EGOS Subtheme 31 CFP: Imprints, Path Dependencies and Beyond

The second EGOS track devoted to history is on the theme of “Intricacies of Organizational Stability and Change: Historical Imprints, Path Dependencies, and Beyond.” For more information, see below or click here.

Sub-theme 31: Intricacies of Organizational Stability and Change: Historical Imprints, Path Dependencies and Beyond

To upload your short paper, please log in to the Member Area.
Christopher Marquis
Cornell University, USA
Georg Schreyögg
Freie Universität Berlin, Germany, & University of Graz, Austria
Jörg Sydow
Freie Universität Berlin, Germany

Call for Papers

This sub-theme seeks to bring together researchers from all over the world who study how organizations deal with change when they are confronted with processes that promote stability, including imprinting, path dependence and inertia more generally. The aim is to foster exchange of fresh empirical insights and new theoretical ideas to further understand stabilizing and destabilizing mechanisms in organizations and inter-organizational relations. The sub-theme connects to the general theme of the 36th EGOS Colloquium – “Organizing for a Sustainable Future: Responsibility, Renewal & Resistance – by examining the dynamics of resistance and renewal in and between organizations. It focuses on the dialectics of making use of routines, its reinforcement and unintended consequences in terms of rigidities, dysfunctional flips, organizational conservatism, and related processes.

The field of stabilizing dynamics – or more generally, the tension between stability and change – provides a particularly advantageous context for exploring the consequences of change efforts as they are developing on different levels: group, organizational, inter-organizational and organizational field, embedded in different institutional environments and numerous strategic contexts. At the same time, research on such types of processes and the evolution of organizational dynamics could benefit from EGOS, as the Colloquium provides a particularly fruitful context for bringing together research from a wide variety of disciplines, theoretical backgrounds, and institutional settings.

The sub-theme wishes to attract both high-quality contributions that are ready to be submitted to a research journal as well as research in progress that explores these challenging issues. It seeks to provide an opportunity for engaging in constructive dialogue and to encourage mutual learning among participating scholars.

We particularly invite contributions that focus on one or more of the following issues:

  • The role of initial conditions, internal and external to an organization, for triggering stabilizing dynamics in terms of imprinting, path dependence and inertial alignments
  • Making stabilizing dynamics reflexive in everyday organizing
  • Stabilizing processes as systemic forces that transcend individual routine compliance
  • Self-reinforcing processes as drivers of stabilizing dynamics
  • Diffusion of stabilizing and change dynamics and contextual factors that foster their emergence
  • Processes and interventions likely to modify or to stop stabilizing dynamics (e.g. external shocks, paradoxical interventions, charismatic leadership or unlearning)
  • Re-conceiving the tension between stabilizing and change dynamics as multi-level-phenomena

Papers studying such issues and related topics, empirically or conceptually, comparatively or monographically, with regard to recent or historical developments, are cordially invited.


  • Farjoun, M. (2010): “Beyond Dualism: Stability and Change as a Duality.” Academy of Management Review, 35 (2), 202–225.
  • Gilbert, C.G. (2005): “Unbundling the Structure of Inertia: Resource versus Routine Rigidity.” Academy of Management Journal, 48 (5), 741–763.
  • Kremser, W., & Schreyögg, G. (2016): “The Dynamics of Interrelated Routines. Introducing the Cluster Level.” Organization Science, 27 (3), 698–721.
  • Marquis, C., & Kunyuan, Q. (2018): “Waking from Mao’s Dream: Communist Ideological Imprinting and the Internationalization of Entrepreneurial Ventures in China.” Administrative Science Quarterly, first published online on September 14, 2018;
  • Marquis, C., & Tilcsik, A. (2013): “Imprinting: Toward a Multilevel Theory.” Academy of Management Annals, 7 (1), 195–245.
  • Schreyögg, G., & Sydow, J. (2010): “Organizing for Fluidity? Dilemmas of New Organizational Forms.” Organization Science, 21 (6), 1251–1262.
  • Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G., & Koch, J. (2009): “Organizational Path Dependence: Opening the Black Box.” Academy of Management Review, 34 (4), 689–709.
  • Tripsas, M. (2009): “Technology, Identity, and Inertia Through the Lens of ‘The Digital Photography Company’.” Organization Science, 20 (2), 441–460.
Christopher Marquis is currently Samuel C. Johnson Professor in Sustainable Global Enterprise at Cornell University, USA. His recent research focuses on global sustainability and imprinting, especially how these processes have unfolded in China and emerging markets.
Georg Schreyögg is Professor emeritus at Freie Universität Berlin, Germany, and Professor of Managment und Organizational Capabilities at the University of Graz, Austria. He was a member of the editorial board of several national and international journals. Georg’s current research interests include organizational change, routines, organizational capabilities and path dependence.
Jörg Sydow is Professor of Management and Inter-firm Cooperation at the School of Business & Economics of Freie Universität Berlin, Germany. His recent research focuses on creative industries, inter-firm networking, especially in service and science-based industries.
To upload your short paper, please log in to the Member Area.

Organization & Time: Understanding the Past (and Future) in the Present

EGOS Conference Hamburg, 2-4 July 2020

Sub-Theme 1 (SWG)


David Chandler
University of Colorado Denver, USA

Majken Schultz
Copenhagen Business School, Denmark

Roy Suddaby
University of Victoria, Canada, & University of Liverpool, United Kingdom

Call for Papers

Contemporary organizations operate increasingly according to a logic of speed and instantaneity, while at the same time increasing their temporal spans to either draw upon their histories or to cope with distant future challenges (Schultz & Hernes, 2013). Within widely varying “temporal depths” (Bluedorn, 2002), different organizational actors carve out wide combinations of temporal structures (Ancona et al., 2001) and trajectories (Lawrence et al., 2001) that shape the organizations themselves and their relationships with other organizational actors. Recent work in organization theory has begun the search for ways to analytically and empirically handle the temporal complexity that organizational actors face (Hussenot & Missonier, 2016). This sub-theme aims to extend this work through joint inquiry.

Within organization theory, many of the actions and outcomes we study are the result of processes that occur over long periods of time (Bluedorn & Denhardt, 1988; Goodman et al., 2001; Lee & Liebenau, 1999). These processes reach into the distant past, but also stretch into the unknown future. In spite of this, within much macro-level research, temporal issues are rarely theorized rigorously. As such, we seek to host a discussion among colleagues from across the range of organization theories to (a) more comprehensively theorize the past, present, and future in relation to organizations and organizing, and (b) stimulate work on theories of time itself (Pierson, 2004). This discussion, we believe, will have profound implications for our understanding of organizations and how they evolve. In particular, this sub-theme builds on the first sub-theme of the SWG (in 2019) to focus on the various ways the past are used in organizations and enacted in the present. We also include topics related to how expectations for the future intersect with uses of the past. Organizations draw upon their own past across widely different timespans, which may extend from a few days to centuries; they also draw upon past practices and symbols from craft, traditions, regions, or myths (e.g., Dacin et al., 2018; Schultz & Hernes, 2013).

Our goal for this sub-theme, therefore, is twofold – to more comprehensively theorize the past, present, and future in relation to organizations and organizing (e.g., fostering more complete analyses of complex temporal processes), but also to stimulate theory about the past, present, and future in a phenomenological sense. We seek to build an inclusive conversation that appeals to many theories and methods within organization theory. For example, we are not simply interested in understanding long periods of time as path-dependent processes, but in understanding things like temporal trajectories, time as a social construct, the past as a resource in the present, and the cumulative evolution of institutions and their underlying values.

The resulting discussion presents the opportunity for an exciting avenue of research that includes, but is not limited, to the following:

  • To explore the effects of “ancestry” and “legacy” on the founding, evolution, and dissolution of descendent organizations (Walsh & Bartunek, 2011).
  • To understand the role of rhetoric in constructing history that serves as a source of competitive advantage for organizations (Suddaby et al., 2010).
  • To focus on the nature of the distant past, exploring how organizations draw on historical artifacts and narratives to build authenticity and shape identity (Hatch & Schultz, 2017).
  • To understand how organizations and other social actors use history strategically to foster identification with key stakeholders (Suddaby et al., 2015).
  • To study character and values as historically-accreted commitments that create meaning for individuals within institutional contexts (Chandler, 2014; Kraatz & Flores, 2015).
  • To conceptualize how distant pasts and distant futures connect, in the present (Chandler & Foster, 2015; Schultz & Hernes, forthcoming). Distant pasts can be evoked in the present, but in a processual or pragmatist view any evoking of the past has a future orientation.

In this spirit, researchers across the range of organization theories are encouraged to apply for this sub-theme to help place the past, present, and future on a firmer theoretical footing. Our goal is to foster discussions that encompass theory (e.g., path dependence, sedimentation) and methodology (e.g., qualitative analysis, rhetorical analysis) to enable the more effective theorization and empirical study of the essential role of the past, present, and future in understanding organizations and organizing processes.



