The Relevance of Applied Linguistic and Discourse Research: On the Margins of Communication Consultancy

  • Erika DaricsEmail author
Part of the Communicating in Professions and Organizations book series (PSPOD)


Professional communication consultancy work which examines business processes and organisational realities through the lens of language is gaining legitimacy. In this chapter I examine the tensions these new kinds of professional-academic collaborations may create. Using examples from my recent consultancy projects, and drawing on existing scholarship theorising these issues in management and business studies, I explore whether—and how—it is possible to produce relevant results and remain academically rigorous at the same time. I focus on issues that arise from clients’ needs for immediate problem-solving through research practices and theory-building that are accepted by a research community, especially in the type of interdisciplinary work where discipline-boundary-crossing leads to scepticism and questioning of academic rigour. Thus, this chapter aims to expose and acknowledge unavoidable tensions between academic and consultancy work in the hope that we will not compromise our academic integrity and rigour, nor the potential for future impact outside academia.


  1. Alessi, G. M., & Jacobs, G. (2016). The Ins and Outs of Business and Professional Discourse Research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  2. Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2000). Taking the Linguistic Turn in Organizational Research. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36, 136–158.Google Scholar
  3. Baxter, J. (2017). Resolving a Gender and Language Problem in Women’s Leadership: Consultancy Research in Workplace Discourse. Discourse & Communication, 11(2), 141–159.Google Scholar
  4. Berglund, T. Ö. (2009). Disrupted Turn Adjacency and Coherence Maintenance in Instant Messaging Conversations. Language@Internet, (6), article 2.Google Scholar
  5. Branson, R. (2014). How Language Shapes the Way We Work. Retrieved from
  6. Breeze, R. (2013). Corporate Discourse. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  7. Candlin, C. N. (2002). Introduction. In C. Candlin (Ed.), Research and Practice in Professional Discourse (pp. 1–36). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press.Google Scholar
  8. Candlin, C. N., & Sarangi, S. (2004). Making Inter-relationality Matter in Applied Linguistics. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(3), 225–228.Google Scholar
  9. Candlin, S. (2003). Issues Arising When the Professional Workplace Is the Site of Applied Linguistic Research. Applied Linguistics, 24(3), 386–394.Google Scholar
  10. Cooren, F. (2006). Arguments for the In-depth Study of Organizational Interactions: A Rejoinder to McPhee, Myers, and Trethewey. Management Communication Quarterly, 19(3), 327–340.Google Scholar
  11. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Czerniawska, F. (1997). Corporate Speak. The Use of Language in Business. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  13. Darics, E. (2019). Critical Language and Discourse Awareness in Management Education. Journal of Management Education.
  14. Darics, E. (2020). Language Awareness in Business and the Professions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Darics, E., & Clifton, J. (2018). Making Applied Linguistics Applicable to Business Practice. Discourse Analysis as a Management Tool. Applied Linguistics.
  16. Darics, E., & Lockwood, J. (2019a). “I’m Actually Shocked of How Rude You Are”: An Examination of a Problematic Online Customer Service Interaction. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  17. Darics, E., & Lockwood, J. (2019b). “I’m Actually Shocked of How Rude You Are!” Communication Challenges in Webchat-Based Customer Service. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  18. Dodge, J., Ospina, S. M., & Foldy, E. G. (2005). Integrating Rigor and Relevance in Public Administration Scholarship: The Contribution of Narrative Inquiry. Public Administration Review, 65(3), 286–300.Google Scholar
  19. Ereaut, G. (2013). How Language Reveals Barriers to Success. Market Leader Quarter 1, 34–36.Google Scholar
  20. Forey, G., & Lockwood, J. (2007). “I’d Love to put Someone in Jail for This”: An Initial Investigation of English Needs in the Business Processing Outsourcing (BPO) Industry. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 308–326.Google Scholar
  21. Ganapini, C. (2016). Evaluating Topical Talk in Interactional Business Settings: When “Testing the Waters” with Customers May Not Be Much of a Gamble. In G. M. Alessi, & G. Jacobs (Eds) The Ins and Outs of Business and Professional Discourse, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 161–181.Google Scholar
  22. Grant, D., & Iedema, R. (2005). Discourse Analysis and the Study of Organizations. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 25(1), 37–66.Google Scholar
  23. Grant, D., Keenoy, T., & Oswick, C. (2001). Organizational Discourse: Key Contributions and Challenges. International Studies of Management & Organization, 31(3), 5–24.Google Scholar
