Search results

Presents a social constructionist account of organising processes in which the focus is on joint (not individual) acts, on action as any human activity and its artifacts ‐ including talk, and on making “people and worlds”. The authors show that actions, or more widely, projects, can be co‐ordinated without the need for shared understanding, shared vision, common projects and the like; indeed, they argue that shared understanding is a dangerous illusion. In its place they offer a view of organising processes and their development that focuses on the present‐future rather than the past and problems, to acting from within rather than commenting from without, and the acceptance of many projects (not the dominance of one).

The S–O discourse includes themes that have been variously summarized as “objectivism” (Hermans, Kempen & van Loon, 1992) and “the received view of science” (or “RVS,” see Woolgar, 1996). Others, speaking of competing “paradigms” in qualitative research, have referred to some of these themes as “positivist” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994) — a confusing simplification for those familiar with the philosophy of inquiry. Relevant examples include narratives that, for example, distinguish between individuals and groups and more “macro” units such as organizations and society in ways that are overly suggestive of concrete, separately existing “things” with their own defining characteristics (Hosking & Morley, 1991).

This article is constructed in the form of a dialogue between a mother – who has just returned from the conference “It’s a relational world” – and her daughter, Sophie. Sophie asks her mother to explain what the conference was all about … what is “relational constructionism”, what is its relationship with interests in development and change? In the dialogues that follow they make reference to well‐known frameworks and ways of thinking including Lewin’s metaphor of planned change. The latter is explored, so making explicit related (and interrelated) assumptions about organisations, the nature of “human nature”, what is thought to be real and good, power, and the role of dialogue. These dialogues go on to explore other “relational” assumptions concerning the “same” issues. A relational approach to change is discussed as a different local narrative, not as a “superior” replacement for other approaches.

Achieving collaboration within and between organizations is seen commonly as being problematic. Looks behind some of the current management thinking to find the “taken‐for‐granteds” implicit in that thinking and practice, which constitute an “entitative perspective”. Viewing managing and collaboration from such a perspective facilitates certain questions about managing. Suggests that there is an alternative, relational, perspective which promotes different questions. From this relational perspective, managing is seen as just one social process of making sense of situations or communications, termed “text”, in relation to context. Argues that this sensemaking process is conversational and provides insights into the processes of collaborating.

This paper focuses on the relationship between a particular social practice – local exchange trading systems or schemes (LETS) – and what we here call the “mainstream” marketing paradigm. It begins by discussing some of the key principles that are thought to set LETS apart from other, “more mainstream”, economic activities. One case is then given particular attention – the “Ithaca hours” system – run in Ithaca, New York. Having examined the formalities of the system and its operation, the paper reviews what participants say about their participation. The paper draws upon these multiple narratives to explore the ways LETS may be both similar to and different from other forms of economic and social praxis. The authors’ argument is that “mainstream” marketing concepts and practices fail to embrace all the complexities of LETS as social‐economic practices.