Navigating Discourses of Power Through Relationships

Abstract

This article applies identity construction concepts to a professional and technical communication student intern’s use of agency as she negotiates a unique identity for herself within a state legislature. Following a literature review, the author highlights several of the intern’s key efforts to become part of this new governmental and legal discourse community, including learning legislature-specific genres, combatting the “totem-pole” hierarchy, making choices about appropriate professional behavior, socializing by creating an “entire family dynamic,” and making an effort to learn the culture of the legislature. These efforts are documented through the intern’s reflective, self-narratives and documents produced during the internship. Through this discussion, the author suggests practical implications for aiding students and newcomers as they transition to unfamiliar workplace communication environments.

Keywords

government communication technical communication identity construction agency internships

Introduction

Many technical communication programs require internships. The purposes of these are to prepare students for the academic-to-workplace transition, provide networking opportunities, expose students to “real world” writing contexts, and help them gain practice communicating in various workplaces, applying principles of effective technical communication learned in their programs. In addition to these general benefits, students also gain temporary access to disciplinary discourse communities, where they must navigate various discourses of power while simultaneously working in a low-power position. While most interns accept their assignments as ways to gain experience and earn college credit at the same time, what they probably do not consider is that they are entering environments where their newly forming work identities are being influenced by discourses of power around them, yet they are trying on their own agency as they make communication choices and foster social relationships as technical communicators within various social, cultural, and historical contexts.

This article addresses powerful workplace discourses and their impacts on a student intern via a semester-long case study, focusing on the student’s work at a state legislature.¹ The question informing the case study was “How does a student intern explore options for creating agency to negotiate an identity for herself within a state legislature?” This student responded to these workplace discourses by choosing various options for agency, agency which contributed to her defining her identity as “eager, optimistic, and confident” at the conclusion of her internship, characteristics this student could not use to describe herself before the internship. The findings and discussion suggest strategies technical communication educators can use to aid students during the transition from academia to the workplace. Teaching such strategies empowers students as newcomers to discourse communities; they are not merely being controlled by the discourses around them but can actively participate in creating the persona they want to portray.

While this identity construction focus could be applied to a variety of different internship settings, applying it to a technical communication setting (a government setting) specifically addresses ways educators might apply strategies to aid students in this field, as they are making the transition to the workplace, where they will be expected to practice and interact with written, oral, digital, and visual discourses. This connection to technical communication seems especially appropriate, given the expanded perceptions the field has seen in recent years: Technical communicators are more than just transmitters of information; they are social participants who help construct and negotiate meaning. Likewise, these strategies could be used by any newcomer to a discourse community, regardless of intern or student status. Following a literature review where I also situate this work, I introduce the case study, present the findings, and discuss the implications for the field of technical communication.

Identity Construction, Agency and Regulation, and Technical Communication Internships Within Organizations

Identity Construction

I define identity here as an ability to negotiate the perception of oneself (to that self and others) in the spaces surrounding culture, values, goals, and social relationships, specifically in a workplace environment. The way that identity is defined enables or constrains a participant’s capability to act to varying degrees. Identity can be constructed through a web of influences, through outside forces as well as internal choices and decisions a participant makes, although I do not want to set up a dichotomy of inside versus outside, hence the concept of a web of forces. From my perspective, identity and agency are closely connected, but I have separated them here in the literature review for ease of discussion and also to emphasize the prominent role of agency within the identity construction process. There is no clear boundary separating these two concepts, though, and some overlap occurs in this literature review, as a result.

Organizations originate and promote identity-shaping discourses through their daily operations, organizational goals, and messages, whether those messages are formalized vision and mission statements or verbalized orally in staff meetings. Employees’ identities are constructed by these discourses, often unknowingly. The benefit of these constructed identities is better service to the organizations, their purposes, their values, and their motivations. Those motivations and values can be financial, cultural, and technological, for example, but all relate to expanding the organization, sometimes to the detriment of the employees’ well-being (Alvesson & Willmott, 2002; Hochschild, 2012; Tracy, 2000; Tracy & Trethewey, 2005; Trent & Lim, 2010; Trethewey, 1997). This view coincides with Alvesson’s (2010) “stencil” image, one that “points to there being a standard or a template which offers strong clues affecting how identity is constructed. The individual is assumed to subordinate him- or herself to this” (p. 206). As Alvesson mentions, Foucault’s (1977a) “concept of discipline” has informed this perspective: “Training, work routines, appraisal systems, self-surveillance, and experts are all exercising discipline in that they provide resources for normalization” (p. 206). This deterministic view of Foucault’s work emphasizes that we are restricted by social structures. Another characterization of this view which draws on Habermas’ (1972) “three cognitive or knowledge-constitutive interests that underlie human inquiry” (Alvesson, Ashcraft, & Thomas, 2008, p. 8) is the “emancipatory” cognitive interest (p. 9), which highlights the need to “liberate humans from the various repressive relations that tend to constrain agency” (p. 9).

Somewhat complementary to this view of organizational control that produces an “appropriate individual” (Alvesson & Willmott, 2002) is the idea that even though an individual might be operating within organizational discourses, the individual is coming to terms with a sense of meaning making. The focus is on the individual’s learning about him or herself, perhaps while being shaped by the organizational discourses at the same time (Dutton, Roberts, & Bednar, 2010; Hammond, Cross, & Moore, 2016; Kira & Balkin, 2014; Martínez, 2012; Pratt, Rockmann, & Kaufmann, 2006). Finding meaning also includes social interactions with others who help reinforce the meanings employees are developing as they receive constant intersubjective feedback from others around them (Martínez, 2012). Images correlating with this more psychological approach are Alvesson’s (2010) “Storyteller” (“Creation of meaning through crafting a personal narrative of oneself”) and “Strategist” (“Crafting a functional identity, producing a synthesis between ‘authenticity’ and organizational/professional adaptation”; p. 199). According to Alvesson et al. (2008), this approach is also considered a “practical-hermeneutic” (p. 8) approach when viewed within the context of Habermas’ (2008) cognitive interests; this approach “focus[es] on how people craft their identities through interaction, or how they weave ‘narratives of self’ in concert with others and out of the diverse contextual resources within their reach” (p. 8). Because of the emphasis on meaning making, the participant is seen more as an agent; the individual is not passive in the identity construction process but has some control, despite being somewhat discursively constructed by organizational discourses. Note that even though this meaning-making view is considered to be psychological, the meaning-making process is decidedly social, since interaction with others is a necessary part of the process when learning about oneself.

Looking at identity construction from the perspective of organization studies, we can see not only the control organizations are assumed to have over individuals but also the complexities surrounding individual identity development in relation to interacting with others. Ybema et al. (2009) write, “‘identity’ may be regarded as a fundamental bridging concept between the individual and society. Its potential mediating quality lies in its dual character—it refracts what can be seen as a ‘permanent dialectic’ between the self and social structure” (p. 300). Part of developing identity, as well, includes developing a balance between an individual identity and a social identity and responding to identity expectations: “Individuals do not enact their vocations in a vacuum. Rather, work involves, to some degree, responding to the expectations of various stakeholders” (Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2006, p. 1040). This discussion positions identity development as a decidedly social process, which sets up organization members for possibilities of negotiating their identities within organizations.

Another related way of viewing the role of the organization that makes it a bit more friendly to social actors as they develop identities is that of an organization’s serving as a social actor itself (Kinsella, 2005, p. 305) that has its own goals but can be negotiated with. Large organizations and institutions, such as a government setting, “comprise a multitude of collective activities that transcend and subsume their individual members” (p. 304); participants’ identities and actions are very much tied up within “institutional motives” (p. 307) and need to be negotiated with the institution in order to be successful. On the other hand, as organizations have flattened, and hierarchies have grown less complex, individuals appear to have a more participatory role in developing their own identities (although scholars like Gee, Hull, and Lankshear [1996] critique the assumptions encouraged by this “new capitalism”). There is always a tension, though, between the motives of the organization and individual motivations, although those can overlap (Winsor, 2006, p. 413).

