Postmodernism and the University
Submitted by David Zemmels

Communication 7160
Survey of Organizational Communication
12/8/2004

I. Introduction

            Modernism is the 800-pound gorilla in the room for virtually every form of Western discourse. Finding its roots in the 16th Century Enlightenment, modernism is the belief in the essential capacity of humanity to perfect itself through the power of rational thought (Cooper and Burrell, 1988).  This belief, actualized in various forms, has been the dominant influence on Western literature, art, politics, and science for nearly 400 years.

            A conflicting epistemological position has arisen in latter half of the 20th Century: Postmodernism is characterized by the critical questioning, and often outright rejection, of ethnocentric rationalism championed by Modernism (Cooper and Burrell, 1988).

            The term, postmodern, can be misleading, as the post- prefix implies that it is a perspective, or era, which follows or replaces modernism.  One has ended and another begins.  However, this is not an accurate assessment of the perspective. Postmodernism can only be conceived as a relationship to the opposing possibility, in a dialectical relationship with Modernism. 

            The critical questioning by the postmodern perspective is intertwined with many other contemporary perspectives, such as feminism, neo-Marxism, poststructuralism, postcolonialism, and postfoundationalism, to name a few.  Bryan Taylor (2005) refers to postmodernism as an umbrella term and concludes that the ambiguity of the term stems partly from the enormous work that we ask it to do (Taylor, 2005: p114).

            In the end, postmodernism may just be a placeholder for whatever term we, or posterity, choose to describe our immediate present.

I suggest that a thorough understanding of these two epistemological positions is essential to analyzing and critiquing organizations in our society.  This is because the radical reevaluation of the whole process of modernization that the postmodern perspective advances has significant implications for how we understand the role and nature of organizations in the modern world (Cooper and Burrell, 1988: 92).

This essay examines in some detail the defining characteristics of these two perspectives, and then narrows the focus to what postmodernism means in the context of organizational communication research.  I then look at the University in Higher Education as an organization, and apply the postmodern lens.  This is challenging because the University is an explicitly Modernist social institution, particularly in terms of its role in Western society as a normalizing institution and as perpetuating the division of power through disciplines (Foucault, 1979).  How can Higher Education be viewed in the 21st Century from the critical postmodern perspective? How can doing so help?  I answer this question by offering an exemplar on how the University can develop strategies to break down the disciplinary barriers by examining cross-disciplinary research practices, as well as an informal case study.

II. Modernity and Modernism

Pre-modernity => Modernity => Postmodernity (historical epochs)

pre-modernism => modernism => postmodernism (perspectives)

As the text above suggests, I wish to make a careful distinction between Modernity/Postmodernity as epochs in human history and modernism/postmodernism as epistemological perspectives. While historical epochs must give way to one another, this distinction allows for the possibility that modernism and postmodernism perspectives can co-exist in time and space. Unlike modernism/postmodernism, Modernity/Postmodernity will always be capitalized since they are conceived of as historical events, like the Civil War or The Great Depression.

Human history prior to Modernity is commonly referred to as Pre-Modernity, which is characterized by concepts of metaphysics, myth, and religiosity. Western culture was dominated not by mans ingenuity and reason, as the Modern project would have us believe, but by god and nature.

Modernity Defined

Modernity is generally defined as a global historical epoch, beginning in the16th Century and continuing until the mid–20th Century (Taylor, 2005).

Modernity is a period where societies transitioned form an agrarian-based economic and social structure to an industrialized one. As Taylor (2005) tells us, Modernity is often characterized as the heir to—and fulfillment of—the Enlightenment triumph over medieval-era superstition and ignorance that had dominated Western culture for the previous 1000 years.

The Age of Enlightenment is characterized by these key concepts:

Reason is seen as the highest of human attributes. Immanuel Kant, a critical philosopher of the age, believed that Reason would allow man to cease to depend on an external authority, such as god or nature, to make decisions for us. This became the project of modernism.  Thus freed, man could proceed to dominate and emancipate man.  These seemingly incompatible goals will  be examined shortly, as they represent an important schism in the modernist ideals that I suggest leads directly to current critical questioning of modernist discourse.

Taylor (2005) characterizes the dominant elements of Modernity as follows:

What is particularly relevant to the is essay about this list is that in each of these elements necessitated the beginnings of organizational thinking as we know it today, in economic, political, and social spheres. I shall examine this more closely shortly.

