C&J 544, Graduate Seminar: Organizational Communication

Spring 2008; University of New Mexico

Asst. Professor: Dr. Pam Lutgen-Sandvik

Department of Communication and Journalism

Email: through WebCT course site at or plutgen@unm.edu

Office hours: By appointment AND Tuesday 5:30 - 6:30 p.m., Wednesday 2:30 - 3:30

Office Location: C&J 221; Phone: 331-4724 (cell)

Course Description

This is a survey course designed to expose graduate students to organizational communication theory, perspectives, methods and current issues. Students will be exposed to classical writings as well as current developments.

COURSE GOALS

1. To provide in-depth exposure to organizational communication theory and research.

2. To understand the application of theory to organizations and organizational members.

3. To apply communication concepts, models, and theories using multiple perspectives.

4. To learn how to analyze research for its strengths and weaknesses.

5. To recognize and explore the ethical issues of organizational communication.

Course Readings (Books available at UNM Bookstore)

1. Jablin, F.M. & Putnam, L.L., Eds. (2001). The new handbook of organizational communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

2. Supplemental Readings. I will either copy and distribute CDs with these readings or post on WebCT course site (You must have a UNM net ID)

Class Assignments/Requirements

**All written assignments will be submitted via the WebCT course site “Assignment” link.

1. Reading: Since this is a graduate survey course of literature in the field of organizational communication, there is a significant level of reading. I have tried to limit it to 150 pages per week and many weeks involve less. The main point of a survey seminar is to read the classical works and recent developments in the field.

You are required to read all the assigned Core Readings. Allow more than one day for it—spread it out through the week, or at least the weekend. The reading will get easier as we go through the term, partly because you are building up background knowledge that makes each new article more intelligible, and partly because you are getting more practice in reading this kind of literature. You may also want to read Report Options that are applicable to your final project.

2. Report Options (30 points; 3 reports, 10 points each) One of the key goals in the course is to expose students to as much of the literature about organizational communication as possible. To do this, we will “divide and conquer,” so to speak. To cover more territory than we could if everyone were required to read all cited pieces in the syllabus, each student will read and summarize five Report Options; these are listed in the syllabus according to weekly topics. This will provide everyone with an extensive abstract database of important articles. Students will choose which article they want to report—probably during week two. These 1-2 page, single-spaced reports should include:

1. Your name and date report is presented.

2. The full citation of the article (APA style)

3. A summary of the article in full sentence/paragraph form with page numbers indicating location of material quoted or paraphrased

4. At the end of the report, take a position on the piece, noting one or two strengths, weaknesses/limitations, or suggestions for future research.

5. Bring Report copies for all your classmates the day of presentation.

6. Post a copy the day of class to WebCT “Assignments” “Report 1”, “Report 2”, etc. Reports are due and should be posted early in the day of class at which they are listed in the syllabus.

Students will discuss the reports in five minute informal presentations. Reports will be graded based on a succinct yet meaningful summary, clarity of position, appropriate use of theoretical concepts, and quality of presentation/writing. See WebCT for a report example.

3. Discussion-Leading. (50 points) Each student will lead discussion for the assigned readings for one day. Discussion-leading will provide an opportunity to practice concept-integration skills and presentation abilities. Dates for discussion-leading will be chosen within the first two weeks of class. See WebCT site for more information about discussion leading. Discussion leaders will be graded upon thoughtfulness and timeliness of discussion questions; thoroughness, readability and format of summary outline; liveliness and organization of presentation / discussion-leading; and command of topic.

Discussion leaders should

I. PREPARATION

a. Prepare and post (via WebCT) three to five (3-5) discussion questions for students to think about and respond to verbally in class.

Ö Post discussion questions three days before class (by Sunday night) via WebCT “Discussion”

b. Prepare and post (via WebCT) a summary outline that delineates main points of the required readings for that week -- include page numbers intermittently whether or not directly quoting material.

