Call for Papers

Call for short papers (pdf)

To increase the relevance and potential impact of their work, organization scholars are increasingly developing theories for practitioner audiences (Wickert et al., 2021). To develop impactful theory, organizational researchers may either translate theory from academia into practice or co-create knowledge with practitioners (Reinecke et al., 2022; Bansal and Sharma, 2022). Encouragingly, many publication outlets are now available for organization scholars to publish their practitioner-oriented theorizing including Academy of Management Perspectives, California Management Review, Harvard Business Review, Sloan Management Review, and Stanford Social Innovation Review, among others.
 
While organization scholars are expressing a desire to be more impactful and societally relevant, there are many practical and more substantive reasons why theorizing for practitioners is difficult. On the practical side, the cost of switching from academic theorizing to practitioner theorizing is high and practitioner outlets are rarely recognized in formal academic promotion systems. Some advise focusing on meeting the requirements of such formal systems, such as achieving tenure, before experimenting with developing impactful theory. Others have argued that the issues are too urgent to delay impactful theorizing (Wierenga et al., 2024), and “integrating the study of social systems and social problems will offer a constructive and productive path toward developing a body of scientific knowledge that values truth, proves useful and strives for societal progress” (Mair & Seelos, 2021).
 
On the more substantive side, academics and practitioners communicate in different languages and value different knowledge outcomes (Bartunek & Rynes, 2014). Successfully publishing in practitioner-oriented outlets requires a different style of theorizing and tone than is typically required for publishing in more academic outlets. The skills required to communicate with and write for practitioners are rarely part of formal academic training. When developing theories for practitioner audiences, organizational scholars also deal with the question of whether and, if so, how they should take a stance on the normative issues that matter for practice.
 
Even once successfully published in practitioner outlets, very few theories end up influencing management practice. Some theories do not connect closely enough with the problems that practitioners face. Other theories fail to spell out their prescriptive implications or are too complex. By more carefully reflecting on how theories are used by practitioners, organizational scholars could increase the uptake of their theories once they are published in practitioner journals.
 
Yet, given the challenges that we face (Steffen et al., 2015), many argue that it is the responsibility of management scholars to try to reach and positively influence practitioners (Gümüsay, 2024; Hamdali et al., 2023; Jarzabkowski et al., 2024; Marti & Scherer 2016; Williams et al., 2024). Thus, in line with the 42^nd EGOS Colloquium theme – “Reframing Organizations in the More-than-Human Society” – we argue it is not only the responsibility of organizations to account for “the significant impact of human actions on the planet and communities” it is also the responsibility of organizational scholars. Organizational scholars have the responsibility and opportunity to leverage theory in new ways that are managerially relevant and societally impactful in solving interconnected social and environmental challenges.
 
We welcome practitioner-oriented manuscripts grounded in academic research that could foster desirable futures. We are interested in manuscripts broadly related to CSR, desirable futures, grand challenges, social entrepreneurship, social innovation, sustainability, etc. We expect submissions to target a practitioner outlet such as Academy of Management Perspectives, California Management Review, Harvard Business Review, Sloan Management Review, and Stanford Social Innovation Review, among others.
 
To foster intensive interactions in this online version of EGOS, most sessions will happen in small groups with up to six participants plus one convenor or other facilitator. Participants are expected to read up to five submissions that will be discussed in their group, which will make discussions more productive and developmental. In addition to discussing the manuscripts in small groups, there will be two panel sessions in which editors from practitioner journals and authors with a lot of experience in publishing practitioner articles share their learnings. With this, our sub-theme will offer many opportunities to develop skills for theorizing for practitioners and to reach non-academic audiences.
 

References

• Bansal, P., & Sharma, G. (2022): “Three Different Approaches to Impact: Translating, Cocreating, and Performing.” Business and Society, 61 (4), 827–832.
• Bartunek, J.M., & Rynes, S.L. (2014): “Academics and Practitioners Are Alike and Unlike: The Paradoxes of Academic–Practitioner Relationships.” Journal of Management, 40 (5), 1181–1201.
• Gümüsay, A.A. (2023): “Management Scholars of the World, Unite!” Organization Studies, 44 (8), 1377–1380.
• Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R., Chalkias, K., Cacciatori, E., Kavas, M., Krull, E., & Gallagher Rodgers, R. (2024): “Translating, co-creating, and performing: Reflections on a 15-year journey for impact into the grand challenge of disaster insurance.” Strategic Organization, 23 (1), 79–97.
• Mair, J., & Seelos, C. (2021): “Organizations, Social Problems, and System Change: Invigorating the Third Mandate of Organizational Research.” Organization Theory, 2 (4), https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877211054858.
• Marti, E., & Scherer, A.G. (2016): “Financial Regulation and Social Welfare: The Critical Contribution of Management Theory.” Academy of Management Review, 41 (2), 298–323.
• Reinecke, J., Boxenbaum, E., & Gehman, J. (2022): „Impactful Theory: Pathways to Mattering.” Organization Theory, 3 (4), https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221131061.
• Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstrom, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S.R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C.A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G.M., Persson, L.M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., & Sorlin, S. (2015): “Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet.” Science, 347 (6223), 736–747.
• Wickert, C., Post, C., Doh, J.P., Prescott, J.E., & Prencipe, A. (2021): “Management Research that Makes a Difference: Broadening the Meaning of Impact.” Journal of Management Studies, 58 (2), 297–320.
• Wierenga, M., Heucher, K., Chen, S., Grewatsch, S., & Montgomery, A.W. (2024): “Communities for impact: Empowering early-career researchers in the pursuit of impact.” Strategic Organization, 23 (1), 19–30.
• Williams, A., Harley, B., Walls, J., Whiteman, G., & Dowell, G. (2024): “A framework of generative impact-driven research: An introduction to the special issue.” Strategic Organization, 23 (1), 7–18.
•