Legitimization as a rhetorical process in a regulatory agency

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify how the US Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) communicatively engaged in legitimization concerning accreditation. Design/methodology/approach This study utilized the rhetorical analysis approach outlined by Hoffman and Ford (2010) to explore the accreditation-related texts from an online source created by CHEA, Information About Accreditation. Findings The analysis identified three overarching approaches to include: isomorphism to address regulatory legitimacy, organizational identity management to address pragmatic legitimacy, and a dialogic approach to address normative legitimacy. This analysis also developed a new theoretical model for the rhetorical construction of legitimacy, “A Model for the Rhetorical Construction of Legitimacy,” that can be summarized as: organizations foster a type of legitimacy through a legitimizing strategy by demonstrating how the purpose of the legitimizing strategy is achieved by the implementation of the legitimizing strategy. Research limitations/implications Limitations include that data were gathered only from online, web-based texts during a period in which the rhetorical situation was ongoing. Practical implications This study expands research concerning the rhetorical approach to issues management in that it examines the way legitimacy is negotiated through the various rhetorical strategies of an organization. Additionally, information is offered about the rhetorical structure of texts when an organization seeks to legitimize certain ideas. Originality/value This analysis developed a theoretical model for the rhetorical construction of legitimacy, “A Model for the Rhetorical Construction of Legitimacy,” that demonstrates important relationships between legitimizing strategies and types of legitimacy. Understanding these relationships may allow for a better interpretation of how legitimacy theory is represented within a communicative venture.

An inquiry into pseudo‐legitimations: A framework to investigate the clash of managerial legitimations and employees' unfairness claims

“…As some notable studies have shown (Berry, 2017;Erkama & Vaara, 2010;Harmon et al, 2015;Heracleous, 2006;Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005) adherence of an audience with justifiable opinions, rather than with logically undisputable demonstrations (Perelman, 1982). However, this theory also introduced a new distinction according to how the speaker perceives the audience.…”