Deetz (2001) analyzed the various goals and assumptions of different organizational communication research programs, and argued that the ultimate goal of the researcher is to engage in discussion, the purpose of which is not to “get it right”, but to “reclaim the suppressed tensions and conflicts among the many contemporary stakeholders to negotiate a life together based in appreciation of difference and responsive decision making” (p. 39).
This article helped me to reflect on my own question from last week about the ways in which postmodern critiques of social science research inform new goals for organizational communication research. It also caused me to think more about last week's class discussion during which we touched on common ground and “closure". With our previous class discussion in mind, I ask:
- How might we lessen our discomfort with uncertainty that causes us to privilege consensus over dissensus?
- In what ways does accepting contradiction and dialogical tensions as beneficial realities of human communication help us to work with tension, rather than “get rid of” or “manage” it?
- What are the potential benefits of engaging in research (and class discussions) with the goal, not of defining concepts or “answering” questions, but of challenging assumptions and fixed meanings?
No comments:
Post a Comment