Ö Post outline day before class (By Tuesday night) via WebCT “Assignments; Discussion Leading”

6. Bring copies of outline for classmates

II. DISCUSSION LEADING (Goal: review, integrate, expand readings’ main concepts)

a. Briefly review all readings’ main points to begin discussion

b. Then for each question, review points relevant to question you’ve crafted

c. Allow classmates to respond rather than providing answers

4. Course Paper or Project

Overview: This project is the capstone of the course. It is your chance to apply theories/concepts in a manner consistent with your objectives. The final project should be approximately 15- 20 pages of text (no more than 25) and includes an oral presentation the last day of class. I believe that you have a good idea about what kind of project best fits your needs and interests at this point in time in your life. I also think there are many types of projects that can be relevant to demonstrate competency in the subject. Thus, I am going to provide you with a list of possible projects, and you should choose the one that best fits your interests/needs. Please notice that there is an “Other” category—if you have another idea, talk with me about it.

I. ELEMENTS OF FINAL PROJECT

1. Paper Draft (50 points): Write a draft of your semester paper/project—the more complete the better. I will read/review drafts and peers will exchange papers and provide peer feedback and suggestions to each other. I will assign exchange partners.

2. Peer Feedback (50 points): Provide feedback and suggestions to one of your colleagues’ papers. Use this as an opportunity to practice skills in reviewing scholarly papers (something many of you will do in the future as you review conference papers and/or sit on editorial boards). Submit feedback to me and the author.

3. Final Project/Paper (150 points): See below for options

4. Project/Paper Presentation (50 points): During the last class period, students will give a 10-to-15-minute oral presentation of their final paper/project. Use this as an opportunity to practice a conference-quality presentation, complete with visual aids if appropriate.

PAPER/PROJECT OPTIONS

A. Critical Literature Review. This option will provide you the opportunity to gain expertise in a specific aspect of organizational communication. You are required to review a line of research on a specific aspect of organizational communication. For example, you could look at leadership, organizational climate, motivation, voice/empowerment, critical theory, etc. There are a great number of topics you could explore. For this assignment, you will need to complete a thorough review of the literature in relevant journals, books, and edited books on the topic (not textbooks—completing a literature review via a textbook is superficial). Then, you will need to provide a summary of each of the studies in the line of research. You will need to organize the research in some meaningful pattern. In a critical review, you are making an argument about what is there, the limitations of the current literature, and suggestions for overcoming the limitations (i.e., offering a research agenda). The research agenda should suggest some concrete ideas for what is needed next. I suggest examples of specific critical reviews if you are interested. The report should have an introduction, literature review (divided in relevant sections), and a research agenda. Select this option if you are interested in research or if you want to get started on the literature review for you thesis/dissertation. This paper can be presented at a conference and an extended/revised review could be published.

B. Research Proposal- Prospectus. This option is similar to Option A. There are two differences. First, the literature review in a proposal is very focused. Rather than critiquing the literature, you use the literature to advance research questions/hypotheses that you wish to study (e.g., questions or hypotheses that haven’t been addressed yet). Second, instead of offering a research agenda, you’ll offer a specific methodological proposal. You will write the “first part” of a prospective research paper, proposing a study or initiating a literature review or theoretical argument. That is, you’ll propose a specific study designed to answer your research questions and/or test your hypotheses. You will design an actual study, but not carry it out. You will need to explain the specific methods that you would use to gather data to answer your research questions. Essentially you’ll need to describe the type of study (ethnography, survey, focus groups, experiment, etc.), the participants/organization of study, the way you would collect data and the type of data you plan to collect (e.g., instruments in a survey), and how you would analyze the data. The topic for this assignment is open as long as it focuses on some aspect of organizational communication. The prospectus should include an introduction, literature review, and methods proposed. Select this option if you want to pursue a specific research topic and plan on carrying out the study (perhaps via an independent study with me). This proposal should lead to a conference paper and publication and could help you set up your research agenda. This option is for those of you pursuing a career in academia or wanting to prepare for your thesis/dissertation.

C. Research Project. You may have a specific project in mind right now and would like to carry it out this semester. This paper can be about any topic on organizational communication and can use any specific research method (e.g., survey, interviews, experimental design, ethnography, etc.). For this project, you’ll need to include an introduction, literature review, methods, results, and discussion. Select this option if you are pursuing a career in academia. The final result can lead to a conference paper and/or publication.

