Call for Applications

Facilitators

Sébastien Arcand, HEC Montréal, Canada
Andrew Barron, TBS Education, France
Héloïse Berkowitz, CNRS Aix-Marseille Université, France
Jean Biwole Fouda, Université d’Ebolowa, Cameroon
Sanne Bor, LUT University, Finland
Pierre Garaudel, Paris Panthéon Sorbonne University, France
Michael Grothe-Hammer, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
Daniel Petrovics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands
Kurt Rachlitz, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway

Purpose

Over the last two decades, meta-organization research has grown significantly to account for the collective actions that organizations handle under the umbrella of other organizations (Ahrne & Brunsson, 2005). Whilst our understanding regarding meta-organizations’ nature, functioning, effects, and dynamics has developed, much remains to be learned regarding how international dimensions affect meta-organizations and meta-organization research (Coulombel & Berkowitz, 2025). The overall goal of this PDW, hosted by the EGOS Standing Working Group (SWG) 01 Meta-Organizations and Meta-Organizing (MOMO), is to provide a forum for collective discussion regarding this topic. This PDW offers doctoral students, early-career researchers, and more experienced scholars an opportunity to investigate the empirical side, the conceptual dimensions, and the methodological and epistemological challenges we face when studying meta-organizations with an international feature.

Considering this open topic, we particularly invite perspectives that address international meta-organizations comprised of international members as well as national or regional meta-organizations that wield significant influence on or are impacted by economic, social, and political life across various countries. Consequently, below are some exemplary research paths that fall within the scope of our PDW but do not limit it.

1. Impact of meta-organizational with an international dimension. Meta-organizations typically represent a collective social order that is superposed to the social order of their member organizations. This layering of social order (e.g., Grothe-Hammer et al., 2022) is an intriguing feature for meta-organization scholars, as it exposes the tensions and phenomena that emerge from the articulation of decision levels. For instance, international meta-organizations often federate meta-organizations at lower levels (e.g., the national level) and thus constitute instances of meta-meta-organizations (Berkowitz & Bor, 2018). In such configurations, decisions may cascade from higher to lower layers of social order, and conversely, decisions taken at national or even local levels may shape or constrain decision-making within higher-level meta-organizations. As such, meta-organizations operating at the international level provide valuable cases for studying how phenomena experienced at one level impact other levels. For example, Vifell & Thedvall (2012) show how meta-organizations can shape the landscape of ideas and diffuse them. Exploring how ideas travel within and among meta-organizations, gathering members from different levels and places, represents a promising avenue for research. Extending this avenue, investigating how international meta-organizations’ activities negatively affect their local members (and non-members) would nurture our understanding of meta-organizations’ dark side (Fernandes et al., 2026).

2. Functioning of meta-organizations with an international dimension. The specificities of meta-organizations operating at the international level are also a topic to be investigated. Do meta-organizations at the international level share specific characteristics distinguishing them from other meta-organizations? If so, to what extent, and with regard to which feature do they differ from their local counterparts? What different forms of meta-organizations coexist in the international field? One feature that may cause some specific dynamics to such meta-organizations is the distance that separates grassroots members from the decisions taken on their behalf at the upper levels. As chains of social order become increasingly complex across levels, ensuring that lower-level members continue to support collective decisions and remain committed becomes a central challenge (Furåker, 2020), and one that is likely to generate significant tensions. Research adopting this perspective offers fertile ground for advancing our understanding of international meta-organizational governance and coordination. Beyond their members, meta-organizations interact with non-member partners to conduct their activities (Cropper & Bor, 2018). The way meta-level actors orchestrate relationships with partners in international contexts marked by heightened complexity remains to be explored.

