Discourse, dominance and power relations Inequality as a social and interactional object

This paper presents a reflection on the process of doing critical discourse research. Examples from a current project on the discursive construction of ‘older worker ’ identity are used to illustrate how major challenges inherent in undertaking discourse research can be addressed. These involved initial justifications of discourse theory as a research framework, research design and the selection of a research site, data collection, data analysis and framing key findings in order to contribute to broader debates about age, gender and unemployment. The research was intended to contribute to existing knowledge by investigating an under-researched topic in the discourse literature – age identity and its implications in employment. Yet in the research process a number of additional contributions emerged. Firstly, applying a variety of methods permitted a greater understanding of the complexity of processes of social construction of identity and its implications for power relations between different groups in a specific socio-economic context. Secondly the sampling approach adopted led to an exploration not only of the discursive processes of construction of social identity, but also of its suppression in discourse. By tracing these processes over time and adopting a critical orientation, it was possible to show the implications of this suppression for different (gendered) groups in the labour market. Thirdly, the study illustrated the value of using discourse analysis to research the processes involved in the development of government policy which had implications for the amount of public recognition and government attention and assistance certain groups would receive.

Abstract not found

Is a collaboration between EDS and leading LSE academics from a range of disciplines researching the determinants of innovation, technology, creativity and productivity and the policies needed to foster them. The Discussion Paper series features the research of the four teams;

This is a chapter about power in groups and organizations. In the following pages, we suggest that the analysis and exploration of the complexities of organizational power by managers and workers is both necessary and useful. We begin by discussing three of the prominent theoretical perspectives on power from the literatures of social and organizational psychology and critical management studies. We then outline some of the dilemmas and challenges faced by executives, managers and workers around empowerment, disempowerment and organizational democracy. Then, building on the seminal works of Follet, Deutsch, Tjosvold, Clegg, Mumby and others, we offer a framework of organizational power which views power as a multifaceted phenomenon; as thoughts, words and deeds which are both embedded within and determining of a complex network of relations, structures and meaning-making processes at different levels of organizational and community life. Such a framework enables us to understand the relational aspects of power and authority within the context of the macro structures and ideologies that give them meaning. It can also help identify those domains in organizations where the potential for sharing cooperative power is, in fact, not

ABSTRACT. This paper begins by problematizing the ‘taken for granted’ status of Newtonian linear time at the heart of (social) psychology. Borrowing from Adam (1990), the paper makes a distinction between an ‘events in time ’ and ‘time in events ’ approach to social psychology. It argues that a ‘time in events ’ approach helps to reveal the importance of multiple times for social psychological theories and practices. To demonstrate this approach, it considers some of the multiple times that are relevant for analysing the concept of ‘identity’. It also explores the multiple times of the research encounter. In doing so, it suggests that traditional dichotomies in social psychology between synchronic and diachronic methods, and between experimental and qualitative methods, can be dissolved by this focus on the temporal. The paper concludes with some observations about the importance of time for thinking about social psychology as a knowledge-producing practice.