One symptom of individualism in liquid modernity is the search for `identity'. Using the five theoretically discrete articles in this special issue as both a `rich' discursive resource and a point of departure, we develop a supplementary reading of the narratives which appear to inform identity research. We suggest that, while social agents in pursuit of `identity' draw on a cacophony of discursive sources, it is the varieties of `self—other' talk which emerge as the critical ingredient in processes of identity formation. The dualities that all such self—other talk articulate can be seen as discursive reflections of the more fundamental relationship between the individual and sociality. In turn, this is seen to refract one of the persistent problems of organizational analysis: the agency—structure issue. In addition, while we argue that deploying a discursive perspective to analyze identity work offers distinctive insights, such an approach carries with it an epistemological consequence. For what the articles also indicate is that in any attempt to delineate the `identity of identities', researchers need to be aware of not only the reflexivity displayed by social actors constructing `identity' but also of their own role in `re-authoring' such scripts. We briefly explore the implications of this for identity theory and organizational analysis more generally.

No abstract

No abstract

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link: METAPHOR IN ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH: AN INTRODUCTION, SYNTHESIS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AbstractWe provide a general overview of previous work which has explored the use of metaphors in organizational research. Differences in focus and form of research on metaphors are noted. Work in organization theory (OT) and organizational communication (OC) generally features prescriptive metaphors that aid the practice of theorizing and research; research in organizational development (OD) tends to use metaphors for intervention in individual and group decision-making; while studies of organizational behavior (OB) emphasize the metaphors-in-use within individuals' sensemaking accounts of critical events within their organization. Alongside these differences in focus, the form of metaphor analysis also differs across these contexts, ranging from text-and discourse based analysis to the analysis of nonlinguistic modalities such as pictorial signs, gestures and artefacts. Based on our overview of previous work, we call for greater attention to methodological issues around metaphor identification and analysis and outline a number of directions for further research. 3There is a continuous and growing interest in the study of metaphor within organizational research (e.g., Putnam & Boys, 2006). This interest has been spurred in recent years by an increase in the volume of theoretical and empirical work that explores the role of language and discourse in organizational life (e.g., Grant et al., 2004) as well as by developments on metaphor theory and analysis in cognitive, linguistic and discourse work across the social sciences (e.g., Cameron, 2003;Lakoff & Johnson, 1999;Pragglejaz, 2007).As well as using an assortment of methodologies, work on metaphor in organizational research also spans multiple disciplinary domains and literatures -ranging from organizational behavior (e.g., Gioia et al., 1994; Greenberg, 1995;El-Sawad, 2005) and organizational development (e.g., Barrett & Cooperrider, 1990; to organization theory (e.g., Cornelissen, 2005;Morgan, 2006;Weick, 1989) and organizational communication (e.g., Putnam & Boys, 2006;Taylor & Van Every, 2000) 1 .Whilst drawing upon different traditions, the interest in metaphor across these domains shares a view of metaphors as being central to human discourse and understanding (e.g. Cassirer, 1946). Metaphors connect realms of human experience and imagination. They guide our perceptions and interpretations of reality and help us formulate our visions and goals. In doing these things, metaphors facilitate and further our understanding of the world. Similarly, when we attempt to understand organizations (as scholars or as people working within them),we often use metaphors to make organizations compact, intelligible and understood.Metaphors often have this role as they supply "language with flexibility, expressibility and a way to expand ...

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Interest in the analysis of organizational discourse has expanded rapidly over the last two decades. In this article, we reflect critically on organizational discourse analysis as an approach to the study of organizations and management highlighting both its strengths and areas of challenge. We begin with an explanation of the nature of organizational discourse analysis and outline some of the more significant contributions made to date. We then discuss existing classifications of approaches to the study of organizational discourse. These fall into two main categories: classifications by level of analysis and classifications by type of method. We then argue that both of these approaches are inherently problematic and present an alternative way to understand the varieties of approaches to the analysis of organizational discourse based on within domain and across domain characterizations. We conclude with a discussion of the challenges that remain in the development of organizational discourse as an area of study and point to some of the opportunities for important and unique contributions to our understanding of organizations and management that this family of methods brings. Permanent repository link