Call for Papers

Call for short papers (pdf)

In this sub-theme, we will explore how contestation, competition, and conflict shape the evolution of novel technologies, categories, and practices as they transition from the margins to the mainstream. Novel ideas, particularly in their early stages, often lack legitimacy and occupy low-status positions within their fields (Navis & Glynn, 2011; Aldrich & Fiol, 1994). Understanding how these novel forms emerge on the periphery and evolve into mainstream phenomena remains a critical area of inquiry in organization studies (Zietsma et al., 2017).
 
The introduction of novel technologies, categories, and practices by peripheral actors, who are more likely to initiate change and innovate (Leblebici et al., 1991; Cattani & Ferriani, 2008; Cattani et al., 2017; Zietsma et al., 2017), disrupts established norms, often provoking pushback from incumbents who benefit from maintaining the status quo actively defend existing arrangements by leveraging their resources, regulatory influence, and legitimized positions (Hardy & Maguire, 2010; Reay & Hinings, 2005). The incumbents’ counteractions, such as delegitimizing novel categories, imposing regulatory constraints, or influencing established norms, can weaken the innovators’ position (Durand & Khaire, 2017; Wry et al., 2011). While such pushback can hinder the adoption of novelty, it can also create opportunities for refinement and legitimation, accelerating its transition to broader acceptance (Cattani et al., 2017; Garud et al., 2014). This alignment often involves framing strategies that resonate with institutional norms or cultural values (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014; Glynn & Navis, 2013). Indeed, innovators – particularly peripheral ones – must engage in a translation process (Harman & Dietrich, 2013) to articulate their ideas in the language spoken by the custodians of existing practices.
 
Structural challenges further complicate the journey of novel forms. These include regulatory hurdles, institutional inertia, and the dominance of legitimized practices (Greenwood & Suddaby, 2006). Mature fields are shaped by arrangements that privilege incumbents, making it difficult for emerging innovations to gain traction (Fligstein & McAdam, 2012). Addressing these challenges requires institutional entrepreneurship, where actors seek to reshape field structures and norms to accommodate novel categories (Battilana et al., 2009; Hardy & Maguire, 2008). At the same time, institutional pressures often prompt innovators to adapt their practices and narratives, aligning them more closely with dominant logic to gain acceptance (Ansari et al., 2016; Cornelissen & Werner, 2014). Competition introduces another dynamic layer to the evolution of novelty. Incumbents frequently leverage their resources, legitimacy, and established networks to outcompete emerging alternatives, shaping the trajectory of novel forms (Hargadon & Douglas, 2001; Zuckerman, 1999). However, competing alternatives also arise among peripheral actors, particularly in emerging technologies or nascent markets, where resource constraints and audience fragmentation intensify rivalry (Garud et al., 2014). This interplay between rivalries – from incumbents and peers – influences whether novel ideas achieve mainstream adoption or remain marginal (Cattani et al., 2017).
 
Despite these hurdles, contestation, challenges, and competition often foster innovation. Contestation compels innovators to refine their narratives and engage in translation processes that resonate with stakeholders (Harman & Dietrich, 2013; Ansari et a.l, 2016). Challenges inspire creative problem-solving, leading to reconfigurations that enhance feasibility and acceptance (Hargadon & Douglas, 2001; Greenwood & Suddaby, 2006). Competition drives differentiation and experimentation, pushing innovators to develop strategies that position their ideas more effectively. Together, these forces shape the trajectory of novelty, determining whether it transitions into the mainstream or remains on the margins (Garud et al., 2014; Cattani et al., 2017).
 
Some hurdles are relaxed or disappear when disruptive events such as exogenous shocks (e.g., natural disasters, pandemics, wars, or regulatory changes) dramatically alter the status quo (Fligstein & McAdam 2012). By challenging existing arrangements, these shocks often force all actors to adapt or risk obsolescence. For peripheral actors, these moments of upheaval may represent a unique opportunity to further their innovations as they help create a more receptive social space where those innovations are more likely to receive support and recognition from relevant audiences (Sine & David, 2003; Ansari & Krop, 2012; Cattani et al., 2017; Corbo et al., 2024).
 
The contemporary presence of multiple interested audiences (or stakeholders) also allows for the coexistence of different perspectives. Discrepancies in expectations across multiple audiences can create opportunities for innovators to select niches in which they can satisfy one set of expectations while being shielded, at least temporarily, from alternative expectations (Aldrich & Martinez, 2015; Cattani et al., 2017). One might even argue that the presence of multiple audiences, combined with changes in their membership, expands the number of possible destination states of the legitimation journey of novelty. This reflects what sociologists of science describe as a “non-determined, multidirectional flux” (Bijker et al., 1987, p. 13).
 
This sub-theme seeks to advance scholarly understanding of how contestation, challenges, and competition influence the evolution of novel ideas, categories, and practices. We invite submissions exploring how different actors’ responses to novelty – whether through resistance, adaptation, or competition – shape the trajectory of organizational and field dynamics. We welcome theoretical, empirical, and interdisciplinary contributions that illuminate the role of these forces in redirecting the emergence and evolution of novelty. We encourage submissions that draw on a range of theories, settings, and levels of analysis to explore these themes. To this end, we solicit submissions addressing the following or similar questions:

• How do incumbents contest novelty and affect its evolution?

