Prior literature has highlighted the multimodal nature of organizations and organizing. However, management and organization studies continue to be guided by institutionalized conventions that prioritize words over other modes. This overreliance on words has resulted in “weak” multimodality that treats modes sequentially and often favors one mode over others. In this essay, we use play as a theoretical lens to explore how researchers can use the graphic novel to blend modes to extend “strong” multimodality. By focusing on the liminality of words and images in graphic novels, we make two critical contributions to multimodal research. First, we identify three graphic novels’ affordances researchers can use in MOS to attend to embodied and affective experiences (eroticize), contextualize when one mode is insufficient (narrativize), and demonstrate new ways of inquiry (theorize). Second, we elucidate how these affordances emerge from the researcher's playful engagement with modes to explore how they might work together.
BojeD.SmithR. (2010). Re-storying and visualizing the changing entrepreneurial identities of Bill Gates and Richard Branson. Culture and Organization, 16(4), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551003769250
4.
BoltB. (2004). Art Beyond Representation. I. B. Tauris.
5.
BridgmanT.CummingsS.BallardJ. (2019). Who built Maslow’s pyramid? A history of the creation of management Studies’ most famous symbol and its implications for management education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 18(1), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2017.0351
6.
CailloisR. (2001). Man, Play and Games. University of Illinois Press.
7.
CloutierC. (2016). How I write: An inquiry into the writing practices of academics. Journal of Management Inquiry, 25(1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492615585875
CsiszarA. (2018). The scientific journal. Authorship and the politics of knowledge in the nineteenth century. University of Chicago Press.
10.
DaftR. L.LewinA. Y. (1990). Can organization studies begin to break out of the normal science straitjacket? An editorial essay. Organization Science, 1(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1.1.1
11.
DelisleG. (2004). Pyongyang: A Journey in North Korea. Drawn and Quarterly.
12.
DohertyE. M. (2011). Joking aside, insights to employee dignity in “dilbert” cartoons: The value of comic art in understanding the employer–employee relationship. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(3), 286–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492610386114
13.
EcoU. (1989). The Open Work. Harvard University Press.
14.
EwensteinB.WhyteJ. (2007). Beyond words: Aesthetic knowledge and knowing in organizations. Organization Studies, 28(5), 689–708. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607078080
15.
FarinellaM. (2018). The potential of comics in science communication. Journal of Science Communication, 17(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.17010401
16.
GibsonJ. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Psychology Press.
17.
HatfieldC. (2005). Alternative comics: An emerging literature. University Press of Mississippi.
18.
HayakawaS. I. (1969). The revision of vision. In KepesG. (Ed.), Language of vision (pp. 8–10). Paul Theobald and Company.
19.
HjorthD.StratiA.Drakopoulou DoddS.WeikE. (2018). Organizational creativity, play and entrepreneurship: Introduction and framing. Organization Studies, 39(2–3), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617752748
20.
KnightE.ParoutisS.HeracleousL. (2018). The power of PowerPoint: A visual perspective on meaning making in strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 39(3), 894–921. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2727
21.
KostelnickC. (2019). Humanizing visual design: The rhetoric of human forms in practical communication. Routledge.
22.
KressG.van LeeuwenT. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd edition). Routledge.
LefsrudL.GravesH.PhillipsN. (2020). Giant toxic lakes you can see from space” A theory of multimodal messages and emotion in legitimacy work. Organization Studies, 41(8), 1055–1078. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840619835575
25.
McCloudS. (1993). Understanding comics. The invisible art. HarperCollins.
26.
MeyerR. E.HöllererM. A.JancsaryD.van LeeuwenT. (2013). The visual dimension in organizing, organization, and organization research: Core ideas, current developments, and promising avenues. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 489–555. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2013.781867
27.
MeyerR. E.JancsaryD.HöllererM. A.BoxenbaumE. (2018). The role of verbal and visual text in the process of institutionalization. Academy of Management Review, 43(3), 392–418. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0301
28.
MumbyD. K. (2011). What’s cooking in organizational discourse studies? A response to Alvesson and Kärreman. Human Relations, 64(9), 1147–1161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726711408367
29.
NairL. B.DiochonP. F.LassuR. A.TillemanS. G. (2018). Let’s perform and paint! The role of creative mediums in enhancing management research representation. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27(3), 301–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492618760723
30.
O’SullivanS. R.KozinetsR. V. (2020). The ethno/graphic novel: Alternative shapes of knowledge and hyper-intensity in consumer research. Consumption Markets & Culture, 23(6), 569–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253866.2019.1649255
31.
PostemaB. (2013). Narrative Structure in Comics. RIT Press.
QuattroneP.RonzaniM.JancsaryD.HöllererM. A. (2021). Beyond the visible, the material and the performative: Shifting perspectives on the visual in Organization Studies. Organization Studies, 42(8), 1197–1218.https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406211033678
RonzaniM.GatzweilerM. K. (2022). The lure of the visual: Multimodality, simplification, and performance measurement visualizations in a megaproject. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 97, 101296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2021.101296
36.
SaccoJ. (2009). Palestine. Jonathan Cape.
37.
SchönD. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
38.
SicartM. (2014). Play Matters. MIT Press.
39.
SkjælaaenG. R.BygdåsA. L.HagenA. L. (2020). Visual inquiry: Exploring embodied organizational practices by collaborative film-elicitation. Journal of Management Inquiry, 29(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492618778138
40.
SousanisN. (2015). Unflattening. Harvard University Press.
41.
ToraldoM. L.IslamG.MangiaG. (2018). Modes of knowing: Video research and the problem of elusive knowledges. Organizational Research Methods, 21(2), 438–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116657394
42.
WarrenS. (2005). Photography and voice in critical qualitative management research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18(6), 861–882. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570510627748
43.
WarrenS. (2008). Empirical challenges in organizational aesthetics research: Towards a sensual methodology. Organization Studies, 29(4), 559–580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607083104
44.
Weaver-HightowerM. B. (2017). Losing Thomas & Ella: A father’s story (A research comic). Journal of Medical Humanities, 38, 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10912-015-9359-z
