Communication as a Distinct Mode of Explanation Makes a Difference

Koschmann, Matt

doi:10.1080/03637751.2010.523593

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, this study responds to recent calls in the literature to develop research that demonstrates communication’s capacity as a distinct mode of explanation (Deetz, 2009; Koschmann, 2010), especially in the nonprofit sector (Koschmann, 2012). Rather than seeing communication as merely a tool for expressing already-formed identities that are cognitively processed, this study shows how communication is the constitutive social process that can explain collective identity formation and influence.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 51%

The Communicative Constitution of Collective Identity in Interorganizational Collaboration

Koschmann

2012

Management Communication Quarterly

108

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study reconceptualizes collective identity from a communication perspective using a constitutive model of communication as a theoretical framework. A longitudinal case study is used to explain the complications and inaction of a social services interorganizational collaboration as a lack of collective identity, also tracing the emergence of a new collective identity. Collective identity is theorized as an authoritative text that emerges through communicative practice and is drawn on for certain strategic ends. A communicative model of organizational constitution—based on the ‘Montreal School’ theory of coorientation—shows how textual representations of situated conversations can gain authority through abstraction and reification, providing a mechanism to organize and direct the voluntary actions of diverse stakeholders. Implications for theory and research are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 51%

The Communicative Constitution of Collective Identity in Interorganizational Collaboration

Koschmann

2012

Management Communication Quarterly

108

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Drawing on Luhmann’s (1995) writings, Luhmannians focus on systems (three publications), often in combination with concepts such as autopoiesis , communicative episodes , decision making , and operational closure . These concepts have, in turn, been used to investigate a number of different topics, such as accounting (Fauré, Brummans, Giroux, & Taylor, 2010; Varey, 2006), authority (Benoit-Barné, & Cooren, 2009), collective mind (Cooren, 2004, 2006; Mcphee, Myers, & Trethewey, 2006), conflict (Güney, 2006), interorganizational collaboration (Arnaud, & Mills, 2012; Koschmann, 2013), mindful organizing (Brummans, Hwang, & Cheong, 2013), organizational identity (Cornelissen, Christensen, & Kinuthia, 2012; Piette, 2013), organizational learning (Bisel, Messersmith, & Kelley, 2012; Browning, Sitkin, Sutcliffe, Obstfeld, & Greene, 2000; Matte & Cooren, 2015), spacing and timing (Cooren & Fairhurst, 2004; Cooren, Fox, Robichaud, & Talih, 2005; Vásquez, & Cooren, 2013), strategy (Fauré, & Rouleau, 2011), and tensions (Cooren, Matte, Benoit-Barné, & Brummans, 2013; Koschmann, 2010).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Institutionalization of CCO Scholarship: Trends from 2000 to 2015

Boivin

Brummans

Barker

2017

Management Communication Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents an empirical analysis of the communicative constitution of organizations (CCO) literature to demonstrate how, and to what extent, CCO scholarship is becoming established within organizational communication studies and related fields. We assess the trajectory of CCO research from 2000 to 2015 and, via the application of a neo-institutional perspective, show that CCO scholarship is gaining legitimacy within organizational communication and is becoming increasingly recognized in fields such as management and organization studies, although it has not focused extensively on formalizing its approaches to investigating how organizations are produced in communication. Our analysis reveals key questions and challenges that future CCO scholarship should address to strengthen its institutional legitimacy and influence.

show abstract

“…The work of Craig (1999) and Koschmann (2010) were combined to determine the meaning of communication for this paper. The idea that an inclusive and academically robust meta-model was available and could include the seemingly disparate communication models was appealing because initial forays into the futures literature showed that underlying understandings of communication was mixed.…”

Section: Background and Aimsmentioning

confidence: 99%