Call for Papers

Call for short paper (pdf)

The role of science in society is no longer taken for granted (Collins et al., 2023) and is increasingly evaluated in terms of its impact. There is thus increasing pressure for scholars to reclaim agency in the debate on how we define, measure and evaluate impact in society (Reinecke et al., 2022; Wickert et al., 2021). Moreover, the grand challenges society faces require scholars to contribute toward solution development (Jarzabkowski et al., 2025a; Williams et al., 2024).

Research on Organizing-as-Practice—scholarship on organizational phenomena grounded in social theories of practice—has been considered particularly apt to create impact (Hamdali et al., 2024; Splitter & Seidl, 2024). By engaging closely with the everyday practices of organizing to explain how taken-for-granted social orders are constructed, Organizing-as-Practice scholarship is able to render visible what is often mundane and familiar to practitioners (Jarzabkowski et al., 2025b; Danner-Schroeder et al., 2025). However, some argue that due to the situatedness and context-dependence of social practices, the impact derived from practice-based scholarship is unlikely to be instrumental, i.e., it cannot prescribe particular courses of action that practitioners should follow beyond the specific situation in which a study was conducted (Hamdali et al., 2024).

Instead, Organizing-as-Practice scholarship can create what is sometimes called conceptual impact, i.e., it can help practitioners to uncover new or alternative practices, thereby extending their action repertoire, or reveal unknown side effects of particular practices (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2011; Splitter & Seidl, 2024). While Organizing-as-Practice has potential to create (conceptual) impact, there is as yet little evidence on how impact from practice-based studies can be practiced successfully (see Jarzabkowski et al., 2025a, for an exception). This sub-theme thus intends to develop a better understanding of how Organizing-as-Practice scholars can practice impact. In particular, we aim to advance our understanding of 1) the various forms of practicing impact, 2) meaningful ways to evaluate impact, and 3) who should evaluate impact.

First, the various forms of practicing impact either refer to particular ways of co-creating performing or translating impactful research (Bansal & Sharma, 2022). Regarding the latter, some studies have shown that practice-theoretical research can only be impactful if it can capture the logic of management practice, i.e. if it can uncover the meanings that practitioners attribute to doing their work in a particular way (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2011; Splitter & Seidl, 2011). However, even if research on Organizing-as-Practice captures the logic of practice and has thus high potential to create impact, such research still needs to be not only translated but also disseminated to practitioners. Thus, scholars have sought various ways through which practice-based scholarship can be disseminated. Because the conceptual impact of Organizing-as-Practice requires scholars to directly explain to practitioners the meaning that they attribute to doing their work (Hamdali et al., 2024), scholars have suggested engaging directly with practitioners. For example, Vaara and Faÿ (2012) argue that Organizing-as-Practice scholars might create impact through management education. In our teaching, practice-theoretical concepts can serve as boundary objects (Hummel et al., 2025) that help to problematize participants’ experiences and to adopt new perspectives beyond the specifics of their immediate job. Others have suggested co-creating impact with practitioners, for example by holding workshops, which provides spaces for revisiting practitioners’ work and framing and designing research with those practitioners (Bansal & Sharma, 2022; Jarzabkowski et al., 2025a). Yet, scholars’ attempts at (co-)creating impact can be challenging. As Jarzabkowski notes, when revealing the meaning of their practices to practitioners, “they are … disappointed because we are providing a basis for reflection rather than a prescription around what they should do” (Hamdali et al., 2024, p. 236). Thus, disseminating Organizing-as-Practice research might not meet practitioners’ instrumental expectations of impact as a ‘tool’ to fix a ‘problem’, rather than a reflexive understanding of their own practices. Practice scholars thus need to consider how the impact of Organizing-as-Practice can be practiced. For example, scholars might take a performative approach, engaging with practitioners in reflexive reconstruction of their practices, and becoming advocates or even activists (Delmestri, 2023; Williams et al., 2024).

In all this, it is often assumed that creating impact is necessarily positive. But impact can include unintended consequences too. When practicing impact, scholars also need to question their stance on issues that matter for practice, whether they have normative assumptions, and whether, even with the best of intentions, there is a ‘dark side’ to their immersive, co-creating and performing work.

Second, an important aspect in the general debate on impact is its evaluation. Funding bodies typically measure impact in terms of the extent to which research is diffused to practitioners or the public or can demonstrate a tangible, ideally quantitatively measurable and specific change. However, Organizing-as-Practice scholars have criticized such measurement for its linear view of diffusion (Hamdali et al., 2024). Assuming that research can simply be diffused to practitioners neglects the “dissociation processes” (Jarzabkowski & Wilson, 2006) between practice-theoretical research and its potential use in practice, which involves translating, editing and repurposing. Through such dissociation processes, research on Organizing-as-Practice might also have impact beyond the specific practices it examined. This makes its “knowledge products” less tangible and difficult to trace or measure. Thus, we need to reflect upon meaningful ways of evaluating impact of Organizing-as-Practice research beyond a linear view of diffusion and study the practices of evaluating research impact.

Third, referring to the political side of impact, the question is, who should evaluate the impact of scholarship? Impact is typically evaluated by formalized professional groups, like funding bodies or academic associations, who have their own sets of (competing) interests. For example, funding bodies’ quest for impact is often underpinned by a “return on (taxpayers’) investment” logic, rather than the intrinsic value of research (Hamdali et al., 2024, p. 234). In turn, if policy makers are to evaluate the impact of research, they might be driven by election results rather than their interest in solving societal problems. Practice-based research may therefore risk being evaluated (and dismissed) in ways that play into the agenda of particular “beneficiaries”. Thus, we need to critically reflect on the influence of professional institutions on impactful practice-based scholarship, and on alternative actors, who could evaluate impact in a less opportunistic way. In particular, practice-based scholars could consider how they can give voice to those whom they study, emancipating them to have their own impact (Jarzabkowski et al., 2025b).

In summary, with this sub-theme we hope to gain insights into the powerful ways through which Organizing-as-Practice scholars can create recognizable impact.

To do so, we invite Organizing-as-Practice studies that exemplify impact and invite conceptual and empirical papers that might address one of the following questions:

• How can impact based on Organizing-as-Practice research be practiced – produced, disseminated, and performed?

• What are limitations in the generation of impact through Organizing-as-Practice research and how might these be overcome?

• How can scholars influence the degree to which practitioners are willing to engage with Organizing-as-Practice research?

• What might be unintended consequences or even a dark side to practicing impact, and how can they be avoided?

• How can the impact of Organizing-as-Practice research be evaluated (beyond direct dissemination)?

• How do professional institutions influence impactful practice-based scholarship?

• Who could evaluate impact in a meaningful way, apart from professional institutions?

• How can we reconfigure our own scholarly practice to increase the impact of practice-based studies

• How can we draw from the immersive methods of practice-based research to give greater voice and agency to our participants to have their own impact from our research

• How do the roles and methods that researchers adopt in the research process affect the impact they generate?

• Bansal, P., & Sharma, G. (2022). Three different approaches to impact: Translating, cocreating, and performing. Business & Society, 61(4), 827–832.
• Collins, H., Evans, R., Durant, D., & Weinel, M. (2023). The third wave and populism: Scientific expertise as a check and balance. In G. Eyal & T. Medvetz (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of expertise and democratic politics (pp. 52–75). Oxford University Press.
• Danner-Schröder, A., Mahringer, C., Sele, K., Jarzabkowski, P., Rouleau, L., Feldman, M., Pentland, B., Huysman, M., Sergeeva, A. V., Gherardi, S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2025). Tackling grand challenges: Insights and contributions from practice theories. Journal of Management Inquiry, 34(2), 143–166.
• Delmestri, G. (2023). Are we all activists? Organization Studies, 44(1), 159–162.
• Hamdali, Y., Skade, L., Jarzabkowski, P., Nicolini, D., Reinecke, J., Vaara, E., & Zietsma, C. (2024). Practicing impact and impacting practice? Creating impact through practice-based scholarship. Journal of Management Inquiry, 33(3), 230–243.
• Hummel, J. T., Berends, H., & Tuertscher, P. (2025). From boundary objects to boundary infrastructure: A process study of collaboration between big science and big business. Journal of Management Studies, 62(4), 1644–1679.
• Jarzabkowski, P., & Wilson, D. C. (2006). Actionable strategy knowledge: A practice perspective. European Management Journal, 24(5), 348–367.
• Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R., Chalkias, K., Cacciatori, E., Kavas, M., Krull, E., & Gallagher Rodgers, R. (2025a). Translating, co-creating, and performing: Reflections on a 15-year journey for impact into the grand challenge of disaster insurance. Strategic Organization, 23(1), 79–97.
• Jarzabkowski, P., Meissner, K., Riordan, T., & Gallagher, R. (2025b). What’s ‘natural’ about disasters? Practice theory as an emancipatory lens for reconceptualising the social construction of disasters. The Journal of Practice Theory, 1.
• Reinecke, J., Boxenbaum, E., & Gehman, J. (2022). Impactful theory: Pathways to mattering. Organization Theory, 3(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221131061
• Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2011). Grasping the logic of practice: Theorizing through practical rationality. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 338–360.
• Splitter, V., & Seidl, D. (2024). Practical relevance of practice-theoretical research on strategy. In D. Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl, & E. Vaara (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice (pp. 230–242). Cambridge University Press.
• Splitter, V., & Seidl, D. (2011). Does practice-based research on strategy lead to practically relevant knowledge? Implications of a Bourdieusian perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(1), 98–120.
• Vaara, E., & Faÿ, E. (2012). Reproduction and change on the global scale: A Bourdieusian perspective on management education. Journal of Management Studies, 49(6), 1023–1051.
• Wickert, C., Post, C., Doh, J. P., Prescott, J. E., & Prencipe, A. (2021). Management research that makes a difference: Broadening the meaning of impact. Journal of Management Studies, 58(2), 297–320.
• Williams, A., Harley, B., Walls, J., Whiteman, G., & Dowell, G. (2024). A framework of generative impact-driven research: An introduction to the special issue. Strategic Organization, 23(1), 7–18.