tmpBBA4 TMP

458761
agement Communication QuarterlyKoschmann

The Author(s) 2012
MCQ26410.1177/0893318912458761Man
Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Forum
Management Communication Quarterly
26(4) 656681
The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0893318912458761
http://mcq.sagepub.com
An Eye for an I:
Thoughts About
Management
Communication Quarterly
From the Next Generation
Matthew A. Koschmann1
With special contributions by:

Ryan Bisel, Department of Communication at the University of Oklahoma,
USA
Isabel Botero, Centre for Corporate Communication at Aarhus University,
Denmark
Canchu Lin, School of Arts and Sciences at Tiffin University, USA
James Olufowote, Department of Communication at the University of
Oklahoma, USA
Linda Perriton, York Management School at the University of York, UK
Dennis Schoeneborn, Department of Business Administration at the University of Zurich, Switzerland
Stacey Wieland, School of Communication at Western Michigan University, USA
Abstract
This article offers reflections and insights on Management Communication
Quarterly from a younger scholar in the field of organizational communication. After providing a brief history of the journal, topics of internationality,
interdisciplinarity, and identity are explored. This is followed by a discussion
among other emerging scholars in the field of organizational communication about these topics. The article concludes with a discussion about the
role and format of Management Communication Quarterly in the digital age.
Keywords
organizational communication, internationality, interdisciplinarity, identity
1
University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
Corresponding Author:
Matthew A. Koschmann, Department of Communication, University of Colorado Boulder, UCB
270, Hellems 96, Boulder, CO, USA 80039
Email: koschmann@colorado.edu
Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on November 30, 2012
657
Koschmann
Rooney, McKenna, and Barker (2011) end their intellectual history of Management Communication Quarterly (MCQ) with the claim that maintaining a
sense of place is the primary challenge for MCQ as it moves forward from its
25th year. The preservation of place will also entail change, reinvention, and
adaptation. It will continue to involve those who were instrumental in MCQs
development over the first 25 years and also increasingly those who had little
to do with those first 25 years: people like me and other junior scholars. How
do we understand MCQ, and what do we think of its future? And how do we
see the relationship between MCQ and the field of organizational communication? How we answer these questions will shape the development of MCQ
for its next 25 years and how a sense of place is maintained.
Apart from an occasional article search, my first real engagement with MCQ
came during the second year of my doctoral program. I was asked to write a
brief history of MCQ paper for an organizational communication seminar,
one of many discipline-related assignments thought to be mere busy work for
Professor Craig Scott (who was the secretary of the organizational communication division of the International Communication Association at the time). But
I actually enjoyed the assignment because it helped me understand this journal
that was becoming an important part of my academic development. I emailed
all the past editors and received some great insights about their time at the helm
(many of which were repeated in the 2007 editors reflections forum). I wrote a
short paper about MCQs focus and some key moments in its history, like the
mission shift in the mid-1990s to reflect a stronger commitment to organizational communication (from McQ to MCQ), inclusion in prominent online
databases like ProQuest and the Social Science Citation Index, and the continual efforts to expand the international scope of the journal. Somehow my paper
ended up on the ICA website where it toiled in obscurity until current editor
James Barker stumbled across it and contacted me about reviving the paper
in light of MCQs 25th anniversary. And here we are.
In the beginning
Take a look at MCQ and see what others in the field of organizational communication have said about this topic, instructed Ev Rogers, one of my first graduate
school professors to introduce me to MCQ. Emcee who? I thought to myself, not
wanting to reveal my ignorance. Later a more senior graduate student told me this
was one of those academic journals I needed to be familiar with, especially if I
wanted to focus on organizational communication. So began my introduction to
Management Communication Quarterly. I soon learned that MCQ was a key
658
Management Communication Quarterly 26(4)
aspect of the precious literature that I needed to master if I was to be a successful scholar of organizational communication and pursue a career in academics.
As a graduate student throughout the 2000s I saw MCQ as an established
entity, something I was supposed to acclimate to as part of my socialization
into the field of organizational communication. For me this was like trying to
board a moving trainI had to run alongside for a little while until I had
enough speed to keep up and could find a good place to hop on. By the time
I got on board, MCQ was/seemed fully institutionalized in the field of organizational communication. MCQ was often referenced during organizational
communication business meetings at various communication conferences,
and when I started my first job as an assistant professor, I was told, As a
member of this department youll be expected to publish in MCQ. Only
recently have I come to appreciate the ebbs and flows of MCQs development
and its relationship to the field of organizational communication. But for me
the development of MCQ was not something I was a part of. It was not something I saw unfold in front of me, but rather something I look back upon to
understand. This article is a brief look at that process and how I have come to
make sense of MCQ as a junior scholar in the field of organizational communication. And with help from other emerging scholars, we speculate
about the future of MCQ and the field of organizational communication.
MCQ began in 1987 as scholars from management and communication
departments recognized the convergence of their fields and the need to develop
theory and empirical research from an interdisciplinary approach. Paul
Feingold from the Department of Business Communication at the University
of Southern California was the first executive editor. He saw the need for a
journal that fostered research, discussion, and criticism regarding several
communication areas that were relevant to the business school curriculum
management writing and speaking and interpersonal, organizational, and corporate communication, all of which have a related focus on managerial and
organizational effectiveness. The first article in the first issue of MCQ was
Linda Hendersons (1987) study on the contextual nature of interpersonal
communication in management theory and research. By her account, no previous studies had examined the integrated nature of interpersonal managerial
communication within the context of the managerial workgroup. Her article,
along with the inauguration of MCQ, served as an impetus to begin integrated
and interdisciplinary research of management communication. The publisher
(SAGE) says MCQ is the only journal you need to keep up with organizational communication research, theory, and practice, though I suspect most
scholars secretly consult a few other sources.
659
Koschmann
Following a number of editors largely outside the field of organizational

communication, Katherine Miller, then at (and recently returned to) Arizona
State, was selected as the first editor from within the field. One of her first
issues devoted space to exploring differences between organizational, corporate, business, and management communicationbeginning to highlight
what is unique to our field and what is shared with others. Another significant
development happened in 1996 under the editorship of Patrice Buzzanell
(then at Northern Illinois). During this time, the mission of MCQ changed to
reflect an even stronger commitment to organizational communication
rather than management communication. Although only a slight change in
wording, it signaled the journals ownership by the organizational communication community instead of the management-oriented professors who
started the journal. MCQ has continued to be the flagship journal for organizational communication ever since, though the meaning of this identity is
continually questioned and discussed in the pages of MCQ and other organizational communication outlets.
This ambiguity coincides with my ongoing understanding of organizational
communication as a field. When I began graduate school I just assumed organizational communication was an established academic discipline. We had a
handbook, a division at communication conferences, titles in academic departments, and of course MCQ, our own journal. But as I got more involved in the
field of organizational communication I realized just how fragile all this was.
Only later did I learn that some organizational communication scholars lament
that we do too much navel gazing and not enough real theory building or
that some outside our field thought organizational communication was nothing more than interpersonal communication at work. Like all organizational
and institutional realities, I was starting to see that the field of organizational
communication was a delicate social construct that came into being through
certain discursive practiceseditorial policies, departmental politics, and so
onand would be sustained (or not) through similar practices. Now I see that
a journal like MCQ plays a big role in all this.
Reviews of MCQs history and purpose exist elsewhere and have been
written by people more seasoned than I (see especially the editors reflection
forum in 2007 and the history of ideas article published in 2011). But from
my vantage point a few additional things stand out, especially regarding key
themes that have been part of MCQs history and recent developments shaping the trajectory of the journal. In the next section I will share a few thoughts
about these issues and then enlist the help of other emerging scholars to
discuss where and how MCQ and the field of organizational communication
should/could go from here. I conclude with a discussion about the role of
660
academic journals in the digital age. Overall we want to preserve and cultivate the place that MCQ has established for organizational communication
scholarship.
The Three Is
In reading the previous reviews and reflections about MCQ and the field of
organizational communication, three Is catch my eye: internationality,
interdisciplinarity, and identity. These themes have been with MCQ from the
beginning and continue to shape discussions about the journals future. Far
from straightforward, the concepts of internationality, interdisciplinarity, and
identity are fraught with tensions that fuel continued debates about the field
of organizational communication and the role of MCQ.
Internationality. From its inception, MCQ has been labeled an international
journal, though it has not always lived up to this subtitle. This started to
change when Ted Zorn (University of Waikato, New Zealand) was chosen as
the first editor outside the United States and continues as MCQ increases the
international representation on its editorial board and its contributing authors.
Yet the concept of international is tricky to operationalize, and what it means
for MCQ to be international is filled with confusion and irony. Previously,
international basically meant outside the United States. But of course that
understanding of international only makes sense if you are inside the United
States. If you are from Germany, for example, MCQ might already look like
an international journalvirtually all the contributors and editors are from
outside your nation! Or maybe not, since most of the articles still come from
the Anglo-Saxon world and do not represent diverse cultures, ethnicities, or
language groups. In addition, is it the nationality of the author/editor or her or
his locale that makes one international? Does an American working at a foreign university qualify as international? What about a foreigner at an
American university? Or what about an American at an American university
studying an international topic (e.g., microfinance in a developing nation)?
Do we define international-ness based on the editors, the authors, the reviewers, the topics, or some combination of all four? Obviously these questions
have no clear answers, but they highlight the issues we need to wrestle with
if MCQ is to remain a truly international journal.
As communication scholars, most of us would agree that being international is not an essential characteristic or trait that exists apart from discourse
and human interaction. What might be perceived as international in one context may seem quite domestic in another. And people may come to different
conclusions about the international-ness of a particular project. Organizational
661
Koschmann
communication scholars know a thing or two about discursive resources and

rhetorical devices. I imagine we will find ways to articulate notions of internationality that are broad enough to accommodate multiple interpretations,
distinct enough to provide stable boundaries, flexible enough to adapt to a
changing world, and convincing enough to persuade relevant stakeholders.
The concept of internationality will continue to be coproduced within our
scholarly community and shaped by the decisions of future editors. The key
will be for MCQs editors to articulate a vision of internationality that coheres
with the ethos of our community and to craft editorial policies that help realize this vision.
Interdisciplinarity. The notion of interdisciplinary is also an ongoing concern for MCQ and involves a host of complications. Rooney et al.s (2011)
history of MCQ ideas article reveals a consistent desire for MCQ to be an
interdisciplinary journal, despite the difficulty of explaining what this entails.
The question of interdiciplinarity will continue to challenge MCQ and the
field of organizational communication, especially as scholars are pushed to
demonstrate their interdisciplinary credentials to tenure committees, grant
reviewers, and other external constituents.
What exactly do we mean by interdisciplinary? Is organizational communication a distinct academic discipline that can inter with other disciplines?
Or is organizational communication inherently interdisciplinary, such that our
scholarship is always a compilation of other disciplines (e.g., management,
interpersonal communication, rhetoric, psychology, organizational behavior,
etc.)? If we go outside the bounds of organizational communication, but stay
within the broader field of communication, is our work interdisciplinary? If
someone has a traditional organizational communication background but now
works in a management department, is she or he interdisciplinary (or transdisciplinary)? If a study is published in MCQ is it de facto part of the organizational communication literature, or can MCQ publish research that is
outside the field yet still interdisciplinary? Again, more questions than
answers, but how we pursue these questions will shape the trajectory of MCQ
and the field of organizational communication.
The first MCQ forum in 1996, Who are we and what are we doing?,
makes the case that organizational communication is an interdisciplinary
umbrella covering several distinct disciplines, such as corporate communication and management. We could also think of organizational communication
as a subdiscipline of communication. After all, we are usually a subdivision at
communication conferences, and many of us work in broader departments of
communication. In this regard, truly interdisciplinary work takes place when
662
we leave the field of communication, not just the subdiscipline of organizational communication. Yet one could make the case that the entire field of
communication is inherently interdisciplinary: We are either studying communication phenomena within a broader disciplinary context (e.g., political
science), or we are developing communicative explanations for phenomena
normally thought to be the purview of other disciplines (e.g., gender or race).
In this regard, doing communication scholarship of any stripe is synonymous
with being interdisciplinary.
All this points to a fundamental paradox of interdisciplinarity for MCQ
and organizational communication: If the notion of interdisciplinarity implies
distinct disciplines to inter with each other, can interdisciplinarity be one of
our disciplinary distinctives? Is it possible to be an interdisciplinary discipline? We certainly know something about paradoxes that emerge from participatory processes (thank you Stohl & Cheney, 2001), and we should find
ways to embrace rather than resolve our paradox of interdisciplinarity. Perhaps
we should see the issue of interdisciplinarity as much more dynamic, somewhat of a moving target ebbing and flowing as MCQ and the field of organizational communication develop. Sometimes we will be seen as an
interdisciplinary site where other traditional disciplines converge. Such was
the case when MCQ got started. Over time we may develop more of a distinct
disciplinary identity, where certain theoretical perspectives gain traction and
dominance. I suspect we are approaching that status now, if we have not
arrived there already. We are on the advent of the third edition of our handbook, some of our signature theories and ideas are featured in top management and organizational journals, and (in the United States) organizational
communication is a distinct major for some undergraduatesor at least a
definitive area of study as part of a broader communication degree. But as all
this develops people will inevitably push the current disciplinary bounds to
accommodate new ideas, to investigate contemporary phenomena, to resist
conformity, to satisfy their desire to be contrarian, or simply to ease the feelings of professional restlessness. Old guards will retire and new scholars will
emerge who do not have allegiances to former disciplinary roots. And organizational communication will once again look like more of an interdisciplinary
hodge-podge, on its way to stabilizing at some point in the future, only for this
disciplinary stabilization to be challenged again. The important thing for MCQ
is that it remains a place for this dynamism to happen. It is not about whether
or not we are interdisciplinary but rather what interdisciplinary means at a
given time within our scholarly community and how this shared meaning
influences editorial decisions and the work that people submit.
663
Koschmann
We should also be careful that interdisciplinarity does not become a mere

