Constructing consultancy

I'm a bit confused by Czarniawska's paper [1]. She describes attempts to communicate between a business practitioner and a researcher (herself) as using two different logics. I'd have said that they were talking at cross purposes Czarniawska describes it in terms of logics and describes these logics. Now up to now, for me, logic is logic is logic – like one logic and no variations. But she describes:

• logic of representation
• logic of practice
• logic of theory

Logic of theory claims to use formal logic and has criteria of truths – sounds like what I understood to be logic – mathematical logic
Logic of practice is concrete, uses incomplete narrative and tacit knowledge – sounds like common sense to me.
Logic of representation is abstract, uses rhetoric and stylised narrative – sounds like a form of story telling.

I think Czarniawska might be saying the same thing as Seidl and Mohe, but using different theories. They said consultants and their clients couldn't communicate because they each work in their own system and the communication got distorted (perturbed) in transmission.

I have a recollection of someone (Fincham?) writing about the different discourses that clients and consultants use. I must find and check if that is another way of explaining talking at cross purposes.

---

[1] Czarniawska, B. (2001) Is it possible to be a constructionist consultant? Management Learning, 32 (2), pp253
[2] Seidl, D., Mohe, M., (2007) The consultant-client relationship: a systems-theoretical perspective. Available from http://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/