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 possibilityActor-network theory [ANT]Discourse theoryAntagonismHegemonyLegitimationOntology [intensive politics]Epistemology [extensive politics]DominationResistancePotentiaPotestasAbstractW . Orlikowski and S . barley [2001] assess the question of how to take up organizing and working recitals to review the race in the midst of organizational change and applied wisdom [e .g . barley and Tolbert 1997] Their preparedness of institutional theory , however , rise an assumption that alienates the visible [i .e . corporal] aspect of engine room from the cordial . Earnesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe [1985] strait an alternative cloth where information applied science [IT] and organization studies [OS] lap covering . A a lignment of perspectives , a fusion that is more guardedly attuned to explaining the nature of techno- accessible phenomena [p 147] . Others [e .g . barley and Tolbert 1997] have made contributions of comments on the anterior drafts of the relationship between organizational change and technology . Orlikowski and barleycorn believe in institutional influence that enables technology-in-organization they also strike hard the way institutional theory overlooks technology s actual properties , whose deficiency can remedied by giving more adequate perplexity to the material constraints and affordances that technology presents , which can afford advanced understand of institutional reverberation and transformation [p 152]Actor-network theory [ANT] as strong as dissertate theory formed by Laclau and Mouffe [1985] oblation more compel foundation in studying technology , organizations , and change . Laclau and Mouffe s conceit of a discursive structure . constitutes and orga nizes kindly relations [Laclau Mouffe , 19! 85 ,96] in a sense , it performs rather than contemplates .

in the beginning 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 bequest of Organizational Studies [OS] as treating technology as a material cause , of abstracting away from the specifics of a use , and of ignoring the role of pitying agency in the process proficient change [p 148] : technology is considered independently of the sociable context in which it is developed and apply With an attempt to bridge the physical and the social , ANT puts its pattern of heterogeneous network to work , which comprises social and technical elements that allow in people , machines , texts , and any some other material form [Law , 1992] . Orlikowski and Barley embrace 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 deplorable over-socializing of technology . That is , ANT s stress on the social body structure may rule out the notion of material affordances and constraints altogether [p 149] . Achieved in the practices of design , winding , development , implementation , and use they keep back with discharge [1993] , is an awareness of technology as a social intersection . Technology ! vanishes by privileging process rather than operationMoving possible action : From Institutional to DiscourseThe very act of distinguishing the physical...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper