Weighing in at 514 pages, The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Identity represents a formidable set of backward‐ and forward‐looking reflections on the state of a literature that has become a mainstay of organizational scholarship. As someone who finds himself in the occasional position of needing to recommend to others a “starting point” for engaging the topic of organizational identity (heretofore labeled as “OI”), I can think of few better resources than this edited volume from Michael Pratt, Majken Schlultz, Blake Ashforth, and Davide Ravasi. The volume attempts to create a “big tent” discussion about the status of the OI literature, drawing on the insights of longtime contributors to research on OI as well as from scholars who bring new and fresh perspectives to this body of work. The volume reflects the wide‐ranging theoretical perspectives of the contributors and thus paints a picture of a literature that while progressing beyond its early definitional debates has not, however, produced a strong (or overly‐restrictive) paradigm. Indeed, some might look at this result and lament that three decades of research has failed to produce strong and apparent consensus. Yet, I for one celebrate the volume's efforts to recognize and support the complexity of a scholarly endeavor that is reflective of an equally complex set of organizational phenomena. As Charles Perrow once famously noted (1994:194), “We may get shot because of our complex message, but simplifying it would make lackeys of us all…”

In reading through this handbook of OI and reflecting on its contributions, I attempted to place myself in the position of those to whom I would be immediately inclined to recommend the book—for example, a first‐time explorer of the topic of OI. Such an individual, I imagine, will be interested not only in learning about the literature but also in discerning where there might still be opportunities to contribute. As to the former objective, the volume offers an invaluable and thorough review. The literature focused on OI is most evidently at a stage of great maturity, and a book of this sort offers essential reading for those looking to move beyond a superficial understanding of its key concepts, relationships, and evolution.

As to the latter objective of identifying opportunities for contributing to the OI literature, however, I believe the book paints both a bleak but also a hopeful image. I imagine that, to some, this hefty volume of world‐class contributors, each of whom have deftly summarized and extended the insights of OI, will prove intimidating. In light of our field's frequent insistence upon identifying theoretical gaps within longstanding research paradigms like OI, the volume's comprehensiveness may leave some with the impression that the gaps have become increasingly obscured and narrow. And the subsequent conclusion may be that we are left then with mere attempts to apply our theoretically rich understanding of generic OI patterns, such as regards the stability and change of central and distinctive aspects of organizations to increasingly specific contexts, such as organizations from east London involved in producing British cuisine. While an application such as this might offer important opportunities for highbrow dinner conversation for those of us in the London area, it is less obvious how it would push forward our understanding of organizations more generally. So then, has three decades of research on OI left large enough research gaps for scholars hoping to carve out long‐term and high‐impact research agendas? If read through the lens of the typical “gap‐finding” approach we often teach students, one might be inclined to despairingly conclude that the answer is “no.”

To the careful reader, however, I believe the book presents a more sanguine depiction of future research opportunities. It does so in at least two ways. First, the volume exposes OI as a nexus concept, “something that links things together, as well as a central meeting place” (p. 4). As such, researchers interested in the wide array of organization theories including but not limited to sensemaking, institutions, strategy, leadership, innovation, and change can find a shared anchor point in the literature on OI. And because OI serves as a nexus concept, it also serves as fertile ground for scholarly innovation. As we know from longstanding research on innovation (e.g., Tushman, 1977), producing novel insight requires gathering and transmitting information from different and previously bounded domains. Thus, those aspiring scholars willing to engage more deeply in the conversation of OI will find themselves naturally operating in a boundary role, facilitating the flow of ideas and scholarly relationships that pass through this nexus and offer opportunity for innovation. Indeed, many of the articles published in this volume are examples of this fruitful cross‐pollination.

