2018 Interview: Joanne Martin Trailblazer Award
Interview with Nelson Phillips (Imperial College), Cynthia Hardy (University of Melbourne), and Cliff Oswick (Cass Business School), joint winners of the Joanne Martin Trailblazer Award.
Interviewer: Shilo Hills, PhD student at the University of Alberta.
Congratulations on receiving the OMT Joanne Martin Trailblazer Award! Can you briefly describe what your research is about?
Nelson Phillips (NP): Our research has focused on the application of discourse analysis to understanding processes of social construction in organizations and their contexts.
Cliff Oswick (CO): I would add that discourse analysis encompasses the analysis of both the production and consumption of talk and text.
CH: I would add that by examining how talk and texts are produced and consumed, discourse analysis helps to illuminate how meanings in organizations are shaped and changed. When you dig more deeply using discourse-analytic tools, you realize that the meaning of many of the things that we take for granted in organizations are not fixed, neutral or inevitable, but are influenced in subtle and complex ways over time.
What does winning the Trailblazer Award mean to you?
NP: I have to admit that winning this award was a complete surprise. And, on reflection, the thing I am most pleased about is that people have found our work helpful and interesting. When I started working on this stream of research, it seemed a long way from mainstream management, so this award is a great legitimation of the efforts of all the discourse scholars in our field.
CO: The award is a tremendous honour. I have a passionate and enduring interest in the discursive analysis of organizations and organizing. When I started publishing work on organizational discourse in the early 1990’s I couldn’t have possibly imagined how interest in organizational discourse would grow to the extent that it has done. And, I agree with Nelson that the award is a legitimation of the efforts of all the discourse scholars in our field.
CH: I am very flattered to receive this award and was completely taken by surprise when I received the news from Davide [Ravasi]. Like Nelson and Cliff, I also remember the genesis of organizational discourse theory in the 1990s, when it occupied a very small niche in the broader domain of management research. I also remember how many scholars working at the ‘leading edge’ of management research quickly became interested in it. Some wanted to use it, while others had reservations about it. It was this community of scholars – through both the application and critique of discourse theory – who really developed and elaborated research on organizational discourse, and we owe a lot to them.
What inspired you to become interested in institutional and organizational discourse and analysis?
NP: During my PhD, I found it curious that while people were increasingly accepting the idea that organizations and institutions were socially constructed, the processes through which this occurred was largely opaque. I therefore began to work on ways to study and understand processes of social construction such as hermeneutics, semiotics, and discourse analysis.
CO: My interest in discourse was initially sparked in the late 1980’s. My interest arose in two very different, but concurrent, ways. First, by reading some postmodern philosophy (especially Derrida and Foucault), I became interested in the power and ambiguity of language-use. And second, by reading Gareth Morgan’s Images of Organization (and then other non-management work on metaphors), I became interested in the significance of figurative language and more generally the framing of organizational perspectives and insights.
CH: My interest in organizational discourse came about from my research into refugees – in the 1990s, I was examining how refugees were treated and organized in the UK, Canada and Denmark. I was struck by how conventional theories of management – even those related to power and politics – failed to explain their situation satisfactorily, especially the conceptualization of refugee identity. It was only when I started reading more about discourse theory that I began to make sense of my research, for example, how refugee identities were ‘de-centred’ and how the treatment, experiences and organization of refugees depended on the interplay of ‘grand’ discourses like sovereignty, security, humanitarianism, and empowerment – something that is still true today.
Can you tell us a bit about your collaborative process?
NP: I began working with Cynthia when I joined McGill. As a newly minted assistant professor, working with Cynthia was a fantastic opportunity and she taught me the nuts and bolts of publishing as well as connecting me into a network of people doing qualitative research and interested in this crazy discourse stuff I was interested in. She was also terrific at helping me clarify and develop ideas around discourse analysis that I had worked on in my thesis and then working with me to develop and extend them into new areas. I met Cliff through the discourse conferences he organized in the UK and we ended up working on several different projects, culminating in the review article we published a couple of years ago. Working with Cliff was also terrific, as his ideas on language and organizations were very complimentary but coming from a slightly different direction, making our collaboration particularly interesting and productive. In both cases, collaboration was about talking things through and writing together to clarify our ideas. For me, collaborators need to be friends, as writing together requires intense interaction and spending lots of time together to work things out on whiteboards and pads of paper.
CO: Just to add to Nelson’s comments above, I organized the first organizational discourse conference in London in 1994. I organized it with a colleague (i.e. David Grant who has played an important role in developing organizational discourse as an area of inquiry). It was a very small event (about 30 papers), and the theme was around organizational metaphors. The second conference, held again in London in 1996, was bigger and more international. At that conference, Cynthia and Nelson presented a fantastic paper of the discursive construction of refugee identity. We met at that stage and have been friends and collaborators ever since.
CH: Yes, I remember starting to work with Nelson when he came to McGill and meeting Cliff and David Grant around the same time. This set off a number of collaborations with Nelson and Cliff, as well as other individuals like Tom Keenoy and Linda Putnam in projects like the special issue of Organization Studies and the Handbook of Organizational Discourse. With people like this, there was a real buzz as we worked through various theoretical and empirical issues – what we came up with was enhanced by being able to collaborate with people we liked and trusted but who would also challenge us.
