Call for Papers

Technology has traditionally been at the core of the evolution of professions (Abbott, 1988). Technology affects professions by triggering a series of interlinked alterations to work and organizing practices, role relationships, and broader professional networks and structures (Barley, 1986; 2020; Bechky, 2020; Leonardi & Barley, 2010; Mazmanian, 2013). Professions, on the other hand, influence technology either by conditioning its interpretation or more simply by discounting or engaging with it (Nelson & Irwin, 2014).

Disruptive technologies – such as digital technologies based on artificial intelligence systems, robotics, cybersecurity, gene editing – however, aim to change the way the world works, thereby challenging our current understanding of the interplay between professions and technology.¹ Although the potential for disruptive technologies is not new, many technologies being pursued today are distinguished by complexity, in terms of their underlying algorithms; opacity, in terms of the processes they rely on; and scale, in terms of their distributedness across and beyond organizational boundaries. These characteristics of contemporary technologies have prompted some authors to refer to their adoption and implementation as a third-order technology revolution, in which “technologies mediate the relationship between users and prompters, where users and prompters are technologies themselves” (Floridi, 2014: 29). This third-order revolution could be embraced to identify novel solutions to tackle wicked problems or societal challenges, such as technologies to fight pandemics, climate change, or poverty-related issues (Ferraro, Etzion, & Gehman, 2015).
 
To wit, several streams of research have started to investigate how professionals and teams of professionals deal with the adoption and implementation of disruptive technologies in the workplace, and on the implications of such interaction for professional learning, practices, sensemaking and identities. However, we know relatively little about how professions – or systems of professions – are affected by and, in turn, affect the adoption and implementation of such technologies at the field-, market-, and societal level. In particular, we highlight four research areas as promising for further inquiry into the interplay between professions and disruptive technologies at the institutional level.
 
First, the distributedness feature of disruptive technologies triggers an interest in dynamics and strategies of multi-stakeholder engagement and their impact on the implementation and diffusion of such technologies. This also raises questions on the governance of technologies at the field-, market-, and societal level and, specifically on mechanisms of collaboration and coordination among different actors and levels, including professional associations, market and policy regulators, and private firms. In turn, the newly formed field-level governance around these technologies has the potential to change the relationships and boundaries across professions and ecologies of professions (Abbott, 2005) more broadly. We expect multi-stakeholder engagement and inter-professional collaboration dynamics to be particularly important for technologies related to societal challenges, given their complex, non-linear and emerging nature (Gehman, Etzion, & Ferraro, 2022).
 
Second, the relationship between professions and disruptive technologies is permeated by both uncertainty and ambiguity. While uncertainty can be partially overcome by increasing the availability of information, ambiguity might be a pervasive and long-standing element of the relationship (Cappellaro, Compagni, & Vaara, 2023), stemming from the multiple – potentially conflicting – meanings and roles attributed to technology. Professions may leverage ambiguity in and around disruptive technologies, or even strategically create it, to protect their jurisdictional boundaries, power, and identities. Yet, it is not clear to which extent they can – or may be willing to - engage in these types of strategies and when their efforts are more likely to be successful.
 
Third, the sustained adoption and implementation of disruptive technologies pose interesting questions about professional ethics and equity. Disruptive technologies alter the boundaries between professions and between these and other individuals or group of individuals and lead to an increase or a decrease in the likelihood of professional misconduct (Gabbioneta et al., 2019; Muzio et al., 2016). In addition, some professions, such as computer scientists, are likely to play a significant role in the design of the algorithms underpinning disruptive technologies, with potentially important implications for the equilibrium between professions and society more broadly.
 
Finally, disruptive technologies might impact core dynamics of the profession, including how professional knowledge is produced, altered, or discarded. On the one hand, it is not clear how professional knowledge is created in contexts of pervasive ambiguity as those potentially created by disruptive technologies. On the other hand, it is still to be understood how this knowledge is shared within the profession, and possibly within systems of professions. Disruptive technologies are likely to alter traditional knowledge production and sharing mechanisms such as training and working with colleagues (e.g., Anderson-Gough, Grey, & Robson, 2018; Hitt et al., 2001; Maister, 1993) and, thereby, have a strong impact on professions, in particular with reference to the socialization of new members within the profession.
 
