In this study, we explicitly engage with the historical dimension of discursive legitimation to understand how a sense of legitimacy is maintained for a controversial actor over a long period of time. Analyzing articles in The Economist that address opposition against multinational corporations during the current wave of globalization, we identify and situate the different multinational corporation-related controversies and discursive legitimation strategies in their specific historical context. Our historical interpretation suggests three phases, each representing the discursive creation of particular actor images that either legitimize multinational corporations or de-legitimize its opponents. From our findings, we propose that, over time, the nature of discursive legitimation changes and introduce ‘discursive antagonism’ and ‘discursive co-optation’ as two different forms of legitimation. We further reflect on our present understanding of multinational corporations, reinterpreting their current political role as a historical product of the legitimacy process over time.

Although a large number of studies have explored the main causes of gender inequality in academia, less attention has been given to the processes underlying the failure of gender equality initiatives to enhance gender representation, especially at the professorial level. We offer a critical discourse analysis of recently promulgated gender policy documents of the five Flemish universities, and demonstrate that defensive institutional work is a fundamental process underlying resistance to gender equality in the academic profession. That is, powerful organizational actors resist gender change by (un)intentionally deploying a combination of discursive strategies that legitimate what we describe as non–time-bound gender equality initiatives: The expected outcomes are undetermined in time, and they delegitimate concrete, time-bound measures that define specific outcomes against well-defined deadlines. By explicitly bringing a temporal dimension into our analysis, we argue that defensive institutional work deflects questions regarding what ought to be achieved when, and contributes to the slow pace of gender change in academia.

While scholars have examined how micro-textual argumentative strategies are used to (de)legitimize contested corporate practices, less attention has been given to the role of ideologies or broader belief systems, underlying discursive (de)legitimation. Analyzing newspaper articles published after the announcement of two highly debated corporate restructurings in Belgium during the Great Recession, we identify the ideologies underlying (de)legitimizing statements and examine the discursive strategies through which social actors reproduce elements of these ideologies in legitimacy struggles. We show how the ideologies of ‘neoliberal capitalism’ and ‘humanistic capitalism’ shape framings of the restructurings, identity constructions of actors involved and propositions for government measures to prevent future restructurings from happening. Apart from predictable patterns of reproduction, we discern four creative reproduction strategies: ‘refutation of elements of ideological representations’, ‘appropriation of key vocabularies’, ‘hybridization of ideological representations’, and ‘ideological pioneering’. Our study contributes by (1) providing novel insights into how ideologies function as discursive resources for (de)legitimation of contested corporate undertakings, (2) reconsidering the political nature of (de)legitimizing statements, and (3) reflecting on the (im)possibility of resistance against globalization-driven restructurings in multinational corporations and the neoliberal ideological project in general.

No abstract

Across two datasets-a corpus of 485 print media articles and a multiactor survey of Tech/Innovation experts, Authors/Journalists, Economy/Labor Market experts, Policy Makers/Public Administrators, and Engaged Citizens (N=570)-we build the case that the future of work is a fiction, not a fact; or better yet, a series of competing fictions prescribing what the future will or should look like. Using an abductive and curiositydriven mixed-method analysis process we demonstrate that different narratives about the future of work stand in direct relation to specific actors in the public debate, both through framing tactics used by narrators in the media, and through political and dispositional processes of narrative subscription. From these findings, we infer that research on the future of work is in need of a paradigm shift: from 'predictions' to 'imaginaries'. This, we argue, will help counter deterministic and depoliticized understandings of the future of work. We propose an integration of theory around framing contests, field frames, narrative subscription, and corresponsive mechanisms to offer a plausible account of our empirical discoveries and develop an agenda for further research. As the practical implications of our research show, the future of work does not need to be something that happens 'to us'-instead, the future can be what we 'make it'.