BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Academy of Management  - ECPv6.15.17.1//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:Academy of Management 
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://www.aom.org
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Academy of Management 
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/New_York
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20240310T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20241103T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20250309T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20251102T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20260308T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20261101T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20270314T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20271107T060000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Europe/Paris
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:CEST
DTSTART:20240331T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:CET
DTSTART:20241027T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:CEST
DTSTART:20250330T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:CET
DTSTART:20251026T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:CEST
DTSTART:20260329T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:CET
DTSTART:20261025T010000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/Toronto
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20250309T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20251102T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20260308T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20261101T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20270314T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20271107T060000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Europe/Amsterdam
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:CEST
DTSTART:20250330T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:CET
DTSTART:20251026T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:CEST
DTSTART:20260329T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:CET
DTSTART:20261025T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:CEST
DTSTART:20270328T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:CET
DTSTART:20271031T010000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:UTC
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:UTC
DTSTART:20250101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20251101T000000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20251215T000000
DTSTAMP:20260406T174757
CREATED:20260225T035320Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260225T035320Z
UID:10000010-1761955200-1765756800@www.aom.org
SUMMARY:Management Learning and Education as Drivers of Fundamental Alternative Forms of Organizing
DESCRIPTION:Guest Editors\n\n\n\n\nSimon Pek\, University of Victoria (Canada)\n\n\n\nFrédéric Dufays\, HEC Liège-ULiège & KU Leuven (Belgium)\n\n\n\nMartyna Śliwa\, University of Durham (United Kingdom)\n\n\n\nAjnesh Prasad\, Tecnológico de Monterrey (Mexico)\n\n\n\nAmon Barros\, FGV EAASP (Brazil)\n\n\n\n\nAMLE Editors\n\n\n\n\nLaura Colombo\, University of Exeter (United Kingdom)\n\n\n\nKatrin Muehlfeld\, Trier University (Germany)\n\n\n\n\nCall for Papers\n\n\n\nIn promoting managerialism and shareholder value maximization\, business schools have long been implicated in perpetuating what has come to be popularized as grand challenges in the literature. These include\, among other phenomena\, climate change\, biodiversity loss\, economic and gender inequality (e.g.\, Kumar et al.\, 2024; Locke & Spender\, 2011; Parker\, 2018). AMLE\, in particular\, has been at the vanguard of identifying and interrogating the nexus between business schools\, management education\, and management learning\, on the one hand\, and the perpetuation of grand challenges\, on the other hand. For example\, in describing the economic arrangements that structure society\, Fotaki and Prasad (2015: 558) observed almost a decade ago: “[M]any blind spots and unanswered questions about the complicity of business schools in propagating inequalities under neoliberal regimes still exist.” More recently\, turning to the matter of climate change\, Colombo and colleagues (2024) lamented in an editorial about the historical role of management learning and education (MLE) in contributing to the deteriorating state of the world’s natural environment. This led them to ask: “How can our discipline help envision and shape a thriving future\, in a way that contributes knowledge\, skills\, and wisdom toward tackling the contemporary ecological and climate crises?” (207). Observations such as these are being raised with greater frequency and urgency by MLE scholars seeking to tackle pernicious societal grand challenges (Figueiró\, Neutzling\, & Lessa\, 2022; Mailhot & Lachapelle\, 2024).  \n\n\n\nTo tackle grand challenges\, attention has been given to alternative organizations and the positive societal impact they generate (e.g.\, Cavotta & Mena\, 2023)\, as well as to their prefigurative function of and for an alternative future—a future that is better aligned with social and environmental considerations (Bhatt\, Qureshi\, Shukla\, & Hota\, 2024; Schiller-Merkens\, 2024). Researchers commonly use the term alternative organizations to describe those that meaningfully depart from some of the defining characteristics of traditional corporations. Such alternative forms include\, among others\, cooperatives\, stakeholder firms\, social enterprises\, and employee-owned firms (e.g.\, Chen & Chen\, 2021; Kociatkiewicz\, Kostera\, & Parker\, 2021; Luyckx\, Schneider\, & Kourula\, 2022; Mair & Rathert\, 2021; Pek\, 2023).  \n\n\n\nWhen alternative forms of organizing have been studied in the discipline of management\, they have been largely reduced to incremental alternatives\, pointing to “anything different to the traditional for-profit model” (Barin Cruz\, Aquino Alves\, & Delbridge\, 2017: 324). Social enterprises are perhaps the quintessential incremental alternative. They have received a tremendous amount of scholarly attention to date in both management (Battilana & Lee\, 2014) and MLE research (Pache & Chowdhury\, 2012; Tracey & Phillips\, 2007).  \n\n\n\nIn this special issue\, we are specifically interested in fundamental (Barin Cruz et al.\, 2017) alternative forms of organizing\, which “challenge some of the classic principles of the capitalist system” (Barin Cruz et al.\, 2017: 323). Specifically\, we consider fundamental alternative organizations as embracing joint or collective ownership instead of private ownership (Chen & Chen\, 2021; Luyckx et al.\, 2022). This includes a broad diversity of organizations\, including cooperatives (Zamagni & Zamagni\, 2010)\, communes (Frye\, 2022)\, broad-based employee ownership in the form of employee ownership trusts (Michael\, 2017) and employee stock ownership plans (Blasi\, Scharf\, & Kruse\, 2023)\, Indigenous economic development corporations (Savic & Hoicka\, 2023)\, bicameral firms (Ferreras\, 2017)\, commons-based peer production (Benkler & Nissenbaum\, 2006)\, and community self-organizations\, such as collective Black enterprises in the Colombian Pacific (Tubb\, 2018). These organizations often\, but not always\, complement this distinctive approach to ownership with more democratic governance and management (Chen & Chen\, 2021; Pek\, 2021).  \n\n\n\nFundamental alternatives have received only marginal attention from MLE scholars (though there are some exceptions\, e.g.\, Audebrand\, Camus\, & Michaud\, 2017) and they continue to remain largely absent from mainstream management textbooks (Rankin & Piwko\, 2022). This curious lack of MLE engagement with fundamental alternative forms of organizing means that students graduating from business schools hoping to tackle grand challenges are not equipped with the tools and concepts necessary to be able to do so. For MLE scholarship to achieve its ostensible aim of producing socially conscientious leaders for a sustainable future\, business school curricula must be broadened so as to include these fundamental alternative organizations.  \n\n\n\nTo be sure\, this is no small feat. Those who have tried to incorporate such organizations into their curricula have identified a range of challenges. For example\, Audebrand and colleagues (2017) observed resistance from students (e.g.\, limited interest) as well as instructors (e.g.\, limited resources). Fournier (2006: 297) found that\, while students actively engaged with concepts pertaining to alternative organizing\, “they all demonstrated a lack of faith in their very possibility.” Yet\, there is some evidence of how MLE can subvert even the most culturally embedded of social systems. Zulfiqar and Prasad (2021)\, for example\, have illuminated how engaged pedagogy intended to raise consciousness on social inequalities among privileged business school students can unsettle and transcend taken-for-granted assumptions about the world.  \n\n\n\nWith an eye on tackling societal grand challenges\, MLE scholarship can and should play a major role in distilling the challenges to teaching and learning pertaining to fundamental alternative organizing and identifying solutions that can overcome them. These span the three domains of MLE research – i.e.\, the business of business schools\, management learning\, and management education (Lindebaum\, 2024) – and their intersectional phenomena\, including business schools’ and universities’ governance arrangements (Billsberry\, Ambrosini\, & Thomas\, 2023; Wright\, Greenwood\, & Boden\, 2011)\, inter-departmental relationships (Parker\, 2021)\, student consumerism (Naidoo\, Shankar\, & Veer\, 2011)\, and pedagogical interventions (Parker\, Racz\, & Palmer\, 2018; Reedy & Learmonth\, 2009). This special issue aims to generate new theory about fundamental alternative organizations and MLE and\, in so doing\, respond to calls for more critical thinking about the objectives of management education\, greater collaboration with other scholarly disciplines\, and a broadening of our pedagogical approaches (Colombo et al.\, 2024).  \n\n\n\nIllustrative Themes and Research Questions\n\n\n\nFundamental Alternative Organizations and the Business of Business Schools \n\n\n\n\nHow can challenges to incorporating fundamental alternatives be overcome by instructors\, business school leaders\, and accreditation agencies? For example\, would different approaches to business school governance—perhaps those modeled on fundamental alternatives themselves like Mondragon University (Wright et al.\, 2011)—be helpful in this regard?\n\n\n\nHow can fundamental alternatives be woven into professional and executive education programs targeted at professionals in both traditional businesses and fundamental alternatives? What are the opportunities to rethink existing business models in this regard\, such as developing targeted programs to support Cooperative Principle #5 on Education\, Training\, and Information from the statement of cooperative identity? (International Co-operative Alliance\, n.d.)\n\n\n\nHow does integrating fundamental alternatives into MLE affect business schools’ relationships with stakeholders such as corporate philanthropic partners?\n\n\n\nHow do fundamental alternatives configure in MLE in unique and contrasting ways across cultures? For instance\, do the form and/or effects of fundamental alternatives materialize differently in Global South versus Global North business school contexts?\n\n\n\nHow\, and to what effects\, could dominant publishers like Harvard Business Publishing better incorporate fundamental alternatives into their products? (Bridgman et al.\, 2016)\n\n\n\n\nFundamental Alternative Organizations and Management Learning \n\n\n\n\nWhat new skills and competencies can students acquire through different pedagogical strategies focused on fundamental alternatives? For example\, do these pedagogical strategies contribute to the development of civic capacities? (Colombo\, 2023) Paradoxically\, what skills and competencies might students inadvertently not acquire when moving MLE beyond its dominant focus on traditional business models to also include fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nWhat potential unintended consequences like the amplification of formal\, social\, and psychological disempowerment (Diefenbach\, 2020) might arise from teaching about fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nHow are instructors personally and professionally transformed through engaging with fundamental alternatives in their pedagogy? Do they\, for instance\, become more engaged in the governance of their business schools? Do they become more involved in activities that support the creation of fundamental alternatives? (Esper\, Cabantous\, Barin-Cruz\, & Gond\, 2017)\n\n\n\nHow can teaching fundamental alternatives inspire student entrepreneurs to develop new business models and practices (Pepin\, Tremblay\, Audebrand\, & Chassé\, 2024)?\n\n\n\nHow can teaching fundamental alternatives help students prefigure their paths toward a new economy (Schiller-Merkens\, 2024)? To what extent does it impact their identity (formation) as students\, as citizens\, and/or as entrepreneurs? (Solbreux\, Hermans\, Pondeville\, & Dufays\, 2024)\n\n\n\nDo the internal dynamics of fundamental alternatives offer new perspectives on diversity\, equity\, and inclusion (DEI) and\, if so\, how might they intervene in polemical debates over “woke” DEI policies taking place among business school academics? (Prasad & Śliwa\, 2024\n\n\n\n\nFundamental Alternative Organizations and Management Education \n\n\n\nFundamental alternative organizations have been largely ignored in contemporary MLE scholarship as evidenced in their omission in economics and management texts (e.g.\, Kalmi\, 2007; Rankin & Piwko\, 2022; Schugurensky & McCollum\, 2010). Instead\, the traditional investor-owned\, capitalist enterprise maintains a hegemonic presence in MLE despite growing concerns for more sustainability in business school education (Figueiró et al.\, 2022; Mailhot & Lachapelle\, 2024). MLE researchers can help unpack the factors that may have contributed to this state of affairs. \n\n\n\n\nRe-tracing the history of business schools (McLaren et al.\, 2021; Spicer\, Jaser\, & Wiertz\, 2021; Wanderley\, Alcadipani\, & Barros\, 2021)\, what key events may have contributed to the current marginal place of fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nWhat is the role of isomorphic pressures generated by key actors like accreditation bodies in silencing or making fundamental alternatives visible in management education? (Romero\, 2008)\n\n\n\nWhat is the role of broader social discourses like student consumerism (Naidoo et al.\, 2011) and managerialism (Clegg\, 2014) in undermining fundamental alternatives in MLE?\n\n\n\nWhy has MLE scholarship readily embraced incremental alternatives like social enterprises\, while not affording similar legitimacy to fundamental alternatives like worker cooperatives and broad-based employee ownership?\n\n\n\n\nWhile some authors have incorporated fundamental alternatives into their teaching (Audebrand et al.\, 2017; Fournier\, 2006)\, there is much to learn about how fundamental alternatives could be integrated into different pedagogies. Additionally\, we need a deeper understanding of the challenges instructors might face and how those challenges could be overcome. MLE scholarship has much to contribute to both of these closely related topics. \n\n\n\n\nHow can existing MLE pedagogies like experiential learning and service learning be translated to teach fundamental alternative organizations effectively? For example\, should students’ and instructors’ interactions with organizations in service learning projects (Mazutis\, 2024) differ in the case of fundamental alternatives versus incremental alternatives or traditional businesses?\n\n\n\nHow should educational efforts focused on fundamental alternatives be integrated and sequenced with those on traditional business topics (Pache & Chowdhury\, 2012)?\n\n\n\nHow can educational practices currently used to teach fundamental alternative organizations in other disciplines (e.g.\, Manley\, 2021; Meek & Woodworth\, 1990) be leveraged and translated into business schools?\n\n\n\nWhat challenges might instructors and students face when engaging with fundamental alternatives in different contexts (Audebrand et al.\, 2017; Fournier\, 2006)? For example\, how might student consumerism\, which varies across countries (Fairchild & Crage\, 2014)\, affect instructors’ implementation of pedagogical strategies targeted towards fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nHow can educational repositories like the Curriculum Library for Employee Ownership become legitimated as important empirical resources in delivering management education?\n\n\n\n\nWorkshop Structure\n\n\n\nWe welcome Research and Review\, Essay\, and Book and Resource Review submissions for this special issue. The agnostic ethos of AMLE in terms of underlying paradigms\, theories\, and methods is reiterated (for as long as a submission falls within the remit of AMLE). All of the journal’s standard formatting and peer review guidelines will apply. \n\n\n\nSubmission Types\n\n\n\nWe welcome Research and Review\, Essay\, and Book and Resource Review submissions for this special issue. The agnostic ethos of AMLE in terms of underlying paradigms\, theories\, and methods is reiterated (for as long as a submission falls within the remit of AMLE). All of the journal’s standard formatting and peer review guidelines will apply. \n\n\n\nInquiries\n\n\n\nThose interested in contributing to this special issue are welcome to contact Simon Pek (spek@uvic.ca) and Ajnesh Prasad (prasad@tec.mx) with their questions. We encourage authors interested in submitting a book or resource review to contact us prior to preparing a manuscript. Authors interested in submitting a book or resource review should identify the work to be reviewed and a brief explanation of how it fits the remit of the special issue. \n\n\n\nPlease note that consultation with the guest editors is neither a prerequisite nor an expectation for submission to the special issue. \n\n\n\nSpecial Issue Timeline and Process\n\n\n\nSubmissions will be accepted via AMLE’s Manuscript Central portal between November 1\, 2025 and December 15\, 2025. \n\n\n\nPrior to submission\, we will hold an optional virtual professional development workshop on June 25\, 2025\, for interested authors to receive feedback on their ideas. Those interested in participating in the workshop should e-mail a 3\,000-word proposal (including references) to Simon Pek (spek@uvic.ca) and Ajnesh Prasad (prasad@tec.mx) by May 15\, 2025. We also plan to offer workshops to discuss this special issue at the 85th Academy of Management Conference in Copenhagen and the 41st EGOS Colloquium in Athens. We will share more details about these and other opportunities when available via the AMLE website and various listservs. While we encourage interested contributors to participate in these opportunities\, they are not a prerequisite for\, or a guarantee of\, eventual acceptance in the special issue. \n\n\n\nFollowing our first-round decisions\, we will hold a second optional professional development workshop for authors who receive a revise and resubmit decision following the first round of peer review. It is tentatively scheduled for Spring 2025\, and full details will be shared when available. \n\n\n\nReferences\n\n\n\nAudebrand\, L. K.\, Camus\, A.\, & Michaud\, V. 2017. A mosquito in the classroom: Using the cooperative business model to foster paradoxical thinking in management education. Journal of Management Education\, 41(2): 216–248. \n\n\n\nBarin Cruz\, L.\, Aquino Alves\, M.\, & Delbridge\, R. 2017. Next steps in organizing alternatives to capitalism: toward a relational research agenda. Introduction to the Special Issue. M@n@gement\, 20(4): 322–335. \n\n\n\nBattilana\, J.\, & Lee\, M. 2014. Advancing research on hybrid organizing – Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals\, 8(1): 397–441. \n\n\n\nBenkler\, Y.\, & Nissenbaum\, H. 2006. Commons-based peer production and virtue. Journal of Political Philosophy\, 14(4): 394–419. \n\n\n\nBhatt\, B.\, Qureshi\, I.\, Shukla\, D. M.\, & Hota\, P. K. 2024. Prefiguring alternative organizing: Confronting marginalization through projective cultural adjustment and tempered autonomy. Organization Studies\, 45(1): 59–84. \n\n\n\nBillsberry\, J.\, Ambrosini\, V.\, & Thomas\, L. 2023. Managerialist control in post-pandemic business schools: The tragedy of the new normal and a new hope. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 22(3)\, 439-458. \n\n\n\nBlasi\, J.\, Scharf\, A.\, & Kruse\, D. 2023. Employee ownership in the US: Some issues on ESOPs – overcoming the barriers to further development. Journal of Participation and Employee Ownership\, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/JPEO-11-2022-0028. \n\n\n\nBridgman\, T.\, Cummings\, S.\, & McLaughlin\, C. 2016. Restating the case: How revisiting the development of the case method can help us think differently about the future of the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 15(4)\, 724-741. \n\n\n\nCavotta\, V.\, & Mena\, S. 2023. Prosocial organizing and the distance between core and community work. Organization Studies\, 44(4): 637–657. \n\n\n\nChen\, K. K.\, & Chen\, V. T. 2021. “What if” and “if only” futures beyond conventional capitalism and bureaucracy: Imagining collectivist and democratic possibilities for organizing. In K. K. Chen & V. T. Chen (Eds.)\, Research in the sociology of organizations: 1–28. Emerald Publishing Limited. \n\n\n\nClegg\, S. R. 2014. Managerialism: Born in the USA. Academy of Management Review\, 39(4): 566–576. \n\n\n\nColombo\, L. A. 2023. Civilize the business school: For a civic management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 22(1): 132–149. \n\n\n\nColombo\, L. A.\, Moser\, C.\, Muehlfeld\, K.\, & Joy\, S. 2024. Sowing the seeds of change: Calling for a social–ecological approach to management learning and education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 23(2): 207–213. \n\n\n\nDiefenbach\, T. 2020. The democratic organisation: Democracy and the future of work. Routledge. \n\n\n\nEsper\, S. C.\, Cabantous\, L.\, Barin-Cruz\, L.\, & Gond\, J.-P. 2017. Supporting alternative organizations? Exploring scholars’ involvement in the performativity of worker-recuperated enterprises. Organization\, 24(5): 671–699. \n\n\n\nFairchild\, E.\, & Crage\, S. 2014. Beyond the debates: Measuring and specifying student consumerism. Sociological Spectrum\, 34(5): 403–420. \n\n\n\nFerreras\, I. 2017. Firms as political entities: Saving democracy through economic bicameralism. Cambridge University Press. \n\n\n\nFigueiró\, P. S.\, Neutzling\, D. M.\, & Lessa\, B. 2022. Education for sustainability in higher education institutions: A multi-perspective proposal with a focus on management education. Journal of Cleaner Production\, 339: 130539. \n\n\n\nFotaki\, M.\, & Prasad\, A. 2015. Questioning neoliberal capitalism and economic inequality in business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 14(4): 556–575. \n\n\n\nFournier\, V. 2006. Breaking from the weight of the eternal present: Teaching organizational difference. Management Learning\, 37(3): 295–311. \n\n\n\nFrye\, H. 2022. Commons\, Communes\, and Freedom. Politics\, Philosophy & Economics\, 21(2): 228–244. \n\n\n\nInternational Co-operative Alliance. n.d. Cooperative identity\, values & principles. https://www.ica.coop/en/cooperatives/cooperative-identity\, February 4\, 2021. \n\n\n\nKalmi\, P. 2007. The disappearance of cooperatives from economics textbooks. Cambridge Journal of Economics\, 31(4): 625–647. \n\n\n\nKociatkiewicz\, J.\, Kostera\, M.\, & Parker\, M. 2021. The possibility of disalienated work: Being at home in alternative organizations. Human Relations\, 74(7): 933–957. \n\n\n\nKumar\, A.\, Soundararajan\, V.\, Bapuji\, H.\, Köhler\, T.\, Alcadipani\, R.\, Morsing\, M.\, & Coraiola\, D. M. 2024. Unequal Worlds: Management Education and Inequalities. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 23(3)\, 379-386. \n\n\n\nLindebaum\, D. 2024. Management Learning and Education as “big picture” social science. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 23(1): 1–7. \n\n\n\nLocke\, R. R.\, & Spender\, J.-C. 2011. Confronting managerialism: How the business elite and their schools threw our lives out of balance. Bloomsbury Publishing. \n\n\n\nLuyckx\, J.\, Schneider\, A.\, & Kourula\, A. 2022. Learning from alternatives: Analyzing alternative ways of organizing as starting points for improving the corporation. In R. E. Meyer\, S. Leixnering\, & J. Veldman (Eds.)\, Research in the Sociology of Organizations: 209–231. Emerald Publishing Limited. \n\n\n\nMailhot\, C.\, & Lachapelle\, M. D. 2024. Teaching management in the context of Grand Challenges: A pragmatist approach. Management Learning\, 55(2): 167–191. \n\n\n\nMair\, J.\, & Rathert\, N. 2021. Alternative organizing with social purpose: Revisiting institutional analysis of market-based activity. Socio-Economic Review\, 19(2): 817–836. \n\n\n\nManley\, S. W.\, Julian. 2021. Co-operative education: From Mondragón and Bilbao to Preston. The Preston Model and Community Wealth Building. Routledge. \n\n\n\nMazutis\, D. 2024. Making a difference: Taking community stakeholders seriously. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, amle.2022.0342. \n\n\n\nMcLaren\, P. G.\, Bridgman\, T.\, Cummings\, S.\, Lubinski\, C.\, O’Connor\, E.\, et al. 2021. From the editors—new times\, new histories of the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(3): 293–299. \n\n\n\nMeek\, C. B.\, & Woodworth\, W. P. 1990. Technical training and enterprise: Mondragon’s Educational system and its implications for other cooperatives. Economic and Industrial Democracy\, 11(4): 505–528. \n\n\n\nMichael\, C. 2017. The Employee Ownership Trust\, an ESOP Alternative. Probate and Property\, 31(1): 42–47. \n\n\n\nNaidoo\, R.\, Shankar\, A.\, & Veer\, E. 2011. The consumerist turn in higher education: Policy aspirations and outcomes. Journal of Marketing Management\, 27(11–12): 1142–1162. \n\n\n\nPache\, A.-C.\, & Chowdhury\, I. 2012. Social entrepreneurs as institutionally embedded entrepreneurs: Toward a new model of social entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 11(3): 494–510. \n\n\n\nParker\, M. 2018. Shut Down the Business School. London: Pluto Press. https://ideas.repec.org//b/ucp/bkecon/9780745399171.html. \n\n\n\nParker\, M. 2021. The critical business school and the university: A case study of resistance and co-optation. Critical Sociology\, 47(7–8): 1111–1124. \n\n\n\nParker\, S.\, Racz\, M. M.\, & Palmer\, P. W. 2018. Decentering the learner through alternative organizations. Academy of Management Proceedings\, 2018(1): 16086. \n\n\n\nPek\, S. 2021. Drawing out democracy: The role of sortition in preventing and overcoming organizational degeneration in worker-owned firms. Journal of Management Inquiry\, 30(2): 193–206. \n\n\n\nPek\, S. 2023. Reconceptualizing and improving member participation in large cooperatives: Insights from deliberative democracy and deliberative mini-publics. M@n@gement\, 26(4)\, 68-82. \n\n\n\nPepin\, M.\, Tremblay\, M.\, Audebrand\, L. K.\, & Chassé\, S. 2024. The responsible business model canvas: Designing and assessing a sustainable business modeling tool for students and start-up entrepreneurs. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education\, 25(3): 514–538. \n\n\n\nPrasad\, A.\, & Śliwa\, M. 2024. Critiquing the backlash against wokeness: In defense of DEI scholarship and practice. Academy of Management Perspectives\, 38(2): 245-259. \n\n\n\nRankin\, R.\, & Piwko\, P. M. 2022. An analysis of the coverage of cooperatives in U.S. introductory business textbooks. Journal of Accounting and Finance\, 22(3). https://articlearchives.co/index.php/JAF/article/view/5228. \n\n\n\nReedy\, P.\, & Learmonth\, M. 2009. Other possibilities? The contribution to management education of alternative organizations. Management Learning\, 40(3): 241–258. \n\n\n\nRomero\, E. J. 2008. AACSB accreditation: Addressing faculty concerns. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 7(2): 245–255. \n\n\n\nSavic\, K.\, & Hoicka\, C. E. 2023. Indigenous legal forms and governance structures in renewable energy: Assessing the role and perspectives of First Nations economic development corporations. Energy Research & Social Science\, 101\, 103121. \n\n\n\nSchiller-Merkens\, S. 2024. Prefiguring an alternative economy: Understanding prefigurative organizing and its struggles. Organization\, 31(3): 458–476. \n\n\n\nSchugurensky\, D.\, & McCollum\, E. 2010. Notes in the margins: The social economy in economics and business textbooks. Researching the Social Economy: 154–175. University of Toronto Press. \n\n\n\nSolbreux\, J.\, Hermans\, J.\, Pondeville\, S.\, & Dufays\, F. 2024. It all starts with a story: Questioning dominant entrepreneurial identities through collective narrative practices. International Small Business Journal\, 42(1): 90–123. \n\n\n\nSpicer\, A.\, Jaser\, Z.\, & Wiertz\, C. 2021. The future of the business school: Finding hope in alternative pasts. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(3): 459–466. \n\n\n\nTracey\, P.\, & Phillips\, N. 2007. The distinctive challenge of educating social entrepreneurs: A postscript and rejoinder to the special issue on entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 6(2): 264–271. \n\n\n\nTubb\, D. G. L. 2018. The everyday social economy of Afro-descendants in the Chocó\, Colombia. In C. S. Hossein (Ed.)\, The Black social economy in the Americas: Exploring diverse community-based markets: 97–117. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. \n\n\n\nWanderley\, S.\, Alcadipani\, R.\, & Barros\, A. 2021. Recentering the Global South in the making of business school histories: Dependency ambiguity in action. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(3): 361–381. \n\n\n\nWright\, S.\, Greenwood\, D.\, & Boden\, R. 2011. Report on a field visit to Mondragón University: A cooperative experience/experiment. Learning and Teaching\, 4(3): 38–56. \n\n\n\nZamagni\, S.\, & Zamagni\, V. 2010. Cooperative enterprise: Facing the challenge of globalization. Edward Elgar Publishing. \n\n\n\nZulfiqar\, G.\, & Prasad\, A. 2021. Challenging social inequality in the Global South: Class\, privilege\, and consciousness-raising through critical management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(2): 156-181.
URL:https://www.aom.org/calendar/management-learning-and-education-as-drivers-of-fundamental-alternative-forms-of-organizing/
CATEGORIES:Call for Special Issue Papers,Learning & Education
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.aom.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/amle_cfs.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20251101T000000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20251215T000000
DTSTAMP:20260406T174757
CREATED:20260226T040809Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260226T040809Z
UID:10000014-1761955200-1765756800@www.aom.org
SUMMARY:Management Learning and Education as Drivers of Fundamental Alternative Forms of Organizing
DESCRIPTION:Guest Editors\n\n\n\n\nSimon Pek\, University of Victoria (Canada)\n\n\n\nFrédéric Dufays\, HEC Liège-ULiège & KU Leuven (Belgium)\n\n\n\nMartyna Śliwa\, University of Durham (United Kingdom)\n\n\n\nAjnesh Prasad\, Tecnológico de Monterrey (Mexico)\n\n\n\nAmon Barros\, FGV EAASP (Brazil)\n\n\n\n\nAMLE Editors\n\n\n\n\nLaura Colombo\, University of Exeter (United Kingdom)\n\n\n\nKatrin Muehlfeld\, Trier University (Germany)\n\n\n\n\nCall for Papers\n\n\n\nIn promoting managerialism and shareholder value maximization\, business schools have long been implicated in perpetuating what has come to be popularized as grand challenges in the literature. These include\, among other phenomena\, climate change\, biodiversity loss\, economic and gender inequality (e.g.\, Kumar et al.\, 2024; Locke & Spender\, 2011; Parker\, 2018). AMLE\, in particular\, has been at the vanguard of identifying and interrogating the nexus between business schools\, management education\, and management learning\, on the one hand\, and the perpetuation of grand challenges\, on the other hand. For example\, in describing the economic arrangements that structure society\, Fotaki and Prasad (2015: 558) observed almost a decade ago: “[M]any blind spots and unanswered questions about the complicity of business schools in propagating inequalities under neoliberal regimes still exist.” More recently\, turning to the matter of climate change\, Colombo and colleagues (2024) lamented in an editorial about the historical role of management learning and education (MLE) in contributing to the deteriorating state of the world’s natural environment. This led them to ask: “How can our discipline help envision and shape a thriving future\, in a way that contributes knowledge\, skills\, and wisdom toward tackling the contemporary ecological and climate crises?” (207). Observations such as these are being raised with greater frequency and urgency by MLE scholars seeking to tackle pernicious societal grand challenges (Figueiró\, Neutzling\, & Lessa\, 2022; Mailhot & Lachapelle\, 2024).  \n\n\n\nTo tackle grand challenges\, attention has been given to alternative organizations and the positive societal impact they generate (e.g.\, Cavotta & Mena\, 2023)\, as well as to their prefigurative function of and for an alternative future—a future that is better aligned with social and environmental considerations (Bhatt\, Qureshi\, Shukla\, & Hota\, 2024; Schiller-Merkens\, 2024). Researchers commonly use the term alternative organizations to describe those that meaningfully depart from some of the defining characteristics of traditional corporations. Such alternative forms include\, among others\, cooperatives\, stakeholder firms\, social enterprises\, and employee-owned firms (e.g.\, Chen & Chen\, 2021; Kociatkiewicz\, Kostera\, & Parker\, 2021; Luyckx\, Schneider\, & Kourula\, 2022; Mair & Rathert\, 2021; Pek\, 2023).  \n\n\n\nWhen alternative forms of organizing have been studied in the discipline of management\, they have been largely reduced to incremental alternatives\, pointing to “anything different to the traditional for-profit model” (Barin Cruz\, Aquino Alves\, & Delbridge\, 2017: 324). Social enterprises are perhaps the quintessential incremental alternative. They have received a tremendous amount of scholarly attention to date in both management (Battilana & Lee\, 2014) and MLE research (Pache & Chowdhury\, 2012; Tracey & Phillips\, 2007).  \n\n\n\nIn this special issue\, we are specifically interested in fundamental (Barin Cruz et al.\, 2017) alternative forms of organizing\, which “challenge some of the classic principles of the capitalist system” (Barin Cruz et al.\, 2017: 323). Specifically\, we consider fundamental alternative organizations as embracing joint or collective ownership instead of private ownership (Chen & Chen\, 2021; Luyckx et al.\, 2022). This includes a broad diversity of organizations\, including cooperatives (Zamagni & Zamagni\, 2010)\, communes (Frye\, 2022)\, broad-based employee ownership in the form of employee ownership trusts (Michael\, 2017) and employee stock ownership plans (Blasi\, Scharf\, & Kruse\, 2023)\, Indigenous economic development corporations (Savic & Hoicka\, 2023)\, bicameral firms (Ferreras\, 2017)\, commons-based peer production (Benkler & Nissenbaum\, 2006)\, and community self-organizations\, such as collective Black enterprises in the Colombian Pacific (Tubb\, 2018). These organizations often\, but not always\, complement this distinctive approach to ownership with more democratic governance and management (Chen & Chen\, 2021; Pek\, 2021).  \n\n\n\nFundamental alternatives have received only marginal attention from MLE scholars (though there are some exceptions\, e.g.\, Audebrand\, Camus\, & Michaud\, 2017) and they continue to remain largely absent from mainstream management textbooks (Rankin & Piwko\, 2022). This curious lack of MLE engagement with fundamental alternative forms of organizing means that students graduating from business schools hoping to tackle grand challenges are not equipped with the tools and concepts necessary to be able to do so. For MLE scholarship to achieve its ostensible aim of producing socially conscientious leaders for a sustainable future\, business school curricula must be broadened so as to include these fundamental alternative organizations.  \n\n\n\nTo be sure\, this is no small feat. Those who have tried to incorporate such organizations into their curricula have identified a range of challenges. For example\, Audebrand and colleagues (2017) observed resistance from students (e.g.\, limited interest) as well as instructors (e.g.\, limited resources). Fournier (2006: 297) found that\, while students actively engaged with concepts pertaining to alternative organizing\, “they all demonstrated a lack of faith in their very possibility.” Yet\, there is some evidence of how MLE can subvert even the most culturally embedded of social systems. Zulfiqar and Prasad (2021)\, for example\, have illuminated how engaged pedagogy intended to raise consciousness on social inequalities among privileged business school students can unsettle and transcend taken-for-granted assumptions about the world.  \n\n\n\nWith an eye on tackling societal grand challenges\, MLE scholarship can and should play a major role in distilling the challenges to teaching and learning pertaining to fundamental alternative organizing and identifying solutions that can overcome them. These span the three domains of MLE research – i.e.\, the business of business schools\, management learning\, and management education (Lindebaum\, 2024) – and their intersectional phenomena\, including business schools’ and universities’ governance arrangements (Billsberry\, Ambrosini\, & Thomas\, 2023; Wright\, Greenwood\, & Boden\, 2011)\, inter-departmental relationships (Parker\, 2021)\, student consumerism (Naidoo\, Shankar\, & Veer\, 2011)\, and pedagogical interventions (Parker\, Racz\, & Palmer\, 2018; Reedy & Learmonth\, 2009). This special issue aims to generate new theory about fundamental alternative organizations and MLE and\, in so doing\, respond to calls for more critical thinking about the objectives of management education\, greater collaboration with other scholarly disciplines\, and a broadening of our pedagogical approaches (Colombo et al.\, 2024).  \n\n\n\nIllustrative Themes and Research Questions\n\n\n\nFundamental Alternative Organizations and the Business of Business Schools \n\n\n\n\nHow can challenges to incorporating fundamental alternatives be overcome by instructors\, business school leaders\, and accreditation agencies? For example\, would different approaches to business school governance—perhaps those modeled on fundamental alternatives themselves like Mondragon University (Wright et al.\, 2011)—be helpful in this regard?\n\n\n\nHow can fundamental alternatives be woven into professional and executive education programs targeted at professionals in both traditional businesses and fundamental alternatives? What are the opportunities to rethink existing business models in this regard\, such as developing targeted programs to support Cooperative Principle #5 on Education\, Training\, and Information from the statement of cooperative identity? (International Co-operative Alliance\, n.d.)\n\n\n\nHow does integrating fundamental alternatives into MLE affect business schools’ relationships with stakeholders such as corporate philanthropic partners?\n\n\n\nHow do fundamental alternatives configure in MLE in unique and contrasting ways across cultures? For instance\, do the form and/or effects of fundamental alternatives materialize differently in Global South versus Global North business school contexts?\n\n\n\nHow\, and to what effects\, could dominant publishers like Harvard Business Publishing better incorporate fundamental alternatives into their products? (Bridgman et al.\, 2016)\n\n\n\n\nFundamental Alternative Organizations and Management Learning \n\n\n\n\nWhat new skills and competencies can students acquire through different pedagogical strategies focused on fundamental alternatives? For example\, do these pedagogical strategies contribute to the development of civic capacities? (Colombo\, 2023) Paradoxically\, what skills and competencies might students inadvertently not acquire when moving MLE beyond its dominant focus on traditional business models to also include fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nWhat potential unintended consequences like the amplification of formal\, social\, and psychological disempowerment (Diefenbach\, 2020) might arise from teaching about fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nHow are instructors personally and professionally transformed through engaging with fundamental alternatives in their pedagogy? Do they\, for instance\, become more engaged in the governance of their business schools? Do they become more involved in activities that support the creation of fundamental alternatives? (Esper\, Cabantous\, Barin-Cruz\, & Gond\, 2017)\n\n\n\nHow can teaching fundamental alternatives inspire student entrepreneurs to develop new business models and practices (Pepin\, Tremblay\, Audebrand\, & Chassé\, 2024)?\n\n\n\nHow can teaching fundamental alternatives help students prefigure their paths toward a new economy (Schiller-Merkens\, 2024)? To what extent does it impact their identity (formation) as students\, as citizens\, and/or as entrepreneurs? (Solbreux\, Hermans\, Pondeville\, & Dufays\, 2024)\n\n\n\nDo the internal dynamics of fundamental alternatives offer new perspectives on diversity\, equity\, and inclusion (DEI) and\, if so\, how might they intervene in polemical debates over “woke” DEI policies taking place among business school academics? (Prasad & Śliwa\, 2024\n\n\n\n\nFundamental Alternative Organizations and Management Education \n\n\n\nFundamental alternative organizations have been largely ignored in contemporary MLE scholarship as evidenced in their omission in economics and management texts (e.g.\, Kalmi\, 2007; Rankin & Piwko\, 2022; Schugurensky & McCollum\, 2010). Instead\, the traditional investor-owned\, capitalist enterprise maintains a hegemonic presence in MLE despite growing concerns for more sustainability in business school education (Figueiró et al.\, 2022; Mailhot & Lachapelle\, 2024). MLE researchers can help unpack the factors that may have contributed to this state of affairs. \n\n\n\n\nRe-tracing the history of business schools (McLaren et al.\, 2021; Spicer\, Jaser\, & Wiertz\, 2021; Wanderley\, Alcadipani\, & Barros\, 2021)\, what key events may have contributed to the current marginal place of fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nWhat is the role of isomorphic pressures generated by key actors like accreditation bodies in silencing or making fundamental alternatives visible in management education? (Romero\, 2008)\n\n\n\nWhat is the role of broader social discourses like student consumerism (Naidoo et al.\, 2011) and managerialism (Clegg\, 2014) in undermining fundamental alternatives in MLE?\n\n\n\nWhy has MLE scholarship readily embraced incremental alternatives like social enterprises\, while not affording similar legitimacy to fundamental alternatives like worker cooperatives and broad-based employee ownership?\n\n\n\n\nWhile some authors have incorporated fundamental alternatives into their teaching (Audebrand et al.\, 2017; Fournier\, 2006)\, there is much to learn about how fundamental alternatives could be integrated into different pedagogies. Additionally\, we need a deeper understanding of the challenges instructors might face and how those challenges could be overcome. MLE scholarship has much to contribute to both of these closely related topics. \n\n\n\n\nHow can existing MLE pedagogies like experiential learning and service learning be translated to teach fundamental alternative organizations effectively? For example\, should students’ and instructors’ interactions with organizations in service learning projects (Mazutis\, 2024) differ in the case of fundamental alternatives versus incremental alternatives or traditional businesses?\n\n\n\nHow should educational efforts focused on fundamental alternatives be integrated and sequenced with those on traditional business topics (Pache & Chowdhury\, 2012)?\n\n\n\nHow can educational practices currently used to teach fundamental alternative organizations in other disciplines (e.g.\, Manley\, 2021; Meek & Woodworth\, 1990) be leveraged and translated into business schools?\n\n\n\nWhat challenges might instructors and students face when engaging with fundamental alternatives in different contexts (Audebrand et al.\, 2017; Fournier\, 2006)? For example\, how might student consumerism\, which varies across countries (Fairchild & Crage\, 2014)\, affect instructors’ implementation of pedagogical strategies targeted towards fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nHow can educational repositories like the Curriculum Library for Employee Ownership become legitimated as important empirical resources in delivering management education?\n\n\n\n\nWorkshop Structure\n\n\n\nWe welcome Research and Review\, Essay\, and Book and Resource Review submissions for this special issue. The agnostic ethos of AMLE in terms of underlying paradigms\, theories\, and methods is reiterated (for as long as a submission falls within the remit of AMLE). All of the journal’s standard formatting and peer review guidelines will apply. \n\n\n\nSubmission Types\n\n\n\nWe welcome Research and Review\, Essay\, and Book and Resource Review submissions for this special issue. The agnostic ethos of AMLE in terms of underlying paradigms\, theories\, and methods is reiterated (for as long as a submission falls within the remit of AMLE). All of the journal’s standard formatting and peer review guidelines will apply. \n\n\n\nInquiries\n\n\n\nThose interested in contributing to this special issue are welcome to contact Simon Pek (spek@uvic.ca) and Ajnesh Prasad (prasad@tec.mx) with their questions. We encourage authors interested in submitting a book or resource review to contact us prior to preparing a manuscript. Authors interested in submitting a book or resource review should identify the work to be reviewed and a brief explanation of how it fits the remit of the special issue. \n\n\n\nPlease note that consultation with the guest editors is neither a prerequisite nor an expectation for submission to the special issue. \n\n\n\nSpecial Issue Timeline and Process\n\n\n\nSubmissions will be accepted via AMLE’s Manuscript Central portal between November 1\, 2025 and December 15\, 2025. \n\n\n\nPrior to submission\, we will hold an optional virtual professional development workshop on June 25\, 2025\, for interested authors to receive feedback on their ideas. Those interested in participating in the workshop should e-mail a 3\,000-word proposal (including references) to Simon Pek (spek@uvic.ca) and Ajnesh Prasad (prasad@tec.mx) by May 15\, 2025. We also plan to offer workshops to discuss this special issue at the 85th Academy of Management Conference in Copenhagen and the 41st EGOS Colloquium in Athens. We will share more details about these and other opportunities when available via the AMLE website and various listservs. While we encourage interested contributors to participate in these opportunities\, they are not a prerequisite for\, or a guarantee of\, eventual acceptance in the special issue. \n\n\n\nFollowing our first-round decisions\, we will hold a second optional professional development workshop for authors who receive a revise and resubmit decision following the first round of peer review. It is tentatively scheduled for Spring 2025\, and full details will be shared when available. \n\n\n\nReferences\n\n\n\nAudebrand\, L. K.\, Camus\, A.\, & Michaud\, V. 2017. A mosquito in the classroom: Using the cooperative business model to foster paradoxical thinking in management education. Journal of Management Education\, 41(2): 216–248. \n\n\n\nBarin Cruz\, L.\, Aquino Alves\, M.\, & Delbridge\, R. 2017. Next steps in organizing alternatives to capitalism: toward a relational research agenda. Introduction to the Special Issue. M@n@gement\, 20(4): 322–335. \n\n\n\nBattilana\, J.\, & Lee\, M. 2014. Advancing research on hybrid organizing – Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals\, 8(1): 397–441. \n\n\n\nBenkler\, Y.\, & Nissenbaum\, H. 2006. Commons-based peer production and virtue. Journal of Political Philosophy\, 14(4): 394–419. \n\n\n\nBhatt\, B.\, Qureshi\, I.\, Shukla\, D. M.\, & Hota\, P. K. 2024. Prefiguring alternative organizing: Confronting marginalization through projective cultural adjustment and tempered autonomy. Organization Studies\, 45(1): 59–84. \n\n\n\nBillsberry\, J.\, Ambrosini\, V.\, & Thomas\, L. 2023. Managerialist control in post-pandemic business schools: The tragedy of the new normal and a new hope. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 22(3)\, 439-458. \n\n\n\nBlasi\, J.\, Scharf\, A.\, & Kruse\, D. 2023. Employee ownership in the US: Some issues on ESOPs – overcoming the barriers to further development. Journal of Participation and Employee Ownership\, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/JPEO-11-2022-0028. \n\n\n\nBridgman\, T.\, Cummings\, S.\, & McLaughlin\, C. 2016. Restating the case: How revisiting the development of the case method can help us think differently about the future of the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 15(4)\, 724-741. \n\n\n\nCavotta\, V.\, & Mena\, S. 2023. Prosocial organizing and the distance between core and community work. Organization Studies\, 44(4): 637–657. \n\n\n\nChen\, K. K.\, & Chen\, V. T. 2021. “What if” and “if only” futures beyond conventional capitalism and bureaucracy: Imagining collectivist and democratic possibilities for organizing. In K. K. Chen & V. T. Chen (Eds.)\, Research in the sociology of organizations: 1–28. Emerald Publishing Limited. \n\n\n\nClegg\, S. R. 2014. Managerialism: Born in the USA. Academy of Management Review\, 39(4): 566–576. \n\n\n\nColombo\, L. A. 2023. Civilize the business school: For a civic management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 22(1): 132–149. \n\n\n\nColombo\, L. A.\, Moser\, C.\, Muehlfeld\, K.\, & Joy\, S. 2024. Sowing the seeds of change: Calling for a social–ecological approach to management learning and education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 23(2): 207–213. \n\n\n\nDiefenbach\, T. 2020. The democratic organisation: Democracy and the future of work. Routledge. \n\n\n\nEsper\, S. C.\, Cabantous\, L.\, Barin-Cruz\, L.\, & Gond\, J.-P. 2017. Supporting alternative organizations? Exploring scholars’ involvement in the performativity of worker-recuperated enterprises. Organization\, 24(5): 671–699. \n\n\n\nFairchild\, E.\, & Crage\, S. 2014. Beyond the debates: Measuring and specifying student consumerism. Sociological Spectrum\, 34(5): 403–420. \n\n\n\nFerreras\, I. 2017. Firms as political entities: Saving democracy through economic bicameralism. Cambridge University Press. \n\n\n\nFigueiró\, P. S.\, Neutzling\, D. M.\, & Lessa\, B. 2022. Education for sustainability in higher education institutions: A multi-perspective proposal with a focus on management education. Journal of Cleaner Production\, 339: 130539. \n\n\n\nFotaki\, M.\, & Prasad\, A. 2015. Questioning neoliberal capitalism and economic inequality in business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 14(4): 556–575. \n\n\n\nFournier\, V. 2006. Breaking from the weight of the eternal present: Teaching organizational difference. Management Learning\, 37(3): 295–311. \n\n\n\nFrye\, H. 2022. Commons\, Communes\, and Freedom. Politics\, Philosophy & Economics\, 21(2): 228–244. \n\n\n\nInternational Co-operative Alliance. n.d. Cooperative identity\, values & principles. https://www.ica.coop/en/cooperatives/cooperative-identity\, February 4\, 2021. \n\n\n\nKalmi\, P. 2007. The disappearance of cooperatives from economics textbooks. Cambridge Journal of Economics\, 31(4): 625–647. \n\n\n\nKociatkiewicz\, J.\, Kostera\, M.\, & Parker\, M. 2021. The possibility of disalienated work: Being at home in alternative organizations. Human Relations\, 74(7): 933–957. \n\n\n\nKumar\, A.\, Soundararajan\, V.\, Bapuji\, H.\, Köhler\, T.\, Alcadipani\, R.\, Morsing\, M.\, & Coraiola\, D. M. 2024. Unequal Worlds: Management Education and Inequalities. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 23(3)\, 379-386. \n\n\n\nLindebaum\, D. 2024. Management Learning and Education as “big picture” social science. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 23(1): 1–7. \n\n\n\nLocke\, R. R.\, & Spender\, J.-C. 2011. Confronting managerialism: How the business elite and their schools threw our lives out of balance. Bloomsbury Publishing. \n\n\n\nLuyckx\, J.\, Schneider\, A.\, & Kourula\, A. 2022. Learning from alternatives: Analyzing alternative ways of organizing as starting points for improving the corporation. In R. E. Meyer\, S. Leixnering\, & J. Veldman (Eds.)\, Research in the Sociology of Organizations: 209–231. Emerald Publishing Limited. \n\n\n\nMailhot\, C.\, & Lachapelle\, M. D. 2024. Teaching management in the context of Grand Challenges: A pragmatist approach. Management Learning\, 55(2): 167–191. \n\n\n\nMair\, J.\, & Rathert\, N. 2021. Alternative organizing with social purpose: Revisiting institutional analysis of market-based activity. Socio-Economic Review\, 19(2): 817–836. \n\n\n\nManley\, S. W.\, Julian. 2021. Co-operative education: From Mondragón and Bilbao to Preston. The Preston Model and Community Wealth Building. Routledge. \n\n\n\nMazutis\, D. 2024. Making a difference: Taking community stakeholders seriously. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, amle.2022.0342. \n\n\n\nMcLaren\, P. G.\, Bridgman\, T.\, Cummings\, S.\, Lubinski\, C.\, O’Connor\, E.\, et al. 2021. From the editors—new times\, new histories of the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(3): 293–299. \n\n\n\nMeek\, C. B.\, & Woodworth\, W. P. 1990. Technical training and enterprise: Mondragon’s Educational system and its implications for other cooperatives. Economic and Industrial Democracy\, 11(4): 505–528. \n\n\n\nMichael\, C. 2017. The Employee Ownership Trust\, an ESOP Alternative. Probate and Property\, 31(1): 42–47. \n\n\n\nNaidoo\, R.\, Shankar\, A.\, & Veer\, E. 2011. The consumerist turn in higher education: Policy aspirations and outcomes. Journal of Marketing Management\, 27(11–12): 1142–1162. \n\n\n\nPache\, A.-C.\, & Chowdhury\, I. 2012. Social entrepreneurs as institutionally embedded entrepreneurs: Toward a new model of social entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 11(3): 494–510. \n\n\n\nParker\, M. 2018. Shut Down the Business School. London: Pluto Press. https://ideas.repec.org//b/ucp/bkecon/9780745399171.html. \n\n\n\nParker\, M. 2021. The critical business school and the university: A case study of resistance and co-optation. Critical Sociology\, 47(7–8): 1111–1124. \n\n\n\nParker\, S.\, Racz\, M. M.\, & Palmer\, P. W. 2018. Decentering the learner through alternative organizations. Academy of Management Proceedings\, 2018(1): 16086. \n\n\n\nPek\, S. 2021. Drawing out democracy: The role of sortition in preventing and overcoming organizational degeneration in worker-owned firms. Journal of Management Inquiry\, 30(2): 193–206. \n\n\n\nPek\, S. 2023. Reconceptualizing and improving member participation in large cooperatives: Insights from deliberative democracy and deliberative mini-publics. M@n@gement\, 26(4)\, 68-82. \n\n\n\nPepin\, M.\, Tremblay\, M.\, Audebrand\, L. K.\, & Chassé\, S. 2024. The responsible business model canvas: Designing and assessing a sustainable business modeling tool for students and start-up entrepreneurs. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education\, 25(3): 514–538. \n\n\n\nPrasad\, A.\, & Śliwa\, M. 2024. Critiquing the backlash against wokeness: In defense of DEI scholarship and practice. Academy of Management Perspectives\, 38(2): 245-259. \n\n\n\nRankin\, R.\, & Piwko\, P. M. 2022. An analysis of the coverage of cooperatives in U.S. introductory business textbooks. Journal of Accounting and Finance\, 22(3). https://articlearchives.co/index.php/JAF/article/view/5228. \n\n\n\nReedy\, P.\, & Learmonth\, M. 2009. Other possibilities? The contribution to management education of alternative organizations. Management Learning\, 40(3): 241–258. \n\n\n\nRomero\, E. J. 2008. AACSB accreditation: Addressing faculty concerns. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 7(2): 245–255. \n\n\n\nSavic\, K.\, & Hoicka\, C. E. 2023. Indigenous legal forms and governance structures in renewable energy: Assessing the role and perspectives of First Nations economic development corporations. Energy Research & Social Science\, 101\, 103121. \n\n\n\nSchiller-Merkens\, S. 2024. Prefiguring an alternative economy: Understanding prefigurative organizing and its struggles. Organization\, 31(3): 458–476. \n\n\n\nSchugurensky\, D.\, & McCollum\, E. 2010. Notes in the margins: The social economy in economics and business textbooks. Researching the Social Economy: 154–175. University of Toronto Press. \n\n\n\nSolbreux\, J.\, Hermans\, J.\, Pondeville\, S.\, & Dufays\, F. 2024. It all starts with a story: Questioning dominant entrepreneurial identities through collective narrative practices. International Small Business Journal\, 42(1): 90–123. \n\n\n\nSpicer\, A.\, Jaser\, Z.\, & Wiertz\, C. 2021. The future of the business school: Finding hope in alternative pasts. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(3): 459–466. \n\n\n\nTracey\, P.\, & Phillips\, N. 2007. The distinctive challenge of educating social entrepreneurs: A postscript and rejoinder to the special issue on entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 6(2): 264–271. \n\n\n\nTubb\, D. G. L. 2018. The everyday social economy of Afro-descendants in the Chocó\, Colombia. In C. S. Hossein (Ed.)\, The Black social economy in the Americas: Exploring diverse community-based markets: 97–117. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. \n\n\n\nWanderley\, S.\, Alcadipani\, R.\, & Barros\, A. 2021. Recentering the Global South in the making of business school histories: Dependency ambiguity in action. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(3): 361–381. \n\n\n\nWright\, S.\, Greenwood\, D.\, & Boden\, R. 2011. Report on a field visit to Mondragón University: A cooperative experience/experiment. Learning and Teaching\, 4(3): 38–56. \n\n\n\nZamagni\, S.\, & Zamagni\, V. 2010. Cooperative enterprise: Facing the challenge of globalization. Edward Elgar Publishing. \n\n\n\nZulfiqar\, G.\, & Prasad\, A. 2021. Challenging social inequality in the Global South: Class\, privilege\, and consciousness-raising through critical management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(2): 156-181.
URL:https://www.aom.org/calendar/management-learning-and-education-as-drivers-of-fundamental-alternative-forms-of-organizing-2/
CATEGORIES:Call for Special Issue Papers,Learning & Education
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.aom.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/amle_cfs.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20251101T000000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20260104T000000
DTSTAMP:20260406T174757
CREATED:20260226T041307Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260226T041307Z
UID:10000026-1761955200-1767484800@www.aom.org
SUMMARY:AMLE Call for Special Issue Papers: Management Learning and Education as Drivers of Fundamental Alternative Forms of Organizing
DESCRIPTION:Guest Editors\n\n\n\n\nSimon Pek\, University of Victoria (Canada)\n\n\n\nFrédéric Dufays\, HEC Liège-ULiège & KU Leuven (Belgium)\n\n\n\nMartyna Śliwa\, University of Durham (United Kingdom)\n\n\n\nAjnesh Prasad\, Tecnológico de Monterrey (Mexico)\n\n\n\nAmon Barros\, FGV EAESP (Brazil)\n\n\n\n\nAMLE Editors\n\n\n\n\nLaura Colombo\, University of Exeter (United Kingdom)\n\n\n\nKatrin Muehlfeld\, Trier University (Germany)\n\n\n\n\nCall for Papers\n\n\n\nIn promoting managerialism and shareholder value maximization\, business schools have long been implicated in perpetuating what has come to be popularized as grand challenges in the literature. These include\, among other phenomena\, climate change\, biodiversity loss\, economic and gender inequality (e.g.\, Kumar et al.\, 2024; Locke & Spender\, 2011; Parker\, 2018). AMLE\, in particular\, has been at the vanguard of identifying and interrogating the nexus between business schools\, management education\, and management learning\, on the one hand\, and the perpetuation of grand challenges\, on the other hand. For example\, in describing the economic arrangements that structure society\, Fotaki and Prasad (2015: 558) observed almost a decade ago: “[M]any blind spots and unanswered questions about the complicity of business schools in propagating inequalities under neoliberal regimes still exist.” More recently\, turning to the matter of climate change\, Colombo and colleagues (2024) lamented in an editorial about the historical role of management learning and education (MLE) in contributing to the deteriorating state of the world’s natural environment. This led them to ask: “How can our discipline help envision and shape a thriving future\, in a way that contributes knowledge\, skills\, and wisdom toward tackling the contemporary ecological and climate crises?” (207). Observations such as these are being raised with greater frequency and urgency by MLE scholars seeking to tackle pernicious societal grand challenges (Figueiró\, Neutzling\, & Lessa\, 2022; Mailhot & Lachapelle\, 2024).  \n\n\n\nTo tackle grand challenges\, attention has been given to alternative organizations and the positive societal impact they generate (e.g.\, Cavotta & Mena\, 2023)\, as well as to their prefigurative function of and for an alternative future—a future that is better aligned with social and environmental considerations (Bhatt\, Qureshi\, Shukla\, & Hota\, 2024; Schiller-Merkens\, 2024). Researchers commonly use the term alternative organizations to describe those that meaningfully depart from some of the defining characteristics of traditional corporations. Such alternative forms include\, among others\, cooperatives\, stakeholder firms\, social enterprises\, and employee-owned firms (e.g.\, Chen & Chen\, 2021; Kociatkiewicz\, Kostera\, & Parker\, 2021; Luyckx\, Schneider\, & Kourula\, 2022; Mair & Rathert\, 2021; Pek\, 2023).  \n\n\n\nWhen alternative forms of organizing have been studied in the discipline of management\, they have been largely reduced to incremental alternatives\, pointing to “anything different to the traditional for-profit model” (Barin Cruz\, Aquino Alves\, & Delbridge\, 2017: 324). Social enterprises are perhaps the quintessential incremental alternative. They have received a tremendous amount of scholarly attention to date in both management (Battilana & Lee\, 2014) and MLE research (Pache & Chowdhury\, 2012; Tracey & Phillips\, 2007).  \n\n\n\nIn this special issue\, we are specifically interested in fundamental (Barin Cruz et al.\, 2017) alternative forms of organizing\, which “challenge some of the classic principles of the capitalist system” (Barin Cruz et al.\, 2017: 323). Specifically\, we consider fundamental alternative organizations as embracing joint or collective ownership instead of private ownership (Chen & Chen\, 2021; Luyckx et al.\, 2022). This includes a broad diversity of organizations\, including cooperatives (Zamagni & Zamagni\, 2010)\, communes (Frye\, 2022)\, broad-based employee ownership in the form of employee ownership trusts (Michael\, 2017) and employee stock ownership plans (Blasi\, Scharf\, & Kruse\, 2023)\, Indigenous economic development corporations (Savic & Hoicka\, 2023)\, bicameral firms (Ferreras\, 2017)\, commons-based peer production (Benkler & Nissenbaum\, 2006)\, and community self-organizations\, such as collective Black enterprises in the Colombian Pacific (Tubb\, 2018). These organizations often\, but not always\, complement this distinctive approach to ownership with more democratic governance and management (Chen & Chen\, 2021; Pek\, 2021).  \n\n\n\nFundamental alternatives have received only marginal attention from MLE scholars (though there are some exceptions\, e.g.\, Audebrand\, Camus\, & Michaud\, 2017) and they continue to remain largely absent from mainstream management textbooks (Rankin & Piwko\, 2022). This curious lack of MLE engagement with fundamental alternative forms of organizing means that students graduating from business schools hoping to tackle grand challenges are not equipped with the tools and concepts necessary to be able to do so. For MLE scholarship to achieve its ostensible aim of producing socially conscientious leaders for a sustainable future\, business school curricula must be broadened so as to include these fundamental alternative organizations.  \n\n\n\nTo be sure\, this is no small feat. Those who have tried to incorporate such organizations into their curricula have identified a range of challenges. For example\, Audebrand and colleagues (2017) observed resistance from students (e.g.\, limited interest) as well as instructors (e.g.\, limited resources). Fournier (2006: 297) found that\, while students actively engaged with concepts pertaining to alternative organizing\, “they all demonstrated a lack of faith in their very possibility.” Yet\, there is some evidence of how MLE can subvert even the most culturally embedded of social systems. Zulfiqar and Prasad (2021)\, for example\, have illuminated how engaged pedagogy intended to raise consciousness on social inequalities among privileged business school students can unsettle and transcend taken-for-granted assumptions about the world.  \n\n\n\nWith an eye on tackling societal grand challenges\, MLE scholarship can and should play a major role in distilling the challenges to teaching and learning pertaining to fundamental alternative organizing and identifying solutions that can overcome them. These span the three domains of MLE research – i.e.\, the business of business schools\, management learning\, and management education (Lindebaum\, 2024) – and their intersectional phenomena\, including business schools’ and universities’ governance arrangements (Billsberry\, Ambrosini\, & Thomas\, 2023; Wright\, Greenwood\, & Boden\, 2011)\, inter-departmental relationships (Parker\, 2021)\, student consumerism (Naidoo\, Shankar\, & Veer\, 2011)\, and pedagogical interventions (Parker\, Racz\, & Palmer\, 2018; