This article examines the interplay of discourse, texts, and sustainability in the public hearing process for a Wisconsin city’s application to divert water from the Great Lakes of North America. The application is controversial and has been labeled as a ‘precedent’ setting action with respect to the Great Lakes Compact and water management. This article examines how texts are used to support positions on the diversion application and on sustainability. This analysis takes a discourse analytic approach to analyze local public hearings. The central question that is addressed is how do texts matter in sustainability efforts? The analysis indicates that texts are significant in supporting positions, but are associated with stances in different ways such that the same text may be used to support divergent positions. Meeting participants converged in agreeing on the importance of specific texts and of sustainability, but differed in how they related actions to texts.
AnninP (2009) The Great Lakes Water Wars. Washington, DC: Island Press.
2.
AshcraftKLKuhnTRCoorenF (2009) Constitutional amendments: ‘Materializing’ organizational communication. The Academy of Management Annals3(1): 1–64.
3.
BakkerK (2012) Water: Political, biopolitical, material. Social Studies of Science42(4): 616–623.
4.
BaradK (2014) Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society28(3): 801–831.
5.
BodenDZimmermanDH (eds) (1991) Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.
6.
CallonM (1986) Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In: LawJ (ed.) Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?London: Routledge, 196–223.
7.
CastorTRCoorenF (2006) Organizations as hybrid forms of life: The implications of the selection of agency in problem formulation. Management Communication Quarterly19(4): 570–600.
CoorenFA (2004) Textual agency: How texts do things in organizational settings. Organization11(3): 373–393.
10.
DrewPHeritageJP (1992) Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In: DrewPHeritageJP (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–65.
11.
DryzekJS (2013) The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12.
GreimasAJ (1987) On Meaning: Selected Writings in Semiotic Theory, trans. PerronPJCollinFH. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
13.
HannerzU (1992) Cultural Complexity: Studies in the Social Organization of Meaning. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
14.
HeritageJ (2005) Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In: FitchKLSandersRE (eds) Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 103–147.
15.
LammersJCBarbourJB (2006) An institutional theory of organizational communication. Communication Theory16: 356–377.
16.
LatourB (1999) Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17.
LatourB (2004) Why has critique run out of steam?: From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry30: 225–248.
18.
LatourB (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
19.
LatourB (2008) What is the style of matters of concern?Two lectures in empirical philosophy. Department of Philosophy of the University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam: Van Gorcum. Available (consulted 30January2017) at: http://bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/97-SPINOZA-GB.pdf
20.
LatourB (2009) Politics of Nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
MarsenS (2014) ‘Lock the doors’: Toward a narrative–semiotic approach to organizational crisis. Journal of Business and Technical Communication28: 301–326.
22.
MeyerJWRowanB (1977) Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology83: 340–363.
23.
OrloveBCatonSC (2010) Water sustainability: Anthropological approaches and prospects. Annual Review of Anthropology39: 401–415.
24.
OwenWF (1984) Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech70: 274–287.
PhillipsNLawrenceTBHardyC (2004) Discourse and institutions. Academy of Management Review29: 635–652.
27.
PickeringA (1993) The mangle of practice: Agency and emergence in the sociology of science. American Journal of Sociology99: 559–589.
28.
PutnamLLCoorenF (2004) Alternative perspectives on the role of text and agency in constituting organizations. Organization11: 323–333.
29.
SchoenebornDBlaschkeSCoorenFMcPheeRDSeidlDTaylorJR (2014) The three schools of CCO thinking: Interactive dialogue and systematic comparison. Management Communication Quarterly28: 285–316.
30.
SmithDE (2001) Texts and the ontology of organizations and institutions. Studies in Cultures, Organizations and Societies7: 159–198.
31.
TaylorJRVan EveryEJ (2000) The Emergent Organization: Communication as its Site and Surface. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
32.
TolbertPSZuckerLG (1999) The institutionalization of institutional theory. In: CleggSRHardyC (eds) Studying Organization: Theory and Method. London: Sage, 169–184.
