Search results

The major aim of this study is to specify the ways in which rhetorical strategies are employed in Q&A (question and answer) discussion, and how information sources are used to support such strategies.

The study is based on the analysis of 944 answers provided to the questions about global warming in Yahoo! Answers. The answers were analysed by means of descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis.

Twelve rhetorical strategies serving the ends of classic rhetorical appeals, i.e. ethos, pathos and logos, were identified. The answerers drew most frequently on strategies related to logos (for example, appeal to reason) and ethos (for example, appeal to authority), while the strategies serving the ends of pathos (for example, argument ad hominem) were less popular. To support the rhetorical strategies, the answerers mainly used scientific sources such as websites of research organizations and persuasive material like Youtube videos.

The findings are based on the analysis of a Q&A site focusing on a controversial issue providing fertile ground for the use of rhetorical arguments.

The findings can be used in information literacy instruction. It would be easier for the users to evaluate the relevance and credibility of information if they become aware of the specific ways in which askers and answerers on Q&A sites make use of persuasive communication.

The study is unique in that it elaborates the ways in which rhetorical strategies are employed as ways of persuasive communication in Q&A discussion.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the rhetorical strategies used by organizations in support of propriety judgments concerning their products.

The approach taken entails discourse and rhetorical analysis of texts produced by leading firms in the bottled water industry, and by the industry’s trade association, surrounding issues of sustainability.

The analysis reveals rhetorical strategies invoked by firms to legitimate their economic, environmental and social performance.

This paper’s primary contribution is to research that informs the discursive aspects of legitimacy. As well, this study contributes to our nascent understanding of the microfoundations of sustainability.

Our knowledge of how organizations use different discursive strategies in support of legitimacy is relatively underdeveloped. By examining rhetorical strategies used in support of propriety judgments concerning organizations’ environmental, social and economic legitimacy, this study begins to fill gaps in our understanding.

The purpose of this paper is to identify how the US Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) communicatively engaged in legitimization concerning accreditation.

This study utilized the rhetorical analysis approach outlined by Hoffman and Ford (2010) to explore the accreditation-related texts from an online source created by CHEA, Information About Accreditation.

The analysis identified three overarching approaches to include: isomorphism to address regulatory legitimacy, organizational identity management to address pragmatic legitimacy, and a dialogic approach to address normative legitimacy. This analysis also developed a new theoretical model for the rhetorical construction of legitimacy, “A Model for the Rhetorical Construction of Legitimacy,” that can be summarized as: organizations foster a type of legitimacy through a legitimizing strategy by demonstrating how the purpose of the legitimizing strategy is achieved by the implementation of the legitimizing strategy.

Limitations include that data were gathered only from online, web-based texts during a period in which the rhetorical situation was ongoing.

This study expands research concerning the rhetorical approach to issues management in that it examines the way legitimacy is negotiated through the various rhetorical strategies of an organization. Additionally, information is offered about the rhetorical structure of texts when an organization seeks to legitimize certain ideas.

This analysis developed a theoretical model for the rhetorical construction of legitimacy, “A Model for the Rhetorical Construction of Legitimacy,” that demonstrates important relationships between legitimizing strategies and types of legitimacy. Understanding these relationships may allow for a better interpretation of how legitimacy theory is represented within a communicative venture.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the rhetorical strategies used by organizations when the legitimacy of their products is challenged by stakeholders’ sustainability concerns.

The approach involves rhetorical analysis of texts addressing the implications of genetically modified foods for sustainability. The rhetorical logic (pathos, logos, or ethos) and discursive intent (promotion of validity or propriety) invoked by leading seed producers to address stakeholders’ sustainability concerns was identified.

Ethos was found to be used to address validity judgments, pathos to address propriety judgments, and logos to address both validity and propriety judgments. The mechanisms through which rhetorical logic supports discursive intent are described.

This study contributes to a growing body of research at the intersection of discourse and legitimacy, and reveals the rhetorical strategies used to address stakeholders’ sustainability concerns. Future research can build on the study’s findings by examining the effectiveness of distinct rhetorical strategies in building legitimacy.

We lack a complete understanding of how legitimacy is discursively constructed when stakeholder concerns, such as those around sustainability, threaten an organization’s legitimacy. This paper’s examination of rhetorical logic and discursive intent advances this understanding.

This paper examines the rhetorical strategies of two Indian microfinance organizations as they transformed from non-profit to commercial format. They shifted forms at a time (year 2010), when commercialization had been criticized severely. The purpose of this paper is to understand “How does a microfinance organization justify its action of transformation to retain legitimacy?”

The paper adopts a qualitative case study method to understand the phenomena. Interview, archival documents, and field observations are the major source of data for the study. Data analysis is carried out through coding method.

Drawing from Suddaby and Greenwood’s (2005) work on rhetorical strategies, the paper suggests that these organizations have used two types of rhetorical strategies – cosmological and teleological. These strategies operate in a performative role and link deviant practices with routines. It focuses on institutional maintenance rather than change.

The paper acknowledges two important limitations. First, the rhetorical focus may be influenced by the history of organization. So depending on organization selected, the focus may vary. Second, the paper is constricted by the low-documentation practices prevailing in many civil society organizations.

The paper contributes to the literature on hybrid organization by unpacking the process of sense making in a hybrid form. The paper also reinforces the argument that language operates in a performative role. The paper provides a new context (India) to understand the process of rhetorical strategies.