trope to sound edgy and relevant with little substance to back it up. There
certainly is an ethos of cooperation and interdependence in much of our society today, and it is fashionable to talk about spanning boundaries and breaking out of silos. The term interdisciplinary is a nice god term to capture
these sentiments in the academy, though difficult to achieve in practice. For
example, my university sponsors an annual seed grant competition to
stimulate new and exciting areas of research and creative work. Applications
are scored based on three categories, one of which is interdisciplinary
research. Twice I submitted applications with coinvestigators outside my
department/disciplineonce with a colleague in marketing/psychology and
the other from planning and design. Both applications were unsuccessful, and
I was stuck by the reviewers comments and their lack of interdisciplinary
appreciation. The reviewers seemed confused by our interdisciplinary
approach, and we were criticized for our lack of focus, depth, and integration.
When I talked to a senior colleague about my experiences, he said, Dont
mess around with that interdisciplinary stuff. Its a catchy term that that makes
everyone feel good, but it means something different to everyone, and no one
knows how to evaluate interdisciplinary work anyway. And when I saw the
winning proposals at a recent reception I learned that what passed for interdisciplinarity involved collaborators from computer science and electrical
engineering, or sociology and social psychology. Not exactly what I would
call groundbreaking departures from disciplinary silos. Of course we simply
may have had inferior grant proposals, but this experience taught me that
interdisciplinarity is a tricky concept that more often reflects the preferences
of key decision makers and not any inherent quality about academic research.
As MCQ looks toward the future, it will be important for editors and contributors to hold the concept of interdisciplinarity with an open hand, striving
to be inclusive of multiple perspectives while also conveying substance and
consistency.
Identity. A final theme that permeates the pages of MCQ and the field of
organizational communication is the notion of identity, and this is clearly
related to the ideas about internationality and interdisciplinarity discussed
above (though MCQs identity involves more than these). There is no shortage of reflections and who are we? discussions in MCQ and other outlets
of organizational communication scholarship. I do not know how this compares to other disciplines, or whether this is good or bad, or simply just is.
Given what we know about identity construction in a variety of organizational and institutional contexts, it should be no surprise to readers of MCQ
that our identity is occasionally in flux and subject to continual negotiation.
664
But rather than worry about who we are or are not at any particular moment,
our main concerns should be the character of the collective constructions that
compose our identity and what these construction processes privilege, marginalize, highlight, or obscure. Reflection essays and conference panels about
organizational communication are just as much about legitimating and privileging certain perspectives as they are about merely describing the field.
MCQ plays an important role in this process, as both an anchor point for
institutional identity and a place for further identity construction.
Someone once said that a culture is constituted by what people debate over
the generations. Perhaps that is a good way to think about MCQs identity over
the past 25 years, and for the years to come. Although there may be no core to
our being, there is a consistency in the kinds of questions we ask and issues we
investigate. Mumby and Stohls (1996) MCQ article outlined four problematics that discipline organizational communicationvoice, rationality, organization, and the organizationsociety relationshipand these continue to be
central concerns in todays organizational communication scholarship and the
articles published in MCQ. To this we could add interests in globalization, difference, networks, communicative constitution, alternative forms of organizing, gender, ethical decision making, and communication technologies. Rooney
et al.s (2011) history of ideas article provided a thorough look at topics published in MCQ based on titles and word counts, noting stages of creation,
demarcation, invitation, cultivation, and consolidation. I imagine that people
will come to a variety of conclusions about MCQs identity based on these
sorts of topical breakdowns, depending on how they value the quantity or
quality of issues covered. That is, people may see a particular identity based
on the sheer number of articles on a given topic, whereas others may conclude MCQs identity is based on a more limited number of seminal articles
that are well cited. Whatever the case, MCQ will sustain its identity as a
journal of organizational communication to the extent it continues to publish
articles that reflect the collective constructions that shape the community of
organizational communication scholars.
Relatedly, the special topic forums have been an important development
for MCQs identity because they provide a place for scholars to discuss
emerging issues and their relevance for the field of organizational communication. The forums began in 1996 and continued annually for a few years,
covering topics such as feminism, self-organization, and mergers. Beginning
in 2000, however, the forums became a mainstay of MCQs format, showing
up virtually every quarter, with 2006 and 2009 the only years not to feature
multiple forums. From my perspective, this solidified MCQs reputation as a
665
Koschmann
place for discussion, debate, and scholarly reflection about the field of organizational communication. I always identified MCQ as a journal that not only
published traditional research but also set the agenda for future investigations, and the forums are a key part of that identity. Two recent forums on
institutional messages (2011) and CCO theory (2009) stand out because of
how they incorporated critique and dissent from those outside the field of
organizational communication. This kind of engagement helps clarify what
we think organizational communication is and how our field relates to other
theoretical perspectives. I hope future editors and contributors maintain the
current ethos of the special topics forum as a distinguishing feature of MCQs
identity for years to come.
We should also remember that identities are just as much about what we
are against and what we exclude. To this extent an important tension in
MCQs identity has been its association with the term management (especially in the title) and the increasing prevalence of critical approaches to organizational communication. A couple years ago I asked a senior scholar in the
field about keeping the name management in MCQs title even though it
was widely recognized as a journal of organizational communication scholarship. Management is still appropriate, I was told. We used to help management, and now we critique them . . . but its still all about management.
A simplification to be sure, but also a statement about the current identity of
our scholarly community. Suspicions of managerialism and functionalist
approaches to communication are commonplace in our field and perhaps
rightfully so. The important question is whether this suspicion becomes a
litmus test for membership or one voice among many at the table. My sense
is that a critical stance toward managerialism is currently a distinct feature of
MCQ and something that will be part of its identity for the foreseeable future.
But can we critique managerialism without marginalizing the perspectives of
managers or trivializing the importance of organizational effectiveness? I am
sure people have strong and divergent opinions on these issues, and there will
always be disagreements about the appropriateness of certain articles in the
pages of MCQ. The decisions of future editors and reviewers will determine
how MCQ manages this tension, and I hope it remains just thata tension
that serves as a catalyst for scholarly debate, not a resolution that requires
intellectual conformity.
To summarize, themes of internationality, interdisciplinarity, and identity
are common throughout the history of MCQ and poised to be prominent
issues for years to come. I offered a few thoughts about my developing relationship with MCQ and how I have come to understand these themes. But I
am certainly not the only voice in the conversation, so I enlisted the help of
666
some colleagues to discuss these issues furtherother emerging scholars

