Call for Papers

Creativity is essential for craft organizations to maintain their identity, status, and survival in response to marketplace changes, competitive challenges, technological shifts, and changes in legitimacy standards (Beverland, 2005; Carroll & Swaminathan, 2000). For example, Cattani et al. (2017) examine adaptations undertaken by craft producer Steinway to maintain its leading status among classical piano professionals, identifying the importance of framing creativity in terms of iconic connections to the original spirit of the brand. Likewise, Beverland et al. (2015) identify that brand meaning can be enhanced through craft practice as long as it is indexed to the brand’s enduring heritage. On the face of it, creativity and craft are not oppositional (Romain, 2016), but the nature of this relationship remains unclear.
 
As a carrier of tradition, craft can be used to maintain and change culture creatively (Bell et al., 2021). For example, creativity was found necessary for the survival of Japanese handicrafts (Takuya & Takayama, 2010) and the use of new materials and traditional methods to produce replacement components for the preservation of listed buildings (Colombero & Boxenbaum, 2019). Likewise, creativity is essential for the reinterpretation of craft categories. For example, modern producers of Barolo and Barbaresco wines use small French barriques to modernize their styles rather than the large oak casks traditionally used to give their wines their long-lived, but difficult-to-approach reputation (Negro et al., 2011). In the culinary field, considerable research attention has been paid to new cuisines that reinterpret traditions such as the Modern Spanish cuisine (Svejenova et al., 2007), the New Anatolian Kitchen (Cappelen & Pedersen, 2021), and gourmet food trucks that are an upscale version of food trucks (Schifeling & Demetry, 2021).
 
However, craft and innovation remain uneasy bedfellows. Craft suggests an enduring commitment to inherited tradition, a “slow” logic, and the rejection of industrial techniques (Sennett, 2008). Creativity, on the other hand, emphasizes change and the adoption of the new, including challenging convention and discarding past practices, particularly when they are no longer believed to fit with emerging marketplace norms, category practices, or dominant technological designs. Therefore, craftspeople must walk a tightrope between commitments to traditions that frame craft as unchanging or not subject to external influences and marketplace relevance rooted in future or creative imaginaries of craft (Bell et al., 2021; Lehman et al., 2019).
 
In this context, the concept of neo-craft emerges as a potential resolution to the tension between traditional craft and creativity. As an emergent form of post-industrial work, neo-craft work seems to be a reaction to the impersonal and often unfulfilling aspects of modern work which offers a way to combine creativity, manual skill, and personal expression in a way that traditional and industrial crafts might not (Gandini & Gerosa, 2023). Despite the opportunities that neo-craft might offer, it also leads to some challenges related to exclusivity, economic accessibility, and urban gentrification. For example, since middle-class workers co-opt working-class culture and render it “cool” in pursuit of meaningful employment, neo-craft can lead to the exclusion of individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds from participating in or benefiting from it (Ocejo, 2017). In turn, this can drive up prices in working-class neighborhoods leading to the gentrification of the very communities they are trying to emulate (Gerosa, 2024). Thus, the question remains as to whether the potential benefits of neo-craft work outweigh its challenges.
 
Building on these insights, it is also important to problematize some of the taken-for-granted ideas around craft and creativity. While much of the literature highlights the positive aspects of creativity in the context of craft, it is crucial to acknowledge its potential misuse for profit. An example is craftwashing or “the use of craft as a marketing ploy that performs political and social engagement while obscuring ethical, environmental and labour issues in the chain of production” (Black & Burisch, 2020: 2). Organizations employ creative marketing strategies that commodify the image of Indigenous or marginalized craftspeople to boost claims of authenticity and maximize profit (e.g., Terrio, 2000). This not only raises ethical concerns but also reveals how creativity can be employed to exploit vulnerable communities.
 
Finally, the bulk of the literature has focused on craft as a creative form of making in the Global North while depicting it as primitive or a means of survival in the Global South. These are Eurocentric conceptions of craft that might not reflect the reality of other communities and geographies, especially that of colonized Indigenous communities. Therefore, there is a need to advance our critical understanding of creative craftsmanship in the Global South as a hybrid, artistic, and luxurious form of making that recognizes tradition, legacies of colonialism, and the ability of Indigenous craftspeople to adapt to modern demands.
 
Our sub-theme aims to contribute to the domain of creativity and craft by exploring tensions around issues of authenticity, tradition, and innovation. We welcome all scholars who are interested in presenting their research that explores the intersections between creativity and craft. We especially welcome submissions with a focus on the Global South. In doing so, we are open to diverse theoretical perspectives and empirical approaches.
 
Possible questions include, but are not limited to:

• How do craft organizations allow space for both creativity and tradition?

• How can tradition serve as a resource while simultaneously embracing innovation and change?

• How can creativity in craft help to navigate changing digital environments? And, to what extent does technology enable or stifle the creative process?

• How can creative craft restore, renovate, revive, or/and reinterpret traditional making skills?

• How can future imaginaries of craft result in (unintended) negative or mixed consequences?

• How is craft in the Global South reshaping the narrative around creativity? And how does this foster a more inclusive theorization of craft?

• What are the ethical implications of how we consider these narratives in the Global South?

References

• Bell, E., Dacin, M.T., & Toraldo, M.L. (2021): “Craft Imaginaries – Past, Present and Future.” Organization Theory, 2 (1), 1–18.

• Beverland, M.B. (2005): “Brand management and the challenge of authenticity.” Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14 (7), 460–461.
• Beverland, M.B., Wilner, S.J., & Micheli, P. (2015): “Reconciling the tension between consistency and relevance: Design thinking as a mechanism for brand ambidexterity.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 589–609.
• Black, A., & Burisch, N. (eds.) (2020): The New Politics of the Handmade. Craft, Art and Design. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Cappelen, S.M., & Pedersen, J.S. (2021): “Inventing Culinary Heritage through Strategic Historical Ambiguity.” Organization Studies, 42 (2), 223–243.
• Carroll, G.R., & Swaminathan, A. (2000): “Why the Microbrewery Movement? Organizational Dynamics of Resource Partitioning in the U.S. Brewing Industry.” American Journal of Sociology, 106 (3), 715–762.
• Cattani, G., Dunbar, R.L.M., & Shapira, Z. (2017): “How Commitment to Craftsmanship Leads to Unique Value: Steinway & Sons’ Differentiation Strategy.” Strategy Science, 2 (1), 13–38.
• Colombero, S., & Boxenbaum, E. (2019): “Authentication as Institutional Maintenance Work.” Journal of Management Studies, 56 (2), 408–440.
• Gandini, A., & Gerosa, A. (2023): “What is ‘Neo-Craft’ Work, and Why it Matters.” Organization Studies, first published online on November 2, 2023; https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406231213963.
• Gerosa, A. (2024): The Hipster Economy. Taste and authenticity in late modern capitalism. London: UCL Press.
• Lehman, D.W., O’Connor, K., Kovács, B., & Newman, G.E. (2019): “Authenticity.” Academy of Management Annals, 13 (1), 1–42.
• Negro, G., Hannan, M.T., & Rao, H. (2011): “Category Reinterpretation and Defection: Modernism and Tradition in Italian Winemaking.” Organization Science, 22 (6), 1449–1463.
• Ocejo, R.E. (2017): Masters of Craft. Old Jobs in the New Urban Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Romain, J. (2016): “‘All Art is Part of the Same Constellation’: A Conversation on Craft and Artistic Practice with Heri Dono.” The Journal of Modern Craft, 9 (2), 183–191.
• Schifeling, T., & Demetry, D. (2021): “The New Food Truck in Town: Geographic Communities and Authenticity-Based Entrepreneurship.” Organization Science, 32 (1), 133–155.
• Sennett, R. (2008): The Craftsman. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Svejenova, S., Mazza, C., & Planellas, M. (2007): “Cooking up change in haute cuisine: Ferran Adrià as an institutional entrepreneur.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28 (5), 539–561.
• Takuya, K., & Takayama, C. (2010): “‘Traditional Art Crafts (Dentō Kōgei)’ in Japan: From Reproductions to Original Works.” The Journal of Modern Craft, 3 (1), 19–35.
• Terrio, S.J. (2000): Crafting the Culture and History of French Chocolate. Oakland: University of California Press.