A study at a community college undergoing renewal provided an opportunity to explore how members of various institutional subsystems differ in the ways they make meaning of organizational climate conditions. The researcher identifies and describes competing discourses relating to the signs and symbols of power, collaboration, technology, and shared vision.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ayers, D. F. (2002). Developing climates for renewal in the community college: A case study of dissipative self-organization. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26, 165-185.
2.
Baker, G. (Ed.). (1992). Cultural leadership: Inside America's community colleges. Washington, DC: Community College Press.
3.
Baker, G., & Hoover, M. (1997). Personal assessment of the college environment (PACE). Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University, National Initiative for Leadership and Institutional Effectiveness.
4.
Bergquist, W. H. (1993). The postmodern organization: Mastering the art of irreversible change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5.
Bergquist, W. H. (1998). The postmodem challenge: Changing our community colleges. In J. S. Levin (Ed.), Organizational change in the community college: A ripple or a sea change? (pp. 87-98). New Directions for Community Colleges, no, 102. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6.
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
7.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
8.
Forehand, B., & Gilmer, B. (1964). Environmental variation in studies of organizational behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 62, 361-382.
9.
French, R. P., & Raven, R. (1959). The basis of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.
10.
Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge.
11.
Gryskiewicz, S. S. (1999). Positive turbulence: Developing climates for creativity, innovation, and renewal. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
13.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective (2nd ed.). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
14.
Levin, J. S. (1998). Making sense of organizational change. In J. S. Levin (Ed.), Organizational change in the community college: A ripple or a sea change? (pp. 43-54). New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 102. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
15.
Likert, R. (1967). The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill.
16.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
17.
Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A. (1968). Motivation and organizational climate. Boston: Harvard University Press.
18.
Marshall, C. M., & Rossman, G. G. (1995). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Nonaka, I., & Teece, D. J. (Eds.). (2001). Managing industrial knowledge; Creation, transfer and utilization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
O'Banion, T. (1997). A learning college for the 21st century. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
21.
Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (1978). The case for subsystem climates in organizations. Academy of Management Review3(1), 151-157.
22.
Roueche, J. E., & Baker, G. A., III. (1987). Access and excellence: The open-door college. Washington, DC: Community College Press.
23.
Stringer, R. (2002). Leadership and organizational climate. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
24.
Weatherell, M., Taylor, S., & Yates, S. J. (2001). Discourse as data: A guide for analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