And thus, by highlighting and consistently engaging these puzzling questions, this volume on OI helpfully clarifies how interesting scholarly opportunities arise when we start to shift away from “gap finding” to instead reflect on age‐old and persistent tensions. As the editors remark (p. 15), “If OI tells us anything, it is that while the questions remain, the answers are in flux.” Big questions, it seems, do not go away. And the OI literature allows us to engage those big questions. So then, take heart when you read through this volume in search of opportunities for new research on the topic of OI. Yes, the volume is comprehensive, but such comprehensiveness is in service of exposing the many questions of lasting importance, not in shutting those questions down.

Needless to say, I decidedly recommend The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Identity, and not just for first‐time explorers of the OI literature. This book offers an equally valuable resource for those in our field with more extensive touch points related to the OI literature. Research on OI is now over three decades old, and this sustained development of the field is a recognition of both the complexity and importance of the subject matter. As such, the editors have done our field a great service by coalescing a range of eclectic contributions, which taken together simplify the complexity, highlight the importance, and provide a thoughtful roadmap for the next decade of OI research.

重达514页，《牛津组织身份手册》代表了对已成为组织学术支柱的文学现状的一系列深刻的前瞻性思考。作为偶尔发现自己需要向其他人推荐参与组织身份主题（以前称为“ OI”）的“起点”的人，我能想到的最好的资源莫过于迈克尔·普拉特（Michael Pratt）的这本经编辑的著作，Majken Schlultz，Blake Ashforth和Davide Ravasi。该书试图利用有关OI研究的长期贡献者以及为该工作体系带来崭新观点的学者的见识，就OI文学的现状创建一个“大帐篷”讨论。该书反映了贡献者广泛的理论观点，因此描绘了一幅文学作品，尽管其发展超出了其早期的定义性辩论，但并没有产生强大的（或过于严格的）范式。确实，有些人可能会看这个结果，并为过去的三十年的研究未能产生强有力和明显的共识而感叹。然而，我还是赞扬该卷为承认和支持学术努力的复杂性所做的努力，这种努力反映了一组同样复杂的组织现象。正如查尔斯·佩罗（Charles Perrow）曾经著名地指出（1994：194），“我们可能会因为复杂的信息而被枪杀，但简化信息将使我们所有人陷入困境……” 有些人可能会看得出这个结果，并为过去的三十年的研究未能产生强烈而明显的共识而感到遗憾。然而，我还是赞扬该卷为承认和支持学术努力的复杂性所做的努力，这种努力反映了一组同样复杂的组织现象。正如查尔斯·佩罗（Charles Perrow）曾经著名地指出（1994：194），“我们可能会因为复杂的信息而被枪杀，但简化信息将使我们所有人陷入困境……” 有些人可能会看得出这个结果，并为过去的三十年的研究未能产生强烈而明显的共识而感到遗憾。然而，我还是赞扬该卷为承认和支持学术努力的复杂性所做的努力，这种努力反映了一组同样复杂的组织现象。正如查尔斯·佩罗（Charles Perrow）曾经著名地指出（1994：194），“我们可能会因为复杂的信息而被枪杀，但简化信息将使我们所有人陷入困境……”

在通读OI手册并反思其贡献时，我试图使自己处于那些我会立即向其推荐书的人的位置，例如，OI主题的首次探索者。我想，这样的人不仅会对学习文学感兴趣，而且对辨别在哪里仍然有贡献的机会感兴趣。关于前一个目标，该书提供了宝贵而详尽的评论。专注于OI的文献最明显地处于成熟的阶段，这类书籍为那些希望超越对OI的关键概念，关系和演变的表面理解的人提供了必不可少的阅读材料。

但是，关于确定为OI文学做出贡献的机会的后一个目标，我相信这本书既描绘了凄凉又充满希望的形象。我想，对于某些人来说，如此庞大的世界级贡献者将是令人生畏的，他们每个人都精明地总结并扩展了OI的见解。鉴于我们领域经常坚持在OI等长期的研究范式中确定理论差距，因此本书的全面性可能给人们留下这样的印象，即差距变得越来越模糊和狭窄。然后得出的结论可能是，我们仅是试图运用我们对通用OI模式的理论上丰富的理解，例如关于组织的中心和独特方面的稳定性和变化，以适应日益具体的情况，例如来自东伦敦的组织参与生产英国美食。尽管这样的应用程序可能为伦敦地区的我们这些人提供重要的晚餐对话机会，但它如何推动我们对组织的更广泛理解尚不那么明显。那么，那么，关于OI的三十年研究是否为希望制定长期且影响重大的研究议程的学者留下了足够大的研究空白？如果我们经常教给学生典型的“寻找差距”方法的眼光，人们可能会绝望地得出结论，答案是“否”。尽管这样的应用程序可能为伦敦地区的我们这些人提供重要的晚餐对话机会，但它如何推动我们对组织的更广泛理解尚不那么明显。那么，那么，关于OI的三十年研究是否为希望制定长期且影响重大的研究议程的学者留下了足够大的研究空白？如果我们经常教给学生典型的“寻找差距”方法的眼光，人们可能会绝望地得出结论，答案是“否”。尽管这样的应用程序可能为伦敦地区的我们这些人提供重要的晚餐对话机会，但它如何推动我们对组织的更广泛理解尚不那么明显。那么，那么，关于OI的三十年研究是否为希望制定长期且影响重大的研究议程的学者留下了足够大的研究空白？如果我们经常教给学生典型的“寻找差距”方法的眼光，人们可能会绝望地得出结论，答案是“否”。对于OI的三十年研究是否有足够大的研究空白，以供希望制定长期且影响重大的研究议程的学者使用？如果我们经常教给学生典型的“寻找差距”方法的眼光，人们可能会绝望地得出结论，答案是“否”。对于OI的三十年研究是否有足够大的研究空白，以供希望制定长期且影响重大的研究议程的学者使用？如果我们经常教给学生典型的“寻找差距”方法的眼光，人们可能会绝望地得出结论，答案是“否”。

但是，对于细心的读者来说，我相信这本书对未来的研究机会给出了更为乐观的描述。这样做至少有两种方式。首先，该卷将OI暴露为一个联系概念，即“将事物联系在一起的东西，以及中心会议场所”（第4页）。因此，对包括但不限于意义制定，机构，策略，领导力，创新和变革在内的广泛组织理论感兴趣的研究人员可以在OI文献中找到共同点。而且，由于OI是一个联系概念，因此它也是学术创新的沃土。从对创新的长期研究中我们可以了解到（例如，Tushman，1977），要产生新颖的见解，就需要收集和传输来自不同且先前受限制的领域的信息。从而，那些愿意更深入地参与OI对话的有抱负的学者将发现自己自然地扮演着边界角色，从而促进了思想和学术关系的交流，从而为创新提供了机会。确实，本卷中发表的许多文章都是这种富有成效的异花授粉的例子。

因此，通过突出并始终如一地解决这些令人困惑的问题，有关OI的本册有助于阐明当我们开始从“寻找差距”转向思考古老而持久的紧张局势时，如何产生有趣的学术机会。正如编辑们所说（第15页），“如果OI告诉我们任何事情，那就是在问题仍然存在的同时，答案还在不断变化。” 看来，大问题不会消失。OI文献使我们能够解决这些大问题。因此，当您阅读本书时，请振作精神，寻找有关OI主题的新研究机会。是的，数量是全面的，但是这种全面性是为了揭示许多持久的问题，而不是关闭这些问题。

不用说，我绝对会推荐《牛津组织的身份手册》，而不仅仅是OI文学的首次探索者。本书通过与OI文献相关的更广泛的接触点，为我们领域的人们提供了同样宝贵的资源。关于OI的研究已有三十多年的历史了，该领域的持续发展是对主题的复杂性和重要性的认可。因此，编辑人员通过合并一系列折衷的贡献，为我们的领域提供了出色的服务，这些贡献共同简化了复杂性，突出了重要性，并为OI研究的下一个十年提供了深思熟虑的路线图。