THE RADICAL NEED FOR SEMIOTICS IN IS RESEARCH AND
PRACTICE
Why the Urgency?
Ângela Lacerda Nobre
Escola Superior de Ciências Empresariais do Instituto Politécnico de Setubal, ESCE-IPS, Portugal
Key-words: Organisational Meaning-making, Semiotics, Organisational Semiotics, Saussurean Sign Theory, Peircean
Sign Theory
Abstract: There has been a systematic effort, among management and computing science scholars, to explore novel
perspectives which may unveil the full potential of organisation’s capabilities. Among those efforts,
semiotics stands out, in particular in information systems analysis and design. Semiotics is one of the most
productive and yet still largely unexplored area in information systems research. The present paper argues
that semiotics plays the crucial role of bridging the two extremes of organisational reality: the formal and
the informal, the predictable and the unpredictable, and the linear and the complex. This paper addresses the
issue of organisational meaning-making as a knowledge filed which directly connects to semiotics theory.
This paper also revises the evolution of semiotics thought, the impact of Peircean and Saussurean semiotics
in contemporary thinking, and the creative tensions between structuralist and post-structuralist perspectives
on semiotics.
1 INTRODUCTION
There is one single argument that synthesises the
relevance of semiotics theory for Information
Systems research and practice: semiotics enables the
integration of the formal, predictable and
controllable aspects of organisational life, on one
side, and the informal, innovative and creative
dynamics of ongoing organisational reality, on the
other side.
A wide range of works illustrate this integrative
capacity of semiotics theory, from organisational
semiotics literature (e.g., Stamper, 1973, 2000, Liu,
2000, Filipe, 2000, Liu et al, 2001) to the scientific
community of the language and action perspective
(e.g., Winograd, Flores, 1986, Goldkuhl, Röstlinger,
1999, Andersen, 2000).
Both management theory and IS research have
acknowledged the need to align operations and
strategy (e.g., Sveiby, 2001) and the efforts to
develop synergies between the hard and the soft
organisational aspects (e.g., Checkland, 1999).
However, there is still a large unexplored potential
in terms of the practical applications of semiotics to
IS practice.
The present paper will explore the notion of
meaning-making under the double argument that the
process of constructing meaningful significations is
present in every organisational action and that the
design and development of IS plays a key and
determining role in this process, critically affecting
organisational effectiveness end results.
2 ORGANISATIONAL
MEANING-MAKING
2.1 Meaning and Social Interaction
The context of high competition that characterises
current organisational environments implies that
there has been an effort towards exploring less
conventional aspects of management. These efforts
are illustrated by the developments in areas such as
organisational meaning-making (e.g., Daft, Weick,
1984, Weick, 2001). In general terms, the quality of
interpersonal interaction is central for organisational
meaning-making (Bokeno, 2009). These relations
may be analysed from a social perspective. Focusing
on organisational meaning-making in
103
Lacerda Nobre Ã
´
C.
THE RADICAL NEED FOR SEMIOTICS IN IS RESEARCH AND PRACTICE - Why the Urgency?.
DOI: 10.5220/0003267501030110
In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Informatics and Semiotics in Organisations (ICISO 2010), page
ISBN: 978-989-8425-26-3
Copyright
c
 2010 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved

inter-organisational networks, Hallikas (et al, 2009)
stresses the connections between innovation and
learning.
Both management theories, which focus on
achieving results, and organisation theories, that
focus on the logic and structure, i.e. the organisation,
that is behind those results, are gradually showing a
new interest in the social aspects of human
interaction. This is critically relevant for
knowledge-intensive organisations or network,
knowledge-driven or knowledge-based organisations.
“Innovation, learning and knowledge leverage are
crucial for the competitive edge of
knowledge-intensive firms” (Ojanen, Hallikas,
2009). The crucial role of meaning-making at
organisational level has been widely recognised by
organisational theory scholars.
2.2 Semiotics and Meaning-making
Semiotics plays a crucial role in organisational
research. This role is related to the need to link
organisational practices with the meaning-making
processes that sustain such practices. The need to
raise awareness of the importance of the
organisational social relations that enable knowledge
sharing in knowledge-intensive organisations is
critical for IS research and practice. This
acknowledgement is fundamentally grounded in
semiotic related concerns. That is, social relations
derive their meaning from the discursive practices of
their actors. Within organisational communities,
semiotic theory enables these meaning-making
processes to be addressed. Social semiotics, in
particular, has these processes as its object of study.
“Semiotics is currently the most complete
and sophisticated theory of meaning and
culture.” (Lagopoulos, 1993).
What is meaning-making? In general terms, and
within the context of the present work, it is possible
to propose the following interpretations. Meaning is
the signification that human beings assign to “things
in the world” through the use of language. This
implicitly includes the consequences of such
signification. And this signification also implies a
network of relationships with other “things in the
world”. This happens because all meaning occurs
within previous meaningful relationships and
presupposes a larger context of a meaningful ‘world’.
Meaning-making is the participative (and largely
unconscious) process of continuously, tentatively
and provisionally creating sense through
involvement in action and in discursive practices, in
bodily contact with “things in the world”, within
specific social contexts and social relations.
Organisational meaning-making is how signification
is constructed at organisational level thus enabling
the collective, though pluralistic, interpretation of
organisational reality.
“Meaning is not something psychological
in an individual but something developed
socially across a community.” (Grim et al,
2004).
Organisational meaning-making is a social
process. Social semiotics critically addresses
meaning-making as such. Organisational semiotics
and the notion of information fields (Stamper, 1973)
directly concern the collective sharing of social
norms and the creation of shared understanding.
“Meaning, at the social level, refers to the
relations of signs to the norm structures
specific to the social context where the sign is
uttered.” (Filipe, 2000).
Semiosis is meaning-making. Semiosis is how
Peirce describes the process of recognising “things
in the world” (Filipe, 2000). As social semioticians
argue, “Semiosis are the processes and effects of the
production and reproduction, reception and
circulation of meaning in all forms.” (Hodge, Kress,
1988). Organisational meaning-making may be
interpreted in the light of social philosophy as the
present thesis argues, and the present chapter
explains. Norms include social and cultural
dimensions, as Ulrich ascertains.
“Normative principles, or simply norms,
are standards or rules that regulate human
interaction in social contexts, from
communication (linguistic norms, norms of
etiquette) to legal (law) and moral norms
(proper conduct); normative implications are
the norms that are contained, whether
intentionally or not, in the consequences of
specific actions in that they are needed to
justify these consequences.” (Ulrich, 2001).
Schein’s (2007) work on organisational culture is
consistent with this position. “Once people make
sense of their world collectively, creating norms and
developing tacit assumptions, those norms and
assumptions define reality, the individual’s identity
and group membership.” (Schein, 2007). These are
norm stuctures, as Filipe calls them. Allan et al
(2008) call for a radical reframing of management
norms, in specific organisations, namely
natural-resource management organisations.
ICISO 2010 - International Conference on Informatics and Semiotics in Organisations
104

3 PHILOSOPHICAL
TRADITIONS IN IS RESEARCH
AND THE EVOLUTION OF
SEMIOTICS
Computing science research has a strong tradition of
philosophically based approaches. Several authors
have based their computing science research on
social philosophy (e.g.,Stamper, 1973, Goldkuhl,
Lyytinen, 1982, Maturana, Varela, 1980, Winograd,
Flores, 1986, Liu, 1993, Filipe, 2000, Clarke, 2000,
Andersen 2000, Ulrich, 2001, Dietz, 2003, Bynum,
Rogerson, 2004, Ciborra, 1996, Ciborra,
Willcocks, 2006, Mathieson, 2007, Oates, Fitzgerald,
2007, Hovorka et al, 2008, Stahl, 2008). Different
areas have been explored, including ontology,
pragmatism, semiotics, social constructivism,
philosophy of language and philosophy of action.
“There is the need for redefining information science
in terms much more comprehensive, multilevel
philosophy of information, of which semiotics forms
the foundation.” (Ulrich, 2001)(italics added).
Designing information systems is also designing
ways of being, as Winograd and Flores argue, based
on Heidegger’s work:
“All new technologies develop within a
background of a tacit understanding of human
nature and human work. The use of
technology in turn leads to fundamental
changes in what we do, and ultimately in what
it is to be human. We encounter the deep
questions of design when we recognise that in
designing tools we are designing ways of
being.” (Winograd, Flores, 1986).
When designing work processes, workflows,
organisational structures or information systems, the
definition of these processes not only determine
abstract formalisations but they also have a direct
effect on the people who are to perform such work,
through the actual enactment of the work practices
themselves.
3.1 Historical Origins of Semiotics
Semiotics, as a discipline, corresponds to the
analysis of signs and the study of sign systems
(Elliot, Ray, 2003). The idea that sign systems are of
great consequence is easy enough to grasp, though
the recognition of the importance and the need to
study sign systems belongs to late modern age
(Bouissac, 1998). A full-blown semiotic awareness
arises at the turn of the nineteenth and the twentieth
century, through the influence of two great scholars:
Ferdinand Saussure [1857-1913] in Europe and
Charles Sanders Peirce [1839-1914] in North
America (Chandler, 2002).
Different schools of thought emerged from
Saussure’s and Peirce’s work giving rise to diverse
currents that deeply influenced what came to be
known as the linguistic turn and the context turn in
the social and human sciences, emerging,
respectively, in the second and third quarter of the
twentieth century. These were epistemological shifts
which characterised the main paradigm of a certain
period of time (Delanty, Strydom, 2003). From
Saussure’s work, structuralism developed, in the
1950s, as well as other different branches, among
which one that would later give rise, in the 1970s, to
social semiotics, which is post-structuralist. From
Peirce’s work (1931, 1955), pragmatism developed,
together with varied schools of semiotic analysis.
Saussure’s approach to semiotics focused on human
signs, language use and discourse, and thus inspired
widely diverse philosophical work (Lemke, 1995).
This included: Lévi-Strauss’s (1963) work on
anthropology, giving rise to structuralism;
Foucault’s work on sociology, giving rise to social
theories of discourse; Barthes’s (1964, 1996) work
on cultural analysis; Baudrillard and Derrida’s (1978)
work on sociologic post-modern analysis; and the
works of Jacques Lacan and Julia Kristeva (1975) on
psychoanalysis (Benton, Craib, 2001).
Peirce’s work developed a perspective of
semiotics as permeating all reality, and a view of the
universe as “perfused with signs” (Chandler, 2002).
Peirce’s work inspired many schools of thought and
many thinkers, including Morris, Richards, Ogden,
Fisch and Sebeok. The semiotic works of Umberto
Eco (1979) as a medieval historian, essayist and
novelist and of Roman Jakobson, as founder of the
Prague School in 1920, cannot be classified as being
from a Saussurean or a Peircian school of thought
but rather show diffuse links to both approaches
(Benton, Craib, 2001). In terms of origins and
influences, Saussure worked in the tradition of
Augustine, William of Ockham, and John Locke
(Nöth, 1985). Peirce also followed middle ages
philosophers and Locke, Hobbes and Reid, of the
seventeenth century, and besides them he was
influenced by Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics. The
ideas of both Saussure and Peirce became the basis
for circumscribing an autonomous field of inquiry
that sought to understand the structures and
processes that supported both the production and
interpretation of signs.
THE RADICAL NEED FOR SEMIOTICS IN IS RESEARCH AND PRACTICE - Why the Urgency?
105

3.2 The Two Main Contemporary
Schools of thought in Semiotics
Saussure’s (1959) later work was published by his
students in 1916, through their own notes of
Saussure’s Cours de linguistic générale, after his
death in 1913. Saussure used the term semiology to
designate the field he proposed for studying
language structures. Today, the older term semiotics
is widely used. Saussure emphasised that the study
of signs should be divided into two branches: the
synchronic, that refers to the study of signs in a
given point in time; and the diachronic, that
corresponds to the investigation of how signs change
in form and meaning over time. Saussure’s
definition of sign laid down the course that semiotic
inquiry was to take during the first half of the
twentieth century (Chandler, 2002). He defined a
sign as a form made up of something physical, such
as sounds, letters, or gestures, that he termed the
signifier, and the image or the concept to which the
signifier refers, that he called the signified. He then
called the relation that holds between the two
signification. For Saussure a sign signifies by virtue
of its difference from other signs. Saussure explicitly
considered the connection between the signifier and
the signified an arbitrary one that human beings and
societies have established at will. Whereas
Saussure’s sign (signifier/signified) needs to be
combined with other signs to take part in the flow of
meaning, Peirce’s version of signification has an
in-built mechanism (Hoopes, 1991). Peirce’s triadic
theory of a sign is composed of: the representamen,
the sign itself; the object, corresponding to
Saussure’s signified (image or concept); and an
interpretant that is like a “sign in the mind”. Peirce
thus called the signifier (the physical sign) a
representamen – literally, something that does the
representing. Peirce’s signification process develops
ad infinitum because the interpretant, the sign in the
mind, becomes the representamen, i.e. the sign to be
interpreted, in the next cyclical relationship. Peirce’s
development of this theory is highly complex as this
triadic relationship also relates to formal aspects of
firstness, secondness and thirdness, and also to the
categories as they relate to being as quality, brute
facts and general law (Peirce, 1931).
Saussure’s (1959) theory of semiology describes
the way in which the general phenomenon of
language is made up of two factors: langue and
parole. Langue is the system of differences between
signs, and parole corresponds to the individual act of
speech. Langue can be thought of as a large
communal collection of all the possible different
signs that might be pulled out and utilised in the
construction of an instance of parole. The fact that
language is a system used by all, means that it is also
a social phenomenon (Lemke, 1995). This system is
abstract, and the rules are known without necessarily
needing to be continually tangible. This taken for
granted nature of language use makes it extremely
complex. However, this complexity of language
implies that it has a high explanatory power in terms
of the study of social relations and interdependencies.
Semiotics is a powerful theory for the study of
human culture.
4 THE TRADITION OF
ORGANISATIONAL
SEMIOTICS: APPLYING
SEMIOTICS TO IS ANALYSIS
Semiotics is the study of signs and of sign systems.
As Ulrich argues “the semiotic insight into the social
interactive nature of information systems is
fundamental” (Ulrich, 2001). This position was
taken by Stamper who developed a semiotic theory
of information systems design and development.
Stamper (1973) coined the term “organisational
semiotics” and his pioneer work in information
systems centred on the use of norms as key
organisational elements. Stamper extensively
developed his theory of organisational semiotics as a
method to help improve the quality of systems
analysis and design. Organisational semiotics,
through Stamper’s seminal work, has set on motion
a scientific community that has further developed his
original work in the field of information systems.
Stamper and this research community explicitly
recognises the importance of organisational social
dimensions and of the key role of informal
communication. Organisational semiotics “interprets
organisations as information systems, independently
of technology” (Stamper, 1973)(italics added).
Stamper (1973), radically discards common
terminology in order to introduce new perspectives
to IS research. This comment is relevant in terms
of the way it shifts the attention towards solid
theoretical and epistemological grounding of
scientific knowledge production within management
and information sciences.
“Let us begin by discarding…
“information”, “meaning”, “knowledge” and
how they “flow” as we “communicate” them
– as though these were all simple, primitive
notions we all understand…. Instead, let us
ICISO 2010 - International Conference on Informatics and Semiotics in Organisations
106

use the notion of a sign as a primitive
concept.” (Stamper, 2000).
According to Stamper, the social constructivist
perspective on organisations (Berger, Luckmann,
1967), which sustains the interpretation of
organisations as social constructs, is highly relevant
to organisational semiotics. Stamper’s social
constructive position is parallel to that of Savery and
Duffy (1994) and of Streibel’s (1991) concept of
situated learning, as they all share a constructivist
perspective. While Stamper focuses on the study of
organisational social systems and their connections
with information systems analysis, these authors
focus on instructional technology and its design, in
the context of educational sciences. As argues
Stamper, we are still scratching the surface of what
semiotics has to offer.
“Far more important than efficiency are
such information systems properties as
openness, honesty, trust, fairness, justice and
accountability, responsibility and truthfulness.
These are not even registered by our current
methods.” (Stamper, 2000).
According to Filipe (2000), information is a central
concept that may be analysed through diverse
perspectives. Filipe, following Stamper, argues that
the kernel role of semiotics is that it “offers a
framework that allows us to interpret information at
syntactic, semantic, pragmatic and social levels”
(2000). The social dimension is explicitly considered
in organisational semiotics research. Andersen,
clarifies the wide and diverse areas where semiotics
can be of value in computing science, in general, and
in interface design, in particular.
“Semiotics is ‘the mathematics of the
humanities’ in the sense that it provides an
abstract language covering a diversity of
special sign-usages (language, pictures,
movies, theatre, etc.). In this capacity,
semiotics is helpful for bringing insights from
older media to the task of interface design, and
for defining the special characteristics of the
computer medium. However, semiotics is not
limited to interface design but may also
contribute to the proper design of program
texts and yield predictions about the
interaction between computer systems and
their context of use.” (Andersen, 2000)(italics
added).
In parallel with “Organisational Semiotics”, other
scientific communities have developed information
system models based on theoretical contributions
from language philosophy and action philosophy.
The early works of Austin (1962) on speech act
theory, followed by the works of Searle (1969, 1999)
and of Habermas (1979, 1984), have set on motion
the field of language action theories that have
influenced the study of information systems analysis
within organisational contexts. This is the case of the
“Language and Action Perspective” (LAP) (e.g.,
Winograd, 1968, Flores, Ludlow, 1980, Goldkuhl,
Lyytinen, 1982, Winograd, Flores, 1986, Goldkuhl,
Röstlinger, 1999, Andersen, 2000), and “Action in
Language, Organisations and Information Systems”
(ALOIS) (e.g., Goldkuhl, Röstlinger, 2003,
Goldkuhl, 2004). These theories have been
influential in the development of information
systems analysis based on semiotics, pragmatism,
speech act theory and philosophy of language.
However, the nature of their applications, directed
towards information systems design, has been
prominently characterised by a structuralist
perspective, stressing the inner structures that
support and characterise each organisation.
5 STRUCTURALIST AND
POST-STRUCTURALIST
PERSPECTIVES ON
SEMIOTICS
Most approaches to semiotics of the second half of
the twentieth century are primarily concerned with
the study of meaning from a static point of view, i.e.
take a structuralist perspective, while social
semiotics diverts the focus to the study of
meaning-making as an ongoing and dynamic process,
thus following a post-structuralist position (Lemke,
1995). Structuralist semiotics, considered as the
science of signs, is concerned with the study of sign
and sign systems, and of what a correct and exact
interpretation of the sign should be. Social semiotics
down-grades the importance of the end product of
the interpretation process, the final and static
meaning, and it highlights the importance of the
interpretation process itself and of the role and being
of the interpreter, i.e. meaning-making as such.
Social semiotics developed in the 1970s as an
effort to extend linguistic analysis to social contexts.
Halliday (1978), Kress (1996, 2001), and Lemke
(1995) are some of the authors who studied
socio-cultural phenomena using semiotics as an
interpretation grid. An important aspect of this
movement is that it represents an explicit and
publicly assumed alternative to the dominant
cognitivist perspective. Applying social semiotics to
THE RADICAL NEED FOR SEMIOTICS IN IS RESEARCH AND PRACTICE - Why the Urgency?
107

organisation contexts, and thus considering
organisations as sense-making entities, enables the
development of alternative approaches and the
creation of a critical theoretical framework to
conduct an analysis of organisations.
According to Nöth (1990) the development of
American structuralism in linguistics derived from
the foundational work of Bloomfield (1933). With
the work of Harris (1951) the structuralist
methodology reached its peak. In opposition to
previous historicism in linguistics, Bloomfield
postulated a descriptive approach to language, i.e. an
antimentalistic and behaviourist approach.
According to Bloomfield’s structuralist and
descriptive perspective, no internal mental facts,
such as ideas, concepts, or intentions, should be
taken in consideration in scientific analysis. Only
observable behaviour, of speech-acts in the context
of human behaviour, was considered as valid.
The consequence of this antimentalistic point of
view was that questions of semantics were long
neglected by American structuralists. According to
Nöth, taxonomies and classifications as well as the
interest in the study of speech-acts and of observable
behaviour was still strong in late twentieth-century’s
analysis inspired by language philosophy. However,
this emphasis has shifted its focus and has been
developed towards mentalistic and cognitivist
perspectives (Nöth, 1990). Nöth’s assertion is in line
with other authors’ comments such as the
identification of the knowledge turn, during the last
quarter of the twentieth-century (Delanty, Strydom,
2003) and the dominance of cognitivist and
individualistic approaches in management theory.
Organisational learning social tradition scholars
have been part of the theoretical movement that has
reacted against this dominance. This corresponds to
what some authors call the social turn in
organisation studies (e.g., Child, Heavens, 2001).
Semiotic theory is a powerful resource in the
study of organisational creation of meaning,
considering meaning, within the context of the
organisational communities, as a central component
of organisational learning. Semiotics consists on a
possible theoretical alternative in terms of
addressing the social aspects of organisational
learning phenomena. Social semiotics, in particular,
specifically addresses the process of constituting
meaningful practices, arguing that meaning emerges
from an ongoing and implicit negotiation between
different parties involved in a common context.
Different organisation theory authors stress the
crucial role of semiotics. Gherardi and Nicolini
(2001) highlight the importance of Peirce’s work on
semiotics. They argue that Peirce’s work on
semiotics is essential for the understanding of
meaning creation, interpreted from a social
perspective, because of Peirce’s theory that
“individuals cannot perceive things or think about
the world without the mediation of signs” (Nicolini,
2001). Bartel and Garup (2003) draw on Peirce’s
concept of abduction in order to present the concept
of ‘adaptive abduction’ as the process through which
actors generate knowledge from narratives. These
authors refer to this process of interpreting narratives
and generating knowledge as semiotic, and cite the
works of Eco (1979) and Peirce (1931).
In brief, if the purpose of a specific research
project is to study the social aspects of organisations,
then cognitivism is inadequate as it focuses
primarily on the individual. The social aspects are
highly relevant to the study of organisational IS
because it is necessary to grasp the collective
dimensions of organisational meaning-making that
continuously take place within organisational
activities and daily routines. Although semiotic
theory has been already applied to organisational
information systems design, it is possible to extend
this application to the study of organisational
meaning-making and to the role played by IS in this
process. Social semiotic theory is particularly
relevant to such study as it focuses on how meaning
is created through social practices and interactions.
The tension between structuralist and
post-structuralist perspectives is also present in
organisational and management areas. As Castells’
stresses, “there is an extraordinary gap between our
technical overdevelopment and our social
underdevelopment.” (1998). This ‘extraordinary
gap’ is reflected in the technocentric and
undersocialised dominant perspective on
organisations, present in conventional management.
The organisational perspectives implicit in
mainstream management theory are connected with
a structural-functionalist approach, which tends to be
related with a positivist and individualistic stance,
devaluing concerns with symbols, values, norms and
culture, as argue authors such as Child and Heavens
(2001). Post-modern oriented research, addressing
issues related to language, narratives, discourse,
power, dominance, ambiguity and conflict, among
others, have had an important influence in terms of
the development of non-mainstream approaches to
organisations. Organisation theories such as those
from authors like Stacey (1992, 2001), Alvesson and
Sköldberg (2000), Alexander et al (1977) are
examples of such approaches.
ICISO 2010 - International Conference on Informatics and Semiotics in Organisations
108

6 CONCLUSIONS
A social perspective reads and interprets
organisational reality highlighting and disclosing
social related issues. These social dimensions are
constantly present because they are constitutive of
organisational reality itself. Organisations are human
social initiatives. Organisations share with all other
human endeavours a set of common characteristics,
which are the object of study of social philosophy as
a knowledge field. The advantage of using social
philosophy as a reading matrix of organisational
reality is that it enables addressing directly those
universal dimensions, i.e. that which uniquely
characterises every human social creation.
The universal characteristic of all human
enterprises is their meaning-making capacity. The
creation of meaning processes which emerge from
collective practices is constitutively - and inherently
unavoidable - a semiotic process.
The present paper argues that there is a
paramount need to strengthen the presence of
semiotics theory in organisation studies, in particular
through the focus on the impact of information
technology. Consequently, IS research and practice
plays a critical role in terms of being a privileged
object of study for semiotic scholars.
REFERENCES
Alvesson, M., Sköldberg, K. (2000) Reflexive
Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research.
London, UK, Sage
Andersen, P. (2000) What semiotics can and cannot do for
Human Computer Interaction. In Proceedings of
Computer-Human Interaction (CHI) Workshop on
Semiotic Approaches to User Interface Design, The
Hague, The Netherlands
Andrews, M., Delahaye, L. (2000) Influences on
knowledge processes in organizational learning: the
psychosocial filter. Journal of Management Studies,
37(6)
Austin, J. (1962) How to do things with words. J. Urmson
and M. Sbisá. (eds.) Oxford, UK, University Press
Bartel, C., Garup, R. (2003) Narrative Knowledge in
Action: Adaptative Abduction as a Mechanism. In M.
Easterby-Smith and M. Lyles (eds.), The Blackwell
Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge
management. Malden, Oxford, Melbourne, Berlin,
Blackwell Publishing
Barthes, R. (1996) Mythologies. London, UK, Vintage
Benton, T., Craib, I. (2001) Philosophy of Social Science.
Hampshire, UK, Palgrave
Bokeno, R. (2009) Genus of learning relationships:
mentoring and coaching as communicative
interaction. Development and Learning in
Organizations, 23(1)
Bynum, T., Rogerson, S. (2004) Computer Ethics and
Professional Responsibility. Oxford, UK, Blackwell
Castells, M. (1998) The information economy. Cambridge,
MA, USA, Blackwell
Chandler, D. (2002) Semiotics. New York, USA, Routledge
Checkland, P. (1999) Soft Systems Methodology: a 30-year
retrospective. Sussex, UK, Wiley
Child, J. Heavens, S. (2001) The Social Constitution of
Organizations and its Implications for Organizational
Learning. In M. Dierkes, A. Antal, J. Child and I.
Nonaka (eds.) Handbook of Organizational Learning
& Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Ciborra, C., Willcocks, L. (2006) The mind or the heart? it
depends on the (definition of) situation. Journal of
Information Technology. 21(3)
Clarke, R. (2000) An Information System in its
Organisational Contexts: a Systemic, Semiotic,
Longitudinal Case Study. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Wollongong, Australia
Delanty, G., Strydom, P. (2003) Philosophies of Social
Science. Berkshire, UK. McGraw-Hill
Dietz, J (2003) The Atoms, Molecules and Fibers of
Organizations. Data and Knowledge Engineering,
47(3)
Eco, H. (1979) A Theory of Semiotics. Indiana, USA,
Indiana University Press
Elliot, A., Ray, L. (2003) Key Contemporary Social
Theorists. Oxford, UK, Blackwell Publishing
Filipe, J. (2000) Normative Organisational Modelling
Using Intelligent Multi-Agent Systems, Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Staffordshire, UK
Flores F., Ludlow, J. (1980) Doing and Speaking in the
Office. In G. Fick and R. Sprague (eds.) Decision
Support Systems: Issues and Chalenges. New York,
Pergamon Pres
Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D. (2001) The sociological
foundations of organizational learning. In M. Dierkes,
A. Antal, J. Child and I. Nonaka (eds.) Handbook of
Organizational Learning & Knowledge. Oxford:
O.U.Press
Goldkuhl, G. (2004) Meanings and Pragmatism: Ways to
conduct information systems research. In Proceedings
of the International Workshop on Action in Language,
Organisations and Information Systems (ALOIS)
Linköping University, Sweden
Goold, M. (2005) Making peer groups effective: lessons
from BP's experiences. Long Range Planning, 38
Grim, P., Kokalis, T., Alai-Taft, Ali, Kilb, N., St. Denis, P.
(2004) Making Meaning Happen. Journal of
Experimental & Theoretical Artifitial Intelligence,
16(4)
Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action
– Vol I – Reason and rationalisation of society.
London, UK, Heinemann
Halliday, M. (1978) Language as Social Semiotic: The
social interpretation of language and meaning.
London, UK, Edward Arnold
THE RADICAL NEED FOR SEMIOTICS IN IS RESEARCH AND PRACTICE - Why the Urgency?
109

Hallikas, J., Karkkainen, H., Lampela, H. (2009) Learning
in networks: an exploration from innovation
perspective. International Journal of Technology
Management, 45, (3/4)
Hansen, M., Nohria, N. & Tierney, T. (1999) ‘What’s your
strategy for managing knowledge?’. Harvard Business
Review, March-April, 106-116.
Harris, Z. (1951) Methods in Structural Linguistics.
Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press
Hoopes, J. (1991) Peirce on Signs: Writings on Semiotic.
Chapel Hill, USA, University of North Carolina Press
Hovorka, D., Germonprez, M., Larsen, K. (2008)
Explanation in Information Systems. Information
Systems Journal. 18(1)
Kress, G. (2001) Multimodal Discourse. London, UK,
Edward Arnold
Lagopoulos (1993) Postmodernism, Geography and the
Social Semiotics of Space. Environment and Planning
Series D: Society and Space. 11(3)
Lawes, R. (2002) Demystifying semiotics: some key
questions answered. International Journal of Market
Research. 44(3)
Lemke, J. (1995) Textual Politics, Discourse and Social
Dynamics. London, UK, Taylor & Francis
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1963) Structural Anthropology.
(Translation C. Jacobson). New York, USA, Basic
Books
Liu, K. (1993) Semiotics Applied to Information Systems
Development. Ph.D. Thesis, Twente University, The
Netherlands
Liu, K., Clarke, R., Andersen, P., Stamper, R. (2001)
Information, organisation and technology. Studies in
organisational semiotics. Boston, USA, Kluwer Ac.
Press
Mathieson, K. (2007) Towards a Design Science of
Ethical Decision Support. Journal of Business
Ethics. 76(3)
Maturana, H., Varela, F. (1980) Autopoiesis and Cognition:
The realisation of the Living. Dordrecht, USA, Reidel
Nöth, W. (1985) Handbook of Semiotics. Bloomington,
USA, Indiana University Press
Nöth, W. (1990) Advances in Semiotics. Bloomington,
Indianapolis, USA, Indiana University Press
Oates, B., Fitzgerald, B. (2007). Multi-metaphor method:
organizational metaphors in information systems
development. Information Systems
Journal, 17(4), 421.
Ojanen, V., Hallikas, J. (2009) Inter-organisational
routines and transformation of customer relationships
in collaborative innovation. International Journal of
Technology Management, 45, (3/4)
Peirce, C. (1931) Collected Papers. C. Hartshorne and P.
Weiss (eds.). Cambridge, USA, Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press
Peirce, C. (1955) Logic as Semiotic: The Theory of Signs.
In J. Buchler (ed.) Philosophical Writings of Peirce.
New York, USA, Dover
Saussure, F. (1959) Course in General Linguistics. New
York, USA, McGraw-Hill [first published in 1916]
Schein, E. (2007) Conceiving the System: From
Brainwashing to Family Therapy. Eur. Bus. Forum.
(31)
Sebeok, T. (1994) Signs: An Introduction to Signs. Toronto,
Canada, University of Toronto Press
Stacey, R. (1992) Managing Chaos. London, UK,
Kogan-Page
Stacey, R. (2001) Complex Responsive Processes in
Organisations: Learning and Knowledge Creation.
London, UK, Routledge
Stahl, B. (2008) The ethical nature of critical research in
information systems. Information Systems
Journal. 18(2)
Stamper, R. (1973) Information in Business and
Administrative Systems. USA, John Wiley & Sons
Stamper, R. (2000) New directions for systems analysis and
design. In J. Filipe (ed.) Enterprise Information
Systems. Dordrecht, USA, Kluwer Academic Press
Streibel, M. (1991) Instructional plans and situated
learning. In Anglin (ed.), Instructional technology,
past, present and future. Englewood, UK, Co. Lib.
Unlimited
Summerfield, J., Kingsnorth, C. (2009) Creating
high-value learning. Training Journal, 26-28
Sveiby, K.-E. (2001) A knowledge-based Theory of the
Firm to Guide Strategy Formulation. Intellectual
Capital Journal. 2(1)
Swart, J., Kinnein, N., Purcell, J. (2003) People and
performance in knowledge-intensive firms. CIPD
Research Report, CIPD, London
Ulrich, W. (2001) A philosophical staircase for
information systems definition, design and
development: A discursive approach to reflective
practice. Journal of Information Technology Theory
and Apllication. 3(3)
Weick, K. (2001) Making Sense of the Organisation.
Oxford, UK, Blackwell Publishers
Winograd, T., Flores, F. (1986) Understanding Computers
and Cognition – a new foundation for design. Reading,
MA, USA, Addison-Wesley
Yukl, G. (2009) Leading organizational learning:
Reflections on theory and research. Leadership
Quarterly, 20(1)
ICISO 2010 - International Conference on Informatics and Semiotics in Organisations
110