  • Ancona, D.G., Goodman, P.S., Lawrence, B.S., & Tushman, M.L. (2001): “Time: A New Research Lens.” Academy of Management Review, 26 (4), 645–663.
  • Bluedorn, A.C. (2002): The Human Organization of Time: Temporal Realities and Experience. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.
  • Bluedorn, A.C., & Denhardt, R.B. (1988): “Time and Organizations.” Journal of Management, 14 (2), 299–320.
  • Chandler, D. (2014): “Morals, Markets, and Values-based Businesses.” Academy of Management Review, 39 (3), 396–406.
  • Chandler, D., & Foster, W.M. (2015): “A Present Past: A Historical Perspective on Institutional Maintenance and Change.” Academy of Management Annual Meeting. Vancouver, Canada.
  • Dacin, T.M., Dacin, P.A., & Kent, D. (2018): “Tradition in Organizations: A Custodianship Framework.” Academy of Management Annals, 13 (1), 342–373.
  • Goodman, P.S., Lawrence, B.S., Ancona, D.G., & Tushman, M.L. (2001): “Introduction to the Special Issue: Time in Organizations.” Academy of Management Review, 26 (4), 507–511.
  • Hatch, M.J., & Schultz, M. (2017): “Toward a Theory of Using History Authentically: Historicizing in the Carlsberg Group.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 62 (4), 657–697.
  • Hussenot, A.&, Missonier, S. (2016): “Encompassing Stability and Novelty in Organization Studies: An Events-based Approach.” Organization Studies, 37 (4), 523–546.
  • Kraatz, M.S., & Flores, R. (2015): “Reinfusing Values.” In: M.S. Kraatz (ed.): Institutions and Ideals: Philip Selznick’s Legacy for Organizational Studies. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 44. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 353–381.
  • Lawrence, T.B., Winn, M.I., & Jennings, P.D. (2001): “The Temporal Dynamics of Institutionalization.” Academy of Management Review, 26 (4), 624–644.
  • Lee, H., & Liebenau, J. (1999): “Time in Organizational Studies: Towards a New Research Direction.” Organization Studies, 20 (6), 1035–1058.
  • Pierson, P. (2004): Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Schultz, M., & Hernes, T. (forthcoming): ““Temporal interplay between strategy and identity: Punctuated, subsumed and sustained modes.” Strategic Organization, first published online on April 30, 2019;
  • Suddaby, R., Foster, W., & Quinn Trank, C. (2010): “Rhetorical history as a source of competitive advantage.” In: B. Joel A.C. & J. Lampel (eds.): The Globalization of Strategy Research. Advances in Strategic Management, Vol. 27. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 147–173.
  • Suddaby, R., & Foster, W.M., & Quinn Trank, C. (2015): “Organizational Re-Membering: The Use of Rhetorical History to Create Identification.” In: M. Pratt, M. Schultz, B. Ashforth & D. Ravasi (eds.): Oxford Handbook of Organizational Identity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 297–316.
  • Walsh, I.J., & Bartunek, J.M. (2011): “Cheating the Fates: Organizational Foundings in the Wake of Demise.” Academy of Management Journal, 54 (5), 1017–1044.

David Chandler is Associate Professor of Management at the University of Colorado Denver, USA. His research focuses on understanding how organizations interact with their complex institutional environments. This research has been published in ‘Administrative Science Quarterly’, ‘Organization Science’, ‘Academy of Management Review’, and ‘Journal of Management’. He has also written the book “Corporate Social Responsibility: A Strategic Perspective” (Business Expert Press, 2015) as part of the UN PRME book collection and is author of the textbook “Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation” (5th edition, SAGE Publications, 2020).

Majken Schultz is Professor of Management and Organization Studies at Copenhagen Business School (CBS), Denmark, and member of the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters. She is co-founder of the Center for Organizational Time at CBS. Her recent research focuses on temporality in organizations, including how history is used for the future, as well as how future strategy becomes meaningful through identity. She has published in ‘Academy of Management Journal’, ‘Academy of Management Review’, ‘Administrative Science Quarterly’, ‘Human Relations’, ‘European Journal of Marketing’ and co-written/edited more than a dozen books.

Roy Suddaby is Professor & Winspear Chair at the Peter B. Gustavson School of Business, University of Victoria, Canada. He is also Research Professor at Newcastle University Business School, Newcastle University, United Kingdom. His research focuses on organizational and social change and has been published in ‘Academy of Management Journal’, ‘Academy of Management Review’, ‘Administrative Science Quarterly’, ‘Human Relations’, ‘Journal of Business Venturing’ and related leading management journals.

Deadline approaching for BHC Doctoral Colloquium submissions!

The BHC Doctoral Colloquium in Business History will be held once again in conjunction with the 2020 BHC annual meeting. This prestigious workshop, funded by Cambridge University Press, will take place in Charlotte, North Carolina on Wednesday, March 11th and Thursday March 12th, 2020. Typically limited to ten students, the colloquium is open to doctoral candidates who are pursuing dissertation research within the broad field of business history, from any relevant discipline (e.g., from economic sociology, political science, cultural anthropology, or management, as well as history).  Most participants are in year 3 or 4 or their degree program, though in some instances applicants at a later stage make a compelling case that their thesis research had evolved in ways that led them to see the advantages of an intensive engagement with business history.

The theme of the 2020 BHC annual meeting is “Collaboration in Business and Business History.”  We welcome proposals from students working within the conference theme, as well as any other thematic area of business history.  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 the incoming BHC president), discussing dissertation proposals, relevant literatures and research strategies, and career trajectories. 

Applications are due by 15 November 2019 via email to 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).  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 the end of 2019.

The director of the Colloquium is Edward Balleisen, Professor of History and Public Policy, Duke University.  Other faculty participants include:

Gustavo del Angel, Professor of Economics, Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE), Mexico City (Mexican and Latin American Business History)

Neil Rollings, Professor of Economic and Business History, University of Glasgow (European Business History)

Susie Pak, Professor of History, St. Johns University (American Business History)

Madeleine Zelin, Professor of History, Columbia University (Chinese and Asian Business History)

CFP: Histories of Business Knowledge

PDW – Histories of Business Knowledge

Thursday, March 14, 2019, 1 to 4pm
Hilton Cartagena de Indias, Avenida Almirante Brion, El Laguito,
Cartagena de Indias, 130001, Colombia

Organizers: Christina Lubinski ( & Bill Foster (; Organized under the auspice of the BHC workshop committee; supported by the Copenhagen Business School “Rethinking History at Business Schools”-Initiative

Deadline for submissions: Friday, February 8, 2019

Knowledge is a central asset in business. Companies and organizations accumulate a pool of knowledge, whether it is knowledge about their customers’ needs and wants, their business environment, or the skills and experience of their employees. They also engage with a variety of different kinds of knowledge, such as explicit, formalized, or tacit knowledge and knowledge embedded in skills and bodies. The different ways in which businesspeople gather, share and capitalize on knowledge is a crucial competitive advantage (or disadvantage) in all market endeavors. Knowledge is also a product. Knowledge-focused industries—such as consulting, academia and education, accounting, IT or legal services—sell innovative intellectual and educational products and services on a market for knowledge.

In this paper development workshop, we discuss work-in-progress papers addressing business knowledge from a historical perspective. We welcome contributions about the development of business knowledge over time, be that in the context of commercial enterprises, non-for-profit organizations, or educational institutions broadly construed. We specifically encourage historians who are interested in the development of curricula of business knowledge, their pedagogy, research endeavors; or in knowledge stakeholders, their politics, goals, relationships and work processes.

Also, we welcome and encourage interested contributors to submit papers that fit with the Academy of Management Learning and Education (AMLE) special issue “New Histories of Business Schools and How They May Inspire New Futures”. The workshop will provide a setting where authors can discuss paper ideas and/or draft papers for this issue. Christina Lubinski, special issue Guest Editor, and Bill Foster, Editor of AMLE, will provide feedback and answer questions related to the special issue. Deadline for submissions to the special issue is March 2020. For details, see the official call for papers:

We believe that historical research on business knowledge makes valuable contributions to research in business history, management, and education. It will also generate valuable insights for policy makers, managers and academics. Examining how our historical understanding of business knowledge foregrounds some aspects of these complex phenomena while downplaying others encourages discussions about these choices, critical and revisionist histories and new lines of thinking. This workshop is an opportunity to “test-drive” innovative critical arguments and taken-for-granted barriers to change within the complex and intertwined environment of universities, the business community, government, and civil society. We are also keen to engage with how these discussions may stimulate innovations in the way we configure education and, consequently, how we teach, conduct research, view our academic profession, and relate to our stakeholders.

We welcome work-in-progress at all stages of development. Interested scholars may submit two types of submissions for discussion: full draft papers (of up to 8,000 words) or extended abstracts/paper ideas (of 1,000 to 3,000 words). The workshop will take place immediately before the BHC meeting and at the same location, the Hilton Cartagena de Indias. Paper selection and registration is separate from the annual meeting. Participation in both BHC meeting and workshop is possible and encouraged. The PDW is part of the “Rethinking History at Business Schools”-Initiative by Copenhagen Business School.

If you are interested in participating, please submit your paper draft (of up to 8,000 words) or paper idea (1,000 to 3,000 words) and a one-page CV to Christina Lubinski ( by Friday, February 8, 2019. Feel free to contact the organizers with your paper ideas if you are interested in early feedback or want to inquire about the fit of your idea with this PDW.

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

Deadline is 30 April 2018


BHC Doctoral Colloquium in Business History

The BHC Doctoral Colloquium in Business History will be held once again in conjunction with the 2018 BHC annual meeting. This prestigious workshop, funded by Cambridge University Press, will take place in Baltimore on Wednesday April 4th and Thursday April 5th. Typically limited to ten students, the colloquium is open to doctoral candidates who are pursuing dissertation research within the broad field of business history, from any relevant discipline (e.g., from economic sociology, political science, cultural anthropology, or management, as well as history). Most participants are in year 3 or 4 or their degree program, though in some instances applicants at a later stage make a compelling case that their thesis research has evolved in ways that have led them to see the value of an intensive engagement with business history.

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 the incoming BHC president), discussing dissertation proposals, relevant literatures and research strategies, and career trajectories.

Applications are due by 15 November 2017 via email to 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). 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 20 December 2017.

Questions about the colloquium should be sent to its director, Duke Professor of History Edward Balleisen,, and/or this year’s graduate student liaison, Alexi Garrett, (who participated last year).

Between Past and Present: Sub-Plenary at EGOS 2017

Today’s sub-plenary “Between Past and Present – History in Organization and Organizing” at EGOS 2017 in Copenhagen brought together leading scholars in History and Organization Studies to discuss recent research on time and history.

The three keynote speakers Stephanie Decker, Roy Suddaby and Anders Ravn Sorensen illustrated the plurality in both the conceptualization of organizational time and in how history is researched. The talks triggered a lively debate on how history matters, to whom it matters, and which (often implicit) theories of history shape organizational research.

Chair: Mads Mordhorst

Stephanie Decker – Making sense of the Past: History vs. memory

Roy Suddaby – Institutional Memory as a Dynamic Capability

Anders Ravn Sorensen – Uses of history in action: CBS’ anniversary



CfP: Collaboration & Materialities workshop

Cross-posted from Organizations, Artifacts & Practices workshop:

Dear all,

Deadline for submission to the 7th Organizations, Artifacts & Practices (OAP) workshop is approaching (January, 27th).

The topic of this year will be “Collaboration & Materiality: New Places, Communities and Practices of the Collaborative Economy”. OAP 2017 will be hosted between the 16th and 18th June at SMU and ESSEC in Singapore.

This event will be an opportunity to discuss the relevance of ontological, material and sociomaterial views about new work practices and organizational collaboration. We will be particularly interested in all empirical and theoretical works about collaborative dynamics (e.g. virtual/distributed teams, on-line communities, collective entrepreneurship, open innovation, coworking, makers, hackers, telework, digital nomads, etc.).

The event will start on the 16th June (at SMU) with a learning expedition (in the morning), a meeting of our Standing Group, a panel of entrepreneurs of the collaborative economy in Singapore and East-Asia. They will share their views about what is going on with regards to collaborative economy and collaborative practices here. Between the 17th and 18th, we will be at ESSEC Singapore for the workshop itself (including three keynote speakers, around 50 papers and a concluding panel).

Our social events will be sponsored and hosted by RMIT and and the French Embassy.

Looking forward to meeting you all in Singapore!

Best wishes

Julien, Marie-Léandre, Philippe, Ted, Yesh, François and Nathalie, co-chairs of OAP 2017


OAP background

The first OAP workshop was launched in May of 2011 at Université Paris-Dauphine with the goal of facilitating discussions among scholars from various disciplines (e.g. management, anthropology, sociology, organization studies, ergonomics, philosophy, psychology…) who collectively share an interest in Science and Technology Studies (STS) in the context of organization and organizing.

OAP deals with topics such as Ontologies, Materiality, Technology, Practices, Sociomateriality, Performativity, Iconography, Process, Time, Space, Legitimacy, Symbolic artifacts and Managerial Techniques in the context of organization and organizing. It draws on various theoretical perspectives (phenomenology, pragmatism, institutionalism, design, post-Marxism, critical realism, among others).

OAP 2017: 7th session

OAP 2017, the seventh session of OAP workshops, will concentrate on the subject of collaboration and materiality, or to put it differently how ‘matter matters’ (Carlile & Langley, 2013) in the context of collaboration. In what follows, we introduce possible themes and topics of interest.

Today’s social life is characterized by increasing collaborations and/or networks within and between organizations involving a large number of stakeholders with different profiles and different interests and intensions. More and more, with the so-called ‘end of waged employment’, a high number of individuals (independent workers) are involved in complex and fluid collaborations, depending on market demand.  Collaborations and networks appear as collective responses to address transversal questions that people face in distributed environments. One difficult issue for such heterogeneous and distributed networks/collaborations concerns their ability to maintain their own dynamics of coherent and accepted collective action and teleology. In particular, it requires the setup of common spaces (physical or virtual) and timeslots (synchronous or not) for collaborative work. And due to the nature of the collective – i.e. bringing together individuals and objects from different institutions, organizations and (potentially) distant geographic locations – those spatial and temporal domains are not given a priori. In this context, a growing number of possibilities and themes have arisen/emerged, in particular the three following ones:

New forms of projects: projects are growingly global, and with an increased complexity. More and more, projects involve distributed actors, and open logics. Projects have no clear temporal and spatial boundaries they involve open communities, focus on ever evolving products, and result in open innovations). This involves collaborative modalities, materializations, mediations, which probably depart from those of the eighties or even nineties;

The emergence of third places in the context of the collaborative economy: in contrast to first places (home) and second places (work), third places “host the regular, voluntary, informal, and happily anticipated gatherings of individuals beyond the realms of home and work.” (Oldenburg, 2001, p.17). These third places are now occupying a central role in the organizing process of some collectives. These places can be public spaces, beer gardens, main streets, pubs, cafés, coffeehouses, post offices, but also fab labs, maker spaces, hacker spaces and any other kind of co-working place. Such places are in certain circumstances becoming the heart of a community’s social vitality. They are the places, times and spaces at the heart of the emerging collaborative economy, i.e. a new market logic expected to be based on gift-counter-gifts, horizontal collaboration and value-co-creation. Critical perspectives about theses discourses and practices are welcome.

Exploring digital materiality and digital affordance: coined by Gibson (1977), the concept of affordance is based on the assumption that what may principally matter about an artifact is not what it’s made out of, but what it affords people to do. Therefore, digital materiality suggests considering digital artifacts (i.e. software, virtual meeting rooms, etc.) as important as material artifacts in the organizing processes. We believe that this new interpretation of materiality opens new avenues for approaching the concept of collaboration and materiality in a context where collaboration is often asynchronous, and distributed among different geographical areas, and time zones. The stakes of digital materiality could also be explored in the development of the collaborative economy, where digital platforms such as Amazon, YouTube, AppStore, TripAdvisor, play a key role.

This workshop will aim at shedding light on the following topics, among others:

– Comprehensive studies of the new forms of collaborations: what are the specificities of the new forms of projects, third places and public spaces? What are the new materializations or mediations involved? How do these new organizations emerge in time and space?

– To which extent do these collaborations affect workers’ identity? Do they modify hierarchies, power relationships?

How do actors make sense of these collaborations and their material entanglement? How do actors develop new forms of collective, embodied, sensemaking through digitalization, new artifacts and spaces?

Exploration of material practices and processes related to learning, creativity and innovation: What type of learning and knowledge dynamics are developed through these new forms of collaborations? Do co-working spaces, fab labs, BYOD, maker spaces, hacker spaces create new conditions for collaborative innovation? To which extent do they favor creativity?

New work practices (generalization of entrepreneurship, end of work, coworking, cohoming, digital nomads, DIY…) and their impact on collaboration: how does working at home impact collaboration? What are the socio-temporal consequences of working at home? How do new forms of mobility affect work and collaboration?

– Beyond digital platforms, we are also particularly interested in papers emphasizing the role and possible return) of communities in the context of the sharing and collaborative economies.

Of course, OAP 2017 will also be open to more general contributions about Science and Technology studies, ontologies, sociomateriality, organizational sensemaking mediated by technological or material artefacts, anthropology of technology or more general theoretical and empirical work about materialization and performativity processes in organizations and organizing

Submission to OAP 2017

Submission can be done at the following address via easychair:

Deadline for submissions is 27th January 2017, 00.00 (CET).

Administrative support

Location and registration

June, 16th: 3rd meeting of OAP Standing Group (at SMU campus)

June, 17th-18th: 7th OAP workshop (at ESSEC campus)

There are no fees associated with attending this workshop.


Anderson, C. (2012). Maker:  the new industrial revolution, Crown Business.

Carlile, P. R., & Langley, A. (2013). How matter matters: Objects, artifacts, and materiality in organization studies (Vol. 3). Oxford University Press.

de Vaujany, F. X., & Mitev, N. (2013). Materiality and space: organizations, artefacts and practices. Palgrave Macmillan.

Faraj, S., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Majchrzak, A. (2011). Knowledge collaboration in online communities. Organization science, 22(5), 1224-1239.

Gandini, A. (2015). The rise of coworking spaces: A literature review. ephemera: theory & politics in organization, 15(1), 193-205.

Gibson, J. J. (1977), -The Theory of Affordances-, in R.E. Shaw and J. Bransford (eds), Perceiving, Acting and Knowing, Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hancock, P., & Spicer, A. (2011). Academic architecture and the constitution of the new model worker. Culture and Organization, 17(2), 91-105.

Leonardi, P. M. (2010). Digital materiality? How artifacts without matter, matter. First monday, 15(6), 1-17.

Oldenburg, R. (2001). Celebrating the third place: Inspiring stories about the” great good places” at the heart of our communities. Da Capo Press.

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

Schor, J. B., & Fitzmaurice, C. J. (2015). 26. Collaborating and connecting: the emergence of the sharing economy. Handbook of Research on Sustainable Consumption, 410.

CfP: Techniques of the Corporation


“Techniques of the Corporation”

4-6 May 2017, University of Toronto
Technoscience Research Unit

Conference organization

Justin Douglas
Bretton Fosbrook
Kira Lussier
Michelle Murphy

How do corporations know themselves and their world? Over the last 150 years, corporations, like universities and laboratories, have generated an abundance of knowledge-making techniques in the form of psychological tests, efficiency technologies, scenario planning, and logistical systems. As dominant forms of the last century, corporations are assembled with instruments, infrastructures, and interventions that arrange and rearrange the dynamics of capitalism. These techniques of the corporation have filtered into our daily lives, influencing everyday understandings of self, inequality, environment, and society.

Techniques of the Corporation will assemble an interdisciplinary network of established and emerging scholars whose work contributes to the critical study of the techniques, epistemologies, and imaginaries of the 20th-century corporation. This conference aims to foster a timely conversation between Science and Technology Studies (STS) approaches and the recent histories of capitalism. We treat the corporation in the same way that historians of science and STS scholars have approached science, colonialism, and militarism as generative sites for knowledge production, value-making, and technopolitics. The conference takes as its starting place North American corporations with the understanding that corporations are multinational forms with complex transnational histories. Building from the recent history of capitalism, we attend to the entangled genealogies of corporations with slavery, exploitation, environmental destruction, colonialism, and inequality.

Hosted by the Technoscience Research Unit at the University of Toronto, this event will be an intimate multi-day conversation between established and emerging scholars in the fields of STS, history of science, and the history of capitalism. Techniques of the Corporation will be headlined by keynote speaker Joseph Dumit, and features invited talks by Dan Bouk, Elspeth Brown, Deborah Cowen, Orit Halpern, Louis Hyman, Michelle Murphy, Martha Poon, and Elise Thorburn. The conference will be an immersive experience in the Greater Toronto Area with meals and cocktails provided.

We invite emerging and established scholars in diverse fields (including business history; labour history; anthropology; geography; economic sociology; media studies; critical race studies; architecture studies; feminist and sexuality studies; environmental studies; and cultural studies) to explore the techniques, epistemologies, and imaginaries of corporations. Our overall goal is to crystallize a new field, culminating in a field-defining publication. We welcome work on corporate practices that exceed calculative logics, such as work on social relations, affective and psychological states, and speculative futurities.  In addition to traditional papers, the conference encourages creative methods to query corporate forms, including art installations, videos, interactive multimedia projects, and role-playing games. Applications for travel assistance will be arranged after acceptance.

Corporate practices, include, but are not limited to:

management sharing economy data management
marketing risk management corporate culture
planning corporate responsibility consulting
infrastructure sustainability research and development
logistics corporate design intellectual property
gaming precarity affective labor
racial surveillance architecture transnational capital

Please submit abstracts of no more than 300 words and a CV to the conference organizers at by 13 January 2017.

