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
Metaphor is one of the important discursive themes in organizational literature (Grant et al.,2001). Metaphors play an important role in the discourse within organizations as well as in theorizing about organizations. This empirical paper focuses on the latter by analysing the role of metaphor in the development of theoretical concepts – in particular the concept of social capital – through the means of quantitative content analysis. Some authors argue that metaphors should be avoided in organizational theory (Bourgeois and Pinder, 1983; Tinker, 1986). Others see metaphors as valuable creative tools for developing new theories and insights (Weick, 1989). Morgan (1997) has shown that many theories about organizations can be ‘reordered’ (Keenoy et al., 2003) into a particular metaphorical view of organizations, showing the metaphorical bases of organizational theorizing. Lakoff and Johnson (1980, 1999) go even further, presenting compelling evidence from cognitive science indicating that metaphors are inescapable because they are the basis for our abstract reasoning. There is a debate about the way metaphor works (Black, 1993; Cornelissen, 2005; Heracleous, 2003; Keenoy et al., 2003; Lakoff and Johnson, 1999; Marshak, 2003; Oswick et al. 2002, 2003; Tsoukas, 1991;) especially about whether metaphor is simply a matter of comparison highlighting the analogies in the source and target domain, or whether a metaphor does more then that. In the paper we take the latter position and adopt Lakoff and Johnson’s (1999) model of cross-domain mapping. This model states that not only similarities and features are transferred from the source to the target domain but that the target domain often gets its structure from the source domain. The metaphorical mapping from the source to the target domain can be rich and complex because metaphors have many ‘entailments’. Entailments are the connotations of the metaphor that transport meaning from the source to the target domain. Furthermore, the application of conceptual metaphor often happens out-of-awareness (Lakoff and Johnson, 1999; Marshak, 2003). It is part of the unconscious mental operations concerned with conceptual systems, meaning, inference, and language. We can recognize the unconscious use of metaphor in organizational theorizing by looking at the literal meaning of organizational concepts and statements (Andriessen, 2006).
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
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
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
In response to a rapidly changing, increasingly insecure and complex labor market, career counselors and researchers are developing methods that can meet the needs of individuals who would navigate this new terrain. In the last two or three decades, narrative career counseling practices (Cochran, 1997; McMahon & Watson, 2012; Reid & West, 2011; Savickas, 2012) have been developed to promote career adaptability (Savickas, 2011) and career resilience (Lyons, Schweitzer & Ng, 2015). Narrative counseling (i.e. career construction) is founded on the idea that in order to survive and thrive on the labor market of the 21st century, individuals must reflexively construct their identities in a process of meaning making, where identity is co-constructed in the form of a narrative: a story about who one is that provides both meaning and direction (Wijers & Meijers, 1996). LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/reinekke-lengelle-phd-767a4322/
MULTIFILE
Conceptual metaphors play a vital role in our ability to think in abstract terms like knowledge. Metaphors structure and give meaning to the concept of knowledge. They hide and highlight certain characteristics. The choice of metaphor when reasoning about knowledge is therefore of vital importance for knowledge management (KM). This paper explores the possibility of introducing new knowledge metaphors to the field of KM. Based on a ‘wish list’ of characteristics of knowledge they want to highlight, the authors choose to explore the Knowledge as a Journey metaphor as a new metaphor for knowledge. This results in new insights regarding knowledge sharing, acquisition, retention, and innovation.
DOCUMENT
Conceptual metaphors play a vital role in our ability to think in abstract terms like knowledge. Metaphors structure and give meaning to the concept of knowledge. They hide and highlight certain characteristics. The choice of metaphor when reasoning about knowledge is therefore of vital importance for knowledge management (KM). This paper explores the possibility of introducing new knowledge metaphors to the field of KM. Based on a ‘wish list’ of characteristics of knowledge they want to highlight, the authors choose to explore the Knowledge as a Journey metaphor as a new metaphor for knowledge. This results in new insights regarding knowledge sharing, acquisition, retention, and innovation.
DOCUMENT
