Recently several attempts were undertaken to unite the field of metaphor studies, trying to reconcile the conceptual/cognition and linguistic/discourse approaches to metaphor (Hampe, 2017b). The dynamic view of metaphor espoused by amongst others Gibbs (2017a) as a way to unify the field of metaphor studies is said to converge on findings and theoretical predictions found in cognition and discourse approaches. The author argues this focus on dynamical models to explain the multi-scale socio-cognitive aspects of metaphor as an emergent phenomenon is not robust enough. Complexity and dynamical systems are merely a modelling technique to deploy theory for empirical testing of hypotheses; a dynamic view of metaphor needs a coherent background theory to base its dynamic modelling of metaphor in action on (Chemero, 2009). I argue that it can be successfully based on the ecological-enactive framework available within the modern paradigm of 4E cognitive science. This framework makes possible explanation of both 'lower' cognition and 'higher' cognition emerging in the interaction of an organism with its environment. In addition, I sketch how recent theoretical insights from ecological-enactivism (Baggs and Chemero, 2018) concerning Gibson's notion of environment apply to the attempted unification of the field of metaphor studies. I close by suggesting how an understanding of metaphor as an ecological affordance of the socio-cultural environment can provide a rich basis for empirical hypotheses within a dynamical science of metaphor.
LINK
An agreed definition of metaphor does not appear to exist, with theorists and researchers agreeing only to a more general type of description of metaphor (Cameron, 1999). These general descriptions build on the derivation of the word metaphor from the Greek word meta, meaning above or over, and phorein, meaning to carry or bear from one place to another. Metaphor is, therefore, described as carrying meaning from one domain to another (Kopp, 1995)
DOCUMENT
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to conduct a critical analysis to address cultural metaphors – a much overlooked aspect of cross-cultural studies. Mainstream cultural metaphors (e.g. the iceberg, the software of the mind, the onion, and the distance) are not only limited in number, but are also overwhelmingly based on the static paradigm – as opposed to the dynamic paradigm that is often sidelined in academic discourse.Design/methodology/approachThe paper introduces the Diagram of Diversity Pathways – an interdisciplinary framework that sheds some light on how the inherent meaning and heuristic orientation of static cultural metaphors may stand at odds with evidence from the newly emerged field of neurobiology.FindingsThe implications of these metaphors are called into question, namely, culture is all about differences; values are stable; values guide behaviors; and values are seen as binaries.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper suggests that theorists and practitioners should pay more attention to the contribution and scholarly work of the dynamic paradigm since there appears to be substantial compatibility between them.Originality/valueThe matching of neurobiology and dynamic paradigm brings into focus alternative metaphors which not only offer insightful perspectives but also may open doors to perceive culture in a new way. Furthermore, cultural metaphors deserve more academic scrutiny because metaphors and theory development can have a symbiotic existence.
DOCUMENT
In many fields within management and organizational literature there is considerable debate and controversy about key theoretical concepts and their definitions and meanings. Systematic metaphor analysis can be a useful approach to study the underlying conceptualizations that give rise to these controversies and putting them in perspective. It can help identify the different ways a theoretical concept is structured and given meaning, provide insight into the way these different conceptualizations relate to each other, and show how these conceptualizations impact further theorization about the concept. This article describes the procedure for a systematic analysis of the metaphors used to conceptualize key theoretical concepts. To examine its usefulness, the authors apply the approach to the field of social capital, and in particular to the concept of ‘relationships’ in organizations. In the metaphor analysis of three seminal articles on social capital, the authors identify seven metaphoric concepts for relationships. The metaphors are illuminated as important for providing imagery that adds specific meaning in the process of authors theorizing about social capital like ‘tie’, ‘path’ and ‘bridge’. They add dynamics and controllability to the concepts by attributing an array of verbs like ‘to move between’ or ‘to use’ relationships. In addition, the metaphors allow for the attribution of specific characteristics to the concept of relationships that can be used as variables in theory construction, such as the strength of a relationship or the ‘distance’ between people. These insights are useful in exploring and reconciling differences in social capital definitions.
DOCUMENT
This special issue of Systems Research and Behavioural Science is about the systematic use of metaphor and its implications for behaviour, especially in the field of knowledge management.
DOCUMENT
Metaphors are common phenomena intellectual capital and knowledge management theories and practice. An important question to ask is: what are the ‗best‘ metaphors we can use in our theorizing on intellectual capital and knowledge management? This paper addresses the question of the aptness of knowledge related metaphors. It concludes that the aptness of metaphorical expressions depends on three factors: the richness of the semantic field of the source domain, the validity of the mapping, and the ideological implications of the mapping. This conclusion results in a research agenda on the aptness of metaphor in knowledge management and intellectual capital theory and practice.
DOCUMENT
The purpose of the paper is to start a dialogue about differences between Western and Eastern cultures in the way they conceptualize knowledge and discuss the implications of these differences for a global intellectual capital (IC) theory and practice. A systematic metaphor analysis of the concept of knowledge and IC is used to identify common Western conceptualizations of knowledge in IC literature. A review of philosophical and religious literature was done to identify knowledge conceptualizations in the main streams of Asian philosophy. Fundamental differences were found in the way knowledge is conceptualized. In Western IC literature common metaphors for knowledge include knowledge as a thing and knowledge as capital. In Asian thought, knowledge is seen as unfolding truth based upon a unity of universe and human self and of knowledge and action. The research was performed on a limited sample of literature. More research is needed to identify how knowledge is conceptualized in the practice of doing business in Asia and to test the effects of introducing IC theories to Asian businessmen and managers. Moreover, it might be questionable whether different types of resources (Western management literature on IC and Asian cultural philosophies) can be put in a comparative perspective to extract conclusions out of it. This methodological starting point has its confinements, but is plausible partly as long as IC theories originating from an Asian background are still missing, partly as far as philosophical notions within Western IC publications are contrasted with Asian notions of knowledge. Despite this restriction we would like to emphasize that Western conceptualizations of knowledge, embedded in terms like intellectual capital and knowledge management, can not be transferred to Asian business without considering the local view on knowledge. Asian conceptualizations of knowledge should play an important role in the further development of a knowledge-based theory and practice of the firm. We choose deliberately to contrast Western philosophy with cultural and religious connotations in Asian philosophy, as the underlying paradigm is strongly influenced by these notions. This is clearly perceivable in revivalist and reformist tendencies in Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. Religious notions within these traditions have a strong paradigmatic function in a cognitive and normative sense. Not only in anthropology but also in epistemology, contemporary Asian thought is dominated by a discourse deeply embedded in religious and cultural traditions, in which the dimensions of 'nature', 'subjectivity' and 'history' have well defined boundaries. Anthropologically and epistemologically, all spheres of human reality are analyzed and described within the perspective of an integral and monolithic unity, in which all dimensions and spheres of being are bound. In Western philosophy these spheres of being have been separated from religious notions because of a longstanding secularization due to which religion and culture, metaphysics and philosophy have become separate disciplines.(Boom, 1993)
DOCUMENT
Metaphors are at the basis of our understanding of reality. Using the theory of metaphor developed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980, 1999) this paper analyses common metaphors used in the intellectual capital and knowledge management literatures. An analysis of key works by Davenport & Prusak (2000), Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995), and Stewart (1991) suggests that at least 95 percent of all statements about either knowledge or intellectual capital are based on metaphors. The paper analyses the two metaphors that form the basis for the concept of intellectual capital: ‘Knowledge as a Resource’ and ‘Knowledge as Capital’, both of which derive their foundations from the industrial age. The paper goes into some of the implications of these findings for the theory and practice of intellectual capital. Common metaphors used in conceptualising abstract phenomena in traditional management practices unconsciously reinforce the established social order. The paper concludes by asking whether we need new metaphors to better understand the mechanisms of the knowledge economy, hence allowing us to potentially change some of the more negative structural features of contemporary society.
DOCUMENT
In this paper we turn to the field of innovation management and the use of metaphors to address the question: what kind of alternative metaphors and narratives have some open-innovation organizations introduced highlighting and fostering knowledge-intensive organizational change? First we draw a comparative overview of characteristics of knowledge flows in general, that are specific for open innovation strategies, and that organizations want to highlight. Then we describe the use of metaphors by Philips, Pfizer, Chevron and RABO on their way towards open innovation strategies. Methodologically, the interpretation of the described metaphors will be based on a metaphor theory derived from the works of Joseph Campbell, Mircea Eliade, Carl Gustav Jung and Eugen Drewermann. Our analysis concludes by providing guidelines for necessary future research about the aptness of innovation metaphors for idea generation and knowledge creation.
DOCUMENT
Lemma. This article argues that for Knowledge Management it is not important how knowledge is defined but how it is conceptualized.
MULTIFILE
