Dialectical hegemony and the enactment of contradictory definitions in a rural community planning process

Southern Communication Journal

Volumn 71, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 363-382

  Norton, Todd ^a   Sadler, Chris ^b  

^a WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN STEVENS POINT   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85007861630     PISSN: 1041794X     EISSN: 19303203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10417940601000451     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Alvesson, M. & Deetz, S. (2000). Doing critical management research. London: Sage.
2. Ashcraft, K. L. (2005). Resistance through consent? Management Communication Quarterly, 29(1), 67-90.
3. Ashcraft, K. L. & Mumby, D. K. (2004). Reworking gender: A feminist communicology of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4. Association, A. P. (2002, 02/13/2002). Planning for Smart Growth: 2002 State of the States [Website]. Retrieved March, 09, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://www.planning.org/growingsmart/states2002.htm
5. Bantz, C. (1995). Organizing and enactment: Karl Weick and the production of news. In S. R. Corman, S. P. Banks, C. R. Bantz, & M. E. Mayer (Eds.), Foundations of organizational communication (2nd ed., pp. 151-160). White Plains, New York Longman Publishers.
6. Barton, E. (2002). Inductive discourse analysis: Discovering rich features. In E. Barton & G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition (pp. 19—12). Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press.
7. Beauregard, R. A. (2001). The multiplicities of planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20(4), 437-439.
8. Berry, J. M. (1981). Beyond citizen participation: Effective advocacy before administrative agencies. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 17(4), 463—177.
9. Chouliaraki, L. (2000). Political discourse in the news: Democratizing responsibility or aestheticiz- ing politics? Discourse & Society, 11(3), 293-314.
10. Chouliaraki, L. & Fairclough, N. L. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
11. Clair, R. P. (1993). The use of framing devices to sequester organizational narratives: Hegemony and harassment. Communication Monographs, 60(2), 113-136.
12. Clair, R. P. (1994). Hegemony and harassment: A discursive practice. In S. G. Bingham (Ed.), Conceptualizing sexual harassment as discursive practice. Westport, CT: Praeger.
13. Collin, R. W. & Beadey, T. (1995). Environmental racism: A challenge to community development. Journal of Black Studies, 25, 354-377.
14. Condit, C. M. (1994). Hegemony in a mass-mediated society: Concordance about reproductive technologies. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 11(3), 205-230.
15. Deetz, S. (1995). Transforming communication, transforming business: Building responsive and responsible workplaces. Cresswill, NJ: Hampton Press.
16. Deetz, S. (2005). Critical theory. In S. May & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), Engaging organizational communication theory: Multiple perspectives (pp. 85-111). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17. Deetz, S. & Mumby, D. K. (1989). Power, discourse, and the workplace: Reclaiming the critical tradition. In J. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 13, pp. 18—17). Newberry Park, CA: Sage.
18. Drabenstott, M. (2001). New policies for a new rural America. International Regional Science Review, 24(1), 3-15.
19. Esparza, A. X. & Carruthers, J. I. (2000). Land use planning and exurbanization in the rural mountain west: Evidence from Arizona. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20(1), 23-36.
20. Flemming, P. & Sewell, G. (2002). Looking for the good soldier, Svejk: Alternative modalities of resistance in the contemporary workplace. Sociology, 36(4), 857-873.
21. Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
22. Galtung, J. (1988). Environmental deterioration: A historical (and futurological) perspective. In D. Canter, M. Krampen, & D. Stea (Eds.), New directions in the environmental participation (vVol. 3, pp. 131-143). Aldershot, England: Avebury.
23. Gherardi, S. (1995). Gender, symbolism and organizational cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24. Gramsci, A. (1994). Letters from prison (Vol. 2). New York: Columbia University Press.
25. Grossberg, L. (2003). History, politics and postmodernism: Stuart Hall and cultural studies. In D. Morley & K.-H. Chen (Eds.), Critical dialogues in cultural studies (pp. 150-173). New York: Routledge.
26. Hall, R. H. (1980). Closed-system, open-system, and contingency-choice perspectives. In A. Etzioni & E. W. Lehman (Eds.), A sociological reader on complex organizations (pp. 32-43). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
27. Heydebrand, W. (1980). Organizational contradictions in public bureaucracies: Toward a Marxian theory of organizations. In A. Etzioni & E. W. Lehman (Eds.), A sociological reader on complex organizations (Vol. 3, pp. 56-73). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
28. Hibbard, M. & Lurie, S. (2000). Saving land but losing ground: Challenges to community planning in the era of participation. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20(2), 187-195.
29. Hilhorst, J. G. M. (1971). Regional planning: A systems approach. Rotterdam: Rotterdam University Press.
30. Jordan, J. W. (2003). Sabotage or performed compliance: Rhetorics of resistance in temp worker discourse. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59(1), 19-41.
31. Keating, W. D. & Krumholz, N. (2000). Neighborhood planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20(1), 111-114.
32. King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & Susel, B. O. N. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58(4), 317-326.
33. Kondo, D. K. (1990). Crafting selves: Power, gender, and discourses of identity in a Japanese workplace. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34. Legislature, W. S. (2001, September, 2003). Statutory Language Changes from 1999 Wisconsin Act 9, and Technical Revisions from AB 872 [pdf file of legislation]. Wisconsin Division of Intergovernmental Relations. Retrieved July, 10, 2004, from http://www.doa.state.wi.us/dir/documents/compplanstats.pdf
35. Margerum, R. D. (2002). Collaborative planning: Building consensus and building a distinct model for practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(3), 237-253.
36. Mauro, T. (2005, June 27). Majority gives nod to bulldozers: Authority to determine ‘public use’ for land takings largely given to local government. Connecticut Law Tribune, 1.
37. McComas, K. (2001). Theory' and practice of public meetings. Communication Theory, 1 i(l), 36-55.
38. McGlasnan, D. J. & Williams, E. (2003). Stakeholder involvement in coastal decision-making processes. Local Environment, 8(1), 85-95.
39. McPhee, R. D. & Poole, M. S. (2001). Organizational structures and configurations. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 503-543). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40. Montgomery, B. M. & Baxter, L. A. (1998). A guide to studying dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships. In B. M. Montgomery & L. A. Baxter (Eds.) Dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships (pp. 1-15). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
41. Mumby, D. K. (1988). Communication and power in organizations: Discourse, ideology, and domination. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
42. Mumby, D. K. (1997a). Modernism, postmodernism, and communication studies: A rereading of an ongoing debate. Communication Theory, 7(1), 1-28.
43. Mumby, D. K. (1997b). The problem of hegemony: Rereading Gramsci for organizational communication studies. Western Journal of Communication, 62(4), 343-375.
44. Mumby, D. K. (2005). Theorizing resistance in organization studies. Management Communication Quarterly, 29(1), 19—44.
45. Mumby, D. K. & Ashcraft, K. L. (2006). Organizational communication studies and gendered organization: A response to Martin and Collinson. Gender, Work, and Organization, 23(1), 68-90.
46. Mumby, D. K. & Clair, R. P. (1997). Organizational discourse. In T. A. v. Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (Vol. 2, pp. 181-205). London: Sage.
47. Pitt, K. (2002). Being a new capitalist mother. Discourse & Society, 13(2), 251-267.
48. Putnam, L. L. & Fairhurst, G. T. (2001). Discourse analysis in organizations: Issues and concerns. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 78-136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49. Rakow, L. F., Belter, B., Drystad, H., Hallsten, J., Johnson, J., & Indvik, K. (2003). The talk of movers and shakers: Class conflict in the making of a community disaster. Southern Communication Journal, 69(1), 37-50.
50. Roy, A. (2001). A “public” muse: On planning convictions and feminist contentions. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(2), 109-126.
51. Sanchez, E., Cronick, K., & Wiesenfeld, E. (1988). Psychological variables in participation: A case study. In D. Canter, M. Krampen, & D. Stea (Eds.), New directions in the environmental participation (Vol. 3, pp. 1-17). Aldershot, England: Avebury.
52. Sommer, R. (1988). A better world not Utopia. In D. Canter, M. Krampen, & D. Stea (Eds.), New directions in the environmental participation (Vol. 3, pp. 144-152). Aldershot, England: Avebury.
53. Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers.
54. Takahashi, L. M. & Smutny, G. (2001). Collaboration among small community-based organizations: Strategies and challenges in turbulent environments. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(2), 141-153.
55. Tauxe, C. S. (1995). Marginalizing public participation in local planning: An ethnographic account. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(4), 471—181.
56. Taylor, S. (2001). Locating and conducting discourse analytic research. In M. Wetherall, S. Taylor, & S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (pp. 5—18). London: Sage.
57. Thomas, J. (1993). Doing critical ethnography. Newbury Park: Sage.
58. Townsley, N. C. & Geist, P. (2000). The discursive enactment of hegemony: Sexual harassment and academic organizing. Western Journal of Communication, 64(2), 190-218.
59. Umemoto, K. (2001). Walking in another’s shoes: Epistemological challenges in participatory planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(1), 17-31.
60. van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourse as interaction in society. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction. Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (Vol. 2, pp. 1-37). London: Sage.
61. Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
62. Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretive repertoires: Conversation analysis and poststructuralism in dialogue. Discourse & Society, 9(3), 387-412.
63. Williams, R. (1988). Marxism and literature. In D. H. Richter (Ed.), The critical tradition: Classic texts and contemporary trends (pp. 1154-1172). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
64. Wood, L. A. & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
65. Zoning, T. A. C. O. C. P. A. (1928, 02/13/2002). A Standard City Planning Enabling Act. American Planning Association. Retrieved February 11, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http:// www.planning.org/growingsmart/enablingacts.htm.