|
CALL FOR PAPERS |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
OTHER LINKS
|
Call for Papers The Conference is organized as a series of streams. Participants are normally encouraged to participate in multiple streams unless the stream convenors specifically request that contributors remain within the stream for the duration of its operation. The Open Stream is intended to accommodate specialist and generalist papers that extend beyond the boundaries of the CMS4 conference streams. Stream convenors are responsible for :
Please click here for Stream Details |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stream Details
Papers are invited to be submitted to the following streams:
The Movements and Moments of Organizational Change CONVENORS Göran Ahrne; Stockholm University, Sweden Email: goran.ahrne@sociology.su.se Raphael Alcadipani; EAESP, Brazil Email: Rafael.Silveira-2@manchester.ac.uk Steve May; University of North Carolina, USA Email: skmay@email.unc.edu Craig Prichard; Massey University, New Zealand Email: c.prichard@massey.ac.nz Stream Description Critical Management Studies provides a space for working at or across the boundaries between existing explanatory, conceptual and methodological traditions in the social sciences. It also provides a space to work on ways to respond to issues of culture, location, distance, control, power, inequality, domination, exploitation and subjection. This proposed stream invites contributions that address these issues as they bear on organizational change. This proposed stream invites papers and contributions from scholars and activists engaged in attempts to reshape organizations, and reinvigorate established modes of organizational change analysis. In relation to the latter, the stream seeks contributions that ‘work’ the boundaries between social, political, economic, technological, and ideological analyses of organizational change. Our hope would be that such work would support the development of compelling theoretical, conceptual, political and practical approaches to organisational analysis and action. The convenors also invite contributions that draw on unconventional, challenging or multiple explanatory and conceptual traditions and literatures. Call for Papers In brief we invite papers that engage with one or more of the following issue areas:
Examples of work that might follow these themes include papers or presentations that:
These issue areas are regarded as a starting point, and papers which develop alternatives are welcome. Timeline
Abstracts should fit the following requirements:
Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References
CONVENORS David Boje; New Mexico University, USA Slawomir Magala; Erasmus University, Netherlands Grace Ann Rosile; New Mexico State University, USA Raymond Saner; Center for Socio-Economic Development Stream Description We seek symposium presentations that integrate theatre with critical management theory and global capitalism. Four thematic perspectives are suggested below but these are not intended to be all encompassing. One theme is that theatre can bring change to organizations and society. In Europe and North America, plays are written for specific organizational problems, and staged in front of organizational audiences with the aim to change management and employee’s work behaviors (Clark and Mangham, 2002; Schreyogg, 2001). A critical view would examine, for example, how it is usually management that orders and controls the theatre intervention to raise awareness and to change organizational structures and thinking on the part of spectators (employees and other mangers). These plays reflect in both their organisation and performance the organisational hierarchy. The spectators attend to celebrate the heroic endeavours of management as they are portrayed on stage. Consequently, organizational theatre does not forsake the stage or the script, fearing that “improvisatory anarchy” will preempt the official and sanctioned ways of representing power (Derrida, 1978: 239). This kind of theatre has important links to other genres such as the masques of the Tudor and Stuart courts, which sought to celebrate the achievement of those in power. Key questions include, how is control exercised, what is the spectators experience and do these plays achieve their objectives? Is agit prop and forum theatre possible in organizational context? A second theme is theatre as metaphor, to look at corporations as performers on the global stage (to look at the spectacle on stage, what is back stage, and what is in the corridor of power between off and on stage). Spectacle work by Guy Debord and others may be a useful critical perspective. Spectacle work of Guy Debord (1967, Society of the Spectacle) has something important and critical to say about how spectacles of production and consumption relate to post-Marxist critique. Another example is Hopfl’s (2001) work on how theatricality of organizations can create and re-create metaphoric appearances that suppress critical differences, mask ambivalence, and sustain a world of make believe would equally apply. Submissions could critically examine how theatre as metaphor enacts a metaphoric space within which critical assessment is marginal or outlawed. A third theme is complexity and theatrics. If organization and interorganizational behavior is a network of theatrical production, in distributed networks of consumption, then the question is what are the complexity and chaos dynamics? For example, in the Tamara play, a wandering audience chases a dozen actors on a dozen stages, never able to see all actions at once (Boje, 1995, 2001b). Moreover, Tamara helps explain the dynamics of performers caught in a network of stages, as they make choices of whose drama to participate in next. Global Theatre is a 'Tamara-land' of many stages, wandering audiences chasing characters from stage to stage, to trace the web of storylines. And off-stage there are characters that never seem to make it into the carefully scripted storylines. For example, if spectacle is the theatre of sanctioned power, then part of the dynamics of complexity is the carnival theatre of resistance, such as the protests against globalism and WTO in Seattle, and the succeeding encounters of spectacle and the street theatre of carnival (Boje, 2001a). Carnivalesque refers to strategies of resistance to power and hegemony that take the form of culture jamming, street theatre, and varied forms of parody and satire of state and capital forms of power. Fourth, organizations are using theatre to accomplish Disneyfication, McDonaldization, Las Vegasization, and Enronization (Boje, 2002a, b) Each is a different style of theatre. For example Disney organizes themselves explicitly as theatre, where employees are no longer employees but cast members, wearing not uniforms but costumes, and instead of working, being on stage. Disney theme parks are theatres within which people walk on the stages of Tomorrowland, Adventureland, etc. Increasingly we witness organizations and city centers becoming more themed in acts of Disneyfication. Firat and Dholakia (1998) write about the new Theatres of Consumption, the political economy being changed by theatre. McDonald’s uses a more mechanistic theatre, one where every word, gesture, and action of employee and manager is scripted. So, how is theatre inveigling itself into organisational life? How are these new forms of theatre impacting on employees? How are they being resisted and modified? What other genres are in use and emerging? Call for Papers
These issue areas are regarded as a starting point, and papers which develop alternatives are welcome. Timeline
Abstracts should fit the following requirements:
Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References
CONVENORS Prof. Stephen Ackroyd, Lancaster University Email: s.ackroyd@lancaster.ac.uk Prof.Jean-Francois,Université Paris-Dauphine Email: jean-francois.chanlat@dauphine.fr Dr Daniel Muzio, Lancaster University Stream Description: Currently the professions are one of the fastest growing sectors of western economies. The traditional professions (law, medicine, accountancy, architecture, engineering, etc) despite inevitable ebbs and flows, have enjoyed throughout the last century, an explosive growth with regards to their size, prosperity and more crucially to their centrality and pervasiveness in contemporary societies and political systems. More recently, a series of new occupations based on alternative forms of knowledge, organisational modes, and service delivery methods have began to prosper and to compete with the established professions. These new forms of expert labour, largely centred around the various forms of consultancy, advertising and IT related occupations, have if anything outgrown and outshone their more orthodox rivals. Moreover, their success has been based on occupational tactics, cultural capital and organisational structures, which are profoundly different from those deployed by more traditional forms of professional knowledge. In turn, the established professions have been forced to reorganise in order to retain legitimacy against these more managerial, entrepreneurial and informational forms of expertise. This makes the development of the knowledge-based occupations and the relationship between old and new form of expert labour a particularly interesting topic. In light of this, the stream wants to encourage debate, dialogue and new thinking on the professions and knowledge based occupations around the following themes:
These issue areas are regarded as a starting point, additional issues are welcome as long as they address the issues of professionalism, knowledge-work and their relationship. Timeline Abstracts to convenor (e-mail) 1 October 2004 Decisions on acceptance/rejection communicated 1 January 2005 Full papers to convenor (e-mail) 1 April 2005
Abstracts should fit the following requirements:
Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Psychoanalytic Thought and the Critical Management Project CONVENORS Paul Freedman (Lead Convenor); Bournemouth University, UK Email: pfreedma@bournemouth.ac.uk Yiannis Gabriel; Imperial College, UK Email: y.gabriel@imperial.ac.uk Russ Vince; University of Hull, UK Email: R.Vince@hull.ac.uk Stream Description
The
convenors of this stream invite papers that address the links and connections between
varieties of psychoanalytic thought and critical Call for Papers Particularly welcome are contributions that reveal/discuss the manner in which psychodynamic processes are employed to disguise, hid, and appropriate false interests. To this end papers which seek to reconnect psychoanalytic insights to theorising about critical management, forms of organization, and managerial practice more widely will be welcomed. Timeline
Abstracts should fit the following requirements:
Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References in Harvard format
Critical Perspectives on International Business CONVENORS George Cairns; Essex University, UK Joanne Roberts; Durham Business School, UK Email: joanne.Roberts@durham.ac.uk Phil Graham; University of Waterloo, Canada Email: phil.graham@mailbox.uq.edy.au http://www.dur.ac.uk/dbs.cpoib//
