Strategy as Discursive Practice in a Brazilian Public University: A Look under the Perspective of Critical Discourse Analysis

  •  Odemir Baeta    
  •  Mozar Brito    
  •  Rosalia Souza    


The aim this article a critical discursive analysis of the “management plan” genre of a public institution of higher education, from 2012 to 2015, located in southeast Brazil. The aforementioned plan is inserted in the discursive practice of strategic management, specifically the institutional, bureaucratic management, and is used as an instrument for decision-making. The goal of this analysis will be to discuss the first step of the “management plan”, named “organizational policies”. We can see that, while elaborating declarative sentences, there is an evaluation of the statements regarding what is to be considered relevant to the institutions by means of the ideological discourse on neoliberal ideals and market behavior. The adoption of market-oriented managerial tools has been a constant in public administration. The public administration looks for bases of organizational practices in the private sphere. This mimicry is still present in the field, and the search for new managerial practices still crosses the imaginaries of the public managers. However, the increasing incorporation of a market-oriented, neoliberal logic, mainly in the adoption of strategic planning, can still be verified. The conclusion presented in this paper serves to foment the debate on the strategies formulated for the Brazilian public service and the methodological applicability of the critical discourse analysis. This meets the emerging need to systematize and integrate distinct theoretical and methodological approaches in the field of organizational studies when strategy is studied as a social and discursive practice.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
  • Issn(Print): 1927-517X
  • Issn(Onlne): 1927-5188
  • Started: 2012
  • Frequency: semiannual

Journal Metrics

Google Scholar Citations

Google-based Impact Factor (2017): 3.71

h-index (2017): 7

i10-index (2017): 6

h5-index (2017): 7

h5-median (2017): 13