AOM PDW on Historic CSR

Please register for the AOM PDW!

Special Issue Paper Development Workshops

Historic Corporate Responsibility:

Its Extent, Limits, and Consequences

The guest editors of the Journal of Business Ethics Special Issue on Historic Corporate Social Responsibility will arrange paper development workshops at the following conferences:

  • Academy of Management (10-14 August in Chicago),
  • International Association for Business & Society (7-10 June in Hong Kong), and
  • European Business History Association (6-8 September in Ancona, Italy)[1]

During the workshops, authors will present and discuss their papers and receive feedback from discussants and peers.

Attendance at these workshops is NOT a precondition for submission to the Journal of Business Ethics Special Issue.

Confirmed discussants at the Academy of Management in Chicago include Stephanie Decker (Aston Business School), Gabrielle Durepos (Mount Saint Vincent University), Paul C. Godfrey (Brigham Young University), Stefan Hielscher (University of Bath), Michael Rowlinson (University of Exeter), Sébastien Mena (Cass Business School), and Roy R. Suddaby (University of Victoria and Newcastle University).

 

Submission Information and Deadlines

Scholars interested in one of the workshops are asked to contact the guest editors according to requirements for each conference. Please see the following table for the key dates and contact information.

  IABS conference AoM conference EBHA conference
Require-ments Elevator pitch format. Interested authors might wish to contact Rob Phillips prior to the conference. To be considered for a PDW at either AoM or EBHA, an abstract (no more than 2’000 words or 8 pages all in) should be submitted to the responsible guest editor. The guest editors will then select promising abstracts and notify the authors. After acceptance, the authors are asked to submit a full paper (8’000-10’000 words).
Submission of abstracts none May 15, 2018 June 17, 2018
Submission of full paper July 1, 2018 August 1, 2018
Date and location of workshop June 7-10, 2018

Hong Kong

August 10-14, 2018

Chicago, IL

September 6-8, 2018

Ancona, Italy

Contact Rob Phillips

rphillips@schulich.yorku.ca

Judith Schrempf-Stirling

judith.schrempf-stirling@unige.ch

Christian Stutz

Christian.stutz@fh-hwz.ch

 

[1] The workshop proposal at the EBHA is currently under evaluation—to be confirmed.

Advertisements

PDWs on Historic Corporate Responsibility

Special Issue Paper Development Workshops

Historic Corporate Responsibility:

Its Extent, Limits, and Consequences

The guest editors of the Journal of Business Ethics Special Issue on Historic Corporate Social Responsibility will arrange paper development workshops at the following conferences:

  • Academy of Management (10-14 August in Chicago),
  • International Association for Business & Society (7-10 June in Hong Kong), and
  • European Business History Association (6-8 September in Ancona, Italy)[1]

During the workshops, authors will present and discuss their papers and receive feedback from discussants and peers.

Attendance at these workshops is NOT a precondition for submission to the Journal of Business Ethics Special Issue.

Confirmed discussants at the Academy of Management in Chicago include Stephanie Decker (Aston Business School), Gabrielle Durepos (Mount Saint Vincent University), Paul C. Godfrey (Brigham Young University), Stefan Hielscher (University of Bath), Michael Rowlinson (University of Exeter), Sébastien Mena (Cass Business School), and Roy R. Suddaby (University of Victoria and Newcastle University).

Submission Information and Deadlines

Scholars interested in one of the workshops are asked to contact the guest editors according to requirements for each conference. Please see the following table for the key dates and contact information.

  IABS conference AoM conference EBHA conference
Require-ments Elevator pitch format. Interested authors might wish to contact Rob Phillips prior to the conference. To be considered for a PDW at either AoM or EBHA, an abstract (no more than 2’000 words or 8 pages all in) should be submitted to the responsible guest editor. The guest editors will then select promising abstracts and notify the authors. After acceptance, the authors are asked to submit a full paper (8’000-10’000 words).
Submission of abstracts none May 15, 2018

(extended deadline)

June 17, 2018
Submission of full paper July 1, 2018 August 1, 2018
Date and location of workshop June 7-10, 2018

Hong Kong

August 10-14, 2018

Chicago, IL

September 6-8, 2018

Ancona, Italy

Contact Rob Phillips

rphillips@schulich.yorku.ca

Judith Schrempf-Stirling

judith.schrempf-stirling@unige.ch

Christian Stutz

Christian.stutz@fh-hwz.ch

 [1] The workshop proposal at the EBHA is currently under evaluation—to be confirmed.

CfP: 50 years of Management Learning

Call for Papers: Anniversary Special Issue of Management Learning
Celebrating 50 years of Management Learning:
Historical reflections at the intersection of the past and future

Deadline for submissions: June 01, 2018
Guest Editors:
Gabrielle Durepos, Mount Saint Vincent University, Canada
Rafael Alcadipani, FGV-EAESP, Brazil
Mairi Maclean, University of Bath, UK
Stephen Cummings, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Management Learning marks its 50th anniversary in 2020. Management Learning has a
long history of publishing critical, reflexive scholarship on organizational knowledge and learning. This special issue provides a forum to celebrate and build on this history
through critical and reflective engagement with the past, present and future of
management learning, knowledge and education. Taking a historical approach is all the
more pressing given recent and impending crises – geo-political, technological,
environmental and humanitarian – since some crises only make sense when seen in the
fullness of time (Casson and Casson, 2013). We therefore encourage scholarship that
challenges the disciplinary past of management knowledge, learning and education and
enables more diverse, innovative futures to be imagined.
There are a growing variety of approaches and conceptual frameworks in management
and organization studies for writing histories of organizations (Maclean, Harvey and
Clegg, 2016; Rowlinson, Hassard and Decker, 2014), management thought (Bucheli and
Wadhwani, 2014; Cummings, Bridgman, Hassard and Rowlinson, 2017) and researching
management in historically conscious ways (Jacques, 1996; Kieser, 1994). This has been
accompanied by a rise in critical organizational histories (Cooke, 1999; Ibarra-Colado,
2006; Scott, 2007). Although diverse, this scholarship is characterized by reflexivity
(Cunliffe, 2002), anti-performativity – history is generated for reasons beyond improving
future business efficiency and effectiveness – and commitment to an agenda of denaturalizing both hegemonic organizations, by exposing problematic pasts, and dominant historiography like positivism that seeks unitary truth (Fournier and Grey, 2000). The rise of critical history research has involved scholarship on management learning and education that challenges the dominant history of management thought in a number of ways (Jacques, 1996; Genoe Mclaren, Mills and Weatherbee, 2015). While some have exposed processes of exclusion and marginalization of management knowledge in textbooks (Cummings and Bridgman, 2011; Grant and Mills, 2006), others have uncovered knowledge politics and marginalization around geographical boundaries.

 

Full details are here: http://journals.sagepub.com/pb-assets/cmscontent/MLQ/ML%2050%20anniversary%20SI.pdf

Financial History Review New Scholars workshop

New Scholars Fast-Track Workshop 

13 June 2018

Torino, Italy

Financial History Review invites submissions of research papers from advanced PhD students and recent postdoctoral researchers (with less than five years from completing their PhD) in banking, financial and monetary history for a

eabh in cooperation with Fondazione 1563 per l’Arte e la Cultura della Compagnia di San Paolo and Compagnia di San Paolo

Papers on any topic and period are welcome. Please find the Call for Papers and additional information at http://bankinghistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2018_Torino_FHR_NSW_Final.pdf

Deadline is 30 April 2018

 

CfP Hagley workshop

CALL FOR PROPOSALS

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).

CfP BH extended deadline

Bank-Industry versus Stock Market-Industry Relationships: A Business History Approach

Business History Call for Papers: Special Issue

Extended Deadline: 31 May 2018

http://explore.tandfonline.com/cfp/bes/fbsh-bank-vs-stock-market-industry/

During the Golden Age of the western economies (1950s-1960s) became clear that each country had to follow its own way to industrialization. For the full understanding of these processes, there was a growing interest for the use of an historical perspective. In this line of research, the book that Alexander Gerschenkron, professor at Harvard University, published in 1962 entitled Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective had much impact. In this seminal book, which proposed the concept of the “conditional convergence”, Gerschenkron proposed that financial institutions (not financial markets), by acting as “substitutive factor”, play a fundamental role in industrialization, as the German case had proved.

Gerschenkron’s thesis was challenged by Raymond Goldsmith, the author of Financial Structure and Development (1969), who proposed not to leave financial markets out of the analysis, because they were also part of the financial system and could contribute to economic development, understood as something broader than industrialization. Goldsmith’s approach was also influential, although Gerschenkron’s book fit better with the spirit of Golden Age governments, which were willing to put the banks (both public and private) at the service of the industrial policies (see Tortella & García-Ruiz 2013, Chapter 8, for the emblematic Spanish case).

From the Gerschenkron-Goldsmith debate, a line of research was developed by focusing on identifying the financial systems of countries as either bank-oriented or market-oriented (Bordo & Sylla 1995; Allen & Gale 2000), stressing the differences between them. Later on, Caroline Fohlin (2007, 2012, 2016) believed that this was a false polemic and gave historical arguments for a skeptical view of the issue. Nevertheless, she presents a new taxonomy, a “rough classification”, of the different financial systems based on the prevalence of different type of banks.

At the time, the economist Ross Levine and his associates (e.g. Levine & Zervos 1998) wanted to approach the problem from a quantitative perspective, trying to answer a very simple question: which system contributes most to economic development? Levine managed to involve the World Bank in his research and promoted the creation of the Global Financial Development Database (Beck, Demirgüç-Kunt & Levine 2000), whose recent exploitation is allowing a better exploration in the long run of the complexity of the relationships proposed in the 1960s by Gerschenkron and Goldsmith.

At the beginning of the 21st century, the deregulation of financial systems led to an approximation between institutions and financial markets that paved the way to the belief that the old divide had become obsolete (Rajan & Zingales 2003). However, the latest analyses detect the persistence of significant differences between national financial systems (Gambacorta, Yang & Tsatsaronis 2014).

It seems clear that much can be learned about the bank-industry and stock market-industry relationships if they are addressed from a Business History perspective, which until now has been almost completely neglected. For this reason it is proposed the launching of a special issue of Business History, based on a Call for Papers, aiming to obtain fresh articles that address the classical issues on the subject with a new Business History approach:

– Evidence of the advantages of the bank-industry relationship over the stock market-industry relationship or vice versa;

– The banking-industry relationship in the networks of large national banks and the networks of small local banks (Vasta et al. 2017);

– Persistence of the differences between financial systems based on Varieties of Capitalism (VoC) and/or Law & Finance (common law versus civil law countries) approaches;

– Access to finance by business size: large, medium and small companies facing markets and financial institutions;

– The role of managers in fostering the stock market performance of the firms;

– The best way to innovate: is the stock market the most appropriate way to finance and promote the innovative capabilities of the firm?;

– The problem of “financialisation”: too much money in the economy breaks the direct relationship between financing and economic development as proposed (Law & Sing, 2014)?

Submission instructions

This special issue welcomes contributions on the history of the bank-industry and stock market-industry relationships, especially if they use interdisciplinary and new methodologies and cross-country comparisons.

Articles should be based on original research and should not be under consideration by other journal. All articles should be submitted by 31 March 2018 via ScholarOne (https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/fbsh? utm_source=CPB&utm_medium=cms&utm_campaign=JMO03712) , using the drop down to select submission to the Special Issue on Bank-Industry versus Stock Market-Industry Relationships: A Business History Approach. All the articles will be peer reviewed and, therefore, some may be rejected. Authors should ensure that their manuscripts comply with the Business History formatting standards, which can be found on the ‘Instructions for Authors’ (http://tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=fbsh20&page=instructions&utm_source=CPB&utm_medium=cms&utm_campaign=JMO03712) page. Authors who are not English native speakers are responsible for having a native English-speaking copyeditor check and correct their texts before final acceptance.

The articles initially selected for the Special Issue will be presented in a workshop that will take place in Madrid in June 2018, sponsored by available public funds. The final version of the papers should be the result of this workshop.

References

Allen, F. & Gale, D. (2000), Comparing Financial Systems, Cambridge (Mass.), MIT Press.

Beck, T., Demirgüç-Kunt, A. & Levine, R. (2000), “A New Database on Financial Development and Structure,” World Bank Economic Review, 14, 597-605.

Bordo, M. & Sylla, R. (eds) (1995), Anglo-American Financial Systems: Institutions and Markets in the Twentieth Century, New York, Irwin.

Fohlin, C. (2007), Finance Capitalism and Germany’s Rise to Industrial Power, Cambridge & New York, Cambridge University Press.

Fohlin, C. (2012), Mobilizing Money: How the World’s Richest Nations Financed Industrial Growth, Cambridge & New York, Cambridge University Press.

Fohlin, C. (2016), “Financial Systems and Economic Development in Historical Perspective,” in C. Diebolt & M. Haupert (eds), The Handbook of Cliometrics, Berlin, Springer Verlag, 393-430.

Gambacorta, L., Yang, J. & Tsatsaronis, K. (2014), “Financial Structure and Growth,” BIS Quarterly Review, March, 21-35.

Gerschenkron, A. (1962), Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective: A Book of Essays, Cambridge (Mass.), The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Goldsmith, R.W. (1969), Financial Structure and Development, New Haven, Yale University.

Law, S.H. & Singh, N. (2014), “Does Too Much Finance Harm Economic Growth?,” Journal of Banking and Finance, 41, 36-44.

Levine, R. & Zervos, S. (1998), “Stock Markets, Banks and Economic Growth,” American Economic Review, 88, 537-558.

Rajan, R. & Zingales, L. (2003), Banks and Markets: The Changing Character of European Finance, Cambridge (Mass.), NBER Working Paper 9595.

Tortella, G. & García-Ruiz, J.L. (2013), Spanish Money and Banking. A History, Basingstoke & New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

Vasta, M., Drago, C., Ricciuti, R. & Rinaldi, A. (2017), “Reassessing the Bank-Industry Relationship in Italy, 1913-1936: A Counterfactual Analysis,” Cliometrica, 11, 183-216.

Editorial information

Guest Editor: José L. García-Ruiz, Complutense University of Madrid, Spain (jlgarciaruiz@ccee.ucm.es)

Guest Editor: Michelangelo Vasta, University of Siena, Italy (michelangelo.vasta@unisi.it)

CfP Heritage Symposium Paris

CALL FOR PAPERS
The 6th INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE HERITAGE SYMPOSIUM

“CORPORATE HERITAGE BRANDS, IDENTITY AND CORPORATE HERITAGE DESIGN”

JUNE 13-15, 2018

ESCE
10, rue Sextius Michel
75015 Paris
France

SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
Professor John M.T. Balmer
Founder and Chairman of the International Corporate Identity Symposium
Professor of Corporate Marketing at Brunel University London
Director of the Marketing and Corporate Brand Research Group, Brunel Business School, London, UK

Professor Angela Bargenda
Host of the 6th International Corporate Identity Symposium
Professor of Marketing and Communication
Department of Marketing, Communication and Business Sales, ESCE International Business School, Paris, France

ORGANISING COMMITTEE
Professor Angela Bargenda (angela.bargenda@esce.fr)
Professor John M.T. Balmer (john.balmer@brunel.ac.uk)
Professor Regis Monyedodo Kpossa (regis-monyedodo.kpossa@esce.fr), Professor of Marketing and Communication, Department of Marketing, Communication and Business Sales, ESCE International Business School, Paris.
INVITATION AND SYMPOSIUM THEME
The organisers cordially invite scholars (including PhD students) to submit papers which focus on corporate heritage or on corporate heritage related constructs and issues. A wide variety of papers will be welcomed including empirical research, conceptual papers, literature reviews, case studies etc. This year, we particularly
welcome papers which focus on corporate heritage design-related issues and research.
Ascendancy of Corporate Heritage and the International Corporate Heritage Symposium
With the establishment of the International Corporate Heritage Symposium in 2002 by Professor John M.T.Balmer (which evolved from a research initiative funded by Brunel University London ) and building on the seminal scholarship on the territory by Balmer, Greyser, and Urde in 2006 and 2007 on monarchies and corporate brands with a heritage, there has been an exponential growth in research, scholarship, and management interest in the field. The Symposium has become the premier forum where an international community of scholars can present, disseminate and discuss their work on the territory. Often, too, there are opportunities to submit their work to special editions of academic journals (and to books).
The symposium is distinguished by its emphasis on corporate/organisation heritage with corporate heritage being viewed as a portmanteau term which covers a family of constructs which include-but are not limited to- corporate heritage identity, corporate heritage brands, corporate heritage communications, corporate heritage marketing, corporate heritage/organisational heritage identification and corporate heritage design. The above being said, papers sometimes adopt a broader conceptualisation of heritage and, as such, a more discernible product /services foci.

Collegial and international in reach and ethos Although having its origins in the United Kingdom and, in particular, Brunel University London, the symposium has impeccable international credentials and is also celebrated for its collegiality. The symposium is small in scale in order to foster a sense of esprit de corps and provides a welcoming and supporting environment for scholars at the start of their career as well as for more-established members of the academy. Previous symposia have been held at leading universities in Sweden, Finland and France. Brunel University London has hosted the event twice including the inaugural symposium. This year, after a highly successful symposium held at the University of Aix-en-Provence, France in 2016, the symposium returns again to France and to Paris where the academic meeting will be hosted by the ESCE International Business School.
Submission and acceptance details In the first instance, the organisers ask for a one page abstract of around 300-500 words in length (1,5 spaced, Times New Roman font size 12pt) which should include the title, names, affiliations and email addresses of authors, along with key words and references. Referencing style should conform to the guidelines of Corporate Communications: An international journal. A designated corresponding address should be detailed. Please send us your extended abstract proposal in Microsoft Word format, following adapted form of Corporate Communications: An international journal consisted from: Purpose; Design / methodology / approach; Findings; Practical implications; Originality/value; Keywords; Paper type; Minimal references.
ABSTRACTS SHOULD BE SENT BY MARCH 30TH 2018 TO THE FOLLOWING EMAIL ADDRES SO THAT YOUR PAPER
CAN BE SPEEDILY REVIEWED BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE:
Professor Angela Bargenda (angela.bargenda@esce.fr)
Decisions will be made by April 10th 2018.
Special Editions/Publications
In line with earlier symposia, the organisers anticipate that a special edition will include papers from the symposium and/or a book of published chapters. Details to follow.

Costs
SYMPOSIUM FEES (in EUR)
Early bird registration
(till April 20th 2018)
Late registration
(April 21st-May 9th 2018)
Presenter 300 EUR 400 EUR
Non-presenter 400 EUR 500 EUR
PhD student 250 EUR 350 EUR
VAT is included in the fees. Accommodation is not included. The conference registration fee covers admissions to all sessions, luncheons, coffee breaks, 1x conference dinner. Registrations will only be processed upon receiving payment in full. Cancellation must be made in writing. In case of cancellation no later than May 1st, 2018, the full amount less a cancellation fee of €100 will be refunded. In case of cancellation after May 1st, 2018, no refund will be made.
Payments may be made by cheque or bank transfer.
Cheques – please make your cheque payable to “ESCE” and send to:
ESCE – Service de la comptabilité
10, rue Sextius Michel
F-75015 Paris
Bank transfer – please contact angela.bargenda@esce.fr for details.
Important dates:
Confirmation of intention to attend March 15th 2018
Submission of Extended Abstract March 30th 2018
Notification of Acceptance April 10th 2018
Early registration ends April 20th 2018
Symposium fee payment deadline May 9th 2018
Symposium dates June 13th – 15th 2018

Transport
Paris is well-served with excellent air and train connections within Europe and beyond. ESCE is located next to the Eiffel tower in the northern part of the 15th arrondissement. The nearest metro station is Bir Hakeim.

Accommodation
Please make your own travel and accommodation arrangements (not included in the conference fees). Possible discount rates for hotels in the vicinity of the conference venue will be communicated later.
We are looking forward to welcoming you in Paris!

PDW & CfP Varieties of Capitalism and Business History

Business-Government relations and national economic models: how do varieties of capitalism emerge and develop over time?

Business History

Special Issue Editorial Team

Niall G MacKenzie, University of Strathclyde (niall.mackenzie@strath.ac.uk)
Andrew Perchard, University of Stirling (a.c.perhard@stir.ac.uk)
Neil Forbes, Coventry University (lsx143@coventry.ac.uk)
Christopher W Miller, University of Glasgow (christopher.miller@glasgow.ac.uk)

The varieties of capitalism concept and literature has been dominated by conceptual
institutional modelling (Hall and Soskice, 2001; Hancké et al, 2007; Whittington and
Mayer, 2002; Whitley, 1999). Business and economic historians have undertaken a
number of significant works on varieties of capitalism in the form of empirical
transnational firm and sectoral case studies (Chandler 1990; McCraw, 1997;
Musacchio and Lazzarini, 2015; Cassis, 2002; Fellman et al, 2008; Sluyterman,
2014). A special issue in Business History Review in 2010 sought to bring a number
of prominent business historians together to offer their thoughts on how business
history can contribute to the varieties of capitalism literature which has been
described as “ahistorical, at least in its original formulation” (Friedman and Jones,
2010). This call for papers seeks to extend and complement the work produced in
that issue to consider how varieties of capitalism evolve in relation to governmentbusiness relations, building on and extending recent work by Thomas and
Westerhuis on networks of firm governance and national economic models (2014),
by elucidating how business-government relations affect the development and
promulgation of different types of varieties of capitalism.

For more details click here.

CfP 8th OAP workshop

We would like to draw your attention to the Call for abstracts for the 8th Organizations, Artifacts & Practices (OAP) workshop that will take place between the 21st-22nd June 2018, Amsterdam (OAP website)

Conference Theme: New Ways of Working (NWW): Rematerializing
Organizations in the Digital Age

CFP 8th OAP workshop

Deadlines
Abstract submission (1000 words): January, 29th, 2018
Notification of acceptance: February, 16th, 2018

Please note:
Abstracts should be submitted via easychair: https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=oap2018

The abstracts should include the name, affiliation and email address of the author(s).

Process PDW in Greece: About Time – Temporality and History in Organization Studies

We are inviting you to submit your extended abstract to the 10th International Process Symposium Theme: About Time: Temporality and History in Organization Studies

20-23 June 2018, Porto Carras Grand Resort, Halkidiki, Greece

Professional Development Workshop: 20/6/2018

General process-oriented and theme-focused papers are invited

Abstract Submission is now open at:

http://www.process-symposium.com/abstractsubmitform/abstractsubmitform.html

Deadline: 31 January 2018

The conference will take place between 20-23 June 2018, Porto Carras Grand Resort, Halkidiki, Greece (http://www.portocarras.com/)

 Conveners:

Juliane Reinecke, King’s Business School, King’s College London, UK

Roy Suddaby, University of Victoria, Canada & Newcastle University, UK

Ann Langley, HEC Montreal, Canada

Haridimos Tsoukas, University of Cyprus, Cyprus & University of Warwick, UK

Keynote Speakers:

William Blattner, Professor of Philosophy, Georgetown University, USA, author of Heidegger’s “Being and Time”

Tor Hernes, Professor of Organization Theory, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, author of A Process Theory of Organization

Eviatar Zerubavel, Board of Governors and Distinguished Professor of Sociology, Rutgers University, USA, author of Time Maps: Collective memory and the Social Shape of the Past

 Pre-Symposium Workshop Panels (20/6/2018)

 Pre-Symposium Workshop Panels (20/6/2018)

