Assemblage and Différance: an Institutional Theory and Methodology A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Peter Atkinson Brunel Business School Brunel University July 2016 Abstract This thesis develops a postmodernist theory of institution, Discursive Organisation Theory (DOT), by building on elements of the work of Jacques Derrida and Giles Deleuze. One aspect of the theory is demonstrated by analysing transcriptions of eight focus groups composed of students studying in the field of business and management studies in universities in London. Postmodernists have so far eschewed theory development of this type but this study explicitly argues for the legitimacy of the project. The version of postmodernism to be used is carefully defined and takes as its central feature arguments from Derrida’s “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences”. Derrida’s “absence of presence” is taken as the defining characteristic of this version of postmodernism. Its epistemology is developed from Derrida’s notion of différance. Its ontology is based on the realist ontology of Deleuze and places emphasis on the notion of assemblage (agencement). The theory assumes that the physical world is only knowable through the mediation of a system that is symbolic in nature which processes sense data. Since organisation of action is the ultimate purpose of this processing system, and is more fundamental than perception or cognition, it is necessary to build a model of this processing system in order to arrive at an understanding of institution, which is taken as the ultimate manifestation of organisation. This processing system is labelled as “discourse” in this thesis and includes all human symbolic systems and chiefly, but not limited to, language (Iedema 2007). The theory is developed by constructing a series of mutually dependent assemblages beginning with discourse itself, then the institution assemblage, then the organisation assemblage and ultimately the assemblage of everyday life, or society as a whole. These assemblages are fictions, reality is itself a continuum, but they are convenient for understanding the nature of the phenomena included at these levels and how they are interrelated. These phenomena traditionally come under the headings of subjectivity, identity, communication, conversation, power, institution, bureaucracy (Weber, 1964), culture, organisation and many others. 2 Derrida’s concept of deconstruction is used as a method to analyse the processes of constructing and maintaining organisation. Bureaucracy is taken to be a diagram (Deleuze) belonging to the assemblage of everyday life and generates the only legitimate form of organisation in the fields of government and private enterprise that can be used today. Grid-Group Cultural Theory, as developed by Mary Douglas, Michael Thompson and others, is reinterpreted and used to analyse institutional construction. This part of the theory is tested empirically. The data gathered from the focus groups is analysed using Grid-Group Cultural Theory as a typology of thought styles. The analysis shows that the thought styles interact with each other both antagonistically and co-operatively in a way that confirms the contention that Grid-Group Cultural Theory may be used to deconstruct bureaucracy. This study makes several theoretical contributions by developing theory in an area where little has been done before. It makes a practical contribution by demonstrating how practitioners may be helped to make more effective decisions. It points the way to further development and applications of the theory. 3 Dedication To my patient and long-suffering wife, Amanda Bradbury, and in loving memory of my mother and father, Alwyn and Barbara Atkinson. 4 Acknowledgements I would like to thank all those who made this possible: Dr. Stephen Smith, my supervisor, for his stimulating discussion, sage advice, unstinting support and warm encouragement. Professor Shyama Ramani who has given generous support to my efforts, a great deal of practical help and advice and much needed encouragement. My wife and daughter who have had to put up with all the trials and tribulations of someone undergoing the pressures of disciplined and rigorous scholarship and original thought. Also, Dr. Jill Collis and Fintan Clear for their practical advice and moral support, my friends Rick Martin and Dr Alireza Nazarian for their support and feedback, and finally, Professor Ashley Braganza who persuaded me to undertake this study in the first place. 5 Declarations I declare that, to the best of my knowledge, no portion of the work referred to in this thesis has been submitted in support of an application for another degree, or qualification, to any other university, or institute of learning. The following publications have been produced as direct or indirect results of the research discussed in this thesis. Conferences BAM 2012, Cardiff. The Utility of Discourse Theory in Organisational Change. BAM 2014, Belfast. Assemblage and Institution. MB Academy 2015, London. Recent Developments in Organisation Studies. 6 Table of Abbreviations ANT Actor-Network Theory GGCT Grid-Group Cultural theory DOT Discursive Organisation Theory HRM Human Resource Management 7 List of Tables Table 2.0. Stages in the Development of DOT ........................................................... 47 Table 2.1. The Assumptions of the Postmodernist Paradigm of DOT ........................ 64 Table 5.1. Examples of Institutions ........................................................................... 140 Table 5.2. Meso and Macro Structure in some Theoretical Models ......................... 166 Table 8.1. Research Objectives and Hypotheses ....................................................... 235 8 List of Figures Figure 1.1. Sociological Paradigms ............................................................................ 29 Figure 2.0. Hermeneutic Framework for the Literature Review Process ................... 46 Figure 4.1. The Discursive Assemblages of DOT .................................................... 116 Figure 4.2. The Relationship Between the Component Assemblages of DOT ......... 123 Figure 5.1. Competing Values Framework (CVF) ................................................... 152 Figure 7.1. Grid-Group Cultural Theory – Maclean’s version ................................. 203 Figure 7.2. Diagram of Opposed Cultural Bias ........................................................ 204 Figure 7.3. Grid-Group Cultural Theory ................................................................... 208 9 Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................ 2 Dedication ........................................................................................................................ 4 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... 5 Declarations....................................................................................................................... 6 Conferences ....................................................................................................................... 6 Table of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... 7 List of Tables..................................................................................................................... 8 List of Figures ................................................................................................................... 9 Contents 10 Section 1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 17 Chapter 1. Purpose and Scope ....................................................................................... 17 1.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 17 1.2. Background .......................................................................................................... 18 1.3. Problem ................................................................................................................ 20 1.4. Aim and Objectives .............................................................................................. 20 1.5. Paradigms and Theories ....................................................................................... 21 1.5.1. Point of View ................................................................................................ 21 1.5.2. The Research Paradigm ................................................................................ 22 1.5.3. Master Paradigms .......................................................................................... 23 1.5.4. Paradigm Shift ............................................................................................... 25 1.5.5. Borderlands - Constructionism ..................................................................... 31 1.5.6. The Paradigm of this Study ........................................................................... 33 1.6. Backgrounds of the Components of the Theory .................................................. 33 1.6.1. Derrida, Discourse and Différance ................................................................ 34 10 1.6.2. Deleuze and Postmodernism ........................................................................