EGOS BARCELONA 2002 4-6 JULY CALL FOR PAPERS:
Theme title: DEVELOPING POLITICAL PROCESS
PERSPECTIVES ON TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE
The political process perspective originates in the pioneering work of
Pettigrew, Child, and Gallie who in seminal works in the 1970s
challenged dominant contingency theory orthodoxies concerning the
role of technology in determining organisational behaviour. These
authors in different ways emphasised the role of politics, power and
culture as key factors shaping choice and negotiation over the
deployment and use of technology within adopting organisations. It
followed that talking of the ‘impact’ of technological change on
organisations was at best misleading and at worst meaningless.
Technology had no effects outside of the choice and negotiation
surrounding its use. These ideas strongly influenced a wave of
research studies conducted during the 1980s which focused on the way
organisational political processes shaped the organisational outcomes
of technological change.
During the 1990s political process analysis extended its scope of
study and range of influences. For example, with the development of
notions of production concepts which embraced both technical and
organisational dimensions of work re-organisation and restructuring,
the distinction between technological and organisational change
became increasingly difficult to draw in any meaningful way. Political
process perspectives thus embraced an increasingly broader set of
workplace and organisational changes (Dawson, 1996) and focused in
particular on themes such as flexible organisational forms and
team-based working (Mueller and Procter, 1999) and organisational
transformation (Zuboff, 1988). At the same time some of the
weaknesses in the approach began to be addressed. On the one hand
political process perspectives were viewed as antidotes to
prescriptive, mechanistic and simplistic normative literatures on how
to manage change. Political process analysis revealed the
multi-level, multi-layered, contextual, and historically bound nature
of change processes. However, little of this insight was used –
perhaps because it could not be – to inform change agents with
regard to how they might more effectively manage, intervene or
influence to shape the outcomes of change. More recent work has
sought to redress such problems by focusing on the political role
of the change agent and the kinds of ‘extended toolkits’ or
‘power assisted steering’ they require to manage contemporary
technological change (Buchanan and Badham, 1999).
On the other, and rather ironically, political process studies have
been accused themselves of technological determinism. In particular,
by focusing only on the way politics and power shaped the
organisational outcomes of technological change, the technology itself
has been regarded as still ‘independent’ although not a
determining variable.
However such ‘soft’ determinism was still determinism. Much of
this
critique reflected developments in the study of the socio-economic
shaping of technology and in new developments in the sociology of
technology. Such ideas have increasingly been imported into the
political process approach to enrich the understanding of
‘technology’ (see e.g. McLoughlin, 1999) as an ‘equivocal’
concept (Weick, 1992). Political process perspectives have themselves
influenced, and been further developed by, research outside of the
Anglo-saxon context. In Denmark, for example, two major national
studies of the effects of technological change on work and the work
environment have contributed to recent theoretical and empirical
advances (see Clausen et al, 2000).
This theme is devoted to the project of further developing the
political process perspective on technological change. In particular
we invite contributions which:
Review and chart the development and influence of the political
process perspective in Europe and beyond. In particular, what
parallel approaches have developed independently of and outside of
the Anglo-saxon tradition outlined above? How might these be
integrated?
Further extend the focus of political process studies beyond techno-
organisational change within single organisations and workplaces to
cover the contemporary prevalence and situation of such innovation
and change within complex networks of organisations, including
local, national and supra-national state agencies. To what extent are
traditional models of change generated by the political
process perspective adequate to cope with the new content,
context and processes suggested by such developments?
Move the perspective from its traditional preoccupation with process
innovations in manufacturing environments (CNC, FMS, CAD/CAM; TBCM,
Lean Production, ERP systems etc) to focus on areas such as: product
development processes; service-based product innovations, for example
in the public sector; ‘virtual’ forms of work and organising;
knowledge management and organisational learning; Can the
applicability of political process analysis be so clearly demonstrated
in these areas as it has been in workplace studies of
techno-organisational change?
Further develop the theory of political process studies. For example:
further refinement of the analysis of ‘technology’ through the
application of insights from the socio-economic shaping perspective;
sociology of technology, actor-network theory etc.; explorations of
the concept of ‘power’ which lie at the core of political process
studies but which remain surprisingly unexplored or developed. How can
a clearer theoretical and conceptual underpinning for political
process studies be articulated?
Develop intervention methods and techniques based on the insights of
the political process perspective, and explore linkages with other
intervention methodologies such as action research, socio-technical
systems interventions, organisational development, information
systems design and requirements analysis. What tools, techniques,
methodologies can be articulated to guide the change agent in
seeking to engage in ‘power steering’?
Discuss the research methodology of political process studies, in
particular the methods, techniques, processes and problems of
longitudinal research and the manner in which approaches such as
organisational narrative and ‘story telling’ might be integrated
within political process methodology. To what extent has a
distinctive methodological basis for political process studies been
established? How is this defined? How can it be developed?
Extend political process analysis beyond workplace employer/employee
conflict to other areas of organisational conflict, in particular
those based on gender or ethnicity, or inter rather than intra
organisational relations (e.g. conflicts within networks, project-
based organisations or supply chains). How is both the form of
technology and its outcomes shaped when the dynamics of choice
and negotiation are shaped by other sources of competing and
conflicting interpretation, intentionality and interest?
Selected papers from the theme would be invited to form contributions
to either a special edition of an appropriate journal or an edited
book collection.
Co-convernors:
Professor Ian McLoughlin (Newcastle University, England);
[log in to unmask]
Associate Professor Christian Koch (Danish Technical University);
[log in to unmask]
Professor Richard Badham (Wollongong University, Australia);
[log in to unmask]
Professor Patrick Dawson (Aberdeen University, Scotland),
[log in to unmask]
Professor David Preece (Portsmouth University, England).
[log in to unmask]
Submission of abstracts:
Please send an abstract of no more than 500 words by email to all
convenors by the 15th December 2001.
************************************************************************************
Distributed through Cyber-Society-Live [CSL]: CSL is a moderated discussion
list made up of people who are interested in the interdisciplinary academic
study of Cyber Society in all its manifestations.To join the list please visit:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/cyber-society-live.html
*************************************************************************************
|