Are there any challenges that you have faced during your career that you could share? How have you overcome them?
NP: I feel I have been very lucky in that I have had terrific co-authors and worked at supportive and research-oriented institutions. So I don’t feel I faced any particular challenges beyond the usual difficulties of publishing in good journals!
CO: I have really enjoyed working as an academic for almost 30 years. I don’t feel that I have faced significant challenges in my career. I do however feel that I have faced challenges outside of work and these challenges has been managed and overcome in no small part due to support from my academic collaborators / friends.
CH: I’m not sure if you’d call it a challenge or an opportunity, but in 1998, I moved from McGill to Melbourne. Australia seemed a very long way away from both Europe and North America. So, we set up the International Centre for Research on Organizational Discourse, Strategy and Change which is a very loose, virtual organization. It’s been really important from an Australian perspective (David Grant moved to Sydney shortly after I moved to Melbourne), as it allowed us to bring in discourse researchers from overseas and hold dedicated workshops on particular themes. Through this Centre and the conference that Cliff mentioned, as well as various sub-themes at conferences like EGOS, an international community of discourse scholars has emerged and grown.
How do you think your research has most importantly extended and contributed to dialogue in institutional and organizational theory (OT)?
NP: I think our work has brought the idea that organizations and institutions are socially constructed through the production of texts (defined broadly) into mainstream OT. This sort of linguistic perspective brings a whole range of processes and action to the fore and makes them available for study and theorizing. The discursive approach that we have worked on has also supported and enabled (and been supported and enabled in turn by) other approaches such as rhetoric and narrative that have all enriched organization theory.
CO: I agree with Nelson’s response. But, I would perhaps also add that beyond producing our own contributions to the field, we have also sought to develop, support and showcase the work of others within the organizational discourse community. This has included: discourse conferences / workshops, mentoring junior scholars (including doctoral students), edited volumes, guest editing special issues of journals, and organizing the ICRODSC (International Centre for Research on Organizational Discourse, Strategy and Change) network.
CH: I would add that, in addition to the above, one of my aims has to be to ‘push’ discourse analysis through its application to empirical work and, particularly, important societal issues, as well as more traditional management themes, in order to obtain more profound insights. It started with the work on refugees and has continued with work on NGOs in the West Bank, HIV/AIDS activists, toxic chemicals, and organizational change. This, in turn, has depended on having some very smart and skilled collaborators including Nelson and Cliff, but also Tom Lawrence, Steve Maguire and Robyn Thomas.
What do you think are some of the challenges and opportunities that exist for young scholars aspiring toward ambitious theory development like yours?
NP: I think there are huge opportunities for ambitious theory development in our field and new scholars are in a great position to do so, as they are the ones who have just read all of the literature and are the ones that bring in new ideas and approaches. Our field places a high premium on theory development (some would argue too high!) and successfully developing new theory is both interesting, fun and satisfying when your work is used and cited. So, I would strongly encourage young scholars to work hard on developing new theory to help us understand management phenomena in new and interesting ways.
CO: I think there are huge opportunities – but, there are also considerable challenges. In particular, I think that academic life has been intensified by increasing institutional demands regarding teaching and research. Journal submissions have increased and getting published has become more difficult. I think that young scholars should be ambitious – but, they also need to persevere and be resilient.
CH: Yes, the pressures are considerable on early career researchers these days but there are also opportunities. Universities are increasingly focusing on ‘grand challenges’ and emphasizing the importance of researchers having practical impact. While discourse analysis has led to important theoretical developments in management research, I also think it lends itself to innovative empirical work on important issues. The trick will be to write papers that advance theory development and, at the same time, write other types of texts that provide more practical insights. It’s no easy task, but I do think that organizational discourse theory is, potentially, an important ‘tool’ in meeting this challenge.
If you could provide any advice or words of wisdom to young scholars aiming to be trailblazers, what would you say?
NP: I think the key is for scholars to focus on theoretical issues or real-world phenomena that they find really interesting. Don’t try to do what is trendy or “publishable”, but work on what you think is interesting. Furthermore, work on problems that are as fundamental as possible. I think one of the reasons discourse analysis has had an impact is that it applies to all sorts of areas of study, as the processes of social construction that discourse analysis reveals produce.
CO: I agree wholeheartedly with Nelson’s advice. I would also suggest that it is important to seek out mentors and collaborators who have cognate interests and with whom you feel you develop a meaningful and productive work relationship and friendship (e.g. as I have done with Nelson and Cynthia).
CH: Yes, you have to be interested in what you are doing and like the people you are doing it with. That’s been my experience of working with Nelson and Cliff and also my other co-authors.
Again, much congratulations on your well-deserved earning of the Trailblazer Award! Do you have any final comments that you would like to share?
NP: I just would like to thank the OMT Division for the award. It is a tremendous honour to have been chosen for this award and a pleasure to share it with Cliff and Cynthia.
CO: Yes, thanks so much to the OMT Division for this award. And, thanks to Nelson and Cynthia – without their insights, outputs and friendship, I honestly don’t think I would have been nominated for a trailblazer award.
CH: I echo these sentiments and would also like to thank the OMT Division for the award. It has been a great privilege to receive it, and it’s been lovely to be able to share it with Cliff and Nelson.