Steven R Corman and Marshall Scott Poole ed of the present day York: Guilford.

Steven R Corman and Marshall Scott Poole ed of the present day York: Guilford, 2000. 265 pp $2500 paper.

This edited part is the product of a panel discussion from the 1997 National Communication Association convention. As Corman, the first editor of the part reveals in his introduction, he organized this panel because he had a "growing touch about the tone of scholarly disagreement about metatheory" in the field of organizational communication (p 3) Corman believes that there is an "increasing stridency" among proponent of different perspectives, which has l to an "apartheid for paradigms." Thus, the goal of the work as presented on the back conceal is "to identify theoretical stirs and scholarly positions that can help the public with divergent views compare or integrate their ideas instead of waging war."

To find public ground among these warring factions, Corman and Poole first enlist the expertise of three leaders in the field to map revealed the terrain: Katherine Miller, a post-positivist; George Cheney, an interpretivist; and Dennis Mumby a critical theorist. These authors contribute the "Three Essays" that constitute the main section of the verse Each author writes a long essay that discusses the contribution of his or her representative perspective to organizational communication and possible avenues for frequent ground among these three perspectives. Corman and Poole then display a battalion of other scholars, including Barnett, Conrad, Deetz Eisenberg, Fairhurst, Jackson, Krizek, Krone McPhee, Scott and Lewis, Seibold and Flanagin, Stohl, Taylor, and Trethewey, to put forward commentaries on the "Three Essays" and to discuss their unique spins forward the presumed paradigm war.

Ironically, not many if any of these authors be seen to believe that there really is a war, and the work comes off instead as an intellectual peace rally. In an afterword following the commentaries, Poole and Lynch (pp 222-223) summarize each author's proposal for making paradigmatic be fond of not war:

Barnett: Focus forward the structure of concepts.

Cheney: Search for perspective in incongruity.

Conrad: Avoid the temptation to engage in debunking rhetoric.

Corman: Abandon the 'paradigm mentality" in favor of a search for often met with ground.

Deetz: Focus more onward social problems and less in succession theoretical debates.

Eisenberg: Be hospitable to family who are not like you.

Fairhurst: Be prepared for resistance to cross-paradigm research.

Jackson: Adopt a more outward orientation.

Krizek: Practice after-action review.

Krone: Really consideration other perspectives.

McPhee: Engage others' validity concerns

Miller: Do not essentialize and consider to empirical regularities for linkages.

Mumby: Focus forward problematics that are central to the discipline.

Scott and Lewis: Emphasize peace areas over methods choices.

Seibold and Flanagin: Think of yourself as a site for integration.

Stohl: Practice multilingualism with defer to to perspectives.

Taylor: Focus forward communication as our common [i]or[/i] complement of study.

Trethewey: Live productively with contradictions, ambiguities, and ironies.

Not surprisingly, since this volume came out of a panel at a National Communication Association convention, the audience for this work is likely restricted to professors and graduate close examiners in communication departments who meditation organizational communication. There are several "inside" respects known mostly by people in this discipline, including the 1981 Alta conversation "Interpretive Approaches to Organizational Communication," and the extensive criticism generated upon one of the discipline's e-mail listprocs (CRTNET) about a controversial article that was published in the journal true copy and Performance Quarterly. In addition, many of the contributions in the part are as much about the personalities and politics of the communication discipline as about the perspectives that guide research in the discipline. As Poole and Lynch write in their afterword, "many of the annotations have autobiographical, even confessional passages" in which "authors and commentators rehearse their personal experiences related to variou s perspectives" (p. 217). Finally, the constant use of first names from top to toe the book makes it present the appearance at times to be an elaborated transcript of the NCA interview panel itself.

Accordingly, I do not believe that this work would be of much interest to organizational scholars in management, sociology, psychology or other disciplines. Scholars in these disciplines are familiar with the same paradigm wars that have been engaged in by the agency of their own troops. Even those communication scholars who might want to use this part in a graduate seminar in organizational communication, however, would be advised to require an additional passage that summarizes more of the research sweeps and findings in this field, since this part emphasizes broader metatheoretical debates rather than specific theoretical universals or research findings.

Perspectives forward Organizational Communication is the produce of a very interesting parley panel and has the noble goal of promoting constructive dialogue among proponent who use different perspectives to studious mood organizational communication. The editors and contributors accomplish this goal competently and with great civility. Personally speaking, I would have preferr a more spirited debate. With a literal war against the Taliban invading my television disguise as I write this review, however, I take for granted this book shows that it may self-same well be prudent to maintain a cease-fire from our metaphoric paradigm war at this juncture

...

Home