Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: AnInternational JournalResearching collective identity through stories and antestoriesTrine Susanne Johansen

Article information:To cite this document:Trine Susanne Johansen , (2014),"Researching collective identity through stories and antestories",Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9 Iss 4 pp. 332 - 350Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/QROM-08-2012-1092

Downloaded on: 04 November 2014, At: 00:19 (PT)References: this document contains references to 53 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 19 times since 2014*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Brett Smith, Andrew C. Sparkes, (2012),"Chapter 4 Narrative Analysis in Sport and PhysicalCulture", Research in the Sociology of Sport, Vol. 6 pp. 79-99 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1476-2854(2012)0000006007Beverly D. Metcalfe, Carol Woodhams, Lesley Patterson, (2008),"Narrative Methods for the HumanSciences20081Catherine Kohler Riessman, . Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. Thousand Oaks,CA: Polity 2008. 251 pp., ISBN: 978#0#7619#2998#7", Gender in Management: An International Journal,Vol. 23 Iss 6 pp. 458-460Marja Flory, Alfonso Sauquet, Matthew A. Hawkins, Fathima Z. Saleem, (2012),"The omnipresent personalnarrative: story formulation and the interplay among narratives", Journal of Organizational ChangeManagement, Vol. 25 Iss 2 pp. 204-219

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 132724 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F A

AR

HU

S A

t 00:

19 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Researching collective identitythrough stories and antestories

Trine Susanne JohansenDepartment of Business Communication, Business and Social Sciences,

Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

AbstractPurpose – Situated in scholarship on narrative and antenarrative, the purpose of this paper is todevelop central assumptions of an (ante)narrative approach to collective identity research and toreflexively address the methodological questions such an approach raises for producing and analysing(ante)stories. (Ante)stories include proper stories with chronology and plot as well as antestories whichare fragmented and incomplete.Design/methodology/approach – Based on a concrete research project exploring collective identityas narratively constructed in negotiation between organizational insiders and outsiders, emphasis isplaced on elements related to the production and analysis of (ante)stories. Challenges of the applied(ante)narrative methodology are addressed focusing on three central questions: where do (ante)storiescome from? Whose (ante)stories are told? And whose storied constructions of collective identity areexplored?Findings – The (ante)narrative methodology allows for a broad approach to producing and analysing(ante)stories. Consequently, it provides a rich understanding of the narrative practice of constructingcollective identity. However, it also raises questions relating to the role of the researcher in the analyticprocess.Research limitations/implications – Implications include the necessity of developing analyticmethods that take the fragmented, incoherent and dynamic nature of storytelling into account aswell as reflect the researcher as a co-teller. Moreover, it is suggested that there is a need for developinga set of alternative evaluation criteria to accompany such methods.Originality/value – To present and reflexively discuss (ante)narrative as a research methodologywithin collective identity research.Keywords Reflexivity, Collective identity, (Ante)narrative methodology and methods, Stories,Antestories, AntenarrativePaper type Research paper

IntroductionOrganizations, identity and narrative are often addressed in unison in that organizationsare storytellers with storied identities. Narrative is thus recognized as a theoretical lens forconceptualizing the collective identity of organizations (cf. Boje, 1991, 1995; Czarniawska,1997; Brown et al., 2005; Rhodes and Brown, 2005; Brown, 2006; Herrmann, 2011).Moreover, stories and storytelling have long been considered valid and informativeempirical material within organizational research (Boje, 1991, 1995; Boyce, 1996;Czarniawska, 1998; Gabriel, 2000; Hyde, 2008) where scholars have developed and appliedanalytic approaches inspired by narratology (Czarniawska, 1997; Søderberg, 2006). Hatch(1996) suggests that organizational scholarship has made use of narratives since the early1980s while Rhodes and Brown (2005) date the initial use of narrative methods in thefield to the 1970s. Consequently, this paper is located within existing traditions wherenarrative infuses research in and about organizations (cf. Boje et al., 2001 for an overview).

To view organizations in narrative terms suggests scholars to explore the storiestold in and of organizations (e.g. Czarniawska, 1997; Brown, 2006). However, not allstories take complete narrative forms, i.e. contain characters, plot and chronology as

Qualitative Research in Organizationsand Management: An InternationalJournalVol. 9 No. 4, 2014pp. 332-350© Emerald Group Publishing Limited1746-5648DOI 10.1108/QROM-08-2012-1092

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/1746-5648.htm

332

QROM9,4

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F A

AR

HU

S A

t 00:

19 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

defined by, e.g. Czarniawska (1997) and Gabriel (2000)[1]. Some stories are antenarrative.Antenarrative refers to incomplete stories and recognizes that collective identity notsolely is constituted in complete or proper stories. Instead, it also emerges from tellingswhere several components, e.g. plot and chronology, are absent (Boje, 2001). The conceptof (ante)narrative encompasses complete stories as well as incomplete and fragmentedstories, i.e. antestories. Placing “ante” in parentheses signifies that both complete stories,with beginnings, middles and endsand story fragments are considered relevant forexploring collective identity. In line with the contention that narrative informs theoretical,methodological and analytical aspects of scholarship (Rhodes and Brown, 2005),(ante)narrative is: a research approach with embedded ontological, epistemological andmethodological assumptions a framework for conceptualizing collective identity anda method for producing and processing collective identity stories. Theoretically,methodologically and analytically, (ante)narrative is applied as an encompassingapproach in order to capture as many storytelling facets as possible by not restrictingthe researcher’s view to either complete or incomplete stories.

Nested in scholarship on organization, identity, narrative and antenarrative, thispaper addresses implications of working with (ante)stories as empirical material whenresearching collective identity. The discussion draws on an already completed researchproject. The project constructs an (ante)narrative vocabulary for the articulationof collective identity and addresses its implications in relation to identity analysisfrom within a social constructionist perspective. The dual purpose of the paper is:to articulate the central methodological assumptions of an (ante)narrative approach tocollective identity and to address the questions they raise for producing and analysingempirical material. Such questioning is important as an analytic process is highlyreflexive (Mauthner and Doucet, 2003; Srivastava and Hopwood, 2009). Embeddedin discussions on reflexivity and qualitative research within organizational studies (e.g.Chia, 1996; Cunliffe, 2003; Johnson and Duberley, 2003; Tomkins and Eatough, 2010),the present contribution addresses reflexivity in relation to (ante)narrative researchby highlighting challenges faced by the researcher in producing and analysing (ante)stories from within this vantage point as identified in a single research project.Reflexivity is thus seen as “research that turns back upon and takes account of itself”(Alvesson et al., 2008, p. 480). The goal is to reflect on the choices made during theanalytic process in order to address potentials for improvement. This suggests that“reflexivity is not primarily an end in itself. But a means to improve research in someway” (Alvesson et al., 2008, p. 495).

First, I outline the research project in question emphasizing elements related to theproduction and analysis of (ante)stories in response to the first purpose of the paper.In so doing, I identify potential challenges of the applied methods. The identifiedchallenges relate to three central questions: where do (ante)stories come from?Whose (ante)stories are told? And whose storied constructions of collective identityare explored? Second, these questions are addressed through reflexive discussions inresponse to the paper’s second purpose. Finally, I address research implications relatedto (ante)narrative methodology and methods within collective identity research andpoint to areas that may be improved.

