Call for Papers

“The powers of ordinary men are circumscribed by the everyday worlds in which they live, yet even in these rounds of job, family and neighborhood they often seem driven by forces they can neither understand nor govern.”
(Mills, 1956, 3).

All contexts are partially constructed through the deployment of power, and by the structures of powerfulness and powerlessness that this enacts (Battilana and Casciaro 2021). In recent years, we have seen power dynamics reinforced as the importance of space has become visible in an unprecedented manner. Developed western economies are exhibiting greater rates of inter-regional inequality (Giordano 2021; OECD 2015; Santos et al. 2022) alongside now exacerbated socio-spatial inequalities unevenly impacting different socioeconomic groups, geographical areas, and localities (O’Brien et al. 2019; Bacq et al. 2020; Cholera et al. 2020; Kuckertz et al. 2020). Often minorities, immigrants, and other low-income, disadvantaged groups experience the brunt of this (Santos et al. 2022), adversely affecting investment and highlighting the precariousness of certain lives (Jones and Grigsby-Toussaint 2021; Simpson et al. 2021). We have subsequently seen many small businesses becoming fundamentally displaced and losing livelihoods entirely thus deepening socio-spatial precarity (Bartik et al. 2020). On the other hand, powerful, large, and socio-economically advantaged, often historically family-owned, businesses capitalise on the current climate as a growth opportunity (Calabrò et al. 2022; Contractor 2022), devouring resources within their local spatial context thereby holding ramifications for wider resource allocation (Acs et al. 2017; Audretsch et al. 2021; Lumpkin and Bacq 2022).
 
With little research appreciating how family business organizations unfold within the spatial context over generations, we call for work that sees such organizations as being actively involved in the construction of place rather than being constrained or enabled by its unending presence (Bika and Frazer 2021; Bika and Rosa 2022; Welter and Baker 2021; Welter et al. 2017). In taking a strong spatial perspective at the crossroads where we currently find ourselves, it is possible to reimagine alternative solutions considering the social and societal responsibilities of organizations to aid inclusion and positively impact people (Donald and Gray 2019). Our sub-theme therefore aims to question the spatial dominance of historically-prominent family business organizations in terms of shaping and/or controlling place at the expense of the ‘others’ who may slip through the net (Gartner 2013; Gill and Larson 2014). Whilst previous empirical research tends to make visible what is, our sub-theme seeks to visibly make emergent futures (Ingold 2013), inviting a more experimental and immersive approach both in our empirical inquiries and in our writing about place-based actors, such as family business organizations. We put forward that “involving stakeholders [within place] deeply and considering their heterogeneity of interests and power is likely to result in more practicable insights, especially for policy makers” (Kuckertz 2019, 5; Gherhes et al. 2020) better reflecting the heterogeneous realities of organizations (Busch and Barkema 2022), helping to rebuild resilient economies (Korsgaard et al. 2020) and ensure fairer resource allocation (Dodd et al. 2021).
 
In the name of creating a more equitable world, we welcome contributions on:

• What are the appropriate theoretical lenses and constructs to build a new family business ‘in context’ rather than a ‘by context’ point of view that takes time, space, and power seriously?

• How do family and non-family firm concentrations and interactions shape and be shaped by place, community, and region?

• If and how does economic development caused by external factors in less developed regions allow more family firms to develop (because large non-family firms do not tend to locate in poor economic environments)?

• Whether family firms by their very presence, prominence, and interactions impact negatively (or positively) upon economic, social, and regional development outcomes?

• How do family businesses influence or challenge dominant ideals within place? (e.g., through their unique organizational form, governance, practices, intentions, and actions)?

• What are the policy implications of evidencing the family business organization as a place-based actor heavily invested in competitive asymmetry?

 
In line with our emphasis on diversity and inclusivity, we are happy to offer the sub-theme as a hybrid experience. To ensure online participants feel acknowledged and included we will make certain audio equipment is functioning as well as also guaranteeing that remote participants are able to see the shared presentations and, ideally, provide sufficient video technology to capture the faces of in-room attendees when asking questions. Finally, to make sure everything goes to plan the convenor team shall be split into distinctive roles; one member will chair the sub-theme, one member will act as timekeeper, with the final member responsible for online attendees, relaying any messages or questions online to the room and vice versa. This team member will also schedule a dry run with remote participants beforehand to ensure they are comfortable with what they will see and hear during the sub-theme.
 

References

• Acs, Z. J., Stam, E., Audretsch, D. B. and O’Connor, A. (2017). The lineages of the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. Small Business Economics, 49 (1), 1-10.
• Audretsch, D. B., Mason, C., Miles, M. P. and O’Connor, A. (2021). Time and the dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 33 (1-2), 1-14.
• Bacq, S., Geoghegan, W., Josefy, M., Stevenson, R. and Williams, T. A. (2020). The COVID-19 Virtual Idea Blitz: Marshaling social entrepreneurship to rapidly respond to urgent grand challenges. Business Horizons, 63 (6), 705-723.
• Bartik, A. W., Bertrand, M., Cullen, Z., Glaeser, E. L., Luca, M. and Stanton, C. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on small business outcomes and expectations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117 (30), 17656-17666.
• Battilana, J. and Casciaro, T. (2021). Power, for all: How it really works and why it's everyone's business. London: Piatkus.
• Bika, Z. and Frazer, M. L. (2021). The affective extension of ‘family’ in the context of changing elite business networks. Human Relations, 74 (12), 1951-1993.
• Bika, Z. and Rosa, P. (2022). Regional economic performance and the differential prevalence of corporate and family business. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 16 (2), 238-259.
• Busch, C. and Barkema, H. (2022). Planned luck: How incubators can facilitate serendipity for nascent entrepreneurs through fostering network embeddedness. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46 (4), 884-919.
• Calabrò, A., Chrisman, J. J. and Kano, L. (2022). Family-owned multinational enterprises in the post-pandemic global economy. Journal of International Business Studies, 53, 920–935.
• Cholera, R., Falusi, O. O. and Linton, J. M. (2020). Sheltering in place in a xenophobic climate: COVID-19 and children in immigrant families. Pediatrics, 146 (1), 1-6.
• Contractor, F. J. (2022). The world economy will need even more globalization in the post-pandemic 2021 decade. Journal of International Business Studies, 53 (1), 156-172.
• Dodd, S., Anderson, A. and Jack, S. (2021). “Let them not make me a stone”—repositioning entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, forthcoming, 1-29.
• Donald, B. and Gray, M. (2019). The double crisis: in what sense a regional problem?. Regional Studies, 53 (2), 297-308.
• Gartner, W. B. (2013). Creating a community of difference in entrepreneurship scholarship. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 25 (1-2), 5-15.
• Gherhes, C., Brooks, C. and Vorley, T. (2020). Localism is an illusion (of power): the multi-scalar challenge of UK enterprise policy-making. Regional Studies, 54 (8), 1020-1031.
• Gill, R. and Larson, G. S. (2014). Making the ideal (local) entrepreneur: Place and the regional development of high-tech entrepreneurial identity. Human Relations, 67 (5), 519-542.
• Giordano, B. (2021). Post-Brexit regional economic development policy in the UK? Some enduring lessons from European Union Cohesion Policy. European Urban and Regional Studies, 28 (1), 26-33.
• Ingold, T. (2013). Making. London and New York: Routledge.
• Jones, A. and Grigsby-Toussaint, D. S. (2021). Housing stability and the residential context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Cities and Health, 5 (S1), S159-S161.
• Korsgaard, S., Hunt, R. A., Townsend, D. M. and Ingstrup, M. B. (2020). COVID-19 and the importance of space in entrepreneurship research and policy. International Small Business Journal, 38 (8), 697-710.
• Kuckertz, A. (2019). Let’s take the entrepreneurial ecosystem metaphor seriously! Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 11, 1-7.
• Kuckertz, A., Brändle, L., Gaudig, A., Hinderer, S., Reyes, C. A. M., Prochotta, A., Steinbrink, K. M. and Berger, E. S. (2020). Startups in times of crisis–A rapid response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 13 (e00169), 1-13.
• Lumpkin, G. T. and Bacq, S. (2022). Family business, community embeddedness, and civic wealth creation. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 13 (2), 1-6.
• Mills, C. W. (1956). The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.
• O'Brien, D. T., Farrell, C. and Welsh, B. C. (2019). Broken (windows) theory: A meta-analysis of the evidence for the pathways from neighborhood disorder to resident health outcomes and behaviors. Social Science and Medicine, 228, 272-292.
• OECD (2015). In It Together: Why Less Inequality Benefits All. Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Parkinson, C., Howorth, C. and Southern, A. (2017). The crafting of an (un) enterprising community: Context and the social practice of talk. International Small Business Journal, 35 (4), 385-404.
• Santos, S. C., Costa, S. and Morris, M. H. (2022). Entrepreneurship as a pathway into and out of poverty: a configuration perspective. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 34 (1-2), 82-109.
• Simpson, B., Harding, N., Fleming, P., Sergi, V. and Hussenot, A. (2021). The Integrative Potential of Process in a Changing World: Introduction to a special issue on power, performativity and process. Organization Studies, 42 (12), 1775-1794.
• Welter, F. and Baker, T. (2021). Moving contexts onto new roads: Clues from other disciplines. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 78 (4), 1154-1175.
• Welter, F., Baker, T., Audretsch, D. B. and Gartner, W. B. (2017). Everyday Entrepreneurship – A Call for Entrepreneurship Research to Embrace Entrepreneurial Diversity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41 (3), 311-321.
•