who are in the beginning and middle stages of their academic careers, representing a variety of international and interdisciplinary characteristics (with
all the complications those terms bring) and who recently published their
research in the pages of MCQ. We offer a conversation about MCQ as a place
for organizational communication scholarship and thoughts about the future
of the journal.
In Conversation
Joining me in this (virtual) discussion are
Ryan Bisel (Department of Communication at the University of
Oklahoma, USA)
Isabel Botero (Centre for Corporate Communication at Aarhus University, Denmark )
Canchu Lin (School of Arts and Sciences at Tiffin University, USA)
James Olufowote (Department of Communication at the University of
Oklahoma, USA)
Linda Perriton (York Management School at the University of York, UK)
Dennis Schoeneborn (Department of Business Administration at the
University of Zurich, Switzerland)
Stacey Wieland (School of Communication at Western Michigan University, USA)
All of you have different experiences and connections with MCQ. What
are some of your initial impressions about the journal?
Botero: MCQ was the first journal I submitted a manuscript to as a
first author, and I saw this as a huge challenge. What I really liked
about the process was that although the reviewers were challenging
the ultimate purpose was to make the paper better. What I saw was
reviewers that found problems but also offered ways to solve these
problems, and as a new scholar this was very useful. Because of this,
I will always encourage others to submit their work to be considered
for publication at MCQ.
Wieland: I also appreciated the editorial guidance I got from MCQ as
I developed as a young scholar. The feedback on the manuscripts
I submitted to MCQ has been very helpful not only in developing
those specific articles for publication but also developing my understanding of how to develop ideas for publication. I was encouraged
667
Koschmann
to take risks with my work and to be willing to abandon the safe or

comfortable ground. That has been very helpful for me.
Lin: Based on my interactions with communication colleagues, there
seems to be a consensus that MCQ is a quality journal home for
organizational communication. This achievement is not easily
accomplished, of course, so Ive always appreciated how MCQ has
maintained its significance and relevance.
Bisel: Im a fan. I always look forward to reading the next issue of
MCQ. I check for it online and get impatient until the next issues
release. Nerdy? Sure. Satisfying? Absolutely. My interest in MCQ
began when I was a masters student at the University of Kansas. It
did not take long for me to notice that MCQ kept coming up on my
course bibliographies, topic searches, and must-read lists. I remember
reading Russos (1998) study of newspaper journalists professional
identification and saying aloud, Ah-ha! The article articulated
a new and interesting angle on organizational identification and
helped me see my own work experience in a new way; that article
inspired me to further reading. Similarly, Stohl and Cheneys (2001)
explanation of paradoxes of employee participation immediately
seemed to me to be a new model for how to think about organizational communication research: I was delighted.
From its inception, MCQ has strived to be an international journal.
What do you think about this? What does (or should) it mean to be
an international journal?
Botero: Ive lived in three different countries, so Im biased toward
thinking about the international component when exploring organizational communication. In todays world, being international is
extremely important because it helps us understand that issues that
are relevant and work in a certain way in one culture do not have to
work the same way in another. This is important when comparing
countries, but also to understand organizations that hire people from
different cultural backgrounds. Cultural values and beliefs affect the
way we communicate and how we interpret the communication of
others.
Lin: But I dont think many organizational communication scholars are
very interested in going international.
Schoeneborn: Yes, I have to admit that Im also a bit concerned about
MCQs subtitle: An international journal. I fully appreciate the
spirit expressed in this subtitle, of course, but I believe that MCQ
needs to go further in order to fully live up to it. To add some figures
668
to our conversation: Only about one fifth of MCQ editorial board

members are affiliated with universities outside of the four leading
countriesthe U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (i.e., all
of them from the Anglo-Saxon realm, if we do not count the crosscultural melting pot Quebec, of course). This percentage is even
lower if you analyze first authors of MCQ articles over the past 3
years (issues November 2008 to August 2011; except book reviews
and special topic forum articles): Only 5 out of 55 articlesabout
9%had a first author who was affiliated with a university located
outside of the four dominant countries. So I think there is still a long
way to go for making MCQ and organizational communication as a
field a truly international endeavor, at least in terms of the schools
MCQ authors come from.
Lin: I agree that internationalization should be more broadly interpreted and implemented. MCQ should invite more contributions
from non-Western scholars. Internationalization should also mean
publishing articles on international topics/issues, ones that are key
concerns to people in different countries of the world. In this regard,
U.S. scholars can go international by contributing articles on international issues/topics. International collaboration is another feasible
option. We often see publications by U.S. scholars as the leading
authors and non-Western authors as collaborators. But we need to
see publications by non-U.S. scholars as lead authors with U.S. or
other collaborators. Contributions in the form of dialogs and comparisons by international collaborators are other good options.
Schoeneborn: I think this can also be linked to the fact that in many
regions of the world organizational communication lacks a longstanding tradition as a field of research. For instance, in the
German-speaking countries (i.e., Germany, Austria, and Switzerland)
organizational communication is not established as its own field
of research and is subsumed as subfield of Public Relations and
reduced to dealing with internal communication (in a container
notion of the organizationcommunication relationship; see Putnam, Phillips, & Chapman, 1996).
Olufowote: I think a key moment for the internationalization of MCQ
was when Ted Zorn was editor and published the forum Management communication in the age of globalization in 2000. This
included reflections on organizational communication in countries
such as Australia, China, Italy, and Spain. Then in 2007, MCQ published a forum on postcolonialism, which called the discipline to be
669
Koschmann
reflexive of its dominant Eurocentric heritage and more inclusive of

diverse voices and realities from marginalized postcolonial spaces.
Soon after another MCQ forum created a virtual dialogue on organizing and communicating from several postcolonial spaces, including
Brazil, India, Nepal, and Nigeria. So I think there have been some
key moments where MCQ has tried advance the international profile
of the journal, and the forums have been a good place for that.
Schoeneborn: Yes, and I would also add the country-specific special
topic forums like the ones on Brazil (2009) or France (2010). These
forums are an excellent way to create a visibility for what is going
on in certain world regions and to give the researchers within these
regions mutual visibility and identity as organizational communication scholars.
Wieland: As we think about internationalization, Im also aware of the
danger of marginalizing international work by narrowly interpreting
its focus or contribution. I had an experience with a paper in the
organizational communication division of a major U.S.-American
conference that made me aware of this problem. The manuscript I
submitted was an early version of my 2010 MCQ article. The conference paper theorized identity based on fieldwork I conducted at
a multinational organization in Sweden. Even though the papers
focus was on identity, it was paneled as if it were a paper on cultures
simply because of the Swedish context. This showed me that international research can be marginalized when interpreted narrowly (or
incorrectly) as focusing on culture or by being seen as irrelevant to
U.S. organizations because it of its international context. We need to
be careful to avoid narrow interpretations of international work and
to remain open to its contributions to our theorizing of communication and organizing.
Olufowote: Good point. When we look at organizational communication
research beyond the U.S.U.K.Commonwealth nexus, this work
reveals important tensions we should explore. These include tensions
between tradition and modernity (e.g., globalization and technologization of the workplace), tensions between communication practices
common to several cultures versus communication practices that are
cultural specific, and tensions between using theories that are individual and psychological in orientation (e.g., trait activation) versus
theories that are more social and collective in scope (e.g., discourses
of Confucianism). Whatever the case, I think it will be important for
MCQ to continue looking beyond the U.S.U.K.Commonwealth
670
nexus for important insights if the journal and the field of organizational communication are truly going to be international.
Interdisciplinary scholarship is another key theme in the development
of MCQ over the past 25 years. What are your thoughts on the
concept of interdiciplinarity? What does (or should) it mean for
MCQ to be an interdisciplinary journal?
Perriton: I think interdisciplinary is a difficult nut to crack for a journal, or any field for that matter. A field of study needs to have some
established tenets and an identifiable literature on which it draws
or identifies with, so it is important to be mindful of the issue of
identity. We use key words and literature as our tribal markers
and help to orientate both existing scholars and those who stumble
across the field and are looking for reassurance that this is a place
where their research will be appreciated and supported by peers.
Botero: For me organizational communication is the intersection of
several disciplines (e.g., communication, psychology, and management) and this intersection makes it very interesting. Thus, from my
point of view MCQ should embrace and take advantage of having
researchers from multiple disciplines share their interest and knowledge regarding communication in the organizational context.
Perriton: Agreed, but some grouping together of scholars is necessary
in order to negotiate meaning, research questions, and careers. Interdisciplinarity, for me, is an openness to the insights offered by other
fields of study, their research methods, and their literature while
retaining the core allegiance to the key concepts and research questions of organizational communication.
Botero: Yes, we need to consider different areas of knowledge to understand communication processes and the role they play in the organizational context. During my graduate education I made a great
effort to learn how other disciplines (e.g., industrial and organizational psychology, human resources, and organizational behavior) view the organization and communication. Although there are
aspects of communication that are of interest to these disciplines,
scholars from these disciplines often do not have the background
to explore thoroughly and understand communication processes in
and of organizations. So I was able to see how I could contribute
to understanding these issues and find opportunities to collaborate
with others.
Wieland: Certainly the history of MCQ demonstrates a desire to be
interdisciplinary even as the journal increasingly became aligned
671
Koschmann
with the field of organizational communication. It seems like what it

means for MCQ to be interdisciplinary has shifted considerably over
its lifespan. Initially, interdisciplinarity was conceived as linking the
fields of organizational communication, management communication, business communication, and corporate communication. But
as organizational communication has come to dominate the journal, being interdisciplinary has more to do with connecting the field
of organizational communication with management, organization
studies, and critical management studies. I think this has led to an
increasing focus on communication and organizing and a simultaneous expansion of approaches to that topic.
Perriton: And editors play a big role in this. I think it can be difficult
for reviewers of journals to get that balance right without help from
editors. Im sure weve all had the experience of writing papers and
submitting them to (allegedly) interdisciplinary journals only to get
terse reviews back that give the distinct impression that the reviewer
hasnt been able to make the leap methodologically or in terms of
challenge to the existing literature/perspectives. If interdisciplinarity is a goal that a journal aspires to then it needs to sit down and
work out what that means in terms of practical advice to prospective
authors and to the advice and guidance issued to reviewers.
Lin: As I recall, the original goal for this journal when it was created
was to publish research on theory and practice across communication areas. This is a very basic form of interdisciplinarity. Organizational communication had quite a few disciplinary roots such as
English, management, psychology, and journalism (Redding, 1985).
Thus, since its inception, organizational communication has had an
interdisciplinary foundation. We have been borrowing concepts,
theories, issues/topics, and even methods from other disciplines.
For example, structuration, a sociology theory, has been extensively
used in organizational communication research that deals with a
variety of issues from technology use to policy making. So the interdisciplinary trend is irreversible, but we continually have to work
out what that means at any given time.
Internationality and interdiciplinarity both point to the broader theme
of identity for MCQ. What is your sense of MCQs identity? What
key issues have shaped how you see MCQs identity?
Botero: This is one of the most interesting things for me. It seems that
organizational communication scholars often want to create boundaries that put others in or out of the discipline. I take a different
672
approach and focus on communication in the organization as an area