Stream Description The topic of ‘globalization’ is currently written about in a wide range of popular literature, in the works of Ritzer, Klein, Moore, Pilger, Monbiot and others. These writers are highly critical of current organizational, economic and political structures. However, they also criticise universities and academics that they represent as being largely uncritical of, and in some cases complicit in the worst excesses of organizational and political hegemony. At the same time, these authors’ works are held by some academics to be lacking in empirical evidence and academic rigour. In this stream, we wish to cultivate the critical academic discourse on international business that exists at a global level, but that is spread across a wide range of disciplines, from political economy to critical geography, from transportation studies to business ethics, and in the critical management arena. This stream is linked to a new trans-disciplinary journal, Critical Perspectives on International Business (CpoIB) that will be officially launched by Emerald at the conference. The stream will contribute to at least one special edition of CPoIB Call for Papers We invite papers that:
These areas are regarded as a starting point, and papers which develop alternatives are welcome. Timeline
Abstracts should fit the following requirements:
Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References
Talk and Text: Rhetoric, Reality and Research CONVENORS Ann L. Cunliffe; University of New Mexico, USAEmail: cunliffe@mgt.unm.edu Jeanie M. Forray; Western New England College USA Cliff Oswick; University of Leicester, UK Stream Description This conference stream invites papers and interactive sessions from those wishing to explore, in a critical way, the relationship between language, reality, and research. Recent debates in Organization Studies raise questions about the nature of language, moving its role from a taken-for-granted periphery to a problematic centre. Postmodern, poststructural, and social constructionist scholars are amongst those seeking to replace notions of language as a means of representing an external reality, with notions of language as constituting reality. Language is viewed in a multiplicity of ways, as eliding, evoking, literal, metaphoric, rhetorical, a ‘game’, dramatic, poetic, unstable, transparent, creative … all bringing the complexities and uncertainties of language to the fore. Such views have had far reaching implications for the way we conceptualize and thus research organizational life. If we accept that we cannot step outside language to explain our experience – that the very act of speaking and explaining give order to experience – then how can we possibly hope to say anything meaningful about the management of organizations? Organization theorists employing a linguistic perspective address this question by taking a wide variety of theoretical and analytical approaches, from interpretive analyses of the variety of implicit meanings in discourse, to poststructuralist analyses of the instability of text, and postmodern analyses of discourse as a process of discipline and control. What ties these research streams together is their underlying sensitivity to a relationship between language and reality and an ongoing effort to re-present organizations and organizing through this link. In this stream, we will continue these conversations. We are interested in papers, panels, or interactive sessions that explore the philosophical, theoretical, and practical aspects of linguistic approaches to conceptualizing, researching, and managing organizations. We encourage the submission of interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary papers (i.e. from communications, poststructuralism, sociology, psychology, education, organization studies, philosophy, public administration, political science, and other cognate areas). Papers may also explore the ontological, epistemological, and/or methodological aspects of language from a variety of perspectives, including; semiotic, discursive, textual, ethnomethodological, deconstructive, narrative, and poetic. Call for Papers
Timeline
Abstracts should fit the following requirements:
Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References
Development and Globalization – Organizing Rhetoric and Power CONVENORS Sadhvi Dar; University of Cambridge, UK Email: sd326@cam.ac.uk Bettina Wittneben; University of Cambridge, UK Email: bbfw2@cam.ac.uk Stream Description This stream will provide a new and exciting space for meaningful debate within the development field. We are inviting papers from diverse world views and are striving to facilitate not only new ways of apprehending perennial problems, but also, and most importantly, asking new questions about international organization. Development and globalization employ rhetoric of progress and growth to legitimate their systems of power and domination. Discussing the differences and similarities between the organizational forms and structures that have been utilized over time and space is the aim of this stream. Scholars may also be interested in exploring how organizational structures will evolve beyond globalization, adding a future dimension. The political nature of “development” has been observed and critiqued by post-developmentalists, geographers, post-colonialists, historians, and feminists. These works have often explored the macro-level or policy implications of the development “machine” but have neglected the specific organizational forms that have emerged, disappeared or endured. This stream also hopes to open up the challenges of exploring how institutions of rhetoric have constructed a particular reality through the proliferation of images, texts and campaigns driven by organizations in the North. Call for Papers The stream will cover four main themes:
Open workshop with Arturo Escobar This workshop will cover issues relating to the tensions created between the academe and practice development. Arturo Escobar will take on the role of discussant and present his own experience related to conflicts created within development discourses-the academic and the practice-orientated repertoires. We suggest that researches are compelled to take position on the continuum between the academic and the practitioner orientation. This has implications for the conceptualization of development; for whichever pole of the continuum we are dawn to will inform our perception of what developments is. If you wish to participate, we encourage you to draw up your ideas and send them to the stream convenors Bettina Wittneben and Sadhvi Dar (sd326@cam.ac.uk by November 2004. However, you can also bring your ideas directly to the workshop. This workshop will be open to all conference participants. Timeline
Abstracts should fit the following requirements:
Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References
Organizational Dynamics: Knowledge, Information and Innovation CONVENORS Lisa Daniel; University of Queensland, Australia Francois Therin; Grenoble Ecole de Management, France Stream Description Organisational dynamics is a significant research area in critical management theory and practice, particularly when the dynamics are related to issues of knowledge, information and innovation. Research from different areas (such as Organisational Behaviour/Theory, Technology and Innovation Management, and Strategic Management) all touch on the subject in unique ways and from varying perspectives. The aim of this stream is to provide an arena in which researchers from different backgrounds can build understandings as well as debate and develop theories, methodologies, epistemologies and interpretations of organisational dynamics as they arise from intangible beginnings to explicit outcomes and forms. Call for Papers We invite papers that engage with one or more of the following issue areas:
Timeline
Abstracts should fit the following requirements:
Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References
The Virtuality Challenge: Gender, Organizing, and the Net CONVENORS Eva Gustavsson; Göteborg University, Sweden Email: eva.gustavsson@gri.gu.se Jerzy Kociatkiewicz ; Polish Academy of Sciences, PolandMonika Kostera; Warsaw University, Poland Email: mkostera@poczta.onet.pl Stream Description One of the challenges in today’s organizations is the increasingly prominent role of IT. As virtuality becomes ever more fully incorporated into organizational practices and relations, its manifold consequences are never easily foreseen nor described, and are not limited to affecting everyday organizational life. While we can think of consequences in terms of practical, managerial, political, organizational, and social aspects, a particularly significant locus can be found around the issue of gender, and we would like to take this opportunity to bring together and discuss current research dealing with the interplay between gender and virtuality. Call for Papers While we do not wish to limit the choice to predefined themes, the following list of topics can serve as an inspiration for contributions:
The list is, of course, not exhaustive. Similarly, contributions are not restricted to any particular perspective: we welcome different voices and many kinds of stories. Our preference, however, is for papers based on field research and emphasizing the various modes and sources of local knowledge and practices. Timeline
Abstracts should fit the following requirements:
Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References
The Intersection of Critical Management Research and Organizational Practice
CONVENORS Tony LeTrent-Jones; Independent Consultant , Greensboro NC, USAMaxim Voronov; Columbia University, USA David Weir; Ceram Sophia Antipolis, France Julie Wolfram Cox; RMIT University, AustraliaEmail: julie.wolfram-cox@rmit.edu.au Stream Description In the decade since the publication of Alvesson and Willmott’s (1992) edited volume on the subject, Critical Management Studies has gained increased prominence and influence in the wider academic community of organization studies, but what influence has CMS actually had on practice in various fields? The motivation behind this stream is to facilitate a critical exploration into the connections and disconnections between the research, theory, and scholarship of Critical Management Studies and its relevance and application in managerial, organizational, consulting, and community practice. In so doing, it seeks to engage not only academics and doctoral students, but also practicing executives, managers, consultants, union organizers, lobbyists, and community organizers in a shared learning experience of critical inquiry and reflection. This stream is intended as a series of conversations revolving around presentations that are expected to include a mixture of conventional papers, experiential exercises, case studies/examples, reflections on experience, and so on along four themes: Controversies, Research, Consultancy, and Tensions and Challenges of Practice. Call for Papers The following list of suggested topics is illustrative of the kinds of issues and questions we would like to see explored:
These issues are regarded as a starting point, and submissions that develop alternatives are welcome. Timeline
Abstracts should fit the following requirements:
Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References
