The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Power and Discourse in Organization Studies: Absence and the Dialectic of Control
Abstract
This paper argues for a postmodern conception of power in which discourse is conceived as the principal medium through which power relations are maintained and reproduced. Specifically, power is identified as a pervasive characteristic of organizational life which constitutes the identity of organization members. Discourse, as a structured social practice, creates meaning formations rooted in a system of presence and absence which systematically privileges and marginalizes different organizational experiences. By way of exemplification, three organizational texts are subject to a deconstructive analysis in order to explicate the processes through which meaning structures are produced and reproduced organizationally.
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
Selections from the prison notebooks
Gramsci, A. (2020) · The Applied Theatre Reader · doi:10.4324/9780429355363-27 · Cited by 9,750
Cited by
Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams
Barker, J. R. (1993) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393374 · Cited by 2,305
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations: A Constitutive Approach
Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1162421 · Cited by 1,116
1 Constitutional Amendments: “Materializing” Organizational Communication
Ashcraft, K. L., Kuhn, T. R., & Cooren, F. (2009) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520903047186 · Cited by 731
Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (1998) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.9.2.217 · Cited by 614
Chattopadhyay, P., Tluchowska, M., & George, E. (2004) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/20159028 · Cited by 362
Metadata
- Authors
- Mumby, D. K., & Stohl, C.
- Venue
- Discourse & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1991-07
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 313-332
- ISSN
- 0957-9265 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-3624
- OpenAlex
- W1982880727
- Cited by
- 298
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.06
- 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.
