Call for Papers

Call for short papers (pdf)

Resilient narratives have become a prevalent feature of organizational, political and academic discourses. To be or become resilient, it is argued, is a necessary condition for navigating and thriving in an increasingly complex, interconnected and turbulent world (Trondal et al., 2022). There is a broad consensus by resilient scholars that the phenomenon under investigation does not lend itself easily to the adoption of single definitions and/or methodological approaches (Young et al., 2022). Pluralism, in its multifaceted forms, looms large across the field (Giustiniano et al., 2018), which is both a strength but also a major weakness. Inter- and trans- disciplinary endeavors have been initiated, with the boundaries of the field currently being reassessed (Frigotto & Pinheiro, in press). Recent scholarly efforts seek to shed critical light on the less tangible and/or pervasive effects, what some term ‘the dark side’ of resilience (Mahdiani & Ungar, 2021).
 
Despite these worthy scholarly efforts, the multifaceted challenges facing human kind – from the decline of liberal democracy, to climate change to the saliency of the algorithmic economy, to name just a few – urges us to continue posing critical queries as regards: a) what are the solutions?; b) who are the primary beneficiaries?; and, c) what price ought to be paid when citizens, organizations, political and administrative systems and societies more broadly embrace resilience as a legitimate template for adaptation and transformation?
 
Given the overall EGOS Colloquium theme of “Reframing Organizations in the More-than-Human Society”, the notions of ‘ethics’, ‘power’, ‘diversity’ and ‘responsibility’ play a key role. Hence, and following successful annual discussions on/around resilience at EGOS Colloquia since 2017, this sub-theme seeks to reassess past, ongoing and future scholarly and policy efforts on and about resilience at the micro, meso and macro levels. This as a means of contributing to the broader debate on how, and to what extent, to adapt existing societal structures and mechanisms to overcome current and future challenges, whilst, at the same time, mitigating pervasive or ‘dark’ consequences. This implies shedding light on critical issues such as:

• Responsible resilience: Promoting recovery measures that advance sustainable and equitable outcomes (Schaffer & Schneider, 2019);

• Ethical resilience: Critically reflecting on whether and how to avoid exploitation during planning and anticipation, fostering inclusive preparedness (Chandler, 2013);

• Democratic resilience: Recognizing that change and adaptation often contribute to increasing polarization, potentially undermining resilience in the long term (Merkel & Lührmann, 2021);

• Agentic resilience: Acknowledging the complexity associated with diverging strategic interests and power asymmetries (Kok et al., 2021);

• Resilient practices: Exploring how old and new ways of doing and organizing emerge, diffuse, co-exist, mix and ultimately die in complex and unpredictable ways (Majoor, 2015);

• Normative resilience: Unpacking hegemonic narratives and discourses associated with the individual vs. organizational vs. societal value derived from change and adaptation (Doorn & Copeland, 2023);

• Nested resilience: Illuminating key processes and mechanisms underpinning emergence, co-evolution and feedback loops, and associated non-linear effects (Zyzka & Farsund, 2025);

• Paradoxical resilience: Shedding light on the coexistence of diverging approaches and mechanisms that ‘pull’ and ‘push’ actors and systems in opposite directions, creating new tensions and volitions (Tekletsion et al., 2024);

• Technological resilience: Examining the ambivalent dilemmas between adopting more efficient and effective measures through digitalization and the increased cyber and other related threats these may bring (Annarelli & Palombi 2021);

• Algorithmic resilience: Critically reflecting on the roles played by Artificial Intelligence (AI) in processes of change, transformation and contestation (Schintler & McNeely 2022);

• Resilience discourse: Separating and comparing the resilience phenomenon from its construction in discourse, narratives and communication (Meyen & Schier, 2019).

 
The convenors invite both theoretical and empirical contributions addressing one or more of the topics described above or any other topic of interest to resilient scholars within the frame of the broader EGOS Colloquium 2026 theme. We are particularly keen to receive suggestions that seek to develop novel methodological, epistemological and analytical approaches that transcend disciplinary boundaries and take advantage of large historical datasets.
 

References

• Annarelli, A., & Palombi, G. (2021): “Digitalization Capabilities for Sustainable Cyber Resilience: A Conceptual Framework.” Sustainability, 13 (23), https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313065.
• Chandler, D. (2013): “Resilience ethics: responsibility and the globally embedded subject.” Ethics & Global Politics, 6 (3), 175–194.
• Doorn, N., & Copeland, S. (2023): “Resilience and Responsibilities.” In: A. Placani & S. Broadhead (eds.): Risk and Responsibility in Context. New York: Routledge, 231–248.
• Frigotto, M.L., & Pinheiro, R. (eds.) (in press): Organisational Resilience: Interdisciplinary Insights. Leeds: Emerald Publishing.
• Giustiniano, L., Clegg, S.R., e Cunha, M.P., & Rego, A. (2018): Elgar Introduction to Theories of Organizational Resilience. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Kok, K.P.W., Loeber, A.M.C., & Grin, J. (2021): “Politics of complexity: Conceptualizing agency, power and powering in the transitional dynamics of complex adaptive systems.” Research Policy, 50 (3), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104183.
• Mahdiani, H., & Ungar, M. (2021): “The dark side of resilience.” Adversity and Resilience Science, 2 (3), 147–155.
• Majoor, S. (2015): “Resilient practices: a paradox-oriented approach for large-scale development projects.” Town Planning Review, 86 (3), 257–277.
• Merkel, W., & Lührmann, A. (2021): “Resilience of democracies: responses to illiberal and authoritarian challenges.” Democratization, 28 (5), 869–884.
• Meyen, M., & Schier, J. (2019): “The Resilience Discourse: How a Concept from Ecology Could Overcome the Boundaries Between Academic Disciplines and Society.” In: B. Rampp, M. Endreß & M. Naumann (eds.): Resilience in Social, Cultural and Political Spheres. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien, 105–120.
• Schaffer, A., & Schneider, M. (2019): “Towards a responsible resilience.” In: M. Ruth & S. Goessling-Reisemann, S. (eds.): Handbook on Resilience of Socio-Technical Systems. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 9–29.
• Schintler, L.A., & McNeely, C.L. (2022): “Artificial intelligence, institutions, and resilience: Prospects and provocations for cities.” Journal of Urban Management, 11 (2), 256–268.
• Tekletsion, B.F., Da Silva Gomes, J.F., & Tefera, B. (2024): “Organizational resilience as paradox management: A systematic review of the literature.” Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 32 (1), https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12495.
• Trondal, J., Keast, R., Noble, D., & Pinheiro, R. (2022): Governing Complexity in Times of Turbulence. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Young, M., Frigotto, M.L., & Pinheiro, R. (2022): “Towards Resilient Organisations and Societies? Reflections on the Multifaceted Nature of Resilience.” In: R. Pinheiro, M.L. Frigotto, & M. Young (eds.): Towards Resilient Organizations and Societies: A Cross-Sectoral and Multi-Disciplinary Perspective. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 307–331.
• Zyzak, B., & Farsund, A.A. (2025): “Coordination of complex systems: the case of public policy meta-organisations.” European Management Journal, online first, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2025.02.004