CONVENORS David Levy; University of Massachusetts, USA levy@umb.eduSteven Phelan; University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USAEmail: steven.phelan@ccmail.nevada.edu Kate Kearins; Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand Lorraine McKechnie, Caledonian Business School, Glasgow Glenn Morgan, Warwick University, UK Email:glenn.morgan@warwick.ac.uk Stream Description This stream invites papers that develop critical approaches to the study of strategy. In particular, papers are welcome that investigate the relationship between strategy, power, and politics, both internally within an organization, and its relation to the external world. One approach might be to investigate critically the assumptions and discourse of strategy, in order to understand the social processes whereby ‘strategists’ and ‘strategic projects’ attain privileged status. Another approach might be to examine the political economy of strategic behavior, for example, to develop a critical understanding of the tactics and distributional outcomes of corporate political strategy. Call for Papers The following themes are of particular interest:
Timeline
Abstracts should fit the following requirements:
Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References
CONVENORS Kamal Munir; University of Cambridge, UK Email: k.munir@jims.cam.ac.uk Nelson Phillips; University of Cambridge,UK Email: n.phillips@jims.cam.ac.uk Steve Maguire ;McGill University,Montreal, CanadaEmail: steve.maguire@mcgill.ca
Stream Description Our knowledge of the complex relationship between technology and power in the social arena has advanced considerably in the last few decades. We realize that technology can produce new forms of power, as well as sustain old forms of it. We also understand that existing relationships of dependency play a critical part in the evolution of new technologies. Our understanding of how technology comes to embody social relations in its construction or use has advanced substantially. Similarly, we are beginning to see how technologies are continuously enacted in a recursive relationship between agency and structure. Call for Papers While several of these issues still remain far from being resolved, we have enough of an understanding of this relationship to take on a number of substantial issues:
While these themes indicate some of the potential topics of interest to participants in this stream, they are by no means exhaustive. Any topic that relates power and technology is welcome. If you are unsure of the suitability of your topic, please contact one of the conveners and we will be happy to discuss it with you. Timeline Prospective contributors should submit a maximum 1,500 abstract by 1st October 2004. Accepted abstracts will be included on the conference website and in bound proceedings for participants and must follow the format below: Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References Full papers should be sent to the convenors by: 1st April 2005:Decisions about acceptance of papers will be made in December 2004 and full papers will be required by 15 April 2005. Full papers will be included in the Conference Proceedings (CD) and should conform to the following requirements. The language of the conference and for all submissions is English. Submissions must be prepared in Word (version 97 or higher) or RTF. All authors are required to provide the following information on the first page: · Title of the submissionStream of submission Contact information for the first author, including name, organisational affiliation, e-mail address, mailing address, phone number, and fax number.Contact information for all authors, including names, organisational affiliations, and e-mail addresses The remaining pages should include the main body of the submission and all references, tables, figures, etc. Papers are restricted to 7000 words, including all figures, tables, and references (but not including the title page). They should be no more than 25 pages in length. All papers must be single-spaced, prepared using at least an 11-point Ariel font, and be formatted for A4 paper (21cm * 29.7 cm).
CONVENORS Ryan Bishop; The National University of Singapore, Singapore John Phillips, The National University of Signapore, Singapore Peter Stokes; Edge Hill College (Lancaster University), UKStream Description In the contemporary moment, particularly post-Vietnam, attitudes within academic enquiry regarding military and “militarily infused” events and affairs are, in most instances, subject to only a reticent engagement and an almost automatic invocation of certain commonly perceived representations. In its popular cultural form (Hassard and Holliday, 1998), the systematic marginalisation of the effects of militarization on organisations and wider society typically aims to account for military impacts in terms of a set of stereotypical images (sic: harsh disciplinary regimes, fascist figures embedded in archaic hierarchical power structures). As such the normative representation of the military is presented as being an organisational form and experience which is distant and remote from other organizations and other modes of being in the world. These representations not only overlook and eclipse many potentially fruitful opportunities for analysis and comment but also lead to a generalized perception that the military is largely a self-contained body that has little influence on social and cultural formations. In those instances where militarised contextualisation is invoked in organizational texts, these accounts tend to examine (in an ossified manner) military events, histories and discourses in order to transport and graft these experiences onto business settings.(See Fineman and Gabriel’s (1996) brief but illuminating remarks and concerns on this issue.) This approach distils, in a not altogether irrelevant, but nevertheless simplistic manner, lessons which can be gleaned from military contexts and concepts in order to ensure heightened effectiveness or success in terms of some form of competitive advantage for business. Similarly, militarized presentations are commonly used as lenses for cultural interpretation in which business and warfare become analogues for understanding international business interactions, especially between North American/European Countries and Asian Countries, with the latter being delineated as markedly martial. Call for Papers We invite papers which:
A more comprehensive indication of themes is available as an extended form of the call for papers.) Timeline
Abstracts should fit the following requirements:
Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References
Whither the MBA? The Forms, Prospects and Critiques of the MBA (and Business School 'Education') CONVENORS Michael Brocklehurst, Imperial College, UK Email:m.brocklehurst@imperial.ac.uk Andrew Sturdy; Warwick Business School, UK ndrew.sturdy@wbs.ac.ukMichaela Driver; East Tennessee State University, USA David Knights, School Of Management, University of Exeter Email: David.Knights@exeter.ac.uk Diana Winstanley, Kingston University, UK Email:D.Winstanley@kingston.ac.uk Stream Description The MBA has become a potent and widespread symbol of management knowledge and privilege and fuelled academic careers and management departments. It has also been subject to a range of critiques as a form of managerialism, neo-imperialism, universalism and commodification for example. At the same time, there are attempts at reform either at the margins in terms of ‘critical’ or locally adapted approaches to management education or more mainstream calls for ‘practical relevance’ or ‘scientific rigour’. Indeed, some (periodically) see the MBA as having reached a peak and facing decline or the need for radical transformation. Conversely, partly through the strong and continued influence of the MBA, some university departments are becoming more like proto-typical businesses and the staff and syllabi transformed for consumption rather than critical reflection and practice. Overall then, it is timely to assess critically the current state and prospects of the MBA as well as its critics. Call for Papers The following is a list of indicative topics on which we invite papers:
Timeline
Abstracts should fit the following requirements:
CONVENORS Susanne Tietze; The Nottingham Trent University, UK Email: susanne.tietze@ntu.ac.uk Diannah Lowry; Flinders University, Australia Email: Diannah.Lowry@flinders.edu.au Gill Musson; University of Sheffield, UK Email: g.musson@sheffield.ac.uk Julia Richardson; York University, Canada Stream Description Contemporary accounts depict the future of work as flexible, mobile, temporary and mediated by technology. According to some accounts propagated by many management gurus or consultants and as promulgated in parts of the media, organisations will have to become more and more ‘flexible’ in order to survive in an increasingly global, transient and competitive market place: numerical and functional flexibility decrease cost and result in a better match of skills and tasks; structural flexibility allows for quick adaptation to environmental changes; operational flexibility facilitates quick responses to changes in demand and supply. Such overall organisational flexibility is to be matched on the individual level, where individual employees are conceptualised as either being part of a transient workforce to be drawn on or discarded as required by circumstances and the logic of efficiency or as being autonomous entrepreneurs in charge of their own (career) destiny, who trade their skill and expertise in flexible labour markets. Within these accounts organizations are seen as flexible networks, virtually dispersed in time and space, so that work (and life) activity can be conducted with anybody, at anytime and from anywhere. Organisational agents are conceptualised as fluctuating between discontinuous states of being, ‘structures’ and contexts, and as able to make multiple fresh starts, notwithstanding material, social and economic circumstance. Of course, such accounts have been challenged, and been shown as problematic. Beck (2000) for example investigates the redistribution of risk away from the state and the economy towards the individual. Sennett (1998) describes the disappearance of character in and through the expressants of flexible capitalism, i.e. teamworking and ‘network’ structures; this he sees concomitant with flexibility’s inability to give guidance for the conduct of ordinary life. Giddens (1991), perhaps more optimistically, sees individuals cast into freedom from tradition - an ontological position that requires them to become authors of their own lives by keeping a particular narrative of identity going. Contributors to the stream are invited to critically engage with the ontological/epistemological assumptions of (discourses of) flexibility; the consequences, opportunities and fallacies inherent in such flexible organization of work and lives. We would like to hear accounts about those agents who fluctuate between apparently increasingly permeable boundaries such as immigrant workers/ refugees; displaced/resident working people, housewives/househusbands; foreclosed/included employees; evolving/struggling managers; budding/bankrupt entrepreneurs; people whose skills are becoming obsolete/flourishing – as well as those caught in liminal positions between such categories. Contributions based on interpretive epistemologies are particularly welcome, because of their ability to explore the construction of experience and the attribution of meaning to flexible work and flexible lives. Such contributions might consider ‘flexibility’ to be socially constructed and therefore to be more adequately described and explored as a process of ‘becoming’. Here, we wonder if experience itself has become subject to fragmentation and disruption, or whether in the flux of experience underlying and stable convictions have held steady. Viewing flexibility as ‘lived experience’, such contributions might explore the processes of how and why ‘flexibility’ has taken such a commanding hold in the vocabulary and practice of management and organisation studies. Such contributions might explore and comment on the consequences of ‘flexibility’ for the emotional and cognitive dispositions of (organisational) agents, at different levels and in different roles, as well as those of significant social others. Call for Papers Translating such issues into potential thematic contributions to the stream, papers might explore:
Spatial and temporal flexibility Managing and controlling flexible work (both paid and unpaid) The convenors welcome empirical and/or theoretical papers, which engage critically with the topic of flexibility. Our definition of ‘critical’ is inclusive of various theoretical approaches/schools of thinking (e.g. Marxism; feminism; postmodernism); of various ontologies or theoretical positions (e.g. social constructionism; critical humanism) and of a variety of disciplines. Potential contributors are encouraged to contact us; in particular to discuss possible contributions and ideas which are not listed above. We intend to be flexible! Process : Each presentation will take 20 minutes. Contributors are invited to present their main ideas briefly and concisely in 10 minutes to allow for 10 minutes questions per paper (in total per session: 80 minutes). We will be actively discouraging the reiteration of the contents of a full paper, to enable the final 10 minutes of each session to be used for reflection and conversation about issues and themes which straddle the content of the individual contributions. We believe that this use of time will enable more creative and critical thinking amongst the stream participants. Timeline
Abstracts should fit the following requirements:
Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References
CONVENORS Saren, Michael; University of Leicester, UKBernard Cova; ESCP-EAP, France bcova@escp-eap.netKarin Ekström, Göteborg University, Sweden Email: karin.ekstrom@cfk.gu.se Stream Description This stream calls for papers that give voice to those who are normally silent in the traditional marketing process. These may include consumers, non-market exchanges, the natural environment, gender relations, alternative values, ethics and the socially excluded. This stream also welcomes papers, which take historical, dynamic and futuristic perspectives that attempt to assess marketing processes and systems recognising their temporal contexts. Call for Papers The following is a list of indicative topics
Papers in these and other areas are called for that take a critical stance towards the possibilities and uses of marketing and marketing concepts such as relationship marketing, consumer culture and the term ‘marketing’ itself. Contributions are also welcome from other disciplines that focus on critical marketing topics such as organisation studies, psychology, sociology, communications, accounting and strategy. It is envisaged that one session of the stream will be conducted in a workshop mode. Timeline
Abstracts should fit the following requirements:
Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References
Critical Realism: Progress and Challenges CONVENORS Alistair Mutch; The Nottingham Trent University, UK Email: Alistair.mutch@ntu.ac.uk Rick Delbridge; Cardiff University, UK delbridgeR@cardiff.ac.ukMarc Ventresca; Northwestern University, USA marcv@stanford.eduStream Description In recent years there has been a growing interest in the application of ideas drawn from the tradition of critical realism to the domain of organizing and managing. This interest is, however, still far from a mainstream one. If progress has been made, it is evident that still more is needed. In particular, much of the effort has gone into the development of the underlying ideas, often at a high level of abstraction. Within critical realism, it has been recognised that further progress depends on the elaboration of domain specific meta-concepts, drawn from a detailed engagement with the prevailing debates within the domain itself. This stream offers the chance to those interested in the further development and application of critical realist ideas to come together in the joint search for further clarity and understanding. (Whilst it is recognised that many might wish to debate the central tenets of critical realism itself, it is hoped that the design of the overall conference, with its emphasis on ‘providing sufficient time for interaction and discussion outside of the sessions’ will allow this to happen elsewhere). Call for Papers We invite papers that engage with one or more of the following areas:
The theme will be run on the explicit basis that knowledge is tentative and provisional, a key understanding of critical realism. It is hoped to move away from a focus on presentation towards one on discussion, and participants will be encouraged to provide papers at an early stage to facilitate this. Timeline
Abstracts should fit the following requirements:
Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References
IT AND POSTMODERNITY FOR ORGANISATIONs AND SYSTEMs CONVENORS Pratyush Bharati, College of Management, University of Massachusetts at Boston *Vladimir, Diatlov; University of Southampton, UK Email: v.v.diatlov@soton.ac.uk *Anita Greenhill; Manchester School of Management, UMIST, UK Email: a.greenhill@umist.ac.uk John Haynes , College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida, USALynette Kvasny, School of Information Sciences and Technology, Penn State University Damian O’Doherty, Manchester School of Management, UMIST , UKDuane Truex, J. Mack Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University *Corresponding convenors
Stream Descriptio nOur aim is to provide space for scholars of technology, information systems and the organisation who would like to build upon the advance of today’s organisational studies, consider which advantages we can claim specifically, and make our work more commensurable for research colleagues and approachable for practitioners. We are now enjoying a collection of contributions of innovative future-generative research from all around the globe, academic circles, and industry. The diversity joins around the matter of human understanding of technological complexity. The papers consider embeddedness of systems into organisational context and new work practices, the other papers offer methodology advance as well as name-generate definitions of technology through considering “what virtuality is”, “emotional digitisation” as well as what “events” and “history” are in IS research. Work of IT professionals and postmodernity in systems design—e.g., information architecture, mind scripts, and views on users by designers—comprise yet another layer of issues covered. On top, there are few examples of technological realisation of postmodernity in social life. Seeing that socio-technical systems (and their analysis) are getting fragmented and multi-layered under postmodern conditions, the stream remains open to what helps to grasp what “postmodernity” is and how it can be useful. With contributions we have now we look forward to motivating exchange. If you got an idea, draft, or thought about interactive panel, then the final submission date of November 15th is a chance for you to focus those thoughts and then discuss your work with right people and atmosphere. Original Stream Description: Purposive use of IT demands evermore knowledge, cognitive abilities, work relations and effort. “Gains from technology are proportional to quality and exploitation of human capital” is management maxim nowadays. But is information technology helpful as expected? Postmodernity appears real through problems with new complexity levels and work fragmentation, but are the benefits of mobility, service agility and globality real as well? How much time did you spend in a queue or on the phone waiting for a bank associate browsing systems? He might as well take another call, you do not know. And their supporting technology traces queue waiting, so they need to appear good at that. Ideas about postmodernity are developed in sociology and organisation studies, but postmodernity is realised through and by high technologies. Postmodern perspective of organisation theory emphasises phenomena of high degree of reflexivity, deconstruction and reframing as well as fragmentation of actual cultures. Naturally, observations of organisational change and ideas of postmodern perspective shall be brought back to studies of technology and information systems. Understandings of what “postmodernity” is come from critical studies, phenomenology, the breed of socio-technical approaches such as actor-network one, and even complexity science—all approaches are welcome. We invite empirically grounded as well as conceptual papers that develop frameworks, go down to technological nuance and reveal fresh insight from business-as-usual practice. We are open and innovative, at the same time we adhere to academic customs and apply double blind peer review for the stream to be fully refereed. The following issue areas are indications, not limits: 1. IS fundamentals and methodological advances. Postmodern theory applications: how organisational/professional discourses affect use of technology and how technological discourses (e.g., semantic web, information architecture, or e-science) affect the organisation. Content/textual analyses and their application in IS design/notations; decomposition/deconstruction analyses. “Rules of truth” for knowledge formation; metaphors in scientific methods (e.g., complexity); autopoiesis. 2. Technology-driven critical issues: change of business models and even industry structures with its OB implications. Practices of dealing with ubiquity, agility, ambience and pervasiveness of technology and their outcomes for (a) organisational design, for example, multiple levels of end-user support depending upon complexity of an issue or ownership of software development by business, and (b) the workplace, for example, activity fragmentation, distributed and mediated participation, use of new media/virtual artefacts. Procedurisation of innovation and utility of management standards and modelling using formal methods, such as ISO quality, UML, soft systems or system dynamics; sophistication of managerial control and automation of physical control upon time, space and information access/communication. 3. Empowerment stands out as an important but slowed down discussion about politics of technological change and power redistribution if any. Why capabilities and opportunities enabled with technology do and do not empower? What kinds of power will make the postmodern organisation most productive, be it a network, federation or guild? How the substance of “what the organisation is” is affected by high technologies? We aim to provide reviews of value to authors who are welcome from all stages of their research and industry careers and aim to develop a journal special issue. We welcome alternatives, panel discussion proposals and innovative use of time.