D. Organizational Communication Assessment and Training. This option is to complete an organizational communication assessment, write up a report on your findings, and design a training to address the findings (but not necessarily carry out the training). If you select this option, you’ll need to diagnose the health of a system’s organizational communication behavior and offer suggestions of how to address the problems, if there are some (e.g., organization where you work, community group, church, etc.). The assessment should be based on theories and concepts from class and your readings. Based on the theory and what the system wants to know, you design methods (e.g., survey and interviews) that will help you assess the communication issue. You’ll need to choose a system on your own. The report includes an abbreviated literature review and methods, results, and discussion sections. I have sample assessments/training manuals for review. Select this option if you are interested in training and consulting or if you want to work as a communication specialist in human resources or organizational development. You may also focus on the training portion rather than the assessment. This would involve the development of a training manual as the focus of the assignment.

E. Theory construction. As you review the theories we cover, you may be thinking to yourself that the theories are lacking in some way (e.g., a key aspect about organizational communication hasn’t been adequately covered). Thus, you may want to develop your own theory about a particular aspect of organizational communication. You can choose a variety of ways to develop the theory—grounded theory approach, verification model (the traditional scientific method of identifying assumptions and propositions to be tested), personal standpoints, or critical theory. I can point you in the direction of exemplars of each of these approaches (and we will discuss them briefly during class). This option is probably the hardest of all. However, with risk comes great reward, and I will take into account when grading. Select this option if theory fascinates you or if you want to become an academician and researcher.

F. Case Study. Perhaps there is a specific organizational communication situation that is of interest. You may want to learn more about the history of the organizational situation, why it has occurred, or what can be done. You can research about this project and write it up as a case study. The research can be library (articles) or empirical (interviewing people). The situation can be something local, national, or international. The situation should have a broad appeal regardless (e.g., the lessons learned are important for many people). I can share with you some sample case studies, or you can copy the format of one you’ve read, and some tips for writing case studies. Select this option if you like in-depth research about a single topic. There are both practical and theoretical benefits to case studies.

G. Other. If you can think of a project not listed here that would be beneficial to you, let me know. We’ll talk about it and determine if it is a reasonable substitute.

5. Participation (Attendance/Discussion) (50 Points). Students should complete assigned readings before class and participate in seminar discussions in an informed manner. To do so, it might be helpful to make notes as you read about questions and issues to pursue in the seminar discussion. To participate, students can offer (among other things):

1. a simple factual question

2. a point which reveals a methodological assumption

3. a critique of a research piece

4. a strong point which merits our admiration

5. a clarification that will help everyone to understand a class concept better

6. an application to your research project or to some other personal experience

I will evaluate the participation part of the grade by making weekly notations regarding the quality and quantity of evidenced preparedness and participation. Students should strive to (1) clearly evidence their close reading and thinking about the week’s materials, and (2) be physically and intellectually present for the entire course period (avoiding late arrivals and early departures).

Citation styles: In this graduate course, you are expected to know APA style for citing outside sources, although I will also accept MLA if you are more comfortable with that style. For training manual type projects, endnotes (such as Chicago Style Guide) may make more sense.

Absences: If there is an extenuating emergency or illness that interferes with your attendance or ability to keep up with work, please let me know. If you must miss a class (for any reason), you can make up the participation points by writing an additional article report of an unassigned reading or respond to the discussion questions on the WebCT course site. Your makeup report and discussion responses will be due when you return to class.

Grading: Letter grades are figured as to the following guidelines.

Outstanding – goes beyond expectations	Good – above average	Satisfactory – meets minimum requirements	Failing -- Does not meet requirements
A+ 97.6-100%	B+ 87.6-89.5%	C+ 77.6-79.5%
A 92.6-97.5%	B 82.6-87.5%	C 72.6-77.5%	F 0-69.5%
A- 89.6-92.5%	B- 79.6-82.5%	C- 69.6-72.5

Assignments and Due Dates: Assignments are due before class on the day indicated in the syllabus., unless otherwise noted. A late written assignment will be penalized up to 10% for each day it is late up to 50%. Due to time constraints, discussion-leading and reports will only receive credit when completed on the day scheduled. No assignments will be accepted after the day the final paper is due. Incompletes will only be given to students who: (1) have finished more than half the coursework, (2) experience serious illness or personal emergency, and (3) negotiate the incomplete before the last day of class. Let me know, in advance, if you will have problems completing an assignment on time.

Academic Integrity: Each student is expected to maintain the highest standards of honesty and integrity in academic and professional matters. The University reserves the right to take disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal, against any student who is found guilty of academic dishonesty or otherwise fails to meet these standards. You are expected to cite all sources used, whether directly quoted or paraphrased. Plagiarism is one of the most serious ethical missteps a scholar can make, so it is imperative to give credit where credit is due. See for UNM academic honesty policy and statement at http://handbook.unm.edu/D100.html. Students who have questions concerning scholastic regulations and procedures at the University should refer to the "General Academic Regulations" section of the University Catalog.

Papers for other classes: While it is appropriate that several graduate school papers overlap in conceptual focus, your project should be original work devised for this class. If you plan on using material prepared for a different course in your assignments, please consult with me regarding appropriateness.

ADA Accessibility: Qualified students with disabilities needing appropriate academic adjustments should contact me as soon as possible to ensure your needs are met in a timely manner. Handouts are available in alternative accessible formats upon request.

Diversity: This course encourages different perspectives related to such factors as gender, race, nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, and other relevant cultural identities. This course seeks to foster understanding and inclusiveness related to such diverse perspectives and ways of communicating.

Ethics: The course emphasizes ethical practices and perspectives. Above all, students and instructors should strive to communicate and act, both in class interactions and in assigned coursework, in a manner directed by personal integrity, honesty, and respect for self and others. Included in this focus is the need for academic honesty by students as stated by the UNM Pathfinder. Students need to do original work and properly cite sources. For example, be aware of plagiarism—directly copying more than 3 or 4 words from another author without quoting (not just citing) the author is plagiarism. Further, course content will encourage the ethical practices and analysis of professional communication.

