-------- Forwarded Message --------
*EGOS 2022, Vienna, Sub-theme 23: Digital Technology, Societal
Change and
Shifts in Institutional Logics*
*Convenors:*
*Isam Faik*
Western University, Canada
ifaik@ivey.ca <%20ifaik@ivey.ca>
*Eivor Oborn*
University of Warwick, United Kingdom
Eivor.Oborn@wbs.ac.uk <%20Eivor.Oborn@wbs.ac.uk>
*Patricia H. Thornton*
Texas A&M University, USA, & HEC Paris, France
phthornton@tamu.edu <%20phthornton@tamu.edu>
------------------------------
Call for Papers
------------------------------
Digital technologies are increasingly seen as a source of
large-scale
societal changes, including positive transformations and grand
societal
challenges. On the one hand, the incorporation of digital
technologies in
our modes for organizing social and economic activities is
contributing to
poverty alleviation (Jha et al., 2016), social inclusion (Andrade
& Doolin,
2016), and increased political participation (Selander &
Jarvenpaa, 2016).
On the other hand, it is leading to higher levels of systemic
risks
(Tarafdar et al., 2013), lower standards in employment conditions
(Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2012), and the undermining of
democratic processes
(Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017).
Advancing a theoretical understanding of how large-scale societal
changes
are related to the materiality (Jones et al., 2017) of digital
technologies
requires attention to how technology is becoming integral to the
wide range
of institutional processes that define twenty-first century
societies. In
particular, understanding societal-level changes requires analyses
of the
ways technology is becoming a defining element of the
institutional logics
that shape individual cognition, action and evaluation in the
different
areas of social life (Faik et al., 2020). Such analyses enable us
to
explore how technology is altering the multiplicity of logics in
different
domains and generating new institutional arrangements. Further
analyses can
also help us explore how the multiplicity of institutional logics
might
shape and influence the way technologies become used, which goals
are
attended to, and which stakeholders or agents become more active
in the
process of societal change (Oborn et al., 2021). We need studies
for
example that investigate how and why some institutional logics are
becoming
more salient as a result of technological change while other
logics are
being undermined and silenced (Gawer & Phillips, 2013).
Studies are needed
to examine how technological change is increasing the
compatibility of
certain institutional logics while heightening the contradictions
and
tensions among others (Berente & Yoo, 2012).
Despite significant advances in theorizing technology as a carrier
of
institutions (Scott, 2013), the focus in the literature has been
on
institutional relationships at the organizational and
inter-organizational
levels (Winter et al., 2014). There is now a need for more studies
that can
enrich our theoretical repertoire for explaining the implications
of
technological change at the societal level. We need to advance our
theorizing of the constitutive role of technology in large-scale
societal
changes, for example by enabling new actor constellations (Hining
et al.,
2018), rendering the availability, accessibility, and activation
of certain
logics (Gawer & Phillips, 2013), and linking collective action
to new
sources of meaning (Raviola & Norbak, 2013). This sub-theme
aims to
contribute to the development of our theoretical repertoire for
studying
the complex relationships between technology and societal change,
along
with its implications for individuals and organizations. We
therefore call
for empirical and conceptual papers that examine the relationship
between
technological change and the ongoing shifts in established
institutional
arrangements.
More specifically, we invite papers from a variety of
methodological
traditions, focusing on (but not limited to) the following issues:
- How are emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence,
blockchain, and the internet of things, challenging or reinforcing
dominant
institutional logics or activating previously dormant
institutional logics?
- How does the rapid scaling of new technologies, such as social
media,
alter institutions and institutional logics?
- How are digital technologies enabling and/or constraining the
emergence of hybrid institutional logics, hybrid organizing and
collaborative governance (Pache & Thornton, 2021; Besharov
& Mitzinneck,
2021)?
- How do digital technologies interact with the categorical
elements of
institutional logics such as expressions of identity, authority,
and
legitimacy (Thornton et al., 2012)?
- How does the interaction of institutions and digital
technologies
affect societal outcomes such as inclusion, equality, and
prosperity? How
might these interactions influence the responses to crisis, or the
recalibration of ‘new normal’ after a crisis?
- How is the growing prevalence of digital technologies creating
new
institutional conditions that support solutions to societal
challenges such
as natural disasters and pandemics (Gümüsay et al., 2020)?
- How does a focus on digital technology change what we know,
i.e.,
theoretical mechanisms and scope conditions, of classic theory,
e.g., loose
coupling and symbolic management (Meyer & Rowan, 1977;
Westphal & Park,
2020) and isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) in
neo-institutional
theory, conflicting logics in the institutional logics perspective
(Thornton et al., 2012), valuation of categories (Durand &
Paolella, 2016;
Durand & Thornton, 2018; Zuckerman, 2017) and organizational
and
institutional hybridity (Battilana et al., 2017)?
- How do digital technologies and institutions interact to impact
contemporary popular press and public policy issues such as
democratic
election integrity, voter fraud, fake news, media bias, and big
technology
censorship?
- How does fragmentation of the institutional environment and
contending
institutional logics affect how digital technologies are used and
evaluated?
------------------------------
*References*
------------------------------
- Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017): “Social Media and Fake
News in the
2016 Election.” *Journal of Economic Perspectives*, 31 (2),
211–236.
- Andrade, A.D., & Doolin, B. (2016): “Information and
communication
technology and the social inclusion of refugees.” *MIS Quarterly*,
40
(2), 405–416.
- Battilana, J., Besharov, M., & Mitzinneck, B. (2017): “On
hybrids and
hybrid organizing: a review and roadmap for future research.” In:
R.
Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. Lawrence & R. Meyer (eds.): *The SAGE
Handbook
of Organizational Institutionalism*. Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Publications,
133–169.
- Berente, N., & Yoo, Y. (2012): “Institutional contradictions
and loose
coupling: Postimplementation of NASA’s enterprise information
system.” *Information
Systems Research*, 23 (2), 376–396.
- Besharov, M.L., & B.C. Mitzinneck(2020): “Heterogeneity in
Organizational Hybridity: A Configurational, Situated, and Dynamic
Approach.” In: M.L. Besharov & B.C. Mitzinneck (eds.):
*Organizational
Hybridity: Perspectives, Processes, Promises.* Research in the
Sociology
of Organizations, 69. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, 3–25.
- Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2012): *Race Against the
Machine: How
the Digital Revolution is Accelerating Innovation, Driving
Productivity,
and Irreversibly Transforming Employment and the Economy*.
Lexington:
Digital Frontier Press.
- DiMaggio, P.J., & Powell, W.W. (1983): “The iron cage
revisited:
Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in
organizational
fields.” *American Sociological Review*, 48 (2), 147–160.
- Durand, R., & Thornton, P.H. (2018): “Categorizing
Institutional
Logics, Institutionalizing Categories: A Review of Two
Literatures.” *Academy
of Management Annals*, 12 (2), 1–27.
- Faik, I., Barrett, M., & Oborn, E. (2020): “How Information
Technology
Matters In Societal Change: An Affordance-Based Institutional
Logics
Perspective.” *MIS Quarterly*, 44 (3), 1359–1390.
- Gawer, A., & Phillips, N. (2013): “Institutional work as
logics shift:
The case of Intel’s transformation to platform leader.”
*Organization
Studies*, 34 (8), 1035–1071.
- Gümüsay, A.A., Claus, L., & Amis, J. (2020): “Engaging grand
challenges: An Institutional Logics perspective.” *Organization
Theory*,
1 (3).
- Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., Greenwood, R. (2018): “Digital
innovation
and transformation: An institutional perspective.” *Information
and
Organization*, 28 (1), 52–61.
- Jha, S.K., Pinsonneault, A., & Dubé, L. (2016): “The
Evolution of an
ICT Platform-Enabled Ecosystem for Poverty Alleviation: The Case
of
eKutir.” *MIS Quarterly*, 40 (2), 431–445.
- Jones, C., Meyer, R.E., Jancsary, D., & Hollerer, M.A.
(2017): “The
material and visual basis of institutions.” In: R. Greenwood, C.
Oliver, T.
Lawrence & R.E. Meyer (eds.): *The SAGE Handbook of
Organizational
Institutionalism*. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 133–169.
- Meyer, J.W., & Rowan, B. (1977): “Institutionalized
organizations:
Formal structure as myth and ceremony.” *American Journal of
Sociology*,
83 (2), 340–363.
- Paolella, L., & Durand, R. (2016): “Category spanning,
evaluation, and
performance: Revised theory and test on the corporate law market.”
*Academy
of Management Journal*, 59 (1), 330–351.
- Pache, A.-C., & Thornton, P.H. (2020): “Hybridity and
Institutional
Logics.” In: M.L. Besharov & B.C. Mitzinneck (eds.):
*Organizational
Hybridity: Perspectives, Processes, Promises*. Research in the
Sociology
of Organizations, 69. Bingley, Emerald Publishing Limited, 29–52.
- Oborn, E., Pilosof, N.P., Hinings, B., & Zimlichman, E.
(2021):
“Institutional logics and innovation in times of crisis:
Telemedicine as
digital ‘PPE’.” *Information and Organization*, 31 (1), 100340.
- Scott, W.W.R. (2013): *Institutions and Organizations: Ideas,
Interests, and Identities*. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
- Selander, L., & Jarvenpaa, S.L. (2016): “Digital Action
Repertoires
and Transforming a Social Movement Organization.” *MIS Quarterly*,
40
(2), 331–352.
- Raviola, E., & Norbäck, M. (2013): “Bringing Technology and
Meaning
into Institutional Work: Making News at an Italian Business
Newspaper.” *Organization
Studies*, 34 (8), 1171–1194.
- Tarafdar, M., Gupta, A., & Turel, O. (2013): “The dark side
of
information technology use.” *Information Systems Journal*, 23,
269–275.
- Thornton, P.H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012): *The
Institutional
Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure and
Process*.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Westphal, J., & Park, S.H. (2020): *Symbolic Management:
Governance,
Strategy and Institutions*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Winter, S., Berente, N., Howison, J., & Butler, B. (2014):
“Beyond the
organizational ‘container’: Conceptualizing 21st century
sociotechnical
work.” *Information and Organization*, 24 (4), 250–269.
- Zuckerman, E.W. (2017): “The Categorical Imperative Revisited:
Implications of Categorization as a Theoretical Tool.” In: E.W.
Zuckerman: *From
Categories to Categorization: Studies in Sociology, Organizations
and
Strategy at the Crossroads*. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited,
31–68.
https://www.egos.org/jart/prj3/egos/main.jart?rel=de&reserve-mode=active&content-id=1630409885853&subtheme_id=1604725630318
_______________________________________________
AISWorld mailing list
AISWorld@lists.aisnet.org