Word magic

["March L. Jacques" <march@execpc.com>]

It's not just because "Jupiter aligned with Mars" that certain words or
concepts capture the popular imagination for 15 minutes of fame. Nor is it
just the message. 

Communication studies for a long time tended to focus on content analysis
(semantics, syntax, rhetoric) on the assumption that if the word choices
were precise enough, the logic sound enough, and the effect persuasive
enough, an audience would of course be won over. 

When content analysis could not explain popular reaction to carefully
constructed messages, communication studies shifted to reception analysis
and confirmed that the very same message often elicited a range of
interpretations. These "readings" are generally classifed as "preferred"
(closest to the producer's intent), "negotiated" (adjusted to take into
account the receiver's personal understandings and worldview, but
marginally close to the producer's intent), or "oppositional" (an
interpretation that is quite contrary to the producer's intent). Preferred
readings are most common when the producer and consumer share similar
understandings of the world. Negotiated and oppositional readings result
when the receiver must reframe the message in order for it to make meaning
in light of what he already "knows is so." Quite literally, the message
makes no sense unless he reframes it in terms of his existing understanding
of the world. Oppositional readings are most common when the message as
delivered is extremely contradicatory or threatening to the receiver's
understanding of the world. (Oppositional readings are what you are facing
when you suddenly find yourself wondering "how on earth did he get that out
of what I said?!")

The communication research I am currently finding useful focuses on
discourse analysis. It acknowledges the importance of both content analysis
and reception analysis, but takes on a fuller view of interactions
involved. Norman Fairclough's writings have been particularly helpful.
("Language and Power," "Critical Discourse Analysis," and "Media
Discourse.") Fairclough positions three areas of analysis to understand the
relation of communication processes to sociocultural change:
representations, identities, and relations. In terms of representations,
the issues involved are similar to content analysis. The key question is
how is the world represented? In terms of identities, the analysis is
concerned with the perceived identities set up for those involved in
delivery and reception of the message (the spokesperson, audiences, third
parties). The last area asks what relationships are set up between those
involved?

I don't want to spend much time here discussing discourse analysis; it gets
pretty arid. But to return to the questions posed on the "word magic"
thread, if we want to understand why one message is embraced and another
discarded we can only get so far by looking at the concepts or at specific
messages. Without in any way intending to diminish Dr. Deming's message
(please don't read oppositionally here), the popular reception he had in
the 1980s had much to do with his public identity -- a white male patriarch
cast by the media as the person responsible for Japan's turnaround. How
people reacted to his message had much to do with the specific relationship
they perceived (e.g., expert-audience, mentor-student, elder
statesman-young leader, etc.). The identity and relationship aspects of
communication can have little or nothing to do with the message, but they
affect reception. Add in the notes above regarding other aspects of
reception analysis and the importance of thoroughly understanding your
audience comes into sharp focus.  

In terms strictly of adoption, the communication issues involved don't have
as much to do with what is right or wrong with Six Sigma (or any other
competing framework) but what is that customers(receivers)are looking for?
What are they ready to hear? How do they need the message delivered in
order for it to make sense in their versions of the world? 

Chances are they will understand (and embrace) the message that understands
them. 

My 2 cents.
March
==========================================================================