Timeline(extended only once!):Abstracts /[proposals to the convenors 15 November 2004Feedback to authors 1 January 2005 Full papers to the convenors 1 April 2005
Instructions to authors (for extended abstracts):§ Submissions in Word (doc or rtf formats) § Font: Arial § Maximum Length: 1500 Words § Including: Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References Submissions should be sent by e-mail to v.v.diatlov@soton.ac.uk with a copy to a.greenhill@umist.ac.uk
CONVENORS Norman Jackson , The Management Centre, University of Leicester, UKEmail: carterjackson@carterjackson.karoo.co.uk Pippa Carter; The Management Centre, University of Leicester, UK Peter Pelzer, Independent Consultant, Frankfurt, Germany Marianne Afanassieva, The Business School, University of Hull, UK Email:M.Afanassieva@hull.ac.uk Gianluca Andresani, The Business School, University of Hull Shih-wei (Bill) Hsu, School of Management, University of St. Andrews Email: bill197112@yahoo.com.tw
Stream Description These words mean, respectively, ‘to exhaust by labour’ and ‘overworked’. They originate from the 13th century but are still extant and there is even a web address at forswunk. Overwork, it seems, is not a new problem but it is a problem that remains. CMS has flourished as a scholarly activity for more than 2 decades, yet what has been its impact on practice? Arguably, the more critique there is, the worse ‘organisations’ become. Is there a ‘paralysis of analysis’? Should we be turning our attention to prescription? This stream seeks to explore the issues raised by these questions. Prescription is, of course, a very thorny issue. How do we go about prescribing? What is the role of the knowledge producer? How should knowledge claims be assessed? How is legitimacy established? What areas can, or should, prescription address? What are the risks, and what the prizes? Who should be the beneficiaries? These are big questions! Our primary interest is in developing the idea of what we call ‘labour extensification’. We are taking our usage from agriculture, where it is well understood that there are benefits to be gained by deliberately reducing the productivity of resources below what is theoretically possible (as opposed to Marx’s usage, which refers to increasing labour exploitation). If this is desirable for land and animals when considered as resources, is it not extensible generally to ‘the human resource’? What might be the costs and benefits? How might such extensification be achieved? There is no doubt that there are many well-documented costs arising from the problem of overwork, but, in the current state of (the critique of) organisational and managerial activity, where are the mechanisms that would enable an organic, evolutionary solution to the problems of overwork to emerge? Are there any? Given that it is known what the problem is, and its effects, not only are solutions lacking, but the constant mantra is that we should all work harder. So perhaps it is time for critical management studies to develop a more openly prescriptive approach. However, overwork is obviously not the only issue that might be addressed by a prescriptive approach. Nor are the questions about the very possibility of prescription resolved. How and about what one might be prescriptive may differ from one discipline to another. What seems to be a solution from one perspective may itself seem to be a problem from another. The problems, and the solutions, may, or may not, vary across different global locations. We would particularly welcome contributions from a range of disciplines. Call for Papers We invite papers that engage with one or more of the following areas:
These examples are intended merely to indicate possibilities, and papers addressing other aspects of the issues are also welcome. Timeline
Abstracts should fit the following requirements:
Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References
Critical Accounting and Challenges to Notions of Progress CONVENORS Patricia Arnold; University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee , USA Christine Cooper; University of Strathclyde, UK Michael Gaffikin, University of Wollongong, Australia Prem Sikka, University of Essex, UK Stream Description Accounting practices and the accounting industry are deeply implicated in notions of ‘progress’ about quality of life, organizational surveillance, accountability, regulation, ethics, politics, corporate social responsibility, corporate governance, professional autonomy, public finances, management performance, rights of stakeholders, tolerance, measures of wellbeing, insolvency, power and powerlessness of the state, globalization, emergence of new modes of governance, financial crime, tax avoidance, deskilling, racism and gender inequalities. Myths of progress dominate conventional research, but scandals, income inequalities, tax avoidance, social conflict, rising corporate power and organized exploitation increasingly problematize this. Critical accounting seeks to challenge the conventional accounts and create spaces for alternative voices and public policies. In common with earlier conferences, this stream provides an interdisciplinary forum for analysis and reflection upon contemporary issues relating to accounting, auditing, insolvency, environment and taxation. In particular, it provides an interface between developments in critical management, labour process theory and critical accounting. Contributions are welcomed from a variety of theoretical and philosophical traditions. Doctoral students and academics at an early stage of their careers are most welcome as presenters and participants. Call for Papers We would particularly welcome interdisciplinary papers (the list is not exhaustive) on the following themes: · Role of accounting in constructing and deconstructing organizations · Role of accounting in perpetuating class, gender, race and other inequalities · Corporate governance issues · Accounting and organizational misbehaviour · Role of accounting in financial crime, money laundering and arms race · Role of accounting in contemporary scandals · Organisational culture of professional practices · Accounting and auditing practices within organisations · Limits to accounting, auditing, accountability and the law · Role of accounting in facilitating and/or hindering social change · Regulation of accountancy and accountancy profession · Accounting for pensions · Can accounting facilitate ethical business conduct? · Accounting and suppressed voices. Oral histories of subaltern voices. · Globalization and accounting · Accounting and new colonialism · Accounting and notions of accountability, ethics and transparency · Relationship between accounting and the state. · Critical financial analyses and histories of companies · Role of accounting in privitization of publicly owned assets · Accounting, subjugation of labour and loss of jobs · Labour Process theory and work · Accounting and politics · Strategies for reflective teaching and making new social subjects · Strategies for social change · Doctoral Research in Critical Accounting Timeline Abstracts for papers should be submitted b e-mail to Prem Sikka, no later than 1st October 2004. Abstracts should fit the following requirements:
Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References
The convening committee’s decision on acceptance/rejection would be communicated by 1st December 2004. Full papers would need to be submitted to Prem Sikka by e-mail, no later than 1st April 2005. Early submissions are advisable. Please feel free to contact any of the convenors to discuss potential submissions and participation in the conference.
CONVENORS David O'Donnell; The Intellectual Capital Research Institute of Ireland, Ireland david.odonnell@ireland.comLars bo Henriksen; University of Aalborg, Denmark Sven, Völpel, Harvard Business School, USA Email: svoelpel@fas.harvard.edu Stream Description Intellectual capital (IC) has emerged in the past decade or so as an interdisciplinary construction designed to capture the increasingly immaterial or intangible nature of economic value. The basic underlying assumption is that value is created when human, internal organisational, and external relations/resources are aligned to enhance knowledge creation and exploitation. This unique combination of capabilities is viewed as what differentiates “knowledge economy” firms from “traditional firms”. Ideas, and the ability to continuously generate them, are viewed as more important than the traditional triad of land, labour and financial capital. There is, as yet, no currently accepted definition of intellectual capital; the field is very much at the emergent stage, and the focus to date has been primarily managerialist. Publications by the OECD, The Conference Board in the US, the EU, the World Bank and others plus the World Congress in Canada and the launching of the Journal of Intellectual Capital in 2000 all signal the increasing focus on the “knowledge economy”. The time is now opportune to take a more critical stance on this “construction” and particularly on its discourse, underlying assumptions and concealed “tyrannies of truth”—this is the purpose of this stream Call for Papers We place no boundaries other than that submissions should be critical of theoretical, managerial and organisational assumptions underlying intellectual capital. Dependant on the quality of submissions received it is anticipated that stream participants will be invited to submit their papers to be reviewed for a special journal issue in this area to be published in 2006. Timeline
Abstracts should fit the following requirements:
Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References
CONVENORS Diana Sharpe; Monmouth University, USA Glenn Morgan; Warwick Business School, UK glenn.morgan@wbs.ac.ukPushkala Prasad; Skidmore College, USA Stream Description The rationale for this stream is to bring together and take stock of ideas and thinking that have developed from critical perspectives on the multinational organization. Research and theorizing on the multinational organization has tended to be dominated by notions of economic rationality and positivist epistemologies. Often material published in mainstream journals in the field of international business tend to support these underlying assumptions. This stream is seen as a way of bringing together scholars working from critical perspectives on the multinational organization. In recent years there have been developments from a critical perspective in areas of theorizing, conceptualizing and researching the multinational organization. The conference is seen as an opportunity to provide a forum for engagement with these developing areas of research and thinking. Call for Papers We invite papers that engage with one or more of the following issue areas:
Proposals for panel discussions and roundtable sessions as well as paper presentations are welcome, to encourage debate and exchange of ideas on future directions. Timeline
Abstracts should fit the following requirements:
Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References
CONVENORS Adrian Carr; University of Western Australia, Australia Alexis Downs; St. Louis University, USA Philip Hancock, University of Warwick, UK Email: philip.hancock@wbs.ac.uk Stream Description Management and organization theory has a long history of recognizing space and time as significant resources. Frederick Taylor ('Speedy' Taylor, as some of us have dubbed him) immediately comes to mind in this context. Speedy Taylor viewed space and time as commodities factored into job design, organization processes and control mechanisms. In that era of 'Scientific Management', time and space existed within a broader framework in which epistemology was 'grounded' in the scientific method. As Lash and Urry (1994) suggest, clock-time was the modern organizing principle. Largely absent and certainly foreign to clock-time was any firm consideration of time and space as socially constructed. Representative of late modernity, Giddens (1991) developed notions of time/space distanciation: i.e., the stretch of social practices over space and time. Telecommuters relying upon technological expert systems are distanced from social systems and follow subjective calendars. Just as technology constructs telecommuters, architecture and various spatial configurations construct the attitudes, values and beliefs of human subjects. In addition, time, physical objects and spatial configurations may be invested with emotional content and leave their traces within us. Thus, from the point of view of social construction, time and space become distinct from their measurement. Despite their differences, the schools of scientific management and social construction explain time as continuous or interrupted, but still linear and, perhaps, laminar. On the other hand, theorists such as Michel Serres and Paul Virilio conjure alternative notions of time and space. Serres (1995) suggests that time is chaotic and turbulent. He notes that 'le temps' is the French word for both weather and time. For Serres, "time develops more like the flight of Verlaine's wasp than along a line, continuous or regularly broken by dialectical war" (1995, p. 65). Virilio turns his attention to the digital world and virtualized objects. For Virilio, as for Serres, the formation of the senses is critical. Call for Papers Because the dynamics in which space and time are inter-related or become co-related in the organizational and management context have been neglected, we invite papers that highlight the manner in which we have neglected, or taken for granted, the dynamics of time and space in the organizational and management context. Contributions will be screened for potential inclusion in special issues on this topic in the journal Tamara: The Journal of Critical Postmodern Organisation Science and the Journal of Organizational Change Management. In addition, papers would be considered for inclusion in an edited book volume. Timeline
Abstracts should fit the following requirements:
Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References
Service Work and Consumer Culture CONVENORS Marek Korczynski; Loughborough University, UK m.korczynski@lboro.ac.ukCameron MacDonald, University of Wisonsin-Madison Melissa Tyler; Loughborough University, UK Email:m.j.tyler@lboro.ac.uk Yiannis Gabriel, Imperial College, UK
Stream Description This stream continues the vibrant and growing research tradition which critically analyses the nature of service work in contemporary consumer culture. It has become more common for analyses of service work to step outside of the management-worker dyad of traditional critical sociology to focus on aspects of what Leidner has termed ‘the customer-worker-management triangle’. While this development is welcome it is still the case that in practice in this literature ‘the customer’ often becomes a shadowy, ill-defined figure rather than a central aspect of the analysis. This stream calls for papers in which the analysis of the customer and consumer culture more generally, in the context of service work, is more fore-grounded. It offers an opportunity for a meeting between the critical study of production relations and the critical study of consumption. Call for Papers Potential topics for papers to address include:
Both theoretical and research-based papers are welcome. Timeline Abstracts to Convenor (e-mail) 1 October 2004 Decisions on acceptance/rejection communicated 1 January 2005 Full papers to Convenor (e-mail) 1 April 2005 Abstracts should fit the following requirements:
Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References
CONVENORS Anshuman Prasad; University of New Haven, USA Kiran Mirchandani; University of Toronto, Canada oise.utoronto.caSubhabrata (Bobby) Banerjee; University of South Australia, Australia Email: apache@unisa.edu.au Stream Description Postcolonial theory and criticism (or “postcolonialism”) has left a clear mark in a number of disciplines such as anthropology, cultural studies, history, literary criticism, political science, sociology, and the like. Despite some recent scholarly efforts, however, the field of management studies (including critical management studies) continues to remain mostly untouched by the postcolonial ferment taking place in the social sciences and the humanities. The Postcolonialism Stream of the International Critical Management Studies Conference offers an opportunity to critical management researchers to address this troubling state of affairs. This Stream, accordingly, is designed to provide a forum for employing postcolonial modes and strategies of inquiry with a view to critically investigating past and/or present management (and management related) practices, texts, theories, methods and approaches to inquiry, and research procedures and productions. Call for Papers
Timeline Abstracts to Convenor (e-mail) 1 October 2004 Decisions on acceptance/rejection communicated 1 January 2005 Full papers to Convenor (e-mail) 1 April 2005 Abstracts should fit the following requirements:
Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References
Wisdom, Ethics, and Management CONVENORS Bernard McKenna; University of Queensland, Australia b.mckenna@uq.edu.auRené ten Bos; University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands David Rooney, University of Queensland, Australia