The research projectThe research project approaches corporate identity from a narrative vantage pointin order to (re)address the interplay between identity and communication within a

333

Collectiveidentity through

stories andantestories

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F A

AR

HU

S A

t 00:

19 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

corporate communication context. The main question of interest is: which implicationsfollow from (re)conceptualizing corporate identity within a narrative framework inrelation to how organizations view, work with and story themselves? In other words:what vocabulary and practices are made available to organizations when communicationis viewed as narrative constructions of identity rather than as a means of expressingidentity? The questions are formulated with reference to social constructionism whichdoes not apply theory in a logic-empirical sense, but begins with establishing a lenson a section of social reality by expanding or exploring an number of central constructsas focal points (Esmark et al., 2005). Here, the research interest lies in exploring theconsequences of introducing narrative as a lens for understanding corporate identity.The notion that theory is a lens is also reflected in the adaptation of the term“vocabulary” which, in this context, is a special lens that produces and imparts aparticular kind of knowledge (Alvesson and Kärreman, 2005).

Corporate identity is addressed in light of narrative perspectives within organizationalidentity research. Consequently, it is recognized that two conceptualizations of collectiveidentity exist: organizational and corporate identity (cf. e.g. Schultz and Hatch, 2000).While the two exist as independent concepts and areas of scholarship, considerableconceptual conversion – manifested as definitional overlaps – can be identified.Traditionally, organizational identity is understood as organizational members’understanding of what is central, enduring and distinctive about an organization(Albert and Whetten, 1985), while corporate identity is the presentation orrepresentation of this understanding to those standing outside the organization(Alessandri, 2001). However, definitions of corporate identity increasingly seek toincorporate organizational members’ perceptions (Van Riel and Balmer, 1997) whiledefinitions of organizational identity expand to incorporate organizational outsiders’perceptions (Coupland and Brown, 2004; Brown et al., 2005). The term “collectiveidentity”, applied here, refers to the identity of an organization as an abstraction(Brown, 2006) and embraces both organizational and corporate identity.

An (ante)narrative collective identity vocabularyAn (ante)narrative vocabulary is developed with reference to previous scholarship onnarrative as constitutive of organizations and organizational identity. (Ante)narrativeconceptually merges narrative and antenarrative. Consequently, emphasis issimultaneously given to complete stories and story aspirations. The (ante)narrativevocabulary thus recognizes that at times collective identity constructing tellings arecomplete, lengthy and elaborate stories, e.g. those articulated as corporate historieswith beginning, middles and ends and at other times they are incomplete, e.g.embedded in brief comments or remarks – so-called terse tellings (Boje, 2001) orcollapsed stories (Hyde, 2008).

The vocabulary draws its primary inspiration from Czarniawska (1997), Boje (1991,1995), Brown (2006) and Brown et al. (2005). These scholars respectively vieworganizations as autobiographical acts (Czarniawska), storytellers (Boje) and narrativenetworks (Brown and Brown, et al.). The three perspectives hold differing metatheoreticaland theoretical assumptions. Metatheoretically, they are eclectic. The first is centredon social constructionist and postmodern premises, the second on postmodern andpoststructuralist premises and the third on poststructuralist and critical premises.All recognize the narrative turn: a belief that narrative constitutes or constructs ourworld and phenomena in it (e.g. Pinnegar and Daynes, 2007) and suggests that

334

QROM9,4

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F A

AR

HU

S A

t 00:

19 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

individuals make sense of the world through stories as expressed in the notions of“homo narrans” (Fisher, 1984) and “homo fabulans” (Brown, 2006). Theoretically, theperspectives differ as Czarniawska primarily draws inspiration from literary studies –i.e. narratology – while Boje (1991, 1995), Brown (2006) and Brown et al. (2005) draw ondiscourse studies. However, the perspectives share several characteristics whichbecome the foundation of the (ante)narrative collective identity vocabulary; namely,anti-essentialism, dynamics, polyphony/plurivocality, complexity and contextuality.Anti-essentialism suggests that identity is not intrinsic to an organization butconstructed in collaborative practices and processes of narration. It is thus dynamicas it changes continuously with its tellings. Such tellings are told in (ante)storiesby multiple tellers making identity polyphonic and plurivocal. The many voicesresult in many tellings and identity complexity. In addition, these tellingsare embedded in concrete situations where (ante)stories are told and in widerhistorical, social and cultural discourses pointing to the contextual situatedness oforganizations.

The (ante)narrative vocabulary forms the background for defining collectiveidentity as a narrative construct constituted in continuous social interaction throughdifferent – at times conflicting – stories and story fragments where both organizationalinsiders and outsiders simultaneously participate as tellers and listeners drawingon existing (ante)stories of the organization as well as on (ante)stories of its societal,cultural and historical context. The terms organizational insiders and outsiders areborrowed from Coupland and Brown’s (2004) contention that collective identityis “authored in conversations between notional ‘insiders’ and notional ‘outsiders’”(p. 1325). “Notional” implies that the categories of insider and outsider are conceptualconstructs created for the purpose of study rather than clearly demarcated physicalcategories. In addition to highlighting the (ante)narrative construction of collectiveidentity, the definition takes into account the social dimension of identity includinghow (ante)stories are enabled and constrained by social circumstances and resourcesavailable to their tellers.

From (ante)narrative conceptualization to (ante)narrative analysisHaving developed a theoretical framework in the form of an (ante)narrative vocabularyand definition of collective identity, focus turns to the implications of applying suchframework when exploring collective identity. The implications are explored withreference to a single organization: the Danish/Swedish dairy cooperative Arla Foods(cf. www.arlafoods.com). Arla Foods is chosen as the empirical focal point due to itsextreme nature which, according to Eisenhardt (1989), is preferable as the selectionof an extreme case is expected to make the theoretical implications of the study moreevident. In this context, it implies that the organization must in some way be challengedby its environment as collective identity becomes a more salient issue in timesof organizational crisis or distress (Cheney and Christensen, 2001). This applies toArla Foods whose self-storying has continuously been challenged by multiple counter-stories – i.e. stories that contradict, parody or counteract self-stories (Christensen et al.,2008) – revolving around the cooperative’s business and marketing practices in itsDanish home market (cf. e.g. Holmström et al., 2009).

The complexity of the many different (ante)stories applied in constructing thecollective identity of the cooperative is explored by way of the multiple themesincorporated into the telling of the organization. The (ante)stories of interest are those

335

Collectiveidentity through

stories andantestories

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F A

AR

HU

S A

t 00:

19 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

told in encounters between organizational insiders and outsiders since a centralpremise of the (ante)narrative understanding is that collective identity is negotiatedamongst members and non-members of an organization (cf. Coupland and Brown,2004). Brown (2006) suggests that identity-relevant stories are found e.g. in oralarticulations (conversations and speeches) and electronic media (web sites and e-mails).Given the size of Arla Foods, potential (ante)stories are many, perhaps uncountable.Consequently, there is a need to establish additional premises for the production ofempirical material. Initially, the study is framed in a Danish context. Subsequently,preliminary interviews and observations are carried out in the organization to identityfruitful encounters for the study leading to a focus on consumer dialogue. Consumerdialogue is handled through weblogs, e-mail correspondences, telephone conversationsand letters. In addition, it is orchestrated in three visiting dairies[2]. Dairy visits areselected as the main empirical material as they provide the opportunity to explore(ante)stories constructed in insider-outsider interactions, i.e. allow for observingstorytelling in situ (Gabriel, 2000). At a later stage in the analytic process, e-mail andweblog correspondences are incorporated. However, presently focus is given to themain analysis focused on the visits.

Arla Foods operates approximately 25 dairies in Denmark all of which are highlyspecialized within their individual product category. Three dairies furthermorefunction as visiting centres giving members of the Danish public an opportunityto gain insight into dairy production and learn more about the cooperative. At the timewhen the empirical material is produced (February-April 2009), the centres haveapproximately 20,000 yearly visitors and 13 employees. Each centre has a coordinatoras well as a number of hosts with different areas of expertise and backgrounds,e.g. nutritionist, former dairy engineer and former cooperative farmer. In addition, thecentres draw on the expertise of employees from other parts of the organization, e.g.marketing, branding or corporate strategy. Visitors are divided into differentgroupings including children, students, adults and seniors. The latter three groups areincluded in the study. Children are excluded, based on explorative observations, astheir knowledge of the organization is limited. Besides the exclusion of children,diversity in the observation material is sought in terms of visiting groups (students,adults and seniors) visiting themes (agreed on by the host and the visitors before thevisit, e.g. marketing, production or cooperative history) and visiting hosts (as manyhosts as possible are observed). Encounters between hosts and visitors are observed attwo of the three dairies during 14 visits[3].

Subsequently, an analytic strategy is developed in order to highlight the(ante)narrative complexity of collective identity construction. An analytic strategy is astrategy for the descriptions and observations the researcher makes regarding his orher own and thereby others’ observations (Esmark et al., 2005). The strategy is referredto as thematic (ante)story network analysis as it seeks to construct a network depictingthe themes utilized in the (ante)stories told by organizational insiders and outsidersduring the observed dairy visits. The strategy is based on three central premisesinspired by the scholarship of Boje and his notions of antenarrative analysis ( Boje,2001) and stories-in-context ( Boje, 1998):

(1) (ante)stories are to be understood within the context in which they are toldresulting in a focus on storytelling episodes (existing in time and space);

(2) (ante)stories are dynamic and changing resulting in a focus on storytelling orstory performances (rather than stories per se); and

336

QROM9,4

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F A

AR

HU

S A

t 00:

19 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

(3) (ante)stories are intertextually linked resulting in a focus on (ante)storycollages or networks (rather than individual stories).

While the analytic strategy draws on an antanarrative understanding, it differsfrom antenarrative analysis by not privileging fragmented, terse tellings. The(ante)narrative strategy views (ante)stories as dynamic entities that change in subtle orradical ways as their tellers are exposed to new stories. As argued by Brown et al. (2005,p. 314), stories are constantly “in the process of being accomplished – assembled,disassembled, refined, elaborate, and embellished”. The dynamic nature of storiessuggests not looking for clearly delimited stories with beginnings, middles and ends,but rather focusing on storytelling episodes, demarcated by time and space, where thetelling and re-telling of stories can be studied ( Boje, 1991; Boje and Durrant, 2006;Christensen, 2004). The unit of analysis is defined as story performances, i.e. specificversions of a story that occur within storytelling episodes. A story performancereferences, recounts, interprets or challenges an experience (Boje, 1991).

(Ante)narrative thematic network analysis has four stages:(1) transcribing the audio recordings made during dairy visits;(2) coding and categorizing themes;(3) constructing the thematic network; and(4) exploring thematic interconnectivity.

Having transcribed the recordings and coded the story performances, these arecategorized based on the themes they articulate. A theme “captures somethingimportant about the data in relation to the research question, and represents some levelof patterned response or meaning within the data set” ( Braun and Clarke, 2006, p. 82).Themes reference actors, issues or events ( Braun and Clarke, 2006) and are constructedwith reference to recurrence, repetition and forcefulness (Owen, 1984). Recurrence ispresent with “the same thread of meaning, even though different wording indicatedsuch meaning” (Owen, 1984, p. 275). Repetition is “explicit repeated use of the samewording” (Owen, 1984). And forcefulness refers “to the vocal infliction, volume, ordramatic pauses which serve to stress and subordinate some other locations in theoral reports” (Owen, 1984). Themes are then checked against the individual storyperformances coded within each thematic category and are refined based on twocriteria: that they are “specific enough to be discrete (non-repetitive)” and that they are“broad enough to encapsulate a set of ideas contained in numerous text segments”(Attride-Stirling, 2001, p. 392). Once the themes have been constructed, the next step isto explore how the themes are connected. Connectivity is understood as one themereferencing another (or others) within a story performance. Exploring thematicconnectivity allows the construction of an (ante)narrative thematic network whichhighlights the complexity and connectedness of collective identity storying. Below themain analytic findings are sketched out. As the findings are presented, questions ofreflexivity are highlighted. These reflexive questions lay the ground for a subsequentdiscussion on challenges faced by the researcher. Reflexivity is rooted in the researcher’s“epistemological and ontological commitments” ( Johnson and Duberley, 2003, p. 1294).The questions are therefore framed within the social constructionist approach thatoriginally grounded the research project. A constructionist take on reflexivity suggestsresearchers to: “focus on our ways of being and acting in the world, how we make senseof our experiences, and therefore call for narrative circularity – tracing the situated andpartial nature of our accounts” (Cunliffe, 2003, pp. 989-990).

337

Collectiveidentity through

stories andantestories

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F A

AR

HU

S A

t 00:

19 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Analytic findingsThe analysis produces three main findings regarding the storying of Arla Foods’scollective identity during dairy visits:

(1) a multiplicity of themes are applied and interwoven in intertextual webs;

(2) a contextual frame is often provided or implied by the individual themes; and

(3) an asymmetrical relationship exists between organizational insiders andoutsiders’ narrative practices.

The analysis produces 23 themes related to different actors (e.g. visiting centres,dairies, consumers and farmers), events (e.g. the Mohammed cartoon crisis and otherkey historic incidents experienced by the organization) and issues (e.g. sugar contents,product quality and nutrition). The themes reference each other in a complex, intertextualweb (see Figure 1).

The intertextuality of themes is seen in the following story performance given by ahost introducing the visiting dairy at Taulov:

(a) We have three locations within Arla Foods where we show off our company. And that is, asmentioned, here at Taulov, and then it is at Slagelse, where we draw off milk for consumption.And with regards to that I can tell you that we draw milk for consumption in Slagelse, and inHobro and now we also do it at Hirtshals and then we do it down by Christiansfeld. Those fourlocations are where we draw milk for consumption. And my guess is that we draw app. 90% ofthe Danish milk for consumption which is drunk during 24 hours, during the year. This is thenicest facility of the three. The third facility we show off is in Brabrand by Århus where wemake most of our cultured milk products. The two facilities, Slagelse and Brabrand, they are notreally built for hosting visitors but there are also visiting centres, like this one, but there youmust go out and climb up stairs and such, but this, this is located within the building, whichI will tell you about in a little while, which was built in 1998 to 99, but here the entire visitingroute is incorporated. So I tell you: you are visiting in nice surroundings.

The themes articulated here include the visiting centres (the references to the facilitieslocated at the cities of Taulov, Slagelse and Brabrand), dairies and dairy production(the references to different dairies), organization and specialization (the reference todifferent production foci at the different facilities) as well as monopoly and companysize (the reference to market share). The main theme is the visiting dairy at Taulovmentioned both at the beginning and the end of the performance. However, the hostincorporates additional themes in his performance. Performance (a) has been chosen toexemplify how the researcher, in this particular performance, identifies themes andhow thematic intertextuality is understood.

The analysis moreover reveals that the themes not only reference each other as inperformance (a), but also often include references to the historical, societal or culturalcontexts of the organization and the tellers. One such re-occurring reference is thehistorical development of the Danish cooperative dairy movement: from many, smalland local cooperatives to one, big and global cooperative (Arla Foods). Here theevolution of the cooperative movement and the development of the organization isintertwined in a single performance by a host:

(b) A few words about Arla Foods. It is a Danish/Swedish cooperative. MejeriselskabetDanmark, which it was called from the beginning, 1970, was four dairy companies and somesmall dairies that joined up to form what was named Mejeriselskabet Danmark. But thecooperative idea dates all the way back to 1882, where 26 farmers sat down at Ølgod, down byVarde, and talked: how shall we distribute our milk and how can we improve quality. Some

338

QROM9,4

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F A

AR

HU

S A

t 00:

19 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

EM

PLO

YE

ER

ELA

TIO

NS

&E

XP

ER

IEN

CE

CO

NS

UM

ER

RE

LAT

ION

S &

EX

PE

RIE

NC

E

HE

ALT

H &

NU

TR

ITIO

N

FAR

ME

R R

ELA

TIO

NS

&E

XP

ER

IEN

CE M

ON

OP

OLY

&C

OM

PAN

Y S

IZE

CU

STO

ME

RR

ELA

TIO

NS

QU

ALI

TY

CO

MPA

NY

FIN

AN

CE

S

OR

GA

NIC

S &

SU

STA

INA

BIL

ITY

ST

RAT

EG

Y, B

RA

ND

ING

,M

AR

KE

TIN

G &

CO

MM

UN

ICAT

ION

INN

OV

ATIO

N &

PR

OD

UC

TD

EV

ELO

PM

EN

T

SU

GA

RC

ON

TE

NT

S

CO

MP

ET

ITO

RR

ELA

TIO

NS

ME

DIA

RE

LAT

ION

S

MO

HA

MM

ED

CR

ISIS

CO

MPA

NY

HIS

TOR

Y PR

OD

UC

TS

MIL

KP

RIC

E

GLO

BA

LIS

ATIO

N&

FO

RE

IGN

MA

RK

ET

S

AR

LA F

OR

UX

DA

IRIE

S &

DA

IRY

PR

OD

UC

TIO

N

OR

GA

NIS

ATIO

N &

SP

EC

IALI

SAT

ION

VIS

ITIN

GC

EN

TR

ES

Figure 1.Thematic (ante)story

network

339

Collectiveidentity through

stories andantestories

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F A

AR

HU

S A

t 00:

19 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

had good quality, some had less good quality and some had too much milk, and others hadless milk. So they decided to build a dairy and have specialists run it. And that becameHjedding dairy, established in 1882. And today it is still there as a museum. Not far fromHjedding is a dairy called Tistrup, and Tistrup’s office building is actually nearly as old. Thatwas the next dairy to be build, but it still exists because it has undergone a lot ofmodernisation, and it has been expanded, but that was what was there all the way back in1882. But in 1970 what was known as Mejeriselskabet Danmark was established, and thatwas with the vision to collect all milk in one milk can. Well, luckily one might say, that neverhappened, because there are many other besides Mejeriselskabet Danmark. In time,eventually more joined, became part of Mejeriselskabet Danmark, either through mergers orthrough acquisitions and something. And eventually they also became international invarious markets. Mejeriselskabet Danmark […] it was not easy to say in all languages.And eventually it became so that at our production facilities, we just said MD. […] Then in2000, we merged with Swedish Arla, […] then we asked our daughter companies, our salesoffices around the world: what is most suited for different languages? And that was Arla […]

Here the organization’s identity (its beginning as Mejeriselskabet Danmark anddevelopment in to Arla Foods) is explicitly associated with the dairy movements’identity (situating Arla Foods in relation to the start of the cooperative movement).The performance also references the global presence of the company which is anotherfrequent theme as illustrated here:

(c) […] we are a global company which incidentally are based in Denmark/Sweden.In principle we might as well be located anywhere. But incidentally we are located here inDenmark and in Sweden. But we are global because we, more or less, are all over the world[…] whether you are in finance or innovation or marketing, we are constantly trying to take aglobal perspective on things. It does not work in our company to just think local. We have todo that as well. But when we think, we have to think globally, we really have to think all theway up here in the helicopter[4].

In this performance, the global Arla Foods is presented in contrast to a locally anchoredcooperative rooted in the Danish cooperative movement (cf. (b)). Consequently, thecooperative movement is both supporting and restricting the organization. The globaltheme is mirrored in the view that Arla Foods is just one of several large, internationaldiary companies – as one host comments:

(d) […] Nestlé. And Danone. And Lactalis. Well, they are really big. Well, I wouldn’t exactlysay that we’re a sweetshop, because we’re not. But they are really, really big. As it looks rightnow, we’re the eight largest dairy in the world.

Outsiders, on the other hand, situate the organization in a local – i.e. Danish – contextwhere Arla Foods is said to have a de facto monopoly:

(e) Most consumers of course know that there is something called Thise and other smalldairies but it is also the perception that they hold such small market shares that Arla in realityis alone on the market.

The size of the organization is thus a complex issue linked to how story performersarticulate its context. Performances are thus located in wider societal narratives: thesize of the company is contextually linked with the history of the cooperative dairymovement (b), the global dairy market (c/d) and the local Danish dairy market (e).The examples illustrate the complexity of identity construction as a narrative practiceas well as the complex decisions involved in the analytic process in relation tothe thematic labelling of performances. The illustration thereby points to reflexive

340

QROM9,4

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F A

AR

HU

S A

t 00:

19 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

questioning of when or where the themes emerge: are they inherent in the empiricalmaterial or are they constructed in the analytic process? In short, where do (ante)storiescome from?

An asymmetrical relationship between insiders and outsiders arises as the formertend to offer elaborate stories (e.g. (a) and (b)) whereas the latter mainly contributeswith terse tellings. When insiders tell stories about the organization, they do so by wayof proper, often lengthy, stories with plot and chronology. Insider performances oftenhave story fragments embedded in the complete stories as in (a) where the phrase“now we also do it at Hirtshals” is a terse telling that references the, at the time, recenttake-over of Hirtshals cooperative dairy. Insiders make use of complete as well asincomplete stories woven together in intricate story performances. However, whenoutsiders tell the organization, they usually do so solely by way of terse tellings oftenin the form of questions, e.g. (f) “Do you think that the Danish monopoly legislation iseffective enough?” and (g) “[…] have we become too uniform in our production here athome?”. Both questions reference the size of Arla Foods (a big company on a smallmarket). Coding these extracts as terse tellings and categorizing them as related tothe theme of size re-raises the question of who is doing the telling: the observed or theobserver? Whose (ante)stories are being told?

Although outsider performances are terse, they influence collective identityconstruction. During one visit, the host tells an elaborate story relating to environmentalchallenges within the dairy sector. At one point, she remarks that the potential negativeside effects of industrial production “scare us”. This prompts the following question fromone of the visitors (h) “freedom of speech scares you too, right?”. This terse tellingreferences the difficulties encountered by Arla Foods in 2006 where they experienced aboycott in the Middle East as a consequence of the Mohammed cartoons publishedby a major Danish newspaper (cf. Holmström et al., 2009 for a discussion of theboycott). Subsequently, the host diverges from her presentation and focuses onthe boycott, its consequences and resolutions. With the question, the story changes fromthat of a modern, proactive dairy company engaged in addressing environmentalconcerns to that of a victimized company trapped in a political, religious conflict( Johansen, 2012). Thus it highlights the before-mentioned thematic complexity andintertexutality. However, it is possible to question where intertextuality is established: bythe observed or by the observer? And therefore also whose storied identity constructionsare explored and visualized in Figure 1?

As tentatively demonstrated here, the analysis provides insight into the practiceswhereby organizational insiders and outsiders story collective identity allowing theresearcher to highlight certain features of identity construction in practice. However,as the questions articulated above suggests, it carries certain challenges pointing to theimportance of reflexivity in the analytic process.

Challenges within (ante)narrative analysis(Ante)narrative analysis carries a number of challenges as highlighted above. In thefollowing, attention is given to the challenges related to the second and third stages ofthe analysis: the thematic coding and categorization of story performances and theconstruction of the thematic network. In particular, I discuss the three questions raisedabove: where do (ante)stories come from? Whose (ante)stories are told? And whosestoried constructions of collective identity are explored? This discussion explores therole of the researcher in the analytic process and taps in to existing discussions on

341

Collectiveidentity through

stories andantestories

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F A

AR

HU

S A

t 00:

19 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

reflexivity. In particular, the discussion is inspired by Cunliffe’s (2003, p. 985)contention that “we need to recognize our philosophical commitments and enact theinternal logic, while opening them up to critical questioning so that we expose theirsituated nature” and Alvesson et al.’s (2008) suggestion that reflexivity is an instrumentfor improving research practice.

Where do (ante)stories come from?Here focus is placed on the production of (ante)stories during and – in particular-afterfield research. Specifically, emphasis is given to the use of observation. Observingstorytelling practices allows recording of how (ante)stories are told in storytellingepisodes such as a dairy visit. However, the term “observation” implies that (ante)storiesare collected and potentially reduces the researcher to a passive medium representing(ante)stories. (Ante)stories are treated as “if they were artifacts forever petrified inorganizational reality waiting to be ‘discovered’ by a researcher” (Czarniawska, 2000,p. 13). Conversely, it has been argued that the researcher plays an active role in thestory production process. Reissman (2008) thus speaks of constructing – rather thancollecting-narratives for inquiry. Such discussion draws on the idea that “we constructintersubjectively the very objective realities we think we are studying: we are inventors notrepresenters of realities” (Cunliffe, 2003, p. 988). Consequently, it is possible to ask: how isthe researcher involved in the telling of (ante)stories? Where do they come from?

During interviews, the researcher often elicits specific stories taking on the statusof co-teller (Czarniawska, 2004) or fellow-traveller (Gabriel, 2000). By activelyparticipating in the story production, the researcher is, in part, responsible for thestory told: does the same hold true in relation to observing storytelling practices?This question is not posed in relation to the researcher’s influence on the storytellingsituation but in relation to the analytic process[5]. In the analysis, I assign collectionsof words and sentences the status of story performances and themes. Performancesand themes do not reside in the empirical material they are analytically constructed.In line with Reissman (2008), I argue that researchers do not locate stories; theyconstitute them. Stories “do not ‘speak for themselves’” (Reissman, 1993, p. 22).Similarly, themes “do not emerge on their own. They are driven by what the inquirerwants to know and how the inquirer interprets what the data are telling her or himaccording to subscribed theoretical frameworks, subjective perspectives, ontologicaland epistemological positions, and intuitive field understandings” (Srivastava andHopwood, 2009, p. 77). In addition, interpersonal and institutional contexts mayinfluence the analysis (Mauthner and Doucet, 2003). The potential difficulties withidentifying and labelling themes are illustrated in the inclusion of terse tellings, e.g.(a) “now we also do it at Hirtshals” and (h) “freedom of speech scares you to, right?”.Labelling the first as a reference to company size and monopoly and the second asreferencing the Mohammed cartoon crisis, is rooted in the researcher’s prior knowledgeand understanding of organizational context. Had I not had a prior understandingof the debates surrounding these issues, the analytic outcome could be different. As such,the initial question – where do (ante)stories come from can be readdressed as when do(ante)stories come into existence? As a result, attention is given to the process of codingand categorization, i.e. to the identification and naming of themes.

Part of the analysis is to thematically code and categorize story performances fromthe observed dairy visits. In so doing, the active role of the researcher as a co-tellerbecomes visible. One area that poses a potential problem is how to avoid treating

342

QROM9,4

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F A

AR

HU

S A

t 00:

19 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

performances and themes as mere artefacts, i.e. as representations of an embedded,inherent meaning. Stories are, in some instances, treated as artefacts (e.g. Gabriel, 2000)which potentially diminishes their ability to accomplish something, i.e. to constructidentity. In addition, treating themes as artefacts suggests that they exist independentlyof the analysis and thus ignores the active role of the researcher central to the reflexiveturn (Mauthner and Doucet, 2003). The question then becomes how the researcherrecognizes his or her role as an inventor of realities and avoids treating themes asrepresentations of realities.

Focusing on story performances in encounters between individuals constructingcollective identity acknowledges the contextuality of (ante)stories, i.e. that (ante)storiesexist with their telling which is influenced by the storytelling context. However, in theprocess of analysing performances through themes lies a risk of de-contextualization.Consequently, I need to address how to analyse performances in context. Whencategorizing performances according to themes, the performances are processedseparate from their original context. As such, the performances are deconstructed andreconstructed in the network analysis within a new context as defined by the researchproject. However, the original context remains present in the network themes intwo ways. First, themes are influenced by the storytelling situation. As the observedstorytelling practices occur during dairy visits, many performances relate explicitly toproduction, products and quality. Second, themes are influenced by historical, culturaland societal contexts. One example of such influence is the constant referencing of thecooperative’s size related to an industrial history marked by continuous growth andconsolidation that has meant that Arla Foods is the dominant dairy in Denmark (b).The storying of size also reveals a narrative struggle concerning context: Arla Foods’sinsiders seek to address the cooperation within a global context, (c) and (d), whereasoutsiders frame their performances in a local context (e). Again it is possible toask whose context is evoked in performance themes? That of the observed or that of theobserver?

Story performances are labelled, and thus brought into existence, by the researcherduring the analysis. Therefore they do not exist before or outside analysis. Workingwith (ante)stories is then a question of producing themes as a result of analysis.Potentially, such understanding draws into question the notion of “field” stories.The terminology may imply that stories reside in or belong to the field. But if theresearcher defines, identifies, names and thereby gives life to stories, then storiesare analytically produced. Working with performance themes in an (ante)narrativeperspective suggests that they are not the property of the researched, but the propertyof the researcher. Similar to the contextuality of field stories, scientific stories cannot bedetached or decontextualized from the circumstances under which they are produced(Mauthner and Doucet, 2003).

Whose (ante)stories?Asking where (ante)stories come from is closely related to the question of whose(ante)stories are told. Researchers are sometimes encouraged to provide accurate ortruthful retellings in order to explore the intentions, motivations or experiences of thosewe study. Authentic reporting of respondents’ worldviews is encouraged (Daymon andHolloway, 2002). In order to ensure correspondence between (ante)stories recordedand (ante)stories reported, researchers are instructed to return to the field forverification from participants (Daymon and Holloway, 2002; Guba and Lincoln, 1982).

