他们的想法:社区合理性、战略行动领域和奥施康定的启动计划

IF 1.5 4区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION Technical Communication Pub Date : 2023-05-01 DOI:10.55177/tc749689
Michael J. Madson
{"title":"他们的想法:社区合理性、战略行动领域和奥施康定的启动计划","authors":"Michael J. Madson","doi":"10.55177/tc749689","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Few studies in our field have investigated corporate communications at the origins of the United States opioid crisis, which arguably began around the mid-1990s. Such analyses can illuminate executives and managers' collective thinking at the time (that is, \"communal\n rationality\"), nuance our public narratives, and recommend ways that technical communicators can engage further with this public health tragedy. Thus, this article surfaces the communal rationality expressed in the launch plan for OxyContin, which I obtained through a Freedom of Information\n Act request. This is perhaps the first close reading of a pharmaceutical launch plan in our scholarly literature. Method: Following precedent in other research, I applied a three-point heuristic based on the concept of strategic action fields: what is going on and what is at stake,\n what interpretive frames are constructed, and what the rules of the game are. Results: The communal rationality expressed in the launch plan involves a complex tangle of cultural knowledge, including state and national laws, guidelines, classes of analgesics, and industry practices.\n The writers effectively translate this knowledge into opportunities, positioning statements, strategies, and tactics. Conclusion: In some ways, the launch plan is an exemplary piece of technical and professional communication, but its treatment of ethics and risk is highly problematic—arguably\n making it an example of communication failure as well. Future research should delve deeper into the opioid crisis, exploring additional promotions, genres, drugs, and methodologies.","PeriodicalId":46338,"journal":{"name":"Technical Communication","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What They Were Thinking: Communal Rationality, Strategic Action Fields, and the Launch Plan for Oxycontin\",\"authors\":\"Michael J. Madson\",\"doi\":\"10.55177/tc749689\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: Few studies in our field have investigated corporate communications at the origins of the United States opioid crisis, which arguably began around the mid-1990s. Such analyses can illuminate executives and managers' collective thinking at the time (that is, \\\"communal\\n rationality\\\"), nuance our public narratives, and recommend ways that technical communicators can engage further with this public health tragedy. Thus, this article surfaces the communal rationality expressed in the launch plan for OxyContin, which I obtained through a Freedom of Information\\n Act request. This is perhaps the first close reading of a pharmaceutical launch plan in our scholarly literature. Method: Following precedent in other research, I applied a three-point heuristic based on the concept of strategic action fields: what is going on and what is at stake,\\n what interpretive frames are constructed, and what the rules of the game are. Results: The communal rationality expressed in the launch plan involves a complex tangle of cultural knowledge, including state and national laws, guidelines, classes of analgesics, and industry practices.\\n The writers effectively translate this knowledge into opportunities, positioning statements, strategies, and tactics. Conclusion: In some ways, the launch plan is an exemplary piece of technical and professional communication, but its treatment of ethics and risk is highly problematic—arguably\\n making it an example of communication failure as well. Future research should delve deeper into the opioid crisis, exploring additional promotions, genres, drugs, and methodologies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46338,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Technical Communication\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Technical Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.55177/tc749689\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technical Communication","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55177/tc749689","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:我们领域很少有研究调查美国阿片类药物危机起源时的企业沟通,这场危机可以说始于20世纪90年代中期左右。这样的分析可以阐明高管和管理者当时的集体思维(即“公共理性”),细致入微我们的公共叙事,并为技术传播者进一步参与这场公共卫生悲剧提供建议。因此,本文揭示了我通过《信息自由法》的请求获得的OxyContin上市计划中表达的公共理性。这也许是我们学术文献中对药物上市计划的第一次细读。方法:遵循其他研究的先例,我应用了基于战略行动场概念的三点启发式:正在发生的事情和利害关系,构建了什么解释框架,以及游戏规则是什么。结果:启动计划中表达的社区理性涉及复杂的文化知识,包括州和国家法律、指南、止痛药类别和行业实践。作者有效地将这些知识转化为机遇、定位声明、战略和战术。结论:在某些方面,发射计划是技术和专业沟通的典范,但其对道德和风险的处理存在很大问题——可以说,这也使其成为沟通失败的一个例子。未来的研究应该深入研究阿片类药物危机,探索更多的促销、种类、药物和方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
What They Were Thinking: Communal Rationality, Strategic Action Fields, and the Launch Plan for Oxycontin
Purpose: Few studies in our field have investigated corporate communications at the origins of the United States opioid crisis, which arguably began around the mid-1990s. Such analyses can illuminate executives and managers' collective thinking at the time (that is, "communal rationality"), nuance our public narratives, and recommend ways that technical communicators can engage further with this public health tragedy. Thus, this article surfaces the communal rationality expressed in the launch plan for OxyContin, which I obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. This is perhaps the first close reading of a pharmaceutical launch plan in our scholarly literature. Method: Following precedent in other research, I applied a three-point heuristic based on the concept of strategic action fields: what is going on and what is at stake, what interpretive frames are constructed, and what the rules of the game are. Results: The communal rationality expressed in the launch plan involves a complex tangle of cultural knowledge, including state and national laws, guidelines, classes of analgesics, and industry practices. The writers effectively translate this knowledge into opportunities, positioning statements, strategies, and tactics. Conclusion: In some ways, the launch plan is an exemplary piece of technical and professional communication, but its treatment of ethics and risk is highly problematic—arguably making it an example of communication failure as well. Future research should delve deeper into the opioid crisis, exploring additional promotions, genres, drugs, and methodologies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Technical Communication
Technical Communication COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
20.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
From the Poor to the Rich: Predatory Inclusion and the Robinhood App Review of Research: Critical Interface Analysis as a Heuristic for Justice-Focused, Community-Engaged Design Research Making Solutions Visible: Facilitating Housing Equality through Interface Design Driving Innovation: Analyzing Mobile Ridesharing App Interfaces and Moving Toward Community-Based User Experience (CBX) Reporting Online Aggression: A Transnational Comparative Interface Analysis of Sina Weibo and Twitter
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1