OMT WebOrganization and Management Theory Division of the Academy of Management
Paul Hirsch (Northwestern), Pablo Martin de Holan (EMLyon), Nelson Phillips (Imperial College London), Stelios Zyglidopoulos (University of Glasgow)
Deadline for paper submissions: March 31, 2016
“Corruption is violence.” - Dalai Lama
Corruption is a significant problem in much of the world. It acts as a barrier to development, leads to the unfair and inefficient distribution of resources, is highly corrosive of the social fabric in any society where it occurs, and can have dire consequences for the competitiveness of firms and the well being of citizens, employees, and whole societies. In this first ever JMI special issue, we will focus on corruption in and around organizations and particularly on the role of managers and organizations in corruption.
But what exactly is corruption? One common definition defines it “as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain” (Transparency-International 2011). This abuse of power can manifest in two ways (Zyglidopoulos 2015). First, individuals or organizations can abuse their power by breaking or stretching existing rules and norms for their own benefit (first-order corruption). And second, individuals or organizations can abuse their power to create or change existing rules and norms so that they can unfairly benefit from them (second-order corruption).
Based on such an understanding of corruption in and around business organizations, and in accordance with JMI’s policies, we invite qualitative empirical papers, essays, interviews and dialogues that explore a range of themes at multiple levels of analysis, including but not limited to the following:
a) At the individual level
How do managerial actions contribute to corruption? Can a leader stop corruption? How does corruption in a team develop and spread? How do individual emotions contribute to corruption? How do individuals rationalize their behavior? How can managers prevent first- and second-order corruption?
b) At the organizational level
What are the organizational antecedents and / or consequences of corruption? What are the processes through which corruption appears, is maintained and spreads? How can corruption be avoided or managed once it appears? Are there organizational structures/cultures/routines that reduce the likelihood of corruption? How can organizations manage the process of creating fair rules and norms? How does corruption erode competitive advantage?
c) At the field or industry Level
What field level dynamics are associated with widespread corruption?
Can corruption become institutionalized in a field? If so, how does an illegitimate behavior become institutionalized? What forms of institutional work are associated with stopping corruption? How do institutional entrepreneurship and/or institutional work relate to corruption? Are some industries more prone to corruption than others?
d) At the societal level
How do societal factors affect corruption in organizations? How does corruption in organizations affect government and civil society? How does the existence of elites affect the dynamics of corruption? What is the role of generalized social trust in determining the level of corruption within a society? What are the micro and macro consequences of corruption?
We are seeking submissions for most sections of JMI including Essays, Non-Traditional Research, Dialogue, Reflections on Experience, Six Degree of Separation and Meet the Person. We encourage authors to read the recent Editors Introduction (Phillips and Trank 2014) that provides more information on writing for JMI and descriptions of the different sections. Essays and non-traditional research will be double-blind reviewed following the journal’s normal review process and criteria. For other sections of the journal, please contact one of the special issue editors to discuss your idea BEFORE writing up your submission.
Please submit papers through the journal’s online submission system, SAGE track. To do so, please visit https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jomi, create your user account (if you have not done so already), and submit your manuscript according to the directions. Instructions for the format for papers is here:
You will be able to submit your paper for this Special Issue through SAGETrack between the 1st of Febuary and the 28th of February 2016.
Authors should ensure to mention in their submission letter that the article is to be considered for the special issue.
For further information please contact one of the Guest Editors for this Special Issue: Paul Hirsch (
Pablo Martin de Holan (
Nelson Phillips (
Stelios Zyglidopoulos (
Administrative support & general queries
Donna Sutherland-Smith, Editorial Assistant, Journal of Management Inquiry:
Phillips, N. & Trank, C. Q. 2014. 'Editors’ Statement.' Journal of Management Inquiry, 23:1, 3-4.
Transparency-International 2011. 'The Global Coalition against Corruption.' Transparency International.
Zyglidopoulos, S. 2015. 'Toward a Theory of Second-Order Corruption.' Journal of Management Inquiry, 1056492615579914.
Special Issue of Organization Studies
The Material and Visual Turn in Organization Theory:
Objectifying and (Re)acting to Novel Ideas
Eva Boxenbaum (Mines ParisTech & Copenhagen Business School).
Candace Jones (Boston College)
Renate Meyer (WU Vienna & Copenhagen Business School)
Silviya Svejenova (Copenhagen Business School & Esade Business School)
Organization Studies, the official journal of the European Group for Organization Studies (EGOS), invites submissions for a Special Issue on “The Material and Visual Turn in Organization Theory: Objectifying and (Re)acting to Novel Ideas”.
Deadline for paper submissions: February 28th 2015
Contemporary organizations increasingly rely on images, logos, videos, building and office design, building materials, physical product design and a range of other material and visual expressions to form identity, communicate, organize their activities, and compete. For example, organizations build consumer awareness through websites and twitter feeds, express corporate values and shape employee interactions through building designs, and reformulate the way we interact with technologies and one another through products like Apple’s Macintosh and i-phone.
Visual and material artefacts can travel as fast and as far as complex, abstract ideas expressed in words, and they are as open to interpretation as is text. They capture the imagination of audiences in new and substantially different ways, triggering a range of cognitive, emotional and other responses that transform audiences into active co-creators and communicators of symbolic meaning. Yet, our theories of organizations are ill equipped to capture the significance of the visual and material turn, and the ways in which organizations and other actors objectify novel ideas and engage (with) their members as well as various audiences in the (re)active co-creation, contestation, stabilization, diffusion, and deinstitutionalization of innovations. In fact, the social sciences have paid attention to materiality and visuality in the past (e.g. Gilles Deleuze, Emile Durkheim, Michel Foucault, Richard Rorty, and Michel Serres, among others) but these elements have perhaps been lost or distorted in their translation into organization theory. It is only recently that organizational scholars have begun to take interest in either integrating these two inter-related aspects of organizing within existing organizational theories or formulating entirely new theories and methodologies that are adapted to their empirical study.
In the late 20th century, social scientists have tended to emphasize the primacy of the linguistic and cultural dimensions of organizational life. Indeed, we have experienced a “linguistic turn” (Rorty, 1967, 1991) and a “cultural turn” where scholars examine cognitive and shared cultural frameworks constructed through language (e.g., Berger & Luckmann, 1967; Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Searle, 1997) that direct practices (e.g. Alexander, Giesen & Mast 2006; Bourdieu, 1977; Lounsbury & Crumley, 2007). As a consequence of how these works have been employed in or applied to organizational theory, material and visual dimensions of organizing tend to be absent or immaterial in the cognitive and cultural frameworks that dominate organizational theories, even those that emphasize material practices (Jones, Boxenbaum & Anthony, 2013).
Although many social and organizational theories do not attend to material and visual expressions, scholars do acknowledge material and visual artefacts as critical elements, which populate, express and construct our social worlds and organizational experiences. For instance, forms, images, visualizations, and assemblages are found essential for processes of organizing (Quattrone, Puyou, McLean & Thrift, 2012). Artefacts are considered central to collective processes such as sensemaking (Stigliani & Ravasi, 2012) and semiotic processes through signification (Friedland, 2001), as well as conduits for expression of occupational jurisdictions, identity, and legitimacy (Bechky, 2003; Fiol & O’Conner, 2006; Rafaeli & Pratt, 2006; Rafaeli & Vilnai-Yavetz, 2004). Design, texture and color, and new technologies excite consumer responses and stabilize new markets (Eisenman, 2013). When advertising materials decay or are misplaced, an intended message to prevent AIDS and improve public health goes awry or falls silent (McDonnell, 2010). Meaning and boundaries of novel managerial ideas are defined and translated through their visual representation (Höllerer, Jancsary, Meyer & Vettori, 2013). Buildings direct our social interactions (Gieryn, 2002), materialize our ideas (Jones & Massa, 2013) and shift cultural understandings and social relations (Jones, Maoret, Massa & Svejenova, 2012).
In fact, some of the organizational theories, perspectives, and analytical approaches that have emerged in recent decades engage more directly with the study of artefacts. For instance, science and technology studies (STS) have developed significant insight into how material objects instantiate ideas, shape collective knowledge, streamline organizational practice, and assign value to a variety of phenomena (e.g., Callon, 1986; Latour, 1987; Pinch & Bijker, 1984). Actor-network theory (ANT) scholars have investigated the acts of experimenting, measuring, calculating, writing, and communicating as constitutive of scientific facts (Muniesa, forthcoming), whereas social construction of technology (SCOT) researchers have examined material objects as arenas of negotiation among actor groups with divergent interests (Pinch & Trocco, 2002). Activity theory scholars have explored the intersection of human consciousness, activity, and interaction design, focusing on the human engagement with digital artefacts in the totality of their potentials (Kaptelinin & Nardi, 2006). Another line of research on materiality has developed around management tools as an element that fundamentally structure and shape organizational practice (Chiapello & Gilbert, 2013; Labatut, Aggeri & Girard, 2012). Finally, research related to institutional work has explored not only the dynamic relationship between organizational practice and artefacts but also the institutional conditions and effects of these dynamics (e.g., Blanc & Huault, 2014; Gond & Boxenbaum, 2013; Lawrence, Leca & Zilber, 2013; Raviola & Norbäck, 2013).
Scholars engaging with materiality and visuality tend however to focus on associated social understandings and social processes rather than on the material and visual artefacts themselves (e.g., see Leonardi & Barley, 2008; Orlikowski & Scott, 2010 for reviews). For instance, theoretical work has defined material practices as organizational structures known through symbolic processes (Thornton, Ocasio & Lounsbury, 2012). Further, there has been a growing interest in the “turn to things” (Geiryn, 2002; Preda, 1999), the material basis of organizing (Leonardi, Nardi & Kalinikos, 2012), “how matter matters” (Carlile, Nicolini, Langley & Tsoukas, 2013), and the visual dimension of organizations, organizing and organizational research (Bell, Warren & Schroeder, 2014; Meyer, Höllerer, Jancsary & van Leeuwen, 2013). Responses to these calls are scattered and infrequent and contained within distinct academic communities, which prevents a dialogue on the emergent material and visual turn in social and organizational theories across different ‘epistemic communities’ (Holt & den Hond, 2013).
This special issue seeks to advance the study of organizations and organizing by exploring how organizations, organizational members and audiences experience and engage with materiality and visuality in the course of objectifying and responding to new ideas. It brings into focus the material and visual artefacts themselves, and aims to involve a diverse range of scholars and scholarly traditions in a debate about their significance in organizational life. We welcome submissions that address materiality and visuality from different epistemological vantage points, in different contexts, through different methodologies, and in both textual and visual form. We are also open to work that seeks to juxtapose, connect or explore the limits of the visual and the material dimensions in ways that advance the study of organizations. In particular, we invite submissions that address the following three major questions and provide novel insights on them:
1. How do ideas take form through visual and material representation?
We invite articles that examine the nature and role of objectification in organizations. Processes of objectifying refer to the act of giving expression to abstract ideas, ideals, or feelings in a form that can be experienced by others through touch and/or vision. What ideas get objectified and which ones remain in the realm of the abstract? Through which types of objects and artefacts are new ideas objectified? Who objectifies novel ideas in organizations and what form can that objectification take (e.g. sketches, models, reports)? Are some forms of objectification better at focusing the attention of employees, investors, or other stakeholders, and at evoking response in them? Which practices and processes facilitate or hamper such objectification (e.g. prototyping, designing workplaces for play)?
2. How do audiences experience visual and material artefacts and how do they enact those experiences?
Although material and visual artefacts underpin our individual and collective experience, we rarely examine the reactions they provoke in audiences. In the contemporary hyper-objectified organizational realities, audiences play a more active and ambivalent role as both producers and consumers of innovative ideas. They may have larger margins for interpreting and reacting emotionally to new ideas when they are expressed visually and materially rather than textually. How do objectified novel ideas become noticed/selected (or unnoticed/deselected) through visual/material expression? How do visual and material artefacts entice interpretations and provoke emotional responses in individuals, and how do such individual responses consolidate into shared definitions and/or emotive reactions to objectified ideas? And finally, how do these collective responses manifest in behavioural patterns within organizations?
3. How do visual and material artefacts (and the ideas they represent) take on a collective form?
Through visual and material objectification, innovative ideas can further impact the field level as local (re)actions crystallize into patterns of action, thought or interaction that other organizations can imitate. We invite papers on the following questions: How do audience (re)actions at the organizational level crystallize into collective patterns, such as established aesthetic styles and best practices that inspire other actors to adopt and reinterpret visual and material artefacts in their own organizational context? How do objectifications become arenas for competing interpretations of material and visual artefacts? And when do actors stop noticing taken-for-granted links between new ideas and their representation in material/ visual artefacts?
Deadline: Papers must be received by February 28th 2015.
Please submit papers through the journal’s online submission system, SAGE track. To do so, please visit http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/orgstudies, create your user account (if you have not done so already), and for “Manuscript Type” choose the corresponding Special Issue. All papers that enter the reviewing process will be double-blind reviewed following the journal’s normal review process and criteria. You will be able to submit your paper for this Special Issue through SAGETrack between the 1st and the 28th of February 2015.
For further information please contact one of the Guest Editors for this Special Issue:
Eva Boxenbaum (
), Candace Jones (
), Renate Meyer (
) or Silviya Svejenova (
For administrative support and general queries, please contact Sophia Tzagaraki, Managing Editor of Organization Studies:
Posted on behalf of Niccolo' Gordini
Niccolò Gordini, Lerong He, James Cordeiro
This special issue is designed to spotlight contemporary research on corporate governance, with preference given to research emphasizing corporate governance in a global context and related issues such as the global financial crisis.
Previous research on corporate governance has been focused principally at the national level, with relatively limited consideration given to the role of corporate governance in global markets. As business activities continue to expand globally, however, the relevance and implication of corporate governance theories, mechanisms and models that were originally developed, applied, and tested in an Anglo-American context merits revisiting, for example, in terms of the applicability and convergence of corporate governance models in non-Western contexts, and in terms of global events that provide valuable natural experiments such as the signature governance reforms in the recent past in China and India, and the global financial crisis.
The Special Issue provides an opportunity for contributors to spotlight their contributions to the broad fields of business and economics, political science, and law in terms of corporate governance. Within business and economics, contributions from the sub-fields of accounting, finance, economics, law, marketing, supply chain, international business and management are all welcome.
While a focus on corporate governance is a critical requirement, preference will be shown to research focused on corporate governance in global markets, in terms of new perspectives, issues of applicability and convergence of Anglo-American corporate governance practices in new national contexts, the role governance plays in terms of promoting or retarding CSR efforts, and to corporate governance’s responsibility for and its role as an instrument to respond effectively to the global financial crisis.
Deadline for Submission of Papers: March 15, 2015
Notification of Decision: July 10, 2015
Final Papers Due: August 31, 2015
Expected Publication Date: December, 2015
Guest Co-Editors Contact Details
Niccolò Gordini, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, University of Milan-Bicocca, email:
Lerong He, Ph.D., Associate Professor, State University of New York, College at Brockport, email:
James Cordeiro, Ph.D., Professor and Chair, State University of New York, College at Brockport, email:
For more information on research themes and guidelines for authors, please visit:
Special Issue of Journal of Social EntrepreneurshipGuest Editor: Scott L. Newbert, Villanova UniversitySubmission Deadline: May 1, 2013
Social entrepreneurship has emerged as a field of considerable interest over the past two decades. However, its rapid growth has resulted in a rather fragmented body of literature that lacks a set of well-established theories by which to predict and explain social entrepreneurship and a generalizable set of empirical findings from which commonalities about it can be gleaned. In response, this special issue seeks manuscripts that build on extant research in the field and beyond in order to develop, apply, and/or test theory with the goal of improving our understanding of social entrepreneurship phenomena.
The following is a list of potential topics for the special issue:
These are just a sampling of the topics that could be addressed and submissions on other related topics are welcome. Regardless of the approach, submissions should seek to contribute to the collective understanding of social entrepreneurship via the production of new, generalizable knowledge. For submissions seeking to apply extant theory to new phenomena and/or develop new theoretical arguments all together, authors should take care to ensure their theoretical models represent conceptually sound, parsimonious approximations of phenomena relevant to social entrepreneurs (Bacharach, 1989).
For submissions seeking to conduct empirical tests of theory, authors may rely on either qualitative or quantitative data; however, given that the majority of the empirical work in the field currently relies on descriptive techniques, authors should take care to subject their data to rigorous analytical methods. In all cases, submissions will ultimately be evaluated on the basis of whether they contribute meaningfully and substantively to the development of our understanding of social entrepreneurship phenomena. At the same time, however, given the pre-paradigmatic nature of the field, theorizing as a process is as important as theory as a product; thus, submissions representing “interim struggles” (Weick, 1995) along the way to good theory are encouraged.
Click here for complete details.
Scott L. Newbert, Guest Editor
Tags: call for papers | Special Issue
Organization Studies is calling for papers for the following Special Issues:Organizations as Worlds of WorkGuest Editors:Rick Delbridge, Cardiff Business SchoolJeff Sallaz, University of Arizona, Department of SociologyDeadline: December 31st 2012
Trust In Crisis: Organizational and Institutional Trust, Failures and RepairGuest Editors:Reinhard Bachmann (The Management School, University of Surrey)Nicole Gillespie (UQ Business School, University of Queensland)Rod Kramer (Graduate School of Business, Stanford University)Deadline: December 31st 2012
At a Critical Age: The Social and Political Organization of Age and AgeingGuest Editors:Susan Ainsworth, University of MelbourneLeanne Cutcher, University of SydneyCynthia Hardy, University of MelbourneRobyn Thomas, University of CardiffDeadline: January 31st 2013The transformative and innovative power of network dynamicsGuest Editors:Stewart Clegg (University of Technology, Sydney)Emmanuel Josserand (University of Geneva)Ajay Mehra (University of Kentucky)Tyrone Pitsis (University of Newcastle Upon-Tyne)Deadline: September 2013
New organizational perspectives on the study of politics and power in the multinational companyGuest Editors:Mike Geppert (University of Surrey, UK)Florian Becker-Ritterspach (German University in Cairo, Egypt)Ram Mudambi (Temple University, USA)Deadline for Submissions: November 30th 2013Please submit papers through the journal’s online submission system, SAGE track (http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/orgstudies)
Tags: call for papers | Organization Studies | Special Issue
Standing Working Group 7 “Institutions and Knowledge”
EGOS Sub-theme CFP Montreal 2013
An Institutional Family Reunion?
Bridging Ontologies, Levels and Methods
Conveners: Tammar Zilber, Mike Lounsbury and Renate Meyer
Institutions operate across social levels. Taken for granted beliefs and recipes for action (e.g. institutional logics) at the societal level materialize – through processes of diffusion and translation – in field-level and organizational-level structures, practices and world-views, as well as in individual cognitions and behaviors. Individual and collective actors' actions (e.g. institutional entrepreneurship, institutional work), in return, reflect back on organizations, fields and society at large in an on-going reciprocal process. Institutions, then, essentially link different levels; this ability to effectively bridge macro and micro levels, agency and structure, the individual and the social, is indeed the origin of their resilience and the foundation of their power.
Nonetheless, studies on institutions and knowledge generally focus either on the micro (organizational or individual levels) or the macro (societal or field levels). While the very rationale of institutional arguments lies in the interrelations between social levels, in most studies one level is relegated to the background, assumed but not explored. Micro and macro level studies usually differ in terms of their underlying paradigmatic stand as well. Most micro level studies reflect a constructivist paradigm, with relativist ontology and perspectivist depiction of knowledge, and use qualitative methods. Many macro level studies share a constructivist paradigm, but field-level analyses tend to take on a more structuralist flavor as a result of scholarly preferences for a wider historical gaze and use of quantitative methods to analyze the dynamics of more macro spatio-temporal objects of inquiry. While not embracing realism or objectivism, most macro scholars are also uneasy with strong relativist and subjectivist positions. Instead, a sort of critical realism or ontological skepticism pervades this work. Part of the problem is that instead of using methods as instruments to analyze specific research questions, we often view institutional processes and dynamics through the prisms of the methods we apply and ask the questions these methods allow us to ask.
We find this divide to be unfortunate and seek to foster a conversation that eschews this segregation of micro and macro. Montreal with its overall "bridging metaphor" as conference theme seems to be ideal to address these ontological, epistemological and methodological challenges in the study of institutions and knowledge. We aim at rethinking the micro-macro divide in institutional research, and hope the discussion will allow us to generate possible ways to re-connect varieties of institutional scholarship.
Some of the questions we hope to address in this stream are: How can we explore and explain micro-institutional processes while also connecting them back to the macro level? How can we explore and explain macro-level processes without loosing sight of their micro-level foundations and effects? How do studies of institutional work relate to those on institutional logics? What are the epistemological and methodological premises and consequences of such re-connections? Is it possible to do field-level ethnographies? Can we even explore institutionalization along time on the micro-level?
We invite papers that offer ways to bridge the divides within institutional theory, whether with a theoretical, conceptual, methodological and/or empirical focus. While these may include critical reviews of the literature, highlighting divides and charting new theoretical and methodological roads for paradigmatic integration, we are mainly looking for empirical works that exemplify such integration -- empirical works that draw upon multiple methods and engage cross-level processes, thus highlighting the bridging that we seek.
Tags: EGOS | institutional theory | Mike Lounsbury | Renate Meyer | Tammar Zilber
Call for Papers Special Issue
The MNE as a Challenge to Institutional Theory: Key Concepts, Recent
Developments and Empirical Evidence
Ayse Saka-Helmhout, Surrey Business School
Royston Greenwood, Alberta School of Business
Richard Deeg, Temple University
Submission Deadline 1 May 2013
MNEs pose an interesting context in which to study institutional stability and change. However, they have only recently assumed significance as a subject of study by neo? institutionalists whose focus has traditionally been on organizational fields. The recent upsurge of interest in how organizations respond to a multiplicity of institutional demands, however, points to MNEs as an exciting setting in which to develop ideas. These organizations operate in fragmented institutional contexts, face limited institutional isomorphism owing to multiple institutional pressures, and bring to light actors’ efforts to seek legitimacy through micro processes of agency. It is these processes that we are interested in unravelling.
By the same token, comparative institutional analysts argue that nation states can have distinctive and multiple institutional logics that result in heterogeneous forms of organizing and social agency in MNEs. They have come to acknowledge that increased international competition challenges the dominance of institutional arrangements in national business systems and the complementarity of distinctive national institutional features. Similar to neo?institutional studies, there is a need in comparative institutional analysis to address how institutional arrangements across national business systems influence organizational responses.
Although international business scholars have studied the MNE and the role of institutions, they view institutions largely as constraints on MNE activity. This literature recognizes that institutions do not fully determine action, but overall it remains focused on how institutions constrain strategic choice and does not consider how institutions shape and enable the capabilities of organizations. There is, however, a growing appreciation of the need for an alternative conceptualization of institutions where actors are both enabled and constrained by institutions.
Given these developments, this Special Issue encourages a dialogue on MNEs and institutions that highlights the challenges confronting MNEs as they manoeuvre through multiple institutional demands, and that explores the enabling, capability?building and change?facilitating nature of institutions. Its purpose is to advance both the institutional and international business literatures by exploring these research themes.
We invite conceptual and empirical studies that draw on different theoretical streams, adopt diverse research methodologies, and examine multiple levels of analysis. In order to be eligible for the special issue, papers must seek to advance understanding of how complex institutional arrangements are experienced, unfold, and resolved by MNEs.
We encourage papers that explore, but are not limited to, questions such as:
This Special Issue reaches out to institutional and international business scholars of any persuasion who see institutional complexity as central in their research, but also to scholars in management, sociology, and political science investigating forms of agency in MNEs. We are, in particular, interested in papers that encourage institutional and international business communities to engage in a dialogue on how multiple institutions shape organizational action, and seek a richer conceptualization of agency.
Papers should be submitted by 1st May 2013 by email to Miaevelyn at
JMS Guidelines. The editors welcome informal enquiries and can be contacted at
Tags: call for papers | JMS | MNEs
Announcing a Call for Papers for a Special Issue of the Journal of Business EthicsSustaining Sustainability in OrganizationsGuest Editors:Timo Busch, ETH ZurichDeborah E. de Lange, Suffolk UniversityJavier Delgado-Ceballos, University of GranadaAlfred Marcus, University of MinnesotaJonatan Pinkse, University of Amsterdam Business SchoolWith this call for papers, we invite research that advances a discussion that relates to how sustainability is developed and maintained (sustained) in organizations with a particular emphasis on international organizations, whether they are multinational corporations (MNCs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), or international governmental organizations (IGOs). Please see the cfp for full details.To be considered for the special issue, “Sustaining Sustainability in Organizations,” full papers must be submitted by May 1, 2011. All submissions will go through a double-blind peer review process. Full papers should be submitted to Deborah E. de Lange at
. Please send the paper as a Word or pdf document without identifying information and a separate cover page having identifying information in the same email to Debbie.
Tags: Alfred Marcus | call for papers | Deborah E. de Lange | Javier Delgado-Ceballos | Jonatan Pinkse | Journal of Business Ethics | sustainability | Timo Busch
Scholars interested in social studies of finance may want to consider the Performing (Financial) Markets track at the Critical Management Studies Conference in Naples, July 11-13, 2011. The track has been convened by Daniel Beunza, Fabrizio Ferraro and Luigi Moschera. The deadline for submission is November 30, 2010. For more details visit the Socializing Finance blog.
Tags: call for papers | Daniel Beunza | Fabrizio Ferraro | Luigi Moschera
Journal of Management Studies Call for Papers: Professions and Institutional Change
Guest Editors: Daniel Muzio (University of Leeds), David Brock (Ben-Gurion University) and Roy Suddaby (University of Alberta)
There is a growing awareness of the critical role that professions play in advanced economies. Professionals and professional service firms are key advisors, analysts, defenders and developers of the major institutions that underpin capitalist economies. As gatekeepers to key financial institutions, the professions influence both the success and failure of capital markets. Professional service firms are also powerful economic actors in their own right, contributing over 3 trillion (USD) to the global economy. Professions influence more than the market system, however. They are also key agents of social change. As Scott (2008: 219) observes, “the professions in modern society have assumed leading roles in the creation and tending of institutions. They are the preeminent institutional agents of our time.”
Tags: call for papers | Daniel Muzio | David Brock | institutional change | Journal of Management Studies | professions | Roy Suddaby
Scandinavian Journal of ManagementCall for Papers for Special Issue onIdentities in Organizations: processes and outcomes
Submission Deadline 17, December 2010
Guest EditorsChristine CouplandUniversity of Nottingham, UK
Andrew D. BrownUniversity of Bath, UK
The complete call for papers is available at http://www.elsevierscitech.com/pdfs/SCAMAN-IdentitiesCFP.pdf
Tags: call for papers | journals | organizational identity
21st Annual American Society for Competitiveness ConferenceCall for Papers: The New Economic Paradigm: Collaborative CompetitionOctober 28-30, 2010Washington, D.C.
Tags: call for papers | conference
+ All tags