343

Collectiveidentity through

stories andantestories

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F A

AR

HU

S A

t 00:

19 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

We are asked to verify the (ante)stories we re- or co-tell to ensure that we “got it right”.However, as pointed out by, e.g. Järvinen and Mik-Meyer (2005), there are problematicassumptions underlying this approach. It is assumed that the research interest is togain access to the life-worlds of members in the field, and that (ante)stories arereflections of these. But, as suggested by the crisis of representation, narrative isnot a mirror to reality (Alvesson and Kärreman, 2000; Pinnegar and Daynes,2007). Consequently, returning to the field does not necessarily guarantee that the(ante)stories we tell are true. Asking members for verification only producesmore (ante)stories. Moreover, as addressed above, the researcher may be considereda co-teller when it comes to producing (ante)stories. If (ante)stories do not “speak forthemselves” (cf. Reissman, 1993), then the researcher must speak for them. Viewing theresearcher as a co-teller suggests a different research interest than seeking accessto the inner life-worlds or outer realities of those whose storytelling practices we study.It redirects focus towards meaning as manifest in narrative. (Ante)stories are not seenas expressions or reflections of something else. The research interest does not lie inaccessing and understanding the observed, but rather in exploring what they aresaying – and thereby also in the stories they make available to one another ( Järvinenand Mik-Meyer, 2005).

Asking whose (ante)stories are told also points towards a closer examination of theissue of voice. As pointed out by Brown (2006), stories are told from a particular pointof view and based on a changing repertoire of themes. Voice is the background foraddressing the differences in the performances given by organizational insiders andoutsiders. As noted, insiders tell lengthy, complete stories with embedded antestories(e.g. (a)) whereas outsiders engage by way of terse tellings (e.g. (h)). Insider voices thusappear to have a privileged position in storying the organization. Both insiders andoutsiders tell (ante)stories based on their beliefs, knowledge, experiences and expectations.However, the researcher’s beliefs, knowledge, experiences and expectations influence thepresentation and interpretation as well. The research process can be viewed as“a storytelling process in which the researcher’s voice is always present: in the choice oftheoretical and methodological texts, in the co-construction of organizational texts andin the interpretation and representation of these texts” ( Jørgensen, 2010, p. 2). Thus, thechoice of which voices are to be heard lies with the researcher. The researcher gives voiceto others by allowing their articulations to be represented in the research process, e.g. bychoosing to include specific examples like the ones given of story performances in thispaper. As pointed to by Mauthner and Doucet (2003, p. 418), such articulations emerge“through the researcher who makes choices about how to interpret these voices andwhich transcript extracts to present as evidence”. If the researcher is conceptualized asa storyteller (Czarniawska, 2004; Hatch, 1996), then his or hers voice is rewarded aprivileged position compared to other characters of or in the story. The voices of insidersand outsiders are constructed through the voice of the researcher. If story performancethemes emerge in the analytic process influenced by the researcher, what then are theimplications for the identity construction explored through the themes?

Whose storied constructions?The analysis constructs a thematic (ante)story network to highlight the multiple,interrelated themes addressed by outsiders and insiders as they narrate Arla Foods.The network (cf. Figure 1) shows themes applied storying the organization during theobserved dairy visits. The network may thus be viewed as a narrative repertoire orresource for collective identity construction. Nevertheless, it raises the question: who is

344

QROM9,4

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F A

AR

HU

S A

t 00:

19 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

constructing the identity? Whereas the two previous questions address the relationbetween (ante)stories and analysis, the third question considers the outcome of theanalysis, i.e. the knowledge produced in (ante)narrative analysis. Such discussionalso ties in with reflections on what constitutes knowledge as addressed within the“reflexive turn” (cf. e.g. Mauthner and Doucet, 2003).

The network construction highlights my role as researcher in coding storyperformances in the observed encounters, categorizing the themes articulated in theperformances and constructing the intertextual relations between the themes resultingin the network. As mentioned, the researcher runs the danger of turning performancethemes into objectified artefacts. Consequently, working with a thematic network posesan analytic challenge regarding the status and nature of the network. The networkvisualizes a thematic repertoire. But the network is not a mirror image of a narrativereality, i.e. a representation of the evoked themes in the observed storytelling practices.Rather the network is one construction amongst many capturing a fraction of the(ante)stories told in and of the organization. It is limited by time, space and point of view.

Although the network is supported by the themes which are rooted in the originalperformances, it is also a product of the analytic focus of the researcher. The socialworld is, as suggested by Cunliffe (2003, p. 993), “not an object to be discovered andrepresented by dispassionate objective researchers, rather researchers actively constitutereality as they study it – we are constructing what we think an organization is”.Therefore, the network is a snapshot. It visualizes an attempt to depict the fleeting,changing and dynamic (ante)stories which insiders and outsides employ when narratingArla Foods. As Boje reminds us, “the map is not the territory” (2001, p. 64). In otherwords, the network does not mirror the repertoire of (ante)stories that are told in andabout the cooperative. It is not a representation of the organization’s collective identityas an object. From an (ante)narrative vantage point, the value of the snapshot liesin it being just that. The antenarrative perspective emphasizes, amongst other things,the fragmented, non-linear and incoherent aspects of storytelling (Boje, 2001). Viewingthe thematic network as a snapshot is similar to such line of thought. The network,as stated above, is restricted by time, space and point of view. Thus, it is fragmented (as itdoes not offer a holistic, all-encompassing view on the themes applied in constructing theidentity of Arla Foods); non-linear (as it does not entail a chronology nor seeksto establish causal connections between themes) and incoherent (as it does not attempt tocreate one narrative or story that embodies Arla Foods).

ImplicationsMy intention has been to outline and reflect on (ante)narrative methods of producingand analysing empirical material. In doing so, I have articulated the (ante)narrativeposition in relation to its analytic premises and assumptions. The reflexive questionsand issues raised above stem from one particular research project. In what follows,I tentatively reflect upon research implications of the concrete aspects encountered inconnection with the project. The aim is to thus to offer areas of improvement by raisingquestions for discussion (cf. Alvesson et al., 2008).

Carrying out research premised on (ante)narrative methodology entails a series ofbeliefs which, at times, are difficult to respect when producing and analysing (ante)stories. Beliefs which also challenge researcher reflexivity. The beliefs include payingattention to context and intertext as well as to the dynamics of storytelling. Often thereis a risk of analytically “arresting stories” (Boje, 2001). To arrest (ante)stories means to

345

Collectiveidentity through

stories andantestories

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F A

AR

HU

S A

t 00:

19 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

reduce them to a specific story version thereby ignoring their inherent dynamic nature.Arresting (ante)stories may be considered as a natural or inevitable result of analysiswhere performances are reduced to texts which can be de- and re-constructed usingdifferent analytical tools. However, analytic methods may be developed which betterembrace storytelling dynamics. Working with themes and networks may not reflect theprocess that storytelling entails or its continuous evolution as (ante)stories develop,change or are replaced with new (ante)stories – perhaps only to resurface later.Analysis entails an inherent need to objectify (ante)stories and so the question ishow may analysis be open-ended? How may the outcome of an analysis reflect thefragmented, incoherent and dynamic (i.e. antenarrative) nature of the phenomenon ofanalysis? And how may the analysis reflect the active roles of the researcher as well asthe reader of (ante)narrative research?

