Perspectives on organizational communication: Finding common ground PDF

Preview

Summary

Article View http://proquest.umi.com.library.smu.ca:2048/pqdweb?index=1&sid=... « Back to Article View Databases selected: ABI/INFORM Global, Canadian Periodicals, CBCA Reference NEW! Alerts and more... Perspectives on Organizational Communication. Finding Common Ground Mills, Albert J (REVIEWER...

Description

Article View

http://proquest.umi.com.library.smu.ca:2048/pqdweb?index=1&sid=...

« Back to Article View Databases selected: ABI/INFORM Global, Canadian Periodicals, CBCA Reference

NEW! Alerts and more...

Perspectives on Organizational Communication. Finding Common Ground Mills, Albert J (REVIEWER), Corman, Steven R (EDITOR), Poole, Marshall Scott (EDITOR). Canadian Journal of Sociology. Fall 2002.Vol. 27, Iss. 4; pg. 590 Subjects:

Communication, Organizational effectiveness

Classification Codes

9172

Author(s):

Mills, Albert J (REVIEWER), Corman, Steven R (EDITOR), Poole, Marshall Scott (EDITOR)

Article types:

Book review-No Opinion

Publication title:

Canadian Journal of Sociology. Fall 2002. Vol. 27, Iss. 4; pg. 590

Foreign Title:

Cahiers Canadiens de Sociologie

Source Type:

Periodical

ISSN/ISBN:

03186431

ProQuest document ID: 506032741 Text Word Count

893

Article URL:

http://gateway.proquest.com.library.smu.ca:2048/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_ dat=xri:pqd&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&genre=a rticle&rft_dat=xri:pqd:did=000000506032741&svc_dat=xri:pqil: fmt=text&req_dat=xri:pqil:pq_clntid=18855

Abstract (Article Summary) When I began teaching organization studies in 1978 I found the field extraordinary narrow, gendered and dull for someone trained, like myself, in industrial sociology. One hundred and one ways of making organizations more efficient wasn't my idea of an exciting teaching career. But times were hard and sociologists had to find jobs somewhere, anywhere. Yet, one year later, in 1979 my perspective on organizational analysis was radically changed for the better by the publication of Burrell and Morgan's Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. The book opened up several doors. To begin with, it added to the growing critique of (what it termed) the functionalist dominance of the field. By challenging the apparent one-dimensional character of the field it helped to legitimate other foci and concerns. Enabling many of us to reconstruct organizational analysis as the study of the impact of organization on people, without abandoning traditional concerns with the impact of people on organizational outcomes. Finally, it provided a much needed heuristic for teaching organizational analysis: the notion of organizational paradigms provided a way of comparing and contrasting theoretical approaches, opening each up to scrutiny as we interrogated the underlying ontology, epistemology, and methodology. The work is so enduring that I still use it to frame my Ph.D. course in Management Thought. That, in a nutshell, explains something of the power and value of the book that has become so popular among organizational scholars over the years. Full Text (893 words) Copyright Canadian Journal of Sociology Fall 2002 Steven R. Corman and Marshall Scott Poole, eds, Perspectives on Organizational Communication. Finding Common Ground. New York: The Guildford Press, 2000 When I began teaching organization studies in 1978 I found the field extraordinary narrow, gendered and dull for someone trained, like myself, in industrial sociology. One hundred and one ways of making organizations more efficient wasn't my idea of an exciting teaching career. But times were hard and sociologists had to find jobs somewhere, anywhere. Yet, one year later, in 1979 my perspective on organizational analysis was radically changed for the better by the publication of Burrell and Morgan's Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. The book opened up several doors. To begin with, it added to the growing critique of (what it termed) the functionalist dominance of the field. By challenging the apparent one-dimensional character of the field it helped to legitimate other foci and concerns. Enabling many of us to reconstruct organizational analysis as the study of the impact of organization on people, without abandoning traditional concerns with the impact of people on organizational outcomes. Finally, it provided a much needed heuristic for teaching organizational analysis: the notion of organizational paradigms provided

