Archetypes of Translation: Recommendations for Dialogue

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12103
• Author: Joe O'Mahoney
• Date: 01 July 2016
• Published date: 01 July 2016

International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 18, 333–350 (2016)

DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12103

Archetypes of Translation:

Recommendations for Dialogue

Joe O’Mahoney

Organisation Studies, Cardiff Business School, University of Cardiff, Wales, CF24 4LP, UK

Email: joeomahoney@gmail.com

This paper reviews 128 works on translation in management studies and identifies

four perspectives (diffusion, actor-network theory, Scandinavian Institutionalism and

organizational boundaries) which are argued to be underpinned byfour relatively dis-

parate theoretical archetypes (scientism, actualism, social constructivism and symbolic

interactionism). It is argued that, individually, these archetypes possess strengths and

weaknesses in understanding translation, yet are relatively incommensurable, which

mitigates against interperspective dialogue and the insights that this might promote.

With illustrations, the paper suggests that the stratified and emergent ontology pro-

posed by critical realism can provide a more inclusive foundation for interdisciplinary

engagement on translation, which combines many strengths and ameliorates several

weaknesses of the individual archetypes.

Introduction

Over the last fifteen years, ‘translation’ has become a

popular theoretical device in management and orga-

nization studies for understanding how change is ef-

fected through temporal and spatial movement (Czar-

niawska 2010; Doorewaardand Van Bijsterveld 2001;

Mueller and Whittle 2011). Yet, there is considerable

variation in what researchers claim translation is and

does, in terms of both the object and the process of

translation (compare, for example, Bartel and Garud

2009; Roepke et al. 2000; Sterling 2003). Some for

example, use the term metaphorically, as ‘translating

strategy into practice’ (Sterling 2003, p. 31); others

see translation as creating ‘a link that did not exist be-

fore’ (Bartel and Garud 2009, p. 108), and others still

take the word to concern the process by which ‘actors

convince others to join their cause’ (Luoma-aho and

Paloviita 2010, p. 50).

To some extent, this diversity is a strength – cert-

ainly, some forms of ‘interpretative flexibility’ are

important in contributing to the spread of ideas

(Astley and Zammuto 1992). Yet, there are also

potential disadvantages in different uses of a term:

many studies, including those cited above, do not ac-

knowledge alternative interpretations of ‘translation’.

Without clarifying exactly what is meant, this can

cause confusion or misunderstanding concerning

exactly what is being argued: in their analysis of

re-readings of DiMaggio and Powell’s (1983) classic

paper, Mizruchi and Fein (1999, p. 658) argue that

disparate interpretations ‘do matter . . . If one fails

to consider alternative accounts [this can] not only

misrepresent the theory on which one’s analysis is

based, but also provide a limited and biased picture

of the processes one is trying to describe’. Moreover,

as those in communication studies have argued,

when a word or concept is too strongly embedded

in a particular philosophy, discourse or community,

it not only becomes difficult for other traditions to

engage with the term, but also for researchers within

that community to gain novel insights from ‘outside’

their grouping (Lattuca 1996).

This paper argues that an important reason for

the differences in interpretations of translation is

the variety of theoretical archetypes by which they

are underpinned. ‘Theoretical archetypes’ means the

assumptions that inform the ontological, epistemo-

logical and methodological choices that researchers

make (Parker 1998, p. 33). These archetypes form

guiding principles for researchers rather than strict

templates, but provide relatively coherent logics by

C2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Publishedby John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington

Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

334 J. O’Mahoney

which the world is understood and described by re-

searchers (Al-Amoudi and O’Mahoney 2015). Al-

though these archetypes are often implicit rather than

explicit, it is often possible to tease out the theo-

retical assumptions of researchers by exploring their

methodologies, language and theory building (e.g.

O’Mahoney 2011). These archetypes are important,

not only because they tend to inform the ‘domain-

level’ theorizing and methodologies by which aca-

demics conceptualize their fields of study (Fleetwood

2005), but also because differences in archetypes

can lead to ‘social scientists remaining in their

methodological and philosophical siloes’ (Kyriaki-

dou and `

Ezbilgin 2006, p. 306). Certainly, in studies

of translation, a wide variety of philosophical and

methodological traditions are drawn on, from Latour

(1987, 2007) and S´

erres et al. (1982), to Strauss

(1959) and Blumer (1962), but, as we shall see,

what these different foundations mean for transla-

tion is not always clear. This study therefore seeks

to answer the following research questions: What

are the theoretical archetypes of studies of transla-

tion? What are the consequences of these different

archetypes for studies of translation? How can these

archetypes of be developed to enhance translation

studies?

Toanswer these questions, 128 articles about trans-

lation are reviewed, from which three arguments are

generated. First, the paper identifies and describes

four overlapping theoretical archetypes that under-

pin different interpretations of translation: the sci-

entism archetype evident in diffusion studies, which

tends to count management innovations and corre-

late this with independent variables such as geogra-

phy,personal networks or adopter characteristics; the

actualist philosophy of Latour’s Actor-Network The-

ory (ANT), which traces the networks that link and

construct empirical events; the social constructivist

archetype in ‘Scandinavian Institutionalism’, which

emphasizes the translation effects of local discourses

and micro-politics; and the symbolic interactionist

philosophy, which underpins inter-g roup communi-

cation across organizational boundaries.

Second, the paper shows that, while each perspec-

tive emphasizes something important about transla-

tion, each possesses weaknesses that stem from their

philosophical assumptions. Moreover, these assump-

tions mean the archetypes are all but incompatible,

and thus often fail to engage with each other, missing

opportunities for a richer and more inclusive under-

standing of translation in a variety of forms. Finally,

the paper points to, and illustrates, the potential of

critical realist philosophy as a foundation for more

constructive dialogue between archetypes. Critical

realism (CR) is based on an emergent, stratified

ontology, which accepts epistemological relativism.

This foundation allows it to incorporate many of the

strengths of the archetypes (e.g. including different

theoretical concepts such as discourse, social struc-

ture and networks), while ameliorating many of their

weaknesses. Critical realism, it is argued, provides a

basis on which different types of translation might

be studied through a variety of different methods,

encourages interdisciplinary dialogue and opens pos-

sibilities for new research directions.

The paper is structured as follows: after detailing

the methods, it reviews the literature and abducts

four philosophical archetypes, which underpin dif-

ferent perspectives on translation. It then details each

archetype and illustrates how they often mitigate

against constructive engagement with other perspec-

tives. Finally, the paper argues that CR may offer

a more ecumenical ontological foundation for trans-

lation studies, and details three illustrations of CR

engaging with themes of translation.

Methods

Literature review

The research undertook a structured literature re-

view (Tranfield et al. 2003) based on ABI/INFORM

databases. The review used the search terms ‘Trans-

lat*’ (to cover translation, translating, translate) and

‘Manag*’ (to cover manager, managing, manage-

ment) in AnywhereBut Full Text. This returned 15,081

results, which were narrowed down by limiting the

search parameters to scholarly peer-reviewed articles

written in management and organization journals be-

tween 1990 and 2014. This left 348 articles for which

the title and abstract were read. Articles concerned

with translation in a technical sense (e.g. ‘the paper

was translated into French’; ‘foreign currency trans-

lation’) were identified and removed. Book reviews

were also removed from the results. The remaining

156 articles were reviewed in more detail. It became

apparent that many (n =83) of the articles used ‘trans-

lation’ only in a colloquial or metaphorical sense –

primarily passing statements (usually in the abstract)

concerning the importance of ‘translating’ strategy

(or vision or rhetoric) into practice (or action or re-

ality) – these were set aside. This left 73 articles that

focused on the translation of management knowledge

in various forms.

C2016 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.