254
Views
9
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Part III: Organizational Communication, Coordination, and Work Practices

Studying Work Practices in Organizations: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Guidelines

References

  • Ackroyd, S., & Fleetwood, S. (2000). Realism in contemporary organisation and management studies. In S. Ackroyd & S. Fleetwood (Eds.), Realist perspective on management and organisations (pp. 3–25). London: Routledge.
  • Alvesson, M. (1993). Cultural-ideological modes of management control: A theory and a case study of a professional service company. In S. Deetz (Ed.), Communication yearbook 16 (pp. 3–42). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (1999). Critical theory and postmodernism: Approaches to organizational studies. In S. Clegg & C. Hardy (Eds.), Studying organization: Theory and method (pp. 185–211). London: Sage.
  • Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2000). Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discursive analysis. Human Relations, 53, 1125–1149. doi: 10.1177/0018726700539002
  • Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 604–633. doi:10.2307/2393511
  • Archer, M. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Archer, M. (2000). For structure: Its reality, properties and powers: A reply to Anthony King. The Sociological Review, 48, 464–472. doi:10.1111/1467–954X.00226
  • Ashcraft, K. L., Kuhn, T. R., & Cooren, F. (2009). Constitutional amendments: “Materializing” organizational communication. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 1–64. doi:10.1080/19416520903047186
  • Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1), 78–108. doi:10.2307/2392767
  • Barley, S. R. (1990a). The alignment of technology and structure through roles and networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 61–103. doi:10.2307/2393551
  • Barley, S. R. (1990b). Images of imaging: Notes on doing longitudinal field work. Organization Science, 1(3), 220–247. doi:10.1287/orsc.1.3.220
  • Barley, S. R. (1996). Technicians in the workplace: Ethnographic evidence for bringing work into organization studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 404–441. doi:10.2307/2393937
  • Barley, S. R., & Kunda, G. (2001). Bringing work back in. Organization Science, 12(1), 95. doi:10.1287/orsc.12.1.76.10122
  • Becker, H. S. (1958). Problems of inference and proof in participant observation. American Sociological Review, 23(6), 652–660. doi:10.2307/2089053
  • Becker, H. S. (1996). The epistemology of qualitative research. In R. Jessor, A. Colby & R. Schweder (Eds.), Essays on ethnography and human development (pp. 53–71). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Becker, H. S., & Carper, J. (1956). The development of identification with an occupation. American Journal of Sociology, 61(4), 289–298. doi:10.1086/221759
  • Becker, H. S., Geer, B., Hughes, E. C., & Strauss, A. L. (1961). Boys in white: Student culture in medical school. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Berg, M. (1997). Of forms, containers, and the electronic medical record: Some tools for a sociology of the formal. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 22(4), 403–433. doi:10.1177/016224399702200401
  • Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
  • Bhaskar, R. (1979). The possibility of naturalism. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Harvester.
  • Blomberg, J. (1988). Social interaction and office communication: Effects on user’s evaluations of new technologies. In R. Kraut (Ed.), Technology and the transformation of white collar work (pp. 195–210). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Blumer, H. (1969). The methodological position of symbolic interactionism. In H. Blumer (Ed.), Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method (pp. 1–60). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice (R. Nice, trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198–213. doi:10.1287/orsc.12.2.198.10116
  • Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15, 555–568. doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0094
  • Cheney, G., & Ashcraft, K. L. (2007). Considering “the professional” in communication studies: Implications for theory and research within and beyond the boundaries of organizational communication. Communication Theory, 17(2), 146–175. doi:10.1111/j.1468–2885.2007.00290.x
  • Collins, R. (1981). On the microfoundations of macrosociology. American Journal of Sociology, 86(5), 984–1014. doi:10.1086/227351
  • Contractor, N. S., Monge, P. R., & Leonardi, P. M. (2011). Multidimensional networks and the dynamics of sociomateriality: Bringing technology inside the network. International Journal of Communication, 5, 682–720.