1 of 2

11/7/04 4:32 PM

Article View

http://proquest.umi.com.library.smu.ca:2048/pqdweb?index=1&sid=...

a way of comparing and contrasting theoretical approaches, opening each up to scrutiny as we interrogated the underlying ontology, epistemology, and methodology. The work is so enduring that I still use it to frame my Ph.D. course in Management Thought. That, in a nutshell, explains something of the power and value of the book that has become so popular among organizational scholars over the years. For some the persuasiveness of Burrell and Morgan's paradigms has also encouraged a strengthening of the barriers between organizational scholars, lending an ideological rationale for standing behind assumed paradigmatic barriers. For Steven R. Corman and Marshall Scott Poole this had engendered a series of paradigmatic wars and paradigmatic "apartheid" that reduces the potential for scholarly endeavour. They argue that "after twenty years of differentiating, it is time... to devote attention to constructing some common ground" (Introduction, p.4). To that end, they have brought together a number of established and emerging scholars in the field of organizational communication to "persuade readers to give more attention to what different perspectives have in common, and less attention to what divides them" (Ibid.) The book has wide appeal but whether or not you think it succeeds will depend on how you approach it in the first place. Although written for and by scholars in the field of organizational communication the focus on paradigmatic debates is of interest to anyone concerned with theory construction and the processes of research in the social sciences. For that reason I found this book to be extraordinarily useful and have adopted it for my Ph.D. teaching. The Introduction [by Steven R. Corman] provides an excellent summary and commentary on paradigmatic debates over the past two decades. The second section of the book consists of "Three Essays" on each of three selected paradigms -interpretive [George Cheney], post-positivist [Katherine I. Miller], and critical [Dennis K. Mumby]. Regardless of your actual take on what each author has to say, each chapter is simply marvelous at providing a summary of a given paradigm, including strengths and weaknesses, application, and potential for future research. Together these four chapters are a gift for anyone teaching organizational analysis, research methods, sociological theory, or the history of idea at the graduate level. I am less enthusiastic about the larger, and third section of the book, "Commentary," which consists of no less than fourteen contributions to the debate. Being less interested than the authors in "finding common ground," I found the section overly long and repetitive. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of nuggets to be mined throughout the chapters (e.g., Robert D. McPhee's table on "Validity Concerns of the Three Perspectives," Chapter 13), useful deconstructions of the three main essays (cf. Stanley Deetz, Chapter 7, on the treatment of social constructionism), and insights into very real outcomes such as restricted publishing opportunities (Gail T. Fairhurst, Chapter 9), and implications for new and untenured faculty (Craig R. Scott and Laurie K. Lewis, Chapter 14). The final section "Afterword" [by Marshall Scott Poole and Owen Hanley Lynch] sums up best the journey and the outcome of the book in stating that, "some readers may find it troubling that, after all the sound and fury, this volume offers no clear resolutions... [but] that good scholarship depends not on the answers we arrive at, but on a continuous process of inquiry and criticism." Finally, try as I could to avoid engaging in paradigmatic conflict, I do want to note one major disappointment and that was the reduction of voice to just three paradigms. Those interested in postcolonialism and feminism will, yet again, be forced to take issue with otherwise useful material that subsumes those voices under the dominance of the critical paradigm: the one chapter on feminism [Angela Trethaway, Chapter 18] serves to highlight rather than illuminate the problem. Saint Mary's University Albert J. Mills Mills' own theorising on organizational paradigms and gender includes, Organizational Rules (with S. Murgatroyd) OUP Press, 1991; Gendering Organizational Analysis (with Peta Tancred) Sage, 1992; Managing the Organizational Melting Pot (with Prasad et al) Sage, 1996; Reading Organization Theory (with T. Simmons) Garamond Press, 1999; and Gender, Identity and the Culture of Organizations (with I. Aaltio-Marjosola), Routledge, 2002. Copyright © 2004 ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions Text-only interface

2 of 2

11/7/04 4:32 PM...