see also epistemic communities and policy images and all that….
See here for the wikipedia entry
Discourse thus creates bodies of knowledge that normalize certain ways of believing, speaking, and behaving (Barge & Oliver, 2003; Knights, 1992; Townley, 1993). In this way, both power and knowledge are implicated in discourse: “There is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge; nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations” (Foucault, 1979: 2; see also Covaleski et al., 1998).
(Maguire and Hardy, 2009: 151)
and
In sum, when practices are institutionalized (i.e., taken for granted and repetitively reproduced), subject positions tend to privilege dominant field incumbents who support the status quo; and bodies of knowledge tend to “construct” practices as effective, beneficial, appropriate, inevitable, and so on (i.e., as unproblematic). If practices are to be abandoned, the discourse about them must change (Maguire & Hardy, 2006; Munir, 2005; Phillips et al., 2004), but so far, there is little research that explains how this occurs, especially in the case of outsider-driven deinstitutionalization.
(Maguire and Hardy, 2009: 151)
Maguire, S. and Hardy, C. 2009. Discourse and Deinstitutionalization: The Decline of DDT. Academy of Management Journal, Vo. 52, (1), pp.148-178.
marchudson.net 