Duality arguments are now a common perspective employed in organizational discourse research to avoid the problematic dualism of necessarily prioritizing structure or agency. Despite this considerable philosophical maturity, not all duality approaches are created equal. In fact, duality theorizing in current organizational discourse research has developed into two perspectives— structured in action or acted in structure. This article outlines the characteristics of each research program and provides an illustration of how similar organizational phenomena may be interpreted differently depending on paradigmatic orientation. Then, methodological recommendations and two emerging theoretical myopias—duality and organizing biases—are described to challenge scholars to employ dialectically these seemingly incommensurate perspectives in their theorizing of 21st-century organizational discourse.
Ashcraft, K.L. (2001). Organized dissonance: Feminist bureaucracy as hybrid form. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1301-1322.
2.
Ashcraft, K.L., & Mumby, D.K. (2004). Reworking gender: A feminist communicology of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3.
Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5.
Bailey, K.D. (1990). Social entropy theory. New York: State University of New York Press.
6.
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J.M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge , UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
Banks, S.P., & Riley, P. (1993). Structuration theory as an ontology for communication research. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.), Communication yearbook 16 (pp. 167-196). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
8.
Bastien, D.T., & McPhee, R.D. (1995). A study and extended theory of the structuration of climate. Communication Monographs , 62, 87-109.
9.
Baxter, L.A., & Montgomery, B.M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York: Guilford.
10.
Baxter, L.A., & Montgomery, B.M. (1998). A guide to dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships. In B. Montgomery & L. Baxter (Eds.), Dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships (pp. 1-15). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
Berger, P.L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
12.
Bisel, R.S., Ford, D.J., & Keyton, J. (2007). Unobtrusive control in a leadership organization: Integrating control and resistance. Western Journal of Communication , 71, 136-158.
13.
Boden, D. (1994). The business of talk: Organizations in action . Cambridge, MA: Polity.
14.
Bostrom, R.N. (2003). Theories, data, and communication research. Communication Monographs, 70, 275-294.
15.
Brummans, B.H.J.M. (2006). The Montréal school and the question of agency . In F. Cooren, J. R. Taylor, & E. J. Van Every (Eds.), Communication as organizing: Empirical and theoretical explorations in the dynamics of text and conversation (pp. 197-212). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
Bryant, C.G.A., & Jary, D. (1991). Giddens' theory of structuration: A critical appreciation . New York: Routledge.
17.
Burke, K. (1969). A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley : University of California Press.
18.
Button, G. (1992). Answers as interactional products: Two sequential practices used in job interviews. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work (pp. 212-234). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Castor, T., & Cooren, F. (2006). Organizations as hybrid forms of life: The implications of the selection of agency in problem formulation. Management Communication Quarterly, 19, 570-600.
20.
Cheney, G. (2000). Interpreting interpretive research: Toward perspectivism without relativism. In S. R. Corman & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Perspectives on organizational communication: Finding common ground (pp. 17-45). New York: Guilford.
21.
Cheney, G. (2001). Book review: The organizing property of communication . Quarterly Journal of Speech, 87, 453-455.
22.
Chia, R. (2000). Discourse analysis as organizational analysis . Organization, 7, 513-518.
23.
Clausius, R. (1887). Die mechanische Wärmetheorie [The mechanical theory of heat]. Braunschweig, Germany: Vieweg.
24.
Conrad, C. (1993). Rhetorical/communication theory as an ontology for structuration research. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.). Communication yearbook 16 (pp. 197-208). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25.
Conrad, C., & Haynes, J. (2001). Development of key constructs. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 47-77). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
Cooren, F. (1999). Applying socio-semiotics to organizational communication: A new approach. Management Communication Quarterly, 13, 294-304.
27.
Cooren, F. (2000). The organizing property of communication. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
28.
Cooren, F. (2004). The communicative achievement of collective minding: Analysis of board meeting excerpts. Management Communication Quarterly, 17, 517-551.
29.
Cooren, F. (2006). The organizational world as a plenum of agencies . In F. Cooren, J. R. Taylor, & E. J. Van Every (Eds.), Communication as organizing: Empirical and theoretical explorations in the dynamic text and conversation (pp. 81-100). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30.
Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (Eds.). (1998). The dark side of close relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
Derrida, J. (1999). Writing and difference (A. Bass, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1978)
32.
Fairhurst, G.T. (2007). "Standing by" numbers and statistics in organizational discourse analysis. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 47-54.
33.
Fairhurst, G.T., & Cooren, F. (2004). Organizational language in use: Interaction analysis, conversation analysis and speech act semantics. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), Sage handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 131-152). London: Sage.
34.
Fairhurst, G.T., Green, S., & Courtright, J. (1995). Inertial forces and the implementation of a socio-technical systems approach: A communication study . Organization Science, 6, 168-185.
35.
Fairhurst, G.T., & Putnam, L.L. (1999). Reflections on the organization-communication equivalency question: The contributions of James Taylor and his colleagues . Communication Review, 3, 1-19.
36.
Fairhurst, G.T., & Putnam, L.L. (2004). Organizations as discursive constructions. Communication Theory, 14, 5-26.
37.
Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2003). Working at a cynical distance: Implications for power, subjectivity and resistance. Organization, 10, 157-179.
38.
Gabriel, Y. (2004). Narratives, stories and texts. In D. Grant, C. Hardy , C. Oswick, & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 61-78). London: Sage.
39.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Malden, MA: Polity.
40.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. Berkley: University of California Press.
41.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
42.
Grant, D., Hardy, C., Oswick, C., & Putnam, L.L. (2004). Organizational discourse: Exploring the field . In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 1-36). London: Sage.
43.
Greimas, A.J. (1987). On meaning: Selected writings in semiotic theory (P. J. Perron & F. H. Collins, Trans.). Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1970)
44.
Harley, B., & Hardy, C. (2004). Firing blanks? An analysis of discursive struggle in HRM. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 377-400.
45.
Harter, L.M., Berquist, C., Titsworth, B.S., Novak, D., & Brokaw, T. (2005). The structuring of invisibility among the hidden homeless: The politics of space, stigma, and identity construction. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33, 305-327.
46.
Heracleous, L. (2006). Discourse, interpretation, organization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
47.
Heracleous, L., & Hendry, J. (2000). Discourse and the study of organization: Toward a structurational perspective. Human Relations, 53, 1251-1286.
48.
Howard, L.A., & Geist, P. (1995). Ideological positioning in organizational change: The dialectic of control in a merging. Communication Monographs , 62, 110-131.
49.
Infante, D.A., Rancer, A.S., & Womack, D.F. (2003). Building communication theory (3rd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
50.
Kirby, E.L., & Krone, K.J. (2002). "The policy exists but you can't really use it": Communication and the structuration of work-family policies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 50-78.
51.
Klein, J.F. (1910). Physical significance of entropy or of the second law. New York: D. Van Nostrand.
52.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
53.
Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). New York: New American Library.
54.
Kuhn, T., & Nelson, N. (2002). Reengineering identity: A case study of multiplicity and duality in organizational identification. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 5-38.
55.
Lanigan, R.L. (1976). The speech act theory of interpersonal communication: Stimulus for research. Journal of Applied Communications Research , 4, 98-101.
56.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
57.
Martin, J. (2002). Organizational culture: Mapping the terrain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
58.
Miller, K.I. (2000). Common ground from the post-positivist perspective: From "straw person" argument to collaborative coexistence. In S. R. Corman & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Perspectives on organizational communication: Finding common ground (pp. 46-67). New York: Guilford.
59.
Mumby, D.K. (2001). Power and politics. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 585-623). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
60.
Mumby, D.K. (2005). Theorizing resistance in organization studies: A dialectical approach. Management Communication Quarterly , 19, 19-44.
61.
Mumby, D.K., & Putnam, L.L. (1992). The politics of emotion: A feminist reading of bounded rationality. Academy of Management Review, 17, 465-486.
Parker, J. (2000). Structuration. Philadelphia : Open University Press.
64.
Penman, R. (1990). Facework and politeness: Multiple goals in courtroom discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9, 15-38.
65.
Pleasants, N. (1999). Wittgenstein and the idea of a critical social theory: A critique of Giddens, Habermas, and Bhaskar. New York: Routledge.
66.
Poole, M.S., Seibold, D.R., & McPhee, R.D. (1985). Group decision-making as a structurational process. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 74-103.
67.
Poole, M.S., & Van de Ven, A.H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14, 562-578.
68.
Putnam, L.L., & Fairhurst, G.T. (2001). Discourse analysis in organizations: Issues and concerns. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 47-77). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
69.
Quinn, R.W., & Dutton, J.E. (2005). Coordination as energy-in-conversation. Academy of Management Review, 30, 36-57.
70.
Robichaud, D. (2000). Book review: The organizing property of communication . Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 317-321.
71.
Robichaud, D. (2006). Steps toward a relational view of agency. In F. Cooren, J. R. Taylor, & E. J. Van Every (Eds.), Communication as organizing: Empirical and theoretical explorations in the dynamic text and conversation (pp. 101-114). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
72.
Schegloff, E.A. (1999). Talk and social structure. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (pp. 107-120). New York: Routledge.
73.
Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
74.
Sewell, G., & Barker, J.R. (2006). Coercion versus care: Using irony to make sense of organizational surveillance. Academy of Management Review , 31, 934-961.
75.
Silverman, D. (1989). Six rules of qualitative research: A post-romantic argument. Symbolic Interaction, 12, 215-230.
76.
Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
77.
Taylor, J.R. (2000). Preface. In F. Cooren (Ed.), The organizing property of communication (pp. xiii-xv). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
78.
Taylor, J.R., & Cooren, F. (2006). Making worldview sense: And paying homage, retrospectively, to Algirdas Greimas. In F. Cooren, J. R. Taylor, & E. J. Van Every (Eds.), Communication as organizing: Empirical and theoretical explorations in the dynamic text and conversation (pp. 115-140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
79.
Taylor, J.R., Cooren, F., Giroux, N., & Robichaud, D. (1996). The communicational basis of organization: Between the conversation and the text. Communication Theory, 6, 1-39.
80.
Taylor, J.R., & Van Every, E.J. (2000). The emergent organization: Communication as its site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
81.
Tompkins, P.K., & Cheney, G. (1985). Communication and unobtrusive control in contemporary organizations. In R. D. McPhee & P. K. Tompkins (Eds.), Organizational communication: Traditional themes and new directions (pp. 179-210). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
82.
Toyoki, S., Spicer, A., & Elliot, R. (2006). Beyond old horizons: Theorising the rhythms of social reproduction. Tamara Journal, 5, 94-112.
83.
Tracy, S.J. (2000). Becoming a character for commerce: Emotion labor, self-subordination, and discursive construction of identity in a total institution . Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 90-128.
84.
Trethewey, A. (1999). Isn't it ironic: Using irony to explore the contradictions of organizational life. Western Journal of Communication, 63, 140-167.
85.
Varey, R.J. (2006). Accounts in interactions: Implications of accounting practices for managing. In F. Cooren, J. R. Taylor, & E. J. Van Every (Eds.), Communication as organizing: Empirical and theoretical explorations in the dynamic text and conversation (pp. 181-198). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
86.
Weick, K.E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. New York: Random House.
87.
Weick, K.E. (1990). The vulnerable system: An analysis of the Tenerife air disaster. Journal of Management, 16, 571-593.
88.
Weick, K.E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
89.
Weick, K.E. (2001). Making sense of the organization. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
90.
Witmer, D.F. (1997). Communication and recovery: Structuration as an ontological approach to organizational culture. Communication Monographs, 64, 324-350.