3. Research issues regarding meta-organizations with an international dimension. Regarding the research about meta-organizations, except for some exceptions (e.g., Chaudhury et al. 2016; Alo & Arslan, 2023), most studies have been directed to organizations belonging to Northern / Western countries. As such, our understanding of meta-organizations mirrors this context, but may not fit empirical observations captured in non-Western countries. International meta-organizations offer promising settings to examine the extent to which insights from prior studies apply to new contexts, the adaptations required to investigate multinational settings characterized by diverse constraints, and the novel insights that could enrich our theorizing. In another vein, studying international meta-organizations and meta-organizations operating across countries and levels may offer valuable opportunities but raise specific methodological and epistemological challenges. Methodologically, this raises challenges regarding how to measure the effects of meta-organizations from a quantitative perspective, as well as how to explore their dynamics from a qualitative orientation, especially when they operate across levels and beyond national borders. Epistemologically, this raises challenges related to the dominance of Western-centric perspectives in theorizing meta-organizational dynamics across countries and continents.

We encourage the submission of new ideas and innovative contributions that push forward our understanding of meta-organizing, as well as connect ideas and perspectives across sub-themes. Authors of selected papers may be encouraged to submit their work to PCI OrgStudies and M@n@gement.

Format

We will start with a brief introduction to the background and aims of the gathering from the organizers and facilitators, followed by a round of introduction of each participant. The workshop will allow for in-depth engagement with each submitted paper, devoting time for individual discussions by a discussant and collective feedback. The PDW will end with a collective discussion about salient insights, blind spots, and ways forward. Collective discussions will be livestreamed to online participants, and the organizers will ensure inclusion and participation of all. We will also explore different ways of engaging collectively.

Application

To be considered for the PDW, please submit a single document of application (.doc, .docx, or .pdf file) via the EGOS website that includes:

• A cover page with full details of name, affiliation and email address;

• A short statement of motivation for participation (150 words);

• A proposal for a working paper or a draft of the paper (maximum 15 pages).

The PDW is a great opportunity to get feedback on a structured paper, but also to emphasize specific parts in which one may need additional ideas or inspiration. Please consider submitting your work highlighting specific needs. For example, if you need help on framing/discovering a phenomenon from your data or need suggestions on how to frame the research methods or how to theorize from the data, you can make it clear in your proposal.
 

References

• Ahrne, G., & Brunsson, N. (2005). Organizations and meta-organizations. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 21(4), 429–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2005.09.005
• Alo, O., & Arslan, A. (2023). Meta-organizations and environmental sustainability: An overview in African context. International Studies of Management & Organization, 53(2), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2023.2184119
• Berkowitz, H., & Bor, S. (2018). Why meta-organizations matter: A response to Lawton et al. and Spillman. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27(2), 204–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492617712895
• Chaudhury, A. S., Ventresca, M. J., Thornton, T. F., Helfgott, A., Sova, C., Baral, P., Rasheed, T., & Ligthart, J. (2016). Emerging meta-organisations and adaptation to global climate change: Evidence from implementing adaptation in Nepal, Pakistan and Ghana. Global Environmental Change, 38, 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.03.011
• Coulombel, P., & Berkowitz, H. (2025). One name for two concepts: A systematic literature review about meta-organizations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 27(2), 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12385
• Cropper, S., & Bor, S. (2018). (Un)bounding the meta-organization: Co-evolution and compositional dynamics of a health partnership. Administrative Sciences, 8(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci8030042
• Fernandes, J.A.L., Baldi, M., Lopes, F.D., & Berkowitz, H. (forthcoming) Meta-organizations and the making of a neocolonialist global order. In H. Berkowitz, S. Bor, & N. Brunsson (Eds.), The World of Meta-Organizations. Edward Elgar.
• Furåker, B. (2020). European trade union cooperation, union density and employee attitudes to unions. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 26(3), 345–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/1024258920933118
• Grothe-Hammer, M., Berkowitz, H., & Berthod, O. (2022). Decisional Organization Theory: Towards an Integrated Framework of Organization. In M. Godwyn (Ed), Research Handbook on the Sociology of Organizations (pp. 30–53). Edward Elgar.
• Vifell, A. C., & Thedvall, R. (2012). Organizing for social sustainability: Governance through bureaucratization in meta-organizations. Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy, 8(1), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2012.11908084
•