Post‐acquisition integration: ways of sensemaking in a management team meeting

Abstract

Purpose -The aim of this paper is to investigate actors' ways of sensemaking through the use of rhetorical strategies, frames, and categories, in a management team meeting. Design/methodology/approach -The empirical data were generated from a video recorded and transcribed management meeting, and participant observation. The analysis of institutional discourses and practices builds upon the assumption that language and texts are the main tools for understanding actors' social reality. The managers' ways of sensemaking of institutional discourses and practices is captured through their use of tools like rhetorical strategies, frames, and categories in talk-in-interaction. Findings -The team managers' ways of sensemaking through mobilizing rhetorical strategies, institutional categories, and how they recontextualise frames in negotiation of a disputed issue, adds new aspects to previous studies of the multi voiced complex integration processes in a cross-border acquisition. The significance of the results is the revealing of actors' frequent use of rhetorical strategies, frames, and categories in sensemaking processes. The study calls for further research on structural features of institutional talk as related to the dynamics of talk-in-interaction. Originality/value -The findings and methods of analysis contribute to international business studies and to the empirical-based research on institutional interaction through text and talk.

Framing biases and language choices: how the Japanese media broadcast foreign aid policy for Africa

“…With regard to qualitative research, Welch and Piekkari (2017) highlight the importance of carefully selected data, which are typically limited in number, because the strength of a qualitative study is in its capacity for depth of insight. Similarly, it is essential for qualitative video analysis to be selective with data to provide in-depth analysis with a clearly defined focus (Hatani, 2015; Rovio-Johansson, 2007) because a broad coverage of samples and a number of associated topics could rather desensitise us to subtle differences of particular issues (Collins et al , 2006). Thus, in the second round of searches, all news videos were perused and selected by focusing on complete video clips that provided adequate expressions about TICAD-V for content analysis, and news that explicitly portrayed key issues relating to TICAD-V and/or Japan’s foreign aid for Africa.…”

Experiences of practice-based learning in phenomenographic perspective

“…Research in the social sciences has shown that people use accounts of their lived experiences as "windows into their life-worlds", when they interpret, explain or activate existing accounts (Schutz, 1970;Scott and Lyman, 1968;Van Manen, 1990;Wittgenstein, 1953Wittgenstein, /1997. From these accounts, researchers make sense of their discursive constructions of reality Experiences of practice-based learning (Liff and Rovio-Johansson, 2015;Rovio-Johansson, 2007). In the study, the goal was to make sense of the designers' practice-based learning in the Workshop.…”

Members' sensemaking in a multi‐professional team

“…Thus, for an understanding of institutional discourse and institutional practices, the researcher needs to study social encounters in situ in order to acquire knowledge "from within" (Shotter, 1993(Shotter, , p. 19, 2006 and to see how a problem is framed and understood. Therefore, this study is the "study of work" that explains how work is accomplished in the TC meeting (Psathas, 1995;Rovio-Johansson, 2007;Shotter, 2006;Linell, 2009) through an analysis of the members' use of rhetorical strategies, frames and categories.…”

“…The analytic focus is talk-in-interaction, in situ, (Garfinkel, 1967;Schutz, 1967) and the "study of work" that explains how work is accomplished in specific settings (Psathas, 1995;Rovio-Johansson, 2007;Linell, 2009). The study adopts the discursive pragmatism approach proposed by Alvesson and Kärreman (2000).…”