of study that can be approached from multiple disciplines. Thus,
scholars identify with organizational communication as an area of
study that is of interest to them.
Wieland: I think an important issue for MCQs identity is the tension
between management communication and organizational communication. I am sympathetic to the scholars mentioned by Miller
(2007) who were wary of the use of the word management in the
title since the journal does not privilege a managerial perspective.
The use of management in the title does not reflect the journals
central focus on organizing rather than managing and its concern
for the interests of various organizational stakeholders. However, I
suspect that that title has enabled the journal to build and maintain
more international and interdisciplinary connections than it would
have under the title Organizational Communication Quarterly.
Lin: Yes, the interdisciplinary goal suggests the necessity of keeping the word management in the title of the journal. This word
is always invitational to other disciplines as management scholars
are scattered from among several disciplines (management, psychology, sociology, and political science). Furthermore, the word
management truly reflects what organizational communication is
since organizational communication is a process of management in
many cases (e.g., conflict management, management of meaning).
This is consistent with our stand on organizational communications
identity and the interdisciplinary focus in our identity.
Perriton: As a non-U.S. author I find the management word very useful. Many of the people interested in contributing from an international perspective will probably be sitting in a Management or
Business School of some variety and subject to publication audits
and other managerialist assessments of the contribution of their
work. A paper published in Management Communication Quarterly
is immediately seen as relevant; Organizational Communication
Quarterly slightly less so. I fear at some point it becomes an issue
not only of identity but of career management. Equally there will be
academics in sociology departments or communication departments
who would prefer it to be the other way round. These tensions are
a fact of academic life and increasingly so as research output audits
become the norm globally in higher education.
Schoeneborn: But is Management Communication Quarterly a suitable title for a journal that is primarily concerned with organizational
673
Koschmann
communication? When I first heard of MCQ, the title definitely created some confusion to me as a young scholar: What is meant by
management communication? Certainly, a title like Organizational Communication Quarterly (OCQ) would have at least the
advantage of exhibiting a much more intuitive fit to the established
name of the research field.
Wieland: While I agree that Organizational Communication Quarterly more accurately reflects the overall focus of the journal, I
dont think a name change would help the journal accomplish its
stated goals of being international and interdisciplinary. Because
the phrase organizational communication is so tightly linked to
the U.S.-American discipline of Organizational Communication, a
name change would likely exclude or deter authors and audiences
outside of that discipline (as the comments above from Lin and Perriton suggest). Changing the name to OCQ would make it more difficult for the journal to continue to connect with international and
interdisciplinary scholars.
Schoeneborn: Good point . . . changing the title of a well-established
journal is a sensitive issue. Consider, for instance, the retrievability in databases, publication lists, etc. Therefore, I think that we
will have to stay with the title and instead should embrace its very
advantages. In this regard, MCQ could compare favorably to Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ), which continues to be perceived
as one of the most renowned journals in the field of organization
studies despite featuring the rather old-fashioned title for the same
field in its title: administrative science. In such cases, the nearly
ancient brand names of ASQ or MCQ may also be perceived as a
positive sign, that is, that the journal simply has been around long
enough that it continued to exist despite the further evolution of the
research field, and, consequently, can be seen as an institution in its
own right.
Botero: And I think this all comes back to our identity as individual
scholars, and how a journal and a discipline shape our identities.
When I think about identity the question that comes to mind is,
Who am I as an organizational communication scholar? I am
identified with a topic of study and not with a discipline per se.
For me organizational communication is a topic of interest that can
be explored from multiple disciplines. In this sense, the struggle is
whether I am identified with a discipline or with an area of study.
674
For me, being identified with the area of study is better, and MCQ
provides an important context to sustain that identity.
As MCQ celebrates its 25th anniversary and we look toward the next
25 years, what are your hopes for the future? What changes do you
hope to see? What do you want the journal to maintain?
Wieland: Three things stick out to me. First, we should continue to
focus on work rather than just organizations. Second, the relationship between the discursive and material. Finally, we should
continue to find ways to move meaningfully beyond a view of organizations as containers. This requires that we take seriously the idea
that organizations are situated within broader cultural, historical,
and political contexts as we theorize and study them.
Bisel: We often talk about answering the So what? question in our
research, but I would like to see us also address the question So
now do what? I am not suggesting a return to theory-less practicecentric investigations. But I am suggesting that we should explain
how our results can be used to make informed, contextualized recommendations about how to craft messages in order to effect positive social change in modern organizations.
Botero: One of the aspects Ive always liked about MCQ is that it looks at
communication processes from different methodological approaches,
and I think this makes it very useful for scholars and acknowledges
that there are multiple ways to understand communication in the organization. Given this, I believe that MCQ should continue to promote
this multimethod approach to organizational communication.
Wieland: I also hope the Forums continue to have a prominent place in
MCQ. I tell my students that academic journals are sites of scholarly
conversations. While the peer-review process serves an important
function for scrutinizing new research, the conversation that occurs
throughout the review process is often difficult to discern in the
final product. For that reason, I see the Forums as a really important part of what MCQ offers. The Forums enable scholarsboth
authors and audienceto engage deeply one another and ideas that
are important to the field. Given the structure by which Forums are
developed, they also provide us with the opportunity to invite new
voices to the conversation.
Olufowote: As MCQ moves forward Id like to see more focus on the
Middle East. Although the journals recent focus on South America
is a sensible one given the continents emerging economies (e.g.,
Brazil), not much mention has been made of the Middle East. This
675
Koschmann
is unfortunate as Middle Eastern nations such as Egypt and Saudi

Arabia are also considered emerging economies (see Hoskisson,
Eden, Lau, & Wright, 2000).
Botero: Id also like to see more attention paid to family firms and
SMEs (small and medium enterprises) and the challenges they face
regarding communication. SMEs represent over 90% of the organizations worldwide, and many of those are family firms. Thus, it
seems interesting to me that we have not focused on how organizational size and type of ownership may affect communication processes for these organizations.
Olufowote: Similarly, Id like to see future research examine nontraditional organizing such as cooperatives, nonprofits, nongovernmental agencies, and indigenous collective efforts for empowering local
community members and addressing local problems.
Schoeneborn: I fully agree. And I think that we can learn a lot from
rather extreme examples of organizing. Various contemporary
phenomenaas diverse as the Occupy movement, Wikileaks,
Anonymous, or Al Qaedachallenge our understanding of what is
an organization. I believe that with our focus on communication we
have a powerful theoretical means to develop a widened notion of
organizations as ongoing and precarious practices of language use,
which enables us to account for these seemingly boundaryless
forms of organizing as well.
Perriton: I like all these ideas, but I say let the contributors work this out.
They are the ones noticing things and wanting to research and write
about them. I think the journal should develop more organically.
Wieland: Whatever happens, I hope MCQ continues its insistence on
rigorous work, its inclusion of multiple methodologies, and its commitment to organizational communication scholarship with a social
conscience.
Looking to the Future: Management

Communication Quarterly in the Digital Age
In addition to these three Isinternationality, interdisciplinarity, identity
that have shaped the development of MCQ thus far, a fourth I is lurking on
the horizon and will be a central concern for future editors and stewards of the
journal. This concern has to do with the role and format of MCQ in the emerging i world of the Internet, as more and more content is exclusively electronic and users demand increased flexibility and adaptation for a variety of
676
digital platforms. As MCQ looks to its next 25 years and beyond, a key issue
for sustaining a sense of place for organizational communication scholarship
will be how the journal understands its material existence in the digital age.
Living in an iMaterial World

