You are to take one or two of the artistic pieces that are na.docx

You are to take one or two of the artistic pieces that are
named below (or, you may find an equivalent artistic piece that
also deals with similar issues of race) and: deconstruct it,
critique it, compare it, analyze it, using the methodological
tools of analyzing racism that we have learned through the
readings and lectures...From among these are: White privilege,
structural racism, Race as social construct, the racial contract,
racial moral cognitive dysfunction/double standards of morality
and empathy based on race, epistemology of forgetfulness...
The theories that we have dealt with are going to be the
central piece. They are the lenses by which you will analyze
the artistic pieces. You must refer back to our readings in depth
to support your understanding of the theories.
The following are the art pieces:
Movies: Rosewood, Malcolm X, Twelve Years a Slave
(something else of your choice)
Paintings: the murals found at the Church of the Advocate...
(This church is within walking distance...to go see the pieces
you need to call in...Find their number on the web)
Songs: either Brother Ali’s "The Travelers" or, "breaking
dawn", Immortal techniques' "Third World" or “rich man's
world" or, Wise intelligent's "Globe holders", or, Amir
Sulaiman’s “Somalia”…
3-5 pages, 12 font, at least two sources, any style of citation is
allowed...
14
Module Eight: Communication, Socialization and Culture in
Organizations
Objectives: Candidates will acquire knowledge of group
communication and organizational patterns of communication
(skill). They will learn to manage their professional activities

better within an organizational context by improving their
understanding of group dynamics (skill). They will recognize
that group behavior is the medium for organizational culture
and practice.
Key Concepts: Organization, organizational communication,
communication flow, gatekeeper, communication networks,
formal and informal communication, organizational culture,
grapevine, subaltern, informational/cybernetic models of
organizations, goal displacement, scientific management,
Taylorism, fantasy themes, thick description, similes, subaltern,
Blackboard Discussion: Describe the informal network of
information–grapevine–in your organization from the
perspective of what gets communicated, to whom, when and for
what reason? How important is the grapevine to your job? How
is your professional identity shaped by the grapevine? Can you
afford to ignore the grapevine in your school? (What are the
positive and negative consequences if you do?) What impact
does the information in the grapevine have on your classroom?
On-line Activities: Please read Becker, The Dehumanized World
(found in Course Documents). What is his main point? (Hint:
Consider the qualities of language discussed in week two of the
course as well as the content of this week’s module.). More
specifically, why is the concept of reification important to
anyone who works in an organization. Why are we reading his
work in this module on organizational communication and
culture?
Assignment(s) for Week Eight: Find an example of a locally
produced official document (policy, clarification of policy from
your principal, memo to all staff from district, school
newsletter, email from another teacher). Consider how
this/these documents promote specific social, task or procedural
norms. Examine how identities are constructed in the document
(what are they saying about “who” you are. What are the overt
and hidden assumptions regarding what management, teachers,

students and parents are supposed to do (role expectations)?
Consider how they encourage or discourage a culture of civility
by the report and command or content/relational messages given
off.
Readings: Chapter 13, Informative Speaking, (pp. 396-415)
Introduction to Module Eight:
One of the objectives in this course according to the course
description is that candidates will understand the dynamics of
interpersonal communication in educational structures. For
much of this course we have been exploring the interpersonal
against the backdrop of the organizational, but we have not
focused specifically on the organizational forms of
communication, common to most institutions, such as schools.
Probably every single one of us knows something about working
in an organization. Most of us know intuitively, about
bureaucracies, where the school operates like a legal-rational or
quasi-legal institution, as well as an institution that provides
education to students. In EDUC 605, you will learn that schools
often suffer from goal displacement because the core values and
purposes of education seem to be lost in other purposes. You’ll
also find out that working in large organizations often creates a
feeling of powerlessness, alienation or burnout, as teachers feel
the work they do is meaningless, senseless, and as they feel
personally isolated in school, and from the community at large.
In this module, you’ll hear about the school of scientific
management, an organizational theory and practice that was
developed in the late 19th century, and that has become even
more prominent today as schools, teachers, and principals are
under scrutiny by a skeptical federal government that doesn’t
want to leave any child behind. By the way, this theory of
organizations is offered to school administrators, who learn the
tools of the trade – a school of thought developed in the
Bethlehem steel mills by Frederick Taylor. As the authors of
The Way Schools Work (the assigned text for EDUC 607), have

