OS SI CfP: Power & Performativity

Organization Studies

Call for Papers

Special Issue on Power and performativity as interweaving dynamics of organizing

Guest Editors for the Special Issue

Barbara Simpson, University of Strathclyde

Nancy Harding, University of Bath

Peter Fleming, City University of London

Viviane Sergi, UQAM

Anthony Hussenot, Université Côte d’Azur

 Deadline for Submissions: 31 March 2019

Power and performativity are recurrent but distinct themes in contemporary organization studies. Each has been theorized in multiple ways, but what still remains largely unexamined is the interplay between them in the ongoing flow of organizing. It is the dynamic and co-productive potential of this confluence that provides the focus for this Special Issue. In particular we propose that by re-visioning both power and performativity through a processual lens, new possibilities for understanding their entwinements will emerge.

 Power has traditionally been understood as a property or a possession that may be seized and wielded, either overtly or in hidden ways, in order to exert ‘power over’ others (Clegg, Courpasson, & Phillips, 2006). In this context it is often conceived in dualistic terms as some ‘thing’ that is available to the few for controlling the many. By contrast, process approaches endeavour to transcend this dualistic formulation, focussing instead on how power produces movement and change in our worlds. For instance, Foucault (1979) saw power as fundamentally relational and generative, and Follett (1924) argued for a ‘power with’ perspective that continuously emerges out of the actions of people working together.

A similar scenario can be drawn for performativity (Gond, Cabantous, Harding, & Learmonth, 2016), which may refer to managerial efforts to produce outcomes (Fournier & Grey, 2000), or to tactics to help managers change the status quo (Alvesson & Spicer, 2012). From a more processual perspective though, performativity offers a theory of how language constitutes experienced ‘realities’ (Austin, 1962), how organizations are made in communication (Taylor, Cooren, Giroux, & Robichaud, 1996), and how that which appears given and unchangeable is constituted moment by moment (Butler, 1997) through intra-acting material agencies (Barad, 2003).

In this Special Issue, we want to draw attention to the possibilities that arise if both power and performativity are conceived as dynamic processes that, through their continuous swirling together and apart offer novel opportunities to engage differently with organizing. Recent developments in philosophical and theoretical thinking about organizing have clarified the distinction between ontologically oriented assumptions of emergence, continuity and becoming, and more epistemologically oriented accounts of how organizational outcomes are produced (Helin, Hernes, Hjorth, & Holt, 2014; Langley & Tsoukas, 2017). However, the uptake of process as an ontological mode of inquiry has been hampered by the paucity of conceptual and methodological devices to support empirical studies. We need new tools that allow us to unravel the alternative logics of process-as-it-happens, to engage with the evolving nature of the categories we use to define (and redefine) the phenomena of working and living, and to re-configure the boundaries of more processual understandings of organizing. Developing such tools will not only contribute new ways of studying power and performativity together, but also new ways of carrying out research into organizing more generally. As an added bonus, it may further serve to address the immediate concerns of organizational practitioners, who are so often let down by the inadequacies of conventional theory when it comes to examining their own lived experiences of work.

This Special Issue seeks to advance process studies of organizing by re-imagining power and performativity as mutually constituting dynamics. Broadly we are interested in questions such as how might we better understand the performativity of power and the power of performativity, and how, in their interweaving, do power and performativity constitute the emergent becoming of organizing. We especially welcome empirical contributions that, in offering partial, localized or ephemeral accounts of power and performativity, open up new ways of engaging with these dynamic processes by entering into the emergent flow of organizing. Our specific aim is to focus more on the ‘doing of’ rather than the ‘thinking about’ process research.

Potential topics for submissions include, but are by no means limited to:

  • Research methods that engage with the processual logics of power and performativity
  • Ways of writing from/as/about material aspects of power and performativity
  • The engagement of power with performativity in the communicative constitution of organizing
  • Reflexivity, surprise and playfulness in the experience of power and performativity
  • The role of body and language in the performative accomplishment of power
  • Temporality in the entwinement of power and performativity in organizing
  • The power of performance in new collaborative practices such as freelancing and co-working
  • The performance of power in new organizational forms such as those introduced through the gig economy and democracy-based organization
  • The power of non-human agencies in the performative accomplishment of organizing
  • The performative power of contemporary research methods


Please submit papers through the journal’s online submission system, SAGE track at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/orgstudies, create your user account (if you have not done so already), and for “Manuscript Type” please choose the corresponding Special Issue. All papers that enter the reviewing process will be double-blind reviewed following the journal’s normal review process and criteria. You will be able to submit your paper for this Special Issue between the 15th and 31st of March 2019.

Administrative support and general queries

Sophia Tzagaraki, Managing Editor, Organization Studies: OSofficer@gmail.com

For further information please contact any of the Guest Editors for this Special Issue:

Barbara Simpson: barbara.simpson@strath.ac.uk

Nancy Harding: H.N.Harding@bath.ac.uk

Peter Fleming: Peter.Fleming.1@city.ac.uk

Viviane Sergi: sergi.viviane@uqam.ca

Anthony Hussenot: anthony.hussenot @unice.fr


Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2012). Critical leadership studies: The case for critical performativity. Human Relations, 65(3), 367-390.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801-831.

Butler, J. (1997). Excitable speech: A politics of the performative. New York: Routledge.

Clegg, S. R., Courpasson, D., & Phillips, N. (2006). Power and organizations. London: SAGE.

Follett, M. P. (1924). Creative experience. New York: Longmans, Green.

Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and Punish (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York Vintage.

Fournier, V., & Grey, C. (2000). ‘At the critical moment’: Conditions and prospects for Critical Management Studies. Human Relations, 53(1), 7-32.

Gond, J.-P., Cabantous, L., Harding, N., & Learmonth, M. (2016). What Do We Mean by Performativity in Organizational and Management Theory? The Uses and Abuses of Performativity. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(4), 440-463.

Helin, J., Hernes, T., Hjorth, D., & Holt, R. (Eds.). (2014). The Oxford Handbook of Process Philosophy and Organization Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. (Eds.). (2017). The SAGE Handbook of Process Organization Studies. London: Sage.

Taylor, J., Cooren, F., Giroux, N., & Robichaud, D. (1996). The communicational basis of organization: Between conversation and the text. Communication Theory, 6, 1-39.


OS SI CfP: Institutional Change

Organization Studies

Special Issue on: Organizing for Social and Institutional Change in Response to Disruption, Division, and Displacement

Guest Editors

 W.E. Douglas Creed | University of Rhode Island, USA & University of Melbourne, Australia

Barbara Gray | Pennsylvania State University, USA

Charlotte M. Karam | American University of Beirut, Lebanon

Markus A. Höllerer | WU Vienna, Austria & UNSW Sydney, Australia

Trish Reay | University of Alberta, Canada

Contact: douglascreed@uri.edu

Deadline for paper submissions: October 31st 2018

The world today is experiencing jarring manifestations of disruption, division, and displacement, making for a troika of societal and institutional upheaval. In its 2018 Report on Global Risks, the World Economic Forum identified risks stemming from disruptions in five distinct categories: economical, technological, environmental, geopolitical, and social.  In terms of economic risks, inequality in wealth distribution is increasing across the globe (Anand & Segal, 2015); Oxfam reports that the richest 1% has accumulated more wealth than the rest of the world’s population combined (BBC News, 2016). Technological risks threaten privacy and security of individuals, organizations, and nations. Extreme weather conditions and the failure to mitigate climate change are among the most pressing environmental risks.  Finally, a rise in religious and national identity conflicts has created geopolitical and social risks resulting in a substantial increase in global migration and a variety of tensions and fault lines. According to the UN High Commission for Refugees, there is an estimated 65.3 million forcibly displaced persons in the world, with 21.3 million numbering as refugees. Forces such as populism, nationalism, coupled with increasing economic inequity, sectarianism, and extreme political polarization look to be undermining the ‘habits of the heart’ that are fundamental to democracy (Putnam, 2000). Some even argue that the very heart of democracy is in need of healing and we must work for a politics commensurate with human dignity (Palmer, 2011). Separately and together, patterns of disruption, division, and displacement will likely rock global society for the foreseeable future – and call for robust organizational and/or institutional responses.

For this Organization Studies Special Issue, we encourage organizational scholars to address these and related grand challenges through the development of research that attempts to further investigate and better understand such disruption, division, and displacement as well as their consequences from varied perspectives and levels of analysis. We see that organizational scholars have much to contribute in these domains and we believe that this Special Issue can be a space for reflection, investigation, and sowing the seeds for future robust action. Although we see strong potential for research from an institutional perspective, we equally welcome submissions grounded in many other research traditions. Our key goal in the Special Issue is to bring together scholarship that sheds new light on organizing for social and institutional change that addresses these forms of upheaval.

We see significant potential for researchers to build on the growing interest in understanding both how organizational and institutional paradoxes (Tracey & Creed, 2017) are implicated in such grand challenges and how organizations of various sorts can respond. Complex or ‘wicked’ problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973) are likely to require complex solutions involving many different stakeholders (Gray & Purdy, 2018). A variety of tensions may be involved, such as: democracy versus authoritarianism; civil discourse versus demagoguery and intolerance; global versus local; nationalism versus internationalism/globalism; the North versus the ‘Global South’; wealth versus poverty; urban versus rural; and multiculturalism versus ethnocentrism and/or xenophobia. Research focused on the organizational and institutional implications of such tensions and how to address them could reveal valuable insights.

In framing this call for papers, we see particular value in Ferraro et al.’s (2015) pragmatist perspective that outlines ways of responding to grand challenges based on the concept of robust action.  They draw attention to three strategies which we, as scholars, can also apply in building our knowledge base: creating new participatory architectures that enable prolonged, productive engagement among diverse stakeholders; promoting and sustaining cooperation and coordination through activities that sustain multiple voices, diverse interpretations, and interrelated goals; and experimenting in ways that promote small wins, evolutionary learning, and increased engagement.

We suggest that exploring the organizational and institutional implications of disruption, division, and displacement may require a deeper understanding of the causes and consequences of entrenched oppression and latent power dynamics (Gray & Kish-Gephardt, 2013; Karam & Jamali, 2015; Marti & Mair, 2009; Mair et al., 2016; Creed et al., 2010). We encourage scholars to investigate cases addressing where and how individuals, groups, or organizations have mobilized in attempts to overcome such deep-rooted problems. Further, we see that addressing the multifarious divisions that run through these problems requires engaging in emotionally fraught encounters and change processes that involve mechanisms spanning the micro, meso, and macro levels of analysis (Hochschild, 2016; Creed & Scully, 2000; Creed et al., 2014; Lok et al., forthcoming). More attention to these processes and their effects is important and encouraged.

With this call for papers, we hope to foster academic attention to this broad topical area.  Consistent with the mandate of Organization Studies, we aim to promote the understanding of organizations, organizing, and the organized, and the social relevance of that understanding in relation to the challenges identified here.

Below we offer our initial thoughts on possible questions and opportunities. However, we stress that this list is not meant to narrow our collective vision. In the spirit of robust academic engagement that is participatory and multi-vocal, and that builds on and contributes to engaged organizational scholarship, we encourage innovative, thoughtful, and provocative submissions from scholars at all stages of their academic careers.

Opportunities for Theorizing and Praxis

  • What mechanisms explain social and institutional change processes in the context of displacement, disruption, and division?
  • What are tools and mechanisms for organizing around these challenges?
  • What are the implications of displacement and disruption for institutional stability and embeddedness, as well as for the persistence of, or change in distinct inequality regimes?
  • How can we buttress civil society and civility in the face of such challenges?
  • Can conflict be beneficial in promoting voice and resistance to power in this current era of displacement, disruption, and division – and if so, how?
  • What are the multilayered and multi-leveled processes for dealing with resistance and conflict in the face of grand challenges and wicked problems?
  • How can institutions, organizations, and individuals, including scholars, respond more effectively to refugee issues, disenfranchisement, and economic dislocation?

Levels of Analysis

  • What are the bottom-up and top-down processes behind mobilizing for change at and across different levels of organizing, and how are they shaping organizational, institutional, and societal responses to these types of upheaval?
  • How can the examination of organizing around displacement, disruption, and division assist in better understanding the microfoundations of institutional change?
  • What practices, unfolding at the micro and meso levels, foster civility and contribute to the healing of polarizing societal rifts?
  • In what ways can civil society innovations be facilitated in the face of multiple and multifaceted global threats?

Global and Local Forms of Organizing

  • How do geographical and place-based dynamics affect action and possibilities for change?
  • What are examples of novel forms of organizations and organizing around these wicked problems and what can be learned from them?
  • What are the key forces, patterns, and players involved in building local collaborations against a backdrop of global disruption and global agendas?
  • In what ways can local collaborative partnerships be scaled up and replicated?
  • What is the role of local organizations (e.g., SMEs, cooperatives, non-profits, public sector organizations, and civil society) in responding to disruption and displacement? What are innovative local patterns of organizing for responding to and mitigating the difficulties of disruptive global shifts (Höllerer et al., 2017)?

Institutional and Collective Identity Building Efforts

  •  What are the possibilities for cross-sectoral collaboration in the face of power differences?
  • What are the possible roles for conflict management and peacemaking?
  • How do we cultivate civility, engagement, and listening in the face of the polarization, hostility, and social demonization that arise as a consequence of displacement, disruption, and division? How do we reach across the ‘empathy wall’ (Hochschild, 2016), and what are the practical next steps?
  • What are the identity dynamics (e.g., gender, race, class, religious) involved and what are the implications for various forms of tensions and responses, ranging from exclusionary backlash to inclusion? What can be learned through applying an identity lens to (re)analyzing disruption and displacement?
  • What are the difficulties in working across differences in privilege and power and how can they be addressed?
  • How are ‘deep stories’ and identities implicated in how persons and local populations respond to disruption, displacement, and division?


To be considered for publication in the Special Issue, papers must be submitted via the OS website at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/orgstudies by October 31, 2018. There you can also find guidelines for submission and information on the review procedures.


Anand, S. & P. Segal. 2015. The Global Distribution of Income. In: A. B. Atkinson and F. Bourguignon (Eds.), Handbook of Income Distribution. Volume 2A, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 937-979.

BBC News. 2016. Oxfam Says Wealth of Richest 1% Equal to Other 99%. January 2018.


Creed, W.E.D., R. DeJordy, & J. Lok. 2010. Being the Change: Resolving Institutional Contradiction through Identity Work. Academy of Management Journal 53(6), 1336-1364.

Creed, .E.D., B.A. Hudson, G. Okhuysen, & K. Smith-Crowe. 2014. Swimming in a Sea of Shame: Emotion in Institutional Maintenance and Disruption. Academy of Management Review, 39(3) 275-301.

Creed, W.E.D. & M. Scully. 2000. Songs of Ourselves: Employees’ Deployment of Social Identity in Work Place Encounters. Journal of Management Inquiry 9(4), 391-412.

Ferraro, F., D. Etzion & J. Gehman. 2015. Tackling Grand Challenges Pragmatically: Robust Action Revisited. Organization Studies 36(3), 363–390.

Gray, B. & J. Kish-Gephart. 2013. Encountering Social Class Differences at Work: How “Class Work” Perpetuates Inequality. Academy of Management Review 38(5), 670-699.

Gray, B. & J.M. Purdy. 2018. Collaborating for Our Future: Confronting Complex Problems through Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Hochschild, A.R. 2016. Strangers in their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right. New York: The New Press.

Höllerer, M.A, P. Walgenbach, & G.S. Drori. 2017. The Consequences of Globalization for Institutions and Organizations. In R. Greenwood, R. Meyer, C. Oliver & T. Lawrence (ds.) Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Karam, C.M. & D. Jamali. 2015. A Cross-Cultural and Feminist Perspective on CSR in Developing Countries: Uncovering Latent Power Dynamics. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2737-7

Lok, J., W.E.D. Creed, R. DeJordy, & M. Voronov. 2017. Living Institutions: Bringing Emotions into Organizational Institutionalism. In R. Greenwood, R. Meyer, C. Oliver & T. Lawrence (Eds.) Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mair, J., M. Wolf & C. Seelos. 2016. Scaffolding: A Process of Transforming Patterns of Inequality in Small-Scale Societies. Academy of Management Journal 59(6), 2012-2044.

Marti, I. & P. Fernández. 2013. The Institutional Work of Oppression and Resistance: Learning from the Holocaust. Organization Studies 34(8), 1195-1223.

Palmer, P. J. 2011. Healing the Heart of Democracy; The Courage to Create a Politics Worthy of the Human Spirit. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rittel, H.W. & M.M. Webber. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4, 155-169.

Tracy, P. & W.E.D Creed. 2017. Beyond Managerial Dilemmas: The Study of Paradoxes in Organizational Theory. In: W.K. Smith, M.W. Lewis, P. Jarzabkowski, & A. Langley (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

World Economic Forum, Global Risks Report 2018. Geneva: Switzerland. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GRR18_Report.pdf

OS SI CfP: Connectivity

Organization Studies

 Call for Papers

 Special Issue on: Connectivity in and around Organizations

 Guest Editors 

Darl G. Kolb, Graduate School of Management, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Marleen Huysman, KIN Research Group, VU University, The Netherlands

Kristine Dery, Center for Systems Information Research, MIT, Australia & USA

Anca Metiu, Senior Editor, Organization Studies, ESSEC Business School, France


Deadline for paper submissions: September 30th 2018

The journal is seeking papers for a Special Issue that reflects and considers the impact of ubiquitous and near-constant connectivity in and around organizations.

In 2008, Organization Studies published an article entitled, ‘Exploring the Metaphor of Connectivity: Attributes, Dimensions and Duality’  (Kolb, 2008). A lot has happened in the world of connectivity in the past 10 years. Following the BlackBerry (‘CrackBerry’) era, the release of the iPhone in 2007 accelerated the ‘smartphone’ era. To be sure, the topics of mobile communication practice (Dery, Kolb, & MacCormick, 2014; MacCormick, Dery, & Kolb, 2012; Mazmanian, Orlikowski, & Yates, 2013; Sergeva, Huysman, van den Hooff, & Soekijad, 2017) virtual work and collaboration (Fayard & Metiu, 2014; Kolb, Collins, & Lind, 2008), work-life balance (Bakker & Leiter, 2010; Mazmanian, 2013), perceptions of proximity (Leonardi, Treem, & Jackson, 2010; Wilson, O’Leary, Metiu, & Jett, 2008), cognitive and socio-emotional effects of hyper-connectivity (Carr, 2010; Turkle, 2011) have received considerable attention in the years since the past decade. However, with some notable exceptions (Bakker & Leiter, 2010; Flyverbom, Leonardi, Stohl, & Stohl, 2016; Leonardi & Barley, 2010; Orlikowski & Scott, 2008), theoretical developments have been relatively sparse in this relatively new, yet important field of inquiry.

We believe the time is right for a dedicated collection of scholarly work that advances our theoretical and practical understanding of the unprecedented connective context within and around organizations. Our intent is to produce a provocative and memorable Special Issue of Organization Studies. We therefore invite refreshing scholarly discourse on what constitutes connectivity (what it is and/or what it means), including its antecedents, its social materiality and the conceptual relationships that underpin and/or define connectivity, thereby offering advances in theory. Meanwhile, we expect critical evaluations of some of the ‘consequences’ and implications for practice. We are also seeking empirical studies that illuminate the subject and provide evidence and evocation for theory-building or theory-challenging.

Objectives of the Special Issue:

  • To advance our understanding of how connectivity affects organizational life
  • To stimulate dialogue and debate on connectivity as a dimension of contemporary life
  • To offer fresh, empirically-based insights into the practice of connecting with others through technology

We invite papers that will address, but are not limited to the following themes:

  • new perspectives on mobile human-computer interaction,
  • advancements and/or challenges to socio-technical and sociomaterial theoretical lenses,
  • the integration of work and non-work dimensions of life,
  • the stresses and strains associated with work-life integration, and
  • isolation and alienation that accompany and contradict increased connectedness.

We are particularly interested in papers that provoke new ways of thinking about questions such as, but not limited to:

  • How do face-to-face organisational processes and practices compete for attention with ubiquitous personal connective technologies?
  • Who decides when and how much organizational members connect or disconnect?
  • What are the implications of near-constant connectivity on health and wellness?
  • The paradox of autonomy: How do independent individuals still work collaboratively?
  • How are work practices co-evolving with connective technologies?
  • How are organizational structures co-evolving with connective technologies?

Papers may be conceptual, theoretical and/or empirical in nature, with a preference for empirical-based theoretical work.  While qualitative research may be most appropriate for supporting new theoretical directions and critical perspectives, quantitative research is also welcome, as long as it addresses new questions and contributes to the conceptual conversation in straightforward (accessible) language.

The scope of papers is intentionally broad, but papers should have a bearing on ‘organizational’ phenomena, as per the overall purpose and general guidelines of Organization Studies.


Please submit papers through the journal’s online submission system, SAGE track, by visiting http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/orgstudies. Create your user account (if you have not done so already), and for “Manuscript Type,” choose the corresponding Special Issue. All papers that enter the review process will be double-blind reviewed, following the journal’s normal review process and criteria. You may submit papers for this Special Issue through SAGE Track between September, 15th and 30th 2018.

For administrative support and general queries, please contact:

Sophia Tzagaraki, Managing Editor, Organization Studies: osofficer@gmail.com.



Bakker, A. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2010). Work Engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. New York: Psychology Press: Taylor and Francis Group.

Carr, N. (2010). The shallows: How the internet is changing the way we think, read and remember. London: Atlantic.

Dery, K., Kolb, D. G., & MacCormick, J. (2014). Working with flow: The evolving practice of smartphone technologies. European Journal of Information Systems, 23(5), 558-570.

Fayard, A.-L., & Metiu, A. (2014). The role of writing in distributed collaboration. Organization Science, 25(5), 1391-1413.

Flyverbom, M., Leonardi, P. M., Stohl, C., & Stohl, M. (2016). The management of visibilities in the digital age. Interntional Journal of Communication, 10, 98-109.

Kolb, D. G. (2008). Exploring the metaphor of connectivity: Attributes, dimensions and duality. Organization Studies, 29(1), 127-144.

Kolb, D. G., Collins, P. D., & Lind, E. A. (2008). Requisite connectivity: Finding flow in a not-so-flat world. Organizational Dynamics, 37(2), 181-189.

Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2010). What’s under construction here? Social action, materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 1-51.

Leonardi, P. M., Treem, J. W., & Jackson, M. H. (2010). The connectivity paradox: Using technology to both decrease and increase perceptions of distance in distributed work arrangements. Journal of Applied Communications Research, 38(1), 85-105.

MacCormick, J., Dery, K., & Kolb, D. G. (2012). Engaged or just connected?: Smartphones and employee engagement. Organizational Dynamics, 41(3), 194-201.

Mazmanian, M. (2013). Avoiding the trap of constant connectivity: When congruent frames allow for heterogeneous practices. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1225-1250.

Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2013). The autonomy paradox: The implications of mobile email devices for knowledge professionals. Organization Science, 24(5), 1337-1357.

Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433-474.

Sergeva, A., Huysman, M., van den Hooff, B., & Soekijad, M. (2017). Through the eyes of others: How onlookers shape the use of mobile technology at work. MIS Quarterly, 41(4), 1153-1178.

Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.

Wilson, J. M., O’Leary, M. B., Metiu, A., & Jett, Q. R. (2008). Percieved proximity in virtual work: Explaining the paradox of far-but-close. Organization Studies, 29(7), 979-1002.

OS SI CfP: Organizational Control

Call for Papers

Special Issue on Organizational control and surveillance of new work practices

NEW Deadline for paper submissions: August 31st 2018

Guest Editors :

François-Xavier de Vaujany (Université Paris-Dauphine, France)

Aurélie Leclercq-Vandelannoitte (CNRS, LEM UMR 9221, IESEG School of Management, France)

Iain Munro (Newcastle University Business School, United Kingdom)

Yesh Nama (RMIT University, Australia)

Robin Holt (Copenhagen Business School)



Agnès, a young new startupper at the ‘Coworking Space’ in Berlin, explains[1]:

 Convivial, flat, free, fun, effective, adaptable, remarkable, transparent….this is how this coworking space described itself. In reality, I’ve never had the impression to be in an environment freed of hierarchy. We were all installed in a large, open space, separated from each other of only some meters… … except our CHO (Chief Happiness Officer), who had his own office, and could suddenly burst in. There was no overtime, only flexible hours. Actually overtime was considered the norm. We were all together in the same space, looking at each other’s’ comings and goings. When a coworker left at 6 pm, we all ironically (and legitimately) asked him if he was having a break! Fortunately beers and pizzas were distributed after 7 pm to motivate us to stay… we all seemed to enjoy this kind of stomach control. The rule for those who arrived late in the morning – 9 was the norm – was to bring pastries … However over time, I had the feeling that being late was met with disapproval. After all, maybe it was a sign that people were less motivated by, less confident in, or less passionate about their projects? One day, I felt ill at ease with this climate, it stifled me… I isolated myself in the restrooms, took my smartphone, and called my boyfriend to get some kind of support…

The emergence of new work practices and workplaces, as shown by the joint search for more mobility, openness (e.g. with open innovation), horizontality (e.g. with coworking practices and collaborative entrepreneurship), digital and collaborative practices (including more and more external stakeholders, e.g. customers and citizens, in the co-production of services), has raised new questions of organizational control, and surveillance. In a global context marked by the invisible revolution of surveillance capitalism (Zuboff, 2015) and the resurgence of risk (Beck, 1992), security fears and terror, which have re-legitimized the need for close surveillance and control, new work practices and workplaces have transformed the ‘premises of human involvement in organizations’ (Kallinikos, 2003, p. 595), as well as the mechanisms and conditions of control and surveillance. In particular, work transformations (project-based work, teleworking, distributed work arrangements, collaborative entrepreneurship and the emergence of third and collaborative practices and spaces, e.g. coworking spaces, maker spaces, innovation labs) are revealing how work increasingly gets performed outside the typical physical, spatial and temporal boundaries of the organization or within the context of third spaces and liminal spaces (Oldenburg, 1989; Garrett et al., 2017; Sewell and Taskin, 2015; Spinuzzi, 2012; Waber et al., 2014; Johns and Gratton, 2013).

These work transformations and new ‘sites’ (Schatzki, 2005) of work alter the structure of ‘presence’ and ‘visibility’ of employees and consequently affect the nature of the control of work practices (from supervision to more reporting, from technocratic to more social, peer- and self- control): both horizontal relationships (with co-workers) and vertical relationships (with supervisors) are transformed. These new work practices imply a ‘dispersal’ and ‘distantiation’ (Beyes and Stayaert, 2012; Sewell and Taskin, 2015) in the time and space of control (Bauman and Lyon, 2013; Orlikowski, 1991), and raise singular and often paradoxical challenges. On the one hand it entails collaborative forms of management control that extends beyond direct visual sight (Dambrin, 2004; Halford, 2005; Sewell, 2012), and on the other, forms of self-disciplining and transformation in which autonomy becomes almost a synonym for governance. Under the impress of both trends, surveillance has become increasingly mobile, flexible, pervasive and unbounded (Bauman and Lyon, 2013), and in turn encourages them.

It is important, however, not to limit understanding of control and surveillance to the digital and immaterial. Indeed, it seems they are more than ever constituted by, embedded in and infused in the materiality, corporeity, spatiality and temporality of new work practices and workplaces. Organizational control and surveillance should be conceived of not only as digital, virtual, fluid, flexible and discursive, but also as ever more deeply grounded in the concrete, material, spatial, embodied underpinnings (e.g. work practices, spatial practices, places, bodies, technologies in use, information tactics) of everyday life (Munro and Jordan, 2013; Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, 2011). New work practices and recent work transformations enhance the complexity of situations to control and highlight the ambiguity of spaces, instruments, objects, artefacts, management systems (Miller, 2008, 2009; Dale, 2005; Dale and Burrell, 2008; Lorino, 2013; de Vaujany and Vaast, 2014; Munro, 2016). The evolution of organizational control and surveillance through new work practices also points to the versatility of the uses of technologies in control and surveillance efforts (Orlikowski and Scott, 2008); some research for example emphasize a resurgence of ancient, bureaucratic forms of administration in new work settings, as managers seek to compensate for the distance, absence, and lack of visibility of their subordinates (Sewell and Taskin, 2015; Orlikowski and Scott, 2008; Halford, 2005). These new practices, coupled to evolving IT uses, constitute a new kind of organising of employees, placing them on an almost permanent front stage (Goffman, 1959). Such evolutions thus call for a deeper investigation of the materiality, corporeity, spatiality and temporality of control and surveillance through new work practices and work settings.

Furthermore, the continuous evolution of work practices and emergence of new work practices (e.g. remote work, digital mobility, collaborative entrepreneurship, coworking practices, Do It Yourself, makers, corporate hacking…) characterized by a potential shift—from static, central oversight to untethered, dispersed (auto)organization, embedded in material technologies—raises important tensions in terms of power relations, morality and ethics, with potentially paradoxical consequences. Novel types of control and surveillance find increasing legitimacy among those being subjugated, who may cooperate willingly, in a relation that raises new tensions between technology and human flourishing (Bauman and Lyon, 2013). Developments of consumer surveillance, biometrics, workplace surveillance, and ubiquitous computing constitute the embodied individual not only as a target of continuous oversight, but also as a subject of (self) exposure, through a process of data representation, interpretation and sharing, so that games of visibility (exhibitionism), observation (voyeurism) and secrecy (hiding one’s work) now abound in the workplace (Brivot and Gendron, 2011).

Thus, the tensions between the material, the virtual, the social, the embodied individual, and their implications, have never been so crucial to theories of control and surveillance. Emerging practices and organizational forms fuel tensions between our notions of freedom and security, physical and virtual or digital spatiality, the material with the social, the visible with the invisible, the continuous with the discontinuous, the reified with the virtual, the mind with the body, political (domination and oversight) with cultural or ideological control (persuasion and consent), and manipulation and collaboration.

With this special issue, we seek to rethink control and surveillance by developing a more materialized, spatialized, embodied and temporalized view in relation to new work practices that can supplement and so counterbalance a vision these being purely virtual and digitally enabled. By such we refer to theoretical analyses and contributions that emphasize the entanglement of social and material dimensions of control and work practices and the importance of ontological questions (i.e. what should be the main – ‘real’- focus of analysis: objects, activities, processes, perceptions, practices…?); issues of space, time, corporeity, embodiment, visuality and materiality involved in control devices and new work practices (Dale, 2005), as well as their relationships with organizations and organizing (Robichaud and Cooren, 2013); and broader ontological debates (Leonardi et al., 2012; Carlile et al, 2013; Orlikowski, 1991; Orlikowski, 2007; Scott and Orlikowski, 2012), across different ‘epistemic communities’ (Holt and den Hond, 2013; Boxenbaum et al., 2015; de Vaujany and Mitev, 2015).

Potential approaches and questions to be addressed in the special issue

To summarize, this special issue seeks to advance the study of organizations and organizing by exploring the materiality, meaning, nature and forms of control and surveillance of and through new work practices in contemporary society. We hope to involve a diverse range of scholars and scholarly traditions in debate. We welcome submissions that address control and surveillance from different ontological vantage points, in different contexts, using different methodologies.

Authors intending to submit papers to this special issue are encouraged to focus on some of the broad issues in the following far from exhaustive list:

  • Philosophical, historical and sociological roots of societal and organizational control and surveillance of work practices;
  • The unexpected presence and emergence of control and surveillance in the context of new work practices (e.g. sharing economy, remote work, digital mobility, collaborative entrepreneurship, coworking practices, Do It Yourself, makers, corporate hacking…);
  • Semiosis and digital infrastructure of control and surveillance processes in organizations and organizing;
  • The role of corporations and the ‘security–industrial complex’ in the deployment of new techniques;
  • Materiality, ontologies, politics of control and surveillance, and new agencies for such;
  • Concern for materiality, spatiality, liminality and temporality in control, discipline and surveillance;
  • Critical perspectives on new work practices and the emergence of control;
  • The rise of terrorism (often in the city) and challenges for control and surveillance in the public and private spaces;
  • Accomplishments and failures of control and surveillance;
  • The role of risk-management culture and risk-management tools in the emergence of surveillance capitalism and its material, corporeal, spatial and temporal forms;
  • Relations between control and surveillance in new work practices and governance;
  • The disciplinary nature of control and surveillance in new work practices;
  • New work and collaborative practices (e.g. coworkers, digital nomads, makers, hackers);
  • Managerial and leadership techniques of control and surveillance.


Please submit papers through the journal’s online submission system, SAGE track, by visiting http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/orgstudies. Create your user account (if you have not done so already), and for “Manuscript Type,” choose the corresponding Special Issue. All papers that enter the review process will be double-blind reviewed, following the journal’s normal review process and criteria. You may submit papers for this Special Issue through SAGE Track until August 31st 2018.

For further information about this CFP, please contact:


For administrative support and general queries, please contact:

Sophia Tzagaraki, Managing Editor, Organization Studies: osofficer@gmail.com.


Indicative references

Bauman, Z., & Lyon, D. (2013). Liquid surveillance: a conversation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity (Vol. 17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Beyes, T., Steyaert, C. (2012). Spacing organization: non-representational theory and performing organizational space.  Organization, 19(1): 45-61

Boxenbaum, E., Jones, C., Meyer, R., & Svejenova, S. (2015). The Material and Visual Turn in Organization Theory: Objectifying and (Re)acting to Novel Ideas. Call for Papers, Special Issue of Organization Studies, http://oss.sagepub.com/content/35/10/1547.extract.

Brivot, M. and Gendron, Y. (2011). Beyond panopticism: on the ramifications of surveillance in a contemporary professional setting. Accounting, Organizations and Society 36(3), 135–155.

Carlile, P. R., Nicolini, D., Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. (Eds.). (2013). How matter matters: Objects, artifacts, and materiality in organization studies. OUP Oxford.

Dale, K. (2005). Building a social materiality: Spatial and embodied politics in organizational control. Organization, 12, 649–678.

