In this article, we suggest that management research constitutes a field of practice that is made practically intelligible through embodied enactment. This relies on imagination, constructing modes of belonging within communities of management research practice. Undergraduate students constitute a significant audience towards whom these self-presentational performances are directed. Our analysis is based on findings from four UK business schools where students participated in a free drawing and focus group exercise and were asked to visualize a management researcher. Through identification of three dominant animal metaphors of management research practice, we explore the symbolic relations whereby a prevailing image of the management researcher, as untouchable, solitary, aggressive, competitive and careerist, is socially constructed. We argue that this competitive, self-interested impression of research is detrimental to ethical, critically reflexive, reciprocal and participatory modes of research, and to the development of management research as a broadly inclusive system of social learning.
Advanced Institute of Management Research (AIM) (2006) The Future of Business Schools in the UK: Finding a Path to Success. London: AIM.
2.
BecherT (1989) Academic Tribes and Territories. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
3.
BellE (2011) Managerialism and management research: Would Melville Dalton get a job today? In: CassellCLeeB (eds) Challenges and Controversies in Management Research. London: Routledge, 122–137.
4.
BellE (2012) Ways of seeing death: A critical semiotic analysis of organizational memorialization. Visual Studies27(1): 4–17.
5.
BellEBrymanA (2007) The ethics of management research: An exploratory content analysis. British Journal of Management18(1): 63–77.
6.
BellEKingD (2010) The elephant in the room: Critical management studies conferences as a site of body pedagogics. Management Learning41(4): 429–442.
7.
BellEThorpeR (2013) A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book about Management Research. London: Sage.
8.
BennisWO’TooleJO (2005) How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review83(5): 98–104.
9.
BourdieuP (1988) Homo Academicus. Cambridge: Polity.
10.
BourdieuP (1990) The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity.
11.
BroussineMVinceR (1996) Working with metaphor towards organizational change. In: OswickCGrantD (eds) Organisation Development: Metaphorical Explorations. London: Pitman, 57–72.
12.
BryansPMavinS (2006) Visual images: A technique for surfacing conceptions of research and researchers. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal1: 113–128.
13.
BuchananDABoddyDMcCalmanJ (1988) Getting in, getting on, getting out and getting back. In: BrymanA (ed.) Doing Research in Organizations. London: Routledge, 53–67.
14.
CassellCBishopVSymonG. (2009) Learning to be a qualitative management researcher. Management Learning40(5): 513–533.
15.
ChiaRHoltR (2008) The nature of knowledge in business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education7(4): 471–486.
16.
CornelissenJ (2002) On the ‘Organizational Identity’ metaphor. British Journal of Management13(3): 259–268.
17.
CornelissenJKafourosM (2008) The emergent organization: Primary and complex metaphors in theorizing about organizations. Organization Studies29(7): 957–978.
18.
DayNE (2011) The silent majority: Manuscript rejection and its impact on scholars. Academy of Management Learning & Education10(4): 704–718.
19.
FerlieEMcGivernGde MoraesA (2010) Developing a public interest school of management. British Journal of Management21: s60–s70.
20.
FotakiM (2011) The sublime object of desire (for knowledge): Sexuality at work in business and management schools in England. British Journal of Management22(1): 42–53.
21.
GabrielY (2009) Reconciling an ethic of care with critical management pedagogy. Management Learning40(4): 379–385.
22.
GauntlettD (2007) Creative Explorations: New Approaches to Identities and Audiences. London: Routledge.
23.
GibbonsMLimogesCNowotnyH. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge. London: SAGE.
24.
GoffmanE (1971) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Penguin.
MacdonaldSKamJ (2007) Ring a ring o’ roses: Quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies. Journal of Management Studies44(4): 640–655.
44.
MeyerA (1991) Visual data in organizational research. Organization Science2(2): 218–236.
45.
MintzbergH (2004) Managers Not MBAs: A Hard Look at the Soft Practice of Managing and Management Development. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
46.
MintzbergHAhlstrandBLampelJ (1998) Strategy Safari: The Complete Guide through the Wilds of Strategic Management. London: Prentice Hall.
47.
MorganG (1983) Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research. London: SAGE.
48.
MorganG (1986) Images of Organization. London: SAGE.
49.
MorganG (1993) Imaginization: New Mindsets for Seeing, Organizing and Managing. London: SAGE.
50.
MutchA (1997) Rethinking undergraduate business education: A critical perspective. Management Learning28(3): 301–312.
51.
NyquistJDManningLWulffDH. (1999) On the road to becoming a professor: The graduate student experience. Change, May/June, 18–27.
52.
OgbonnaEHarrisLC (2004) Work intensification and emotional labour among UK university lecturers: An exploratory study. Organization Studies25(7): 1185–1203.
53.
OswickCMontgomeryJ (1999) Images of organization: The use of metaphor in a multinational company. Journal of Organizational Change Management12(6): 501–523.
54.
PattersonA (1991) Fables of Power: Aesopian Writing and Political History. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
55.
PfefferJFongCT (2002) The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning & Education1(1): 78–95.
56.
PfefferJFongCT (2004) The business school ‘business’: Some lessons from the US experience. Journal of Management Studies41: 1501–1520.
57.
PrasadA (2005) Crafting Qualitative Research: Working in the Postpositivist Traditions. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
58.
RapleyT (2011) Some pragmatics of qualitative data analysis. In: SilvermanD (ed.) Qualitative Research: Issues of Theory, Method and Practice. 3rd edn.London: SAGE, 273–290.
59.
ReayTBertaWKohnMK (2009) What is the evidence on evidence-based management?Academy of Management Perspectives23(4): 19–32.
60.
RodriguezSBCollinsonDL (1995) ‘Having fun’?: Humour and resistance in Brazil. Organization Studies16(5): 739–768.
61.
SandbergJTsoukasH (2011) Grasping the logic of practice: Theorizing through practical rationality. Academy of Management Review36(2): 338–360.
62.
SchatzkiTR (2005) Peripheral vision: The sites of organization. Organization Studies26(3): 465–484.
63.
ShillingC (2007) Sociology and the body: Classical traditions and new agendas (The Sociological Review). In: ShillingC (ed.) Embodying Sociology: Retrospect, Progress and Prospects. Oxford: Blackwell, 1–18.
64.
SieversB (2007) Pictures from below the surface of the university: The social photo-matrix as a method for understanding organizations in depth. In: ReynoldsMVinceR (eds) The Handbook of Experiential Learning and Management Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 241–257.
65.
SlaughterSLeslieLL (2001) Expanding and elaborating the concept of academic capitalism. Organization8(2): 154–161.
66.
SlaughterSRhoadesG (2004) Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State and Higher Education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
67.
StarkeyKTiratsooN (2007) The Business School and the Bottom Line. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
68.
StilesD (1998) Pictorial representation. In: SymonGCassellC (eds) Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research. London: SAGE, 190–210.
69.
StilesD (2004) Pictorial representation. In: CassellCSymonC (eds) Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. London: SAGE, 127–139.
70.
StilesD (2011) Disorganization, disidentification and ideological fragmentation: Verbal and pictorial evidence from a British business school. Culture and Organization17(1): 5–30.
71.
ThriftN (2004) Electric animals: New models of everyday life?Cultural Studies18(2/3): 461–482.
72.
TranfieldDStarkeyK (1998) The nature, social organisation and promotion of management research: Towards policy. British Journal of Management9(4): 207–222.
73.
TurnerBA (1986) Sociological aspects of organizational symbolism. Organization Studies7(2): 101–115.
74.
TurnerBA (1990) Organizational Symbolism. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
75.
VinceR (1995) Emphasizing learning in management research. Management Learning26(1): 55–71.
76.
VinceRBroussineM (1996) Paradox defence and attachment: Accessing and working with emotions and relations underlying organizational change. Organization Studies17(1): 1–21.
77.
WacquantL (2005) Carnal connections: On embodiment, apprenticeship and membership. Qualitative Sociology28(4): 445–474.
78.
WeickK (1979) The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
79.
WengerE (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
80.
WengerE (2000) Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization7(2): 225–246.
81.
WilsonFNutleyS (2003) A critical look at staff appraisal: The case of women in Scottish universities. Gender Work and Organization10(3): 301–319.
82.
WoodsideAG (2008) Using the forced metaphor-elicitation technique (FMET) to meet animal companions within self. Journal of Business Research61: 480–487.
83.
Wray-BlissE (2003) Research subjects/research subjections: The politics and ethics of critical research. Organization10(2): 307–325.
84.
Wright MillsC (1959) The Sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
85.
ZaltmanGCoulterRH (1995) Seeing the voice of the customer: Metaphor-based advertising research. Journal of Advertising Research35(4): 35–51.
86.
ZaltmanL (2008) Comment on ‘Using the Forced Metaphor-Elicitation Technique (FMET) to Meet Animal Companions within Self’. Journal of Business Research61: 488–489.