noted, this theory of organizations and administration, treats
students as widgets, disempowers teachers, and imagines
schools into vast machines.
An important aspect of working in organizations such as schools
is to be able to understand the way that messages, the flow of
communication, the repetitive interactions, and the
constructions of the “way things are” are the outcome of
communication. While we are interested in this module, in
organizational communication—the messages sent and received
within the organization’s formal and informal groups—we are
more interested in the way that “webs of significance” or
meaning is produced within organizations, so that
organizational and personal identities are socially constructed.
For this reason, we focus on the culture of organizations. And
finally, throughout these modules there has been a consistent
attempt to relate the interpersonal to the organizational
structures in which we teach. (This is in fact, the description of
this course.) So, we will return again, to the study of relational
dialectics and see how these can be applied at the macro-level.
The links provided between relational dialectics and
organizational structure may provide you with more conceptual
tools to complete your final project on school cultures. (For
example, what can you say about the communication climate of
the interpersonal relationships you have? What can you say
about the organizations communicative climate or culture?) You
might want to revisit Seven Traditions in Communication theory
in the Course Document file again, to understand
communication from the socio-cultural perspective.
Week Eight, Lesson One: Organizational Communication
Objectives:
1. To understand how organizations such as schools are
considered in the literature, and applied in practice.
2. To understand how organizations such as schools, consist of
communication networks, and countless and patterned
exchanges, that constitute the “culture” of the school.

1. Organizations:
“An organization may be defined as a group of individuals
brought together to achieve specific goals. The number of
individuals varies greatly from one organization to another:
some have three or four members working in close contact:
Others have thousands of workers scattered throughout the
world. What is important is that these individuals operate
within a defined structure” In his landmark book, The
Functions of the Executive (1938), Chester Barnard observed:
“In an exhaustive theory of organization, communication would
occupy a central place, because the structure, extensiveness, and
scope of organizations are almost entirely determined by
communication techniques.” (Quoted in Devito, 1997, p.335).
“Organizational communication includes such varied activities
as giving directions, counseling workers, interviewing
prospective employees, evaluating personnel, motivating
people, analyzing problems, resolving conflicts, and
establishing and monitoring work groups. Organizational
communication relies upon the skills of interpersonal, small
group, and public communication . . . . “ (Devito, 1997, p 337).
Much like theories of leadership, approaches to the study of
organizations lead to applications; theory becomes practice.
Today, the school is a mixture of these theories/practices. A
prominent theory of the organization (that suggested
howorganizations should be run, and who should run them) was
suggested by Frederick Taylor in the organizational school of
thought described as Taylorism. Enamored with the success of
the empirical sciences and technology of the day (the late 19th
century), Taylor suggested that organizations should adopt the
scientific management approach to the organization considered
as machine, and the role of leadership was to reduce waste and
improve human efficiency. Since he was in charge of a steel
plant, he actually broke down the work of the steel workers into
the tiniest detail, and then considered how each of the actions of

the steel workers could be improved upon, made more efficient
and therefore more profitable. He then proposed to them that
they perform their duties according to the scientifically
determined actions he prescribed.
A similar activity in the field of education and curriculum
theory was occurring in the work of Bobbitt and others at this
time. They believed that the content of the curriculum should be
broken down into tiny, discrete units for “delivery” to the
student. Under NCLB, this philosophy of breaking down content
continues, with the added dimension that each discrete unit of
knowledge should be subjected to testing. The interesting
negative outcome of the scientific management school of
thought was the inherent distrust of the worker and the
assumption by management, of responsibility for the direction
of his/her work (Management alone was capable of
understanding knowledge necessary to make the worker more
scientific in his/her work). Today, “evidenced based practices”
play a similar role—it will be the scientists and statisticians
who will determine whether a teacher and the curricula are
successful. (If you would like to read more, you could refer to
my article with Dr. Sullivan “To Wander, Wonder, and Linger
in the World of Standardized Testing” by going on line to
wisdomineduation.org.) In the literature on scientific
management, machine metaphors are common, and we hear
terms such as inputs, outputs, throughputs, and so on.
Human relations theory represented a paradigm shift that
contributed to our understanding of the psychological aspects of
the organization. This school recognized the failings of the
scientific approach, which emphasized the cognitive and
rational dimensions of work. The human relations school
considered the organization as an organic entity, and cautioned
leadership to pay attention to worker satisfaction. (The role of
communication here was to get employees to accept the
authority of the leadership. Implicitly or explicitly, the

metaphors of the organization as a family or therapeutic group
are common.
The sociologist Max Weber was fascinated with the emergence
of the bureaucracies at the turn of the 19th century. He tried to
articulate the operating principles of these new industrial and
financial organizations. As he did so, he also prescribed to
others, how organizations should be structured. Common in
theory and practice is the metaphor of the organization as a
legal-rational machine. It is legal in the sense that it mirrors
courtroom procedures, precedents, laws, and contracts. It is
rational in the sense that the authority of the leadership is
grounded in these principles of law and contract and not based
on the charisma, or the traditional authority of the
owner/manager. The leader of the organization ran the show
because he/she had legitimate power (as opposed to coercive
power, etc. –we discussed before).
In theory and practice, most organizations work under a legal
code; this legal code orients our behaviors; it represents a belief
system. People might obey orders because they believe the
person giving the order is acting in accordance with their duties
as stipulated in a code of legal rules and regulations. In other
words, in legal-rational systems (systems not grounded in belief
systems not based on charismatic leadership or reverence for
tradition) people look to the codification of behaviors generally
found in the legislation of the school:
(
this code can claim obedience from members of the organization
(
it is a system of abstract rules, these rules are applied to
particular cases, and the administration looks after the interests
of the organization within the limits of the law
(
the person applying the code is also obeys the code

(
the code applies to the functions associated with membership of
the person in the organization; it does not apply outside the
organization (or if it does, it may take a different form)
(
the obedience is due not to the person who holds authority, but
to the impersonal order which has granted the person the
position
(
This legal code constitutes a belief that some persons have the
right to issue orders, and others should obey; it is a “structure
of dominancy” embedded in code.
The organizational structure that accompanies this belief in the
code of legal regulations and rules is the bureaucracy, which
exhibits the following features:
(
the staff members are personally free, observing only the
impersonal duties of their offices;
(
there is a clear hierarchy of offices
(
Officials are appointed on the basis of a contract
(
They are selected on the basis of a professional qualification,
ideally substantiated by a diploma gained through examination
(
They have a salary and usually pension rights. The salary is
graded according to the position in the hierarchy. The official

is always free to leave the post, and under certain
circumstances, the post can be terminated.
(
The officials’ post is their sole or major occupation
(
There is a career structure and promotion is possible either by
seniority or merit and according to the judgment of superiors.
I am sure that most of this sounds familiar to you. It is easy
enough to imagine how communication in these bureaucratic
organizations is generally top-down, and consists of orders, and
suggestions for altered workloads, goals, objectives, and even
interactions between students, teachers, and parents. If you were
to describe your school culture as bureaucratic, what might you
be saying about the relational dialectics? You’ll find a partial
answer to this another lesson in this module.
Module Eight, Lesson Two: Informational Systems Approach to
Organizations
Objectives:
1. To understand the complicated communicative networks that
embody schools as organizations.
2. To be able to identify some of the communication patterns in
your schools and the kinds of messages conveyed in them.
Under the influence of cybernetic theory and computer
technological developments, theorists of the organization began
to pay attention to the organization as a system, bounded by
communication flows and messages. The systems approach to
the organization “. . . views the organization as a system in
which all parts interact, and in which each part influences every
other part. . . . The organization is viewed as an open system–
open to new information, responsive to the environment,
dynamic and ever changing (Devito, 1997, p 338).
Communication networks refer “to the channels through which

messages pass from one person to another” (Devito, 1997, p.
340). Networks are described as circles, wheels, Y pattern,
chain pattern, all-channel or star pattern.
In every hierarchical organization there is a downward flow of
information which flows from one level of a group or
organization with more power and authority, and information, to
a lower level. Used by administrators and managers to assign
goals, provide job instructions, inform underlings of policies
and procedures, point out problems that need attention and offer
feedback about performance. Letters, memos, e-mails from
management also constitute downward flow of communication.
Of course, there is also an upward flow of communication too,
that takes the form of feedback to higher-ups, indications of
progress towards goals, information about how employees feel
about their jobs, suggestions. This flow can be formally
organized through attitude surveys, grievance procedures, gripe
sessions with managers (Robbins, 1993, p. 332). In traditional
university courses, it would be student evaluations). And, there
is a lateral flow of communication amongst members at the
same level in an organization; caretakers with caretakers;
secretaries in the pool; teachers with each others and students
with students. In the study of organizations, it is sometimes
wise to track messages by noting what information, gets sent to
whom, when, and for what apparent and hidden reasons. We
should also be aware that in most organizations there is the
gatekeeper: the person who monitors and controls much of the
information that circulates within the division, the area, etc.
Often the secretary is the gatekeeper for the principal, but there
are others who serve this function as well. For example, a
teaching department may be experiencing groupthink.
In the early years of cybernetic and systems theory (1950-
1960), the study of organizations from a systems perspective
paid much attention to the information flows in an organization,
the formal channels or formal networks which are typically

vertical as opposed to lateral in nature. It was predisposed to
perceive communication as a activity that follows the chain of
command, and to identify content specific to getting the job
done (task-related). The focus was on the messages sent
between sender and receiver, and how those messages may be
distorted by physical or social psychological “noise” which
could be overcome by repetition of the signal or information,
the principle of redundancy. However, in later years, (1960’s),
the informal communication networks became equally important
as a means of understanding organizations. Informal
communication networks refer to the configurations of
information that moves in any direction, skips authority levels
(so that the secretaries know more than the principal; or the
janitor, who cleans out the wastepaper basket, knows more
about the classroom than the principal). Informal
communication networks satisfy the social needs of members.
(Robbins, 1993, p. 332). One of the most important feature of
the relatively informal communication network is the grapevine.
(Despite the fact that we think that gossip heard through the
grapevine is passed on to everyone else, only about 10% of
those involved actively pass on information to more than one
other person. )
Informal action, and interaction, say, through the grapevine,
may be negative (intrigue, plotting, frame-ups, power struggles,
or any other kind of sneakiness) but it may also be positive: to
change and preserve the organization; to protect weak
individuals; punish erring ones, reward others, recruit new
personnel, and to maintain dignity of the formal organization.
When the grapevine is used by management to enact policies
and rules, we could say that it is not informal but formal. And
remember, some of those who are participating in the grapevine
are not simply getting together, its not just a random clique;
rather there may be some calculation there that is purposive and
as directive –they may be acting unethically or strategically.
They may also be acting on behalf of those who manage the
organization. A study of the messages passed through the

grapevine would be interesting if we consider that the grapevine
is an important source of meaning, and hence the social
construction of organizational reality, the shoring up of
identities and alternative presentations of self, and the
sanctioning of alternative behaviors and norms.
It is important to note that there is often a “mushroom
phenomena” in organizations. Though we speak of the formal
and informal aspects of the organization, this is not to suggest
that there is an equal symmetry between the two. In fact, many
individuals working in the organization may know little of the
formal organization– they are kept in the dark– purposely, or
unintentionally. They live and work largely within what might
be described as the informal realm. An interesting study of
school culture would result, I suspect, with interviews of those
who work in the dark, or what some critical theorists describe
as the subaltern.
We must look at organizations as processes grounded in the
interactions of persons who work towards integration of formal
and informal, rules and actions; process of continuous evolution
We should examine how
1. The grapevine may be part of the machinery....
2. Official meetings bring together the informal and formal
3. Commands from high levels for unofficial action for
unofficial action from below
4. Informal requests from below for the right to engage in
unofficial actions
5. Transitional roles (temporary assignments/ acting up;
temporary projects; unofficial action to speed up a process-that
leads to formal changes)
6. Adoption by the formal of unacknowledged practices that