The purpose of this paper is to re‐conceptualize the relations between rhetorical strategies and material practices in the processes whereby leaders create or change organizational cultures.

The authors compare and contrast two broad perspectives on cultural change in organizations. The first perspective is informed by modern social science, and focuses primarily on material practices. The second perspective is rooted in classical rhetoric, and concentrates on discursive strategies.

It is found that both perspectives hold pertinent but partial insights. The authors propose an integrated perspective in which material practices and rhetorical strategies are seen as two analytical sides of the same ontological coin. This enables a fuller and more detailed explanation of how organizational cultures are created or changed. A brief illustration is provided of the merits of this approach by revisiting the case of Enron.

The paper constitutes an initial exploration of how social scientific and rhetorical perspectives on organizational change may be brought closer together. It may provide the first step towards the development of a new, integrated theory.

Mass retail in France, as an organizational field, experienced an institutional change when the Dutreil Law was promulgated on August 2, 2005. This new text is the result of a long process through which different groups of opposing logics faced one another. Michel-Edouard Leclerc actively took part in the debate launched about the Galland Law reform. His institutional activism has contributed to this change and he can be qualified, on that account, as an institutional entrepreneur. Anchored in neo-institutional theory, this article contributes to understanding the part played by the institutional entrepreneur in the process of institutional change. Design/methodology/approach

The authors analyze Michel-Edouard Leclerc's discourse on his weblog to characterize the rhetorical strategies he adopts to legitimize change. The analysis is based on the works of the pragmatics of communication and on a detailed semantic analysis of reference fields (Tropes

This contribution has enabled the author to stress the part of the institutional entrepreneur in the transformation of an organizational field. The rhetorical strategies implemented here contribute to modifying institutional logic. From a theoretical point of view, this contribution links the neo-institutional approach with entrepreneurship by proposing to define the institutional entrepreneur as an actor pursuing political opportunities.

One important advantage of this work is that the authors have offered a methodological framework for studying the discourse of institutional entrepreneurs. The paper proposes empirical operationalization of rhetorical strategies. This contributes to improving the validity of the research because the identification of rhetorical strategies is no longer exclusively related to the researcher's subjective interpretation. The work also has practical implications for the actors: how can their discourse play a part in the institutionalization process?

The purpose of this paper is to explore the interactive element in social and environmental reporting during a controversy between business organisations and a stakeholder over environmental performance.

The paper adopts Aristotle's triangular framework of the rhetorical situation to examine how the writer, the audience, and the purpose of communication interact in the choice of rhetorical strategies used to persuade others of the validity and legitimacy of a claim during a public controversy. The analysis focuses on the strategies (i.e. moves and their rhetorical realisations) in the form of logos (appealing to logic), ethos (appealing to authority), and pathos (appealing to emotion), with a particular emphasis on metaphor, used to achieve social and political goals. The authors base the analysis on a case study involving a conflict between Greenpeace and six organisations in the sportswear/fashion industry over wastewater discharge of hazardous chemicals. The conflict played out in a series of 20 press releases issued by the parties over a two-month period.

All six firms interacting with Greenpeace in the form of press releases eventually conceded to Greenpeace's demand to eliminate hazardous chemicals from their supply chains. The paper attributes this to Greenpeace's ability to harness support from other key stakeholders and to use rhetoric effectively. Results show the extensive use of rhetoric by all parties.

The authors regard legitimacy construction as reliant on communication and as being achieved by organisations participating in a dialogue with stakeholders. For this purpose, the paper develops an analytical framework which situates environmental reporting in a specific rhetorical situation and links rhetoric, argument, and metaphor.

The authors unpack the critical role of rhetoric in developing and justifying the New Zealand (NZ) government's coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lockdown strategy.

Using Green's (2004) theory of rhetorical diffusion, the authors analysed government documents and media releases before, during and after the lockdown to reconstruct the government's rationale.

The blending of kairos (sense of urgency and “right” time to act), ethos (emphasis on “saving lives”), pathos (fear of disruption and death) and selective use of health-based logos (shrinking infection rates), prompted fast initial adoption of the lockdown. However, support for the rhetoric wavered post-lockdown as absence of robust logos became apparent to the public.

The authors implicate the role of rhetoric in decision-makers’ ability to successfully elicit support for a new practice under urgency and the right moment to act using emotionalisation and moralisation. The assessment of the NZ government's response strategy provides insights decision-makers could glean in developing policies to tame the virus.

This study’s analysis demonstrates the unsustainability of rhetoric in the absence of reliable information.

The authors demonstrate the consequences of limited (intermittent) evidence and disregard for accounting/accountability data in public policy decisions under a rhetorical strategy.

Although we have seen a proliferation of studies examining the discursive aspects of strategy, the full potential of the linguistic turn has not yet been realized. This paper argues for a multifaceted interdiscursive approach that can help to go beyond simplistic views on strategy as unified discourse and pave the way for new research efforts. At the metalevel, it is important to focus attention on struggles over competing conceptions of strategy in this body of knowledge. At the mesolevel it is interesting to examine alternative strategy narratives to better understand the polyphony and dialogicality in organizational strategizing. At the microlevel, it is useful to reflect on the rhetorical tactics and skills that are used in strategy conversations to promote or resist specific views. This paper calls for new focused analyses at these different levels of analysis, but also for studies of the processes linking these levels.