Modernism Defined

Modernism is that moment when man invented himself; when he no longer saw himself as a reflection of God or Nature (Cooper and Burrell, 1988: 94).

Modernism closely parallels the industrialization of Western society as described above.  In order to deal with the changes brought about by the transitions into Modernity, such social thinkers as Saint-Simon and Comte appropriated the philosophies of Enlightenment claiming that progress and industry would make the world a better place for mankind.

The discourse of modernismis a metadiscourse which legitimates itself by reference to some grand narrative, such as the dialectics of the Spirit, the hermeneutics of meaning, the emancipation of the rational or working project, or the creation of wealth (Lyotard, 1984, quoted in Cooper and Burrell, 1988: 94).

            Developing this self-legitimating metadiscourse, or grand narrative, was necessary for dealing with the increasingly weighty problems of the emerging industrialized society.  However, it is this grand narrative, in which modernism essentially puts the answer before the question, that the postmodern project is most critical, as we will see shortly.

As I mentioned, this appropriation of Enlightenment philosophy for the purpose of managing the rapidly growing industrialized society led to a schism in Modernism referred to as Critical Modernism and Systemic Modernism (Cooper and Burrell, 1988).  This split is particularly relevant to later discussion of postmodern organizational issues.

Critical Modernism

This camp espoused the use of Enlightened Reason to emancipate man, based on Kants vision for a better humanity.  It is a reanimation of Kants vision for enlightenment, that we think for ourselves and cease depending on an external authority to make up our minds for us. We humans are encouraged to develop our powers of rational discrimination and have the courage to express them; Aude sapere (dare to know) as Kant said. Lyotard spoke of this in terms of determinacy, seeing this course as the agreement of men in bondage to emancipate themselves (Lyotard, 1984).

Systemic Modernism

In this camp were such social thinkers as Saint-Simon and Comte who used Enlightened Reason to dominate man, suggesting that the organization and control in industrialized society was the path to a better world for humanity. They were interested primarily in the instrumentalization of reason and concerned with the problems of government, administration, and planning brought about by the industrialization of society. This view uses rationality as the action that can yield the preferred outcome, given several competing alternatives. In this view, it is the institutions (organizations) that order social relations, not the individual. Lyotard spoke of this, too, in terms of determinacy, where society becomes a mechanical harmony of interacting functional actors (Lyotard, 1984).

These two camps did not co-exist easily. Critical modernism stands opposed to the cybernetic-like monolithism of systematic modernism (Cooper and Burrell, 1988).  Niklas Luhmann spells out the inexorable rationality of systemic modernism in which Kants notion of the critical rational subject is completely repressed in the interests of a machine–like system of social functionality (Cooper and Burrell, 1988).

Late Modernism

            As the postmodern perspective began to emerge in the 1970s, as we shall shortly see, attempts to reclaim modernism were made. Important contemporary theorists that argued for the modernist ideals include Daniel Bell (1974), Niklas Luhmann (1976), and Jrgen Habermas (1972, 1984)

Habermas is the theorists whose work is most relevant to this essay.  He wanted to reclaim the spirit of Kants enlightened rationalism of the critical modernist for late modernism by confront[ing] the increasing power of instrumental reason in social life (Cooper and Burrell, 1988: 5).  Habermas notions of discourse, as the object of analysis, because language is the medium of reason, are a useful way for organizational communication scholars to frame the critical debate.

Habermas ideas provide a potential middle ground between modernism and postmodernism in the organizational context.

It should be noted that while critical and systemic modernism share the belief in an intrinsically logical and meaningful world constituted by Reason or the universal firm foundation, a presupposition of unity.  It is to such an authoritative logic that postmodernism objects. However, revisiting late modernism may be interesting middle ground in an examination of the organization of higher education.

III.  The Postmodern Project

            As I have said earlier in this essay, postmodernism is the name given to an emerging epistemological position in the latter half of the 20th Century. It is best viewed as an umbrella term for a perspective that is characterized by the critical questioning, and often outright rejection, of ethnocentric rationalism championed by Modernism (Cooper and Burrell, 1988).  Thus, postmodernism can only be conceived as a relationship to the opposing possibility, in a dialectical relationship with Modernism. This view is supported by many scholars, including Dennis Mumby who suggests that it is best to think of modernism and postmodernism as existing in a mutually constitutive relationship (from Taylor, 2005: 115), and Bryan Taylor (2005) who writes, each requires the continued existence of the other in order to appear—through opposition—distinct and coherent (authors emphasis: 116).

            As I suggested earlier, the post- in postmodernism is misleading as a term and may just be a placeholder for whatever term we, or posterity, choose to describe our immediate present.  However, until such time as another term presents itself, I will continue to use postmodern to describe this discourse.

As an aside, postmodernism seems to be a more mature concept in the fields of Architecture and Art, in my opinion, much more so than in social sciences and literature.  While I will not dwell on this point in this essay, because it isnt relevant to the thesis of postmodern organizations, I think it important to make note of two examples of this.

For example, Derridas theories have been firmly adopted in the field of architecture and art as exemplified by the deconstructionist architectural style of the twin buildings that house these two departments on this campus.

In another example, I conducted an informal survey of two faculty members in our Film Studies Program. I asked them which films they thought were definitive postmodern ones.  Each had a ready answer.  I believe this is because the attributes of films that make them postmodern are fairly clear and distinct.  Specifically, they represent a rejection of modernisms linearity, coherence, realism, and internal consciousness.  Many examples of these attributes can be seen in contemporary films.

Perhaps what is most relevant about this last example to this essay is the fact that each faculty member had a definitive choice, drawn from a set of academic classifications of filmmaking.  A postmodern critic would suggest that the classifications were arbitrary and constructed. These are attempts to unify and totalize knowledge are characteristics of the modernism perspective of the world; therefore this example supports my assertion that higher education is an inherently modernist institution.

Postmodernity As Epoch

As noted earlier, it is important to distinguish between Postmodernity as an epoch in human history and postmodernism as an epistemological perspective (Parker 1992).

Taylor (2005) usefully describes the current conditions in the West that characterize Postmodernity.  I summarize his finding here:

While there is much to be said here, there is not space to address this further in this essay. I am primarily concerned with the postmodern perspective as it relates to the institution of higher education, so will focus on postmodernism in that context. 

Postmodernism As Epistemological Perspective

Postmodern discourse begins with the idea that systems have lives of their own which make them fundamentally independent of human control (Cooper and Burrell, 1988: 94).

This quote helps clarify how the postmodern perspective relates to the characteristics of Postmodernity.  The foundational ideas that supported the grand narratives of modernism are crumbling.  No longer can it be assumed that the human agent is privileged, at the controlling center of things.  In direct opposition to modernist thinking, meaning is not fixed and we are only an observer-community which constructs interpretations of the world, these interpretations having no absolute or universal status (Cooper and Burrell, 1988: 94).

This body of theory has generated considerable controversy. Martin Parker (1995) argues, the key problem raised by postmodernists is the impossibility of having certain knowledge about the Other (person, organization, culture, society) (553).  Without the stable foundation modernism provides, how can we be certain of anything?

Postmodernism should not be seen as anti-modernism.  It is not the other end of an extreme, but a position that is in dialectical opposition, as I said before. Postmodernism challenges the assumptions of Truth, Reason, and Unity of the Modern project, but offers no alternatives that could be considered foundational. Without these modernist notions, postmodernism has no raison detre.

Thus, postmodernism is not post-rationalism, either, as the post- in the name may imply. We cannot start every project with no assumptions of prior knowledge.  This would be a very weak epistemological position indeed, and it is this misunderstanding of the postmodernism that leads many scholars to be so critical of this perspective.  Postmodernism only exists, then, when in dialectical conversation with the modern world: questioning, interpreting, but not necessarily rejecting.

I believe it is worth taking a few moments to summarize the scholarly arguments for and against the postmodern perspective.  Taylor (2005: 131) provides this useful point/counterpoint summation:

1) Point: radical critique of ontology and epistemology of modernism creates a condition in which anything goes and therefore no interpretation should assume priority over an alternative.

Counterpoint: postmodern theory does not deny that meaning is possible, only that meaning is never universal, total, neutral, or permanent.  It questions how particular meanings are produced

2) Point: How is postmodern theory supposed to be practical or useful?

Counterpoint: The point of this theory is precisely to subject these entrenched, modernist criteria to reflection and critique.

3) Point: It is unclear if and how org. comm. research is supposed to contribute to postmodern theory – particularly if theory is understood in the positivist sense (generalizing and objective).

Counterpoint: Maybe revise our understanding of theory to support relationships and structures that we feel create positive, rather than negative, consequences for organizations and society.

As I have said, postmodernism is intertwined with many other perspectives which challenge the assumptions inherent in the grand narrative of the modernist project (Taylor, 2005):

A review of the literature offers these key postmodern theorists. I will examine each of them in the context of organizational studies in the next section:

While there are many other commentators on the postmodern project, there is not space to examine them all. Instead, I list some of them in the interest of future potential research in this area, and selections of their publications can be found in the bibliography. They include H. K. Bhaba (1994), Deleuze & Guattari (1987), K. L. Gergen (1991), Fredric Jameson (1983), Laclau & Mouffe (1985), Richard Rorty (1989), and Edward Said (1983).

This brief overview of the postmodern perspective paves the way for the next narrowing of this essay, focusing in on organizations in the context of postmodernism.

IV.  Postmodernism in the Context of Organizational Communication

Postmodernism has significant implications for the role and nature of organizations (Cooper and Burrell, 1988).

The fundamental theories in organizational studies were born of the modernist discourse, which is why the previous rather detailed discussion was appropriate.  It is necessary, using true postmodern critical methodology, to understand the origin of the discourse as one applies the postmodern lens. However, the modern origins of organizations are not so easily dismissed or discarded as some postmodern theorists might suggest.

What seems certain is that, as Parker (1995) argued, versions of modernism will do, and critical modernism provides a far more powerful reason to write about organizations (554). I propose that organizational theory has its roots primarily in the systemic modernism described earlier. It is systemic modernism that Habermas and others found most objectionable, where people are reduced to statistics in the social order of society.  On this point postmodern social theorists and late modernist agree.

As the chart below suggests, I argue that this dialogical perspective is useful, even in the era of Postmodernity. A postmodern lens must be used as a critical stance on the modernist characteristics of organizations, not exist in opposition to them.  If postmodernism is seen as a dialectical relationship, then it is to Habermas late modernism that should appropriately share in the dialectical conversation.

A necessary middle ground emerges. As Taylor (2005) points out, while it may be useful to identify exemplars of modern and postmodern organizational communication, these forms and processes typically coexist in organizations as tendencies (authors emphasis: 120).  No organization can be either modern or postmodern, but is a blend.

Perhaps the best approach for organizational communication scholars is seeing postmodernism as an intellectual resource to study modern organizations.  As discussed earlier, Habermas wanted to reclaim aspects of modernist enlightment for late modernism.  There is room here to embrace Kants notion of man having the powers of rational discrimination and the courage to express them in Postmodernity. This also provides a good methodology for analyzing higher education as an organization later in this essay, which as I stated, is a definitively modern organization.

Characteristics of a Postmodern Organization

            Critical perspectives in organizational studies can alternately be described as postindustrial, post-Fordist, and postmodern (Taylor, 2005).  Once again, there is much ambiguity in the terms. Postindustrialism describes structures adopted by modern organizations in the face of rapid transformations brought on by the computerization of information. There is a shift away from producing and distributing material objects towards producing and distributing information. 

Postmodern organizations are characterized by:

Compiled from Taylor, 2005

  

Modern Organizations

Postmodern Organizations

Centralized authority

Decentralized authority

Vertical Hierarchy

Lateral relations and localized autonomy in employee decision making

Mass markets

Fragmented (niche) markets

Consistent goals

Evolving goals

Predictable strategies

Improvised strategies

Bureaucratic structures with roles, rules, and procedures

Democratic processes based on consensus

Differentiation of units, identities, and functions

De-differentiation of units, identities, and functions

Standardized systems of reward and punishment

Empowerment enabling employees to be proactive

Conformity to goals and policies

Complex, negotiated relationships cultivating dedication, reflexivity and creativity

Unity and similarity

Diversity and difference

Technologies designed for routine, mass production

Sensitive, interactive technologies enabling customized production

Coherent cultures grounded in stability, tradition and custom

Agile cultures dynamically reacting to paradox and uncertainty

As one example of how the postmodern lens can be useful, I wish to briefly discuss Robert McPhees theme of organizational structures as counterproductive/ dysfunctional (McPhee, 1985: 157-8). Organizational structures are sometimes perceived as inflexible and inhumane.  He suggests that organizational structures often have unintended and unfortunate consequences and,

These unfortunate consequences are a result of a self-reinforcing cycle started by Structure: Its consequences stimulate further reliance on Structure, which eventually produces extremes of the consequences (McPhee, 1985: 158).

In such a situation, structure can strangle an organization of innovation and creativity. The postmodern organization is characterized by negotiation and consensus rather than traditional/rational bureaucratic structures. The postmodern lens could help to interrupt this self-reinforcing cycle, by opening up the discourse within an organization to other potential structures. This would allow researchers to identify elements of the discourse that reinforce the cycle and find new communicative patterns. For example, one solution might be to take steps to implement democratic processes based on consensus in a particular organization, as Taylor (2005) described it.  Embracing the diversity of views that result would encourage employees to view decision-making with more flexibility, rather than by rote as in bureaucratic structures with inflexible roles, rules, and procedures. 

The postmodern lens poses challenges to authoritative/hierarchical organizational as well as traditional/rational structures. The typical postmodern organizations typically embrace decentralized authority, and lateral relations and localized autonomy in employee decision-making.  Employees are more empowered to make decisions at the local level, rather than relying on vertical decision ladder of typical authoritative/hierarchical organizations.

Specific Theorists in Postmodern Organizational Analysis

            In an effort to further narrow the focus this essay, it is useful at this point to summarize the more influential postmodern theorists in order to choose one as the lens through which to view the particular organization of higher education.

            Jean Franois Lyotard (1984) defines postmodern discourse as the search for instabilities in the grand narratives that legitimate the major positions of modernism. Instead of consensus, it is dissensus which continually compels our attention. He viewed social action as a language game in which the participating actors made various moves according to recognized rules (Cooper, 1988).

            Jean Baudrillard (1994) suggests a break between the modernist epoch and the postmodern one, and conceptualizes this transition. In contrast to increasing social differentiation of Modernity, he argues that postmodern society sees an implosion of nearly all forms of distinction and opposition maintained by orthodox social theory, especially those of high and low culture and image and reality, a process of de-differentiation. (Hassard, 1993)

            Jacques Derrida (1976, 1978) provided a key postmodernism concept in the term, difference: a form of self-reference in which terms contain their own opposites and thus refuse any singular grasp of their meanings (paradox). Starting from a position that meaning and understanding are not intrinsic to the world and that they have been constructed, he developed a deconstructive method, which shows precisely how artificial are the ordinary, taken-for-granted structures of the world (Cooper, 1988).

While Lyotard, Baudrillard, and Derridas postmodernist perspectives lend themselves well to studies in organizational communication, since they directly address the role of communication and language in Western discourse, it is Michel Foucault (1972, 1973a, 1973b, 1979) that directly implicates educational institutions, especially higher education, as one of the primary institutions perpetuating Modernist assumption of unity, reason, and truth in Western society.

            Michel Foucaults (1979) arguments were centered on the relationship between knowledge, power, discourse, and identity. Indirect and subtle discipline (of the body) has replaced direct, coercive punishment as the dominant system of organizational and cultural power.  Knowledge is inextricably tied to power: it is inevitably produced through, and serves the interests of, discipline. Therefore, knowledge serves power by shaping the boundaries of what may legitimately be thought and spoken in organizational settings (as in disciplines within educational organizations) (Taylor, 2005: 126).

            Thus, it is through the theories of Foucault that it is best to view higher education in the context of the postmodern perspective.

Researching a Postmodern Organization

The idea of a superior, objective standpoint is completely rejected [in the postmodern project], emphasis being placed on the inherent instability of organization (Cooper and Burrell, 1988).

Taylor (2005) provides an important key caveat that should be recognized when applying the postmodern lens to organizations: There is ambiguity surrounding the term postmodern organizational communication.

There is also a third important definition as it relates to academic research:

This definition of the term refers to the styles of presentation in academic writing and how they are changing.  This includes using the multiple voices of researchers involved in a project, mixing fiction and non-fiction in the writing to make points, and breaking the illusion of the corporate voice (referring to ones self in the third person: the author found).

We can make a postmodern analysis of a modernist organization, such as a University, using all three definitions of postmodern organizational communication.

Taylor (2005), in a useful review of the literature, identifies five claims that have become central to postmodern organizational communication:

1)    Organizations are (Inter-) Texts: discourse is viewed as central to organizational processes and all human understanding and relationships are constituted and mediated by language.

2)    Organizational Cultures and Identities are Fragmented and De-centered: there is inherent irony, ambiguity, contradiction, and paradox of organizations that prematurely oppress option for (self-) understanding and action. Solution is fragmentation of meaning (identifying fictional constructions within dominant narratives), and de-centering individual identity and agency (challenging modern notion that individuals are original source of intentions and actions).

3)    Organizational Knowledge, Power, and Discourse Are Inseparable; Their Relations Should be Deconstructed: instead of residing in specific organizational actors, power is pervasive and fluid, and knowledge is inextricably tied to power because knowledge serves power by shaping boundaries of legitimate discourse in organizational settings.

4)    Organizational Communication Involves Complex Relations of Power and Resistance: organizations are intersection of two modes of power, 1) organizational control over bodies, thoughts, and voices to ensure conformity and productivity, and 2) members actively consent to this domination but it is often grudging, partial, inauthentic, and temporary.

5)    Knowledge of Organizational Communication Is Representational; as a Result, Communication Should Be Reflexive: rejects reference theories of language that assumes symbols and object naturally correspond, instead focusing on discourses ability to constitute relationships between subjects and objects.

While each of these claims could be useful in examining the University, it is claim regarding knowledge, power, and discourse (primarily #3, but also #4) that pertains most directly to this essay.  As I argued above, it is useful to draw heavily on the work of Michel Foucault, and his focus on the relationship between knowledge, power, discourse, and identity (Burrell, 1988).

V. Educational Organizations as Centers of Disciplinary Power

Unity => Universal => University

Classification, separation, and categorization, as Foucault has shown, are the essential elements in the development of disciplines, and this is accompanied by the formation of academic disciplines (Burrell in Hassard & Parker, 1993: 77).

 Let us be clear here. The pursuit of knowledge of a universal kind of which gives the university its name is essentially a modernist exercise (Burrell in Hassard & Parker, 1993: 79).

There are two aspects that constitute the current organization of disciplines in education in Western society: modern complexity of knowledge and knowledges relationship to power.  To some extent, it can be argued that the first is a result of the second.

The problem in this Century is the increasing breadth and width of knowledge that has resulted in the emergence of a myriad of disciplines or branches of learning (Jeffery, 2003). Early modernist philosophy celebrated the Renaissance Man, an enlightened individual who excelled in Art, Architecture, Engineering, etc.  Each of these specializations, which are now separated and distinct, informed one another to the extent that the whole are greater than the parts. 

Due to the modern complexity of knowledge, it has become impossible for one person to engage and comprehend the knowledge that now exists in what was once the Renaissance Man tradition.  However, in academic research circles, we are becoming increasingly aware of this limitation when trying to find practical solutions to real world problems, since they are not so easily divided in to academic areas of specialization, or disciplines.

As the quotes above clearly states, modern educational institutions, especially state funded ones, are monuments to Modernity, and are really the late bastions of true modernist thought in our society. Foucault (1979) argued that others include hospitals, prisons, governments, and judiciary/police. He describes how the soul, body, and subject are formulated within the disciplinary matrices of power that operate in these social institutions. As I have already stated, Foucault believed that knowledge is inextricably tied to power: it is inevitably produced through, and serves the interests of, discipline.

Schools are one example of what Foucault called normalizing institutions. He argued that educational institutions are essential to teaching our youth how to use and respond to power in predictable ways.

Examples of the normalizing process in public schools include:

By critiquing the discourse that constitutes and surrounds disciplines in academia, we can begin to unravel and reshape the assumed boundaries of legitimate discourse in educational settings.

What is the alternative? Is it possible, in this age where knowledge has become so vast and fragmented to ever overcome these disciplinary barriers constructed in Higher Education? I offer an example of attempts to do just that.

VI. Exemplar for Analysis:  Cross-disciplinary Research Teams (CDRT). 

Any discipline of study is really a vocabulary that corresponds to a certain way of viewing the world (Cheney et al, 2004: 251).

This quote provides a good reference to why I argue that it is appropriate that the issue of disciplinary barriers be examined from an organizational communication perspective. As the quote suggests, disciplines are really defined by the discursive form, the vocabulary used by those that are accepted members of the group. Vocabulary defines the area of intellectual activity and is used to identify an individual as qualified to be a member of the discipline.

A discipline might also be thought of in terms of discursive closure (Deetz, Democracy in the Age of Corporate Colonization), where discourses feature one viewpoint and close out others (from Cheney et al, 2004).  I suggest that strategies for opening up disciplinary discourses are a key component of breaking down disciplinary barriers.

As far as how the postmodern lens may help, One area of research may provide some answers to strategies: Cross-disciplinary Research Teams (CDRT). A close examination of CDRT is an appropriate exemplar of an alternative to business as usual in discipline-based research.

 A central motivation for research funders to support studies that consider the contributions of more than one disciplinary field is the fact that real-world problems do not come in disciplinary-shaped boxes (Jeffery, 2003).

Thus, this research examines the communicative practices that evolve when it is necessary to bring together several experts in their respective fields to work on a problem that crosses many disciplines in its scope. 

Paul Jeffery (2003) presents his findings and conclusions of a collaborative project he observed over 8 months.  He suggests that there are several roadblocks to interdisciplinary research:

This last roadblock, the incompatible discursive forms, takes us back to the beginning of this section.  The vocabulary that defines a discipline also separates it from others.  Overcoming this discursive separation should be an essential project of communication scholars in helping higher education become more open to postmodern claims about organizations.

Jeffery (2003) offers several conclusions as Tools of Collaboration, based on his findings.  Interestingly, they are all issues of communicative practices.

The Role of Vocabulary

            In each discipline, ideas are generated using its distinct discursive form, and make sense within the discourse, but not to representatives of other disciplines. Collaboration between disciplines is hampered by the absence of a collective and comprehensible set of reference terms (548).  Perhaps surprisingly, Jeffery found that the team was able to develop a common vocabulary quite quickly, and observed several factors influential in the evolution of a common vocabulary.  This offers great hope for other successful projects.

The Role of Metaphors

            The use of metaphor became a short hand communication style as the research progressed.  the use of metaphor was discernable as a tool for both explanation and query, and dominant metaphors were referred back to when actors felt that they were losing the clarity of an explanation (549).

The Role of Story-lines:

Narratives were developed to reduce discursive complexity. Story-lines provide actors with a set of symbolic references (expressed through language) that suggest a common understanding (550).

The Role of an Intermediary

This person maintains the focus of group and assists in developing common vocabulary and metaphors previously mentioned.  This is perhaps the most difficult role because the person needs to meet fairly strict criteria of credibility and competency by all collaborators.

The Role of Negotiation

Jeffery observed continual negotiation on structure and content of the project.  This was useful to maintain a healthy dialogue, since agreement is the result of negotiation.  This agreement became a contract of sorts to hold the group together.

CDRT models differ from typical academic structures and practices because they are a conscious effort by funding agencies and researchers from different disciplines to overcome the barriers to cross-disciplinary research and communication.  Research projects can be difficult enough without the added effort of developing new vocabularies, metaphors, etc.  Many researchers are unwilling or unable to overcome the communication barriers, but as Jefferys research demonstrates, it can be done if the individuals are committed to doing so.

CDRT is best understood with a postmodern lens because the success of cross-disciplinary projects necessitates organizational structures that closely parallel those of postmodern organizations described above.  What follows are some points were I suggest postmodern organization and Jefferys observations overlap.

The communication process in CDRT that Jeffery describes is one were stability is not given, and must be attained through group commitment.

Case Study: CROMDI

The Center for the Representation of Multi-Dimensional Information (CROMDI) at the University of Utah is a good example of CDRT.  They have developed a new 3D audio-visualization technology (IntuInfo) that facilitates the rapid and accurate analysis of large quantities of complex and quickly changing data. This organization presents itself as a team of researchers that are ready to solve real-world problems [that] do not come in disciplinary-shaped boxes as Jeffery (2003) put it.  This description of their process is from their web site:

CROMDI is an interdisciplinary team dedicated to the innovative representation of information that is comprised of experts of display development disciplines (Arts, Architecture, Communication, Computer Science, Mathematics, Music, Psychology) and application areas (Medicine, Anesthesia, BioEngineering, Finance, etc.). These diverse experts participate with their own unique perspectives and provide solutions to complex information design needs through a unique methodology and iterative process (Retrieved on 12/05/04 from http://www.cromdi.utah.edu/)

            I conducted an informal interview with one long time member of the CROMDI team, Julio Bermudez from the College of Architecture + Planning at the University of Utah. I offer this brief bulleted synopsis of his thoughts on interdisciplinary research based on his involvement with the team:

These observations generally support Jefferys conclusions about the roadblocks and tools for successful interdisciplinary research above. I plan to continue to remain in contact with this group.

Conclusion:

Interdisciplinary research is becoming more and more necessary due to the societal and scientific complexities of problems, which are insoluble by single disciplines or experts (Durfee, in press).

Further research in CDRT can provide excellent strategies for encouraging interdisciplinary discourse in higher education.  A review of the literature found several related areas of research in this area that can be drawn on for additional strategies, such as CDC (Cross-Disciplinary Communication), IR (Interdisciplinary Research), and CMC (Computer Mediated Communication).  This last recognizes that the computer and the Internet provide new avenues to opening up discourse across disciplines.

There is much ambiguity about the term cross-disciplinary as well that can be better conceptualized.  Jeffery (2003) identifies a three-way classification of cross-disciplinary studies: Multidisciplinary Research where several independent studies are coordinated, Transdisciplinary Research where an overarching paradigm encompasses a number of disciplines, and Interdisciplinary Research which falls between the two previous approaches. This research also uncovered the term Julio Bermudez suggests, complete interdisciplinarity, which indicates the involvement of all the disciplines that are necessary and sufficient for the end-to-end solution of [a] problem.

It is my hope that further investigation in this area will reveal strategies encouraging cross-disciplinary teaching and learning in higher education, as well as research, and more closely examine the role of technology in facilitating cross-disciplinary education and research.

Bibliography:

Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Bell, D. (1974). The Coming of Post-industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forcasting. New York: Basic Books.

Bhaba, H. K. (1994). The Location of Culture. New York: Routledge.

Burrell, G. (1988). Modernism, Post Modernism and Organizational Analysis 2: The Contribution of Michel Foucault. Organization Studies, 9(2), p221, 215p.

Burrell, G. (1994). Modernism, Postmodernism and Organizational Analysis 4: The Contribution of Jrgen Habermas. Organization Studies, 15(1), p1, 19p.

Chan, A. (2000). Redirecting Critique in Postmodern Organization Studies: The Perspective of Foucault. Organization Studies, 21(6), p1059, 1017p.

Chia, R. (1995). From Modern to Postmodern Organizational Analysis. Organization Studies, 16(4), 579, 526p.

Clegg, S. R. (1995). Parker's Mood. Organization Studies, 16(4), 565, 567p.

Cooper, R. (1989). Modernism, Post Modernism and Organizational Analysis 3: The Contribution of Jacques Derrida. Organization Studies, 10(4), p479, 424p.

Cooper, R., & Burrell, G. (1988). Modernism, Postmodernism and Organizational Analysis: An Introduction. Organization Studies, 9(1), 91-112.

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Derrida, J. (1976). Of Grammatology (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and Difference (A. Bass, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Pantheon.

Foucault, M. (1973a). Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. New York: Vintage.

Foucault, M. (1973b). The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Vintage.

Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and Punishment: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books.

Gergan, K. J. (1991). The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life. New York: Basic Books.

Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and Human Interests. London: Heinemann.

Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. I: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.

Hassard, J., & Parker, M. (1993). Postmodernism and Organizations. London ; Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Jameson, F. (1983). Postmodernism and Consumer Society. In H. Foster (Ed.), The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture (pp. 111-125). Port Townsend, WA: Bay Press.

Jeffrey, P. (2003). Smoothing the Waters: Observations on the Process of Cross-Disciplinary Research Collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 33(4), p539, 524p.

Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics (W. Moore & P. Cammack, Trans.). London: Verso.

Luhmann, N. (1976). A General Theory of Organized Social Systems. In G. Hofstede & M. S. Kassen (Eds.), European Contributions to Organizational Theory. Amsterdam: Van Gorcum.

Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The Postmodern Condition. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.

McPhee, R. D. (1985). Formal Structure and Organizational Communication. In R. D. McPhee & P. K. Tompkins (Eds.), Organizational Communication: Traditional Themes and New Directions (pp. 149-177). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Parker, M. (1992). Post-Modern Organizations or Postmodern Organization Theory? Organization Studies, 13(1), p1, 17p.

Parker, M. (1995). Critique in the Name of What? Postmodernism and Critical. Organization Studies, 16(4), 553, 512p.

Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Said, E. (1983). The World, the Text, and the Critic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Taylor, B. C. (2005). Postmodern Theory. In S. May & D. Mumby (Eds.), Engaging Organizational Communication Theory And Research (pp. 288). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.