Abstract:
Construction, diffusion and institutionalization of managerial knowledge and/or discourse (CDIMD) represents a loosely coupled research track, which has been inspired by a reflexive concern among scholars (Alvarez, 1998). This thesis attempts to contribute to this prolific research track by engaging in a qualitative investigation in order to understand and explain the dynamics of diffusion/translation (Latour, 1986) and local institutionalization of professional Personnel/ Human Resources Management (PHRM) discourse in Turkey within the time frame of the 20th Century. A hermeneutical discourse analysis of selected professional management circles, archival documents of relevant civil associations and interviews with selected Turkish personnel/human resources elites is carried out and a local narrative of professional PHRM discourse paying special attention to contextuality and intertextuality is constructed (Czarniawska, 1999; Thatchenkery, 2001; Fairclough, 1995). Evidence from the narrative constructed in this thesis offers complementary views to the theoretical propositions developed by Sahlin-Andersson and Engwall (2002a; 2002b), who situate diffusion of managerial ideas in a more dynamic framework. Besides, some novel contributions regarding the labelling of managerial discourses (Tiratsoo, 2002) and knowledge carriers (Sahlin-Andersson and Engwall, 2002a) are also posited. Nevertheless, it can be argued that the Turkish narrative constructed in this thesis mostly contributes to the extant repertoire of knowledge concerning the processes of CDIMD by affirming the connectivity between events, activities, discourses and identities as these are located in time and space. While it puts forward the significance of symbolic processes alongside with structural aspects of CDIMD, it particularly emphasizes the embeddedness of the processes concerning CDIMD in the larger social context and temporality. Complementary to these discussions is the implications for neo-institutional theory, which address two important points. First point relates to the reconsideration of the notion of 'organizational fields' (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; 1991). The second point, that this thesis provides an important contribution, refers to the disproportionate emphasis of neo-institutionalist thinking over stability and similarity rather than change and divergence. Following this theoretical debate, a theoretical model is posited based on the works by Hasselbladh and Kallinikos (2000) and Czarniawska and Jeorges (1996) in order to re-present how institutional change may occur.
