A pre-event, the 9th Dauphine Philosophy Workshop (DPW) “The Negative Ontologies of Time: Within or Beyond the Happening of Organizing?” will take place on 4 June at Université Paris-Dauphine, London Campus.
With keynote lectures by Santiago Espinosa, Mark Coeckelbergh and Mukulika Banerjee, panel discussions and over 20 parallel sessions, this event focuses on ontological and metaphysical discussions about organisations and organising in a digital era. The workshop is hosted annually by different universities around the world, and we are delighted to be welcoming you at LSE this year.
I am proud to be chairing this year’s LSE Department of Management Colloquium on Digitalization, Interfacing and their Impacts.
Tuesday, 4th June 2024 09:00 – 18:15 @ The LSE Campus Marshall Building.
The Information Systems and Innovation Group within the Department of Management, London School of Economics and Political Science is pleased to announce a Colloquium on Digitalization, Interfacing and their Impacts which will be held at the LSE campus on Tuesday 4 June 2024. The Colloquium is an opportunity for IS researchers, at any level of experience and seniority, to discuss research related to key and emerging themes surrounding Digitalization in a constructive setting. Talks from noted global IS scholars will stimulate discussion on a range of different aspects of Digitalization, including the interfacing of complex systems and the opportunities and challenges these creates for business and society. Full details of the agenda, as well as abstracts of the talks, will be provided closer to the date. The event is organised by my EPSRC funded IRIS research programme: Interface reasoning for interacting systems (IRIS).
Speakers include:
Youngjin Yoo from The Weatherhead School of Management
Ulrike Schultze from The University of Groningen.
Further speakers and full agenda to follow shortly.
I am proud to be part of an amazing panel of faculty advisors for the AOM CTO Doctorial Consortium this summer in Chicago! Please circulate to relevant PhD Students!
The CTO Division of the Academy of Management is pleased to announce the 2024 Doctoral Consortium (DC) on Friday August 9th, 2024, in Chicago, Illinois. The DC is an opportunity for doctoral students to network, receive feedback on their research, and discuss career issues. All interested PhD students working on research at the intersection of communication, digital technology, and organizing are welcome to apply. We encourage diverse submissions from the full diversity of approaches to research on these phenomena, including behavioral, social, technical, and economic issues.
4. Aron Lindberg (Stevens Institute of Technology, USA)
5. Patrick Mikalef (Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway)
6. Shaila Miranda (University of Arkansas, USA)
7. Eivor Oborn (Warwick Business School, UK)
8. Jan Recker (University of Hamburg, Germany)
9. Monideepa Tarafdar (University of Massachusetts, USA)
10. Will Venters (London School of Economics, UK)
11. Sam Zaza (Middle Tennessee State University, USA)
Travel support is available for some students admitted to the DC, pending approval from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Acceptance is based on a review of the application materials.
Preference for attendance and funding will be given to students who will have defended their dissertation proposals but not their dissertations by the date of the consortium, to those who have not previously participated in the CTO DC, and to those whose institutions or fields would not otherwise be represented.
The application includes:
1) A 5-page, double-spaced, 12-point extended abstract of the proposed dissertation research.
2) A letter of recommendation from dissertation chair/advisor supporting the student’s participation in the Doctoral Consortium.
3) A 1-page informational document with: Name of applicant; PhD program university/school affiliation; Dissertation title; Expected completion date; Educational background; Professional background/prior work experience; Future career aspirations. Please indicate whether you have attended the DC before.
Important dates:
– Due date for applications and letters of recommendation is May 10th, 2024.
– DC, Friday August 9th, 2024, from 10am to 4pm. Social event offsite will follow.
– PhD students poster reception, Saturday August 10th, 2024, 6:00pm (all mentors will attend the reception).
Please email all application materials as attachments in a single email to Roberta Bernardi (roberta.bernardi@bristol.ac.uk). Please subject the email with the following: “DC CTO AOM 2024 application”.
This 14th OAP workshop jointly organized by Université Paris Dauphine-PSL (DRM), ESSEC and ESSEC Metalab will be an opportunity to come back to the issue of Artificial Intelligence and its relationship with the history, philosophy and politics of management and organization.
Artificial Intelligence now pervades discussions about the future of organizations and societies. AI is expected to bring deep changes in work practices and our ways of living. Utopian and dystopian narratives are abundant. However, AI is far from being a fleeting trend; rather, it constitutes a collection of techniques with a rich history dating back to the 1950s. AI serves as a broad framework deeply intertwined with ideals of rationalism and representationalism – much like the broader digital landscape it epitomizes. The aspiration in the realm of AI is that self-sufficient techniques will progressively and continuously enhance our comprehension of the world. By means of rules and the use of massive amounts of data, it is expected that learning capabilities make AI tools more and more likely to expose and elucidate the underlying realities of the processes they initially are designed to represent. Increasingly, AI transcends its role as a ‘unraveller’ of complexity in the present. It discloses our future, what will happen in the next seconds, days, month, years or centuries. It arguably encompasses the entirety of our potential futures.
As well as having a certain hold on our future(s), these powerful tools are impacting how we think. Our cognition and understanding of the world are dramatically extended, amplified, revolutionized, but also individualized, siloed, and cut off from traditional social processes of interaction and sensemaking. In this vein, the gap between our ways of acting (in an embodied way) and our ways of thinking, grows. The dualism at the heart of representationalism, although more and more visual, narrative and corporeal, become central and even foundational. Part of our cognition – and our social practice of gaining and sharing knowledge – is delegated to AI.
These artificialities of intelligence (in particular collective intelligence), will be at the heart of this 14th OAP workshop in Paris. Behind and beyond AI as a set of codes, norms, standards, and massive use of data, our intelligence is more and more artificialized. Our collective intelligence relies on a representationalist philosophy which starts from a problem (a request) submitted to Bard or Chat GPT, generative AI tools, offering then a relevant narrative likely to answer brilliantly and confidently. Co-problematization, inquiry, concerns, openness, in short, life, are not at all part of this equation. This artificial organizing process will be central in our discussions.
In particular, we welcome abstracts likely to cover the following topics:
Artificialities of intelligence as organization and organizationality;
Historical perspectives on digitality and AI;
Historical perspectives on calculative techniques, cybernetics, AI and digitality in general, in relationship with management and organizationality;
Revisiting and problematizing traditional assumptions about knowledge sharing and communities of practice;
Ethnographies, collaborative ethnographies and auto-ethnographies about AI in organizations ;
Pragmatist inquiries about collective intelligence;
Critiques of cognitivism in organization studies and management, e.g., strategic management, accounting, marketing, logistics and MIS;
Explorations of the relationships between new managerial techniques and AI;
Temporal and spatial views about AI and artificialities of intelligence;
Phenomenological and post-phenomenological perspectives about AI in organizations;
Process perspectives on the artificiality of intelligence;
Critical views of AI and the artificialities of intelligence;
AI and the metamorphosis of scientific practices;
AI the dynamic of scientific communities and scientific paradigms;
AI and its political dimension in organizations.
Of course, our event will also be opened to more traditional OAP ontological discussions around the time, space, place and materiality of organizing in a digital era, e.g., papers discussing ontologies, sociomateriality, affordances, spacing, emplacement, atmosphere, events, becoming, practices, flows, moments, existentiality, verticality, instants in the context of our digital world.
Please note that OAP 2024 will include a pre-event, the Dauphine Philosophy Workshop also hosted by University Paris Dauphine-PSL on June 6th 2024 and entitled: “Beyond judgement and legitimation: reconceptualizing the ontology of institutional dynamics in MOS”.
Those interested in our pre-OAP event and our OAP workshop must submit an extended abstract of no more than 1,000 words to workshopoap@gmail.com. The abstract must outline the applicant’s proposed contribution to the workshop. The proposal must be in .doc/.docx/.rtf format and should contain the author’s/authors’ names as well as their institutional affiliations, email address(es), and postal address(es). Deadline for submissions will be February 3rd, 2024 (midnight CET).
Authors will be notified of the committee’s decision by February 28th, 2024.
Please note that OAP 2024 will take place only onsite this year.
There are no fees associated with attending this workshop.
Organizing committee: Hélène Bussy-Socrate (PSB), François-Xavier de Vaujany (Université Paris Dauphine-PSL, DRM), Albane Grandazzi (GEM), Aurélie Leclercq-Vandelannoitte (CNRS, LEM, IESEG, Univ. Lille), Sébastien Lorenzini (Université Paris Dauphine-PSL, DRM) and Julien Mallaurent (ESSEC).
REFERENCES
Aspray, W. (1994). The history of computing within the history of information technology. History and Technology, an International Journal, 11(1), 7-19.
Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing artificial intelligence. MIS quarterly, 45(3).
Chia, R. (1995). From modern to postmodern organizational analysis. Organization studies, 16(4), 579-604.
Chia, R. (2002). Essai: Time, duration and simultaneity: Rethinking process and change in organizational analysis. Organization Studies, 23(6), 863-868.
Clemson, B. (1991). Cybernetics: A new management tool (Vol. 4). CRC Press.
de Vaujany, F. X., & Mitev, N. (2017). The post-Macy paradox, information management and organising: Good intentions and a road to hell?. Culture and Organization, 23(5), 379-407.
de Vaujany, FX. (2022). Apocalypse managériale, Paris : Les Belles Lettres.
Introna, L. D., & Introna, L. D. (1997). Management: and manus. Management, Information and Power: A narrative of the involved manager, 82-117.
Nascimento, A. M., da Cunha, M. A. V. C., de Souza Meirelles, F., Scornavacca Jr, E., & De Melo, V. V. (2018). A Literature Analysis of Research on Artificial Intelligence in Management Information System (MIS). In AMCIS.
Öztürk, D. (2021). What Does Artificial Intelligence Mean for Organizations? A Systematic Review of Organization Studies Research and a Way Forward. The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Governance, Economics and Finance, Volume I, 265-289.
Pickering, A. (2002). Cybernetics and the mangle: Ashby, Beer and Pask. Social studies of science, 32(3), 413-437.
Lorino, P. (2018). Pragmatism and organization studies. Oxford University Press.
Simpson, B., & Revsbæk, L. (Eds.). (2022). Doing Process Research in Organizations: Noticing Differently. Oxford University Press.
Thompson, N. A., & Byrne, O. (2022). Imagining futures: Theorizing the practical knowledge of future-making. Organization Studies, 43(2), 247-268.
Vesa, M., & Tienari, J. (2022). Artificial intelligence and rationalized unaccountability: Ideology of the elites?. Organization, 29(6), 1133-1145.
Wagner, G., Lukyanenko, R., & Paré, G. (2022). Artificial intelligence and the conduct of literature reviews. Journal of Information Technology, 37(2), 209-226.
Yates, J. (1993). Control through communication: The rise of system in American management (Vol. 6). JHU Press.
Margunn Aanestad, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway
Miria Grisot, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway
Tomas Lindroth, Department of Applied IT, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
This workshop targets digital infrastructures in the public sector and focuses on the emergence of platforms as a distinct technological and organizational form. The platform ecosystem has emerged as a dominant technological form for global innovative organizations (Baldwin and Woodward, 2009; Tiwana, 2013). It represents the current “best practice” to deal with the complexity of digital infrastructures as well as to leverage dynamics of multi-sided markets and exploit network effects. Platforms are adaptable, scalable and extensible to many other parties and represent an alternative to an integrated collection of “silo systems”.
Public sector organizations around Europe are introducing platforms as part of their digital strategies, but we still have a limited understanding of the challenges associated with establishing platforms in the public sector (Fishenden & Thompson, 2013; Brown et al., 2017). Current research has mainly addressed platforms in the commercial sector (Parker et al., 2016). While the insights from this existing research are highly relevant, there are also important areas where the digital infrastructures can be expected to differ: The technical, regulatory and organisational complexity in the public sector is much higher than for commercial platforms. Multiple different public sector organisations at different government levels are involved in information flows and data custody. The development of national and regional solutions is usually undertaken as joint endeavour between public and private actors, to stimulate socio- economic benefits and innovation, involving a diverse portfolio of systems and registers. Furthermore, the role of the citizens not as mere service recipients but as contributors and co- creators is becoming more central while security concerns, government ́s responsibility for citizens ́ privacy and citizens ́ demand for transparent use of data are rising (Linders, 2012; Nam, 2012).
In addition, the business models of a public sector platform will be different (Bygstad & D’Silva, 2015). The network effects of platform ecosystems (i.e. the self-reinforcing process where more customers trigger more suppliers, which attracts more customers, and so on) may be facilitated in public sector platforms but towards different aims than the ones found in market situation. Monetising network effects is not a key interest for public sector platforms but rather, leveraging network effects for mobilising more resources from inside and outside public organisations and triggering decentralised innovation is a key interest (Vassilakopoulou et al., 2017). Network effects that can contribute to better synergizing rather than competing are of interest in the public sector domain and need to be better understood.
