“Whoa! It's like Spotify but for academic articles.”

Instant Access to Thousands of Journals for just $40/month

(Re)disciplining Organizational Communication Studies:A Response to Broadfoot and Munshi

Dennis K.Mumby University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill CynthiaStohl University of California, Santa Barbara hen we wrote “Disciplining Organizational Communication Studies” Wback in the mid-1990s, we had little idea of the impact—both positive and negative—that the essay would have. In its original conception, Kathy Miller, then editor of MCQ, invited us to contribute an essay to a special issue of MCQ that explored three different but related fields of study: cor- porate, business, and organizational communication. Our charge, at least as we saw it, was to engage in a polemic of sorts that made the case for orga- nizational communication as a vibrant, coherent, and—in some ways— unique field of study that had much to offer organization studies writ large. This uniqueness, we argued, stemmed from a set of core “problematics” that shaped—either implicitly or explicitly—the kinds of questions, assumptions, and research agendas that organizational communication scholars developed about the organizing process. Those problematics—voice, rationality, orga- nization, and the organization–society relationship—were not intended to provide a definitive mapping of the terrain of organizational communication but rather were meant to be “generative” in the sense of promoting dialogue about our sense of identity as a community of scholars, http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Management Communication Quarterly SAGE

(Re)disciplining Organizational Communication Studies:A Response to Broadfoot and Munshi

Abstract

Dennis K.Mumby University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill CynthiaStohl University of California, Santa Barbara hen we wrote “Disciplining Organizational Communication Studies” Wback in the mid-1990s, we had little idea of the impact—both positive and negative—that the essay would have. In its original conception, Kathy Miller, then editor of MCQ, invited us to contribute an essay to a special issue of MCQ that explored three different but related fields of study: cor- porate, business, and organizational communication. Our charge, at least as we saw it, was to engage in a polemic of sorts that made the case for orga- nizational communication as a vibrant, coherent, and—in some ways— unique field of study that had much to offer organization studies writ large. This uniqueness, we argued, stemmed from a set of core “problematics” that shaped—either implicitly or explicitly—the kinds of questions, assumptions, and research agendas that organizational communication scholars developed about the organizing process. Those problematics—voice, rationality, orga- nization, and the organization–society relationship—were not intended to provide a definitive mapping of the terrain of organizational communication but rather were meant to be “generative” in the sense of promoting dialogue about our sense of identity as a community of scholars,
Loading next page...
1
 
/lp/sage/re-disciplining-organizational-communication-studies-a-response-to-RpvCAJE474

Sorry, we don't have permission to share this article on DeepDyve,
but here are related articles that you can start reading right now: