Call for papers

call for papers

• It can be downloaded here

Key dates

• Mar 15, 2023 (EXTENDED DEADLINE): Conference paper and Doctoral Consortium Application essay submission deadline

• Mar 31, 2023: Acceptance letters sent

• May 15, 2023: Registration deadline for the Doctoral Consortium and the Conference

• June 19-21, 2023: Doctoral consortium

• June 22-24, 2023: Conference

Contact

Please direct your queries related to:

• Conference paper submissions to the Track Chairs
• Doctoral Consortium Application essay submission to the Doctoral Consortium Chair
• All other Conference matters to the Conference Chair, Prof Niall MacKenzie.

Track chairs: Svante Andersson and Natasha Evers

The profound differences in institutional frameworks between emerging economies and developed economies force scholars to pay more attention to these differences in addition to considering industry-based and resource-based factors (Peng et al 2009). International growth entails adaptation and compliance with national legislation and standards often in different, contrasting institutional contexts. Institutional requirements (national and international) and cultural expectations legislation and standards will influence a firm’s behaviour and strategy (North, 1990; Peng, 2003; Peng et al., 2009; Scott, 1995; Turcan et al., 2022).

This track invites innovative, impact-oriented submissions that explore how to achieve legitimacy in international markets (Evers & Andersson, 2021). The submissions should consider organizations of different size and age. International new ventures, which, soon after inception, aim for international markets must deal with the legitimation of newness (Stinchcombe, 1965), foreignness (Zaheer, 1995), and smallness (Aldrich & Auster, 1986). Older firms may have more resources and power, but still need to deal with legitimation in a foreign context when they enter a new international market. In both cases, the firm has to legitimate its strategy to existing stakeholders.

Consistent within this, the submissions will explore how new institutions and policies shape and are shaped by innovations, new technologies and international new ventures, how new business-policy relationships are created, emerge and are legitimated, and how different approaches taken by international new ventures in different contexts (e.g., life-sciences, social entrepreneurship, gambling, vertical farming, non-for-profit) help understand how legitimacy is conferred, obtained and even lost amongst new industries and international new ventures and emerging polity. Case studies should relate empirical findings to the development of theory and should be impact oriented.

• Aldrich, H., & Auster, E. R. (1986). Even dwarfs started small: Liabilities of age and size and their strategic implications. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 165–198.
• Deephouse, D.L., Bundy, J., Tost, L.P. and Suchman, M.C. (2017), “Organizational legitimacy: six key questions”, in Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T. and Meyer, R. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 2nd ed., Sage, London, pp. 27-52.
• Evers, N. & Andersson, S. (2021). Predictive and effectual decision-making in high-tech international new ventures: A matter of sequential ambidexterity. International Business Review. Vol. 30, No. 1, 101655
• North, D.C. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge University Press, New York.
• Peng, M. (2003), “Institutional transitions and strategic choices”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 492–528.
• Peng, M.W., Sun, S.L. and Chen, H. (2009), “The institution-based view as a third leg for a strategy tripod”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 63-81.
• Scott, W. (1995), Institutions and Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
• Stinchcombe, A. L. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 142–193). Chicago: Rand McNally.
• Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
• Turcan, R., Juho, A., & Reilly, J. (2021). Advanced Structural Internationalization of Universities is Unethical. Organization, 28(6), 1059-1067.
• Zaheer, S., 1995. Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal 38, 341–363.

Go to Submission Guidelines

Track chairs: Jillian Gordon and Niall MacKenzie

The principal focus is to understand how legitimation drives innovation and the legitimation processes and interactions of new industries and ventures. In particular we welcome work on the bio-economy, Internet of Things, FinTech, and energy (broadly defined) that explores how these new industries and ventures gain legitimation in society.

Research that explores micro, meso, and macro levels of legitimation in relation to individuals, organisations, and institutions including analyses of technology, business, systems, and society will  be positively considered.

Existing work on entrepreneurship that considers the importance of context in understanding how new organisations, ideas, technologies, processes, and businesses start up (Welter, 2011) and how the legitimation process unfolds (Turcan and Fraser, 2016) and on how legitimation works (Suchman, 1995; Stinchcombe, 1965) underpin the rationale for this session. This may include work that demonstrates subversion of or conformance to laws, regulations, social norms, societal values, and cultural cognitive frameworks (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Scott, 2001).

We welcome research exploring legitimation that is novel, deploying innovative (and traditional) methodologies and/or that is set in interesting contexts. Similarly, historical (Suddaby et al, 2020) and/or contemporary analyses, case studies, phenomenological, and theory driven submissions are welcome.

• DiMaggio, P. & Powell, W. (1983). "The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields," American Sociological Review 48, no.2 (1983): 147-160.
• Scott, W.R. 2001. Institutions and Organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Stinchcombe, A. (1965). Organization-creating organizations. Society, 2(2), pp.34-35.
• Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
• Suddaby, R., Coraiola, D., Harvey, C., & Foster, W. (2020). History and the micro‐foundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 41(3), 530-556.
• Turcan, R. V., & Fraser, N. (2016). An Ethnographic Study of New Venture and New Sector Legitimation: Evidence from Moldova. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 11(1), 72 - 88.
• Welter, F., 2011. Contextualizing entrepreneurship—conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), pp.165-184.

Go to Submission Guidelines

Track chair: Petri Ahokangas and Timo Koivumaki

New business models disrupt businesses and business ecosystems and bring challenges of legitimacy and legitimation to firms and industries of all sizes  (Schiavi & Behr, 2018). Legitimation and legitimacy of new business models have traditionally been approached at the level of individual firms (Biloslavo, Bagnoli, Massaro, & Cosentino, 2020; Lanzolla & Markides, 2021; Turcan, 2020). Recently, the business model as a boundary-spanning unit of analysis (Zott, Amit, & Massa, 2011) has evolved from firm-centric to ecosystem embedded, extending the scope of business model innovation to cover ecosystem innovation (Press, Robert, & Maillefert, 2020; Snihur & Bocken, 2022; Thomas & Ritala, 2022). Business models, utilizing platforms, data, and artificial intelligence, exhibit intertwined legitimacy challenges (Zhang, Gisca, Sadeghian Dehkordi, & Ahokangas, 2022) and are examples of a contemporary business context where managers need to develop novel legitimation processes. 

This track invites papers that explore and/or explain how new business models – digital, service, sustainable, circular, ecosystemic, public organization, and social – are legitimated or achieve legitimacy in empirical contexts such as smart energy, creative industries, AI, 6G and Metverse, and how the legitimacy of new business models could be approached from theoretical perspectives. Papers that focus on business model innovation and its linkages with legitimacy and legitimation are welcome.

• Biloslavo, R., Bagnoli, C., Massaro, M., & Cosentino, A. (2020). Business model transformation toward sustainability: the impact of legitimation. Management Decision, Vol. 58 No. 8, pp. 1643-1662.
• Lanzolla, G., & Markides, C. (2021). A business model view of strategy. Journal of Management Studies, 58(2), 540-553.
• Press, M., Robert, I., & Maillefert, M. (2020). The role of linked legitimacy in sustainable business model development. Industrial Marketing Management, 89, 566-577.
• Schiavi, G. S., & Behr, A. (2018). Emerging technologies and new business models: a review on disruptive business models. Innovation & Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 338-355.
• Snihur, Y., & Bocken, N. (2022). A call for action: The impact of business model innovation on business ecosystems, society, and planet. Long Range Planning, 102182.
• Thomas, L. D., & Ritala, P. (2022). Ecosystem legitimacy emergence: A collective action view. Journal of Management, 48(3), 515-541.
• Turcan, R. V. (2020). An Autoethnographic Inquiry into the Emergence of New Forms and Ways of Organizing. Communication & Language at Work - CLAW, 7(1), 136-153
• Zhang, J., Gisca, O., Sadeghian Dehkordi, R., & Ahokangas, P (2022). Ecosystem legitimacy challenges in the platform, data, and artificial intelligence business mdoels. Journal of Business Models, (ja).
• Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: recent developments and future research. Journal of management, 37(4), 1019-1042.

Go to Submission Guidelines

Track chairs: Nikhilesh Dholakia and Ian Reyes

Innovations and newness occur  in modern and traditional contexts. We are familiar with newness in modern, contemporary settings and recognise the ephemeral, liquid nature of contemporary innovations and forms of newness (Bauman 2006). Innovation and newness in traditional contexts require greater effort to unearth and understand (Brown 2021). The contemporary world can benefit from traditional forms of innovation and newness. Conventional views equate and conflate newness with the breaking of traditions, recent research has sought to connect tradition with innovation (De Massis et al, 2016) identifying it as a competitive advantage (Suddaby et al, 2020; Suddaby & Jaskiewicz, 2020). Contexts range from tribal to venerable organisations, where best practices are ingrained in seemingly inviolable traditions. Disruptive change threatens traditional practices. Yet, innovative responses arise. Tradition can be invented and legitimated (Hobsbawm 1982).  Where does this leave understanding of the interplay of legitimation with traditional and modern contexts? 

Recognising the variety of contexts and how they affect and are affected by types of legitimation we are seeking papers that explore legitimation processes in traditional and/or modern contexts, e.g., ecosystem-centred and human-centred personal data management, FinTech, Brexit, de-globalization and late globalization (Turcan 2016; Turcan et al. 2020). We invite research-based papers – conceptual insights, literature-derived meta-learning, observation and analysis-based papers, fieldwork-based papers, experimental studies, survey-based studies, simulations – that compare, contrast, and interrelate modern and traditional forms of newness. We are interested in how legitimation is achieved (see, e.g., Turcan 2018), failures in legitimizing (Suddaby et al. 2017), how conceptualizations of legitimacy and legitimation come under transformational pressures (see, e.g., Berger & Luckmann 1967; Lyotard 1984).

• Bauman, Z. (2006). Liquid Times: Living in an Age of Uncertainty (1st edition). Cambridge: Polity.
• Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Anchor.
• Brown, David H. (2021), Santería enthroned: art, ritual, and innovation in an Afro-Cuban religion. Routledge, 2021.
• De Massis, A., Frattini, F., Kotlar, J., Petruzzelli, A. M., & Wright, M. (2016). Innovation through tradition: Lessons from innovative family businesses and directions for future research. Academy of management Perspectives, 30(1), 93-116.
• Hobsbawm, E. (1992). The invention of tradition. Cambridge University Press.
• Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Schechner, Richard (2003), The future of ritual: Writings on culture and performance. Routledge.
• Suddaby, R., Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2017). Legitimacy. Academy of Management Annals, 11, 451–478
• Suddaby, R., Coraiola, D., Harvey, C., & Foster, W. (2020). History and the micro‐foundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 41(3), 530-556.
• Suddaby, R., & Jaskiewicz, P. (2020). Managing traditions: A critical capability for family business success. Family Business Review, 33(3), 234-243.
• Turcan, R. V. (2016). Exploring Late Globalization: A Viewpoint. Markets, Globalization & Development Review 1 (2): 4.
• Turcan, R. V. (2018). Sociology of Knowledge Perspective on Entrepreneurship. In R. V. Turcan & N. M. Fraser (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Entrepreneurship (pp. 433–455). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
• Turcan, R. V., Boujarzadeh, B. and Dholakia, N. (2020). Late Globalization and Evolution, Episodes and Epochs of Industries: Evidence from Danish Textile and Fashion Industry, 1945–2015. Thunderbird International Business Review 62: 515–530.

Go to Submission Guidelines

Track chairs: Alicia Blanco-González, Giorgia Miotto, Susana Díaz Iglesias

Legitimacy is a key element for success (Díez-Martín et al., 2021) and survival (Deephouse et al, 2017; Suchman, 1995). Organizations earn legitimacy by complying with social norms, beliefs and rules (Scott, 1995) and fulfilling stakeholder expectations (Deephouse et al., 2017). The Covid-19 pandemic, geopolitical insecurity, and economic uncertainty create a complex, ambiguous and uncertain environment (Díez-Martín et al., 2022). This affects perceptions and habits, creating new behaviours. If organizations do not adapt to the new behaviours, they lose competitive advantages and legitimacy (Miotto et al., 2020).

This track invites papers that explore how organizations, politics, institutions should/do legitimate their response to new behaviour and habits. This may include new consumption paradigm biased by psychological variables such as anxiety or fear (Kemp et., 2021), or panic (Islam et al., 2021; Omar et al., 2021); new purchasing systems as NFTEs, bitcoins (Albayati et al., 2020); new behaviour based on apps and technology (Degen & Kleeberg-Niepage, 2022); hybrid educational formats (Bojović et al., 2020); post-pandemic employee behaviour (Barrena‐Martinez et al., 2019); astroturfing, fake news, post truth politics, populism, science denial and higher education internationalization (Turcan & Reilly, 2020; Turcan et al., 2021).

• Albayati, H., Kim, S. K., & Rho, J. J. (2020). Accepting financial transactions using blockchain technology and cryptocurrency: A customer perspective approach. Technology in Society, 62
• Barrena‐Martinez, J., López‐Fernández, M., & Romero‐Fernández, P. M. (2019). The link between socially responsible human resource management and intellectual capital. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(1), 71–81.
• Bojović, Ž., Bojović, P. D., Vujošević, D., & Šuh, J. (2020). Education in times of crisis: Rapid transition to distance learning. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 28(6), 1467–1489.
• Deephouse, D. L., Bundy, J., Tost, L. ., & Suchman, M. (2017). Organizational legitimacy: Six key questions. The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 27–54.
• Degen, J., & Kleeberg-Niepage, A. (2022). The More We Tinder: Subjects, Selves and Society. Human Arenas, 5(1), 179–195.
• Díez-Martín, F., Miotto, G., & Cachón-Rodríguez, G. (2022). Organizational legitimacy perception: Gender and uncertainty as bias for evaluation criteria. Journal of Business Research, 139(June 2021), 426–436.
• Díez-Martín, F., Blanco-González, A., & Prado-Román, C. (2021). The intellectual structure of organizational legitimacy research: a co-citation analysis in business journals. Review of Managerial Science.
• Islam, T., Pitafi, A. H., Arya, V., Wang, Y., Akhtar, N., Mubarik, S., & Xiaobei, L. (2021). Panic buying in the COVID-19 pandemic: A multi-country examination. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 59, 102357.
• Kemp, E., Bui, M. (Myla), & Porter  McDowell, I. I. I. (2021). Preparing for a crisis: examining the influence of fear and anxiety on consumption and compliance. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 38(3), 282–292.
• Miotto, G., Del-Castillo-Feito, C., & Blanco-González, A. (2020). Reputation and legitimacy: Key factors for Higher Education Institutions’ sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Business Research.
• Omar, N. A., Nazri, M. A., Ali, M. H., & Alam, S. S. (2021). The panic buying behavior of consumers during the COVID-19 pandemic: Examining the influences of uncertainty, perceptions of severity, perceptions of scarcity, and anxiety. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 62, 102600.
• Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations SAGE publications. Inc USA.
• Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
• Turcan, R. V. and Reilly, J. E. (Eds.) (2020). Populism and Higher Education Curriculum Development: Problem Based Learning as a Mitigating Response. Palgrave Macmillan
• Turcan, R., Juho, A., & Reilly, J. (2021). Advanced Structural Internationalization of Universities is Unethical. Organization, 28(6), 1059-1067.

Go to Submission Guidelines