Beyond words: Visual metaphors that can demonstrate comprehension of KM as a paradoxical activity system

Systems Research and Behavioral Science

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 138-149

  McKenzie, Jane ^a   Van Winkelen, Christine ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF READING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Analogy; Knowledge management; Metaphors; Paradox; Visual imagery

Indexed keywords

EID: 79951867096     PISSN: 10927026     EISSN: 10991743     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sres.1078     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Andriessen D. 2001. Weightless wealth: Four modifications to standard ic theory. Journal of Intellectual Capital 2(3): 204-214.
2. Andriessen D. 2008. Stuff or love: How metaphors direct our efforts to manage knowledge in organizations. Knowledge Management Research and Practice 6(1): 5-12.
3. Andriessen D, Gubbins C. 2009. Metaphor analysis as an approach for exploring theoretical concepts. The case of social capital. Organization Studies 30(8): 1-19.
4. Andriessen D, Kliphuis E, Mckenzie J, Van Winklen C. 2009. Pictures of knowledge management. Developing a method for analysing knowledge metaphors in visuals. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management 7(4): 405-414.
5. Arthur B. 1996. Increasing returns and the new world of business. Harvard Business Review 74(4): 100-109.
6. Barney J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17(1): 99-120.
7. Bateson G. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind: A Revolutionary Approach to Man's Understanding of Himself. Chandler Publishing Co and imprint of Random House: New York.
8. Baumard P. 1999. Tacit Knowledge in Organizations. Sage: London.
9. Belova O. 2006a. The event of seeing: A phenomenological perspective on visual sense-making. Culture & Organization 12: 93-107.
10. Belova O. 2006b. Speaking for themselves? Problematising the production of meaning in visual artefacts. Culture & Organization 12: 37-49.
11. Blackler F. 1995. Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An overview and interpretation. Organization Studies 16(6): 1021-1046.
12. Cornelissen JP. 2005. Beyond compare: Metaphor in organization theory. Academy of Management Review 30(4): 751-764.
13. Damasio A. 2006. Descartes Error. Vintage books: London.
14. Fauconnier G, Turner M. 2002. The Way We Think. Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities. Basic Books: New York.
15. Ford JD, Backoff RW. 1988. Organizational change in and out of dualities and paradox. In Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management, Quinn RE, Cameron KS. (eds.) Ballinger: Cambridge MA; 81-121.
16. Grant RM. 1996. Towards a knowledge based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17(14): 109-122.
17. Hampden-Turner C. 1990. Charting the Corporate Mind. Blackwell: Oxford.
18. Johnson M. 1987. The Body in the Mind. The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
19. Kegan R. 1994. In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life. Harvard Business School Press: Boston.
20. Lakoff G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal About the Mind. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
21. Lakoff G, Johnson M. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. Basic Books: New York.
22. Lakoff G, Johnson M. 2003. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
23. Lave J, Wenger E. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
24. Lewis MW. 2000. Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review 25(4): 760-776.
25. March J. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2(1): 71-87.
26. Martin R. 2007. The opposable mind. How successful leaders win through integrative thinking. Harvard Business Press: Boston MA.
27. Mayer R. 2001. Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK.
28. McKenzie J. 1994. Paradox the Next Strategic Dimension. Using Conflict to Re-energized Your Business. McGraw Hill: Maidenhead.
29. McKenzie J, van Winkelen C. 2004. Understanding the Knowledgeable Organization: Nurturing Knowledge Competence. Thomson Learning: London.
30. McKenzie J, van Winkelen C. 2007. Knowledge management for a changing world. Challenges for third generation knowledge practice. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management 8(8): 1-14.
31. Morgan G. 1997. Images of Organization. Sage: London.
32. Oliver D, Roos J. 2000. Striking a Balance: Complexity and Knowledge Landscapes. McGraw Hill: Maidenhead UK.
33. Oswick C, Keenoy T, Grant D. 2002. Metaphor and Analogical Reasoning in Organization Theory: Beyond Orthodoxy. Academy of Management Review 27(2): 294-303.
34. Polanyi M. 1966. The Tacit Dimension. Routledge and Kegan Paul: London.
35. Prahalad C, Hamel G. 1990. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review 68(3): 79-91.
36. Proctor T, Proctor S, Papasolomou I. 2005. Visualizing the metaphor. Journal of Marketing Communications 11: 55-72.
37. Robertson I. 2002. The Mind's Eye. Bantam: London.
38. Rothenberg A. 1979. The Emerging Goddess. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
39. Sadler-Smith E, Shefy E. 2007. Developing intuitive awareness in management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education 6(2): 186-205.
40. Scott LM, Vargas P. 2007. Writing with pictures: Towards a unifying theory of consumer repsonse to images. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(3): 341-356.
41. Spender JC. 1996. Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17 (Special issue): 45-62.
42. Steen G. 2010. Knowlede as metaphor: Problems and perspectives for KM. European Conference on Intellectual Capital. Portugal.
43. Sveiby K-E. 2001. A knowledge-based theory of the firm to guide strategy formulation. Journal of Intellectual Capital 2(4): 344-358.
44. Taylor SS, Ladkin D. 2009. Understanding arts-based methods in managerial development. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1): 55-69.
45. Weick KE. 1989. Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review 14(4): 516-531.