Dale, K., & Burrell, G. (2008). The spaces of organisation and the organisation of space: Power, identity and materiality at work. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

de Vaujany, F. X., & Mitev, N. (2015). The post-Macy paradox, information management and organizing: Good intentions and a road to hell? Culture & Organization, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2015.1103242.

de Vaujany, FX. & Vaast, E. (2014). If these walls could talk: The mutual construction of organizational space and legitimacy, Organization Science, 25(3),713-731.

Garrett, L.E., Spreitzer, G.M., Bacevice, P.A., (2017). Co-constructing a Sense of Community at Work: The Emergence of Community in Coworking Spaces. Organization Studies 0170840616685354. doi:10.1177/0170840616685354.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday Anchor Books, New York.

Halford, S. (2005). Hybrid workspace: Re-spatialisations of work, organisation and management. New Technology, Work and Employment, 20, 19–33.

Holt, R. & Den Hond, F. (2013), Sapere Aude. Organization Studies, 34(11), 1587-1600.

Johns, T. & Gratton L. (2013), The third wave of virtual work. Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 66-73.

Kallinikos, J. (2003). Work, human agency and organizational forms: an anatomy of fragmentation. Organization Studies, 24 (4), 595-618.

Leclercq-Vandelannoitte A., (2011). Organizations as discursive constructions: A Foucauldian approach, Organization Studies, 32 (9), 1247-1271.

Leonardi, P. M., Nardi, B. A., & Kallinikos, J. (Eds) (2012). Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world. Oxford University Press on Demand.

Lorino, P. (2013). Management Systems As Organizational ‘Architextures’. In: Materiality and Space. Organization, Artefacts and Practices. Basingstoke (UK) et New York (Basingstoke (UK) et New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2013, p. 62-95.

Miller, D. (2008). The Comfort of Things. Cambridge: Polity.

Miller, D. (2009). Stuff. Cambridge: Polity.

Munro, I. (2016) Organizational resistance as a vector of deterritorialization: The case of WikiLeaks and secrecy havens. Organization, 23(4): 567–587

Munro I, Jordan S. (2013). ‘Living Space’ at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe: Spatial tactics and the politics of smooth space. Human Relations, 66(11), 1497-1525.

Oldenburg, R. (1989). The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Community Centers, Beauty Parlors, General Stores, Bars, Hangouts, and How They Get You Through the Day. New York: Paragon House.

Orlikowski, W. (1991). Integrated information environment or matrix of control? The contradictory implication of information technology, Accounting, Management & Information Technologies, 1(1): 9:42.

Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435-1448.

Orlikowski, W.J., & Scott, S.V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2 (1), 433–474.

Robichaud, D., & Cooren, F. (Eds.). (2013). Organization and organizing: Materiality, agency and discourse. Routledge.

Schatzki, T. R. (2005). Peripheral vision: The sites of organizations. Organization studies, 26(3), 465-484.

Scott, S.V. & Orlikowski, W.J., 2012. Reconfiguring relations of accountability: Materialization of social media in the travel sector. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37 (1), 26-40.

Sewell, G. (2012). Employees, organizations and surveillance. In K. Ball, K. D. Haggerty, & D. Lyon (Eds.), The handbook of surveillance studies (pp. 303–312). London: Routledge.

Sewell, G. & Taskin, L., (2015). Out of sight, out of mind in a new world of work? Autonomy, control, and spatiotemporal scaling in telework. Organization Studies, 36 (11), 1507-1529.

Spinuzzi, C. (2012) ‘Working alone together: Coworking as emergent collaborative activity’, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26 (4), 399-441.

Waber B., Magnolfi J. and Lindsay G. (2014). Workspaces That Move People, Harvard Business Review, pp.69-77.

Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30, 75–89.

[1] Inspired and adapted from the story of Ramadier M. (2017) Bienvenue dans le nouveau monde, comment j’ai survécu à la coolitude des startups, Premier Parallèle.

CfP: BHC 2019

Globalization and De-Globalization: Shifts of Power and Wealth

Annual Meeting of the Business History Conference
Hilton Cartagena de Indias, Colombia
March 14 – 16, 2019
Proposals due October 1, 2018 

The theme of the 2019 Business History Conference annual meeting will be “Globalization and De-Globalization: Shifts of Power and Wealth.” The recent phenomena of the spread of populist and economic nationalist regimes throughout North America, Europe, Asia and elsewhere taking positions against the major trading blocks and the free movement of people and goods make the topic of this conference very timely. The conference aims to concentrate on business history research agendas that enable a nuanced understanding of the phenomena of globalization and de-globalization.

The conference theme encourages contributions from a variety of approaches to business history research, covering a broad range of geographies and periods. The program committee of Marcelo Bucheli (co-chair), Andrea Lluch (co-chair), Takafumi Kurosawa, Espen Storli, Laura Sawyer, and Teresa da Silva Lopes (BHC president) invites papers proposals addressing on the following topics, but not limited to:

  • the contribution of firms and the entrepreneurs to globalization and de-globalization;
  • the role and responsibility of business in shifts of power, wealth and inequality;
  • the rise of emerging markets and the globalization of firms from those markets;
  • globalization and environmental and social sustainability;
  • business and gender during waves of globalization and de-globalization
  • and risk management during globalization waves

While we encourage proposals to take up this theme, papers addressing all other topics will receive equal consideration by the program committee in accordance with BHC policy. Proposals may be submitted for individual papers or for entire panels. Each proposal should include a one-page abstract and one-page curriculum vitae (CV) for each participant. Panel proposals should have a cover letter containing a title, a one-paragraph panel description, and suggestions for a chair and commentator, with contact information for the panel organizer. To submit a proposal go to <http://thebhc.org/2019-bhc-meeting> and click on the link Submit a Paper/Panel Proposal.

All sessions take place at the Hilton Hotel Cartagena. Rooms (all suites) are $169/night single and $189/double occupancy (plus tax) and include a full breakfast. General questions regarding the BHC’s 2019 annual meeting may be sent to conference coordinator Roger Horowitz, rh@udel.edu.

The K. Austin Kerr Prize will be awarded for the best first paper delivered by a new scholar at the annual meeting.  A “new scholar” is defined as a doctoral candidate or a Ph. D. whose degree is less than three years old. You must nominate your paper for this prize on the proposal submission page where indicated. Please check the appropriate box if your proposal qualifies for inclusion in the Kerr Prize competition.

The deadline for receipt of all paper and panel proposals is 1 October 2018. Acceptance letters will be sent by 15 December 2018. Everyone appearing on the program must register for the meeting. Graduate students and recent PhDs (within 3 years of receipt of degree) whose papers are accepted for the meeting may apply for funds to partially defray their travel costs; information will be sent out once the program has been set.

The BHC awards the Herman E. Krooss Prize for the best English-language dissertation in business history by a recent Ph.D. in history, economics, business administration, the history of science and technology, sociology, law, communications, and related fields. To be eligible, dissertations must be completed in the three calendar years immediately prior to the 2019 annual meeting, and may only be submitted once for the Krooss prize. After the Krooss committee has reviewed the proposals, it will ask semi-finalists to submit copies of their dissertations. Finalists will present summaries of their dissertations at a plenary session and will receive a partial subsidy of their travel costs to the meeting. Proposals accepted for the Krooss Prize are not eligible for the Kerr Prize. If you wish to apply for this prize please send a cover letter indicating you are applying for the Krooss prize along with a one-page CV and one-page (300 word) dissertation abstract via email to BHC@Hagley.org. The deadline for proposals for the Krooss prize is 1 October 2018.

The BHC Doctoral Colloquium in Business History will be held in conjunction with the BHC annual meeting. This prestigious workshop, funded by Cambridge University Press, will take place in Cartagena Wednesday March 13 and Thursday March 14. Typically limited to ten students, the colloquium is open to early stage doctoral candidates pursuing dissertation research within the broad field of business history, from any relevant discipline. Topics (see link for past examples) may range from the early modern era to the present, and explore societies across the globe.  Participants work intensively with a distinguished group of BHC-affiliated scholars (including at least two BHC officers), discussing dissertation proposals, relevant literatures and research strategies, and career trajectories.  Applications are due by 1 November 2018 via email to BHC@Hagley.org and should include: a statement of interest; CV; preliminary or final dissertation prospectus (10-15 pages); and a letter of support from your dissertation supervisor (or prospective supervisor). Questions about the colloquium should be sent to its director, Edward Balleisen, eballeis@duke.edu. All participants receive a stipend that partially defrays travel costs to the annual meeting.  Applicants will receive notification of the selection committee’s decisions by 1 December 2018.

On the 14th March 2019 there will be a special workshop on ‘Latin American Business in a Global and Historical Perspective’ which will be in the Spanish and Portuguese languages and aims to attract papers by academics who prefer to present their research in their native languages. The deadline for submissions is 1 October 2018. For more details about the call for papers and the submission process contact Joaquin Viloria De la Hoz (Banco de la República / Central Bank of Colombia) at: jvilorde@banrep.gov.co.

BH SI CfP: Nationality of the Company

Call for Papers for a Special Issue of Business History

“International Business, Multi-Nationals, and the Nationality of the Company”

(latest submission by 15 January 2019, early submissions appreciated)

Business historians have stressed the international dimensions of business for a long time. Research on multinational enterprises (MNE) including the Free-Standing Company (FSC) belongs to the important contributions of Business History to the fields of international business, strategy, and management. The very question of “nationality” and which “nationality”, always present in the background, is rarely directly addressed even though national dimensions including politics evidently pervade international business activities. Corporate structure, corporate governance, and international branding are the most obvious but not the only fields in which “nationality” matters in international business. With Brexit, Trumpism and the re-nationalization of the political discourse within larger parts of Europe “nationality” that once was supposed to have lost its relevance in the global economy returns back to the agenda of international business in terms of political risk.

Most relevant is the issue of “nationality” for the MNE, of course. And the internationalization literature from Perlmutter, Dunnings, and Johanson and Vahlne to Matthews thematises the issue of the “nationality” of the home country and the host county in different ways. Recent work deals more fundamentally with the relations between the nation-state and the MNE. Most researchers follow, however, a seemingly ‘unproblematic’ legal construction of “nationality” in terms of the seat of the headquarters that is usually assumed to be the centre of ownership and control. An exception to this is research on the FSC with capital and headquarters in a home country and business activities only in distant locations, most often overseas colonies. Here, and also for business groups, corporate “nationality” is particularly difficult to determine since basic firm functions such as corporate finance and managerial control are dependent on the place of legal jurisdiction, formal headquarters, and firm registration. However, more detailed analysis shows that in very many cases the place of registration, the residence of shareholders, and the “nationality” of management are separate issues. Today, increasingly nationalist politics makes this visible.

Historical approaches allow studying corporate “nationality” in an internationally comparative perspective and over time. By tracing firm behaviour in different political environments, both geographically and in terms of time, historical research can unpack the mechanisms through which “nationality” works and can be used. The company’s national identity, always a construct and like the broader concept of corporate identity a matter of communication and perception, is influenced by its legal nationality, the location of its headquarters, the nationality of its shareholders and directors, the places of production, and attributions of nationality for example to its products. Historical research on the firm’s evaluation of the costs and benefits of “nationality” and on actors’ rationale for choosing, constructing, and designing “nationality” for commercial and strategic purposes helps explicate the evolutionary process in which companies address issues of politics, risk, and legitimacy.

With the Special Issue we want to connect to the internationals business and strategy literature that indeed identifies different patterns of internationalisation over time but most often does not consider historical change of the political-economic environment (and of the company) as a particular object of analysis, whereas historians might be more strongly interested in how entrepreneurial activity was carried on, the circumstances under which it was constructed, how it developed and how practices, strategies and narratives changed over time. Also the question of how a firm’s nationality is perceived and represented in the host country or at its place of origin is relevant in many ways, for instance for political decision makers and for consumers.

In order to develop these ideas, contributions to the Special Issue should engage with the following broad topics:

  • What explains the location of MNEs, FSCs, and business groups, the location of their activities in other countries and their choice of “nationality”? What is the impact of financial and fiscal aspects, what is the impact of political and other factors?
  • Decisions of whether to use branches, to set up subsidiaries, or to use independent companies in order to operate within a “host” country are often explained with favourable or unfavourable institutional arrangements. Do the “nationality” of the company going abroad and the respective host country (or countries) – the image and reputation of the firms’ countries – as well as particular historical conditions, matter for internationalisation strategies?
  • Companies interested in doing business abroad need to negotiate for example with governments and bureaucracies. How does the “nationality” of the firms in question affect these relationships? And how did these relationships change, for instance, in the era of decolonization when many Western companies regarded newly independent nations not only as a source for raw materials but also as promising markets?
  • In the early 21st century, new emerging market multinationals are going global. Do they take new approaches and in how far are their internationalisation strategies particular ?
  • “Nationality” also serves as managerial device creating competition between international branches of a MNE, for example in terms of productivity or labour costs. Therefore, in case of take-overs but also in case of relocation of corporate activities, employees and their trade unions often contribute to constructing “nationality”. How do they shape, how do they conceive of “nationality” of the firm and of investors?

Submission instructions

This special issue welcomes contributions to the theme International Business, Multi-Nationals, and the Nationality of the Company that cover crucial aspects of the outlined research agenda and should be based on original research and innovative analysis.

The maximum length of the paper should be 9,000 words (including graphs and tables). The papers should not be under consideration by another journal. All proposals should be submitted by 15 January 2019 via ScholarOne, using the drop down menu to indicate that they are submissions to the Special Issue on International Business, Multi-Nationals, and the Nationality of the Company. All the articles will be peer reviewed and, therefore, some may be rejected. Authors should ensure that their manuscripts fully comply with the publishing style of formatting regulation of Business History (Instructions for authors). Authors may be asked to use an English language copyeditor before final acceptance.

Editorial information

Guest Editor: Boris Gehlen, University of Bonn (b.gehlen@uni-bonn.de)

Guest Editor: Christian Marx, University of Trier (marxchr@uni-trier.de)

Guest Editor: Alfred Reckendrees, Copenhagen Business School (are.mpp@cbs.dk)

Conf: The Web that was

The Web that Was: Archives, Traces, Reflections

A three-day conference, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, June 19-21, 2019. The third biennial RESAW (Research Infrastructure for the Study of Archived Web Materials) conference. Organized by the University of Amsterdam.


*** Keynote speakers ***

Megan Ankerson, University of Michigan

Florian Cramer, Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences

Olia Lialina, Merz Akademie

Fred Turner, Stanford University


*** Special event ***

The conference will host a lecture-performance by Geert Lovink (Institute of Network Cultures, Hogeschool van Amsterdam) and guests on the history and preservation of Amsterdam’s early internet culture.


*** Call for contributions ***

As the first generation of web users goes grey, it’s clear that the internet they remember is no longer around. The early web is now simply another object of nostalgia. Tech anniversaries are a dime a dozen, while once cool digital aesthetics have made several ironic comebacks. All of this reinforces a sense that we’ve left behind a digital history that was as clunky and slow as it was idealistic and naïve.


How can we rethink this relationship to the web’s past and the past web? This question is crucial today as the open web continues to lose ground to platforms and apps. How can this history be reconstructed and re-evaluated, and how are web archives and web histories impacted by technological change? What do traditional problems of preservation and historiography look like at scale? And what stories capture the diverse transformations and continuities that mark nearly 30 years of web history?


There is of course no single web history, materially or conceptually speaking. There is instead a politics of archives, technologies and discourses that needs to be uncovered. How can we expand our view of web history beyond Silicon Valley and celebrated cases? And how can we reveal the technological, social and economic contexts that have shaped not just the present web, but how we access its past? What role do archives play in uncovering the histories of the web, platforms and apps, as well as their production and usage contexts?


This conference aims to bring together scholars, archivists and artists interested in preserving, portraying and otherwise engaging with the web that was. In addition to paper submissions, we invite proposals for audiovisual installations, posters, software demos, or other media that connects to the conference themes.


Submissions in the form of an abstract may relate to, but are not limited by, the following topics:


* Web and internet histories

* Historicizing the web and digital culture

* Web 1.0, Web 2.0 and critiquing periodizations

* Past futures and paths not taken

* Platformization and the changing structure of the web

* Social imaginaries of the early web

* Archives and access

* Research methods for studying the archived web

* Methods for platform and app histories

* Ethics of (studying) web archives

* Technicity of web archives

* Software histories

* Archived audiences and histories of internet use

* Identity, intersectionality and web history

* Digital activism and web history

* Histories of net criticism

* Media industries and their online histories

* Web histories elsewhere: forgotten and marginalized web cultures

* Realtime, time travel and other web temporalities

* Future histories and the archive of tomorrow


*** Submissions ***

Submissions are welcomed from all fields and disciplines, and we would particularly encourage postgraduate students and early career researchers to participate.


* Individual papers of 20 minutes length (750-word abstract and a short author bio of 100-150 words).

* Panel sessions consisting of three individual papers, introduced by a chair (750-word abstract for each paper, a brief description of 300 words of the purpose of the panel, and a short author bio of 100-150 words for each speaker).

* Posters, demonstrations, and audio/video/interactive installations (short abstract of no more than 300 words, a list of A/V or other requirements, and a short author bio of 100-150 words)

* Workshops (a 500-word rationale for the workshop, including discussion of why the topic lends itself to a workshop format, and a short author bio of 100-150 words for the workshop organiser(s)).


Deadline for submission is 19 October 2018.


Acceptance will be on the basis of double-blind peer review.


*** Timetable ***

May 2018 – dates out

June 2018 – first call for papers

July 2018 – second call for papers

August 2018 – third call for papers

September 2018 – final call for papers and submissions open

19 October 2018 – submission of abstracts

December 2018 – notification of acceptance

19–21 June 2019 – conference


*** Organizing Committee ***

Anne Helmond, University of Amsterdam, NL

Michael Stevenson, University of Amsterdam, NL


In collaboration with the RESAW Conference Committee:

Niels Brügger, Aarhus University, DK (organiser 2015)

Jane Winters, University of London, UK (organiser 2017)

Valérie Schafer, University of Luxembourg, LU (coming organiser 2021)


*** Program Committee ***

Susan Aasman, University of Groningen, NL

Gerard Alberts, University of Amsterdam, NL

Megan Ankerson, University of Michigan, USA

Anat Ben-David, The Open University of Israel, IL

Josephine Bosma, independent art critic and theorist, NL

Sally Chambers, Ghent University, BE

Frédéric Clavert, C2DH Luxembourg

Annet Dekker, University of Amsterdam, NL

Matthew Fuller, Goldsmiths, UK

Sophie Gebeil, Aix-Marseille University, FR

Robert W. Gehl, University of Utah, USA

Daniel Gomes, arquivo.pt, PT

Arquivo.pt: pesquise páginas do passado


O Arquivo.pt é um serviço público que preserva informação publicada na Web desde 1996.


Stefania Milan, University of Amsterdam, NL

Ian Milligan, University of Waterloo, CA

Francesca Musiani, CNRS, FR

Claude Mussou, Ina, FR

Janne Nielsen, Aarhus University, DK

Camille Paloque-Berges, CNAM, FR

Thomas Poell, University of Amsterdam, NL

Bernhard Rieder, University of Amsterdam, NL

Marta Severo, University of Paris Nanterre, FR

Kees Teszelszky, Koninklijke Bibliotheek/Royal Library, NL

Fred Turner, Stanford University, USA

Peter Webster, Webster Research & Consulting, UK

Katrin Weller, GESIS Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, DE


*** Sponsors ***

The conference is financed in part by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) as part of the research program Innovational Research Incentives Scheme Veni in connection with the projects “The Web that Was” (275-45-006) and “App ecosystems: A critical history of apps” (275-45-009).


*** Contact ***



CFP: New Histories of Business Schools and How They May Inspire New Futures

Academy of Management Learning and Education

New Histories of Business Schools and How They May Inspire New Futures

Initial submissions should be received by: March 31, 2020

Scheduled for Publication: June 2021

Guest Editors:

  • Patricia Genoe McLaren, Wilfrid Laurier University
  • JC Spender, Kozminski University
  • Stephen Cummings, Victoria University of Wellington
  • Todd Bridgman, Victoria University of Wellington
  • Ellen O’Connor, Dominican University of California
  • Christina Lubinski, Copenhagen Business School
  • Gabrielle Durepos, Mount Saint Vincent University (Canada)


We might do well to re-examine what we are doing and show the executive judgment and courage necessary to implement radical change (Khurana & Spender 2012: 636).

Business schools are the institutional locus of management learning and education. In recent years, we have gained a greater understanding of how their structures, processes, and power dynamics influence pedagogy and curricula, management theory and research, faculty, students, graduates, and society more broadly. We are also witnessing growing research into, and discussion about, the relative lack of innovation in management theory development, research, pedagogy, and curricula (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2012). While there have been a small number of inspirational works that have sought to push us towards changing business schools and business education (Augier and March, 2011; Hassard, 2012; Khurana 2007; Spender, 2016), they have not yet spurred the change we might have hoped for.
One under-explored route to encourage innovation in this regard is examining how our historical understanding of all aspects of business schools – including curriculum, pedagogy, research, structure, processes, stakeholders, power, and politics – may be limiting change. Histories highlight particular characters and plots but what we do not include – what we write out of history – is just as important as what is written in (Jenkins, 2003). History is constitutive, in that our own interpretations of the past define and shape our present and our future (Wadhwani & Bucheli, 2014). Compared with other stochastic fields of study, histories of management and business are simplistically linear and mono-cultural. This constrains how we see business schools in the present, and can subsequently limit their future development (Cummings & Bridgman, 2016).
The conventional history of business education tends to follow the emergence of American business schools: from the founding of the Wharton School in 1881, to the rapid growth of business school enrollment within American universities leading up to the 1950s, to the standardization of the schools after the publication of the Gordon-Howell and Pierson reports in 1959 (Hommel & Thomas, 2014). This history has been crafted over many years and now goes largely unchallenged. But it begs the questions: why is this the story we tell, who gains and who loses from its telling, and what events and people are missing from a narrative that should be inspirational for a broad range of people?
North American business education has been studied at various points in a straightforward assessment style – what are business schools doing, how could they
“improve” (Bossard & Dewhurst, 1931; Gordon & Howell, 1959; Pierson, 1959; Porter & McKibbin, 1988), and also with a more complex analysis of context, history, power, and influence (Engwall, Kipping, Usdiken, 2016; Khurana, 2007; Pettigrew, Corneul, & Hommel, 2014). Work has been done on the history of European management education (cf. Engwall, 2004; Harker, Caemmerer, & Hynes, 2016; Kieser, 2004; Kipping, Usdiken, & Puig, 2004; Tiratsoo, 2004; Usdiken, 2004), and some have looked at the global South (Cooke & Alcadipani, 2015). We are beginning to see alternative histories of the development of management theory and education (Bridgman, Cummings, & McLaughlin, 2016; Dye, Mills, & Weatherbee, 2005; Hassard, 2012; Peltonen, 2015). However, what about histories of schools of business and commerce from other parts of the world (Asia, Africa, Australasia, South America) in more detail? Or from earlier centuries? Or different examples from North America or Europe that did not survive or later morphed toward the standard form?
This special issue seeks to move things forward by looking differently when we look back. It encourages submissions that explore emerging interests, historical barriers to change, and their interrelationships by focusing on the emergence and development of business schools as complex entities that are interwoven with universities, the business community, government, and civil society. It also seeks submissions that explore how these broader understandings may stimulate innovation in the way we configure business schools and, consequently, how we teach, conduct research, view our profession, and relate to our stakeholders.
In this call for papers, we – professors/educators, researchers/inquirers, sufferers/critics, and aspirational as well as actual change agents – are the organizational actors, and business schools are our reflective historical setting; more importantly, they are our actual environment. We have a unique opportunity to push management theory, research methods, and interdisciplinarity to better understand and, more importantly, to reinvent business school(s) in light of what is socially or personally meaningful. We have contextual richness, personal and professional stakes, and a sense of crisis. Being able to change our practices from within, we are uniquely situated to bring scholarship, formal positioning, and inhabited experience to bear.
Better historical scholarship could, therefore, help us to change ourselves. To engage historical sensibilities and methods, and empirical richness, to push theory and change institutions. As a call for spurring this process we welcome contributions that address the following questions:
  1. What people, events, curriculum, pedagogy, form, and research of business schools’ past have been overlooked by conventional historical narratives?
  2. What role could new histories play in debates about how business schools should develop? Can new understandings of the past inspire us to think differently for the future?
  3. How can we write reflexive or critical histories of business schools that expose the power and politics of business education and what we teach, or do not teach, students?
  4. Are histories being used within business schools or other organizations, such as accreditation bodies, academies and societies, to perpetuate traditional structures and/or norms? Why and to what effect?
  5. What are the ‘invented traditions’ that support any or all aspects of the institution of business schools and what purpose were they invented to serve?
  6. What are the stories of the development of business education outside of North America or prior to the late 19th century? Are these different or the same as the current narrative? How, why, and what can we learn from these alternative histories?
  7. How has history traditionally been taught in business schools? What are the positive and limiting effects of this pedagogy? How could we teach history differently?
  8. Why should business school students learn more (or less) history? Or learn it differently?
  9. How might management scholars using history in their research influence business education?
Call on AMLE Website

Alvesson, M,. & Sandberg, J. 2012. Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and innovative research. Journal of Management Studies, 50(1): 128-152.

Augier, M. and March, J. 2011. The roots, rituals, and rhetorics of change: North
American business schools after the second World War. Stanford University Press.

Bossard, J. H. S., & Dewhurst, J. F. 1931. University education for business: A study of
existing needs and practices. Philadelphia. PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Bridgman, T., Cummings, S., & McLaughlin, C. 2016. Restating the case: How revisiting the development of the case method can help us think differently about the future of the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(4): 724-741.

Cooke, B., & Alcadipani, R. 2015. Toward a global history of management education: The case of the Ford Foundation and the São Paulo School of Business Administration, Brazil. Academy of Management Learning & Education,14(4): 482-499.

Cummings, S. & Bridgman, T. 2016. The limits and possibilities of history: How a wider,
deeper and more engaged understanding of business history can foster innovative thinking. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 15(2): 250-267.

Dye, K., Mills, A. J., & Weatherbee, T. 2005. Maslow: Man interrupted: Reading
management theory in context. Management Decision, 43(10): 1375-1395.

Engwall, L. 2004. The Americanization of Nordic management education. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 13(2): 109-117.

Engwall, L., Kipping, M., & Usdiken, B. 2016. Defining management: Business
schools, consultants, media. New York: Routledge.

Gordon, R. A., & Howell, J. E. 1959. Higher education for business. New York:
Columbia University Press.

Harker, M. J., Caemmerer, B., & Hynes, N. 2016. Management education by the French
Grandes Ecoles de Commerce: Past, present, and an uncertain future. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(3): 549-568.

Hassard, J. 2012. Rethinking the Hawthorne Studies: The Western Electric research in its
social, political and historical context. Human Relations, 65(11): 1431-1461.

Hommel, U., & Thomas, H. 2014. Research on business schools. In A. M. Pettigrew, E.
Corneul, & U. Hommel (Eds.), The institutional development of business
schools: 8-36. Oxford: Oxford University PRess.

Jenkins, K. 2003. Refiguring history: New thoughts on an old discipline. London, U.K.:

Khurana, R. 2007. From higher aims to hired hands: The social transformation of
American business schools and the unfulfilled promise of management as a profession. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Khurana, R., & Spender, J. C. 2012. Herbert A. Simon on What Ails Business Schools: More than ‘A Problem in Organizational Design’. Journal of Management Studies, 49: 619–639.

Kieser, A. 2004. The Americanization of academic management education in Germany.
Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2): 90-97.

Kipping, M., Usdiken, B., & Puig, N. 2004. Imitation, tension, and hybridization:
Multiple “Americanizations” of management education in Mediterranean Europe. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2): 98-108.

Peltonen, T. 2015. History of management thought in context: The case of Elton Mayo in Australia. In P. G. McLaren, A. J. Mills, & T. G. Weatherbee (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Management and Organizational History. Abindon, UK: Sage.

Pettigrew, A. M., Corneul, E., & Hommel, U. 2014. The institutional development of
business schools. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pierson, F. C. 1959. The education of American business men: A study in university-
college programs in business administration. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Porter, L. W., & McKibbin, L. E. 1988. Management education and development: Drift
or thrust into the 21st century? New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Spender, J.C. 2016. How management education’s past shapes its present. BizEd.

Tiratsoo, N. 2004. The “Americanization” of management education in Britain. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2): 118-126.

Usdiken, B. 2004. Americanization of European management education in historical and
comparative perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2): 87-89.

Wadhwani, D., & Bucheli, M. 2014. The future of the past in management and organization studies. In D. Wadhwani, & M. Bucheli (Eds.), Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods. New York: Oxford University Press.

CfP: Companies and organizations in a historical perspective


Companies and organizations in a historical perspective

Bocconi University, Milan
20-21 December 2018

Call for papers
An organization is the result of a conscious effort to create channels of authority and communication in the productive activity of the company, as well as in the allocation of resources and the evaluation of their performance. The organizational challenge typically emerges when a company achieves a certain quantitative threshold in terms of size, turning the need for organization into a key issue. Below this threshold, the internal dynamics of a company and the relationships among the actors which operate inside it are usually spontaneous, and don’t require formalization. In more recent times, however, within the contemporary global and technological environment, small companies also face the issue of adopting an appropriate organizational structure.
How much does organizational design matter for a company? Can an inappropriate organization react promptly to changes in strategy?
Evidence proves that there isn’t an organizational formula which works for all companies over time and space. The best organization is the one able to mobilize, in the most efficient way, the resources of a company. Since the 1950s, for instance, industrial sociologists have demonstrated that Taylorism is not an organization of production that works for all sectors. It used to be the best way to manage the mass production of standardized products, but not the most efficient way to manage manufacturing in, say, the chemical and metal industries, or the production of big single pieces such as in the shipbuilding industry.
In the same way, a form of enterprise which gathers unrelated activities under the same roof can be at the origin of heterogeneous results according to the different kind of control exercised by headquarters.
Even though organization became an issue around the time of the Industrial Revolution, organizational matters were certainly not irrelevant in the life of large pre-industrial companies such as banks, trading companies, and arsenals.
Finally, it should not be forgotten that organization goes beyond the single company and includes also alliances among different companies aimed at controlling a market (cartels), networks and groups of enterprises, and geographical areas, as in the case of the industrial districts in which the production of a good is achieved through a sophisticated horizontal and vertical division of labor.
We ask that proposals have the “black box” — represented by the relationship between companies and their organization– at the center of their analysis, considering, for example, topics such as the genesis of an organization, the critical tangles of the connection between corporate strategies and organization, the successes and failures of organizational forms, the role of immaterial determinants in defining the organizational design, the relationship between the entrepreneur and the organization, the creation and resilience of managerial capabilities, or the interaction between formal and informal organization.
Contributions related to any industry, geographical area, and historical period are welcome.

Conference languages will be English and Italian.
Proposals of no more than 400-600 words together with a CV should be sent to: segreteria@assi-web.it, by September 20th, 2018. Decisions will be sent by October 5th, 2018.
For proposals that are accepted, the author(s) will be required to send either a paper of 7,000-9,000 words, or a long-abstract (approximately 1,500 words) of the presentation by November 30th, 2018.

CfP: Commercial Surveillance

Seeing Like a Capitalist:

Histories of Commercial Surveillance in America


 A Conference at the Hagley Museum and Library

Wilmington, Delaware, November 8-9, 2018

The history of surveillance is often associated with the history of the state. However, commercial organizations in the United States – from insurance companies to audience rating firms and database marketers, to corporate personnel and auditing departments – also exercise power over citizens through systems of identification, classification, and monitoring.  The history of commercial surveillance thus intersects with key issues concerning the history of privacy, information, social sorting and discrimination, and technologies of discipline and control.

For a conference sponsored by the Center for the History of Business, Technology, and Society on November 8-9, 2018, we invite proposals that explore the history of commercial surveillance in the United States, from settlement to the present. These (non-state) surveillance activities might be found in a variety of business settings and industries, involve a range of formal or informal practices, and might be directed at customers, media audiences, borrowers, consumer markets, employees, or labor. The long history of commercial surveillance serves to illuminate the precursors, continuities, and logic of today’s “surveillance capitalism.”

We are interested in original, empirically-grounded unpublished essays that consider one or more of the following questions:


  • How have commercial surveillance systems contributed to the production of knowledge about individuals or populations? To what extent have private-sector classification systems shaped categories of identity and social status in the United States?
  • In what ways have commercial surveillance systems contributed to understandings of gender and race in the United States? How have these understandings been formalized or institutionalized?
  • How does the development of commercial surveillance fit into broader social, political, or economic efforts to discipline behavior or control risk?
  • To what extent have commercial surveillance systems overlapped – or collaborated – with state surveillance systems, such as law enforcement, social services, or statistical data gathering?
  • What legal issues have attended the history of commercial surveillance? How have commercial surveillance practices been regulated, particularly with regard to discrimination and privacy?
  • To what extent have distinctions between work and leisure been blurred by commercial surveillance?
  • How does the history of commercial surveillance help contextualize the development of big data and predictive analytics in our own time? What underlying structures, norms, or business objectives can be discerned?
  • What technologies have been developed, and for what specific purposes, to facilitate commercial surveillance?


Sarah E. Igo (Vanderbilt University) will open the conference with a keynote address on the evening of November 8. She will discuss her new book, The Known Citizen: A History of Privacy in Modern America, to be published by Harvard University Press in May 2018.


If you are interested in proposing a paper, please submit proposals of no more than 500 words and a one-page C.V. to Carol Lockman at clockman@hagley.org by May 1, 2018. We welcome submissions from historians as well as ethnographically oriented social scientists.  Presenters will receive lodging in the conference hotel and up to $500 to cover their travel costs.

This conference was initiated by Josh Lauer (University of New Hampshire), and he is joined on the program committee by Roger Horowitz (Hagley Museum and Library) and Ken Lipartito (Florida International University).