(Ante)narrative methods emphasize the role of the researcher. Rather than a mediumfor conveying (ante)stories, the researcher is a privileged co-teller. Even though theresearcher long has been acknowledge as such (cf. e.g. Hatch, 1996), methods that betteraddress or account for the researcher as a co-teller is needed. Stating that the researcheris a co-teller is not the same as designing an analytic strategy that takes it into account.Reflexivity is already addressed as inherent to narrative research (Rhodes and Brown,2005; Boyce, 1996). However, reflexivity need not only be addressed or incorporatedbefore and after the analytic process, it also needs to be accounted for duringthe analytic process. As pointed out by Srivastava and Hopwood (2009, p. 78), suchaccounts are made difficult, as it is far from easy to “effectively communicating highlyabstract processes”. In addition, Mauthner and Doucet (2003) point to the limits ofreflexivity during the actual research process and highlight how time, distance anddetachment from one’s own work may allow for heightened reflexivity. Nevertheless,they suggest that reflexivity is possible, i.e. by researchers being more explicit aboutepistemological and ontological concepts as they develop and apply methods.Consequently, it is possible to ask: how can analytic strategies be developed thatexplicitly take the researcher into account?

Finally, (ante)narrative holds implications for our understanding of the outcome ofthe research process. What if research is antenarrative, i.e. unfinished and fragmented?Conclusions usually provide answers to questions asked at the outset of a researchproject. But the answers produced in relation to (ante)story research depend uponmultiple decisions made by the researcher. Among these decisions are those oftheoretical perspective as well as methodology. As suggested by Esmark et al. (2005),social constructionism – the underlying perspective for the (ante)narrative approach –does not apply theory in a logic-empirical sense. Instead, it begins by establishing acertain lens on a section of social reality by expanding or exploring a number of centralconstructs of the forthcoming analysis. As a consequence, the outcome of a socialconstructionist inspired analysis is a kind of recapitulation on the conceptualconstruction (Esmark et al., 2005). In relation to my study of the storied construction ofArla Foods’s collective identity, the (ante)narrative vocabulary has methodologicalimplications resulting in a particular approach to the production and processing of(ante)stories which also has implications for the criteria used when evaluating research.Narrative research traditions often subscribe to evaluation criteria such as narrativerationality (Czarniawska, 1997) based on the dual principle of narrative probability(a story’s coherence) and narrative fidelity (a story’s truthfulness) (Fisher, 1987).Alternatively, narrative researchers may apply naturalist inspired criteria, e.g.authenticity and trustworthiness (Daymon and Holloway, 2002). But neither narrative

346

QROM9,4

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F A

AR

HU

S A

t 00:

19 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

nor naturalistic principles do necessarily translate to the (ante)narrative approach wherethe finished research text is open to multiple readings (cf. Putnam, 1996). A research textis “polyphonic, plural, dialogical, unfinished and unresolved” ( Jørgensen, 2010, p. 9).Thus, the final question is: how can the criteria applied when evaluating analyticoutcomes take into account the central premises of an (ante)narrative approach?

ConclusionHaving addressed potential challenges of taking an (ante)narrative view in relation tooffering definite conclusions, I end by offering a few closing remarks. My goal is to raisequestions that hopefully can inspire discussion and debate. Key questions forconsideration within an (ante)narrative approach to studying collective identity include:how can the analytic process be constructed to better reflect the active role of theresearcher as participating in (ante)story creation? How do researchers go about storyingother’s (ante)stories? Howmay voice be given to those who perform the (ante)stories? Howmay we approach the telling of others’ tellings? And how may researchers work with(ante)stories as co-productions involving themselves and the field in joint meaningcreation? Overall, the questions raised points to the importance of reflexivity. In addition,the questions call for further development of analytical tools that allow the researcher tohighlight the dynamics, intertextuality and contextuality of storytelling practices whilesimultaneously reflecting on his or her own influence on such practices. The argument isthat the demand and need for reflexivity require further development of the tools of thetrade as well as a renewed discussion of the criteria used to evaluate research.

Notes1. While acknowledging that useful distinctions often can be made (cf. e.g. Czarniawska, 1997;

Gabriel, 2000; Boje, 2001), no distinction is made between narrative and story.

2. Since then Arla Foods has significantly expanded its web activities to include social media,e.g. Facebook and Twitter. Moreover, the cooperative has reduced the emphasis andresources allocated to the visiting dairies.

3. At the time when the empirical material is collected, the third visiting dairy was undergoingre-construction and hosted very few visits.

4. All examples have been translated from Danish transcripts of the observations. The translationsreflect as much of the original text as possible while making allowances for linguistic andsemantic differences. The coding, categorization and analysis that form the basis for thisdiscussion were carried out based on the original Danish transcriptions.

5. In relation to the potential influence of the researcher during the storytelling episodes,I recognize that my mere presence during the dairy visits in question may have impacted thestory performances. My role and interest were made explicit to dairy visitors at every visit.In addition, the visitors were informed that the visits were audio recorded and for what purpose.My presence led to different responses from the visitors. Whereas some directly acknowledgeme by asking questions or directing comments at me, others seemingly ignored me.

ReferencesAlbert, S. and Whetten, D.A. (1985), “Organizational identity”, in Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M.

(Eds), Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 7, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 263-295.

Alessandri, S.W. (2001), “Modelling corporate identity: a concept explication and theoreticalexplication”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 173-182.

347

Collectiveidentity through

stories andantestories

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F A

AR

HU

S A

t 00:

19 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Alvesson, M. and Kärreman, D. (2000), “Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research.challenges, responses, consequences”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 36 No. 2,pp. 136-158.

Alvesson, M. and Kärreman, D. (2005), “At arbejde med mysterier og sammenbrud: empiriskmateriale som kritisk samtalepartner i teoriudvikling” (working with mysteries andcollapses: empirical material as a critical conversational partner in theory development)”, inMik-Meyer, N. and Järvinen, M. (Eds), Kvalitative Metoder i et Interaktionistisk Perspektiv.Interview, Observationer og Dokumenter (Qualitative Methods in an InteractionistPerspective. Interview, Observations and Documents), Hans Reitzels Forlag, Copenhagen,pp. 121-144.

Alvesson, M., Hardy, C. and Harley, B. (2008), “Reflecting on reflexivity: reflexive textualpractices in organization and management theory”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 45No. 3, pp. 480-501.

Attride-Stirling, J. (2001), “Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research”,Qualitative Research, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 285-405.

Boje, D.M. (1991), “The storytelling organization: a study of storytelling performances in an officesupply firm”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 106-126.

Boje, D.M. (1995), “Stories of the storytelling organization: a postmodern analysis of Disney as‘Tamara-land’ ”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 997-1035.

Boje, D.M. (1998), “The postmodern turn from stories-as-objects to stories-in-context methods”,Research Methods Forum, Vol. 3, available at: http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/measures.html

Boje, D.M. (2001), Narrative Methods for Organizational and Communication Research,Sage Publications, London.

Boje, D.M. and Durrant, R. (2006), “Free stories!”, Tamara: Journal of Critical PostmodernOrganization Science, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 19-37.

Boje, D.M., Alverez, R. and Schooling, B. (2001), “Reclaiming story in organization: narratologiesand actions sciences”, inWestwood, R. and Linstead, S. (Eds),The Language of Organization,Sage Publications, London, pp. 132-175.