This body of literature within organization studies indicates the powerful role organizational discourses can have in the construction of employee identities. This view of participants’ identities being constructed by organizational discourse may seem overly deterministic for postmodern scholars, who argue that individuals help construct their own identities and agency through their own participation within organizational structures. Slack, Miller, and Doak (1993) resist this jettisoning of organizational control, though. They write, “It is remarkable how little most of us understand the relationship between power, knowledge, and organizations. In practice, the politics of organizations and organizational politics often have as their goals limiting, obscuring, or hiding information (p.33; Butenhoff, 1986; Katz, 1992; Wells, 1986)”. Employees within these organizations are often encouraged to accept their organization-defined identities and other agency-limiting practices uncritically; after all, if they do not support these goals, they may lose their jobs because they no longer align themselves with organizational motives and values. These types of organizational structure are “often overlooked or underestimated as a social and political force” (Faber, 2002, p. 33), in favor of viewing participants as positively being able to gain agency, based on their own efforts.

Working within identity-defining organizational structures, though, the employees have some choices for action, such as to continue promoting organizations’ power structures, subvert them intentionally through resistance, or work with the organization’s practices to possibly change the structures, allowing for more flexibility in the development of workplace identities. Through this review, I want to emphasize that even though employees may have some choice in how they respond to organizational discourse, we cannot underestimate the original capitalistic motivation behind much of organizational regulatory discourse, discourse that continues to shape employees who best suit organizations’ cultural needs. Koerber (2006), Britt (2001), and Scott (2003) have discussed a more measured perspective when acknowledging the limited or constrained (Andrus, 2010; Herndl & Licona, 2007) and restricted (Faber, 2002, p. 30) resistance and potential for change that communicators have. The degree of flexibility employees have when acting and communicating closely connects to the type of identities available for them to negotiate within workplaces. So while employees, newcomers, and interns do have some degree of choice when developing their workplace identities, they unquestionably must negotiate culturally entrenched organizational discourses surrounding them. This is where the concept of agency becomes so critical to the identity construction process.

Agency and Regulation

While agency might be defined in different ways, I choose a definition that connects the concept directly to identity: “The identity position occupied by the participants” (Zachry 2007, p. x). This concept of agency within professional and technical communication specifically has undergone major changes since the mid 20th century. Resulting in part from the need to ensure clear communication about rapidly developing technology in a post-World War II era, technical communicators were mostly “transmitters” of information (Slack et al., 1993, pp. 15–19), and the field suffered from a “hyperpragmatist legacy” (Scott, Longo, & Wills, 2006, pp. 7–17). A consequence of this legacy in particular is that it “privileges utilitarian efficiency and effectiveness, including rhetorical effectiveness, at the expense of sustained reflection, critique, or ethical action” (Scott et al., 2006, p. 9). Another consequence of this view is that documents within professional and technical communication fields were not really seen as having authors (Foucault, 1977b; Slack et al.,1993, p. 12); therefore, the writers had limited agency. I would like to extend the concept of “author” here to be broader than just a creator of textual discourse; an author also communicates orally, for example, both formally and informally, as rhetoricians do.

Postmodern theories have contributed to the development of agency and identity as co-constructed and culturally determined (Slack et al., 1993, pp. 25–29). Rather than being viewed as cohesive and contained within a person, agency, as part of identity, is constantly being reformulated by social forces surrounding the participant. This view presents agency as socially formed, negotiable, and flexible; it is the ability to participate in and possibly reconstitute structures in actions of change and resistance, as well (Faber, 2002, p. 63; Giddens, 1984; Wilson, 2001, p. 78). This type of functioning within social structures often can occur when the goals of individuals and organizations are the same or overlap, to some degree (Winsor, 2006, p. 413); hence, “the organization’s structures were part of what allowed them [employees] to move into positions of agency” (p. 413). Agency is negotiated through relationships and social networks that are not easily defined (see also Latour, 1987). This type of organizational “regulation” (Zachry & Thralls, 2007) is “contingent upon the communicative practices that define and enable it, just as the existence of those practices is contingent upon the regulatory forces that make them meaningful” (Zachry, 2007, p. vi). Within this reciprocal view, employees or communicators clearly help create and enable organizational discourse.

Other scholars within business and professional communication, such as Pal and Buzzanell (2008), discuss this type of discourse enabling through employee agency as the ability to adopt or create different personae. Specifically, employees in an Indian call center learned how to present varying forms of ethos, depending on the country and region of the country callers were from. While these employees may have been motivated to keep their jobs and earn money, they also clearly took control of this situation through their speech. This discussion of agency in particular indicates the choices that participants have in their communication; they actively participate in constructing their own identities through discussions of their “selves” and creation of knowledge (Gaitens, 2000; Schryer, Lingard, & Spafford, 2007; Wasonga & Murphy, 2006). These identities were also co-constructed by others who accepted the communicators in these created roles. Even though I reference the “individual” and “self” here regarding identity construction, I do not want to imply that there is an “authentic, essentialized” self; rather, that self is constantly developing in response to intersubjective others and surrounding discourse; it is “a complex and fluid process” (Alvesson et al., 2008, p. 13). As Ybema et al. (2009) further define the process,

‘identity formation’ might be conceptualized as a complex, multifaceted process which produces a socially negotiated temporary outcome of the dynamic interplay between internal strivings and external prescriptions, between self-presentation and labeling by others, between achievement and ascription and between regulation and resistance. (p. 301)

The identity construction, agency, and regulation literature from the fields of organization studies and professional and technical communication presents several concepts that provide important background to the case study presented here:

While all organizations promote defining and controlling discourses, the governmental institution is an especially complex and important one to study, given the hierarchies, entrenched legal discourse, and institutional motives behind the legislature (Kinsella, 2005; Peterson & Anand, 2004, p. 316).

Identities negotiated here must interface with the “authorities in place” such as legislators, other members, and staff, as well as with “unsanctioned authorities,” such as lobbyists and protestors.

The personal meaning-making process of identity development predictably would involve gaining access to powerful genres steeped in institutional motives and practices, both written and oral. Only through this access would an individual be able to act through meaningful ways.

All of the above necessitate some type of individual, socially negotiated agency, which includes other social actors involved with the legislature.

The negotiation process entails choices (albeit constrained) within structuring, regulatory discourse.

These dynamics of the self and ways it interacts with the surrounding organizational structure provide a lens through which we can view the complexities of newcomers to technical communication and their practices of negotiating agency via internships. Through this discussion of agency, then, I take a hopeful view that even the precarious position of intern within an established, governmental, institutional setting provides opportunities for social negotiation that allow her to participate in the construction of her own identity.

Technical Communication Internships Within Organizations

Because of their importance in preparing students for workplace communication, many professional and technical communication programs require students to complete internships, and some encourage formal university–workplace partnerships and agreements (Hirst, 2016; Kohn, 2015), as well as linked courses (Bourelle, 2012; 2014), in which students participate in service learning, as well as future internships. Far from being just “practical experience,” scholars have emphasized the importance of theory’s application to internships (Bridgeford & St. Amant, 2015; Sides & Mrvica, 2007), whether those internships include reflective components encouraging students to connect theories learned in their courses to the internship experience, or whether those internships serve as research sites for scholars developing and applying theories, based on students’ experiences. Either way, reflective narratives provide valuable data students can learn from as they develop professional identities through these internships (Wasonga & Murphy, 2006), and scholars or educators can implement the data, as well, as they improve internship programs and identify specific strategies that students use in different disciplines to encourage awareness of the possibilities for agency and persona development within workplaces during the process of identity construction.

Bourelle (2014) analyzes and discusses reflective narratives “to illustrate their [interns’] impressions of their work and their struggles to enter a new organizational structure” (p. 176); these struggles are a result, in part, of the need for a new identity within an organization and a place to begin to act as a participant within it. Likewise, Kohn (2015) references the “cultural confusion” (p. 166) as a result of “the employees’ lack of cultural knowledge of the new workplace” (p. 166), and “disorientation” can occur (Gaitens, 2000, p. 75), as well. While all employees most likely experience some degree of cultural confusion and struggle when entering a new workplace, technical communicators could possibly experience it to a greater degree because

These newcomers are attempting to “transfer … education-based writing strategies” (Kohn, 2015, p. 166) to an organizational setting.