Recent efforts to materialize organizational communication (Ashcraft, Kuhn,
& Cooren, 2009) focus on objects, sites, and bodies as ways to transcend the
tired dualisms of materialism and idealism in organizational research. I suggest we should also think about materializing organizational communication
in terms of the format of our scholarship. For MCQ to continue being the
place for this scholarly community, it will be important for future editors and
publishers to consider the role of academic journals in the digital age.
As a junior scholar in the field of organizational communication I feel I
have a different relationship to MCQ and (academic journals in general) than
many of my senior colleagues. Like others in my generation I have never
subscribed to an academic journal, other than the freebies you get with your
conference registration. Graduate school involved collecting and organizing
.pdf files on my computer, searching on key terms within a file, and linking
files to my EndNote databasesa pragmatic exercise that was more about
knowing where information was stored versus understanding philosophical and
conceptual differences between academic journals. If I wanted to find research
that was more theoretical instead of applied, for example, I did not need to
know which were the right journals to look in; I just had to change the search
terms in my query and the library databases would do the work for me.
In the rare occasion that an article was not available online I embarked on
an archeological excavation to the library to make a photocopy. And in the
heat and humidity of Austin, Texas, these were well-planned excursions that
coincided with the time of day and season of the year (seems like I wrote
most of my literature reviews during the cooler winter months). But even that
practice seems like a relic of the past, for now the library staff at my university
will scan and email any article they have in the stacks not available online, and
the interlibrary loan service takes care of anything elsedelivered to my email
inbox within a day or so. To this day I dont think Ive ever physically touched
as issue of MCQ! And today I rarely even use the online indices Like ProQuest
and Ebsco directlyI just search for an article in Google Scholar and click
the find it link below the citation, which quickly brings up a list of additional links to all the library databases that have a full-text .pdf version of the
article or a link to my interlibrary loan website with the articles citation
information already entered into the submission form. So the news that MCQ
677
Koschmann
was moving to an all-online format in 2010 didnt seem like a big deal to
meI had always accessed MCQ electronically. Instead it was a reminder of
what MCQ was for the first 25 years of its existence and what the journal
represented for many people in our field.
I know not everyone follows this kind of routine, but I think the trajectory
of the future is fairly clear. These technological developments create a different conception of academic journals than existed even a few years ago and
certainly what was the norm when MCQ got started 25 years back. For me,
MCQ does not show up as a material artifact in my campus mailbox and does
not occupy a distinct space on my bookshelf; currently it shows up as one of
30 or so other titles in my RSS (rich site summary) feed in Google Reader,
just another acronym in a long list of others. When I click on MCQ I get a
window of titles and abstracts that look like every other academic journal,
and when I click on the article and go directly to the .pdf file, most have a
similar format and style (especially when from the same publisher). There is
nothing tangible about MCQ that I ever touch, and I have the same material
relationship with MCQmediated through keyboard, mouse, and screen
that I have with so much of the rest of my life.
I say all this not to boast of my digital prowess, but rather to convey the
reality of what the concept journal article means to many of us in the field
today. Many of us rarely touch hard copies or see journal covers, and even
something as foundational as page numbers now seem like vestigial appendages. Why limit your search to an entire page when a keyword search will
take you to the exact location you want (though I imagine the requirements of
APA formatting means page numbers will be with us for a while)? The point
is that in todays iWorld, an academic journals material existence takes on a
whole new meaning. Traditional material boundaries and markers either no
longer exist or are increasingly irrelevant. Journals now exist in a digital format where so much looks the same, and yet is also constantly changing. If
MCQs existence is largely conceptual, it means we need a stronger sense of
what that concept is and a stronger commitment to preserving that concept.
That is why the notions of internationality, interdisciplinarity, and identity
discussed above are so important as MCQ looks toward the future. I think
MCQs recent addition of an electronic newsletter is a step in the right direction. I have noticed a stronger connection to MCQ, perhaps even a sense of
community, as I see peoples pictures and hear about developments at the
journal. Maybe the newsletter will soon incorporate videos and other interactive materials. Similarly, the inclusion of podcasts on MCQs website helps
create a more personal connection to key people in the field, as we hear their
voices and listen to them talk about organizational communication beyond
678
the polished context of an edited article. These help MCQ take on more of a
phenomenological feel, a lived experience rather than just an abstract concept. Newsletters and podcasts are ways an academic journal can maintain a
stronger sense of identity in the digital age, and these forms serve as examples of how MCQ can help maintain its place of organizational communication scholarship.
The danger, of course, is that academic research in a digital format will
simply blend in with all the other noise on the net. It does not take much for
people with ideas to start an online journal, or even to self-publish ebooks
and articles online. And it is very easy to replicate the format, layout, and
aesthetic appearance of real research. In todays iWorld, academic journals
like MCQ no longer have the privileged status that come with physical presence. When you could only access MCQ in a university library or the shelves
of an academic department you implicitly knew you were working with something distinct from the pedestrian concerns of popular culture. But now when
you access MCQ online it is competing with all the other Google searches and
browser windows visible on your computer screen. This is especially important for students and outside constituents who pursue MCQ to access our
work. On what basis will they recognize MCQ as a distinct and credible place
for organizational communication scholarship? I think it will have more to do
with the reputation of our scholarly community and the ways in which MCQ
cultivates and conveys our presence in an online environment.
Perhaps a good analogy is the new urban design philosophy of shared
space, where traditional boundary markers of signs, sidewalks, and curbs are
eliminated in order to bring cars, pedestrians, and cyclists together to raise
collective awareness and responsibility. The belief is that safety and consideration will increase when everyone is in close proximity and forced to be
intensely aware of each other, not separated by physical barriers that encourage narrow self-focus. (Our colleagues in some German and Scandinavian
towns already experience these design ideas, and if you are in London for the
upcoming International Communication Association conference you can see
these new streetscapes firsthand.) Similarly, the old physical markers of academic journals are somewhat of an illusion today, seemingly pointless boundaries in a negotiated world. Successful navigation in todays academy is more
about intense recognition of other actors, ideas, and institutions, not reliance
on arbitrary distinctions that keep us safely apart.1 I hope future editors,
publishers, and contributors appreciate the iMateriality of MCQ in the
21st century and strive to maintain its sense of place amidst the uncertain and
ever-changing frontiers of a digital world.
679
Koschmann
I also want to be careful not to create a digital divide or sound dismissive

of others experiences. I know senior scholars who are much more technologically savvy than me, as well as graduate students who prefer the feel of
hard copy editions in their hands (or at least the printouts of the electronic
files). I am much more at home in front of a computer screen, highlighting
.pdf files with a mouse and copying and pasting key ideas into my EndNote
databasea routine that is sure to evolve with the advent of new technologies. Conversely, a colleague of mine prefers to print out journal articles and
lay them around his desk as he ponders their connections in the development
of his literature review. He then tells the articles to talk to each other on his
way out the door for the night, hoping new insights will be waiting when he
arrives in the morning. Whatever the case, the challenge for a journal like
MCQ will be to continue providing valuable content in ways that are accessible, meaningful, and useful to all members of its scholarly community.
Does this mean that MCQ should also have an app, a Twitter feed, or a
Facebook account? I do not know. By the time this article goes to print
some of those technologies may seem like old hat and others will certainly be
emerging. But in a world of iPads and Kindles (and whatever comes next) it
seems increasingly clear that one of the primary challenges facing an academic journal is how to create, arrange, manage, and distribute content that
readers can use in a variety of ways for a variety of purposes. This might also
involve more interactive options like collaborative Wikis or real-time evolving blogs connected to certain topic areas, videos that provide visual representations of field work and research sites, and other creative ways to bring
MCQs content into the classroom. As we think about the next 25 years for
MCQ a key consideration must be its continual adaptation for a digital age.
Conclusion
Twenty-five years of Management Communication Quarterly has given us
numerous contributions, viewpoints, and opportunities, as well as points of
convergence and divergence. People have come and gone, and various ideas
have come in and out of fashion. Early pioneers have moved on and new
voices have joined the conversation. But a consistent theme of quality organizational communication scholarship weaves throughout MCQs history
and shapes its trajectory for the future. From my perspective as a younger
scholar in the field of organizational communication, notions of internationality, interdisciplinarity, and identity seem prominent in MCQs past and are
poised to be important considerations going forward. I also have an eye for
another IMCQs place in the digital world, what we might call its iMa-
680
teriality. And our conversation with other emerging scholars highlights

additional perspectives and ideas that undoubtedly will shape the future of
MCQ and the field of organizational communication. I am grateful to those
who have done the hard work of getting MCQ to where it is today, and thankful to be included in its future. As we look to the next 25 years and beyond,
I believe we are well-positioned to meet the challenge of maintaining the
sense of place that Rooney et al. (2011) articulated. I also hope we can cultivate a shared space where we can safely travel with an intense awareness
of other sojourners and appreciate our interdependent journeys.
Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Craig Scott for the original graduate school assignment that led to
this article and to Timothy Kuhn for helping me come up with the term iMateriality
to frame the final section.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Note
1.
Im indebted to Roger Cohens (2012) article in the New York Times (In Search
of Sustainable Swagger) for introducing me to the idea of shared space urban
design as a metaphor for understanding todays world.
References
Ashcraft, K., Kuhn, T., & Cooren, F. (2009). Constitutional amendments: Materializing organizational communication. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1),
1-64.
Cohen, R. (2012, April 2). In search of sustainable swagger. The New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/opinion/cohen-in-searchof-a-sustainableswagger.html
Henderson, L. S. (1987). The contextual nature of interpersonal communication in
management theory and research. Management Communication Quarterly, 1(1),
7-31.
Hoskisson, R. E., Eden, L., Lau, C. M., & Wright, M. (2000). Strategy in emerging
economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 249-267.
681
Koschmann
Miller, K. I. (2007). Steps (and missteps?) during the adolescence of MCQ. Management Communication Quarterly, 20(4), 437-443.
Mumby, D. K., & Stohl, C. (1996). Disciplining organizational communication studies. Management Communication Quarterly, 10(1), 50-72.
Putnam, L. L., Phillips, N., & Chapman, P. (1996). Metaphors of communication and
organization. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Managing organizations: Current issues (pp. 375-408). London: SAGE.
Redding, W. C. (1985). Stumbling toward identity: The emergence of organizational
communication as a field. In R. D. McPhee & P. K. Tompkins (Eds.), Organizational communication: Traditional themes and new directions (pp. 15-53). Newbury
Park, CA: SAGE.
Rooney, D., McKenna, B., & Barker, J. (2011). History of ideas in Management Communication Quarterly. Management Communication Quarterly, 25(4), 583-611
Russo, T. C. (1998). Organizational and professional identification: A case of newspaper journalists. Management Communication Quarterly, 12(1), 72-111.
Stohl, C., & Cheney, G. (2001). Participatory processes/paradoxical practices communication and the dilemmas of organizational democracy. Management Communication Quarterly, 14(3), 349-407.
Bio
Matthew A. Koschmann (PhD, University of Texas at Austin) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Colorado, Boulder. His
research focuses on organizational communication and collaboration, especially in
the civil society sector.

tmpBBA4 TMP

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

tmpBBA4 TMP

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

458761

agement Communication QuarterlyKoschmann

Reprints and permission:

With special contributions by:

University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on November 30, 2012

Management Communication Quarterly 26(4)

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on November 30, 2012

Following a number of editors largely outside the field of organizational

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on November 30, 2012

Management Communication Quarterly 26(4)

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on November 30, 2012

communication scholars know a thing or two about discursive resources and

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on November 30, 2012

Management Communication Quarterly 26(4)

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on November 30, 2012

We should also be careful that interdisciplinarity does not become a mere

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on November 30, 2012

Management Communication Quarterly 26(4)

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on November 30, 2012

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on November 30, 2012

Management Communication Quarterly 26(4)

some colleagues to discuss these issues furtherother emerging scholars

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on November 30, 2012

to take risks with my work and to be willing to abandon the safe or

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on November 30, 2012

Management Communication Quarterly 26(4)

to our conversation: Only about one fifth of MCQ editorial board

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on November 30, 2012

reflexive of its dominant Eurocentric heritage and more inclusive of

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on November 30, 2012

Management Communication Quarterly 26(4)

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on November 30, 2012

with the field of organizational communication. It seems like what it

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on November 30, 2012

Management Communication Quarterly 26(4)

approach and focus on communication in the organization as an area

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on November 30, 2012

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on November 30, 2012

Management Communication Quarterly 26(4)

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on November 30, 2012

is unfortunate as Middle Eastern nations such as Egypt and Saudi

Looking to the Future: Management

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on November 30, 2012

Management Communication Quarterly 26(4)

Living in an iMaterial World

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on November 30, 2012

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on November 30, 2012

Management Communication Quarterly 26(4)

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on November 30, 2012

I also want to be careful not to create a digital divide or sound dismissive

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on November 30, 2012

Management Communication Quarterly 26(4)

teriality. And our conversation with other emerging scholars highlights

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on November 30, 2012

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on November 30, 2012

Você também pode gostar