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 conceive organizing and working coiffes to review the range in the midst of organisational change and applied accomplishment [e .g . barley and Tolbert 1997] Their preparedness of institutional theory , however , border on an assumption that alienates the visible [i .e . corporal] aspect of technology from the cordial . Earnesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe [1985] run an alternative cloth where information technology [IT] and organization studies [OS] crossroad . A alignment of perspectives , a fusion that is more conservatively attuned to explaining the nature of techno- tender phenomena [p 147] . Others [e .g . barley and Tolbert 1997] have made contributions of comments on the sooner drafts of the relationship between organizational change and technology . Orlikowski and barleycorn believe in institutional influence that enables technology-in-organization they also point out the way institutional theory overlooks technology s actual properties , whose inadequacy can remedied by giving more adequate oversight to the material constraints and affordances that technology presents , which can afford advanced ground of institutional reverberation and transformation [p 152]Actor-network theory [ANT] as wholesome as dissertate theory formed by Laclau and Mouffe [1985] ply more compel foundation in studying technology , organizations , and change . Laclau and Mouffe s conceit of a discursive structure . constitutes and organizes fo nd relations [Laclau Mouffe , 1985 ,96] in a! sense , it performs rather than contemplates .

in advance 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 specif ics of a architectural plan , and of ignoring the role of pitying agency in the process expert 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 cordial , 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 tenseness on the social body structure may eradicate the notion of material affordances and constraints altogether [p 149] . Achieved in the practices of design , grammatical construction , development , implementation , and use they keep back with vent [19 93] , is an awareness of technology as a social issu! e . Technology vanishes by privileging process rather than saveMoving 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