Taking time seriously in organizational research: Theoretical and methodological challenges

Tima Bansal, Ivey Business School, Canada

Paula Jarzabkowski, Cass Business School, UK

Majken Schultz, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark

History matters: The value and challenges of historical approaches to organizational and management research

Matthias Kipping, Schulich School of Business, Canada

Michael Rowlinson, University of Exeter Business School, UK

Dan Wadhwani, University of the Pacific, USA

 

Call for Papers

 Tenth International Symposium on

Process Organization Studies

 www.process-symposium.com

 

Theme:    

About Time: Temporality and History in Organization Studies

 General process-oriented and theme-focused papers are invited

20-23 June 2018

Professional Development Workshop: 20/6/2018

 Conveners:

Juliane Reinecke, Warwick Business School, UK (Juliane.Reinecke@wbs.ac.uk)

Roy Suddaby, University of Victoria, Canada & Newcastle University, UK  (rsuddaby@uvic.ca)

Ann Langley, HEC Montreal, Canada (ann.langley@hec.ca)

Haridimos Tsoukas, University of Cyprus, Cyprus & University of Warwick, UK (process.symposium@gmail.com)

 

Keynote Speakers:

William Blattner, Professor of Philosophy, Georgetown University, USA, author of Heidegger’s “Being and Time”

Tor Hernes, Professor of Organization Theory, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, author of A Process Theory of Organization

Eviatar Zerubavel, Board of Governors and Distinguished Professor of Sociology, Rutgers University, USA, author of Time Maps: Collective memory and the Social Shape of the Past

 Rationale: What is Process Organization Studies?

Process Organization Studies (PROS) is a way of studying organizations that is grounded on process metaphysics – the worldview that sees processes, rather than substances, as the basic forms of the universe. A process view: rests on a relational ontology, a performative epistemology, and a dynamic praxeology; focuses on becoming, change, and flux, and pays particular attention to forms of agency; prioritizes process over outcome, activity over product, change over persistence, novelty over stasis, open-endedness over determination; invites us to acknowledge, rather than reduce, the complexity of the world and, in that sense, it is animated by what philosopher Stephen Toulmin called an “ecological style” of thinking.

Purpose, Venue, and Organization

The aim of the Symposium is to consolidate, integrate, and further develop ongoing efforts to advance a sophisticated process perspective in organization and management studies.

PROS is an annual event, organized in conjunction with the publication of the annual series Perspectives on Process Organization Studies (published by Oxford University Press), and it takes place in a Greek island or resort, in June every year. Details of all hitherto Symposia, including topics, conveners and keynote speakers, can be seen at www.process-symposium.com.

Around 100 papers are usually accepted, following a review of submitted abstracts by the conveners.  PROS is renowned for offering participants the opportunity to interact in depth, exchange constructive comments, and share insights in a stimulating, relaxing, and scenic environment.

The Tenth Symposium will take place on 20-23 June 2018, at the Porto Carras Grand Resort, Halkidiki, Greece (http://www.portocarras.com/). The first day of the Symposium (20 June) will consist of the Professional Development Workshop. The Symposium venue, comfortable, relaxing, and situated in one of the most beautiful beachfront locations in rural Greece, in the feet of a mountain of pine trees, accessible by bus or taxi by Thessaloniki Airport, will provide an ideal setting for participants to relax and engage in creative dialogues.

As is customary by now, the Symposium is organized in two tracks – a General Track and a Thematic Track. Each track is described below.

  1. The General Track includes papers that explore a variety of organizational phenomena from a process perspective.

More specifically, although not necessarily consolidated under a process metaphysical label, several strands in organization and management studies have adopted a more or less process-oriented perspective over the years. Karl Weick’s persistent emphasis on organizing and the important role of sensemaking in it is, perhaps, the best-known process approach in the field. Early management and organizational research by Henry Mintzberg, Andrew Pettigrew and Andrew Van de Ven was also conducted from an explicitly process perspective. More recently, scholars such as Martha Feldman, Wanda Orlikowski, Robert Chia, Tor Hernes, and several others, have shown a sophisticated awareness of the importance of process-related issues in their research. Current studies that take an explicitly performative (or enactivist/relational/practice-based) view of organizations have similarly adopted, in varying degrees, a process vocabulary and have further refined a process sensibility. Indeed, the growing use of the gerund (-ing) indicates the desire to move towards dynamic ways of understanding organizational phenomena, especially in a fast-moving, inter-connected, globalized world.

Since a process worldview is not a doctrine but an orientation, it can be developed in several different directions, exploring a variety of topics in organizational research. For example, traditional topics such as organizational design, routines, leadership, trust, coordination, change, innovation, learning and knowledge, accountability, communication, authority, materiality and technology, etc., which have often been studied as “substances”, from a process perspective can be approached as performative accomplishments – as situated sequences of activities and complexes of processes unfolding in time. A process view treats organizational phenomena not as faits accomplish, but as (re)created through interacting embodied agents embedded in sociomaterial practices, whose actions are mediated by institutional, linguistic and material artifacts.

Papers exploring any organizational research topic with a process orientation are invited for submission to the General Track.

  1. The Thematic Track includes papers addressing the particular theme of the Symposium every year.

For 2018 the theme is:

About Time: Temporality and History in Organization Studies

A description of this theme and its importance follows.

Process studies of organizations focus attention on how and why organizational actions and structures emerge, develop, grow or terminate over time (Langley, Smallman, Tsoukas & Van de Ven, 2013). Time, timing, and temporality, therefore, are inherently important to organizational process studies as “[no] concept of motion is possible without the category of time” (Sorokin & Merton, 1937: 615). Yet time remains an under-theorized construct in organization studies that has struggled to move much beyond chronological conceptions of “clock” time (Ancona, Goodman, Lawrence & Tushman, 2001; Clark, 1990).

Missing from this linear view of time are ongoing debates about objectivity versus subjectivity in the experience of time (Butler, 1995), linear versus alternative structures of time (Dawson & Sikes, 2016) or an appreciation of collective or culturally determined inferences of temporality (Zerubavel, 1981; Cunliffe, Luhman & Boje, 2004). This is critical because our understanding of time and temporality can shape how we view and relate to organizational phenomena – as unfolding processes or stable objects (Reinecke & Ansari, 2017). But we are only beginning to appreciate the role of temporality in organizational processes – i.e. how the materials of the present are used to impose meaning and understanding on both past experience and possible futures (Schultz & Hernes, 2013; Hernes, 2008; Reinecke & Ansari, 2015). As the noted German sociologist Norbert Elias (1993) observed, echoing St. Augustine, while we all experience time and have an intuitive sense of its passing, the concept of time so eludes precise articulation that it has attained the status of the “ultimate puzzle” in social theory.

History is an equally important but under-theorized concept in organization studies. While we have an intuitive sense of history as a process, organizational theorists have struggled to move beyond two limited conceptualizations of historical processes. One approach is to see history as a constraint on organization’s capacity for change. History, thus, limits agency through “path dependence” (North, 1990), “structural inertia” (Hannan & Freeman, 1984) or institutional “entropy” (Oliver, 1992). An alternative view is to see history as a unique source of competitive advantage, either through the conferral of unique resources (Porter, 1998; Barney, 1986), or through the historical conversion of routines into dynamic capabilities (Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997; Feldman, 2000). Both approaches suffer from the restrictive view of history as an objective set of “brute facts” that are somehow exterior to the individuals, organizations and collectives that experience them.

Emerging streams of process-oriented research have begun to move beyond viewing the past as a historically fixed object, instead conceptualized the past as being “as hypothetical as the future” (Mead, 1932: 31), or “up for grabs” (Kaplan & Orlikowski, 2013). Studies have addressed how actors continually reconstruct their view of the past in light of the emerging present (Bakken, Holt, & Zundel, 2013; Schultz & Hernes, 2013). But much work remains to be done. For instance, there is a distinct absence of understanding the socially constructive link between history and memory (Bluedorn & Denhart, 1988), history and organizational identity (Delahaye, Booth, Clark, Procter & Rowlinson, 2009) and, perhaps more significantly, an oversight of the common generic underpinnings of collective memories (Halbwachs, 1992) and how they constitute “mnemonic communities”  (Zerubavel, 2003).

Despite these conceptual tensions, there is clearly a growing interest in time, temporality and history in organizational studies. The turn to process has contributed to this interest (Chia, 2002; Thelen, 2000; Pettigrew, Woodward & Cameron, 2000; Roe, Waller & Clegg, 2009). The historical turn in management has similarly triggered an effort to re-theorize history in organizations in a more nuanced manner (Bucheli & Wadhwani, 2013; Rowlinson, Hassard & Decker, 2013; Kipping & Usdiken, 2014; Mills, Suddaby, Foster & Durepos, 2016; Suddaby & Foster, 2017). Increasingly, management theory is acquiring a “historical consciousness” – an awareness of time, history and memory as critical elements in processes of organizing (Suddaby, 2016).

The aim of this symposium is to draw together these various emerging strands of interest in adopting a more nuanced orientation toward time, temporality and history to better understand the temporal aspects of organizational processes. In this year’s Thematic Track we seek to encourage and enrich our understanding of different ways in which, by adopting a process-oriented view of time, temporality and history, we can reinvigorate established subjects in organization studies.

In particular, we encourage conceptual, empirical and methodological papers that use a process-oriented view of time, temporality and history to enrich our knowledge of topics that include, but need not be limited to:

Organizational identity: What is the role of time, temporality and history in shaping organizational identity? For instance, how do organizational members revise and re-imagine their collective past to re-construct its emergent present identity? (see Anteby & Molnar, 2012; Suddaby & Foster, 2016; Gioia, Schultz & Corley, 2000; Howard-Grenville, Metzger & Meyer, 2013; Lamertz, Foster, Coraiola & Kroezen, 2016; Schultz & Hernes, 2013; Ybema, 2010; Delahaye et al, 2009).

Organizational memory: How are different understandings of time, temporality and history involved in the emergence of organizational memory? How do collective memories emerge and come to constitute history? (see Rowlinson, Booth, Clarke, Delahaye & Proctor, 2010; Walsh & Ungson, 1991).

Strategic Management: What is the role of time, temporality and history in strategic management? How do actors construct collective organizational futures? How do they resolve the intertemporal paradox between present-day exploitation and future-oriented exploration? (see Brunninge, 2009; Foster, Suddaby, Minkus & Weibe, 2011; Hatch & Schultz, 2017; Kaplan & Orlikowski, 2013; Suddaby, Foster & Quinn-Trank, 2010).

Organizational Change: How do different, often implicit assumptions about time, temporality and history shape our models and conceptualization of organizational stability and change? How may (re-)constructions of the past, present or future affect actors’ ability to initiative, accelerate or prevent continuity or change? How does change become ‘inevitable’ or ‘irreversible’ over time? (see Dawson, 2014; Dawson & Sikes, 2016; Huy, 2001; Suddaby & Foster, 2017; Tsoukas & Chia, 2002).

Institutional Theory: How do institutions become ‘enduring’? What are the temporal qualities of institutions? What temporal patterns underpin processes of creation, maintenance and disruption of institutions? What is the pace and rhythms of institutionalization and institutional change? How may temporal norms and patterns themselves be socially constructed so as to enable or constrain certain institutional processes? (see Lawrence, Winns, & Jennings, 2001; Suddaby & Foster, 2013, Granqvist & Gustafsson, 2016; Rowell, Gustafsson & Clemente, 2016.

Creativity, Innovation & Entrepreneurship: How do actors imaginatively generate possible future trajectories of action that underpin entrepreneurial ventures? How is the past and future re-negotiated and re-invented in the present so as to create opportunities for creativity and innovation? How does history and tradition become a resource so as to allow actors to innovate from the past? (see Popp & Holt, 2013; Bátiz-Lazo, Haigh & Stearns, 2015).

Sensemaking: How do conceptions of time enter sensemaking processes? What is the role of temporal sensemaking in engaging with anticipations of the future and memories of the past to reconfigure present relations and structures? How do actors project sense into an uncertain future? (see Gioia, Corley & Fabbri, 2002; Wiebe, 2010).

Sustainability: How do actors reconcile multiple temporal orientations and timescapes, such as balancing the demands of the present with needs in the future, a tension that is at the heart of business sustainability? (see Reinecke & Ansari, 2015; Slawinski & Bansal, 2015).

Routines: How is the performance of routines played out in time? How does history shape the enactment of particular routines? How do particular temporalities implicated in different routines interact, with what results? How does timing affect the unfolding of routinized performances? (see Mutch 2016; Feldman, 2016).

Methodology: What research designs are best to capture time? How can methodologies move beyond chronological conceptions of time to include more experiential types of time? How might process researchers move beyond producing what Weick (1999: 135) labels “artifacts of retrospect” that look backward in time towards “narratives of prospect” that capture the experience of living forward? (see also Fachin and Langley, 2017; Shotter, 2006).

References:

Ancona, D. G., Okhuysen, G. A., & Perlow, L. A. (2001). Taking time to integrate temporal research. Academy of Management Review26(4), 512–529

Anteby, M., & Molnár, V. (2012). Collective memory meets organizational identity: remembering to forget in a firm’s rhetorical history. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 515-540.

Bakken, T., Holt, R., & Zundel, M. (2013). Time and Play in Management Practice: An Investigation Through the Philosophies of MctTaggart and Heidegger. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 29, 13–22.

Barney, J. 1991. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99-120.

Bátiz-Lazo, B., Haigh, T., & Stearns, D. L. 2015. How the Future Shaped the Past: The Case of the Cashless Society. Enterprise & Society, 15(1): 103-131.

Bluedorn, A. C., & Denhardt, R. B. 1988. Time and Organizations. Journal of Management, 14(2): 299-320.

Brunninge, O. 2009. Using history in organizations: How managers make purposeful reference to history in strategy processes. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22 (1): 8-26.

Bucheli, M., & Wadhwani, R. D. (Eds.). (2013). Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods. Oxford University Press.

Butler, R. 1995. Time in Organizations: Its experience, explanation and effects. Organization Studies 16(6): 925-950.

Clark, P. 1990. Chronological codes and organizational analysis, Pp. 137-166 in Hassard, J. & Pym, D (Eds.), The Theory and Philosophy of Organizations: Critical issues and new perspectives. London: Routledge.

Cunliffe, A., Luhman, J.T. & Boje, D. 2004. Narrative Temporality: Implications for organizational research. Organization Studies 25(2): 261-286.

Dawson, P. 2014. Reflections: On time, temporality and change in organizations. Organizational Change Management 14(3): 285-308.

Dawson, P. & Sikes, C. 2016. Organizational Change and Temporality: Bending the Arrow of Time. New York: Routledge.

Delahaye, A., Booth, C. Clark, P., Proctor, S. & Rowlinson, M. 2009. The genre of corporate history. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22(1): 27-48.

Elias, N. (1993). Time: An essay. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Fachin, F. & Langley, A. 2017. (forthcoming). Researching organizational concepts processually: The case of identity, In C. Cassell, A. Cunliffe & G. Grandy (Eds.) SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Management Research Methods, London, UK: Sage Publications.

Feldman, M. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611–629.

Feldman, M. S. (2016). Routines as Process: Past, Present, and Future. In J. Howard-Grenville, C. Rerup, A. Langley, & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), Organizational Routines: How They Are Created, Maintained, and Changed (Vol. 5, pp. 23-46).

Foster, W. M., Suddaby, R., Minkus, A., & Wiebe, E. 2011. History as social memory assets: The example of Tim Hortons. Management & Organizational History, 6(1), 101-120.

Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., and Fabbri, T. (2002). Revising the Past (while Thinking in the Future Perfect Tense). Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(6): 622– 34.

Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. G. (2000). Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 63-81.

Goodman, P. S., Lawrence, B. S., Ancona, D. G., & Tushman, M. L. (2001). Introduction: Special topic forum on time and organizational research. Academy of Management Review26(4), 507–511.

Granqvist, N., & Gustafsson, R. (2016). Temporal institutional work. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 1009–1035.

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 149-164.

Hatch, M.J. & Schultz, M. 2017. Toward a Theory of Using History Authentically: Historicizing in the Carlsberg Group, Administrative Science Quarterly, 31 (1) (DOI: 10.1177/0001839217692535)

Halbwachs, M. (1992/ 1950). On Collective Memory. Translated by L. A. Coser. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hernes, T. (2008). Understanding organizations as process: Theory for a tangled world. Abington: Routledge.

Howard- Grenville, J., Metzger, M. L., and Meyer, A. D. (2013). “Rekindling the Old Flame: Processes of Identity Resurrection.” Academy of Management Journal, 56(1): 113– 36.

Huy, Q. N. (2001). Time, temporal capability, and planned change. Academy of Management Review26(4), 601–623.

Kaplan, S., & Orlikowski, W. J. 2013. Temporal Work in Strategy Making. Organization Science, 24(4): 965-995.

Kipping, M., & Üsdiken, B. (2014). History in Organization and Management Theory: More Than Meets the Eye. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 535-588.

Lamertz, K., Foster, W. M., Coraiola, D. M., & Kroezen, J. 2016. New identities from remnants of the past: An examination of the history of beer brewing in Ontario and the recent emergence of craft breweries. Business History, 58(5): 796-828.

Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity and flow. Academy of Management Journal56(1), 1–13.

Lawrence, T. B., Winn, M. I., & Jennings, P. D. (2001). The Temporal Dynamics of Institutionalization. The Academy of Management Review, 26, 624–644.

Mead, G. H. (1932). The Philosophy of the Present. LaSalle, Illinois: Open Court.

Mutch, A. (2016). Bringing history into the study of routines: contextualizing performance. Organization Studies, 37(8), 1171-1188.