  • Cooren, F. (2010). Action and agency in dialogue: Passion, incarnation and ventriloquism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Craig, R. T. (1989). Communication as a practical discipline. In B. Dervin, L. Grossberg, B. J. O’Keefe & E. Wanella (Eds.), Rethinking communication: Vol. 1. Paradigm issues (pp. 97–122). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9(2), 161. doi:10.1111/j.1468–2885.1999.tb00355.x
  • Craig, R. T. (2001). Minding my metamodel, mending Myers. Communication Theory, (2), 231–240. doi:10.1111/j.1468–2885.2001.tb00241.x
  • Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  • Deetz, S. (1994). Future of the discipline: The challenges, the research, and the social contribution. In S. Deetz (Ed.), Communication yearbook 17 (pp. 565–600). New-bury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Deetz, S. (1996). Describing differences in approaches to organization science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and their legacy. Organization Science, 7(2), 191–207. doi:10.1287/orsc.7.2.191
  • Deetz, S. (2000). Putting the community into organizational science: Exploring the construction of knowledge claims. Organization Science, 11(6), 732–738. doi:10.1287/orsc.11.6.732.12536
  • Deetz, S. (2001). Conceptual foundations. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 3–46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147. doi:10.1287/orsc.5.2.121
  • Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Milton Balch.
  • DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). Constructing an organizational field as a professional project: U.S. Art museums, 1920–1940. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institution-alism in organizational analysis (pp. 267–292). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160. doi:10.2307/2095101
  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1–38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 685–716. doi:10.2307/3094828
  • Eisenberg, E. M., & Riley, P. (2001). Organizational culture. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 291–322). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Fairhurst, G. T., & Putnam, L. (2004). Organizations as discursive constructions. Communication Theory, 14(1), 5–26. doi:10.1111/j.1468–2885.2004.tb00301.x Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory.
  • Organization Science, 22(5), 1240–1253. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0612 Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94–118. doi:10.2307/3556620
  • Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2005). Organizational routines and the macro-actor. In B. Czarniawka & T. Hernes (Eds.), Actor-network theory and organizing (pp. 91–111). Malmo: Liber.
  • Fleetwood, S. (2005). Ontology in organization and management studies: A critical realist perspective. Organization Studies, 12, 197–222. doi:10.1177/1350508405051188
  • Fulk, J. (1993). Social construction of communication technology. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), 921–951. doi:10.2307/256641
  • Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Gibbs, J. L. (2009). Dialectics in a global software team: Negotiating tensions across time, space, and culture. Human Relations, 62(6), 905–935. doi:10.1177/0018726709104547
  • Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Gilbreth, F. B. (1911/1993). Motion study: A method for increasing the efficiency of the workman. London: Routledge/Thoemmes Press.
  • Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Double-day Anchor.
  • Guillemin, M. (2000). Working practices of the menopause clinic. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 25(4), 449–471. doi:10.1177/016224390002500403
  • Hard, M. (1994). Technology as practice: Local and global closure processes in diesel-engine design. Social Studies of Science, 24(3), 549–585. doi:10.1177/030631279402400304
  • Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Heath, C., & Luff, P. (2000). Technology in action. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Heaton, L. (1998). Preserving communication context: Virtual workspace and interpersonal space in Japanese CSCW. Electronic Journal of Communication, 8(3/4), Retrieved September 20, 2002 from http://www.cios.org/getfile/Heaton_V2008N2398.
  • Henderson, K. (1998). The aura of “high tech” in a world of messy practice. The Sociological Quarterly, 39(4), 645–672. doi:10.1111/j.1533–8525.1998.tb00522.x
  • Hogle, L. F. (1995). Standardization across non-standard domains: The case of organ procurement. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 20(4), 482–500. doi:10.1177/016224399502000405
  • Hughes, E. C. (1958). Men and their work. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
  • Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Jackson, M. H., Poole, M. S., & Kuhn, T. (2002). The social construction of technology in studies of the workplace. In L. A. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of new media: Social shaping and consequences of icts (pp. 236–253). London: Sage.
