|This article is currently or was the subject of an educational assignment. Further details are available here.|
I admit that the original version of this was "positivistic" because I'm a social scientist. When I originally had my students start editing the Org Comm portion of Wikipedia, there was little to nothing about the subject on the site. I can argue now that the Org Comm site clearly represents only one biased perspective (in the opposite direction now). The reality is there are two drastically different branches in organizational communication that still exist today. Although I see the benefit of making sure both sides are represented, I have issues completely taking the social scientific side of organizational communication out of the picture. Unlike many who are participating in this project, I think more is actually better. I think the laundry list of links to other topics related to organizational communication is probably the best way forward to ensure individuals interested in the subject can view our page and then look for further information on various related topics. I have no problem working with my colleagues across the field of organizational communication, but to completely dismiss the current (and historic) contributions of social scientists within the field does disservice to field itself. Even in the most recent analysis of published research in organizational communication, quantitative research still accounts for almost 50% of the published research.
I am surprised at the level of detail of this article. I think that in an article about something as broad as "organizational communication", the various major lines of thought should be talked about, but I don't believe it is necessary to talk about the "Levels of communication" for example, at least not in so much detail. I am also surprised to see no mention at all of classic organization and management approaches (Frederick Winslow Taylor, Charles Babbage, the Hawthorne effect and human relations, Gareth Morgan, and so on). Media Richness Theory could also be mentioned, along many others. Too much needs to be done, in my humble opinion, to reflect the variety of research and work that is being achieved in this field, to waste space getting into the details of any particular theory. --Niccoben (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC) I agree with Niccoben, the information detailed does not include organizational structures and communication models. i mean you could include work from the PMBOK (Project management book of knowledge) which will also illustrate graphically how the communication model flows from top management down to employees or upwards form employees to management which is crucial in project that are exercuted with a project leader. [M.Mzamo:CUT Free State] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
this article seems to be loaded with the non-neutral position of scientific positivism. While I assume there is little interest in having me edit this to repair that, i'm likely going to make some minor edits that admits to the broader understanding of the field. Buridan
Removal of "The Memo" blog from the External Links
Mr. Roche: I noticed you removed the "The Memo" blog from the organizational communication list. I am an org comm major and also work in the field of corporate communications. The only idea that the blog is attempting to "promote" is the concept of infusing the discipline of the classical, systems, network and symbolic/cultural theories into the "real" world of organizations. I'm sorry that was not clear to you. Brad Bellaver
expanding view to transcend positivism/reductionism
I tried to keep as much as was feasible of the original article, attempting to transcend the simplistic and positivistic "business communication" feel.
Buridan, does this go far enough to address your concerns, or is there more heavy lifting to do?
Roy 11:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
going to try to update this page as i get time, reformatting, key issues, etc...i would encourage those out there who know about the discipline to dive in. as if it needs to be stated, these views are mine alone, reflecting my perspective...
The following section:
- "Humans act rationally. Some people do not behave in rational ways, they generally have no access to all of the information needed to make rational decisions they could articulate, and therefore will make unrational decisions, unless there is some breakdown in the communication process—which is common. Unrational people rationalize how they will rationalize their communication measures whether or not it is rational."
Quite literally makes no sense. Several of the sentences are not valid English sentences at all, and literally no information can be extracted from them. Others are so confusing that they cannot actually say what was intended. I cannot edit it, because I don't know what the actual theoretical grounding is supposed to be here. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)