  24. Grey, C. (2001). Re-imagining Relevance: A Response to Starkey and Madan. British Journal of Management, 12, S27–S32.Google Scholar
  25. Herring, S. (1999). Interactional Coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(0).
  26. Hünerberg, R., & Geile, A. (2012). Language Awareness as a Challenge for Business. Language Awareness, 21(1–2), 215–234.Google Scholar
  27. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  28. Kieser, A., & Leiner, L. (2009). Why the Rigour–Relevance Gap in Management Research Is Unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 516–533.Google Scholar
  29. Kieser, A., & Leiner, L. (2012). Collaborate with Practitioners: But Beware of Collaborative Research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 21(1), 14–28.Google Scholar
  30. Kimberly, J. R. (2007). Shifting Boundaries: Doing Research and Having Impact in the World of Business Education. Journal of Management Inquiry, 16, 138–145.Google Scholar
  31. Koller, V. (2018). Critical Discourse Studies. In B. Vine (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Language in the Workplace (pp. 27–39). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Kraan, W. (2005). The Metaphoric Use of Space in Expert-Lay Interaction about Computing Systems. In C. D. Baker, E. Michael, & F. Alan (Eds.), Calling for Help: Language and Social Interaction in Telephone Helplines (pp. 91–108). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  33. Lindström, J. (2009). Interactional Linguistics. In S. D’Hondt, J. O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), The Pragmatics of Interaction (pp. 96–103). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  34. Ly, A. (2016). Getting Access to Language Data in the Workplace: Role Enactment as a Data-Generation Method. In G. M. Alessi & G. Jacobs (Eds.), The Ins and Outs of Business and Professional Discourse Research (pp. 63–80). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. Mautner, G. (2016). Discourse and Management. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  36. Mautner, G., & Reiner, F. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook of Business Communication, Linguistic Approaches. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  37. McIntyre, D., & Price, H. (Eds.). (2018). Applying Linguistics: Language and the Impact Agenda. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Mullany, L. (2020). Sociolinguistic Awareness in Business Professionals: Breaking Stereotypes and Language Myths. In E. Darics (Ed.), Language Awareness in Business and the Professions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Musson, G., Cohen, L., & Tietze, S. (2007). Pedagogy and the ‘Linguistic Turn’. Developing Understanding Through Semiotics. Management Learning, 38(1), 45–60.Google Scholar
  40. Nicolini, D. (2011). Practice as the Site of Knowing: Insights from the Field of Telemedicine. Organization Science, 22(3), 602–620.Google Scholar
  41. Palmer, D., Dick, B., & Freiburger, N. (2009). Rigor and Relevance in Organization Studies. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(4), 265–272.Google Scholar
  42. Perriton, L., & Hodgson, V. (2013). Positioning Theory and Practice Question(s) within the Field of Management Learning. Management Learning, 44(2), 144–160.Google Scholar
  43. Powley, E. H. (2013). The Process and Mechanisms of Organizational Healing. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49(1), 42–68.Google Scholar
  44. Roberts, C. (2003). Applied Linguistics Applied. In S. Sarangi & T. Van Leeuwen (Eds.), Applied Linguistics and Communities of Practice (pp. 132–149). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  45. Roberts, C., & Sarangi, S. (2003). Uptake of Discourse Research in Interprofessional Settings: Reporting from Medical Consultancy. Applied Linguistics, 24(3), 338–359.Google Scholar
  46. Ruhleder, K., & Jordan, B. (2001). Co-constructing Non-mutual Realities: Delay- Generated Trouble in Distributed Interaction. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 10(1), 113–138.Google Scholar
  47. Sarangi, S. (2002). Discourse Practitioners as a Community of Interprofessional Practice: Some Insights from Health Communication Research. In C. Candlin (Ed.), Research and Practice in Professional Discourse (pp. 95–136). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press.Google Scholar
  48. Thompson, N. (2003). Communication and Language: A Handbook of Theory and Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  49. Tietze, S., Cohen, L., & Musson, G. (2003). Understanding Organizations through Language. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Van De Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. (2006). Knowledge for Theory and Practice. The Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 802–821.Google Scholar
  51. Walsh, J. P., Tushman, M. L., Kimberly, J. R., Starbuck, B., & Ashford, S. (2007). On the Relationship Between Research and Practice: Debate and Reflections. Journal of Management Inquiry, 16(2), 128–154.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aston UniversityBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations