Call for Papers

Call for short papers (pdf)

This sub-theme is concerned with the way in which professions and occupational groups may contribute to change, and the variety of potential impacts on individuals, organizations and societies (e.g., Muzio et al., 2013; Huising & Pakarinen, 2025). Over the last few decades research has significantly advanced our understanding of professionals’ role – either as part of professional service firms or as representatives of their wider profession – in shaping broader processes of change (e.g., Greenwood et al., 2002; Suddaby & Viale, 2011). Whilst professions have traditionally been associated with stability, theorists have connected the (institutional) work of dedicated professionals or professional service firms to field-level changes such as via the creation and institutionalization of ‘new’ practices (e.g., Smets et al., 2012). More recently, a growing number of studies have advanced our insight into how social movement-based occupations – such as related to sustainability, responsibility and equality – pursued their movement goals through advancing processes of professionalization together with advancing changes in organizations (e.g., Khamidullina & Brock, 2025). This is based on the premise that such occupational groups ‘have the potential to change practices, standards and policies across organizational fields’ (Augustine et al., 2024).
 
Yet, how does professionals’ pursuit of change come to vary in their impacts across different contexts? Whilst there has been an increase in attention to the possible changes in professionals’ practices in relation to challenges such as emanating from sustainability (Howard-Grenville et al., 2017), inequality (e.g., Ashley et al., 2023), digital technologies (Pemer & Werr, 2025), including artificial Intelligence (Goto, 2022), research has not fully explored how and why these practices become adapted by different professionals and professional organizations and their wider implications for individuals, organizations and societies at large. At the same time, we know from literatures on innovation as well as organizational, strategic and technological change that new practices may vary significantly in the way they are put to use across time and space (Ansari et al., 2010; Trullen et al., 2020). Such an adaptive view on the pursuit of change highlights the significance of studying how and why, these practices becom ‘translated’ when they are dis-embedded from their original context and become re-embedded in a variety of new contexts (Czarniawska & Sevòn, 1996; Wedlin & Sahlin, 2017).
 
Advancing our conceptualization of such processes of adaptation is of particular significance to develop a deeper understanding of the implications of professional-driven change for individuals, organizations and societies at large. In other words, whilst some professional-driven changes may be considered as generally institutionalized, their meaning may likely vary significantly across contexts. An emphasis on further examining the translation of professional-driven change is particularly apposite given the heterogeneity within and among professional service firms (Boussebaa et al., 2012), and the processes of contestation within and between distinct professional fields and professional organizations (Anteby et al., 2016).
 
This is also consistent with research that emphasize the need to better account for heterogeneity in studying peer-driven occupational change such as related to their pursuit in addressing grand challenges (Howard-Grenville et al., 2017). Through developing our insight into the role and possibilities of professions and professional organizations in pursuing changes, research also better allows to critically interrogate their assumed role as “key agents in the maintenance and change of institutions in contemporary society” (Ashley et al., 2023, p. 81), which is of particular relevance in the light of a context where professions and professionals are under increasing scrutiny regarding their role in grand challenges related to inequality, environmental impact and new (e.g., AI-based) technology.
 
In sum, if we want to better understand the “the societal impact of professions and the conditions under which society benefits or suffers from the interventions of professions” (Huising & Pakarinen, 2025, p. 3), more research attention must focus on how new professional practices become adapted across a variety of (professional) contexts. As such the aim of this sub-theme is to gather scholars from diverse theoretical perspectives whose work addresses professions and professional service firms, offering a forum to advance scholarly understanding of how professional-driven changes are translated across socio-temporal contexts.
 
We invite empirical, conceptual and methodological papers that advance our empirical and theoretical knowledge of what professional-driven change means for different professionals, professional organizations, and related stakeholders (clients, policy makers, impacted communities, etc.). Submissions can, for instance, address the following (non-exclusive) questions:

• How and why do professional firms vary in the way they translate new AI-based technology into practice?

• How and does the meaning of technology-driven professional change vary over time in different professional fields?

• How do professional groups translate climate change into practice and how do these translations shape broader societal discourses on environmental change?

• How and why do particular translations of sustainability-driven change come to dominate within professional fields or within professional service firms?

• How does an increased scrutiny from external actors (e.g., policymakers, the public, media) influence the ways professionals adapt institutional changes? And what are the consequences for their practices, legitimacy, and identity?

• How do professionals or professional service firms vary in the way they define themselves in relation to sustainability or technology-driven professional change?

• What are the methodological challenges associated with studying the translation of professionally-driven change?

References

• Ansari, S.M., Fiss, P.C., & Zajac, E.J. (2010): “Made to fit: How practices vary as they diffuse.” Academy of Management Review, 35 (1), 67–92.
• Anteby, M., Chan, C.K., & DiBenigno, J. (2016): “Three lenses on occupations and professions in organizations: Becoming, doing, and relating.” Academy of Management Annals, 10 (1), 183-244.
• Ashley, L., Boussebaa, M., Friedman, S., Harrington, B., Heusinkveld, S., Gustafsson, S., & Muzio, D. (2023): “Professions and inequality: Challenges, controversies, and opportunities.” Journal of Professions and Organization, 10 (1), 80–98.
• Augustine, G., Hedberg, L., Choi, T.-U., & Lounsbury, M. (2024): “Wasted? The Downstream Effects of Social Movement-Backed Occupations.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 70 (1), 23–68.
• Boussebaa, M., Morgan, G., & Sturdy, A. (2012): “Constructing global firms? National, transnational and neocolonial effects in international management consultancies.” Organization Studies, 33 (4), 465–486.
• Czarniawska, B., & Sevón, G. (eds.) (1996): Translating Organizational Change. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
• Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C.R. (2002): “Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields.” Academy of Management Journal, 45 (1), 58–80.
• Howard-Grenville, J., Nelson, A.J., Earle, A.G., Haack, J.A., & Young, D.M. (2017): “‘If chemists don’t do it, who is going to?’ Peer-driven occupational change and the emergence of green chemistry.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 62 (3), 524–560.
• Huising, R., & Pakarinen, P. (2025): “Know Your Lanes: Unpacking Theoretical Plurality Across Studies of Professions.” Journal of Management Studies, first published online on April 24, 2025, https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13228.
• Khamidullina, G., & Brock, D.M. (2025): “From social movements to organizational roles: a study of evolving occupational mandates of ESG analysts.” Journal of Professions and Organization, 12 (2), https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joae017.
• Muzio, D., Brock, D.M., & Suddaby, R. (2013): “Professions and institutional change: Towards an institutionalist sociology of the professions.” Journal of Management Studies, 50 (5), 699–721.
• Pemer, F., & Werr, A. (2025): “Defusing Digital Disruption Through Creative Accumulation: Technology-Induced Innovation in Professional Service Firms.” Journal of Management Studies, 62 (5), 1945–1990.
• Smets, M., Morris, T.I.M., & Greenwood, R. (2012): “From practice to field: A multilevel model of practice-driven institutional change.” Academy of Management Journal, 55 (4), 877–904.
• Suddaby, R., & Viale, T. (2011): “Professionals and field-level change: Institutional work and the professional project.” Current Sociology, 59 (4), 423–442.
• Trullen, J., Bos‐Nehles, A., & Valverde, M. (2020): “From intended to actual and beyond: A cross‐disciplinary view of (human resource management) implementation.” International Journal of Management Reviews, 22 (2), 150–176.
• Wedlin, L., & Sahlin, K. (2017): “The Imitation and Translation of Management Ideas.” In: R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. Lawrence, & R. Meyer (eds.): The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. London: SAGE Publications, 102–127.