Although research has provided valuable insights into the process of frame change within organizations, it has primarily attributed this change to discursive activities, potentially relegating the role of nondiscursive modes and the interplay among multimodal practices. Against this background, we examine how the interplay among discursive, material, and embodied practices influences organizational members’ frame change. Drawing on an eighteen-month ethnographic study of the digital transformation of a major real estate project, we show how frontline employees’ frame change—from viewing digital technology as “digital wings” to “digital burden”—was achieved through multimodal practices. Our findings contribute to frame research by identifying three cross-modal mechanisms: limited interconnecting, permeating, and resonating. These mechanisms suggest that the subtle interplay among multimodal practices elicits initial understanding, subversion, and stabilization. Moreover, we introduce the “flesh-and-blood” basis of frame change and extend the current understanding of keying and engrossment to theorize them as multimodal accomplishments rather than solely discursive efforts.
AlcadipaniRafaelHassardJohnIslamGazi (2018). “I shot the sheriff”: Irony, sarcasm and the changing nature of workplace resistance. Journal of Management Studies, 55, 1452–1487.
2.
AshforthBlake E.CazaBrianna BarkerMeisterAlyson (2024). My place: How workers become identified with their workplaces and why it matters. Academy of Management Review, 49, 366–398.
3.
Barberá-TomásDavidCastellóItziarDe BakkerFrank G. A.ZietsmaCharlene (2019). Energizing through visuals: How social entrepreneurs use emotion-symbolic work for social change. Academy of Management Journal, 62, 1789–1817.
4.
BarleyStephen R. (2020). Work and technological change. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
5.
BergerPeter L.LuckmannThomas (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York, NY: Anchor.
6.
BoxenbaumEvaJonesCandaceMeyerRenate E.SvejenovaSilviya (2018). Towards an articulation of the material and visual turn in organization studies. Organization Studies, 39, 597–616.
7.
CarlilePaul R.NicoliniDavideLangleyAnnTsoukasHaridimos (2013). How matter matters: Objects, artifacts, and materiality in organization studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8.
CharmazKathy (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: SAGE Publishing.
9.
ChristiansenLærke Højgaard (2018). The use of visuals in issue framing: Signifying responsible drinking. Organization Studies, 39, 665–689.
10.
CornelissenJoep P.MantereSakuVaaraEero (2014). The contraction of meaning: The combined effect of communication, emotions, and materiality on sensemaking in the Stockwell shooting. Journal of Management Studies, 51, 699–736.
11.
CornelissenJoep P.WernerMirjam D. (2014). Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature. Academy of Management Annals, 8, 181–235.
12.
CoulsonSeana (2001). Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
CreedW. E. DouglasTaylorSteven S.HudsonBryant Ashley (2020). Institutional aesthetics: Embodied ways of encountering, evaluating, and enacting institutions. Organization Studies, 41, 415–435.
14.
CzarniawskaBarbara (2014). A theory of organizing (2nd ed.). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
15.
de RondMarkHolemanIsaacHoward-GrenvilleJennifer (2019). Sensemaking from the body: An enactive ethnography of rowing the Amazon. Academy of Management Journal, 62, 1961–1988.
16.
DewulfArtGrayBarbaraPutnamLindaLewickiRoyAartsNoelleBouwenRenevan WoerkumCees (2009). Disentangling approaches to framing in conflict and negotiation research: A meta-paradigmatic perspective. Human Relations, 62, 155–193.
17.
DiehlDavidMcFarlandDaniel (2010). Toward a historical sociology of social situations. American Journal of Sociology, 115, 1713–1752.
18.
EveredRogerLouisMeryl Reis (1981). Alternative perspectives in the organizational sciences: “Inquiry from the inside” and “inquiry from the outside.”Academy of Management Review, 6, 385–395.
19.
FissPeer C.ZajacEdward J. (2006). The symbolic management of strategic change: Sensegiving via framing and decoupling. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1173–1193.
20.
FlyvbjergBent (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12, 219–245.
21.
FriedmanAsia M. (2016). Perceptual construction: Rereading The Social Construction of Reality through the sociology of the senses. Cultural Sociology, 10, 77–92.
22.
FurnariSanti (2019). Situating frames and institutional logics: The social situation as a key institutional microfoundation. In HaackPatrickSiewekeJostWesselLauri (Eds.), Microfoundations of institutions. Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 65B, pp. 193–209). Bradford: Emerald Publishing Limited.
23.