have proved their worth
Module Eight, Lesson Three: The Socio-Cultural Approach to
Organizations
The Socio-Cultural Tradition in Communication Studies is
briefly outlined in the Seven Traditions of Communication
Theory and you may want to refer to the table there again.
Within the sociocultural tradition there is a strong tradition that
examines organizations as cultures. The cultural approach to
organizations holds that a corporation should be viewed as a
society or a culture (see Pilotta, Widman & Jasko 1988; Putnam
& Pacanowsky, 1983, Zamoanov & Glaser, 1994). In the
cultural approach “communication is not simply messages that
are sent from one member to another through one or more
channels (as conceived in some network analyses). Rather,
communication is seen as integral to the very definition of an
organization. Communication, in fact, defines and constructs
the organization, its divisions, and its functions. The
organization is not something apart from its workers and its
communications. Rather, the organization is created and takes it
form from its workers and their communication interaction”
(Devito, 1997, p.329).
Much as a social group or culture has rules of behaviors, rituals,
heroes, and values, for example, so does an organization. In this
approach, then, an organization is studied to identify the type of
culture it is and its specific norms or values” (Devito, 1997, p
338). Theorists argue that words do not only reflect reality, they
create it. If our view of reality is strongly shaped by the
language we use, then the study of the language we use, how we
use it, is an important indicator of the culture in which we
work. As Griffin (2000) notes, the social-cultural tradition is
based on the premise that, as people talk, they produce and
reproduce culture. He claims that the so called “real world” in
an organization is built upon the language and cultural habits
of the group. Through the process of communication: “reality is

produced, maintained, repaired and transformed” (Griffin, 2000,
p43)
In the sociocultural tradition, the organizational culture “is not
just another piece of the puzzle; it is the puzzle. From our point
of view, culture is not something an organization has; a culture
is something an organization is.” Pacanowsky, in (Griffin,
2000, p 249 ). “People do get the job done, true (though
probably not with the singleminded task-orientation
communication texts would have us believe); but people in
organizations also gossip, joke, knife one another, initiate
romantic involvements, cue new employees to ways of doing the
least amount of work that still avoids hassles from a supervisor,
talk sports, arrange picnics. “ Pacanowsky, in (Griffin, 2000,
p.249)
And, in the sociocultural tradition, communication theory
explores the message, but emphasizes the relational factors
involved in the message. There are shades of the
phenomenological approach that infuse the sociocultural, since
both are engaged in the “intentional analysis of everyday life
from the standpoint of the person who is living it” (Griffin,
2000, p.45.) However, the phenomenological tradition places
great emphasis on people’s interpretation of their own
subjective experience and attempt to get at the direct experience
of living, being, working, while the sociocultural examines the
broader social processes to understand the meanings individuals
make of their world. Thus, if we were to study school culture
from the perspective of one individual, we might would have to
go beyond the subjective interview data, and take into
consideration the larger organizational processes at work—use
what we know about the school to explain how the person might
perceive the school the way she/he does.
Jerome Bruner defines culture as “the way of life that we
construct, negotiate, institutionalize, and finally (after it’s all
settled) end up calling ‘reality’ to comfort ourselves.”