Course Schedule (Tentative--any changes will be announced and posted on WebCT)
Date	Readings (Report Options Follow Course Schedule)	Assignment Due
Week 1 1/22/08	Introduction to the Course, Participants, and Course Requirements
Week 2 1/29/08	Foundations and History of the Field 1 Core readings: 1. Handbook Preludes and Prospects 2. Handbook (C-1) Conceptual Foundations 3. Redding, C.W. (1985). Stumbling toward identity: The emergence of organizational communication as a field of study. In R.D. McPhee & P.K. Tompkins (eds.), Organizational communication: Traditional themes and new directions (pp. 5-33) Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 4. Redding, C.W. & Tompkins, P.K. (1988). Organizational communication – past and present tenses. In G.M. Goldhaber & G.A. Barnett (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 15-54). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. No Reports Today	Choose discussion leading week and report options
Week 3 2/5/08	Foundations and History of the Field 2 Core Readings: 1. Clair, R.P. (1999). Standing still in an ancient field: A contemporary look at the organizational communication discipline. Management Communication Quarterly, 13, 283–293. 2. Taylor, J. R., Flanagin, A., Seibold, D., & Cheney, G. (2001). Organizational communication research: Key moments, central concerns, and future challenges. Communication Yearbook, 24. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage (did not get to this one—problems downloading) 3. Putnam, L. (1983). The interpretive perspective: An alternative to functionalism. In L. Putnam & M. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organizations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 4. Mumby, D. K., & Stohl, C. (1996). Disciplining organizational communication studies. Management Communication Quarterly, 10, 50-72. 5. Krone, K. J. (2005). Trends in organizational communication research: Sustaining the discipline, sustaining ourselves. Communication Studies, 56, 95-105. No Reports Today
Week 4 2/12/08	Organizational Communication Theory 1 (Foundations) Core readings: 1. Handbook: (C-2) Key Constructs 2. Giddens, A. (1984). Elements of the theory of structuration (1-40). In The Constitution of Society. University of CA Press: Berkley. 3. Deetz, S.A. (1992). Systematically distorted communication and discursive closure (pp. 173-198). In Democracy in an age of corporate colonization. SUNY: Albany. 4. Weick, K.E. (2001). Making sense of the organization (pp. 176-179, 237-239, 305-307). (1969/79) The social psychology of organizing (pp. 12-23, 119-145). McGraw Hill: New York.
Week 5 2/19/08	No Class, Western States Communication Conference
Week 6 2/26/08	Organizational Communication Theory 2 (Emerging Ideas) Core readings: 1. Fairhurst, G.T. & Putnam, L. (2004). Organizations as discursive constructions. Communication Theory, 14, 5-26. 2. Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society. 4, 139-58. 3. Ashcraft, K.L. & Allen, B.J. (2003). The racial foundation of organizational communication. Communication Theory, 13, 5-38. 4. Mumby, D. & Putnam, L.L. (1992). The politics of emotion: A feminist reading of bounded rationality. Academy of Management Review, 17, 465-486.	Draft Paper/ Project Due
Week 7 3/4/08	Organizational Communication Research Methods 1 Core Readings: 1. Handbook C-4 Quantitative Methods (pp. 137-187) 2. Corman, S. (2000). The need for common ground. In S. Corman & M. Scott Poole (Eds.), Perspectives on organizational communication: Finding common ground (pp. 3-16). New York: Guilford Press. 3. Miller, K. I. (2000). Common ground from the post-positivist perspective: From "straw person" argument to collaborative coexistence. In L. M. Cortina & M. Scott Poole (Eds.), Perspectives on organizational communication: Finding common ground (pp. 46-67). New York: Guilford Press.
Week 8 3/11/08	Organizational Communication Research Methods 2 Core Readings: 1. Handbook C-3 Discourse Analysis (pp. 78-120) 2. Cheney G. (2000). Interpreting interpretive research: Toward perspectivism without relativism. In S. R. Corman & M. Scott Poole (Eds.), Perspectives on organizational communication: Finding common ground (pp. 17-45). New York: Guilford Press. 3. Mumby, D. K. (2000). Common ground from the critical perspective: Overcoming binary oppositions. In S. Corman & M. Scott Poole (Eds.), Perspectives on organizational communication: Finding common ground (pp. 68-88). New York: Guilford Press.	Peer Review of Drafts Due
Week 9 3/18/08	No Class—Spring Break
Week 10 3/25/08	Technology, Change, Knowledge Management Core Readings: 1. Handbook C-14 New Media and Organizational Structuring (pp. 544-573) 2. Trethewey, A. & Corman, S. (2001). Anticipating K-Commerce: E-commerce, knowledge management, and organizational communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 619-628. 3. Seeger, M. W. (1997). Chapter 11, Ethics communication and organizational change. In, Ethics and organizational communication. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Week 11 4/1/08	Ethics in Organizational Communication Core Readings: 1. Seeger, M. W. (1997). Chapter 1 Ethical issues in communication and organization. In, Ethics and organizational communication. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. 2. Seeger, Chapter 13, Making ethics part of the organization’s agenda 3. Nicotera, A. M., & Cushman, D. P. (1992). Organizational ethics: A within-organization view. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 20, 437-462.
Week 12 4/8/08	Power, Democracy, Resistance Core Readings: 1. Handbook C-15, Power and Politics (585-624) 2. Cheney, G., Straub, J., Speirs-Glebe, Stohl, C., Whalen, S., Garvin-Doxas, K., et al. (1998). Democracy, participation, and communication at work: A multidisciplinary review. Communication Yearbook, 21, 35-91. 3. Putnam, L. L., Grant, D., Michelson, G., & Cutcher, L. (2005). Discourse and resistance: Targets, practices, and consequences. Management Communication Quarterly, 19, 5-18.
Week 13 4/15/08	Internal Communication 1 Core Readings: 1. Handbook C-19, Entry, Assimilation, Disengagement 2. Handbook, C-9, Organizational Culture Video Tonight: “60 Minutes: The Royal Treatment”
Week 14 4/22/08	Internal Communication 2 Core Readings: 1. Handbook C-17, Participation and decision making 2. Handbook C-7, Organizational identity
Week 15 4/29/08	External Communication Core Readings: 1. Handbook C-10, Globalizing Organizational Communication 2. Handbook C-8, Sociopolitical Environments and Issues
Week 16 5/6/08	Last day of classes: Final Project Presentations	Presentation Due
Finals Week	Final Exam Period: Final Projects Due by 7:00 p.m. via WebCT	Final Paper/ Project due