They will be working with subject-matter experts to learn often sensitive material.

These technical communicators then need to present that information oftentimes to outside audiences, attending to ethical, legal, and accuracy concerns.

The subject-matter experts who work with interns and newcomers rely on “tacit knowledge” (Wasonga & Murphy, 2006, p. 154) gained from years of experience working in the field, knowledge that is not easily communicated to newcomers.

This tacit knowledge also involves learning the nuances of symbolic and cultural capital significant for this environment (Bourdieu & Thompson, 1991; Faber, 2002; Peterson & Anand, 2004, p. 324); Peterson and Anand (2004) define this process as “individuals and groups select[ing] among the symbolic products on offer and … creat[ing] collective meanings and identities for themselves” (p. 324).

In other words, these technical communicators are not only transitioning to an unfamiliar culture; they are learning new subject matter and presenting it on behalf of the company to outside audiences. Reiff and Bawarshi (2011) relate this process to identity, as well, including roles and power relationships (Kohn, 2015, p. 171). This type of learning or communication environment contributes to a need to know how these newcomers not only adjust but also construct their developing identities within these “communities of practice” (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Scholars and newcomers can benefit from acknowledging that this process is a complicated, hard-to-define transition. Based on studying this process, “We [scholars and educators] can help them [students/newcomers] by letting them know that transitions are part of the experience, and what those transitions look like” (Gaitens, 2000, p. 75).

The case study and discussion that follow extend the conversation about identity construction and internships within the field of technical communication in several ways:

This case study focuses on developing participant agency and creating social relationships to facilitate it. Such a focus results in developing strategies we can teach students in our programs to help them navigate the unfamiliar terrain of transitioning to workplace communication contexts (Gaitens, 2000; Slack et al., 1993, pp. 20–25). The case study contributes to “a larger body of knowledge to inform our practices” (Bourelle, 2014, p. 188) in this important area.

Through this student intern’s experience, we learn more about the process of what it means for newcomers to become “member[s] of the culture” (Kohn, 2015, p. 184), an essential part of a participant’s identity construction process.

This case study discusses agency within an institutionalized, government system (a state legislature). Kinsella (2005) argues that within these types of large, institutionalized systems, “the locus of agency has shifted increasingly from the individual to larger systems of power/knowledge” (p. 303). Locating an individual, such as an intern, and identifying her different functions within such a system is becoming an increasingly complicated process that merits additional research.

This work complicates the adjustment process by acknowledging the fluidity of identity construction; the community not only “slowly shapes the individual into a member” (Kohn 2015, p. 170); the individual makes choices, often among “competing discourses” (Koerber, 2006, p. 93) to negotiate agency within the shaping process to help construct his or her own identity.

In addition, this case study provides further support for the concept that identity construction is not an essentialized or linear process but instead entails social interactions and a continuous give and take of communicative acts and decisions among all discourse community participants (Herndl & Licona, 2007, p.137).

Relatedly, as a newcomer to this legislative environment specifically, this particular intern addresses “disorientation” (Anson & Forsberg, 2002; Gaitens, 2000; Kohn, 2015, p. 176) and dis-identification (Alvesson et al., 2008, p. 19), a critical part of the identity construction process that could be explained more to newcomers in advance.

Knowledge gained about identity construction within a specific discipline yields information about “professionalism” (Bourelle, 2014, p. 171) and “professionalization” (Hirst, 2016, p. 153), somewhat nebulous, yet essential qualities and concepts we all would like our students to be able to apply to workplace communication and action.

As a result of extending the conversation through these ways, others can use this work to “stimulate and facilitate people’s reflections on who they are and what they do” (Alvesson et al., 2008, p. 17) in workplace organizations.

Case Study Background

In Spring 2016, I conducted a case study of Karen¹ as she completed a 12-credit-hour internship within a state legislature. Karen describes her internship as “working with legislative assistants, policy advisors, and other personnel in order to conduct bill research, develop talking points that will be used in floor sessions or in committees, and even getting a hands-on experience with the bill process itself.” She also attended house sessions and bill reviews. Karen is a double major in both political science and professional and technical communication, and this internship was arranged through her political science faculty internship supervisor. After receiving institutional review board approval at my institution to conduct this case study, I asked Karen to complete three questionnaires at the beginning, middle, and end of her internship. These questionnaires ranged from 9 to 16 questions each, and the responses to each question ranged from the length of a few sentences to three pages. I followed up with additional questions via e-mail, since her internship was being completed at a distance, to further clarify her responses. I also collected samples of all the types of documents Karen wrote during her internship. The narrative, reflective responses Karen produced through this qualitative, case study approach (MacNealy, 1999) allowed opportunities for me to analyze how she negotiated an identity for herself within this unfamiliar workplace environment. These narratives constituted Karen’s “story,” which, according to Faber (2002), “broker change because they mediate between social structures and individual agency” (p. 25).

The broad research question I chose to focus this study on was “How does a student intern explore options for creating agency to negotiate an identity for herself within a state legislature?” The questionnaires started very generally with questions about her experiences within this new environment. For example, the first questionnaire began with questions about the internship itself and the types of communication she participated in during the internship. I also asked her questions about emotions she experienced, since emotion is a key component to identity construction (Alvesson & Willmott, 2002; 1996; Hargreaves, 2000; Kivisto & La Vecchia-Mikkola, 2015; Martínez, 2012; Snow & Anderson, 1987), as well as questions about space and place, since Karen was working full time in an unfamiliar city. Further questions asked her about social action and its connection to communication, including her part in it, as well as words and statements she would use at this point to describe herself as a newcomer to this environment.

After receiving Karen’s responses on this first questionnaire, I then analyzed the responses using an interpretive approach (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Heracleous & Barrett, 2001; Kuhn, 2006; Kvale, 1996), which allows for a process of “meaning condensation” (Kvale, 1996); within the analysis process, the researcher is looking for themes that appear significant; those themes can result in recurring concepts, which can then be added to, or concepts may be removed if they are determined to be less significant than some others. The researcher, then, does not impose predetermined themes to the data (although the research question and questionnaire prompts do guide the participant’s responses, to some degree); instead, depending on the focus of the researcher, different themes develop. A different researcher might view the same data and arrive at different observations and themes, based on a different, applied, interpretive approach.

Based on this analytical strategy, I then built on responses Karen wrote in her narrative response to the first questionnaire to form questions for the second and third questionnaires. For example, one element of her work at the state legislature that seemed uncomfortable for Karen at first was something she termed “organized chaos.” I found this concept very interesting from a newcomer’s perspective, and I pursued this theme in the later questionnaires about how she was understanding this concept and even participating within and adapting to it, using the available means for social interaction that she had as an intern within this unfamiliar culture. The themes discussed, then, are ones that I interpreted as being significant, based on three main characteristics: The space Karen used to discuss certain experiences (the more space given to a topic indicated its importance), the consistency or repetitiveness she demonstrated in discussing them (while her perspectives changed during the internship, for example, the concept of “organized chaos” remained constant), and Karen’s own statements that she viewed these experiences as significant or important to her developing persona within this environment (she made statements about conscious efforts to construct a competent persona during the internship, and those efforts also remained consistent throughout her questionnaire responses). The overall data evaluation process involved collection, analysis, further collection and analysis through clarifying questions, and interpretation.

I do realize that there are some limitations to the narrative, case study approach: Interns may not be able to adequately reflect on their experiences, due to pressures to succeed not only from their new workplace but also from their academic supervisors. The interns’ perceptions might be considered “less than informed” when compared with more seasoned communicators within these environments. The narratives are only snapshots in time, although during the course of 5 months, and they are limited in the perspective they reveal (Urzúa & Vásquez, 2008); in other words, they may present too narrow of a view of the identity construction process. Karen may also be unaware of the discourses of power surrounding her and, in her eagerness to do well, may accept them uncritically and consider them unproblematic. However, as limited as the narrative responses may be, they still provide useful insights that can serve researchers and the participants well. As Kira and Balkin (2014) state, “Such reflections, even if tacit in their nature, grant employees new insights into their work, how it can be carried out, and how to best cope with its demands” (p. 138). Within this context, though, I am also aware that as a researcher, I guided Karen’s developing responses based on what I wanted to study, what I considered significant. With these limitations in mind, I present some key findings.

Findings

Several recurring themes indicated ways that Karen negotiated agency through choices and decisions she made to create an identity (admittedly unstable and not totally defined) for herself within the state legislature as she applied written, oral, and interpersonal communication skills and developed social relationships within this technical communication environment: learning legislature-specific genres, combatting the “totem pole” hierarchy normally imposed on interns, making choices about appropriate professional behavior in a variety of forms, socializing with other interns yet at the same time distancing herself from them, developing an “entire family dynamic,” and consciously making an effort to learn the culture of the legislature.

Learning Legislature-Specific Genres

As part of participating in this environment as a newcomer, Karen had to learn several new technical writing genres and related processes, including

creating talking points,

conducting bill research,

writing “House of Democrats News” documents,

maintaining lists of Representative Smith’s (one representative to which Karen was assigned) bills (including drafting codes, as well as recording House and Senate bill numbers, bill summaries and resolutions, Senate sponsor, House and Senate committees involved, as well as bill status), and

writing schedules for state government day.

One particular talking points document for House Bill No. 1234 for Representative Taylor focused on highway safety legislation (the focus of this bill has been generalized for confidentiality purposes). The document is divided into two columns, with the left hand column indicating current language of the law, while the right hand column indicates potential amendments in the House and Senate; bold text indicates parts of the text that have changed. The document also includes “points of clarification for members” that detail new highway safety standards. The talking points document would aid Representative Taylor as he promoted the bill to the legislature. This particular example is noteworthy in that Karen had included a boxed note at the bottom to a “Mrs. Jones,” asking her to ask Representative Taylor not to reveal to the House that she (Karen) had put together the research, clarifying that she would not be qualified to answer to the press if her research efforts were disclosed. She stated that she would continue to conduct research and would do all she could to help Representative Taylor but requested that Mrs. Jones protect her in these efforts. This request indicates that Karen had gone “above and beyond” what was required of her as an intern; she knew she had possibly overstepped her boundaries, but she did not feel Mrs. Jones would necessarily have a problem with her participating in the research, since she asked Mrs. Jones to request to Representative Taylor that he not disclose her part in the bill research. Likewise, she indicated she would continue to conduct research, apparently something interns do not usually participate in, since Karen also mentions in the note to Mrs. Jones that “our administrator does not want us to participate in any ‘party benefits,’” yet she clearly has been given the opportunity to conduct the research and create the talking points. This dynamic indicates the complexity related to learning the talking points genre and also the difficulty of having access to the information required to produce it. Because she was not “supposed to be” participating in research for this particular bill, Karen felt the need to add this note to the talking points genre for her unique purposes. By adding the note, though, she also officially documents her role in this process for anyone involved who might see the document. Through her choices in navigating these legislative relationships of authority, Karen negotiates her participation within this discourse with Mrs. Jones while applying the generic format of the talking points document at the same time. Even though Karen’s participation is constrained (her name is not included in the document, and she disguises her role in creating it), Karen negotiates a meaningful role for herself by helping the representative.

Combatting the “Totem Pole” Hierarchy

During an orientation session, Karen was instructed that interns were at “the bottom of the totem pole.” Karen interpreted this statement to mean that “our opinions are never taken into account.” She writes, “I am simply here to learn, work, and gain experience.” Karen states that, as interns, they were reminded several times of this lowly position. Giving an example of what this position means in day-to-day interactions, she describes the common experience of having groups of lobbyists come into her representative’s office to promote their cause and then ask how Representative Smith would vote. In response to these requests, Karen states,

I am not allowed to tell them I support or do not support their cause. It is almost as if I am not allowed to act, speak, or present myself intelligibly, in which I am having significant trouble making adjustments to this.

She also worries that “I could say the wrong thing at the wrong time (and if I’m really unlucky, then to the wrong person or around the wrong group of people), and I could jeopardize my entire political career.” She expresses the tenuous nature of her position very clearly and also the clear construction of her intern persona by the controlling discourses around her. She also experiences disidentification by having to constantly censor her responses and speech acts.

However, by the middle of the internship (the middle of the semester), Karen no longer felt she was at the “bottom of the totem pole”:

Safe to say, I no longer feel that way. It was just repeated time and time over again during our orientation. I’ve actually never experienced this or had anyone even slightly hint towards it. Even the projects I take on have meaning. However, I will say that I suspect that every intern is not as lucky. I’ve witnessed them making coffee every morning and carrying plates of food to their office. I’m concerned that other interns don’t find their jobs to be fulfilling, but I certainly do not feel like that. I feel secure and confident in my assignments and placement every day, but I will comment that the experience is what you make it. I told my office from day one that I’m proactive and love research and writing more than a college student should.

Even though Karen heard the defining discourse during orientation about her limited role as an intern, she does not accept that characterization and makes conscious choices to distance herself from it by the middle of the internship. Although that discourse may not have been reinforced by nonorientation leaders later, Karen appears to go above and beyond the intern characterization that other interns participate in (by making coffee and carrying food) to orally expressing her interests and taking on projects that to her “have meaning.” At the end of the second questionnaire, Karen clarifies to me about the totem pole status: “I’ve since [orientation] never heard or even felt that it was true.” However, based on her discussion of other interns’ experiences which she often compares to her own, her experience of expressing agency through words and actions within the state legislature is not typical. She also writes about completing “a number of other projects for representatives, which also rarely happens for interns.” Karen feels that successfully completing these projects in the beginning has contributed to further opportunities for her. Through this process, her motivation to work with others in authority to position herself for these opportunities is noteworthy.

Making Choices About Appropriate Professional Behavior

Throughout her narratives, Karen also discusses behaviors she struggles with in this new workplace environment; she later actively comes to terms with how to behave in what she perceived to be awkward situations. One of the most prominent of these situations was interacting with the lobbyists and protestors, who often would pressure Karen either to tell Representative Smith their opinions or to request how Representative Smith would vote. In response to these somewhat aggressive communication acts, Karen writes, “As an intern, I am suggested to either smile or duck and run (I wish I could say that I was making this up)—even with bills or issues that I care passionately for.” Another strategy for avoiding the protestors, since “I cannot communicate with the press, the media, or especially the protestors themselves,” is to “always bow away gracefully.”

However, by the middle of the internship, when I asked her a follow-up question about the lobbyists or protestors and the impact of their presence, Karen states her social interactions with them have changed significantly and that there is not such a pronounced separation between herself and these other communicators. The confidence she has gained during this short period of time is evident, as well as her rejection of the orientation procedures and discourse:

Lobbyists are honestly not so terrifying, after all. I’ve struck up many conversations with them, and they are some of the most personable people in this entire assembly. Maybe it’s against procedure, but I’ve all but forgotten everything I heard during orientation. Perhaps it was for all of our benefit, or perhaps it was a scare tactic. Either way, I am not here to blend in or carry myself in a manner that can easily be replaced. I’m here to network and to leave an impression so that I may find myself on a profitable career path after graduation. That seems to be the theme that is setting in now: ‘Make yourself worth remembering.’ After all, keeping my head down or running away is extremely unprofessional, now that I’ve had some time to reflect on it.

Even though the discourse Karen heard during orientation advised her not to interact with the lobbyists or protestors, Karen indicates through the sentence “Make yourself worth remembering” that networking is a personal goal she has, regardless of the previous instruction. In addition, she is learning professional behavior. Instead of “bowing away gracefully” and “ducking and running,” she has found somewhat of an acceptable way to interact with these interrupters, acceptable to the degree that she was not sanctioned for these interactions. As a result, she is navigating the process of incorporating these people into her social network of communication in meaningful ways that could benefit her in the future (she is more aware of these participants’ perspectives, which she could then convey to Representative Smith for his benefit).

Another way Karen learns professional behavior in the state legislature is by observing others’ reaction to the progress of bills during the legislative process. When a bill did not pass that Karen felt strongly about and that Representative Smith supported, she forces herself not to react. When I asked her about why she does not feel she can react, Karen responded:

I believe it’s just unprofessional to act about—regardless of how much you claim to care about a bill. You can watch a sponsor present the bill, and even when the bill dies, they politely thank the committee and chairperson for their consideration. It’s simple and expected to follow suit. When the representative or senator who sponsors the bill does not react, then what reason could anyone else have to do so?

Karen does mention the “safe haven” of her office and that, once she enters there from the hallways, she feels free to vent about the reactions she has to what has taken place in the legislature. Her observations of those around her, including her mentors, have helped her learn that reactions in public are unprofessional, however. This is an example of how Karen is making choices about whether she chooses to work within the abiding discourses of power and their customs or conventions (as by learning and accepting through observing others’ unemotional reactions) or work to some degree against them (such as choosing to communicate with the lobbyists).

Socializing Yet Distancing While Also Creating an “Entire Family Dynamic”

Karen experiences several tensions during her work at the legislature as she tries to find her new position in this unfamiliar environment. Even more complicated is that the position she finds herself in is temporary; she is an intern, and she will be working at the legislature for only a few months. During orientation, she describes the interns’ positioning at the bottom of the totem pole, but she quickly realizes she does not have to accept that position. Yet she observes other interns functioning seemingly in that position as they fetch coffee and food for their representatives and other staff. While she discusses her efforts to network and do her best on the projects to which she’s assigned, she also makes an effort to socialize with her peers. She writes of her day-to-day interactions with the other interns,

… my intern class has found a common safe haven in one another. I’ll see my fellow interns in the hallways, and for a few brief moments, we exchange a smile and mutual feelings of exhaustion. We all understand that we have a job to do, and we want to do it well so that it pays forward, but we are always eager to spend time together. I am confident that I will leave [name of city] in April with friendships that will last a lifetime—mostly because I’m confident that their office will be right up the hallway from mine someday.

She also mentions socializing with the other interns at meals, and they enjoy participating in “debates” with each other on political issues. She explains the connections she feels with her peers by stating, “I suppose it’s because we all are of a similar background, mindset, career path, etc.” However, despite the connections she feels with the interns in this environment, she describes making important connections with her mentors, such as Representative Smith. Karen had mentioned that she felt “cared about” in this environment, and I asked her what it was about Representative Smith that made her feel that way. She responded:

I’ve never doubted that [Representative Smith] appreciates my hard work, but I will comment that not all interns have as delightful an experience with their office or staff. In fact, a few interns have been fired and sent home already. Representative Smith has remarked that he cares about my future several times. He’s never been hesitant to talk with me about my future. I suspect that he talks about me quite a bit, because other members have called upon me to complete projects and follow up by commenting on my intellect and hard work, and even other legislative assistants have had wonderful things to say about me. I am actually running a campaign for a mock session, in which I am running for Speaker. Some interns were not able to turn in their forms for intent to run because they could not get a legislative member’s signature. They were either too nervous to ask, or they never see their members; I’m not sure. But it was effortless to ask my member for his signature and approval to run my campaign. He simply smiles and remarked that he was not surprised that I was going for this. He wished me the best of luck and was actually my first signature.

Clearly, Karen works to maintain a peer “position” with her fellow interns, but she also strives to stand out with her representative and pursue visible positions, such as that of speaker of the mock session. Even though her narratives present her efforts to stand out and seem different from the other interns, she also discusses an interesting “family dynamic” she creates and verbalizes that blends these different people and their roles into one big family. In her second questionnaire, Karen mentioned, “I share this office with another intern, and we’ve jokingly worked out an entire family dynamic and shared it with the members of our office—representatives included”:

The office dynamic itself has Representative Smith, his legislative assistant Mary, and the policy advisor Jack. Representative Smith shared an office with Pro Temp Williams (the other intern who worked for him) and his legislative assistant Shelley. Our family dynamic had Representative Smith as the dad since he was always looking out for us and taking the time to talk with us about our futures. Next, Mary was the mother since she also cared for our well-being. She was the one who always carried medicine and Band-Aids. Jack was the brother since he always picked on us but never hesitated to prove that he cared for us. Rep. Daniels was the cool uncle; you would just have to meet him to understand that. He always made jokes and accused the other intern and myself of getting into trouble (which we did not). When we would tell him this, he would tell us that we ‘needed to get out more,’ and he would then share stories from his youth and joke about how troublesome he was (and still claims to be). In fact, he actually told us how to get on top of the Capitol roof, which we did on the last day of our internship. Last but not least was Shelley, and she was the cool, older sister. Since she was only twenty-five, she shared the same music and fashion taste as us. Whenever we needed college tips or life hacks, we always knew we could count on her. Overall, the family dynamic was incredibly fulfilling; something that started off as a joke turned into something real. I’ll always be grateful for the time in that office, because it was so much more than just an internship or a job. To me, that was my family.

This “entire family dynamic” served as a way for Karen to interpret these complicated, power differentiated work relationships through a paradigm she was already familiar with: a family. Those power relationships still exist, but it sounds like everyone in the office enjoyed this sense-making metaphor that included interns, Representative Daniels, Representative Smith, and legislative assistants. Representative Daniels, the “cool uncle,” helps initiate the newcomers by sharing “secret,” privileged information, and the interns act on that by accessing the Capitol roof, a somewhat symbolic image of success and accomplishment, of effectively managing so many difficult relationships within their network at the legislature. Interestingly, even though these interns emerge on the roof on the last day of their internships, the story of the family dynamic enjoyed by all in the office still locates the interns as “children”; even though Karen views this dynamic as positive and nurturing, she continues to acknowledge her subordinate position. In reality, the intern position is a subordinate one, but, probably unconsciously, she reinforces that position through the story, although agency exists, as well, as the interns escape onto the Capitol roof. This metaphor illustrates Karen’s social abilities to negotiate an identity for herself, even though she is in a subordinate position, she is able to achieve acts of agency throughout her internship by maintaining relationships with her intern as well as superior groups.

Making an Effort to Learn the Culture of the Legislature

All of Karen’s efforts so far address learning the culture of the legislature, but one theme that appeared in all three questionnaires was the idea of “organized chaos” and what it meant in this legislative environment. In her first questionnaire, Karen mentions that “I am completely engulfed by the ‘organized chaos’ that is the legislative branch.” This characteristic of legislative work stands out so much to Karen that she defines the work in that way: “Ideally, ‘organized chaos,’ as I’ve stated, is exactly how I would define the ongoing processes here at the Capitol.” Karen seems to connect this concept with the unpredictability of events in the legislature; one can never really predict how a bill might progress through the approval process, for example. I have heard anecdotal comments from other interns that, during their internship experiences at other locations, unpredictable events, such as personnel changes, unsettled them a bit (similar to what Gaitens [2000, p. 66] describes with students’ reactions to “lack of direction” they experienced in the workplace); after spending their time focused on structured courses in an academic setting (with a set professor, syllabus, and structured assignments), they were taken aback by sometimes unstructured workplace events, and that seems to be the same type of unsettled dynamic that Karen observes.

When I asked her to define what “organized chaos” means and ways she deals with it, Karen stated in the second questionnaire that she accepted it and relishes the interest it creates. She writes:

‘Organized chaos’ tends to be anything chaotic in nature but has a sense of organization or routine behind it, and it’s definitely widespread here. I suppose this happens because it is often said that the representatives and senators of this session treat this as part-time jobs, meaning that they have other careers and lifestyles to return to in their hometown after the completion of a legislative session. [This] simply means that they come into session with an agenda and deadline in the back of their mind. That’s only the backdrop for the ‘organized chaos.’

The real chaos happens here in Legislative Plaza. The making and passage of a bill is much more than Schoolhouse Rock taught us. I’ve seen bills get sent to the House floor and then get recalled all the way back to a subcommittee. I’ve seen bills go through the same committee simply because an amendment was added. As a matter of fact, I’ve even seen amendments added to bills moments before they are introduced in a committee. If this isn’t chaotic enough, there are pre-meetings for subcommittees (jokingly referred to as the subcommittee of the subcommittee). Even new calendars have been made past their deadline because bills have bounced from committee to committee all session without ever making it to the House floor. Ideally, anything can happen here, and I’ve noticed that it makes some people want to rip their hair out (especially if they’re convinced that it isn’t parliamentary procedure or the rules won’t allow it), but everyone and everything oddly has a way of still falling into place.

Karen discusses that one way she has adapted to this chaos, this unpredictability, is not always to expect that certain bills Representative Smith sponsors will pass. In committees, she hears testimonies that sound very powerful, and Karen would feel that surely, these testimonies would cause the bill passage process to “turn around.” Yet, after observing such testimony, she would then see the bill die in the committee with an overwhelming majority. She mentions also that no two days are ever the same; she could choose to react to this unpredictability but instead accepts it as part of the culture. When she would feel overwhelmed, after seeing Representative Smith’s efforts fail, she would “have to make several phone calls after work to vent and just get out whatever negative energy that I have.” While the “organized chaos” bothers Karen, she does accept it and finds ways to express her feelings when the committee processes do not produce the results she hoped for. Learning the culture of the legislature was part of Karen’s efforts to situate herself as an agent or social actor within this environment.

Discussion and Implications

Through this case study, we see the complexities involved when Karen enters an unfamiliar discourse community. Controlling organizational or governmental discourse exists, and Karen chooses to abide by that structure at times (by learning legislative genres and practicing the intern code of conduct by “ducking and running” to avoid interacting with lobbyists and protestors). We also see various efforts to negotiate agency as Karen learns more about the symbolic capital needed to gain power: She negotiates her involvement with the talking points document by conducting and including the research that would accomplish Representative Taylor’s goals while ensuring her overt participation in constructing the document is disguised. If we view this document as “cultural information,” we can see this dynamic as an act of rhetoric and persuasion, since “rhetoric [is] the negotiation of cultural information” (Haas, 2012, p. 287). By contributing to and influencing the production of this genre, Karen negotiates agency as well as the use of symbolic capital. In addition, she indicates her cultural awareness through writing: “Writing as a cultural practice performed in a heterogeneous and conflicted space populated by difference and distinction vastly complicates notions of rhetorical action. Agency is the name we give to this rearticulation of cultural rhetoric” (Herndl & Licona, 2007, p. 150). Karen is learning sophisticated nuances of what constitutes persuasion in this legislative environment; this process is similar to Heifferon’s (2015) discussion of identification and consubstantiation related to government or academic partnerships, a perspective that blends theories from Burke (1989) and Foucault (1980), among others, to arrive at an effective Aristotelian “means of persuasion,” which describes what Karen was attempting to accomplish.

Indeed, Karen negotiated agency through her actions by learning about the legislative culture through all of the areas discussed here. Learning the technical communication genres of the bill reviews and talking points required determining the social functions of those genres and their intended goals. Karen defined talking points as “researched facts, statistics, and enough anecdotes to make a talk interesting to everyone”; however, the process of developing those is different for everyone, according to Karen. She learned the way these representatives talked by observing them, then developed the talking points for them, based on their individual communication styles. Although she was never officially taught how to create the talking points, she did have strong academic preparation for writing them. She states, “Writing talking points came easy to me since it is a mix of professional/technical communication and political engagement.” She sought to identify with her audience’s needs (the representative’s as well as the House floor’s) by applying this knowledge. All of these processes involved Karen’s concerted efforts to interact and dialogue with other social participants around her (her network); she could not have been successful within this unfamiliar discourse community without them. This learning process is also an example of ways an intern can learn and practice tacit knowledge, which is “not easily visible or expressible” (Wasonga & Murphy, 2006, p. 154), but, over time and after receiving constructive feedback from others (such as learning not to advertise her bill research efforts), she begins to be successful at creating this genre, to the point that representatives find her efforts useful.

In addition to learning and practicing these technical communication genres, Karen also created agency through social negotiation by learning more about the specific culture of the state legislature, including adapting to the “organized chaos” and rejecting the deterministic language of the totem pole hierarchy (which revealed a controlling discourse structure in place). Instead of becoming discouraged by the apparently disorganized environment and accepting the totem pole language, she actively learns reasons behind the chaos and personally rejects the characterization of the interns made during orientation. In some cases, organizations may present and define both “‘in’ and ‘out’ of favour identities, with the latter operating as a default identity—a prerequisit position—from which new identities are launched but against which individuals may easily revert” (Alvesson et al., 2008, p. 22; Carroll & Levy, 2008). Although the “bottom-of-the-totem-pole” position was an accepted one for interns, Karen viewed this as an “out” identity, as she describes ways she attempted to distinguish herself from other interns who were practicing this “out” position. Instead, she attempted to launch a new identity for herself through all of these efforts and interactions with others, contributing to a new “in” identity; this process must have been difficult because Karen does not describe any models for this new identity that is different from the other interns; she defines this role herself through relationships, timeliness of submitting reports when others in her role were not doing so, and by exhibiting what some would call “professional” behavior by not “ducking and running,” eventually, when met with conflict. She defines a flexible identity that exists in limbo here; she does not function fully as an intern and not as a representative or even a legal assistant. Her sense-making family metaphor characterizes herself as a child, still, yet she seems comfortable with the ways she has been able to move forward and accomplish what she has, during this limited time with the networks available to her. Her self-characterization is “eager, optimistic, and confident” by the internship’s end.

During this semester-long internship, it appears that Karen has achieved an “optimal balance” (Kreiner et al., 2006, p. 1033) between managing her individual identity and the one she creates in relation to those around her (i.e., social relationships). Kreiner et al. (2006; see also Brewer, 1991; 2003) discuss that maintaining a balance between “inclusion” and “uniqueness” “work[s] together to (1) prevent identity dysfunction and (2) enable healthy identity processes. By achieving both inclusion and uniqueness goals, optimal balance reduces stress and conflict and increases well-being and satisfaction” (p. 1033). While Karen seems to have obtained some type of optimal balance at the end of the internship, it was the imbalance she experienced at the beginning that caused her to employ the “differentiation tactics” (Kreiner et al., 2006, p. 1050) of assertiveness and taking on projects and roles other interns did not. She distinguished herself from the other interns to negotiate a new identity for herself, one that Karen had envisioned and continued to envision as the internship progressed. For Karen, this dynamic process consisted of the “identity work” (Kreiner et al., 2006; Snow & Anderson, 1987) she practiced through learning the legislative genres, building and negotiating relationships, and understanding and applying knowledge of the culture she learned in the legislative environment.

However, some dissonance attaches itself to Karen’s experiences of agency as she practices these “differentiation tactics,” causing us to question whether a concept of balance is possible or beneficial to consider: There are certain consequences that result from her active identity work. While Karen strives to identify with the representatives and staff at the state legislature, she also experiences “disorientation” (Anson & Forsberg, 2002; Gaitens, 2000; Kohn, 2015, p. 176) and dis-identification (Alvesson et al., 2008, p. 19). At the beginning of the internship, Karen mentions that “my opinion doesn’t matter” and “our [the interns’] opinion is never taken into account.” In fact, Karen believes that she is not allowed even to speak: “It is almost as if I am not allowed to act, speak, or present myself intelligibly, in which I am having significant trouble making adjustments to this.” As Kohn, Anson, and Forsberg discuss “disorientation,” newcomers (in this case, also interns) were “unsure of how to begin constructing knowledge, unsure of how to construct social relationships in the workplace, and unsure of the genres and contexts of the workplace” (Anson & Forsberg, 2002; Kohn, 2015, p. 176). This description conveys powerlessness. However, “anti-identities” and “dis-identification” (Alvesson et al., 2008, p. 19) describe these uncomfortable identity states as places where power and change can emerge, as individuals attempt to construct their own identities, based on what a particular identity is not. Although this is a difficult process, not without dissonance, discomfort, and unpredictability, Karen participates in developing her own anti-identity as an intern, rather than identifying with the traditional intern role to which she was originally assigned. In essence, rather than supporting the structures that defined her as an intern, she consciously resisted them and also worked within them, admittedly in constrained ways, to support her unique purposes.

The identity-shaping process is necessarily an ambiguous one, as Herndl and Licona (2007) point out when they discuss agents’ unstable relationships with authority,

how we are all articulated in passing and shifting ways to different social spaces and practices. Agency speaks, then, to the possibilities for a subject to enter a discourse and effect change—even change that might serve to further entrench a dominant social order. (p. 135)

Karen clearly presents an “anti identity” throughout the internship as she strives to participate in collaborative exchanges with her peer interns at times while simultaneously choosing not to take on the roles of making coffee and fetching food for her office. This choice is interesting, given the “totem pole status” and the “bottom of the totem pole” comments made during orientation. Despite the comments, Karen intuits that “I’ve since never heard or even felt that it was true.” Some ambiguity exists surrounding why the orientation leaders would focus on this point, and then it not be followed through in the day-to-day internship practices; the regulating discourse did not filter through to Karen’s experiences, in part because of ways Karen participated in creating those experiences. Karen also contributes to controlling discourses, by furthering the paradigm that interns are not acknowledged as participants in bill research; her role is invisible there, as well as anonymous. As well, the differences between Karen’s experiences and her descriptions of other interns’ experiences also do not seem clear: Why was Karen’s experience seemingly so much more empowering than the others’? Why did some of the interns seem to accept the “invisible identity cage” (Alvesson et al., 2008, p. 17) to a greater extent while Karen eventually made it to the top of the Capitol roof?

In more general ways, we also see how Karen interacts with the cultural forces of governmental control that are constituted by the cultural history of this state legislature as well as the historical forces of the U.S. government. We can also acknowledge the dynamics of interacting with the lobbyist and protestor outsiders who exerted social force upon the day-to-day functioning of the legislature and the actors within it. The implications of these forces cannot and should not be minimized (Longo, 1998).

Additional research might explore what prerequisite knowledge interns might bring with them that allow them to make the types of choices Karen did, even when the interns are not completely familiar with these types of workplace cultures. As Herndl and Licona (2007) point out, “Agency is a social/semiotic intersection that offers only a potential for action, an opportunity. Subjects occupy that location skillfully; a rhetor’s abilities and accomplishments make a difference in how her performance is accepted” (p. 141). The implication is that these participants can skillfully choose to be involved within organizations in ways that benefit the cultures and the networks surrounding them.

While one case study is not overly generalizable, generating this type of knowledge yields strategies technical communication educators, internship coordinators, the interns themselves, and other newcomers can use to facilitate the adjustment to new workplaces and consider the dynamics of agency when constructing identities:

Learning discipline-specific genres is essential, including what is appropriate and not appropriate to include in them. While some of this knowledge must be learned locally, any discipline-specific knowledge and background that can be conveyed to interns beforehand would be helpful.

Newcomers will need to identify their own “organized chaos” within their workplaces and learn to adapt to it, including ways it impacts oral, written, visual, and digital communication.

Assess defining discourses (written and oral), and attempt to determine how defining they actually are.

Negotiate acts of agency, when possible, to gain opportunities to stand out and “Make yourself worth remembering,” a theme that Karen picked up on at the state legislature. This negotiation process includes social action with others who have varying degrees of access within workplace communication networks, relating to what Faber (2002) calls “image power” (p. 122).

Incorporate some type of reflective processing into work, since “self-reflection is an act of agency as it enables the person to see how actions, beliefs, and motives are influenced by structure” (Faber, 2002, p. 122).

More specifically, make appropriate networking contacts and relationships. While the “entire family dynamic” that Karen describes may not be possible in other workplace environments, the relationships she made aided her rise to what she viewed as the top.

Conclusion

The theories from the fields of organization studies and professional and technical communication presented here provide a useful, theoretical lens through which to view interns’ identity construction processes. In many ways, these interns are vulnerable; they are trying to bridge a divide between academic discourse environments and disciplinary workplaces, yet it is impossible to obtain all of the knowledge from an academic setting needed for a seamless transition. Regardless of what interns may be hoping for, a seamless transition is not ultimately desirable, since, through the learning or adjustment process, interns learn more about themselves and can redefine their roles, which in turn will provide them with knowledge and influence their transition to a more permanent workplace setting. Whether interns or newcomers, the principle of participant agency is a useful one to reflect upon and return to often; while discourses of power obviously will exist within organizations, they can be studied, navigated, addressed, and sometimes rejected. Assessing communicative flexibility and building relationships are useful life skills to pursue in this regard, as they will provide newcomers with opportunities for the greatest success and “upward movement,” as Karen found in her work, both literally in the documents she produced and the relationships she created, and somewhat figuratively and symbolically, as well, as she stepped out onto the Capitol roof for the first time on the last day of her internship. We should not view this symbolic emergence as an end to her learning process, though, as she and other newcomers will continue cycles of learning as they negotiate power and possibilities for resistance and change.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank the anonymous reviewers for helpful guidance in revising this article. This research was supported by a non-instructional leave provided by Tennessee Technological University.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

Author Biography

Kristin Pickering is a professor of English at Tennessee Technological University, where she directs the Professional and Technical Communication Program. She has published articles in Technical Communication Quarterly, Business Communication Quarterly, and Programmatic Perspectives. Her research interests include activity theory, interdisciplinary communication, identity construction, and ethics in technical communication.

References

Alvesson

(2010) Self-doubters, strugglers, storytellers, surfers and others: Images of self-identities in organization studies. Human Relations 63: 193–217.

Alvesson

Ashcraft

Thomas

(2008) Identity matters: Reflections on the construction of identity scholarship in organization studies. Organization 15: 5–28.

Alvesson

Willmott

(1996) Making sense of management: A critical analysis, London, England: Sage.

Alvesson

Willmott

(2002) Identity regulation as organizational control: Producing the appropriate individual. Journal of Management Studies 39: 619–644.

Andrus

(2010) A legal discourse of transparency: Discursive agency and domestic violence in the technical discourse of the excited utterance exception to hearsay. Technical Communication Quarterly 20: 73–91.

Anson

Forsberg

L. L.

(2002) Moving beyond the academic community: Transitional stages in professional writing. In: Peeples

(ed.) Professional writing and rhetoric: Readings from the field, New York, NY: Longman, pp. 388–409.

Bourdieu, P., & Thompson, J. B. (Ed.). (1991). Language and symbolic power (G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.). Cambridge, England: Polity.

Bourelle

(2012) Bridging the gap between the technical communication classroom and the internship: Teaching social consciousness and real-world writing. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 42: 183–197.

Bourelle

(2014) New perspectives on the technical communication internship: Professionalism in the workplace. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 44: 171–189.

10.

Brewer

M. B.

(1991) The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17: 475–482.

11.

Brewer

M. B.

(2003) Optimal distinctiveness, social identity, and the self. In: Leary

M. R.

Tangney

J. P.

(eds) Handbook of self and identity, New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp. 480–491.

12.

Bridgeford, T., & St. Amant, K. (Eds.). (2015). Academy-industry relationships and partnerships: Perspectives for technical communicators. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Company.

13.

Britt

E. C.

(2001) Conceiving normalcy: Rhetoric, law, and the double binds of infertility, Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

14.

Burke

(1989) On symbols and society, Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

15.