“Communication is closely linked to culture because
communication creates, expresses, sustains, and alters cultural
life . “Patterns of communication reflect cultural values and
perspectives” (Wood, 2000, p.218). “In the process of learning
language, we learn our culture’s values, beliefs, and norms”
(Wood, 2000, p.218)
The cultural approach looks at the scripts of the organization,
the roles prescribed (performances of self), the routines
(repetitive performances), the myths, themes, images, and
stories told, the fantasy themes and the “communication
interaction” of its workers (Devito). Importantly, the patterning
of relationships (along the relational continuum or relational
dialectic) helps us to understand the culture of the school, its
culture and communication climate. For example, we can now
appreciate how disclosure is a monumental act of identity work
that (re)produces norms, rules, personal and professional
philosophies of teaching, and the school’s norms on what should
and should not be said. Remember how Ms. Wallace has to learn
the hard way, about how to communicate from a distance, with
the inmate/students in her school. Feiman-Nemser and Floden
(1986) believe that “teaching cultures are embodied in the
work-related beliefs and knowledge that teachers share–beliefs
about appropriate ways of acting on the job and rewarding
aspects of teaching, and knowledge that enables teachers to do
their work” (p.508).
Teaching cultures are embedded, realized, reproduced and
redefined in the repeated patterns of relationships–the regular
interactions among members of these cultures (Amy Gratch,
2001; ).
Nesbit writes: “The classroom is a cultural landscape where
values, beliefs and preferences are realized in the “patterning
and punctuating of time, the bounding and use of the physical
space, patterns of discipline and control, grading and testing
practices, uses of textbooks, connection to the outside world,

and interactions between teachers.” Jackson’s ethnographic (or
culturally based) study of the classroom depicted classroom
cultures as places where activities performed according to well-
defined and highly choreographed rules. Predictable, recursive
patterns of behaviour–routines--such as seatwork, group
discussion, teacher demonstration reinforce the “rules of order”
in classrooms and perpetuate the overt and covert desire to
prevent institutional disturbances–to maintain order.
How might we take what we know about relational dialectics
and apply this knowledge to the study of school cultures?
Conceptually, it might look like the patterned arrangements in
Box 6.2 .
Interestingly, Baxter and Montgomery, the primary authors of
the theory of relational dialectics, expanded in their work which
has implications for the study of school cultures. Bridge and
Baxter added other relational dialectics to their framework
which are illustrated in Figure 1 below:
Figure 1: Relational Dialectics: An Expanded ( if slightly
tilted) Look
You might want to study how all these dialectics appear in
everyday interactions and how they reflect and create the school
culture.
Module Eight, Lesson Four: Critical Communication Approach
to Organizations
By now, it should come as no surprise that communication
‘creates and constitutes the taken-for-granted reality of the
world.” (Griffin, 2000, p. 248 ). The question becomes: “whose
reality?” Much of what we have said so far assumes that the
social construction of reality is somewhat benign. What if, as I
suggested in an earlier module, communication is systematically
distorted? What if your school culture perpetuates groupthink,
which perpetuates the school culture? What if, at every turn,
there is some form of discursive closure? What if every
exchange with another is replete with one up or down
communication, with distancing tactics?

Stanly Deetz applied theories developed by Jurgen Habermas to
the modern corporation. He was particularly concerned with the
way that the public sphere in society was compromised by big
private corporations which are protected from direct public
control, yet are the very places where crucial decisions that
affect the everyday lives of citizens are made (Griffith, 2000).
He noted how communication practices within corporations can
distort decision making and reality (since communication is not
simply the transmission of information or messages). He is
quoted as saying:“…language does not represent things that
already exist. In fact, language is a part of the production of
the thing that we treat as self-evident and natural within
society” (in Griffin, 2000, p. 261). For him, it is not just that
“meanings are in people” as I.A. Richards notes; it is a question
of whose meanings are in people? (Griffin, 2000, p.
261).Deetz describes how corporations colonize and control
everyday life. They colonize everyday life when they provide a
language that speaks to their corporate world, and not to the
world that adopts it. Everywhere we turn, this colonization is
evident, in a ubiquitous business lingo that sees the world as a
matter of the bottom line. This “produces a perceived reality
that shuts out non-financial considerations” (Griffin, 2000,
p.261.) In education, this colonization is evident when we
speak of bottom lines, education as investments, students as
clients and consumers… Other images invade and colonize the
school such as no child left behind which is rich in significance
because it connotes a race, competition, progress, potential
vulnerability, equality, and effort. When families use financial
terms to discuss their relationships and everyday life, they are
recreating the practices and influence of corporate thinking in
their everyday lives. (Note how many times you might use
financial metaphors at work and home.). Language such as this
becomes an act of moral justification for suppressing dissent
because the corporate reality becomes the only language
through which we speak.

