Abstract

In this article we respond to Bargiela-Chiappini, Iedema and Mumby.We notice that there is considerable agreement concerning the state of the art of organizational discourse analysis, while also discussing the disagreements. We expand on some of the ontological issues inherent in our argument, further discuss the character of reductionism in organizational discourse analysis, the trappings of a priori assumptions, and, finally, argue that our critics themselves, perhaps inadvertently, tend to repeat the problematic moves we identified in our original article.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.