  • Jepperson, R. L. (1991). Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new insitutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 143–163). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Kaghan, W. N., & Bowker, G. C. (2001). Out of machine age?: Complexity, sociotech-nical systems and actor network theory. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 18, 253–269. doi:10.1016/S0923–4748(01)00037–6
  • Knorr-Cetina, K. (1995). How superorganisms change: Consensus formation and the social ontology of high-energy physics experiments. Social Studies of Science, 25(1), 119–147. doi:10.1177/030631295025001006
  • Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Knorr-Cetina, K. (2001). Objectual practice. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary sociology (pp. 175–188). London: Routledge.
  • Kuhn, T. (2006). A “demented work ethic” and a “lifestyle firm”: Discourse, identity, and workplace time commitments. Organization Studies, 27(9), 1339–1358. doi:10.1177/0170840606067249
  • Kuhn, T., & Jackson, M. H. (2008). Accomplishing knowledge: A framework for investigating knowing in organizations. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(4), 454–485. doi:10.1177/0893318907313710
  • Kunda, G. (1992). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
  • Lammers, J. C., & Barbour, J. B. (2006). An institutional theory of organizational communication. Communication Theory, 3(16), 356–377. doi: 10.1111/j.1468–2885.2006.00274.x
  • Lammers, J. C., & Garcia, M. (2009). Exploring the concept of “profession” for organizational communication research: Institutional influences in a veterinary organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 22, 357–384. doi:10.1177/0893318908327007
  • Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Leonardi, P. M. (2009a). Crossing the implementation line: The mutual constitution of technology and organizing across development and use activities. Communication Theory, 19, 278–310. doi:10.1111/j.1468–2885.2009.01344.x
  • Leonardi, P. M. (2009b). Why do people reject new technologies and stymie organizational changes of which they are in favor? Exploring misalignments between social interactions and materiality. Human Communication Research, 35(3), 407–441. doi:10.1111/j.1468–2958.2009.01357.x
  • Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Car crashes without cars: Lessons about simulation technology and organizational change from automotive design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Leonardi, P. M., & Bailey, D. E. (2008). Transformational technologies and the creation of new work practices: Making implicit knowledge explicit in task-based offshoring. MIS Quarterly, 32, 411–436.
  • Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2010). What’s under construction here: Social action, materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 1–51. doi:10.1080/19416521003654160
  • Leonardi, P. M., & Rodriguez-Lluesma, C. (2013). Occupational stereotypes, perceived status differences, and intercultural communication in global organizations. Communication Monographs, 70(4), 478–502. doi:10.1080/03637751.2013.828155
  • Leonardi, P. M., Jackson, M. H., & Diwan, A. (2009). The enactment-externalization dialectic: Rationalization and the persistence of counterproductive technology design practices in student engineering. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 400–420. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.37315471
  • Leonardi, P. M., Nardi, B. A., & Kallinikos, J. (Eds.). (2012). Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Louis, M. R., & Sutton, R. I. (1991). Switching cognitive gears: From habits of mind to active thinking. Human Relations, 44, 55–76. doi:10.1177/001872679104400104
  • Lynch, M. (1985). Art and artifact in laboratory science: A study of shop talk in a research laboratory. London: Sage.
  • Maxwell, J. A. (2012). A realist approach for qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • McPhee, R. D., & Poole, M. S. (2001). Organizational structures and configurations. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 503–543). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • McPhee, R. D., & Zaug, P. (2000). The communicative constitution of organizations: A framework for explanation. Electronic Journal of Communication, 10(1–2).
  • Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. doi:dx.doi.org/10.1086/226550">dx.doi.org/10.1086/226550
  • Misa, T. J. (1994). Retrieving sociotechnical change from technological determinism. In M. R. Smith & L. Marx (Eds.), Does technology drive history? The dilemma of technological determinism (pp. 115–141). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
  • Monge, P., Heiss, B. M., & Margolin, D. B. (2008). Communication network evolution in organizational communities. Communication Theory, 18(4), 449–477. doi:10.1111/j.1468–2885.2008.00330.x
  • Mumby, D. K. (1989). Ideology and the social construction of meaning: A communication perspective. Communication Quarterly, 17(4), 291–304. doi:10.1080/01463378909385551
  • Mumby, D. K. (2005). Theorizing resistance in organization studies: A dialectical approach. Management Communication Quarterly, 19, 1–26. doi:10.1177/0893318905276558
  • Murphy, A. G. (1998). Hidden transcipts of flight attendant resistance. Management
  • Communication Quarterly, 11(4), 499–535. doi:10.1177/0893318998114001
  • Neff, G. (2012). Venture labor: Work and the burden of risk in innovative industries. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Nelsen, B. J., & Barley, S. R. (1997). For love or money? Commodification and the construction of an occupational mandate. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 619–653. doi:10.2307/2393652
  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
  • Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice theory, work, and organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Nicolini, D., Mengis, J., & Swan, J. (2012). Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration. Organization Science, 23(3), 612–629. doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0664
  • Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427. doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.398
  • Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 63–92. doi:10.1287/isre.7.1.63
  • Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428. doi:10.1287/orsc.11.4.404.14600
  • Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13(3), 249–273. doi:10.1287/orsc.13.3.249.2776
  • Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. (1994). Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12, 174–207. doi:10.1145/196734.196745
  • Orr, J. E. (1996). Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
  • Orr, J. E. (1998). Images of work. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 23(4, Special Issue: Humans, Animals, and Machines), 439–455. doi:10.1177/016224399802300405
  • Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2004). Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the boston biotechnology community. Organization Science, 15(1), 5–21. doi:10.1287/orsc.1030.0054
  • Pacanowsky, M., & O’Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1983). Organizational communication as cultural performance. Communication Monographs, 50, 126–147. doi:10.1080/03637758309390158
  • Pentland, B. T. (1992). Organizing moves in software support hot lines. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 527–548. doi:10.2307/2393471
  • Perlow, L. A., Gittell, J. H., & Katz, N. (2004). Contextualizing patterns of work group interaction: Toward a nested theory of structuration. Organization Science, 15(5), 520–536. doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0097
  • Phillips, D. C. (1987). Philosophy, science, and social inquiry. Oxford: Pergamon.
  • Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. (2004). Discourse and institutions. Academy of Management Review, 29(4), 635–652.
  • Pickering, A. (1993). The mangle of practice: Agency and emergence in the sociology of science. American Journal of Sociology, 99(3), 559–589. doi:10.1086/230316
  • Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Pickering, A. (2001). Practice and posthumanism: Social theory and a history of agency. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 163–174.). London: Routledge.
  • Poole, M. S., & DeSanctis, G. (1992). Microlevel structuration in computer-supported group decision making. Human Communication Research, 19(1), 5–49. doi:10.1111/j.1468–2958.1992.tb00294.x
  • Powell, W. W., & Colyvas, J. A. (2008). Microfoundations of institutional theory. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby & K. Shalin-Andersson (Eds.), Handbook of new institutionalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Prasad, P. (1993). Symbolic processes in the implementation of technological change: A symbolic interactionist study of work computerization. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1400–1429. doi:10.2307/256817
  • Putnam, H. (1999). The threefold cord: Mind, body, and world (Vol. 5). New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Putnam, L. L., & Nicotera, A. M. (2010). Communicative constitution of organization is a question: Critical issues for addressing it. Management Communication Quarterly, 24(1), 158–165. doi:10.1177/0893318909351581
  • Putnam, L. L., & Stohl, C. (1990). Bona fide groups: A reconceptualization of groups in context. Communication Studies, 41(3), 248–265. doi:10.1080/10510979009368307
  • Reichers, A. E. (1987). An interactionist perspective on newcomer socialization rates. Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 278–287.
  • Robey, D., & Sahay, S. (1996). Transforming work through information technology: A comparative case study of geographic information systems in county government. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 93–110. doi:10.1287/isre.7.1.93
  • Roy, D. F. (1959). Banana time: Job satisfaction and informal interaction. Human Organization, 18, 158–168.
  • Schatzki, T. R. (2005). The sites of organizations. Organization Studies, 26(3), 465–484. doi:10.1177/0170840605050876
  • Schein, E. H. (1996). Culture: The missing concept in organization studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2), 229–240. doi:10.2307/2393715
  • Schultze, U., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2004). A practice perspective on technology-mediated network relations: The use of internet-based self-serve technologies. Information Systems Research, 15(1), 87–106. doi:10.1287/isre.1030.0016
  • Scott, W. R. (1998). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Scott, W. R. (2004). Reflections on a half-century of organizational sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 1–21. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110644
  • Sims, B. (1999). Concrete practices: Testing in an earthquake-engineering laboratory. Social Studies of Science, 29(4), 483–518. doi:10.1177/030631299029004002
  • Sorenson, J. B., & Stuart, T. E. (2000). Aging, obsolescence, and organizational innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 81–112. doi:10.2307/2666980
  • Stohl, C. (1986). The role ofmemorable messages in the process of organizational socialization. Communication Quarterly, 34(3), 231–249. doi:10.1080/01463378609369638
  • Stohl, C. (2001). Globalizing organizational communication. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 323–375). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Strang, D., & Macy, M. W. (2001). In search of excellence: Fads, success stories, and adaptive emulation. American Journal of Sociology, 107(1), 147–182. doi:10.1086/323039
  • Strauss, A. (1978). Negotiations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Suchman, L., Blomberg, J., Orr, J. E., & Trigg, R. (1999). Reconstructing technologies as social practices. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3), 392–408. doi:10.1177/00027649921955335
  • Taylor, F. W. (1911/1998). The principles of scientific management. New York: Dover. Taylor, J. R. (2001). Toward a theory of imbrication and organizational communication. The American Journal of Semiotics, 17(2), 269–298. doi:10.5840/ajs200117222
  • Taylor, J. R., Groleau, C., Heaton, L., & Van Every, E. (2001). The computerization of work: A communication perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Taylor, J. R., Groleau, C., Heaton, L., & Van Every, E. (2007). Communication as the modality of structuration. In R. T. Craig & H. L. Mueller (Eds.), Theorizing communication readings across traditions (pp. 391–404). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Thomas, R. J. (1994). What machines can’t do: Politics and technology in the industrial enterprise. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Tractinsky, N., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1995). Information systems design decisions in a global versus domestic context. MIS Quarterly, 19(4), 507–534. doi:10.2307/249631
  • Treem, J. W. (2012). Communicating expertise: Knowledge performances in professional service firms. Communication Monographs, 79( 1), 23–47. doi:10.1080/03637751.2011.646487
  • Treem, J. W. (2013). Technology use as a status cue: The influences of mundane and novel communication technologies on assessments of knowledge in organizations. Journal of Communication, 63(6), 1032–1053. doi:10.1111/jcom.12061
  • Trujillo, N. (1992). Interpreting (the work and the talk of) baseball: Perspectives on ballpark culture. Western Journal of Communication, 56, 350–371. doi:10.1080/10570319209374423
  • Vaast, E., & Walsham, G. (2005). Representations and actions: The transformation of work practices with it use. Information and Organization, 15, 65–89. doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2004.10.001
  • Vallas, S. P. (2003). Why teamwork fails: Obstacles to workplace change in four manufacturing plants. American Sociological Review, 68, 223–250. doi:10.2307/1519767
  • Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. R. (1984). Occupational communities: Culture and control in organizations. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 287–365). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  • Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 209–264). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  • Wadel, C. (1979). The hidden work of everyday life. In S. Wallman (Ed.), American sociological association monograph (Vol. 19). London: Academic Press.
  • Waisbord, S. (1998). When the cart of media is before the horse of identity: A critique of technology-centered views on globalization. Communication Research, 25(4), 377–398. doi:10.1177/009365098025004003
  • Watson, J. (1958). A formal analysis of sociable interaction. Sociometry, 21(4), 269–280. doi:10.2307/2785791
  • Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Whittle, A., & Spicer, A. (2008). Is actor network theory critique? Organization Studies, 29(4), 611–629. doi:10.1177/0170840607082223
  • Williams, R. (1983). Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society (2nd ed.). London: Fontana.
  • Yoon, S. (2001). Internet discourse and the habitus of Korea’s new generation. In C. Ess & F. Sudweeks (Eds.), Culture, technology, communication: Towards an intercultural global village (pp. 241–260). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  • Zucker, L. G. (1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Sociological Review, 42(5), 726–743. doi:10.2307/2094862

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.