Exploring Organizational Communication (Micro) History Through Network Connections

Abstract

In light of the 100th anniversary of the National Communication Association, the following essay offers an initial look at the communication subdiscipline of organizational communication and its development over the past seven-plus decades. As part of this review, we advocate the use of network methods as a microhistory analytic tool to explore the vast number of connections, both between people and research interests, generated as the discipline developed from its humble beginnings. This work represents a small sample of the greater Organizational Communication Genealogy Project. This larger effort seeks to create a detailed review of the discipline as it explores the relationships between advisors and advisees, the development of dissertation and current research topics, the collaborative network of coauthorship, and the contributions of individual scholars through the analysis of interview data, narratives, and historical documents.

Keywords:

• Organizational Communication
• Micro History
• Network Connections
• Genealogy

Notes

[1] See, for example, Patrice Buzzanell and Cynthia Stohl, “The Redding Tradition of Organizational Communication Scholarship: W. Charles Redding and His Legacy,” Communication Studies 50 (1999): 324–36.

[2] See, for example, Gail T. Fairhurst, Discursive Leadership: In Conversation with Leadership Psychology (Los Angeles: Sage, 2007); Gail T. Fairhurst and Linda L. Putnam, “Organizations as Discursive Constructions,” Communication Theory 14 (2004): 5–26.

[3] Linda L. Putnam and Anne Nicotera, Building Theories of Organization: The Constitutive Role of Communication (New York, NY: Routledge, 2009).

[4] Karen Lee Ashcraft, Timothy R. Kuhn, and Francois Cooren, “Constitutional Amendments: ‘Materializing’ Organizational Communication,” The Academy of Management Annals 3 (2009): 1–64; Bruno Latour, Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2007).

[5] See, for example, Ashcraft, Kuhn, and Cooren, “Constitutional Amendments,” 1–64; Sarah B. Feldner and Scott C. D'Urso, “Threads of Intersection and Distinction: Joining an Ongoing Conversation within Organizational Communication Research,” Communication Research Trends 29 (2010): 3–28; Dennis K. Mumby and Cynthia Stohl, “Disciplining Organizational Communication Studies,” Management Communication Quarterly 10 (1996): 50–72; David Rooney, Bernard McKenna, and James R. Barker, “History of Ideas in Management Communication Quarterly,” Management Communication Quarterly 25 (2011): 583–611; James R. Taylor, Andrew J. Flanagin, G. Cheney, and David R. Seibold, “Organizational Communication Research: Key Moments, Central Concerns, and Future Challenges,” in Communication Yearbook, ed. W. B. Gudykunst (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001), 99–137.

[6] Patrice M. Buzzanell, Jeremy P. Fyke, and Robyn V. Remke. 2014. “Professionalising Organizational Communication Discourses, Materialities, and Trends. In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Professional Communication, ed. V. Bhatia and S. Bremner (New York, NY: Routledge), 207–19.

[7] Dennis K. Mumby, and Linda L. Putnam, eds. 2014. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Communication, 3rd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).

[8] Charles W. Redding, “Stumbling Toward Identity: The Emergence of Organizational Communication as a Field of Study,” in Organizational Communication: Traditional Themes and New Directions, ed. R.D. McPhee and P.K. Tompkins (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1985), 15–54.

[9] See, for example, Francisco J. Acedo et al., “Co-Authorship in Management and Organizational Studies: An Empirical and Network Analysis,” Journal of Management Studies 43 (2006): 957–83.

[10] Katherine I. Miller, “A Stroll Down Memory Lane (In Flip Flops),” Management Communication Quarterly 18 (2005): 612–17.

[11] Peter R. Monge and Noshir S. Contractor, Theories of Communication Networks (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003).

[12] See, for review, Alex M. Susskind, Donald F. Schwartz, William D. Richards, and David Johnson, “Evolution and Diffusion of the Michigan State University Research Tradition of Organizational Communication Network Research,” Communication Studies 54 (2005): 397–418.

