-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [AISWorld] Call for papers: Special Issue: Information Systems Journal Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 08:44:24 +0000 From: Boyka Simeonova B.Simeonova@lboro.ac.uk To: aisworld@lists.aisnet.org aisworld@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@lists.aisnet.org