Why Are The Concepts Of `antagonism` And `hegemonic Politics` Important For Studying Organizing And Working Practices? Critically Discuss With Reference To A Specific Area Of Organizational Practice.

Antagonism and Hegemonic PoliticsFrameworks for Studying Organizational ChangeKeywordsinstitutional guessActor-network surmise [ANT]Discourse theoryAntagonismHegemonyLegitimationOntology [intensive politics]Epistemology [extensive politics]DominationResistancePotentiaPotestasAbstractW . Orlikowski and S . barleycorn [2001] assess the question of how to study organizing and working practices to review the take in mingled with organisational change and applied science [e .g . barley and Tolbert 1997] Their fancyuality of institutional theory , however , approach an assumption that alienates the somatogenetic [i .e . sensible] reflection of engineering from the fond . Earnesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe [1985] offer an alternative exemplar where study applied science [IT] and organization studies [OS] overlap . A coal escence of perspectives , a fusion that is more care wide-cuty attuned to explaining the nature of techno-social phenomena [p 147] . Others [e .g . barleycorn and Tolbert 1997] give up made contributions of comments on the earlier drafts of the relationship between organizational change and technology . Orlikowski and barley believe in institutional influence that enables technology-in-organization they also criticize the way institutional theory overlooks technology s literal properties , whose deficiency lav remedied by talent more adequate attention to the natural constraints and affordances that technology presents , which can afford advanced understanding of institutional reproductive retrospect and transformation [p 152]Actor-network theory [ANT] as well as dialogue theory formed by Laclau and Mouffe [1985] offer more stimulate foundation in studying technology , organizations , and change . Laclau and Mouffe s notion of a discursive structure . constitutes an d organizes social relations [Laclau Mouffe ! , 1985 ,96] in a sense , it performs rather than contemplates .

Before Laclau and Mouffe s discourse theory is adopted to be the relevant study of technology-in-organizations : after Orlikowski and barleycorn s distinction between structures and work practice is deconstructed : how these physical , and material , aspects are articulated is illustrated for changing organizational processes within a hegemonic operation of domineering relationsFusing the Physical and the SocialOrlikowski and Barley summarize the present of Organizational Studies [OS] as treating technology as a material cause , of abstracting away fro m the specifics of a designing , and of ignoring the role of kind-hearted sureness in the process technological change [p 148] : technology is considered severally of the social context in which it is developed and utilise With an undertake to bridge the physical and the social , ANT puts its concept of tangled network to work , which comprises social and technical elements that accept plenty , machines , texts , and any other material form [Law , 1992] . Orlikowski and Barley wed this shift from treating technology as a physical entity which determines organizational outcomes to conceiving of technologies as social objects , but with caution for the unreassuring over-socializing of technology . That is , ANT s emphasis on the social winding whitethorn reject the notion of material affordances and constraints altogether [p 149] . Achieved in the practices of design , construction , development , implementation , and use they nurse with spill [1993] , is an awareness of technology as a social business . Technology van! ishes by privileging process rather than actionMoving possibleness : From Institutional to DiscourseThe very act of distinguishing the physical...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay