-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [AISWorld] Call for papers: Special Issue: Information Systems
Journal
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 10:45:26 +0000
From: Boyka Simeonova <B.Simeonova(a)lboro.ac.uk>
To: aisworld(a)lists.aisnet.org <aisworld(a)lists.aisnet.org>
Special Issue: Information Systems Journal
Power dynamics in organisations and the role of information systems
While power is described as an integral part of organisations, it is
also stressed that power dynamics are under-theorised (Blackler, 2011;
Contu and Willmott, 2003; Jasperson et al., 2002; Marabelli and
Galliers, 2017). The aim of this special issue is to unpack power
dynamics in organisations and explore the role of information systems in
these dynamics.
An ambiguous concept, there is a plethora of views on what constitutes
power (Jasperson et al., 2002). The following provides a summary. Power
has been explained variously as legitimate, expert and referent (French
and Raven, 1959); functionalist, interpretive and radical
(Bradshaw-Camball and Murray, 1991); episodic and systemic (Kärreman,
2010; Lawrence et al., 2012). Legitimate power relates to power stemming
from organisational hierarchies, where people occupying higher levels
have the 'legitimate' right to influence the behaviours of others.
Expert power stems from the expertise and knowledge people possess,
while referent power is related to the access to resources (French and
Raven, 1959). Within the functionalist perspective, Bradshaw-Camball and
Murray (1991) differentiate between the pluralist view, which "focuses
on overt stakeholder behaviours such as coalition formation and
bargaining" and the rationalist view, which "focuses on the legitimate
authority of top management and the intended rationality of its decision
making activities" (Bradshaw- Camball and Murray, 1991, p. 381). The
interpretivist view of power sees it as being exercised by controlling
others without them being aware of the control mechanisms being used to
achieve goals. From the radical perspective, power is found in social
relationships and it is embedded in a structure of rules
(Bradshaw-Camball and Murray, 1991). From an episodic/'power over'
perspective, power is seen as a restraining force and is linked, for
example, to control, coercion, influencing others and authority (Clegg
et al., 2006; Kärreman, 2010; Lawrence et al., 2012). From a systemic
perspective power, can be seen as a productive force with systemic
'power to' being embedded in social relations (Clegg et al., 2006;
Kärreman, 2010; Lawrence et al., 2012).
Power issues and dynamics are often conceptualised as tensions,
paradoxes and conflicts (e.g., Smith et al., 2017), and are analytically
manifested in the form of, inter alia, status effects, majority issues,
conformance pressure, deviance and non-conformity, gender, and
generational differences that can have a negative impact in
organisations (e.g., Bunderson and Reagans, 2011; Heizmann, 2011; Raman
and Bharadwaj, 2012). Examples of power dynamics in organisations are
evident in the following contexts and activities:
* - Organisational change;
* - Strategising;
* - Knowledge management;
* - Coordination, learning and collective action;
* - Inter- and intra-organisational work and across organisational
hierarchies;
* - Organisational structure, rules, social networks;
* - Communities of practice;
* - Leadership, interpersonal power;
* - Technology use and technology implementation;
* - Roles, social relationships, empowerment.
Notwithstanding this extensive research on power and power dynamics in
organisations, and the seminal work of Markus (1983) for example,
research on the role of IS in this regard is still limited. This is
surprising given the increasing role of digital technology in
organisations and the consequent research undertaken on the use of
social computing and collaborative tools to transform organisations
(e.g., Baptista et al., 2017; Forsgren and Byström, 2018). While some
research on power issues in the IS field has considered, for example,
the role and use of boundary objects, communication and collaboration
(Sapsed and Salter, 2004), knowledge sharing (Simeonova, 2017), how
technology impacts organisational power relations (Allen et al., 2013;
Jasperson et al., 2002) and workarounds (Malaurent and Avison, 2016),
few other studies have been undertaken. In light of this, scholars have
argued for further research on power dynamics in organisations
specifically in relation to the role that IS might play (Koch et al.,
2013). Moreover, it has been stressed that the predominant orientation
taken on power within the IS, Management and Organisation Studies
literature remains the episodic/'power over' perspective (Hislop, 2013).
In order to rebalance and advance research on power dynamics in
organisations and IS, this special issue encourages submissions
exploring different forms and manifestations of power. We make this call
in the belief that such research is particularly pertinent and timely in
light of the emergence and growth of digital innovation, online
communities; work transformations, and new ways of organising.
Objectives and Criteria for Submissions for the Special Issue
Thus, the objective of this Special Issue is to examine issues around IS
and power by drawing on extant research in the fields of IS,
Management and Organisation Studies. We seek relevant and rigorous
submissions that address a combination of the following in the context
of power dynamics as outlined above:
· Effects of IS on transformations of power dynamics in organisations;
· Power dynamics in organisations. Effects of different forms of power
(episodic/power over and systemic/power to) as well as status effects,
majority issues, conformance pressure, deviance and non-conformity,
gender, and generational differences;
* Dimensions (different levels of analysis, multiple perspectives) -
individual, organisational, social, technological;
* Novel theoretical and methodological approaches;
* The role of technology in reinforcing power structures or emancipating
actors;
* Consequences for the field of IS, and reflections on its
trans-disciplinarity.
Submissions should broadly address or relate to the aforementioned
aspects in their contribution to theory and practice. Ideally,
submissions will provide new understandings of IS in work and social
settings and the transformations taking place. Submissions will be
evaluated using rigorous criteria associated with high quality academic
research.
Authors are encouraged to submit an extended abstract for early
feedback. The extended abstract should not exceed 5 pages, including a
cover page (containing title, keywords, and author details), an
explanation of the rationale for the study/paper, an overview of the
research and analysis undertaken, details of expected contributions,
consideration of fit with the special issue, and a list of illustrative
references. The extended abstracts and the full papers should meet the
ISJ formatting guidelines and be submitted using the online submission
system.
Indicative Timetable
1st December 2018: Deadline for full papers
February 2019: Reviews returned
August 2019: Revised papers submitted
November 2019: Second reviews returned
March 2020: Final papers submitted
Special Issue Guest Senior Editors
Dr Boyka Simeonova, Loughborough University, UK
Prof. Bob Galliers, Bentley University, USA and Loughborough University, UK
Dr Stan Karanasios, RMIT University, Australia
Special Issue Guest Associate Editors
Dr Alessia Contu, UMass Boston, USA
Prof. Jason Dedrick, Syracuse University, USA
Prof. Niall Hayes, University of Lancaster, UK
Prof. Ola Henfridsson, Warwick Business School, UK
Prof. Donald Hislop, Loughborough University, UK
Dr Marco Marabelli, Bentley University, USA
Dr Stella Pachidi, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, UK
Dr Arisa Shollo, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Bibliography
Allen, D. K., Brown, A., Karanasios, S., & Norman, A. (2013). How should
technology- mediated organizational change be explained? A comparison of
the contributions of critical realism and activity theory. MIS
Quarterly, 37, 835-854.
Baptista, J., Wilson, A. D., Galliers, R. D., & Bynghall, S. (2017).
Social media and the emergence of reflexiveness as a new capability for
open strategy. Long Range Planning, 50, 322-336.
Blackler, F. (2011). Power, politics, and intervention theory: Lessons
from organization studies. Theory & Psychology, 21, 724-734.
Bradshaw-Camball, P. & Murray, V. V. (1991). Illusions and other games:
A trifocal view of organizational politics. Organization Science, 2,
379-398.
Bunderson, J. S. & Reagans, R. E. (2011). Power, status, and learning in
organizations. Organization Science, 22, 1182-1194.
Clegg, S., Courpasson, D. and Phillips, N. (2006). Power and
Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Contu, A. & Willmott, H. (2003). Re-embedding situatedness: The
importance of power relations in learning theory. Organization Science,
14, 283-296.
Forsgren, E. and K. Byström (2018). Multiple social media in the
workplace: Contradictions and congruencies. Information Systems Journal,
doi:10.1111/isj.12156.
French, J. R. & Raven, B. (1959). The Bases of Social Power. In:
Shafritz, J. M., Ott, J. S., & Jang, Y. S. (eds). Classics of
Organization Theory, Cengage Learning.
Heizmann, H. (2011). Knowledge sharing in a dispersed network of HR
practice: Zooming in on power/knowledge struggles. Management Learning,
42, 379-393.
Hislop, D. (2013). Knowledge Management in Organizations: A critical
introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jasperson, J. S., Carte, T. A., Saunders, C. S., Butler, B. S., Croes,
H. J. & Zheng, W. (2002). Review: Power and information technology
research: A metatriangulation review. MIS Quarterly, 26, 397-459.
Kärreman, D. (2010). The Power of Knowledge: Learning from 'Learning by
Knowledge- Intensive Firm'. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 1405-1416.
Koch, H., Leidner, D. E. & Gonzalez, E. S. (2013). Digitally enabling
social networks: Resolving IT-culture conflict. Information Systems
Journal, 23, 501-523.
Lawrence, T. B., Malhotra, N. & Morris, T. (2012). Episodic and systemic
power in the transformation of professional service firms. Journal of
Management Studies, 49, 102-143.
Malaurent, J. & Avison, D. (2016). Reconciling global and local needs: A
canonical action research project to deal with workarounds. Information
Systems Journal, 26, 227-257.
Marabelli, M. & Galliers, R. D. (2017). A reflection on information
systems strategizing: The role of power and everyday practices.
Information Systems Journal, 27, 347-366.
Markus, M. L. (1983). Power, politics, and MIS implementation.
Communications of the ACM, 26, 430-444.
Raman, R. & Bharadwaj, A. (2012), Power differentials and performative
deviation paths in practice transfer: The case of evidence-based
medicine, Organization Science, 23, 1593- 1621.
Sapsed, J. & Salter, A. (2004). Postcards from the edge: local
communities, global programs and boundary objects. Organization Studies,
25, 1515-1534.
Simeonova, B. (2018). Transactive memory systems and Web 2.0 in
knowledge sharing: A conceptual model based on activity theory and
critical realism. Information Systems Journal, 28, 592-611.
Smith, W. K., Erez, M., Jarvenpaa, S., Lewis, M. W. & Tracey, P. (2017).
Adding Complexity to Theories of Paradox, Tensions, and Dualities of
Innovation and Change: Introduction to Organization Studies Special
Issue on Paradox, Tensions, and Dualities of Innovation and Change.
Organization Studies, 38, 303-317.
_______________________________________________
AISWorld mailing list
AISWorld(a)lists.aisnet.org