The issue of power and control runs through all communication.
In schools, prisons and factories, managers are trained to
operate primarily from a philosophy of control. This situation
is described by Deetz as managerialism, “ a kind of systematic
logic, a set of routine practices, and ideology” that values
control above all else. Stockholders want profits, and workers
want freedom, but managers want control. One of the means of
controlling the worker (manufacturing consent) is to get inside
their heads: this is often the function of the human resource
department; the information is used to manipulate the persona
of the worker, to shape his or her mask, face, or presentation of
self (Wright & Smucker, 1980). Deetz states: “Consent is the
term I use to designate the variety of situations in which
someone actively, through unknowingly, accomplishers the
interest of others in the faulty attempt to fulfill his or her own
interests. The person is complicity in her or his own
victimization” The manufacture of consent is accomplished
through the production of a corporate culture: workplace
language, information, forms, symbols, rituals, and stories.
Managers attempt “ …to produce and reproduce a culture that is
sympathetic to managerial interests.” (Griffin, 2000, p. 265).
All corporations have their set of constitutive practices. The
question is not: what do these mean, but “whose meanings are
these? The force of organizational practice is strongest “when
no one even thinks about it.” Questioning a routine leads
employees to answer lamely: “because that’s the way we do it/
we’ve always done it.)
Managerialism impedes democratic stakeholder participation
through a process Deetz calls systematically distorted
communication. Unlike strategic communication, which is open
and deliberate, systematically distorted communication operates
without employees’ overt awareness. When this happens,
expectations and norms within a group setting restrict what can
be openly expressed, or even thought.” (Griffin, 2000, p. 267.)
(It’s sort of like groupthink, but even less conscious).

Systematically distorted communication reproduces the
organizational hierarchy. SDC sets up situations of discursive
closure: some are disqualified to speak on important issues.
Arbitrary definitions that can be labeled as “natural” to avoid
further discussion—in critical theory reification is used to
described the thing-like nature of the world, which even though
it has been created by human beings, appears to them as an
object, as part of the natural world, and thus unalterable. The
values that guided a manager’s decision may be kept hidden, so
it appears to be an objective decision. A group may discourage
members from talking about certain subjects. In some cases,
the topic arises and its importance is discounted. (Griffin,
2000, p. 268).Another tactic of course, is discursive closure:
exclude the voices of people who are affected by the decisions.
In an ideal world, Deetz says, we might hope for practices
grounded in co-determination: the “collaborative collective
construction of self, other and the world”
And so, when it comes to your school, how is consent
manufactured? How is consent, agreement on practices which
really seem to run counter to the interests of students and
teachers, manufactured? Document one situation that reveals
systematically distorted communication.
Module Eight, Lesson Five: Studying School/Organizational
Cultures
Objectives:
6. Students will appreciate that schools are cultured
organizations which make sense to their members.
6. They will become more focused in their research on school
cultures and communication theory.
Throughout these modules we have been exploring the
production of culture. This is an important point. Culture does

not only exist in the artifacts in the school hallways, in the
trouphes and awards along the walls; nor does it exist in the
books chosen or not chosen in the library. School culture
consists of webs of meaning that people have spun; We need to
be concerned not only with culture as a product, but also with
the spinning: how cultures are produced, the “spinning.” In
other words, culture is enacted; it is performed, much like we
perform and reform scripts and present our selves and the social
norms except now we speak of cultural performances instead of
individual performances as we did when we discussed the
presentations of self. The study of culture should describe
“those very actions by which members constitute and reveal
their culture to themselves and to others” Pacanowsky, in
(Griffin, 2000, p 249)
Although all cultural performances are important, we should be
sensitive to the imaginative language members use, the stories
they tell, the nonverbal rites and rituals they practice according
to Pacanowsky (Griffin, 2000, p.251). Ernest Bormann’s
Symbolic convergence theory explores how small groups
reenact solidarity rituals through the production of fantasy
themes. Fantasy themes here refers to “any reference to events
in the group’s past, speculation about what might happen in the
future, and any talk about the world outside the group. The term
does not cover comments about actions taking place ‘here and
now’ within the group. Fantasies are expressed in the form of
stories, jokes, metaphors, and other imaginative language that
interprets or places a ‘spin’ on familiar events. Voiced fantasies
become vehicles to share common experiences and invest them
with an emotional tone.” (Griffin, 2000, p. 21). Bormann says
that we can spot a fantasy chain reaction by the “increased
energy within the groups, an upbeat tempo in the conversation,
and especially through a common response to the imagery”
Everybody wants to share their stories....get on the bandwagon
(Griffin, 2000, p. 21). Heros and Villains appear in these
themes. Group cohesiveness or sense of community is built

through use of fantasy themes. You’ll notice too, a shift in
pronoun structure from me, I, mine, to we, us, ours. There are
clusters of fantasy themes: in prison schools this may be: equal
pay to teachers in the public sector; more prep time; respect
from the prison guards; treating the inmates more fairly. This
view of teaching in prisons, or schools is a rhetorical vision: it
is a persuasive vision and re/construction of reality. One of the
most interesting ways to research school culture is to explore
the fantasy themes that appear, often in the staffroom. Watch
how and when other teachers get really excited and future-
orientated about a theme. What does this say about your current
state of affairs?
A close attention to language is going to be important to the
study of school culture. Similes are an important starting point
for the analysis of corporate culture. I have heard prison schools
referred to as war zones and teachers use of the term “battle” to
describe their day. In a study of W.L. Gore and associates–the
makers of Gore text products, there were three images that
surfaced: company as a cluster of peasant villages (morality +
decentralization); large improvisational jazz group (like-minded
but creative group) and factions in colonial America (idealism
and cynicism about the new world at Gortex). I already
mentioned how, in the College of Education, the metaphor of
community surfaces often. Stories repeated over and over
provide a convenient window through which to view the school
culture/webs of significance. Pacanowsky focuses on the script
like qualities of narratives that line out an employee’s part in
the company play.
(
corporate stories: carry the ideology of management and
reinforce company policy
(
personal stories: stories staff tell about themselves; often define

how they would like to be seen with the organization
(
collegial stories: positive or negative anecdotes told about
others in the organization; since these stories are not sanctioned
by management, collegial accounts pass on to others how the
organization ‘really works’ (Griffin, 2000, p. 252).
Whatever you chose to study, try and remember what one
theorist, Clifford Geertz, has to say on the subject. The
anthropologist Clifford Geertz is often quoted when the study of
culture is the topic. He proposed the thick description of
cultures. He believed it was important to trace many strands of
the cultural web and track evolving meaning. He felt it
necessary to map out the social discourse, describing in detail
the organization as members experienced it. His research has
been described as qualitative; it is not an experimental science
in search of law, but an interpretive one in search of meaning.
(Griffin, 2000, p. 250-1). Thick description positions the
researcher in the posture of radical naivete. Try and look at
your school through the eyes of a stranger; start with a state of
bewilderment. And oh, by the way, in EDUC 607, you will find
out more about this, in the discussion of qualitative as opposed
to quantitative research.
PAGE
14

You are to take one or two of the artistic pieces that are na.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to You are to take one or two of the artistic pieces that are na.docx

Similar to You are to take one or two of the artistic pieces that are na.docx (19)

More from hanneloremccaffery

More from hanneloremccaffery (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

You are to take one or two of the artistic pieces that are na.docx