Report Options (Choose Three)
Date	Readings
Week 1 1/22/08	Introduction to the Course, Participants, and Course Requirements
Week 2 1/29/08	Foundations and History of the Field 1 No Reports Today
Week 3 2/5/08	Foundations and History of the Field 2 No Reports Today
Week 4 2/12/08	Organizational Communication Theory 1 Report Options 1. Mumby, D.K. (1987). The political function of narrative in organizations. Communication Monographs, 54, 29-43 2. Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2005 under review). Gucci work and the McJob: Rhetorically unmasking systematically distorted communication and discursive closure in two U.S. cultural artifacts. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies. 3. Bantz, C. R., & Smith, D. H. (1977). A critique and experimental test of Weick's model of organizing. Communication Monographs, 44, 171-184. 4. Scott, C. R., Corman, S. R., & Cheney, G. (1998). Development of a structurational model of identification in the organization. Communication Theory, 8(3), 298-336. 5. Bastien, D. T., McPhee, R. D., & Bolton, K. A. (1995). A study and extended theory of the structuration of climate. Communication Monographs, 62, 87-109. 6. Witmer, D. F. (1997). Communication and recovery: Structuration as an ontological approach to organizational culture. Communication monographs, 64, 324-349.
Week 5 2/19/08	No Class, Western States Communication Conference
Week 6 2/26/08	Organizational Communication Theory 2 Report Options 1. Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2000). Toward a general theory of innovation processes. In A. H. V. d. Ven, H. L. Angle & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Research on the management of innovation : The Minnesota Studies (pp. 637-662). London: Oxford Press. 2. Crable, R. E. (1990). "Organizational rhetoric" as the fourth great system: Theoretical, critical, and pragmatic implications. Journal Applied Communication Research, 18, 115-128. 3. Seeger, M.W. (1997) Chapter 2: Modeling organizations and organizational ethics. In, Ethics and organizational communication. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. 4. Lee, J. (2001). Leader-member exchange, perceived organizational justice, and cooperative communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 574-589. 5. Woodard, W. D. (2003). Public relations planning and action as "practical-critical" communication. Communication Theory, 13, 411-431. Corman, S., & Scott, C. R. (1994). Perceived networks, activity foci, and observable communication in social collectives. Communication Theory, 4(3), 171-190. 6. Taylor, J.R. (2001). The “rational” organization reconsidered: An exploration of some of the organizational implications of self-organizing. Communication Theory, 11, 137-177. 7. Martin, D. (2004). Humor in middle management: Women negotiating the paradoxes of organizational life. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32, 147-170 8. Browning, L.D. (1978) A grounded organizational communication theory derived from qualitative data. Communication Monographs, 45, 93-109. 9. McPhee, R. D., & Corman, S. R. (1995). An activity-based theory of communications networks in organizations, applied to the case of a local church. Communication Monographs, 62, 132-151. 10. Mumby, D. (2005). Theorizing resistance in organization studies. Management Communication Quarterly, 19, 19-44.
Week 7 3/4/08	Organizational Communication Research Methods 1 Report Options 1. Faules, D. (1982). The use of multi-methods in the organizational setting. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46, 150-161. 2. Albrecht, T. L. (1982). The study of network structuring in organizations through the use of method triangulation. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46, 162-178. 3. Gayle, B. M. (1991). Sex equity in workplace conflict management. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 19, 152-169. 4. Morrill, C., & Thomas, C. K. (1992). Organizational conflict management as disputing process: The problem of social escalation. Human Communication Research, 18, 400-428. 5. Odden, C. M., & Sias, P. M. (1997). Peer communication relationships and psychological climate. Communication Quarterly, 45, 153-166. 6. Kassing, J.W. (2002). Speaking up: Identifying employees' upward dissent strategies. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 187-209. 7. Poole, M., Van de Ven, A., Dooley, K., and M Holmes (2000), C-4, Methods for process research. In, Organizational change and innovation processes: Theory and methods for research (pp. 91- 111). London: Oxford Press.
Week 8 3/11/08	Organizational Communication Research Methods 2 Report Options: 1. Morgan, J. & Krone, K. (2001). Morgan, J. M., & Krone, K. J. (2001). Bending the rules of "professional" display: Emotion improvisation in caregiver performances. Journal Applied Communication Research, 29(4), 317-340. 2. Tracy, K. (1995). Action-implicative discourse analysis. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 195-215. 3. Miller, K. I. (2002). The experience of emotion in the workplace: Professing in the midst of tragedy. Management Communication Quarterly, 15, 571-600. 4. Deetz, S. A. (1982). Critical interpretive research in organizational communication. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46, 131-149. 5. Meares, M. M., Oetzel, A. T., Derkacs, D., & Ginossar, T. (2004). Employee mistreatment and muted voices in the culturally diverse workforce. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32, 4-27. 6. Lynch, O. W. (2002). Humorous communication: Finding a place for humor in communication research. Communication Theory, 12, 423-445. 7. Handbook C-5 Qualitative Methods (pp. 161-197)
Week 9 3/18/08	No Class—Spring Break
Week 10 3/25/08	Technology, Change, Knowledge Management Report Options Technology & Knowledge Management 1. Scott, C. R., & Timmerman, E. (2005). Relating computer, communication, and computer-mediated communication apprehensions to new communication technology use in the workplace. Communication Research, 32, 683-725. 2. Waldeck, J. H., Seibold, D. R., & Flanagin, A. J. (2004). Organizational assimilation and communication technology use. Communication Monographs, 71, 161-183. 3. Iverson, J. O., & McPhee, R. D. (2002). Knowledge management in communities of practice. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 259-266. 4. Poole, M., Van de Ven, A., Dooley, K., and M Holmes (2000), C-1, Perspectives on change and development in organizations. In, Organizational change and innovation processes: Theory and methods for research (pp. 3-28). London: Oxford Press. 5. Contractor, N. (2001). New media and organization: Introduction. In, L. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of new media (pp. 201-205). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 6. Zorn, T. E., Page, D. J., & Cheney, G. (2000). Nuts about change: Multiple perspectives on change-oriented communication in a public sector organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 13, 515-561. 7. Howard, L.A. & Geist, P. (1995). Ideological positioning in organizational change: The dialectic of control in a merging organization. Communication Monographs, 62, 110-131. 8. Kuhn, T., & Corman, S. (2003). The emergence of homogeneity and heterogeneity in knowledge structures during a planned organizational change. Communication Monographs, 70, 198-229. 9. Jackson, M. H., Poole, M. S. & Kuhn, T. (2001). The social construction of technology in studies of the workplace. In L. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of new media (pp. 236-253). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Week 11 4/1/08	Ethics in Organizational Communication Report Options 1. Alder, G. S. (1998). Ethical issues in electronic performance monitoring: A consideration of deontological and teleological perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 729-743. 2. Alder, G. S., & Tompkins, P. K. (1997). Electronic performance monitoring: An organizational justice and concertive control perspective. Management Communication Quarterly, 10, 259-287. 3. Seeger, Chapter 3, Communication, responsibility and accountability. 4. Tompkins Pribble, P. (1990). Making an ethical commitment: A rhetorical case study of organizational socialization. Communication Quarterly, 38, 255-267 4. Conaway, R. N., & Fernandez, T. L. (2000). Ethical preferences among business leaders: Implications for business schools. Business Communication Quarterly, 63, 23-38. 5. Montgomery, D. J., & DeCaro, P. A. (2001). Organizational communication ethics: The radical perspective of performance management. American Communication Journal, 5(1), 1-9. 6. Cialdini, R. B. (1999). Of tricks and tumors: Some little-recognized costs of dishonest use of effective social influence. Psychology & Marketing, 16(2), 91-98. 7. Montgomery, D. J., Wiesman, D. W., & DeCaro, P. A. (2001). Toward a code of ethics for organizational communication professionals: A working proposal. American Communication Journal, 5(1), 1-7.
