Talk:Constitutive role of communication in organizations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Grad Student Editor[edit]

Hello! I want to give a heads up that I will be editing this page for a grad class at Georgetown's CCT program (please see bar above). I would appreciate any help and input you have. Thanks! Bb437 (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's show the diversity of work in the CCO perspective[edit]

Hi everyone. I would like to suggest a series of changes so that this article better reflects the diversity of work being done under the CCO banner.

  1. Changing the title of the page (that is, creating another page with a more appropriate name and moving the content of the present article in it). There are several reasons for this. First, as it stands, the title suggests that communication plays a particular type of role (a constitutive one) when it is in organizations. It thus tends to reproduce the very idea that is challenged by the CCO perspective, that organizations may exist outside communication. Second, the approach this article refers to is generally called the 'communicative constitution of organizations (CCO)' in the literature as the article of McPhee et al. indicates (as well as a few others that should be included in the references of the article). I suggest that we make this name the title of the article.

I second that. Page should be called Communicative Constitution of Organization -- 20:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

  1. Acknowledging the existence of several trends in CCO research. As shown in Cooren et al. (2011, see references), there are in fact three different approaches to CCO: (1) Mc-Phee's structurationist approach (that is well presented in the article); (2) the Montréal School approach; and (3) the Luhmanian systems approach. We suggest to use Cooren et al. (2011) to expand the present article. This would include a brief introduction of the 3 approaches under the 'background' section as well as a detailed presentation of approaches (2) and (3) in 2 sections similar to the one devoted to McPhee's.
  2. Stopping referring to CCO as a 'framework'. I agree that McPhee et al.'s contribution to CCO research is a framework. However, given the differences that exist between the approaches that contribute to CCO research, it may be wiser to refer to CCO as research trend or perspective or approach.

Again, I can only agree. CCO is a perspective with (at least) three distinct schools of thought. -- Steffen Blaschke (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess I better start doing the work now! --WikipedianTomM (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)