Butenhoff

(1986) Bad writing can be good business. In: Gieselman

R. D.

(ed.) Readings in business communication, Champaign, IL: Stipes, pp. 128–131.

16.

Carroll

Levy

(2008) Defaulting to management: Leadership defined by what it is not. Organization 15: 75–96.

17.

Dutton

J. E.

Roberts

L. M.

Bednar

(2010) Pathways for positive identity construction at work: Four types of positive identity and the building of social resources. Academy of Management Review 35: 265–293.

18.

Faber

B. D.

(2002) Community action and organizational change: Image, narrative, identity, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

19.

Foucault

(1977a) Discipline and punish, New York, NY: Vintage.

20.

Foucault

(1977b) What is an author? In: Bouchard

D. F.

(ed.) Language, counter-memory, practice: Selected essays and interviews, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 113–138.

21.

Foucault

(1980) Power/knowledge, New York, NY: Pantheon.

22.

Gaitens

(2000) Lessons from the field: Socialization issues in writing and editing internships. Business Communication Quarterly 63: 64–76.

23.

Gee

Hull

Lankshear

(1996) The new work order: Behind the language of the new capitalism, Boulder, CO: Westview.

24.

Giddens

(1984) The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

25.

Guba

E. G.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(eds) Handbook of qualitative research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 105–117.

26.

Haas

(2012) Race, rhetoric, and technology: A case study of decolonial technical communication theory, methodology, and pedagogy. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 26: 277–310.

27.

Habermas

(1972) Knowledge and human interests, London, England: Heinemann.

28.

Hammond

Cross

Moore

(2016) The construction of professional identity by physiotherapists: A qualitative study. Physiotherapy 102: 71–77.

29.

Hargreaves

(2000) Mixed emotions: Teachers’ perceptions of their interactions with students. Teaching and Teacher Education 16: 811–826.

30.

Heifferon

(2015) Academic/government partnerships: Theoretical underpinnings for improving online writing. In: Bridgeford

Amant

St. K.

(eds) Academy-industry relationships and partnerships: Perspectives for technical communicators, Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Company, pp. 117–137.

31.

Heracleous

Barrett

(2001) Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of information technology implementation. Academy of Management Journal 44: 755–778.

32.

Herndl

C. G.

Licona

A. C.

(2007) Shifting agency: Agency, kairos, and the possibilities of social action. In: Zachry

Thralls

(eds) Communicative practices in workplaces and the professions: Cultural perspectives on the regulation of discourse and organizations, Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Company, pp. 133–153.

33.

Hirst

(2016) Bonding with the nuclear industry: A technical communication professor and his students partner with Y-12 national security complex. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 46: 151–171.

34.

Hochschild

A. R.

(2012) The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling, Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

35.

Katz

S. B.

(1992) The ethic of expediency: Classical rhetoric, technology, and the holocaust. College English 54: 255–275.

36.

Kinsella

W. J.

(2005) Rhetoric, action, and agency in institutionalized science and technology. Technical Communication Quarterly 14: 303–310.

37.

Kira

Balkin

(2014) Interactions between work and identities: Thriving, withering, or redefining the self? Human Resource Management Review 24: 131–143.

38.

Kivisto

La Vecchia-Mikkola

(2015) The integration of Iraqis in two European cities: Emotions and identity work. Emotion, Space and Society 16: 90–98.

39.

Koerber

(2006) Rhetorical agency, resistance, and the disciplinary rhetorics of breastfeeding. Technical Communication Quarterly 15: 87–101.

40.

Kohn

(2015) How professional writing pedagogy and university-workplace partnerships can shape the mentoring of workplace writing. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 45: 166–188.

41.

Kreiner

Hollensbe

Sheep

(2006) Where is the ‘me’ among the ‘we’? Identity work and the search for optimal balance. Academy of Management Journal 49: 1031–1057.

42.

Kuhn

(2006) A ‘demented work ethic’ and a ‘lifestyle firm’: Discourse, identity, and workplace time commitments. Organization Studies 27: 1339–1358.

43.

Kvale

(1996) Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

44.

Latour

(1987) Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

45.

Lave

Wenger

(1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

46.

Longo

(1998) An approach for applying cultural study theory to technical writing research. Technical Communication Quarterly 7: 53–74.

47.

MacNealy

M. S.

(1999) Strategies for empirical research in writing, Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

48.

Martínez

J. G.

(2012) Recognition and emotions: A critical approach on education. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 46: 3925–3930.

49.

Pal

Buzzanell

(2008) The Indian call center experience: A case study in changing discourses of identity, identification, and career in a global context. Journal of Business Communication 45: 31–60.

50.

Peterson

R. A.

Anand

(2004) The production of culture perspective. Annual Review of Sociology 30: 311–334.

51.

Pratt

M. G.

Rockmann

K. W.

Kaufmann

J. B.

(2006) Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal 49: 235–262.

52.

Reiff

M. J.

Bawarshi

(2011) Tracing discursive resources: How students use prior genre knowledge to negotiate new writing contexts in first-year composition. Written Composition 28: 312–337.

53.

Schryer

C. F.

Lingard

Spafford

(2007) Regularized practices: Genres, improvisation, and identity formation in health-care professions. In: Zachry

Thralls

(eds) Communicative practices in workplaces and the professions: Cultural perspectives on the regulation of discourse and organizations, Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Company, pp. 21–44.

54.

Scott

J. B.

(2003) Risky rhetoric: AIDS and the cultural practices of HIV testing, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

55.

Scott

J. B.

Longo

Wills

K. V.

(2006) Why cultural studies? Expanding technical communication’s critical toolbox. In: Scott

J. B.

Longo

Wills

K. V.

(eds) Critical power tools: Technical communication and cultural studies, Albany, NY: State University of New York, pp. 1–19.

56.

Sides

Mrvica

(2007) Internships: Theory and practice, Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Company.

57.

Slack

J. D.

Miller

D. J.

Doak

(1993) The technical communicator as author: Meaning, power, authority. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 7: 12–36.

58.

Snow

D. A.

Anderson

(1987) Identity work among the homeless: The verbal construction and avowal of personal identities. American Journal of Sociology 92: 1336–1371.

59.

Tracy

(2000) Becoming a character for commerce. Management Communication Quarterly 14: 90–128.

60.

Tracy

Trethewey

(2005) Fracturing the real-self ↔ fake-self dichotomy: Moving toward ‘crystallized’ organizational discourses and identities. Communication Theory 15: 168–195.

61.

Trent

Lim

(2010) Teacher identity construction in school-university partnerships: Discourse and practice. Teaching and Teacher Education 26: 1609–1618.

62.

Trethewey

(1997) Resistance, identity, and empowerment: A poststructuralist feminist analysis of a human service organization. Communication Monographs 64: 281–301.

63.

Urzúa

Vásquez

(2008) Reflection and professional identity in teachers’ future-oriented discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education 24: 1935–1946.

64.

Wasonga

Murphy

(2006) Learning from tacit knowledge: The impact of the internship. International Journal of Educational Management 20: 153–163.

65.

Wells

(1986) Jürgen Habermas, communicative competence, and the teaching of technical discourse. In: Nelson

(ed.) Theory in the classroom, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, pp. 245–269.

66.

Wilson

(2001) Technical communication and late capitalism: Considering a postmodern technical communication pedagogy. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 15: 72–99.

67.

Winsor

(2006) Using writing to structure agency: An examination of engineers’ practice. Technical Communication Quarterly 15: 411–430.

68.

Ybema

Keenoy

Oswick

Beverungen

Ellis

Sabelis

(2009) Articulating identities. Human Relations 62: 299–322.

69.

Zachry

(2007) Regulation and communicative practices. In: Zachry

Thralls

(eds) Communicative practices in workplaces and the professions: Cultural perspectives on the regulation of discourse and organizations, Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Company, pp. v–xv.

70.

Zachry, M., & Thralls, C. (Eds.). (2007). Communicative practices in workplaces and the professions: Cultural perspectives on the regulation of discourse and organizations. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Company.