Rick Iedema , Discourses of post-bureaucratic organization
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7902406 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Christina Wasson (University of North Texas, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2006 |
| Volume | 35 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 135-140 |
| Publication date | 2006-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Language in Society (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0047-4045 • E-ISSN: 1469-8013 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0047404506220050 |
| OpenAlex | W1979925020 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 3 |
Rick Iedema , Discourses of post-bureaucratic organization . Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2003. Pp. ix, 234. Hb $82.00. Discourses of post-bureaucratic organization represents an ambitious effort by Rick Iedema to synthesize the fields of discourse studies and organization studies. Not since Deirdre Boden's The business of talk (1994) has this feat been attempted in such depth by a scholar whose starting point is linguistics (as opposed to management theory). Of course, each of the two fields being synthesized includes a large number of diverse perspectives. Iedema develops his theoretical paradigm primarily by highlighting and intertwining the strands of social semiotics and conceptualizations of the “post-bureaucratic organization.” He weaves these together with the aid of Foucauldian notions of discourse and governmentality. In this review, I will first summarize Iedema's argument and then offer an assessment of its strengths and limitations. My description of the book will go into some detail as a service to potential readers, because, in fact, this volume is not easy to read
Argument (complex analysis) · Bureaucracy · Epistemology · Governmentality · Linguistics · Management · Organization studies · Organizational theory · Point (geometry) · Political science · Politics · Semiotics · Sociology · Business Strategy and Innovation · Law · Philosophy
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |