{"word_count": 909, "character_count": 7063}
PUTTING CRITICAL PERFORMATIVITY TO WORKCall for Papers – Special Issue of M@n@gementSpecial Issue Guest editorsIsabelle Huault (Université Paris-Dauphine PSL)Dan Kärreman (Copenhagen Business School)Véronique Perret (Université Paris-Dauphine PSL)André Spicer (Cass Business School, City University London)Deadline: 30th September 2015The notion of “performativity” (and the idea of the “performative”) has recently gainedtraction in the organizational studies field (Cabantous &#38; Gond, 2011; Callon, 2007; Huault &#38;Rainelli, 2009) to the extent that some authors have even talked about a “performative turn”(Muniesa, 2014). Broadly speaking, the notion of performativity points to the idea thatdiscourses (e.g. speech acts, theories) are not merely describing reality but are contributing toenact the reality they describe. It is indeed used by scholars from different research traditions,ranging from Actor-Network theory (Callon, 2007), critical management studies (Spicer,Alvesson, &#38; Kärreman, 2009), gender studies (Butler, 1997), etc.This special issue locates within this broad literature on performativity, and encouragesorganization scholars to “put critical performativity to work” by revisiting this notion, andmoving forward.An emerging strand of organization theory has sought to bring the ideas of “critics” and“performativity” together, around the concept of critical performativity. For example, Spicerand colleagues (2009) outlined the possibilities and pitfalls of critical performativity. Theysuggest critical performativity involves “active and subversive interventions into managementdiscourse and practice” (Spicer, Alvesson &#38; Kärreman, 2009: 538). They propose sometactics through which this might be achieved such as affirmation, care, pragmatism,engagement with potentialities, and a normative orientation. For them, critical performativityoffers a way of critically working with discourses of management towards progressive socialchange. Doing this, they claim, offers a way out of the pervasive cynicism and studiedimpracticality, which characterises so much of critical thought. It also offers a way of yokingthe booming research agenda around performativity to a more critical and political agenda.The concept of critical performativity has sparked a small, but rapidly growing literature.Dynamics of critical performativity opens numerous avenues of research, which echo a rangeof issues in critical management studies such as leadership (Crevani et al, 2010; Alvesson &#38;Spicer, 2012), diversity (Zanoni et al, 2010), human resource management (Jannsens &#38;Steyeart, 2009), business ethics (Prasad &#38; Mills, 2010), organizational change (Morgan &#38;Spicer, 2009), projects (Daniel et al, 2013), management education (Huault &#38; Perret, 2011) oracademic conferences (Bell &#38; King, 2010).Despite the growing number of studies which try to put “critical performativity” to work, anumber of serious questions and limitations can be raised. Drawing on the rich tradition ofthinking about performativity (Austin, 1959; Butler, 1997; MacKenzie, 2006), some studieshave shed light on the mechanisms whereby theories and models affect practices throughembedding in tools and devices (Cabantous &#38; Gond, 2011; Callon, 2007; Guerard, Langley &#38;Seidl, 2013). However, it is not clear how the “critical performativity approach” interacts withsuch perspectives, builds on them or can contribute to them (and vice-versa). For example,from a theoretical or epistemological viewpoint, is critical performativity compatible with anapproach such as actor-network-theory (Alcadapani &#38; Hassard, 2010)? How criticalperspective can enrich Callon’s “performativity thesis” (Roscoe &#38; Chillas, 2013)? Besides,some have pointed out the extreme difficulties involved in attempting to put criticalperformativity into practice in the day-to-day running of an enterprise (King &#38; Learmonth,2014). Others have pointed out that traditional cannons of critical thinking will severelyimpede this enterprise (Hartmann, 2013). From an empirical viewpoint, what are the “engines”required to foster the ideals of critical management studies (Leca, Gond &#38; Barin-Cruz, 2014)?Given these road-blocks, a recent contribution has suggested that a more realistic approachwould be a kind of toned down performativity aimed at progressive rather than radical socialchange (Wickert &#38; Schaefer, 2014). These questions suggest that critical performativitymight be an idea that is still very much in the prototyping stage.In this special issue, we want to put the idea of critical performativity to work. We invitetheoretical and empirical contributions, which develop, apply and critique the concept ofcritical performativity. We are particularly interested in contributions, which relate these ideasto issues of management and organizations – broadly conceived.Contributions to this special issue might cover some of the following indicative, but notexhaustive, issues:• Applying critical performativity. How can the idea of critical performativity be appliedto a range of key concepts in the study of organization and management such as identity,institutions, space, strategy, business models, management tools, the study of marketsand finance, technology, social movements . . .• Strategies for critical performativity. What potential strategies, tactics and practicescould scholars and practitioners interested pursuing critical performativity adopt? Whatmight we learn from other areas of practices such as the visual and performing artsabout how to practice critical performativity? How successful or useful are thesestrategies?• Education for critical performativity. Should critical performativity be built intomanagement education? Can critical management education be performative? In whatways is this possible?• Studying critical performativity. What methodological strategies might be used toactually study instances of critical performativity? What are the potential insights andblind spots of these methodological tactics? In what ways are some methods like criticalaction-research, performative?• Questioning critical performativity. What are some of the shortcomings with theconcept of critical performativity? To what extent can research on “criticalperformativity” build on, and contribute to the broader stream of performative studies?What are potential alternatives to the concept of critical performativity, which mightovercome these problems and open up a different set of possibilities?Process and DeadlineDeadline: Papers must be received by September 30th 2015Papers for the special issue should be prepared according to M@n@gement’s guidelines forauthors (http://www.management-aims.com/submission_en.html) and must be submitted tothe online submission system of M@n@gement, before September 30th, 2015:http://aims.bepress.com/management_submission/When submitting your full paper, please include a cover letter that explicitly states that youwould like your paper to be considered for this special issue.