Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBrown, AD
dc.contributor.authorAinsworth, S
dc.contributor.authorGrant, D
dc.date.available2014-05-22T05:52:00Z
dc.date.issued2012-03-01
dc.identifierhttp://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000301799500001&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=d4d813f4571fa7d6246bdc0dfeca3a1c
dc.identifier.citationBrown, A. D., Ainsworth, S. & Grant, D. (2012). The Rhetoric of Institutional Change. ORGANIZATION STUDIES, 33, (3), pp.297-321. SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840611435598.
dc.identifier.issn0170-8406
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11343/32375
dc.descriptionAnnual Academy of Management Conference
dc.description.abstractThis paper analyses how a case for institutional change is made through rhetoric in an individual text. Drawing on Aristotle’s three types of rhetorical justification, logos, pathos and ethos, we make three contributions. First, we show that the multiple competing logics which often dominate a field can become incorporated into key texts. As a result, the notionally rational argumentation repertoires which underpin each logic exist in tension, and are prone to contradict each other, making it difficult for a text to support convincingly one logic rather than another on the basis of logos appeals. In such instances, the authors of a text may favour one logic over another through the strategic use of ethos (moralizing) and pathos (emotion-evoking) rhetoric. Second, we demonstrate how ethos and pathos function to construct social categories (identities) and draw on dominant cultural myths. Third, we theorize these textual strategies as acts aimed at reconfiguring relations of power/knowledge.
dc.languageEnglish
dc.publisherSAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
dc.sourceThe Academy of Management Annual Conference
dc.subjectBusiness and Management
dc.titleThe Rhetoric of Institutional Change
dc.typeConference Paper
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0170840611435598
melbourne.peerreviewPeer Reviewed
melbourne.affiliationThe University of Melbourne
melbourne.affiliation.departmentManagement and Marketing
melbourne.source.titleOrganization Studies
melbourne.source.volume33
melbourne.source.issue3
melbourne.source.pages297-321
melbourne.publicationid155352
melbourne.elementsid329566
melbourne.contributor.authorAinsworth, Susan
melbourne.internal.ingestnoteAbstract bulk upload (2017-07-24)
dc.identifier.eissn1741-3044
melbourne.accessrightsThis item is currently not available from this repository


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record