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.
|Publication status||Published - 2011|
- Discourse Analysis
- Organization Studies