Abstracts
Abstract
Emerging fields offer an opportunity to study how actors are making sense of their environment. In this article, we adopt a discursive approach to examine the discourses about uncertainty. These discourses produced by state and non-state actors are particularly interesting as they participate in the emergence of the institutional framework. We study the discourses produced during a public inquiry led in 2009 and 2010 in the nascent French nanotech field to observe the use of discourses to influence understandings and meanings. We found that ambiguity is used differently according to the positions of actors in the field and that the rhetoric of uncertainty targets different goals.
Keywords:
- uncertainty,
- ambiguity,
- discourse analysis,
- emerging field,
- nanotechnologies
Résumé
Les champs organisationnels en émergence offrent l’opportunité d’étudier comment les organisations donnent sens à leur environnement. Dans cet article, nous adoptons une approche discursive pour étudier les discours produits concernant l’incertitude. Ces discours des acteurs publics et privés sont importants car ils participent à la construction de la régulation du champ. Nous étudions les discours produits dans le cadre d’une enquête publique menée en 2009 et 2010 dans le champ français des nanotechs. Notre analyse montre que l’ambiguïté est utilisée différemment par les acteurs du champ et que la rhétorique de l’incertitude vise différents objectifs.
Mots-clés :
- incertitude,
- ambiguïté,
- analyse de discours,
- champ émergent,
- nanotechnologies
Resumen
Los campos organizacionales en emergencia ofrecen la oportunidad de estudiar cómo las organizaciones dan sentido a su entorno. En este artículo, adoptamos un enfoque discursivo para estudiar el discurso relativo a la incertidumbre. Estos discursos de los actores públicos y privados son importantes porque participan en la construcción de la regulación del campo. Estudiamos los discursos producidos en el contexto de una encuesta pública llevada en 2009 y 2010, en el campo francés emergente de las nanotecnologías. Nuestro análisis muestra que la los actores del campo, dependiendo de su posición, utilizan de modo diferente la ambigüedad y que la retórica de la incertidumbre apunta distintos objetivos.
Palabras clave:
- incertidumbre,
- ambigüedad,
- análisis discursivo,
- campo emergente,
- nanotecnologías
Appendices
Bibliography
- ABDALLAH, C.; LANGLEY, A. (2014). “The Double Edge of Ambiguity in Strategic Planning”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol.51, N°2, p. 235-264.
- ALDRICH, H.E.; FIOL, C.M. (1994). “Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol.19, N°4, p. 645-670.
- ALVESSON, M.; KARREMAN, D. (2011). “Decolonializing discourse: Critical reflections on organizational discourse analysis”, Human Relations, Vol.64, N°9, p.1121-1146.
- AUSTIN, J.L. (1970). Quand dire c’est faire, Le Seuil, 183 p.
- BENNER, M.J.; TRIPSAS, M. (2012). “The Influence of Prior Industry Affiliation on Framing in Nascent Industries: The Evolution of Digital Cameras”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.33, N°3, p. 277-302.
- BURNS, T.; STALKER, G.M. (1961). The management of innovation, Tavistock, London, 269 p.
- CALLON, M. (ed.) (1998). The Law of the Markets, Oxford Blackwell, 278 p.
- DIMAGGIO, P.; POWELL, W. (ed.) (1991). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, The University of Chicago Press, London, 478 p.
- DUNCAN, R.B. (1972). “Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.17, N°3, p. 313-327.
- EISENBERG, E.M. (1984). “Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication”, Communication Monographs, Vol.51, N°3, p. 227-242.
- EISENBERG, E.M. (2007). Strategic ambiguities: essays on communication, organization, and identity, Sage, 311 p.
- FLIEGSTEIN, N. (2001). The Architecture of Markets: An Economic Sociology of Capitalist Societies, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 274 p.
- FOUCART, S. (2013). La fabrique du mensonge, Denoël, 304 p.
- FOX, C.R.; ULKÜMEN, G. (2011). “Distinguishing two dimensions of uncertainty”, in W. Brun, G. Keren, G. Kirkeboen and H. Montgomery (eds), Perspective on thinking, judging and decision making, Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget, p. 21-35.
- GRANT, D.; HARDY, C. (2004). “Introduction: Struggles with organizational discourse”, Organization Studies, Vol. 25, N°1, p. 5-13.
- HILL, R.C.; LEVENHAGEN, M. (1995). “Metaphors and mental models: sensemaking and sensegiving in innovative and entrepreneurial activities”, Journal of Management, December, 21, p. 1057-1074.
- HUAULT, I.; RAINELLI-LE MONTAGNER, H. (2009). “Market Shaping as an Answer to Ambiguities: The Case of Credit Derivatives”, Organization Studies, Vol.30, N°5, p. 549-575.