[13] Ingrid Ticken-Boon van Ostade, “Social Network Analysis and the History of English,” European Journal of English Studies 4 (2000): 211–16.

[14] Peter M. Kristensen, “Dividing Discipline: Structures of Communication in International Relations,” International Studies Review 14 (2012): 32–50.

[15] Hans Baumgartner and Rik Pieters, “The Structural Influence of Marketing Journals: A Citation Analysis of the Discipline and Its Subareas Over Time,” Journal of Marketing 67 (2003): 123–39.

[16] Acedo et al., “Co-Authorship in Management and Organization Studies,” 957–83.

[17] Acedo et al., “Co-Authorship in Management and Organization Studies,” 957–83.

[18] Kristensen, “Dividing Discipline,” 32–50.

[19] Adapted from Monge and Contractor, “Theories of Communication Networks.”; Hanneman, Robert A., & Mark Riddle. 2005. Introduction to Social Network Method. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside; Prell, Christina. 2012. Social Network Analysis: History, Theory, and Methodology (London, U.K.: Sage).

[20] Borgatti, Stephen P., Everett, Martin G. and Linton C. Freeman. 2002. Ucinet 6 for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.

[21] Borgatti, Stephen P., 2002. NetDraw Software for Network Visualization (Lexington, KY: Analytic Technologies).

[22] Miller, “Stroll Down Memory Lane,” 616.

[23] R. Dean Malmgren, Julio M. Ottino, and Luis A. Nunes Amaral, “The Role of Mentorship in Protégé Performance,” Nature 465 (2010): 622–26.

[24] Michael J. Piette and Kevin L. Ross, “A Study of the Publication of Scholarly Output in Economics Journals,” Eastern Economic Journal 18 (1992): 429–36.

[25] Acedo et al., “Co-Authorship in Management and Organization Studies,” 957–83.

[26] Lidwien van de Wijngaert, Harry Bouwman, and Noshir Contractor, “A Network Approach Toward Literature Review,” Quality & Quantity 48 (2014): 623–43.

[27] Kristensen, “Dividing Discipline,” 32–50.

[28] David N. Laband and Robert D. Tollison, “Intellectual Collaboration,” Journal of Political Economy 108 (2000): 632–62.

[29] Acedo et al., “Co-Authorship in Management and Organization Studies,” 957–83.

[30] David N. Laband, “Publishing Favoritism: A Critique of Department Ratings Based on Quantitative Publishing Performance,” Southern Economic Journal 52 (1985): 510–15.

[31] Piette and Ross, “A Study of Publication of Scholarship Output,” 429–36.

[32] The survey only asked for the top five most frequent coauthors. Current data collection of recent CVs allows us to record more coauthors for each scholar. Ultimately, this affords a more complete network, which is important methodologically. Take, for example, Cynthia Stohl. She has coauthored with 58 individuals as of March 2013. Her top five most frequent does not include Kasey Walker, twice a Stohl publication coauthor, but Walker's list includes Stohl. This process allows for more than five network connections for any one individual, and in the case of Stohl, it results in an additional 52 connections.

[33] Prell, Social Network Analysis.

[34] Acedo et al., “Co-Authorship in Management and Organization Studies,” 957–83.

[35] Kevin J. Barge, “Practical Theory as Mapping, Engaged Reflection, and Transformative Practice,” Communication Theory 11 (2001): 5–13.

[36] Elizabeth Jones, Burnadette Watson, John Gardner, and Cindy Gallois, “Organizational Communication: Challenges for the New Century,” Journal of Communication 54 (2004): 722–50.

[37] Craig R. Scott, Anonymous Agencies, Backstreet Businesses and Covert Collectives: Rethinking Organizations in the 21st Century (Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books).

[38] Redding, “Stumbling Toward Identity,” 15–54.

[39] Feldner and D'Urso, “Threads of Intersection and Distinction,” 3–28.

[40] We thank one anonymous reviewer for this specific suggestion.