Boyce, M.E. (1996), “Organizational story and storytelling: a critical review”, Journal ofOrganizational Change Management, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 5-26.

Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006), “Using thematic analysis in psychology”, Qualitative Research inPsychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 77-101.

Brown, A.D. (2006), “A narrative approach to collective identities”, Journal of ManagementStudies, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 731-753.

Brown, A.D., Humphreys, M. and Gurney, P.M. (2005), “Narrative, identity and change: a casestudy of Laskarina holidays”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 18 No. 4,pp. 312-326.

Cheney, G. and Christensen, L.T. (2001), “Organizational identity. Linkages between internaland external communication”, in Jablin, F.M. and Putnam, L.L. (Eds),The New Handbook ofOrganizational Communication. Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods, SagePublications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 231-269.

Chia, R. (1996), “The problem of reflexivity in organizational research: towards a postmodernscience of organization”, Organization, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 31-59.

Christensen, E. (2004), “ ‘Og det kaldte vi populært for skunk work’: et kontekstuelt perspektiv påhistoriefortælling (‘And that we refered to as skunk work’: a contextual perspective onstorytelling)”, in Kjærbeck, S. (Ed.), Historiefortælling i Praktisk Kommunikation(Storytelling in Practical Communication), Roskilde Universitetsforlag, Frederiksberg,pp. 113-139.

348

QROM9,4

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F A

AR

HU

S A

t 00:

19 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Christensen, L.T., Morsing, M. and Cheney, G. (2008), Corporate Communications. Convention,Complexity, and Critique, Sage Publications, London.

Coupland, C. and Brown, A.D. (2004), “Constructing organizational identities and the web: a casestudy of royal Dutch/shell”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 1325-1347.

Cunliffe, A.L. (2003), “Reflexive inquiry in organizational research: questions and possibilities”,Human Relations, Vol. 56 No. 8, pp. 983-1003.

Czarniawska, B. (1997), Narrating the Organization. Dramas of Institutional Identity, Universityof Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Czarniawska, B. (1998), A Narrative Approach to Organization Studies, Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks, CA.

Czarniawska, B. (2000), The Uses of Narratives in Organization Research, GRI Report, nr. 2000:5,Göteborg University: School of Business, Economics and Law, April 2000.

Czarniawska, B. (2004), Narratives in Social Science Research, Sage Publications, London.

Daymon, C. and Holloway, I. (2002), Qualitative Research Methods in Public Relations andMarketing Communications, Routledge, London.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, The Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-550.

Esmark, A., Lautsen, C.B. and Andersen, N.Å. (2005), “Socialkonstruktivistiske analysestrategier –en introduction (social constructivist analytic strategies – an introduction)”, in Esmark, A.,Lautsen, C.B. and Andersen, N.Å. (Eds), Socialkonstruktivistiske Analysestrategier (SocialConstructivist Analytic Strategies), Roskilde Universitetsforlag, Frederiksberg, pp. 7-30.

Fisher, W.R. (1984), “Narration as a human communication paradigm. The case of public moralargument”, Communication Monographs, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 1-23.

Fisher, W.R. (1987),Human Communication as Narration: Toward a Philosophy of Reason, Value,and Action, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

Gabriel, Y. (2000), Storytelling in Organizations: Facts, Fictions, and Fantasies, Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford.

Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1982), “Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalisticinquiry”, Educational Communication and Technology, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 233-252.

Hatch, M.J. (1996), “The role of the researcher: an analysis of narrative position in organizationtheory”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 359-374.

Herrmann, A.F. (2011), “Narrative as an organizing process: identity and story in a new nonprofit”,Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 6No. 3, pp. 246-264.

Holmström, S., Falkenheimer, J. and Nielsen, A.G. (2009), “Legitimacy and strategiccommunication in globalization: the cartoon crisis and other legitimacy conflicts”,International Journal of Strategic Communication, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-18.

Hyde, P. (2008), “Working with stories: diverse tales of organizational life”, Qualitative Researchin Organizations and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 147-158.

Järvinen, M. and Mik-Meyer, N. (2005), “Observationer i en interaktionistisk begrebsramme(“Observations in an interactionist framework”)”, in Järvinen, M. and Mik-Meyer, N. (Eds),Kvalitative Metoder i et Interationistisk Perspektiv. Interview, Observationer og Dokumenter(Qualitative Methods in an Interactionist Perspective. Interview, Observations andDocuments), Hans Reitzels Forlag, Copenhagen, pp. 97-120.

Johansen, T.S. (2012), “The narrated organization: implications of a narrative corporate identityvocabulary for strategic self-storying”, International Journal of Strategic Communication,Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 232-245.

349

Collectiveidentity through

stories andantestories

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F A

AR

HU

S A

t 00:

19 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Johnson, P. and Duberley, J. (2003), “Reflexivity in management research”, Journal of ManagementStudies, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 1280-1303.

Jørgensen, K.M. (2010), “Antenarrative writing – tracing and representing living stories”, paperpresented at The Standing Conference for Management & Organization Inquiry,Washington, DC, March 25-27.

Mauthner, N.S. and Doucet, A. (2003), “Reflexive accounts and accounts of reflexivity inqualitative data analysis”, Sociology, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 413-431.

Owen, W.F. (1984), “Interpretive themes in relational communication”, Quarterly Journal ofSpeech, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 274-287.

Pinnegar, S. and Daynes, G.J. (2007), “Locating narrative inquiry historically: thematics in theturn to narrative”, in Clandinin, D.J. (Ed.), Handbook of Narrative Inquiry. Mapping aMethodology, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 3-34.

Putnam, L.L. (1996), “Commentary: situating the author and text”, Journal of ManagementInquiry, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 382-386.

Reissman, C.K. (1993), Narrative Analysis, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.Reissman, C.K. (2008), Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences, Sage Publications, Thousand

Oaks, CA.Rhodes, C. and Brown, A.D. (2005), “Narrative, organizations and research”, International Journal

of Management Reviews, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 167-188.Schultz, M. and Hatch, M.J. (2000), “Scaling the tower of babel: relational differences between

identity, image, and culture in organizations”, in Schultz, M., Hatch, M.J. and Larsen, M.H.(Eds), The Expressive Organization – Linking Identity, Reputation and the Corporate Brand,Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 11-35.

Søderberg, A.M. (2006), “Narrative interviewing and narrative analysis in a study of a cross-border merger”, Management International Review, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 397-416.

Srivastava, P. and Hopwood, N. (2009), “A practical iterative framework for qualitative dataanalysis”, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 77-84.

Tomkins, L. and Eatough, V. (2010), “Towards an integrative reflexivity in organizationalresearch”, Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An InternationalJournal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 162-181.

Van Riel, C.M.B. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1997), “Corporate identity, the concept, its measurement andmanagement”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos 5/6, pp. 340-355.

About the authorTrine Susanne Johansen (PhD) is an Associate Professor at the Department of BusinessCommunication, Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University. Her teaching and researchresponsibilities fall within the areas of corporate communication, corporate social responsibility,stakeholder relations, marketing and branding. Her main research interests include strategiccommunication, (corporate) identity construction and narrativity. She has previously worked inthe marketing and consulting industry. Associate Professor Trine Susanne Johansen can becontacted at: tsj@asb.dk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

350

QROM9,4

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F A

AR

HU

S A

t 00:

19 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)