The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Organizational Discourse: Domains, Debates, and Directions
Abstract
Interest in the analysis of organizational discourse has expanded rapidly over the last two decades. In this article, we reflect critically on organizational discourse analysis as an approach to the study of organizations and management, highlighting both its strengths and areas of challenge. We begin with an explanation of the nature of organizational discourse analysis and outline some of the more significant contributions made to date. We then discuss existing classifications of approaches to the study of organizational discourse and suggest that they fall into two main categories: classifications by level of analysis and classifications by type of method. We argue that both of these approaches are inherently problematic and present an alternative way to understand the varieties of approaches to the analysis of organizational discourse based on within domain and across domain characterizations. We conclude with a discussion of the challenges that remain in the development of organizational discourse as an area of study and point to some of the opportunities for important and unique contributions to our understanding of organizations and management that this family of methods brings.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Institutional conditions for diffusion
Strang, D., & Meyer, J. W. (1993) · Theory and Society · doi:10.1007/bf00993595 · Cited by 2,114
Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2010) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416521003654160 · Cited by 733
Creed, W. E. D., Scully, M. A., & Austin, J. R. (2002) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.13.5.475.7814 · Cited by 614
‘Being regimented’: Aspiration, discipline and identity work in the British parachute regiment
Thornborrow, T., & Brown, A. D. (2009) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840608101140 · Cited by 388
Cited by
The Discursive Perspective of Market Categorization: Interaction, Power, and Context
Grodal, S., & Kahl, S. J. (2017) · Research in the Sociology of Organizations · doi:10.1108/s0733-558x20170000051004 · Cited by 50
Metadata
- Authors
- Phillips, N., & Oswick, C.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Annals
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2012-04-26
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 435-481
- ISSN
- 1941-6067 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2014332567
- Cited by
- 261
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 37.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Organizational Discourse: Domains, Debates, and Directions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/19416520.2012.681558
- The paper
- Phillips, N., & Oswick, C. (2012). Organizational Discourse: Domains, Debates, and Directions. Academy of Management Annals. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2012.681558
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.