GiddensAnthony (1987). Social theory and modern sociology. Cambridge: Polity.
24.
GiorgiSimona (2017). The mind and heart of resonance: The role of cognition and emotions in frame effectiveness. Journal of Management Studies, 54, 711–738.
25.
GoffmanErving (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Anchor.
26.
GoffmanErving (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
GoldRaymond L. (1958). Roles in sociological field observations. Social Forces, 36, 217–223.
29.
Golden-BiddleKaren (2020). Discovery as an abductive mechanism for reorienting habits within organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 63, 1951–1975.
30.
GrimmJuliaReineckeJuliane (2024). Collaborating on the edge of failure: Frame alignment across multiple interaction arenas in multi-stakeholder partnerships. Academy of Management Journal, 67, 956–990.
31.
HadjimichaelDemetrisRibeiroRodrigoTsoukasHaridimos (2024). How does embodiment enable the acquisition of tacit knowledge in organizations? From Polanyi to Merleau-Ponty. Organization Studies, 45, 545–570.
32.
HirschPaul M.LevinDaniel Z. (1999). Umbrella advocates versus validity police: A life-cycle model. Organization Science, 10, 199–212.
33.
HöllererMarkusvan LeeuwenTheoJancsaryDennisMeyerRenateAndersenThomas HestbækVaaraEero (2019). Visual and multimodal research in organization and management studies. New York, NY: Routledge.
34.
IslamGaziEndrissatNadaNoppeneyClaus (2016). Beyond ‘the eye’ of the beholder: Scent innovation through analogical reconfiguration. Organization Studies, 37, 769–795.
35.
KaplanSarah (2008). Framing contests: Strategy making under uncertainty. Organization Science, 19, 729–752.
36.
KelloggKatherine C. (2009). Operating room: Relational spaces and microinstitutional change in surgery. American Journal of Sociology, 115, 657–711.
37.
KimSuntae (2021). Frame restructuration: The making of an alternative business incubator amid Detroit’s crisis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66, 753–805.
38.
KleinJaninaAmisJohn M. (2021). The dynamics of framing: Image, emotion, and the European migration crisis. Academy of Management Journal, 64, 1324–1354.
39.
KnightEricLokJacoJarzabkowskiPaulaWenzelMatthias (2024). Sensing the room: The role of atmosphere in collective sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 68, 326–356.
40.
KratochvilRenate (2024). The process of framing innovation activities: How strategic leaders erode their ideas for radical innovations. Research Policy, 54, 105107.
41.
LamprouEleni (2017). Spatiality as care: A Heideggerian perspective on sociomaterial practices. Organization Studies, 38, 1733–1752.
42.
LangleyAnn (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24, 691–710.
43.
LawrenceThomas B.PhillipsNelson (2019). Constructing organizational life: How social-symbolic work shapes selves, organizations, and institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44.
LefsrudLianneGravesHeatherPhillipsNelson (2020). “Giant toxic lakes you can see from space”: A theory of multimodal messages and emotion in legitimacy work. Organization Studies, 41, 1055–1078.
45.
LeibelEstherHallettTimBechkyBeth A. (2018). Meaning at the source: The dynamics of field formation in institutional research. Academy of Management Annals, 12, 154–177.
46.
LizardoOmar (2017). Improving cultural analysis: Considering personal culture in its declarative and nondeclarative modes. American Sociological Review, 82, 88–115.
47.
LockeKaren (2001). Grounded theory in management research. London: SAGE Publishing.
48.
MazmanianMelissa (2013). Avoiding the trap of constant connectivity: When congruent frames allow for heterogeneous practices. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1225–1250.
49.
MeyerRenate E.JancsaryDennisHöllererMarkus A.BoxenbaumEva (2018). The role of verbal and visual text in the process of institutionalization. Academy of Management Review, 43, 392–418.
50.
MeyerRenate E.VaaraEero (2020). Institutions and actorhood as co-constitutive and co-constructed: The argument and areas for future research. Journal of Management Studies, 57, 898–910.
51.
MichelAlexandra (2011). Transcending socialization: A nine-year ethnography of the body’s role in organizational control and knowledge workers’ transformation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56, 325–368.
52.
MinskyMarvin (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
53.
NathuesEllenvan VuurenMarkEndedijkMaaike D.WenzelMatthias (2024). Shape-shifting: How boundary objects affect meaning-making across visual, verbal, and embodied modes. Human Relations, 78, 279–311.
54.
NicoliniDavide (2012). Practice theory, work, and organization: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
55.