• How do novel forms evolve because of institutional pressures or other structural challenges?

• How do creators or promoters of novel forms respond to the contests over time?

• How do entrepreneurial narratives evolve during the different phases of a novel idea journey?

• How do exogenous shocks influence the journey of peripheral actors toward mainstream acceptance?

• How do exogenous shocks alter the expectations of key stakeholders who control critical symbolic and/or material resources?

• How does audience heterogeneity affect the likelihood of peripheral actors’ success?

• How do challengers’ framing strategies evolve within contested organizational fields?

References

• Aldrich, H.E., & Fiol, C.M. (1994): 2Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation.2 Academy of Management Review, 19 (4), 645–670.

• Aldrich, H.E., & Martinez, M. (2015): “Why aren’t entrepreneurs more creative? Conditions affecting creativity and innovation in entrepreneurial activity.” In: C. Shalley, M. Hitt, & J. Zhou (eds.): Oxford Handbook of Creativity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship: Multilevel Linkages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 445–456.

• Ansari, S.S., Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2016): “The disruptor’s dilemma: TiVo and the U.S. television ecosystem.” Strategic Management Journal, 37 (9), 1829–1853.

• Ansari, S.S., & Krop, P. (2012): “Incumbent performance in the face of a radical innovation: Towards a framework for incumbent challenger dynamics.” Research Policy, 41 (8), 1357–1374.

• Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009): “How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship.” Academy of Management Annals, 3 (1), 65–107.

• Bijker, W.E., Parke Hughes, T., & Pinch, T.J. (1987): The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

• Cattani, G., & Ferriani, S. (2008): “A core/periphery perspective on individual creative performance: Social networks and cinematic achievements in the Hollywood film industry.” Organization Science, 19 (6), 824–844.

• Cattani, G., Ferriani, S., & Lanza, A. (2017): “Deconstructing the outsider puzzle: The legitimation journey of novelty.” Organization Science, 28 (6), 965–992.

• Cornelissen, J.P., & Werner, M.D. (2014): “Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature.” Academy of Management Annals, 8 (1), 181–235.

• Corbo, L., Corrado, R., & Ferriani, S. (2024): “Network pathways of peripheral firm entry: Empirical evidence from the global airline industry.” Research Policy, 53 (4), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2024.104960.

• Durand, R., & Khaire, M. (2017): “Where do market categories come from and how? Distinguishing category creation from category emergence.” Journal of Management Studies, 54 (5), 845–872.

• Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2012): A Theory of Fields. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Giuliani, A.P. (2014): “Contextualizing entrepreneurial innovation: A narrative perspective.” Research Policy, 43 (7), 1177–1188.

• Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2006): “Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The Big Five accounting firms.” Academy of Management Journal, 49 (1), 27–48.

• Glynn, M.A., & Navis, C. (2013): “Categories, identities, and cultural classification: Moving beyond a model of categorical constraint.” Journal of Management Studies, 50 (6), 1124–1137.

• Hargadon, A., & Douglas, Y. (2001): “When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 46 (3), 476–501.

• Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2008): “Institutional entrepreneurship.” In: R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (eds.): The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. London: SAGE Publications, 198–217.

• Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2010): §Discourse, field-configuring events, and change in organizations and institutional fields: Narratives of deinstitutionalization.” Academy of Management Journal, 53 (6), 1365–1392.

• Leblebici, H., Salancik, G.R., Copay, A., & King, T. (1991): “Institutional change and the transformation of interorganizational fields: An organizational history of the U.S. radio broadcasting industry.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 36 (3), 333–363.

• Navis, C., & Glynn, M.A. (2011): “Legitimate distinctiveness and the entrepreneurial identity: Influence on investor judgments of new venture plausibility.” Academy of Management Review, 36 (3), 479–499.

• Rao, H., Morrill, C., & Zald, M.N. (2000): “Power plays: How social movements and collective action create new organizational forms.” Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 239–282.

• Reay, T., & Hinings, C.R. (2005): “The recomposition of an organizational field: Health care in Alberta.” Organization Studies, 26 (3), 351–384.

• Sine, W.D., & David, R.J. (2003): “Environmental jolts, institutional change, and the creation of entrepreneurial opportunity in the US electric power industry.” Research Policy, 32 (2), 185–207.

• Wry, T., Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M.A. (2011): “Legitimating nascent collective identities: Coordinating cultural entrepreneurship.” Organization Science, 22 (2), 449–463.

• Zietsma, C., Groenewegen, P., Logue, D.M., & Hinings, C.R. (2017): “Field or fields? Building the scaffolding for cumulation of research on institutional fields.” Academy of Management Annals, 11 (1), 391–450.

• Zuckerman, E.W. (1999): “The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount.” American Journal of Sociology, 104 (5), 1398–1438.