CfP: Corporate Archives & the Production of History

Private Interests or National Heritage?
Corporate Archives and the Production of History in a Global Perspective

An International Workshop organised jointly by the Unit for Economic History at Gothenburg
University and the Regional State Archives in Gothenburg
Venue: Regional State Archives in Gothenburg
Date: November 24th–25th 2016

As in many fields of social life, history has seen a turn to a transnational or global perspective, asking questions about the patterns  and variations  across and between  rather  than simply within countries. Corporate archives are preserved for a variety of reasons. Likewise they are preserved in a multitude of different places and under a multitude of different conditions.  These variations might reflect differences in how corporate records are viewed and valued, to whom they are seen to belong, and in the uses to which it is believed they can be put. Sometimes  companies  retain records out of habit or inertia. Others have a more active interest in preserving their history and perhaps in preparing for writing that history. The archive can be used for branding and marketing purposes, for image creation by the companies, for change management or for other strategic purposes. Some corporate archives are collected and organized to the highest standards of the archive profession, while others are merely a result of requirements to keep specific records. Other companies,  whether purposefully or otherwise, rarely retain archives or regularly destroy them/their records and documents. The fate of an archive when a company dies is another important question, as is the fate of the archives of state-owned enterprises experiencing  privatization.  In general, corporate owners of archives do not always recognize the contemporary  value or historical importance of their records.

Nonetheless, it is increasingly acknowledged that corporate archives can provide important material which enable new perspectives and alternative histories to be written and that they are useful not only for business historians and those commissioned to write corporate histories, but that they can also provide rich material and valuable sources for political and economic historians, and for social, labour, and cultural historians. Private archives in general and the corporate archives in particular, can, moreover, also be valuable for wider groups of users and many stakeholders have interest in the archives. Apart from owners and historians, the corporate archive can be valuable for museums, local communities and the public in general.

However,  private corporate archives are not always considered important to either national heritage or to historical writing. State archives are often charged with preserving what might be thought of as the public history of the nation. Private corporate  archives might be seen as having an inferior status to official governmental archives. Moreover, not even national archives have unlimited resources. There is then very little consistency or consensus about how, where or why corporate archives might be preserved and made available. This inconsistency  poses a potential threat to our understanding of the relationship between corporations, enterprise, and society.

Thus, as we have noted, corporate  archives are preserved in many different venues, by many different bodies, and for many different reasons. Besides private corporate archives stored in-house by the companies themselves, they can be preserved in large private organisations,  which retain private collections,  they can be deposited in museums or in national or regional public archives, in libraries, and in university collections. But if there is considerable variation and inconsistency at the national level then how much truer is this at an international or global level? What patterns can be observed? What are the implications of such patters, and what can they tell us? This is the focus of our workshop.

Our sense  is that choices around the institutions  and practices  of the archive have real implications for the kinds of history  generated. Are we correct in this? Our aim in organizing this conference on corporate  archives in global perspective is not simply to gain an overview of patterns and differences between countries  but also to enquire as to what consequences  these patterns and variations have for the production, dissemination, and reception of history. The international perspective will, it is intended, throw these issues into sharper relief.

We are delighted  to announce a two-day conference, to be hosted by the Regional State Archives in Gothenburg,  Sweden (organsied jointly with Unit of Economic History at Gothenburg University), with the aim of beginning to consider and address these questions. We are seeking the participation  of historians, archivists, and business owners and managers.

Questions that might be considered include but are not limited to:

  • What patterns and differences in the handling of private corporate archives can be observed from an international perspective?
  • How do these patterns and differences impact what is preserved and stored, how it is organized, who has access to it, and how (and by whom) it is used?
  • What is the role of public archives for private ones? Have models of organizations of material in public archive ‘spilled over’ on how private archives are organized?
  • What challenges and opportunities are created in this area by the rise of Multinational Enterprises and other forms of transnational organization and institution?
  • If there are variations to be observed, then can we see any sign of convergence on international norms and standards, as is happening in other fields of social life?
  • How might observed variations be explained? How important  are legal contexts, for example through variation in legal requirements for record keeping and corporate reporting?
  • Do observed patterns reflect deep across societies and cultures in terms of their relationship to history and the historical record? In other words, what might a society’s archiving choices tell us about its relationship to and use of history? Such variations might also alert us to variations in socio-cultural  attitudes towards private interests versus the public good.
  • Similarly, we are interested in the implications of any variations that might be observed have for the kinds of history that is preserved and for the kinds of histories (that might be textual or take many other forms) that are produced, from one country to another?

We invite paper proposals dealing with any of these topics.

Deadline for proposal is June 1, 2016.

Please address the proposals and all expressions of interest to either Susanna Fellman ( or Andrew Popp (