This article addresses two intertwined aspects of difference that have yet to be deeply examined by organizational communication scholars—language and national identity. Accordingly, in this research, which is taken from a larger study on scientific occupational identity, I use Tompkins and Cheney’s enthymeme as an analytical device to explore the ways that participants reject and simultaneously instantiate discrimination in the workplace. In doing so, I contribute to the theory of occupational control by demonstrating how perceptions of language and national identity are used as part of occupational decision making in order to evaluate “good science” at work. Findings in this article indicate, regardless of the common assumptions that “science does not discriminate,” that the concept of good science is based, in part, on the identity of the embodied subject and his or her English language performance.
AckerJ. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs & bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4, 139-158.
2.
AckerJ. (2011). Theorizing gender, race and class in organizations. In JeanesE. L.KnightsD.Yancey MartinP. (Eds.), Handbook of gender, work and organization (pp. 65-80). West Sussex, UK: Wiley & Sons.
3.
Ailon-SoudaG.KundaG. (2003). The local selves of global workers: The social construction of national identity in the face of organizational globalization. Organization Studies, 24, 1073-1096.
4.
AkreshI. R.FrankR. (2011). At the intersection of self and other: English language ability and immigrant labor market outcomes. Social Sciences Research, 40, 1362-1370.
5.
AlkhazrajiK. M.GarnderW. L.MartinJ. S.PaolilloJ. G. (1997). The acculturation of Muslim immigrants to US organizations. Management Communication Quarterly, 11, 217-265.
6.
AllenB. J. (2004). “Diversity” and organizational communication . In JacksonR. L. (Ed.), African American communication and identities: Essential readings (pp. 211-218). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
AmmonU. (2001). The dominance of English as a language of science: Effects on other languages and language communities. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
8.
AndersonP. A. (2011). The basis of cultural differences in nonverbal communication. In SamovarL. A.PorterR. E.McDanielE. R. (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 293-309). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
9.
AshcraftK. L. (2007). Appreciating the “work” of discourse: Occupational identity and difference as organizing mechanisms in the case of commercial airline pilots. Discourse & Communication, 1, 9-36.
10.
AshcraftK. L. (2008). Bringing the body back to work, whatever and wherever that is: Occupational evolution, segregation and identity. Paper presented at the National Communication Association. San Diego, CA.
11.
BarinagaE. (2007). “Cultural diversity” at work: “National culture” as a discourse organizing an international project group. Human Relations, 60, 315-340.
12.
BarkerJ. R.CheneyG. (1994). The concept and the practice of discipline in contemporary organizational life. Communication Monographs, 61, 19-43.
13.
BenfieldJ. R.HowardK. M. (2000). The language of science. European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery, 18, 642-648.
14.
BourdieuP. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
BroadfootK. J.MunshiD. (2007). Diverse voices and alternative rationalities. Management Communication Quarterly, 21, 249-267.
16.
ChakravarttyP. (2006). White collar nationalism. Social Semiotics, 16, 39-55.
ChildJ.FulkJ. (1982). Maintenance of occupational control. Work and Occupations, 9, 155-192.
19.
CoorenF.GrosjeanS. (2010). Organizational communication in France: An overview of current research. Management Communication Quarterly, 24, 607-611.
20.
DasD.DharwadkarR.BrandesP. (2008). The importance of being “Indian”: Identity centrality and work outcomes in an off-shored call center in India. Human Relations, 61, 1499-1530.
21.
DempseyS. E. (2007). Negotiating accountability within international contexts: The role of bounded voice. Communication Monographs, 74, 311-332.
22.
DustmannC.Van SoestA. (2002). Language and earnings of immigrants. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 55, 473-492.
23.
EssersC.BenschopY. (2009). Muslim businesswomen doing boundary work: The negotiation of Islam, gender and ethnicity within entrepreneurial contexts. Human Relations, 62, 403-423.
FryR.LowellB. L. (2003). The value of bilingualism in the US labor market. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 57, 128-140.
26.
GatesB. (2007, February27). How to keep America competitive. The Washington Post, pp. b07.
27.
HallE. (1976). Beyond culture. New York, NY: Doubleday.
28.
JianG. (2012). Does culture matter? An examination of the association of immigrant’s acculturation with workplace relationship quality. Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 295-321.
29.
LangK. (1986). A language theory of discrimination. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 101, 363-382.
30.
LazearE. P. (1999). Culture and language. Journal of Political Economy, 107(6), 95-126.
31.
MartinJ. N.NakayamaT. K. (2012). Intercultural communication in contexts. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
32.
MoraM. T.DávilaA. (2011). The LEP earnings penalty among Hispanic mean in the US: 1980-2005. In LealD. L.TrejoS. J. (Eds.), Latinos and the economy: Immigrants and minorities, politics and policy. New York, NY: Springer.
33.
NelsonR. E.GoplanS. (2003). Do organizational cultures replicate national cultures? Isomorphism, rejection and reciprocal opposition in the corporate values of three countries. Organization Studies, 24, 1115-1151.
34.
OrbeM. P. (1998). An outsider within perspective to organization communication: Explicating the communication practices of co-cultural group members. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 230-279.
35.
ParkerP. S. (2005). Race, gender, and leadership: Re-envisioning organizational leadership from the perspectives of African American women executives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
36.
PendakurK.PendakurR. (2002). Language as both human capital and ethnicity. International Migration Review, 36, 147-177.
37.
ReinhartK. (2011). Effects of nationality and assignment location on corporate promotion in multi-national enterprise setting. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Tilburg University, The Netherlands.
38.
RiekeR. D.SillarsM. O.PetersonT. R. (2009). Argumentation and critical decision making. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
39.
Rodino-ColocinoM. (2012). Geek jeremiads: Speaking the crisis of job loss by opposing offshored and H-1B labor. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 9, 22-46.
40.
ShepherdM. A. (2011). Effects of ethnicity and gender on teacher’s evaluations of student’s spoken responses. Urban Education, 46, 1011-1028.
41.
SimpsonJ. L. (2008). Blinded by the white: Challenging the notion of a color-blind meritocracy in the academy. Southern Communication Journal, 75, 150-159.
42.
TompkinsP. K.CheneyG. (2006). Communication and unobtrusive control in contemporary organizations. In PutnamL. L.KroneK. J. (Eds.), Organizational communication (Vol. 4; pp. 159-194). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43.
van LeeuwenT. H.MoedH. F.TijssenR. J.VisserM. S.van RaanA. F. J. (2001). Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research performance. Scientometrics, 51, 335-346.
44.
VarmaR. (2002). High-tech coolies: Asian immigrants in the US science and engineering workforce. Science as Culture, 11, 337-361.
45.
VarmaR. (2010). India-born in the US science and engineering workforce. American Behavioral Scientist, 53, 1064-1078.
WatsonJ. (1986). English, the international language of science. Journal Belge de Radiologie, 69(3), 195-200.
48.
WellsC. C. (2010). Difference and science at work: The occupational identity of analytical chemists. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing. (UMI No. 3428094).
