Martin(1992) indicated that studies conducted from a fragmentation viewpoint focus on ambiguity as the essence of culture. To examine more complicated organizational problems, for instance, the company's practice: financial and nonfinancial allocations, open office spaces, consensual decision-making, lateral promotion and transfer polices and across-the-board pay cut as well as the concern for the employee’s well-beings. The analysis from the fragmentation viewpoint is clarified, but my question is, how does dialogic perspective apply to solve the complex problems in the organization?
Taylor(2005) explains postmodernism encourages us to examine the complex and conflicted relations that org members actually have with power.
1.Basic level-messy, evolving choices that org members make in accepting, negotiating and resisting domination
2.More complex level-how those choices and identifications have been shaped historically by discursive processes
The critical perspective research also study the power and resistance, Cheney(2000) pointed out that the critical approach could enable us to move beyond mere observables and thus allows us to make provocative judgments about “what is really going on” in the situation as understood from some reasonably coherent, value-based standpoint such as featuring interpretation in terms of class, gender, ethnicity, managerial expertise, or some other power relations and group dominance.
How is the power relations in postmodern research distinct from the critical (or critical interpretive) research and what are the similarities?
No comments:
Post a Comment