- JUANOLA-FELIU, E. (2009). “The nanotechnology revolution in Barcelona: innovation& creativity by universities”, Management international, Vol.13, N° Spécial, p. 111-123.
- KAPLAN, S.; TRIPSAS, M. (2008). “Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change”, Research Policy, Vol.37, N°5, p. 790-805.
- KHAIRE, M. (2014). “Fashioning an Industry: Socio-cognitive Processes in the Construction of Worth of a New Industry”, Organization Studies, Vol.35, N° 1, p. 41-47.
- KHAIRE, M.; WADHWANI, R. D. (2010). “Changing Landscapes: The Construction of Meaning and Value in a New Market Category—Modern Indian Art”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.53, N°6, p. 1281-1304.
- KRIEG-PLANQUE, A. (2012). Analyser les discours institutionnels, Armand Colin, 240 p.
- LAMONT, M.; MOLNÀR, V. (2002). “The study of boundaries in the social sciences”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol.28, p. 167-195.
- LAWRENCE, P.; LORSCH, J. (1967). “Differentiation and integration in complex organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.12, N°1, p. 1-47.
- LEITCH, S.; DAVENPORT, S. (2007). “Strategic ambiguity as a discourse practice: the role of keywords in the discourse on ‘sustainable’ biotechnology”, Discourse Studies, Vol. 9, N°1, p. 43-61.
- LINSTONE, H.A. (2011). “Three eras of technology foresight”, Technovation, Vol.31, N°2-3, p. 69-76.
- MAGUIRE, S.; HARDY, C. (2006). “The emergence of new global institutions: a discursive perspective”, Organization Studies, Vol.27, N° 1, p. 7-29.
- MAINGUENEAU, D. (2014). Discours et analyse du discours, Armand Colin, 216 p.
- MANGEMATIN, V.; ERRABI, K.; GAUTHIER, C. (2011). “Large players in the nanogame”, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol.36, N°6, p. 640-664.
- MANTERE, S.; VAARA, E. (2008). “On the Problem of Participation in Strategy: A Critical Discursive Perspective”, Organization Science, Vol. 19, N°2, p. 341-358.
- MILLIKEN, F.J. (1987). “Three Types of Perceived Uncertainty About the Environment: State, Effect, and Response Uncertainty”, Academy of Management Review, Vol.12, N°1, p.133-143.
- PALMBERG, C.; DERNIS, H.; MIGUET, C. (2009). “Nanotechnology: An overview based on indicators and statistics”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry.
- PAROUTIS, S.; HERACLEOUS, L. (2013). “Discourse revisited: Dimensions and employment of first-order strategy discourse during institutional adoption”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.34, N°8, p. 935-956.
- PESTRE, D. (2013). A contre-science: Politiques et savoirs des sociétés contemporaines, Le Seuil, 256 p.
- PFEFFER, J.; SALANCIK, G. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective, New York: Harper and Row, 300 p.
- PHILLIPS, N.; HARDY, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: investigating processes of social construction, Sage, 104 p.
- PHILLIPS, N.; LAWRENCE, T.B.; HARDY, C. (2004). “Discourse and institutions”, Academy of Management Review, Vol.29, N°4, p. 635–652.
- PHILLIPS, N.; OSWICK, C. (2012). “Organizational Discourse: Domains, Debates, and Directions”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol.6, N°1, p. 435-481.
- PORAC, J.F.; THOMAS, H.; WILSON, F.; PATON, D.; KANFER, A. (1995). “Rivalry and the industry model of Scottish knitwear producers”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.40, N°2, p. 203–228.
- ROSA, J.A.; PORAC, J.F.; RUNSER-SPANJOL, J.; SAXON, M.S. (1999). “Sociocognitive dynamics in a product market”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.63, Special Issue, p. 64-77.
- SERGOT, B.; CLARET, N. (2011). “La légitimation discursive des stratégies de localisation à l’international: une étude de cas comparée de deux groupes agroalimentaires français”, Management International, Vol.16, N°1, p. 45-57.
- THOMPSON, J.D. (1967). Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory, McGraw-Hill, 192 p.
- VAARA, E. (2010). “Taking the linguistic turn seriously: strategy as a multifaceted and interdiscursive phenomenon”, Advances in Strategic Management, Vol.27, p. 29-50.
- WALSH, S.T. (2004). “Roadmapping a disruptive technology: A case study: The emerging microsystems and top-down nanosystems industry”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol.71, N°1-2, p.161-185.
- WEICK, K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in organizations, Sage Publications, 248 p.