Week 12 4/8/08	Power, Democracy, Resistance Report Options 1. Trethewey, A. (1997). Resistance, identity, and empowerment: A postmodern feminist analysis of clients in a human service organization. Communication Monographs, 64, 281-301 2. Pacanowsky, M. E. (1988). Communication in the empowering organization. Communication Yearbook, 11, 356-379. 3. Ashcraft, K. L. (2005). Resistance through consent? Occupational identity, organizational form, and the maintenance of masculinity among commercial airline pilots. Management Communication Quarterly, 19, 67-90. 4. Barker, J. R., & Cheney, G. (1994). The concept of discipline in contemporary organizational life. Communication Monographs, 61, 19-43. 5. Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 408-437. 6. Ducheneaut, N. B. (2002). The social impacts of electronic mail in organizations: A case study of electronic power games using communication genres. Information, Communication and Society, 5, 153-188. 7. Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2006). Take this job and ... Quitting and other forms of resistance to workplace bullying. Communication Monographs, 73(4), 406-433.
Week 13 4/15/08	Internal Communication 1 Report Options 1. 2. Sypher, B. D. (2004). Reclaiming civil discourse in the workplace. Southern Communication Journal, 69, 257-269. 3. Fairhurst, G. T., Green, S., G., & Snavely, B. K. (1986). Managerial control and discipline: Whips and chains. Communication Yearbook, 8, 558-593. 4. Cox, S., A. (1999). Group communication and employee turnover: How coworkers encourage peers to voluntarily exit. Southern Communication Journal, 64(3), 181-192. 5. Kinser, A. E. (2002). Gendered performances in employment interviewing: Interpreting and designing communication research. Journal of Business Communication, 39, 245-256. 6. Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2003). The communicative cycle of employee emotional abuse: Generation and regeneration of workplace mistreatment. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 471-501. 7. Townsley, N. C., & Geist, P. (2000). The discursive enactment of hegemony: Sexual harassment and academic organizing. Western Journal of Communication, 64, 190-217. 8. Sass, J. S., & Mattson, M. (1999). When social support is uncomfortable: The communicative accomplishment of support as a cultural term in a youth intervention program. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 511-543. 9. Scott, C. & Myers, K. K. (2005). The socialization of emotion: Learning emotion management at the fire station. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33, 67-92.
Week 14 4/22/08	Internal Communication 2 Report Options 1. Tracy, S.J. & Trethewey, A. (2004). Fracturing the real self—fake self dichotomy: Moving toward “crystallized” organizational discourses and identities. Communication Theory, 15, 168-195 2. Ashcraft, K. L., & Kedrowicz, A. (2002). Self-direction or social support? Nonprofit empowerment and the tacit employment contract of organizational communication studies. Communication Monographs, 69, 88-110. 3. Pettegrew, L. S. (1982). Organizational communication and the S.O.B. theory of management. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46, 179-191. 4. Cheney, G. (1983). The rhetoric of identification and the study of organizational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69, 143-158. 5. Tracy, S. J., Lutgen-Sandvik, P., & Alberts, J. K. (2006). Nightmares, demons and slaves: Exploring the painful metaphors of workplace bullying. Management Communication Quarterly, 20(2), 148-185. 6. Clair, R. P. (1996). The political nature of the colloquialism, "a real job": Implications for organizational socialization. Communication Monographs, 63, 249-267. 7. Buzzanell, P. M., & Turner, L. H. (2003). Emotion work revealed by job loss discourse: Backgrounding-foregrounding of feelings, construction of normalcy, and (re)instituting of traditional male masculinities. Journal Applied Communication Research, 31, 27-57. 8. 8. Allen, B. J. (1995). "Diversity" and organizational communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 23, 143-155.
Week 15 4/29/08	External Communication Report Options 1. Bridges, J. A. (2004). Corporate issues campaigns: Six theoretical approaches. Communication Theory, 14, 51-77. 2. Watkins Allen, M., & Caillouet, R. H. (1994). Legitimation endeavors: Impression management strategies used by organizations in crisis. Communication Monographs, 61, 44-62. 3. Conrad, C. (2003). Stemming the tide: Corporate discourse and agenda denial in the 2002 “corporate meltdown.” Organization, 10, 549-560. 4. Stohl, M., & Stohl, C. (2005). Human rights, nation states, and NGOs: Structural holes and the emergence of global regimes. Communication Monographs, 2005, 442-467. 5. Turner, P. K., & Krizek, R. L. (2005, November 17-20). A meaning-centered approach to customer service. Paper presented at the National Communication Association, Boston, MA. 6. Venette, S. J., Sellnow, T. L., & Lang, P. A. (2003). Metanarration's role in restructuring perceptions of crisis: NHTSA's failure in the Ford-Firestone crisis. Journal of Business Communication, 40, 219-236.
Week 16 5/6/08	No reports
Finals Week