Researching culture and organization; what possibilities?

References

• Ackroyd, S., and P. Crowdy. 1990. “Can Culture be Managed? Working with “Raw” Material: The Case of the English Slaughtermen.” Personnel Review 19 (5): 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483489010142655.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ackroyd, S., and S. Fleetwood, eds. 2000. Realist Perspectives on Management and Organization. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Agamben, G. 1999. Potentialities. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Agamben, G. 2013. Nymphs. London: Seagull.
   Google Scholar
• Alvesson, M., and P. O. Berg. 1992. Corporate Culture and Organizational Symbolism. Berlin: de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Ashcraft, K. 2017. “‘Submission’ to the Rule of Excellence: Ordinary Affect and Precarious Resistance in the Labor of Organization and Management Studies.” Organization 24 (1): 36–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508416668188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baert, B. 2014. Nymph 1: Motif, Phantom, Affect. Leuven: Peeters.
   Google Scholar
• Baert, B. 2016. Nymph 2: Motif, Phantom, Affect. Leuven: Peeters.
   Google Scholar
• Baert, B. 2018. “He Or She Who Glimpses, Desires, Is Wounded.” Angelaki 23 (4): 47–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969725X.2018.1497280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barthes, R. 1993. Camera Lucida. New York: Vintage.
   Google Scholar
• Boden, D. 1994. The Business of Talk. Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Boje, D. 2008. Storytelling Organizations. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Braidotti, R. 2006. “The Ethics of Becoming Imperceptible.” In Deleuze & Philosophy, edited by C. Boundas, 133–159. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burrell, G. 1988. “Modernism, Post Modernism and Organizational Analysis 2: The Contribution of Michel Foucault.” Organization Studies 9 (2): 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084068800900205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charbonnier, P., G. Salamon, and P. Skafish, eds. 2016. Comparative Metaphysics: Ontology After Anthropology. London: Rowan & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Chatman, J., and C. O. Reilly. 2016. “Paradigm Lost: Reinvigorating the Study of Organizational Culture.” Research in Organizational Behavior 36: 199–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clifford, J., and G. Marcus. eds. 1968. Writing Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, R., and G. Burrell. 1988. “Modernism, Postmodernism and Organizational Analysis: An Introduction.” Organization Studies 9 (1): 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084068800900112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Czarniawska, B. 1997. Narrating the Organization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Deal, T., and A. Kennedy. 1982. Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life. New York: Addison Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• De Cauwer, S., and L. K. Smith. 2018. “Critical Image Configurations.” Angelaki 23 (4): 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969725X.2018.1497264.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deleuze, G. 1994 [1968]. Difference and Repetition. London: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Deleuze, G., and F. Guattari. 1986. Kafka: Towards a Minor Literature. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Deleuze, G., and F. Guattari. 1996. What is Philosophy? New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Deleuze, G., and F. Guattari. 1999 [1980]. A Thousand Plateaus. Capitalism and Schizophrenia. London: Athlone.
   Google Scholar
• Didi-Huberman, G. 2017. The Surviving Image. University Park PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Didi-Huberman, G. 2018. Atlas, or the Anxious Gay Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frost, R. 1964. The Complete Poems of Robert Frost. New York: Vintage.
   Google Scholar
• Frost, P., L. Moore, M. Louis, C. Lundberg, and J. Martin. 1991. Reframing Organizational Culture. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Gabriel, Y. 2000. Storytelling in Organizations. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Gioia, D. 1986. “Symbols, Scripts and Sense-Making.” In The Thinking Organization, edited by H. Sims, 49–74. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Goldsmith, Wv, and D. Clutterbuck. 1984. The Winning Streak. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
   Google Scholar
• Gombrich, E. H. 1970. Aby Warburg: An Intellectual Biography. Leiden: Brill.
   Google Scholar
• Gratton, P. 2014. Speculative Realism: Problems and Prospects. London: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Gregg, M., and G. Seigworth2010. The Affect Theory Reader. London: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harman, G. 2018a. Object-Oriented Ontology: A new Theory of Everything. New York: Pelican.
   Google Scholar
• Harman, G. 2018b. Speculative Realism: An Introduction. Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Hemmings, C. 2005. “INVOKING AFFECT.” Cultural Studies 19 (5): 548–567. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380500365473.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henare, A., M. Holbraad, and S. Wastell2007. Thinking Through Things. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hofstede, G. 1991. Culture and Organization. London: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Holbraad, M., M. Pedersen, and E. Viveiros de Castro. 2014. “The Politics of Ontology: Anthropological Positions.” Cultural Anthropology URL: http://culanth.org/fieldsights/462-the-politics-of-ontology-anthropological-positions. (viewed Sept. 2022).
   Google Scholar
• Holbraad, M., and M. Pederson. 2017. The Ontological Turn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Husserl, E. 1970. Crisis. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jacquinot, P., M. Besson, R. Jardat, and J.-L. Moriceau. 2023. “Escaping Transparent, Asymmetrical and Agentive Accountability? Entrepreneurial Accounts and Researchers’.” Countertransference, AAAJ. (forthcoming).
   Google Scholar
• Knights, D., and H. Willmott. 1989. “Power and Subjectivity at Work: From Degradation to Subjugation in Social Relations.” Sociology 23 (4): 535–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038589023004003.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. 1991/1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lescourret, M.-A. 2013. Aby Warburg ou la Tentation du Regard. Paris: Editions Hazan.
   Google Scholar
• Letiche, H. 2004. “‘Talk’ and Hermès.” Culture and Organization 10 (2): 143–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475955042000253422.
   Google Scholar
• Letiche, H. 2009. “Reflexivity and Affectivity.” Culture and Organization 15 (3-4): 291–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linstead, S. 1993. “From Postmodern Anthropology to Deconstructive Ethnography.” Human Relations 46 (1): 97–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linstead, S. 2004. Organization Theory And Postmodern Thought. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Marcus, G., and M. Fisher. 1986. Anthropolgy as Cultural Critique. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, J. 1992. Cultures in Organizations: Three Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Massumi, P. 2010. “The Future Birth of the Affective Fact: The Political Ontology of Threat.” In The Affect Theory Reader, edited by M. Gregg, and G. Seigworth, 52–71. London: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Michaud, P.-A. 2007. Aby Warburg and the Image in Motion. New York: Zone.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, W. 2005. What do Pictures Want? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ouchi, W. 1981. Theory Z. New York: Avon.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, T., and R. Waterman. 1982. In Search of Excellence. New York: Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Pettigrew, A. 1979. “On Studying Organizational Cultures.” Administrative Science Quarterly 24: 570–581. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pondy, L., P. Frost, G. Morgan, and T. Dandridge1983. Organizational Symbolism. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reed, M. 2009. “Critical Realism: Philosophy, Method or Philosophy in Search of a Method.” In Sage Handbook of Organization Research, edited by D. Buchanan, and A. Bryman, 430–448. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Schein, E. 1985. Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Smircich, L. 1983. “Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis.” Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (3): 339–358. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strathern, M. 1980. “No Nature, No Culture”: The Hagen Case.” In in Nature, Culture and Gender, edited by C. MacCormack, and M. Strathern. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Strathern, M. 1988. The Gender of the Gift. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Turner, B.1990. Organizational Symbolism. Berlin: de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Veissiere, S. 2009. “Making a Living: The Grigo Ethnographer as Pimp.” Cultural Studies <>. Critical Methodologies 20 (10): 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Veissiere, S. 2011. The Ghosts of Empire. Munster: LitVerlag.
   Google Scholar
• Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo. 1992 [1986]. From the Enemy’s Point of View, edited by C. Howard. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo.. 2012. Cosmological Perspectivism in Amazonia and Elsewhere. Vol. 1. Manchester: Hau.
   Google Scholar
• Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo. 2014. Cannibal Metaphysics, edited by P. Skafish. Minneapolis: Univocal.
   Google Scholar
• Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo. 2016. “Metaphysics as Mythophysics in Charbonnier.” In Comparative Metaphysics: Ontology After Anthropology, edited by P,G Salamon, and P. Skafish, 115–125. London: Rowan & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Warburg, A. 2015. Le Rituel du Serpent. Paris: Macula.
   Google Scholar