North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press.

Popp, A., & Holt, R. (2013). The Presence of Entrepreneurial Opportunity. Business History, 55(1), 9-28.

Reinecke, J. & Ansari, S. 2015. When times collide: Temporal brokerage at the intersection of markets and developments. Academy of Management Journal, 58(20: 618-648.

Reinecke, J., & Ansari, S. (2017). Time, Temporality and Process Studies. In A. Langley & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), Sage Handbook of Process Organization Studies. Sage.

Roe, R.A., Waller, M.J. & Clegg, S.R. (Eds.), Time in organizational research (pp. 204–219). Abingdon: Routledge.

Rowell, C., Gustafsson, R., & Clemente, M. (2016). How Institutions Matter “in Time”: The Temporal Structures of Practices and their Effects on Practice Reproduction. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 49A.

Rowlinson, M., Booth, C., Clark, P., Delahaye, A., & Procter, S. (2010). Social remembering and organizational memory. Organization Studies, 31(1), 69-87.

Rowlinson, M., Hassard, J., & Decker, S. (2013). Strategies for Organizational History: A Dialogue Between Historical Theory and Organization Theory. Academy of Management Review, 39(3): 250-274.

Schultz, M., & Hernes, T. (2013). A temporal perspective on organizational identity. Organization Science, 24(1), 1-21.

Shotter, J. 2006. Understanding process from within: An argument for ‘withness’-thinking. Organization Studies, 27(4): 585-604.

Slawinski, N., & Bansal, P. (2015). Short on Time: Intertemporal Tensions in Business Sustainability. Organization Science, 26, 531–549.

Sorokin, P., & Merton, R. (1937). Social Time: A Methodological and Functional Analysis. The American Journal of Sociology, 42, 615–629.

Suddaby, R. 2016. Toward a Historical Consciousness: Following the Historic Turn in Management Thought. M@n@gement: Revue officielle de l’Association Internationale de Management Stratégique, 19(1): 46-60.

Suddaby, R., Foster, W. M., and Quinn- Trank, C. (2010). “Rhetorical History as a Source of Competitive Advantage.” In Advances in Strategic Management:The Globalization of Strategy Research, vol. 27, edited by J. Baum and J. Lampel, 147– 73. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Suddaby, R. & Foster, W.M. 2016. Organizational Re-Membering: The use of rhetorical history to create identification”, in Oxford Handbook of Organizational Identity, edited by Michael Pratt, Majken Schultz, Blake Ashforth & Davide Ravasi, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Suddaby, R. & Foster, W.M. (2017). History and Organizational Change. Journal of Management, 43(1): 19-38.

Suddaby, R., Foster, W. M. and Mills, A. J. (2014). “History and Institutions.” In Organization Studies: Historical Perspectives, edited by M. Bucheli and D. Wadhwani, 100– 23. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509-533.

Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567–582.

Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. 1991. Organizational Memory. The Academy of Management Review, 16(1): 57-91.

Weick, K. E. 1999. That’s moving: Theories that matter. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8(2): 134-142.

Wiebe, E. (2010). Temporal sensemaking: Managers’ use of time to frame organizational change. In T. Hernes & S. Maitlis (Eds.), Process, sensemaking and organizing (pp. 213–241). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ybema, S. 2010. Talk of change: Temporal contrasts and collective identities. Organization Studies, 31(4): 481-503.

Zerubavel, E. 1981. Hidden Rhythms: Schedules and Calendars in Social Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Zerubavel, E. 2003. Time maps: collective memory and the social shape of the past. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.

 

 

Professional Development Workshop (20/6/2018)

Aim

The aim of the PDW is to provide a stimulating and interactive context for researchers to further develop their ideas and projects. More specifically, the PDW is designed to enable participants to: (a) refine their understanding of process thought; (b) share with others some of the methodological and theoretical challenges they have encountered in conducting, theorizing, and teaching process research, or putting process insights to practice in organizations; and (c) elicit/offer suggestions about how researching, theorizing, and teaching process may be further advanced.

 

The PDW will consist of (a) Workshop papers, (b) Panel Discussions, and (c) Plenary Panels.

 

 

Workshop Papers

We invite submissions of extended abstracts from researchers who have papers at an early stage of writing and would like helpful feedback as to how their papers may be further developed and published. Such submissions will be presented and extensively discussed in a roundtable format.

 

Panel Discussions

We invite submission proposals for panel discussions related to any process-related topic. An ideal submission will aim to: discuss a topic of broad relevance to process research and the challenges it presents; consolidate, update and further advance our knowledge of it; or introduce new topics that process-oriented researchers need to know about.

 

Panel discussions can focus either on theoretical or methodological topics. Up to four panel discussions will be accepted. Topics related to the conference theme are particularly welcome. Proposals will be evaluated in terms of clarity; novelty, relevance for and attractiveness to the process studies community; and developmental possibilities for its participants. A panel discussion will last for 90 minutes.

 

Plenary Panels

The following plenary panels will take place:

  • Taking time seriously in organizational research: Theoretical and methodological challenges

Tima Bansal, Ivey Business School, Canada

Paula Jarzabkowski, Cass Business School, UK

Majken Schultz, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark

  • History matters: The value and challenges of historical approaches to organizational and management research

Matthias Kipping, Schulich School of Business, Canada

Michael Rowlinson, University of Exeter Business School, UK

Dan Wadhwani, University of the Pacific, USA

Submissions

General process-oriented papers, theme-focused papers, as well as PDW workshop papers and panel discussion proposals are invited. Interested participants must submit  an extended abstract of about 1000 words for their proposed contribution by January 31st, 2018 through the following link:

 

http://www.process-symposium.com/abstractsubmitform/abstractsubmitform.html

 

The submission should contain authors’ names, institutional affiliations, email and postal addresses, and indicate the Track for which the submission is made (General or Thematic), or whether the submission is intended for the PDW. Authors will be notified of acceptance or otherwise by March 7th, 2018.  Full papers will be submitted by June 4th, 2018.