A critical discursive approach is useful in that it allows one to focus on the micro-level of discursive legitimacy struggles. Critical discourse analysis has already been used to study legitimation in applied linguistics (van Leeuwen & Wodak, 1999; van Leeuwen, 2008) as well as in organization studies (Lefsrud & Meyer, 2012; Vaara & Monin, 2010; Vaara & Tienari, 2008). While this body of work has mostly focused on legitimation strategies, CDA provides means to expand the analysis to also focus on the central mediating role of the media. This is because this perspective allows one to distinguish between discursive (or linguistic) practices and the broader social practices of production and consumption of which the discursive practices are a part of. Thus, CDA helps to put specific discursive legitimation strategies in their broader social, societal and even sociomaterial context. CDA has also been used to focus on the media. For instance, Fairclough (1997) has examined the role of the media from a CDA perspective, and van Dijk (1998) has elaborated on its processes and linkage to power and ideology. Thus, CDA provides a theoretico-methodological basis for an analysis of discursive legitimation in mediatized society. In the following, I will outline a model of discursive legitimation that distinguishes between organization legitimation strategies, the media's discourse practices and legitimacy actors’ judgments and elaborates on their inter-relationships. Figure 1 below provides a summary of this model. --- Insert Figure 1 about here --- ACTORS AND THEIR RHETORIC IN LEGITIMATION STRUGGLES Legitimation involves at least three important aspects: positioning, rhetorical legitimation strategies, and underlying assumptions in legitimating discourse. Corporate representatives, managers, employee representatives, union leaders, Positioning. politicians and other actors acquire and are given specific positions to speak from. This is a key part
A critical discursive approach is useful in that it allows one to focus on the micro-level of discursive legitimacy struggles. Critical discourse analysis has already been used to study legitimation in applied linguistics (van Leeuwen & Wodak, 1999; van Leeuwen, 2008) as well as in organization studies (Lefsrud & Meyer, 2012; Vaara & Monin, 2010; Vaara & Tienari, 2008). While this body of work has mostly focused on legitimation strategies, CDA provides means to expand the analysis to also focus on the central mediating role of the media. This is because this perspective allows one to distinguish between discursive (or linguistic) practices and the broader social practices of production and consumption of which the discursive practices are a part of. Thus, CDA helps to put specific discursive legitimation strategies in their broader social, societal and even sociomaterial context. CDA has also been used to focus on the media. For instance, Fairclough (1997) has examined the role of the media from a CDA perspective, and van Dijk (1998) has elaborated on its processes and linkage to power and ideology. Thus, CDA provides a theoretico-methodological basis for an analysis of discursive legitimation in mediatized society. In the following, I will outline a model of discursive legitimation that distinguishes between organization actors’ legitimation strategies, the media's discourse practices and legitimacy judgments and elaborates on their inter-relationships. Figure 1 below provides a summary of this model. --- Insert Figure 1 about here --- ACTORS AND THEIR RHETORIC IN LEGITIMATION STRUGGLES Legitimation involves at least three important aspects: positioning, rhetorical legitimation strategies, and underlying assumptions in legitimating discourse. Positioning. Corporate representatives, managers, employee representatives, union leaders, politicians and other actors acquire and are given specific positions to speak from. This is a key part