This study adopted a dialectical approach to explore the discourse of breast cancer survivors as they talked about and made sense of corporate involvement in promoting and sustaining breast cancer as a social cause. During semistructured interviews, participants reflected on the commercialization of breast cancer and seemed to grapple with corporate motives, corporate constructions of the disease, and corporate influence on their identity; thus, creating three dialectical tensions: (a) corporate altruism versus self-interest, (b) corporate romanticism versus reality, and (c) survivor identification versus disidentification. Corporations are encouraged to consider ways in which they might collaborate with survivors to BOTH maximize corporate profits AND propel the cause in positive and important ways.
AntinT. M. J.ConstantineN. A.HuntG. (2014). Conflicting discourses in qualitative research: The search for divergent data within cases. Field Methods, 27(3), 1-12.
2.
AshcraftK. L.PacanowskyM. E. (1996). “A woman’s worst enemy”: Reflections on a narrative of organizational life and female identity. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 24, 217-239.
3.
AshcraftK. L.TretheweyA. (2004). Developing tension: An agenda for applied research on the organization of irrationality. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32, 171-181.
4.
BaxterL. A.BraithwaiteD. O. (2008). Relational dialectics theory: Crafting meaning from competing discourses. In BraithwaiteD. O.BaxterL. A. (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 349-361). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
BaxterL. A.MontgomeryB. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
6.
BednallD. H.WalkerI.CurlD.LeRoyH. (2001). Business support approaches for charities and other nonprofits. International Journal of Nonprofit, 6, 172-187.
7.
BochantinJ. E.CowanR. L. (2008). On being “one of the guys”: How female police officers manage the tensions and contradictions in their work and their lives. Ohio Communication Journal, 46, 145-170.
BraithwaiteD. O.BaxterL. A. (2006). You’re my parent but you’re not: Dialectical tensions in stepchildren’s perceptions about communicating with the nonresidential parent. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34, 30-48.
10.
BrammerS.MillingtonA. (2005). Corporate reputation and philanthropy: An empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 61, 29-44.
11.
BraunS. (2003). The history of breast cancer advocacy. Breast Journal, 9, S101-S103.
BrinkerN.BraunS. (1998). The Susan G. Komen breast cancer foundation. Breast Disease, 10(5/6), 23-28.
15.
BronnP. S.VrioniA. B. (2001). Corporate social responsibility and cause-related marketing: An overview. International Journal of Advertising, 20, 207-222.
16.
CampbellM. C.KirmaniA. (2000). Consumers’ use of persuasion knowledge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 69-83.
17.
CheneyG. (1983). The rhetoric of identification and the study of organizational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69, 143-158.
18.
CreswellJ. W.MillerD. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39, 124-130.
19.
DemetriouM.PapasolomouI.VrontisD. (2009). Cause-related marketing: Building the corporate image while supporting worthwhile causes. Journal of Brand Management, 17, 266-278.
20.
DuncanT.MoriartyS. (1997). Driving brand value: Using integrated marketing to manage profitable stakeholder relationships. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
21.
EdwardsH. H.KreshelP. J. (2008). An audience interpretation of corporate communication in a cause-related corporate outreach event: The Avon breast cancer 3-day walk. Journalism & Communication Monographs, 10, 175-244.
22.
ElsbachK. D.BhattacharyaC. B. (2001). Defining who you are by what you’re not: Organizational disidentification and the National Rifle Association. Organization Science, 12, 393-413.
23.
ErricoK. M.RowdenD. (2006). Experiences of breast cancer survivor-advocates and advocates in countries with limited resources: A shared journey in breast cancer advocacy. Breast Journal, 12, S111-S116.
24.
EversJ. C. (2016). Elaborating on thick analysis: About thoroughness and creativity in qualitative analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 17(1), 2369. doi:10.17169/fqs-17.1.2369
GeertzC. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
28.
GoldsmithD. (1990). A dialectic perspective on the expression of autonomy and connection in romantic relationships. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54, 537-556.
29.
HoffmanM. F.Medlock-KlyukovskiA. (2004). “Our creator who art in Heaven”: Paradox, ritual, and cultural transformation. Western Journal of Communication, 68, 389-410.
30.
KingS. (2001). An all-consuming cause: Breast cancer, corporate philanthropy, and the market for generosity. Social Text, 19(4), 115-143.
31.
KingS. (2010). Pink ribbons, Inc.: The emergence of cause-related marketing and the corporatization of the breast cancer movement. In ReedL.SaukkoP. (Eds.), Governing the female body: Gender, health, and networks of power (pp. 85-111). Albany: SUNY Press.
32.
KotlerP.LeeN. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
33.
KramerM. W. (2004). Toward a communication theory of group dialectics: An ethnographic study of a community theater group. Communication Monographs, 71, 311-332.
34.
KramerM. W.BenoitP. J.DixonM. A.Benoit-BryanJ. (2007). Group processes in a teaching renewal retreat: Communication functions and dialectical tensions. Southern Communication Journal, 72, 145-168.
35.
LindlofT. R.TaylorB. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
LogsdonJ. M.ReinerM.BurkeL. (1990). Corporate philanthropy: Strategic responses to the firm’s stakeholders. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 19, 93-109.
37.
MarcottyJ. (2006, October15). Breast cancer tie-ins give firms rosy glow. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, p. 1.
38.
MartinJ. N.NakayamaT. K. (1999). Thinking dialectically about culture and communication. Communication Theory, 9, 1-25.
39.
MitnickB. M. (2000). Commitment, revelation, and the testaments of belief: The metrics of measurement of corporate social performance. Business & Society, 39, 419-465.
40.
Mize SmithJ. (2012). All good works are not created equal: Employee sensemaking of corporate philanthropy. Southern Communication Journal, 77, 369-388.
41.
Mize SmithJ.SypherB. D. (2010). Philanthropy in the workplace: How a financial institution communicates charitable giving values. Southern Communication Journal, 75, 370-391.
42.
MullenJ. (1997). Performance-based corporate philanthropy: How “giving smart” can further corporate goals. Public Relations Quarterly, 42(2), 42-48.
43.
NanX.HeoK. (2007). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives: Examining the role of brand-cause fit in cause-related marketing. Journal of Advertising, 36, 63-74.
44.
O’SullivanT. (1997). Why charity schemes need a delicate touch. Marketing Week, 20, 22-24.
45.
PowerE. M. (2004). Toward understanding in postmodern interview analysis: Interpreting the contradictory remarks of a research participant. Qualitative Health Research, 4, 858-865.
46.
PringleH.ThompsonM. (1999). Brand spirit: How cause related marketing builds brands. New York, NY: John Wiley.
47.
RawlinsW. K. (1992). Friendship matters: Communication, dialectics, and the life course. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
48.
SarangiS. (2005). The conditions and consequences of professional discourse studies. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2, 371-394.
49.
ScottC. R. (1997). Identification with multiple targets in a geographically dispersed organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 10, 491-522.
50.
SeounmiY.HyuksooK. (2008). Antecedents of consumer attitudes toward cause-related marketing. Journal of Advertising Research, 48, 123-137.
51.
SherifM.SherifC. W. (1967). Attitude as the individual’s own categories: The social judgment-involvement approach to attitude and attitude change. In SherifC. W.SherifM. (Eds.), Attitude, ego-involvement, and change (pp. 105-139). New York, NY: Wiley.
52.
SmithK. K.BergD. N. (1987). Paradoxes of group life: Understanding conflict, paralysis, and movement in group dynamics. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
53.
StohlC.CheneyG. (2001). Participatory process/paradoxical practices: Communication and the dilemmas of organizational democracy. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 349-407.
54.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
55.
SulikG. A. (2011). Pink ribbon blues: How breast cancer culture undermines women’s health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
SzykmanL. R.BloomP. N.BlazingJ. (2004). Does corporate sponsorship of a socially-oriented message make a difference? An investigation of the effects of sponsorship identity on responses to an anti-drinking and driving message. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 13-20.
60.
TangariA. H.FolseJ. G.BurtonS.KeesJ. (2010). The moderating influence of consumers’ temporal orientation on the framing of societal needs and corporate responses in cause-related marketing campaigns. Journal of Advertising, 39, 35-50.
WebbJ. D.MohrL. A. (1998). A typology of customers’ responses to cause related marketing: From skeptics to socially concerned. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 17, 226-239.
