I completed and successfully defended my doctoral study in 2012. The fruit of my Assessment Project, this study focused on the British executive government of 2002-2003 and its stance on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
“Structure, values, roles, and discourse in British executive government: A political discourse analysis” topped out at 185 pages and examined the relationships among institutions’ structure, values, participants, and discourse. Source material included public reports, internal memos, national news, and government workers’ memoirs.
- How might researchers articulate the complex interactions among the structures, values, user-participants, and discourse in this case?
- How did the British executive government’s structures affect the discursive strategies that political writers used to justify their position on Iraq in 2002?
- How did the executive government’s values affect the discursive strategies that political writers used?
- How did the institutional structure and values articulate the user-participants of the executive government system?
A Random Quote
It was not the presence or absence of a formal dissent process that caused conflict in this case; thanks to emails and inquiries we have the record of dissent. During the case, it was the participants’ informal dynamic that made expressing dissent difficult…
Contributors had not developed a climate that accommodated alternative perspectives, and with that cultural deficiency, I’m not convinced that an official policy would have changed the outcome.
In our own collaborative spaces, practitioners can evaluate team cultures and whether those cultures are contexts where dissent can be acted on as appropriate and used to refine team processes. — KM