Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T22:10:16.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discursive bias and ideology in the administration of minority group interests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2009

David J. Corson
David J. Corson
Affiliation:
Department of Educational Administration, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1V6, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study suggests how easily distorted communication can arise in formal administrative discourse when the interests of those with some stake in the matter under discussion are not represented among the participants. After discussing the nature of power and its exercise in administrative settings, the article presents three episodes of discourse analysis. Members of a Board of Trustees were highly successful in debating and reaching suitable conclusions when the agenda items concerned their own close interests; they were able to create a discursive context that was relatively free of distorting ideologies, and which allowed participants to judge the sincerity, truth, justifiability, and meaningfulness of what was said. However, when the meeting agenda broached the affairs of an out-group with no known patronage on the Board, distortions in communication and small injustices became common; the out-group's interests were compromised. The article generalizes from the use of discursive power in this instance to the treatment of other culturally different minorities whose views and interests are not well represented among administrators and policy makers. It recommends how discursive power could be exercised more fairly in social institutions, and in public administration generally. (Discourse, power, minority groups, ideology, educational administration)

Type
Research Article
Information
Language in Society , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , June 1993 , pp. 165 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abbott, M. & Caracheo, F. (1988). Power, authority and bureaucracy. In Boyan, Norman J. (ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration. London: Longman. 239–57.Google Scholar
Barry, Brian (1989). A treatise on social justice, I: Theories of justice. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bhaskar, Roy (1986). Scientific realism and human emancipation. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Bhaskar, Roy (1989). Reclaiming reality: A critical introduction to contemporary philosophy. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. (1980). Language – the loaded weapon: The use and abuse of language today. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Corson, David (1985). The lexical bar. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Corson, David (1990). Language policy across the curriculum. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Corson, David (1991a). Educational research and Bhaskar's conception of discovery. Educational Theory 41:189–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corson, David (1991b). Language, power and minority schooling. Language and Education 5:231–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corson, David (1992a). Language, gender and education: A critical review linking social justice and power. Gender and Education 4:229–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corson, David (1992b). Social justice and minority language policy. Educational Theory 42:181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corson, David (1993). Language, minority education and gender: Linking social justice and power. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Dunlap, Diane M. & Goldman, Paul (1991). Rethinking power in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly 27:5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddens, Anthony (1979). Central problems in social theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gronn, Peter C. (1983). Talk as the work: The accomplishment of school administration. Administrative Science Quarterly 28:1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gronn, Peter C. (1984). “I have a solution ⃛”: Administrative power in a school meeting. Educational Administration Quarterly 20:65–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen (1970). Towards a theory of communicative competence. Inquiry 13:360–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen (1985). The theory of communicative action, I: Reasoning and the rationalisation of society (McCarthy, T., trans.) London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Hargreaves, Andy (1981). Contrastive rhetoric and extremist talk. In Hargreaves, Andy & Woods, Peter (eds.), Classrooms and staffrooms: The sociology of teachers & teaching. London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Hughes, John (1990). The philosophy of social research. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Muth, Rodney (1984). Toward an integrative theory of power and educational organizations. Educational Administration Quarterly 20:25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, Michael & Wetherell, Margaret (1987). Discourse and social psychology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Rawls, John (1972). A theory of justice. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, John (1984). Studies in the theory of ideology. Cambridge: PolityCrossRefGoogle Scholar