The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Rhetoric, Discourse and Argument in Organizational Sense Making: A Reflexive Tale
Abstract
It is argued that rhetoric is a key element in both the thinking and communicat ive processes of ordinary human actors and that this applies as much to the writer of this paper as to the two organizational actors whose words are closely analyzed. Following a rhetorical analysis of a dialogue between two managers encountered within a participant observation research project, two broad dis courses are identified within the organization and these are said to provide sets of discursive resources which are variously drawn on by managers in making sense of their managerial work and in pursuing interests.
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
Cited by
Recasting the home-work relationship: A case of mutual adjustment?
Tietze, S., & Musson, G. (2005) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840605054619 · Cited by 160
Leadership Development in Organizations: Multiple Discourses and Diverse Practice
Mabey, C. (2013) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00344.x · Cited by 128
Sturdy, A., & Fleming, P. (2003) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00359 · Cited by 51
Pillai, K. G., Nair, S. R., Zahoor, N., & Khan, Z. (2024) · Management International Review · doi:10.1007/s11575-024-00547-3 · Cited by 8
“Rheto-ric and language can be effectively used by SEs to propagate ideas related to new social realities validate arguments, and thus build the credibility required to drive social innovation (Dacin et al., 2011; Watson, 1995).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Watson, T. J.
- Venue
- Organization Studies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1995-09
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 805-821
- ISSN
- 0170-8406 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3044
- OpenAlex
- W2108406146
- Cited by
- 312
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.34
- 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
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.
