Contradictions, transitions, and materiality in organizing processes: An activity theory perspective

First Monday

Volumn 16, Issue 6, 2011, Pages

  Foot, Kirsten ^a   Groleau, Carole ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80052179938     PISSN: 13960466     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5210/fm.v16i6.3479     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. M.W. Allen, J.M. Gotcher, and J.H. Seibert, 1993. "A decade of organizational communication research: Journal articles 1980-1991," Communication Yearbook, volume 16, pp. 252-330.
2. N. Artemeva and A. Freedman, 2001. "'Just the boys playing on computers': An activity analysis of differences in the cultures of two engineering firms," Journal of Business and Technical Communication, volume 15, number 2, pp. 164-194.
3. K.L. Ashcraft and D.K. Mumby, 2004. Reworking gender: A feminist communicology of organization. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
4. F. Blackler, N. Crump, and S. McDonald, 2000. "Organizing processes in complex activity networks," Organization, volume 7, number 2, pp. 277-300.
5. F. Blackler, N. Crump, and S. McDonald, 1999. "Managing experts and competing through innovation: An activity theoretical analysis," Organization, volume 6, number 1, pp. 5-31.
6. N.I. Boer, 2005. Knowledge sharing within organizations: A situated and relational perspective. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Erasmus Research Institute of Management.
7. H. Canary, 2010. "Structurating activity theory: An integrative approach to policy knowledge," Communication Theory, volume 20, number 1, pp. 21-49.
8. H. Canary, 2007. "The communicative creation of policy knowledge: A structurating activity approach," unpublished dissertation, Arizona State University, Phoenix.
9. H. Canary and R. McPhee, 2009. "The mediation of policy knowledge: An interpretive analysis of intersecting activity systems," Management Communication Quarterly, volume 23, number 2, pp. 147-187.
10. Y. Engeström, 1999a. "Activity theory and individual and social transformation," In: Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, and R.-L. Punamäki (editors). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19-38.
11. Y. Engeström, 1999b. "Communication, discourse, and activity," Communication Review, volume 3, numbers 1-2, pp. 165-185.
12. Y. Engeström, 1999c. "Expansive visibilization of work: An activity-theoretical perspective," Computer Supported Cooperative Work, volume 8, numbers 1-2, pp. 63-93.
13. Y. Engeström, 1999d. "Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice," In: Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, and R.-L. Punamäki (editors). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 377-406.
14. Y. Engeström, 1990. Learning, working and imagining: Twelve studies in activity theory. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
15. Y. Engeström, 1987. Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
16. K.A. Foot, 2001. "Cultural-historical activity theory as practice theory: Illuminating the development of a conflict-monitoring network," Communication Theory, volume 11, number 1, pp. 56-83.
17. A.L. George and A. Bennett, 2005. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
18. A. Giddens, 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
19. C. Groleau, 2008. "Integrative technologies in the workplace: Using distributed cognition to frame the challenges associated with their implementation," In: B. Grabot, A. Mayère, and I. Bazet (editors). ERP systems and organisational change: A socio-technical insight. London: Springe, pp. 27-46.
20. C. Groleau, 2006. "One phenomenon, two lenses: Apprehending collective action from the perspectives of coorientation and activity theories" In: F. Cooren, J.R. Taylor, and E.J. Van Every (editors). Communication as organizing: Empirical and theoretical explorations in the dynamic of text and conversation. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Earlbaum, pp. 157-177.
21. C. Groleau, C. Demers, M. Lalancette, and M. Barros, in press. "From hand drawings to computer visuals: Confronting situated and institutionalized practices in an architecture firm," Organization Science.
22. C. Groleau and A. Mayère, 2009. "Médecins avec ou sans frontière: Contradiction et transformation des pratiques professionnelles," Sciences de la Société, volume 76, pp. 102-119.
23. C. Groleau and Y. Engeström, 2002. "Contradiction as trigger for change: An activity-theoretical approach to computerization," paper presented at the Academy of Management.
24. M. Hasu and Y. Engeström, 2000. "Measurement in action: An activity-theoretical perspective on producer-user interaction," International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, volume 53, number 1, pp. 61-89.
25. J. Hong and Y. Engeström, 2004. "Changing principles of communication between Chinese managers and workers: Confucian authority chains and Guanxi as social networking," Management Communication Quarterly, volume 17, number 4, pp. 552-585.
26. P. Jarzabkowski, 2004. "Strategic practices: An activity theory perspective on continuity and change," Journal of Management Studies, volume 40, number 1, pp. 23-55.
27. E. Jones, B. Watson, J. Gardner, and C. Gallois, 2004. "Organizational communication: Challenges for the new century," Journal of Communication, volume 54, number 4, pp. 722-750.
28. K. Krippendorf, 1984. "Paradox and information," Progress in Communication Sciences, volume 5, pp. 45-72.
29. T. Kuhn, (editor), 2011. Matters of communication: Political, cultural, and technological challenges to communication theorizing. New York: Hampton Press.
30. K. Kuutti, 1996. "Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research," In: B. Nardi (editor). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 17-44.
31. P.M. Leonardi, B. Nardi, and J. Kallinikos (editors), forthcoming. Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
32. L.K. Lewis and D.R. Seibold, 1998. "Reconceptualizing organizational change implementation as a communication problem: A review of literature and research agenda," Communication Yearbook, volume 21, pp. 93-151.
33. D.K. Mumby, 2005. "Theorizing resistance in organization studies: A dialectical approach," Management Communication Quarterly, volume 19, number 1, pp. 1-26.
34. F. Prenkert, 2006. "A theory of organizing informed by activity theory: The locus of paradox, source of change," Journal of Organizational Change Management, volume 19, number 4, pp. 471-490.
35. L.L. Putnam, 1986. "Contradictions and paradoxes in organizations," In: L. Thayer (editor). Organization-communication: Emerging perspectives. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, pp. 151-167.
36. L.L. Putnam and G.T. Fairhurst, 2001. "Discourse analysis in organizations: Issues and concerns," In: F.M. Jablin and L.L. Putnam (editors). The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods. Thousand Oaks: Calif.: Sage, pp. 78-136.
37. C. Stohl and G. Cheney, 2001. "Participatory processes/paradoxical practice: Communication and the dilemmas of organizational democracy," Management Communication Quarterly, volume 14, number 3, pp. 349-407.
38. U.N. High Commission for Refugees, 1995. Rapporteur's report on UNHCR-convened meeting in Moscow on early warning work covering the CIS region.
39. J.W. Warhola, 1996. Politicized ethnicity in the Russian Federation: Dilemmas of state formation. Lewiston, N,Y,: Edwin Mellen Press.