In response to Burrell & Morgan's (1979) sociological paradigms (functionalist, interpretive, radical humanist, and radical structuralist), Deetz (2001) offers a critique of this discussion citing that "harms were also created" (p. 9). Specifically these harms included reification especially in terms of subjective/objective language that is oppressive to innovative new researchers. "They had to choose between misrepresenting themselves clearly through Burrell & Morgan or representing themselves well but being considered obscure or bad writers" (p. 10). Through his dialogic perspective, Deetz presents a model that contrasts dimensions from the metatheory of representational practices. Two dimensions emerged: 1) local/emergent v. elite/ a priori, and 2) consensus v. dissensus. This reading, Deetz's model, and specifically these two dimensions led me to reflect upon my own research, its goals, and my overall objectives, which is especially pertinent given our research proposal assignment. With these ideas in mind I pose the following questions:
1.) Where do you see yourself as a researcher according to Deetz's model?
2.) Where do you see the field of org comm in terms of Deetz's model and specifically the 2 dimensions?
3.) Do you find this model to be a useful response to Burrell & Morgan?
No comments:
Post a Comment