In this sub-theme, we invite papers that explore the interplay between disruptive technologies and professions, with an emphasis on domains affected by technologies such as digital technologies based on artificial intelligence systems, robotics, cybersecurity, gene editing, and so forth, which might be developed to address specific societal challenges. We are especially interested in papers that take a macro, field-level perspective on this issue, giving attention to the institutional stakes. We encourage empirical and theoretical papers with a variety of theoretical lenses (e.g., organization theory, science & technology studies, sociology of professions, institutional theory, public policy etc.) and methodological approaches. Here are some example topics that would fit with this sub-theme:

• How do disruptive technologies change the relationships and boundaries across professions and ecologies of professions?

• How can disruptive technologies be developed to tackle complex societal challenges?

• How do professionals and professional associations collaborate with networks of stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, private providers, user associations) to regulate, adopt and scale up disruptive technologies at the field level? What governance arrangements emerge?

• How can professions leverage and/or strategically crate ambiguity in and around disruptive technologies to protect their jurisdictional boundaries, power, and identities?

• How do disruptive technologies affect knowledge creation and/or sharing within professions?

• How can disruptive technologies trigger the re-configuration of existing professions or the creation of new ones? What processes and/or mechanisms account for these dynamics of re-configuration and creation?

References

• Abbott, A. (1988): The System of Professions: An Essay on the Expert Division of Labor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Abbott, A. (2005): “Linked Ecologies: States and Universities as Environments for Professions.” Sociological Theory, 23 (3), 245–274.
• Anderson-Gough, F., Gray, C., & Robson, K. (2018): Making Up Accountants. The Organizational and Professional Socialization of Trainee Chartered Accountants. London: Routledge.
• Barley, S.R. (1986): “Technology as an Occasion for Structuring: Evidence from Observations of CT Scanners and the Social Order of Radiology Departments.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 31 (1), 78–108.
• Barley, S.R. (2020): Work and Technological Change. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Bechky, B.A. (2020): “Evaluative Spillovers from Technological Change: The Effects of ‘DNA Envy’ on Occupational Practices in Forensic Science.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 65 (3), 606–643.
• Cappellaro, G., Compagni, A., & Vaara, E. (2023): Ambiguity in Organization Theory: From Intrinsic to Strategic Perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. (2015): “Tackling Grand Challenges Pragmatically: Robust Action Revisited.” Organization studies, 36 (3), 363–390.
• Floridi, L. (2014): The Fourth Revolution. How the Infosphere is Reshaping Human Reality. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Gabbioneta C, Faulconbridge J, Currie G, Dinovitzer R, & Muzio D. (2019): “Inserting professionals and professional organizations in studies of wrongdoing: The nature, antecedents and consequences of professional misconduct.” Human Relations, 72 (11), 1707–1725.
• Gehman, J., Etzion, D., & Ferraro, F. (2022): “Robust Action: Advancing a Distinctive Approach to Grand Challenges.” In: A.A. Gümüsay, E. Marti, H. Tritting-Ulbrich & C. Wickert (eds.): Organizing for Societal Grand Challenges. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.
• Hitt, M.A., Bierman, L., Shimizu, K., & Kochhar, R. (2001): “Direct and Moderating Effects of Human Capital on Strategy and Performance in Professional Service Firms: A Resource-Based Perspective.” Academy of Management Journal, 44 (1), 13–28.
• Leonardi, P.M., & Barley, S.R. (2010): “What’s Under Construction Here? Social Action, Materiality, and Power in Constructivist Studies of Technology and Organizing.” Academy of Management Annals, 4 (1), 1–51.
• Maister, D.H. (1993): Managing the Professional Service Firm. New York: Simon & Schuster.
• Mazmanian, M. (2013): “Avoiding the Trap of Constant Connectivity: When Congruent Frames Allow for Heterogeneous Practices.” Academy of Management Journal, 56 (5), 1225–1250.
• Muzio, D., Faulconbridge, J., Gabbioneta, C., & Greenwood, R. (2016): “Bad apples, bad barrels, and bad cellars: a ‘boundaries’ perspective on professional misconduct.” In: D. Palmer, K. Smith-Crowe & R. Greenwood (eds.): Organizational Wrongdoing: Key Perspectives and New Directions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 141–175.
•