This workshop seeks to address this lack of theorizing specifically to these concerns. The themes include but are not limited to:
Business models of a public-sector platform
The network effects of public sector platforms
Network effects of synergizing rather than competing in the public sector domain
How platforms shift work practices of public sector professionals with the inclusion of citizens
Empirical studies of platformization, including the gradual process of establishing a platform
How technical and organizational structures and governance regimes shape and are shaped by thespecific public sector context
The role of the citizens not as mere service recipients but as contributors and co-creators
Security concerns, government ́s responsibility for citizens ́ privacy and citizens ́ demand fortransparent use of data
Identify core requirements for a platformization strategy that may increase sustainability of public sector platforms
Develop theory of public sector platforms that is attentive to the technical, regulatory and organizational specificity of this context
Develop process theory on “platformization” that describes key steps and core challenges in the building of platforms and surrounding eco-system
Develop theory on the interdependencies between architectural (technical) design, organizational forms, and governance regimes
We seek to contribute to the research as indicated above, and to formulate insights on how public sector platform and surrounding ecosystems develop, can be studied, designed, and theorized.
Plan for publications
In parallel with the consideration of this proposal we have anitiated an application to a relevant IS journal for a special issue on the topic of platforms in the public sector.
Target audience and expected attendance
The workshop aims to attract researchers and practitioners who are interested in the topics of digital infrastructures, public sector, platform ecosystems and e-government. In the workshop, participants will share their knowledge about cases of public sector platforms and digital infrastructures. We want to reach out in order to establish a community of researchers that can cooperate beyond the event itself. We seek to build on and extend the efforts of an ongoing, but not yet formalized, collaborative network of European researchers.
Deadline Dates:
Call opens: 22nd of January. Authors are invited to submit short papers, not exceeding seven pages (including all figures, tables and references.) using the ECIS Research In Progress template.
Submission Deadline: April 4th, 2018. Articles are submitted via e-mail.
Baldwin, C., and Woodard, C. J. 2009. “The Architecture of Platforms: A Unified View,” in Platforms, Markets and Innovation, A. Gawer (ed.). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Brown, A., Fishenden, J., Thompson, M., & Venters, W. (2017). Appraising the impact and role of platform models and Government as a Platform (GaaP) in UK Government public service reform: towards a Platform Assessment Framework (PAF). Government Information Quarterly.
Bygstad, B., & D’Silva, F. (2015). Government as a platform: a historical and architectural analysis. In NOKOBIT (Norsk konferanse for organisasjoners bruk av IT), 2015.
Fishenden, J and Thompson, M. (2013), Digital government, open architecture, and innovation: why public sector IT will never be the same again, Journal of public administration research and theory, 23 (4), 977-1004.
Linders, D. (2012), From E-Government to We-Government: Defining a Typology for Citizen Coproduction in the Age of Social Media, Government Information Quarterly, 29 (4), 446-454.
Nam, T. (2012), Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via Government 2.0, Government Information Quarterly, 29 (1), 12-20.
Parker, G. G., Van Alstyne, M. W., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform revolution. How networked markets are transforming the economy and how to make them work for you. WW Norton & Company.
Tiwana, A. (2013), Platform ecosystems: aligning architecture, governance, and strategy. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Vassilakopoulou P., Grisot M., Jensen TB., Sellberg N., Eltes J., Thorseng AA, and Aanestad M. (2017) Building National eHealth Platforms: the Challenge of Inclusiveness, Thirty Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2017, South Korea.
I am proud to be on the programme committee for one of my favourite academic conferences IFIP 8.2. The conference will be at San Francisco State University, December 11 & 12, 2018 with Lucy Suchman (Lancaster U.) & Paul Edwards (Stanford U. & U. of Michigan) at Keynotes. I very much hope to see you there!
Our evolving digital worlds generate both hope and fears. Algorithms, using big data, identify suspicious credit card transactions and predict the spread of epidemics, but they also raise concerns about mass surveillance and systematically perpetuated biases. Social media platforms allow us to stay connected with family and friends, but they also commoditize relationships and produce new forms of sociality. While there is little agreement on the implications of digital technology for contemporary work and social life, there is a growing realization that information technologies are performative (MacKenzie 2006) in that they no longer merely represent the world, but also produce it. And given their growing interdependence, the ability to control any given technology is increasingly limited. Stock market flash crashes, induced by algorithmic trading, are highly visible examples of such algorithmic phenomena (Scott and Orlikowski 2014). Have the things we have made become out-of-control juggernauts? Are we living with monsters?
IFIP WG 8.2 has a distinguished history in shaping research agendas around information technology and organisation. For the 2018 working conference, we call for papers from scholars studying information technology and related practices to reflect on the worlds that we help create through our research, debates, and teaching. The metaphor of monsters is intended to stimulate a rethinking of our orientation by compelling us to consider whether, when and why our creations turn against us, and with what implications.
Binary Blurring 