NorrisSigrid (2011). Identity in (inter)action: Introducing multimodal (inter)action analysis. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
56.
OrlikowskiWanda J.GashDebra C. (1994). Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12, 174–207.
57.
PerssonAnders (2018). Framing social interaction: Continuities and cracks in Goffman’s Frame Analysis. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
PrattMichael G.KaplanSarahWhittingtonRichard (2020). Editorial essay: The tumult over transparency: Decoupling transparency from replication in establishing trustworthy qualitative research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65, 1–19.
60.
PrattMichael G.SonensheinScottFeldmanMartha S. (2022). Moving beyond templates: A bricolage approach to conducting trustworthy qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 25, 211–238.
61.
RaffaelliRyanGlynnMary AnnTushmanMichael (2019). Frame flexibility: The role of cognitive and emotional framing in innovation adoption by incumbent firms. Strategic Management Journal, 40, 1013–1039.
62.
RauchMadeleineAnsariShahzad (2022). From ‘publish or perish’ to societal impact: Organizational repurposing towards responsible innovation through creating a medical platform. Journal of Management Studies, 59, 61–91.
63.
RavasiDavide (2017). Visualizing our way through theory building. Journal of Management Inquiry, 26, 240–243.
64.
RawskiShannon L.O’Leary-KellyAnne M.Breaux-SoignetDenise (2022). It’s all fun and games until someone gets hurt: An interactional framing theory of work social sexual behavior. Academy of Management Review, 47, 617–636.
65.
ReineckeJulianeAnsariShahzad (2021). Microfoundations of framing: The interactional production of collective action frames in the Occupy movement. Academy of Management Journal, 64, 378–408.
66.
SandbergJörgenTsoukasHaridimos (2020). Sensemaking reconsidered: Towards a broader understanding through phenomenology. Organization Theory, 1, 2631787719879937.
67.
SavagetPauloRouletThomasVentrescaMarc (2024). Experimentation in wicked situations: How activists construct pragmatic action frames. Organization Studies, 45, 1493–1521.
68.
SchatzkiTheodore R. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. Philadelphia, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
69.
SchatzkiTheodore (2016). Sayings, texts and discursive formations. In HuiAllisonSchatzkiTheodoreShoveElizabeth (Eds.), The nexus of practices (pp. 138–152). New York, NY: Routledge.
70.
ShillingChris (2012). The body and social theory. London: SAGE Publishing.
71.
SpiethPatrickRöthTobiasClaussThomasKlosChristoph (2021). Technological frames in the digital age: Theory, measurement instrument, and future research areas. Journal of Management Studies, 58, 1962–1993.
72.
SpradleyJames P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York, NY: Rinehart and Winston.
73.
SteinbergMarc W. (1999). The talk and back talk of collective action: A dialogic analysis of repertoires of discourse among nineteenth-century English cotton spinners. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 736–780.
74.
StiglianiIleanaRavasiDavide (2012). Organizing thoughts and connecting brains: Material practices and the transition from individual to group-level prospective sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1232–1259.
75.
StowellAlison F.WarrenSamantha (2018). The institutionalization of suffering: Embodied inhabitation and the maintenance of health and safety in e-waste recycling. Organization Studies, 39, 785–809.
76.
Van LeeuwenTheo (2005). Introducing social semiotics. New York, NY: Routledge.
77.
WacquantLoïc (2015). For a sociology of flesh and blood. Qualitative Sociology, 38, 1–11.
78.
WernerMirjam D.CornelissenJoep P. (2014). Framing the change: Switching and blending frames and their role in instigating institutional change. Organization Studies, 35, 1449–1472.
79.
WhittleAndreaVaaraEeroMaitlisSally (2023). The role of language in organizational sensemaking: An integrative theoretical framework and an agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 49, 1807–1840.
80.
WhyteJenniferComiAliceMoscaLuigi (2022). Making futures that matter: Future making, online working and organizing remotely. Organization Theory, 3, 26317877211069138.
81.
YbemaSierkHorversMartha (2017). Resistance through compliance: The strategic and subversive potential of frontstage and backstage resistance. Organization Studies, 38, 1233–1251.
82.
ZilberTammar B. (2018). A call for “strong” multimodal research in institutional theory. In HöllererMarkus A.DaudigeosThibaultJancsaryDennis (Eds.), Multimodality, meaning, and institutions. Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 54A, pp. 63–84). Bradford: Emerald Publishing Limited.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
