
13. Grint, K., & Woolgar, S. (1997). The machine at work. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
14. Hamilton, P. (2005, July). The enthymeme in naturally occurring talk: Needing to state the un-stated. Paper presented to Critical Management Studies Conference, Cambridge, UK.
15. Hayes, N., & Walsham, G. (2000). Competing interpretations of computer-supported cooperative work in organizational contexts. Organization, 7, 49-67.
16. Heracleous, L., & Barrett, M. (2001). Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of information technology implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 755-778.
17. Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35, 441-456.
18. Knights, D., & Murray, F. (1994). Managers divided. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
19. Latour, B. (1996). Aramis or the love of technology (C. Potter, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
21. Mackenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (Eds.). (1999). The social shaping of technology (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Open University Press
22. Maguire, S., & Hardy, C. (2006). The emergence of new global institutions: A discursive perspective. Organization Studies, 27, 7-29.
23. McLoughlin, I. (1997). Babies, bathwater, guns and roses. In I. McLoughlin & M. Harris (Eds.), Innovation, organizational change and technology (pp. 207-221). London: International Thompson Business Press.
24. McLoughlin, I. (1999). Creative technological change. London: Routledge.
25. McLoughlin, I., & Badham, R. (2005). Political process perspectives on organization and technological change. Human Relations, 58, 827-843.
26. Mueller, F., Sillince, J., Harvey, C., & Howorth, C. (2003). A rounded picture is what we need: Rhetorical strategies, arguments and the negotiation of change in a UK hospital trust. Organization Studies, 25, 75-93.
27. Mumby, D., & Stohl, C. (1991). Power and discourse in organization studies: Absence and the dialectic of control. Discourse & Society, 2, 313-332.
28. Nelson, J., Megill, A., & McCloskey, D. (1987). The rhetoric of the human sciences. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
29. Orlikowski, W. (1992). The duality of technology. Organization Science, 3, 398-427.
30. Perelman, C. (1979). The new rhetoric and the humanities. Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel.
31. Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32. Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage.
33. Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology. London: Sage.
34. Rappert, B. (2003). Technologies, texts and possibilities. Sociology, 37, 565-580.
35. Shepherd, C. (2006). Constructing enterprise resource planning: A thoroughgoing interpretivist perspective on technological change. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 357-376.
36. Shotter, J., & Billig, M. (1998). A Bakhtinian psychology: From out of the heads of individuals and into the dialogues between them. In M. Mayerfield Bell & M. Gardiner (Eds.), Bakhtin and the human sciences: No last words (pp. 13-29). London: Sage.
37. Spicer, A. (2005). The political process of inscribing a new technology. Human Relations, 58, 867-890.
38. Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 35-67.
39. Symon, G. (2005). Exploring resistance from a rhetorical perspective. Organization Studies, 26, 1641-1663.
40. Symon, G., & Clegg, C. (2005). Constructing identity and participation during technological change. Human Relations, 58, 1141-1166.