Stream Description While wisdom is occasionally mentioned in management research and practice, it has not been explicitly integrated into its conceptual frameworks. Wisdom is regarded as a desirable attribute in people, but what is it, particularly in a management context? Why is it good? How can it be fostered? These questions need to be considered within the context of three contemporary ideological hegemonies. One is the neo-classical economic orthodoxy (frequently labelled neo-liberal) where market forces and utility value determine action. Another is neo-liberalism, which valorises individuality, “entrepreneurship”, and self-regulation among other things. The third is postmodern ontological and ethical relativism, which devalues fixity and tradition as the strictures of grand narratives. One would think that this is not a particularly fertile landscape to introduce the concept of wisdom into management theory and practice. However, there are signs that people are coming to understand the life-negating impact of contemporary private and workplace practices (the division between which is increasingly blurred). Mintzberg, Schein, Schön, and Argyris are among those looking beyond the current nostrums. Of course, feminists such as Calas and Smircich are also challenging these orthodoxies. Aktouf (1992) urged management practitioners and researchers to turn away from the technical, control-obsessed, short-sighted approach and turn to more people-oriented humanistic values in organizations. Regulation and surveillance may produce conformity and regularity, but does it provide a framework for wise action. Although wisdom has been confined largely to the religious domain in Western thought since Aquinas, perhaps it’s time to read Aristotle or Vico again for a new perspective. Social psychologists such as Sternberg and Baltes have been studying wisdom for some time now. Could the confluence of history, philosophy, psychology, and management & organizational theory produce some worthwhile insights about wisdom? Call for Papers We invite papers that engage with one or more of the following issue areas:
These issue areas are regarded as a starting point, and papers that develop alternatives are welcome. Timeline
Abstracts should fit the following requirements:
Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References (APA style)
CONVENORS Kurt April; University of Cape Town, South Africa Email: aprilkur@gsb.uct.ac.za Marylou Shockley; Oxford University, UK Anet Potgieter; University of Cape Town, South Africa Stream Description The notion of social networks and social network analysis have attracted considerable interest from the social, behavioural, managerial, computing and mathematical sciences over the last decade. Much of the interest stems from the appealing focus on relationships, implications of those relationships within organizations and sustainability of organizations. The aim of this stream is to provide a platform for researchers, from varied disciplines, to debate and develop their understanding of ‘social networks’. It is the convergence of the disciplines that makes this stream attractive, and it is hoped that a diverse range of perspectives and research methodologies, from the corners of the globe, can be showcased in this stream. Call for Papers We invite papers that engage with one or more of the following issue areas:
social networks and its role in creating new forms of organization, and organizational structures (structuration; social proximity; communication dis-infrastructure; interlock determinants of organizational performance) issues that arise from 1-5 above for critical perspectives (which could include: network mythology; problems with measuring human interaction; power shifts – the games people play; mobile values; modeled environments vs. fluid environments; constraints on individual action; critical perspectives on social absorptive capacity; normative guidance during uncertainty; antithetical thinking; role of language). Timeline
Abstracts should fit the following requirements:
Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References
Identity: Exploring the Impacts of Individual and collective Constructions CONVENORS Nic Beech; University of Strathclyde, UK beech@gsb.strath.ac.ukChristine Coupland; Nottingham University Business School, UK Carl Rhodes; University of Technology, Sydney, Australia Stream Description Identities can be constructed and realised in various modes in organisations – the individual, the group, the profession, the interest group and the hierarchical group amongst others. People are also identified by their gender, age, presumed and enacted attitudes, behaviours, associated scripts, rituals and symbols. We are interested in furthering the debate on how such identities are formed and reformed and exploring the impacts of the social processes through which identity is constructed and used. Call for Papers Indicative questions informing this area of research include:
Papers addressing issues such as those highlighted in these indicative questions are invited. The focus of this stream is in organisation and management studies, but contributions from psychology, sociology, communications, marketing and strategy are equally welcome. It is envisaged that one session of the stream will be conducted in a workshop mode. Timeline
Abstracts should fit the following requirements:
Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References CONVENORS (Substream 1) (Substream 2) Dr Fiona Anderson-Gough, The University of Leicester, UK Richard Hull, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne Business SchoolEmail:f.anderson-gough@le.ac.uk Email:Richard.hull@ncl.ac.uk Dr Karen Dale, The University of Leicester, UK Heather Hðpfl, Essex Management Centre, University of Essex, Email:hopfl@essex.ac.ukDr Gavin Jack, The University of Leicester, UK Tom Cahill, France, Email:g.jack@le.ac.uk Email:tomcahill@wanadoo.fr
Stream Description As the audiences for CMS expand, and with an increasing number of self-identified ‘CMS-ers’ or ‘Critters’, this stream offers the opportunity to reflect on one of the key challenges facing CMS, namely the issue of articulating, and developing our understandings of, what 'doing critical' means in our current context. This stream will reflect and advance our understandings of ‘critical’, and how we feel CMS 'makes a difference', through two distinct sub-streams which explore the issues of critical practice(s). These two streams are: 1) Enacting Critical Management: Integration of the Critical and the Technical 2) Practicing the Critical Conference.
Participants must clearly indicate the Sub-Stream to which they are submitting. Sub-Stream (1): Enacting Critical Management: Integration of the Critical and the Technical 'Changing the world' allegedly lies at the heart of the critical project for many of us who identify with the critical management project. This stream addresses the questions of how critical management research and education might intervene more effectively into social and organizational life and how it might simultaneously sustain a separation from ‘the mainstream’ whilst engaging productively in the pursuit of visions of a more just organization and management of human life. It offers the following proposition for exploration as a way forward: In order to remain effective CMS must resist the temptation to become/remain identified as a theoretically focused and exclusivist sub-discipline. At the heart of this stream is a concern to explore current practices, and thinking, in respect of the ‘doing’ of critical management and particularly of the relation between the technical and the critical. The stream offers an opportunity for people from a broad range of experiences, perspectives and business disciplines to explore contemporary developments and opportunities for critical practices. Furthermore, it sets out to evaluate just how far current practice may tend to maintain separations between theory and practice, and the ethical and the technical, thus potentially compromising and undermining much of the potential of CMS to make a difference. We invite papers that engage with understanding what an integration of the critical and the technical might entail, and what critical management practices might look like. Here are some suggested questions: 1 What are the current disciplinary practices within CMS, within mainstream management teaching an within management/organising work and expertise that we wish to make visible, to change, to integrate?2 How does what we do, our working notions of expertise in different sites, maintain the division between theory and practice? · In the context of teaching, how do we ourselves understand the impact of our work? Is there space (in the education market, within educational institutions) for a reflexive management education? Can critical management be enacted through our educational practices? · And in the context of research, how might critical management research best be disseminated? Are there successful instances where research in CMS has led to positive organizational change? How might we work to inform public policy and talk to professional bodies? 3 How can we negotiate the theory/practice relationship regarding diversity, discrimination and equal opportunities? For instance, can research and theories on the gendered nature of organisations enable us to transform practice? 4 What might we learn from the theories in practice within our own academic organisations that might help us explore our current situation? When academics become managers in educational and research institutions, do they find a ‘gap’ between their espoused critical ideas and their practices in these roles, and how are these gaps dealt with? 5 How might critical studies of consumer society transform the ideology and practices of consumption? What might they tell us about our educational, managerial and organizational practices as individuals and as collectives? Are there successful cases of research informing the creation of non-market alternatives for organizing exchange? 6 (To put the blunt and immediate question for us all) How do critical accountants, critical marketing specialists, critical strategists see themselves in relation to their specialist disciplines and their relation to CMS? How do critical organizational theorists see themselves in relation to their colleagues who are linked in to the (traditionally) more 'technical' or 'mainstream' disciplines? In sum, this stream therefore proposes to investigate both current and potential separations and segregations within CMS practice, but with a special focus on how issues which combine the technical and the ethical (i.e. the doing of accounting, the doing of marketing, the doing of strategy etc.) are dealt with as part of a broadly conceived critical management project. The above questions are but a few suggestions for ways of addressing the issues of integration, and the nature of critical management practice(s). Papers which develop alternatives to these are most welcome. Convenors: [1] Dr Fiona Anderson-Gough, Senior Lecturer in Critical Accounting and Management, Management Centre, The University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, LE1 7RH. f.anderson-gough@le.ac.uk 0116 223 1869
[2] Dr Karen Dale, Lecturer in Organisational Analysis, Management Centre, The University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, LE1 7RH. k.dale@le.ac.uk 0116 223 1233
[3] Dr Gavin Jack, Lecturer in Critical Marketing, Management Centre, The University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, LE1 7RH. g.jack@le.ac.uk 0116 252 5125 Timeline:Submissions to Convenor (e-mail) 1 October 2004 Decisions on acceptance/rejection communicated 1 January 2005 Full submissions to Convenor (e-mail) 1 April 2005
Abstracts should fit the following requirements:§ Submissions in Word § Arial Font § Maximum Length 1500 Words § Including Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References Sub-Stream (2): Practicing the Critical Conference “But what else can you do with 350 articulate people who all want to have their say?” This, we imagine, would be the response if we questioned the traditional ways of organising CMS and other ‘critical’ academic conferences. Although there has been some experimentation within particular streams, this is less evident at the overall level. In particular, there remains an emphasis on named and badged individuals as authors, presenters, vocal critics, nodding heads, and other traditional forms of constituting the self within intellectual critical community; whilst the ‘subjects’ of our calls to emancipation remain absent. Critical conferences certainly do not reflect the rich diversity of styles for gathering, discussion, sharing and decision-making manifest within many radical activist movements and innovative forms of teaching. There have of course been critiques of the ‘structurelessness’ (Freeman, 1984) of some radical organising; and supposedly, therefore, their ineffectiveness (Young, 1977; Landry et al, 1985), and recent analyses of evolving ‘political technologies’ implicitly criticise over-reliance on technique (Barry, 2002). However, despite such critiques, creative, imaginative and dignified styles which developed for instance within anti-nuclear movements (Welsh, 2000) and the Zapatistas (Cooke & Kothari, 2001) have been further developed within anti-GM and anti-capitalist activism (Notes From Nowhere, 2003). It could further be argued that many innovative forms of teaching (e.g. Hannan & Silver, 2000) equally derive from new styles of organising and sharing. There is in other words a vibrant and practice-oriented critical strand, focussed on styles of gathering, discussion, sharing and decision-making, that is not reflected within academic ‘critical’ conferences. This Stream aims to redress this imbalance, and its aim and process are radical. Stream Aim The single aim of the Stream will be to demonstrate, by the end of the conference, a variety of new styles for critical conferences. That demonstration cannot of course be pre-figured, but it may for instance take any or all of the following forms:- a short video; a position paper co-authored by all stream participants; a performance of words, visual art, music, song, dance, spectacle; or a non-spectacular, sublime, indescribable format. The process of the Stream will, however, precisely be focused on new styles for deciding the character of that demonstration. Participants will be chosen on the basis of a 1,000 word position paper (or other format of comparable effort and commitment) outlining their vision for ‘practicing critical conference’. Submissions will in particular need to address the issues of participation and commitment:- · What should be the relationship between the Sub-Stream and other conference participants? · Should Sub-Stream participants be required to be present during all Sub-Stream events? · What relationship should Sub-Stream participants have to future CMS conferences and to future co-ordination amongst themselves? · What should be the relationship between Sub-Stream co-conveners and other participants? Timeline:Submissions to Convenor (e-mail) 1 October 2004 Decisions on acceptance/rejection communicated 1 January 2005
Management and Goodness III-The Goodness of Sterility CONVENORS Ron Beadle; Northumbria University, UK mail:ron.beadle@unn.ac.ukHeather Höpfl; University of Essex, UK Sanjiv Dugal, University of Rhode Island, USA Stream Description The ‘MManagement and Goodness’ streams at CM2 & 3 focussed on the ways in which the good is marked in both presence and absence in organisations. We have argued for a construction in which management is seen as both rhetorically ordering and reifying goods while at the same time hiding and marginalising discourse about those goods (Beadle and Höpfl 2003). In contrast the embodied experience of management has been seen as both perverse (Moreton) and tragic (Gosling). In this third stream we want to consider the construction and resonance of what Jung has termed “sterile perfectionism” in management theory and practice. In this respect, the stream is concerned with the purposive rationality of organisations and, in particular, with the ways in which organisations reproduce themselves. It is concerned with the purposive behaviour of organisations as expressed in the literature of strategy, total quality management, business process re-engineering and such like and the way in which this implicitly defines and constructs its other as all that is alienated by such definition: the pursuit of abstract notions of the future, and a belief in rhetorical/textual reproduction. This is the pursuit of "sterile perfection" which Jung identifies as the hallmark of patriarchal consciousness. Whitmont puts forward the view that the control of passions and physical needs traditionally has been valorised because it gives emphasis to the “merely rational” (Whitmont, 1991: 243). Organisations as expressions of collective expectations render physicality “dirty” preferring, ironically, to pursue metaphysical ends. The corollary of this emphasis on rationality is a distrust of natural affections (Whitmont, 1991: 245). This attitude, dominated by rationality and the rejection of dependency, reduces the notion of practical “goodness” to nurturing, domestic and servicing functions. This has resulted in abstract dogmatic mental attitudes and a sterile and over-rationalistic social world (Whitmont, 1991: 200). It is precisely in this excessive rationality and the its relationship to practical goodness which concerns us here. The totalising discourses of the organisation are precisely totalising because they can never offer completion. They need to be totalising so as to preclude the possibility of otherness. In privileging constructions over experiences, organisations lose contact with their physicality. In other words, the organisation comes to reproduce itself as text and understand itself in metaphysical terms as the product of that process of reproduction. Yet, the result of this obsessive reproduction is, nonetheless, an inevitable sterility. Call for Papers We welcome papers that engage with the ways in which organisations reproduce themselves, as text, artefact and aspiration. We are particularly looking for papers which offer accounts, interpretations and ethnographic work on the processes and constructions of the sterile in order to answer the question – what is the good of sterility? Timeline
Abstracts should fit the following requirements:
Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References
Management and Organization History Stream CONVENORS Charles Booth, University of West England, UK E-Mail:charles.booth@uwe.ac.uk Bill Cooke, UMIST, UK E-mail:william.m.cooke@umist.ac.uk Richard Marens, California State University at Sacramento, USA Michael Rowlinson, University of London, Queen Mary Stream Description There have been repeated calls for more historical approaches in the study of management and organizations (e.g. by Mayer Zald, Alfred Kieser, and Gibson Burrell, among others). We see history as a vital component in critical management studies. We invite contributions on a range of historical issues, such as:
These issue areas are regarded as a starting point, and papers which develop alternatives are welcome. Papers from the stream will be considered for publication in a new Sage journal, Management & Organizational History, to be launched in 2005. Timeline Abstracts to Convenor 1 (Charles Booth) (by email) 1 October 2004
Decisions on acceptance/rejection communicated 1 January 2005
Full papers to Convenor 1 (by e-mail) 1 April 2005
Abstracts should fit the following requirements:
Arial Font 12 Maximum Length 1500 Words 8 key words Including: Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text
References
CONVENOR Peter Fleming, Judge Institute of Management Email:p.fleming@jims.cam.ac.uk Timeline Abstracts to Convenor 1 October 2004 Decisions on acceptance/rejection communicated 1 January 2005 Full papers to Convenor 1 April 2005
Abstracts should fit the following requirements:
Arial Font 12 Maximum Length 1500 Words 8 key words Including: Title Authors (affiliation, contact details) Body of Text References
Formatting Requirements for Extended Abstracts
Formatting Requirements for Final Papers The language of the conference and for all submissions is English. Submissions must be prepared in Word (version 97 or higher) or RTF. All authors are required to provide the following information on the first page:
The remaining pages should include the main body of the
submission and all references, tables, figures, etc. Papers, including all
figures, tables, and references (but not including the title page) should
normally be no more than 30 pages in length. All papers must be
single-spaced, prepared using at least an 11-point Ariel font, and be
formatted for A4 paper (21cm * 29.7 cm). Final versions of papers must be
submitted to [insert email address of stream convenor and
cms4admin@jims.cam.ac.uk] by 1 April, 2005. Important Dates
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
