Call for Papers

Cultural artefacts – objects of cultural significance that are created by humans, including pictures, music and film – are increasingly used to promote social change efforts (Amenta & Polletta, 2019; Caren et al., 2020). Examples include the documentary “Bag it” (2010) which built awareness and led to policy changes around the use of plastic bags in different cities in the United States (Doc Society, 2023), or the community-building art project by artist Vik Muniz together with recyclable waste collectors at a landfill near Rio de Janeiro (Manning & Uygur, 2023). By social activism we refer to collective efforts to address domains in society that are typically seen as problematic such as inequality, social tension, violence and conflict, pollution and climate change (Stephan et al., 2016).
 
However, social activism also includes activities that are not necessarily considered “progressive” but may be about embracing more conservative values, such as security and safety, as well as various forms of cultural backlash to liberal movements (Norris & Inglehart, 2019). Visual artefacts in particular are known to convey information that is multi-layered, rich in context and emotionally impactful (Höllerer et al., 2018), thus having a potentially strong impact on audiences (Klein & Amis, 2021; Vasi et al,. 2015).
 
But who drives the use of cultural artefacts for social change, and in what ways? Some scholars indicate that cultural artefacts are either commissioned or used strategically by NGOs, political parties, activists, or social movement organizations as marketing tools to support their social causes (see, e.g., Caren et al., 2020; Barbera-Tomas et al., 2019). A second stream of research has looked at how cultural artefacts can generate an impact in society “organically”, without an activist group behind it – examples include the documentary “Gasland” (2010) which changed the conversation around the dangers of fracking (Vasi et al., 2015), or the photograph of a dead Syrian boy at the Turkish beach which changed the discourse on migration and refugees in the UK (Klein & Amis, 2021).
 
A third group of studies focuses on the role of creative artists in driving change as activists – either by themselves (see, e.g., Svejenova & Christiansen, 2017) or in collaboration with impact professionals (see, e.g., Kramer & Biederman, 2019, Doc Society, 2023). One example is the film “Dark Waters”, which exposed the health risks of polluting rivers and soil with so-called “forever chemicals” and which, along with an affiliated action campaign, led to state-level bills and corporate pledges to ban the use of these chemicals (Participant Media, 2023). Yet, we still know little about how individual and collective actors create, borrow, or manipulate cultural artefacts as part of their social activism efforts.
 
Also, how do cultural artefacts and their specific characteristics trigger social change dynamics? While the emotional effects of cultural artefacts on audiences are well-researched (see, e.g., Langdridge et al., 2019; Hill et al., 2019), we still need to understand much better how such emotional responses feed into social change processes. Scholars have called for more attention to the power of imagery and how it interacts with social and discursive dynamics (Klein & Amis, 2021; Baldessarelli et al., 2022).
 
We also need to better understand the power of storytelling in supporting social change within communities and more globally. Character-based stories can help audiences identify with protagonists and their struggles (Langdridge et al., 2019; Manning, 2023). Stories can “transport” audiences into narrative worlds which may induce changes in opinion and behaviors (Green, 2004; UCLA, 2018). More recently, especially media studies have examined “story-worlds” which may arise across platforms and media, which audiences may contribute to and which may promote awareness-building and collective action (e.g., Coombs & Holladay, 2018). In the process of co-creative narrative crafting, audiences that were traditionally assumed to be receptive may take agency in injecting their own ideas into meta-narratives (storyworlds) to mobilize action from the general public toward a social cause (see, e.g., Hou, 2023). For example, the NGO ‘Go Gentle’ skillfully used story-world building to foster conversations and garner popular support of voluntary assisted dying in Western Australia.
 
Finally, what are the specific outcomes of change processes that are fueled by cultural artefacts and under what conditions do they occur? Prior studies suggest that films and impact campaigns around them can help change public awareness, behaviours, policies and communities (Borum Chattoo & Feldman, 2017; Bieniek-Tobasco et al., 2019; Canella, 2017), as evidenced by several cases of documentaries (Doc Society, 2023) and narrative films (UCLA, 2018). We also know that books and documentaries can trigger changes in discourse that may, in turn, promote the delegitimization of established business practices (Maguire & Hardy, 2009). Timing and specific windows of opportunity, or what Hart and Leiserowitz (2009) call “teachable moments”, play a critical role here. Yet, we still know little about the mechanisms through which cultural artefacts can shape organizational action. We welcome further insights into the use and reception of cultural artefacts in and around organizations, and into the dynamics leading to organizational or societal outcomes.
 
This sub-theme is designed to provide a platform for this conversation. We hope to bring together scholars studying social change and social activism, with scholars interested in multimodality, storytelling, arts, and media. In so far, our call connects with the recent visual and material turn in Organization Studies (Boxenbaum et al., 2018; Cooren, 2020), while expanding the conversation on how multimodality and socio-materiality feeds into social activism (Bieniek-Tobasco et al., 2019). We aim to attract papers using various research methodologies and perspectives to inform on the evolving interplay of creative practices, cultural artefacts and social activism.
 
We seek to attract submissions that explore questions including (but not limited to) the following:

• How do social activists use cultural artefacts in their social change work, and to what effect?

• What role do emotional, aesthetic and political responses to cultural artefacts play in the mobilization of social change within communities, organizations and fields?

• What role do cultural artifacts play in supporting the establishment of new meanings within or around organizations?

• How do cultural artefacts influence the socio-political legitimacy of organizations?

• How do artistic products support the rise of new visions for organizations, markets and fields?

• How do cultural artefacts influence or interact with established discourses and practices within organizations or organizational fields?

• When and why do creative practices spark stakeholder engagement and collective action?

• Where are the new markets for cultural artefacts (such as NFTs, etc.) and how do they influence organizational action?

• How and to what extent can cultural artefacts be mobilized in tackling various social problems and grand societal challenges?

• In what ways do cultural artefacts intersect with narrative constructions of social problems and solutions to affect social change?

• What are critical spatial, temporal and institutional conditions under which cultural artefacts can change discourses, behaviors and policies?

References

• Amenta, E., and Polletta, F. (2019). The Cultural Impacts of Social Movements. Annual Review of Sociology 45(1): 279–299

• Baldessarelli, G., Stigliani, I., and Elsbach, K. D. (2022). The aesthetic dimension of organizing: A review and research agenda. Academy of Management Annals, 16(1), 217-257.
• Barberá-Tomás, D., Castelló, I., De Bakker, F. G., and Zietsma, C. (2019). Energizing through visuals: How social entrepreneurs use emotion-symbolic work for social change. Academy of Management Journal, 62(6), 1789-1817.
• Bieniek-Tobasco, A., McCormick, S., Rimal, R.N., Harrington, C.B., Shafer, M. and Shaikh, H. (2019) Communicating climate change through documentary film: imagery, emotion, and efficacy. Climatic Change 154(1): 1–18.
• Borum Chattoo, C., and Feldman, L. (2017) Storytelling for Social Change: Leveraging Documentary and Comedy for Public Engagement in Global Poverty. Journal of Communication 67(5): 678–701.
• Boxenbaum, E., Jones, C., Meyer, R.E. & Svejenova, S. (2018). Towards an Articulation of the Material and Visual Turn in Organization Studies. Organization Studies, 39 (5-6), 597-616.
• Canella, G. (2017) Social movement documentary practices: digital storytelling, social media and organizing. Digital Creativity 28(1): 24–37.
• Caren, N., Andrews, K.T. and Lu, T. (2020) Contemporary Social Movements in a Hybrid Media Environment. Annual Review of Sociology 46(1): 443–465.
• Coombs, W. T., and Holladay, S. J. (2018). Innovation in public relations theory and practice. A transmedia narrative transportation (TNT) approach. Journal of Communication Management, 22 (4), 382-396.
• Cooren, F. (2020). Beyond entanglement: (Socio-) Materiality and Organization Studies, Organization Theory, 1 (3), forthcoming.
• Doc Society (2023) The Impact Field Guide & Toolkit. From Art to Impact. Available at: https://impactguide.org/
• Green, M.C. (2004). Transportation Into Narrative Worlds: The Role of Prior Knowledge and Perceived Realism. Discourse Processes, 38 (2), 247-266.
• Hill, A., Askanius, T., Kondo, K., and Urueta, J.L. (2019) Provocative engagement: Documentary audiences and performances in The Act of Killing and The Look of Silence. International Journal of Cultural Studies 22(5): 662–677.
• Hou, J. (2023). ‘Sharing Is Caring’: Participatory Storytelling and Community Building on Social Media Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic. American Behavioral Scientist. Forthcoming.
• Höllerer, M.A., Jancsary, D., and Grafström, M. (2018) “A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words”: Multimodal Sensemaking of the Global Financial Crisis. Organization Studies 39(5–6): 617–644.
• Klein, J., and Amis, J.M. (2021) The Dynamics of Framing: Image, Emotion, and the European Migration Crisis. Academy of Management Journal 64(5): 1324–1354.
• Kramer, M. R., Biederman, B. D. (2019). Participant Media: Social Impact in Hollywood. Harvard Business School Case 720-364, August 2019.
• Langdridge, D., Gabb, J., and Lawson, J. (2019). Art as a pathway to impact: Understanding the affective experience of public engagement with film. The Sociological Review, 67 (3), 585-601.
• Maguire, S., and Hardy, C. (2009). Discourse and deinstitutionalization. The Decline of DDT. Academy of Management Journal, 52 (1), 148-178.
• Manning, S. (2023). Creating Powerful Stories: What Scholars Can Learn from Filmmakers. Journal of Management Studies, Forthcoming.
• Manning, S., and Uygur, Y. (2023). Transforming Local Communities Through Artistic Leadership: How Artists, Communities and Funders Can Come Together to Effectively Promote Local Change. Stanford Social Innovation Review. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/transforming_local_communities_through_artistic_leadership
• Norris, P., and Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit and Authoritarian Populism. Cambridge University Press.
• Participant Media (2023). Dark Waters. Fight Forever Chemicals. Participant.com/campaigns/Dark-Waters.
• Stephan, U., Patterson, M., Kelly, C. and Mair, J. (2016) Organizations Driving Positive Social Change: A Review and an Integrative Framework of Change Processes. Journal of Management 42 (5), 1250-1281.
• Svejenova, S., and Christiansen, L.H. (2017) Creative Leadership for Social Impact. In: Jones, C., and Maoret, M. (Eds): Frontiers of Creative Industries. Research in the Sociology of Organizations.
• UCLA (2018) The State of Social Impact Entertainment. Mapping the Landscape of Social Impact Entertainment. Report by UCLA Skoll Center for Social Impact Entertainment. https://www.thestateofsie.com/
• Vasi, I.B., Walker, E.T., Johnson, J.S. and Tan, H.F. (2015) “No Fracking Way!” Documentary Film, Discursive Opportunity, and Local Opposition against Hydraulic Fracturing in the United States, 2010 to 2013. American Sociological Review 80(5): 934–959.
•