The purpose of this paper is to explore the analytical productiveness of a discursive power perspective in understanding interdisciplinary teams' inefficient decision processes, and to discuss the ethical consequences of such an approach.
Based on a case study of an interdisciplinary team in a Danish hospital, the paper analyzes the team's decision practices as a result of discursive power operations that privilege and marginalize groups and persons.
The paper shows that a discourse of equality dominates the team's decision practices. This produces a tendency among members to word observations as reflections whereas expert assessments are rendered unlikely and unwelcome. The paper demonstrates that this analysis is productive in understanding why interdisciplinary teams struggle to develop efficient decision processes. Furthermore, the paper suggests that managers should respond ethically to these discursive power operations with political interventions.
A variety of theoretical models have been proposed to understand interdisciplinary teams' problematic decision processes. This paper makes an original contribution to this field by shoving how a discursive framework provides a productive analytical strategy. Moreover, the paper's proposition of political intervention as an ethical way of securing social sustainability is unprecedented.
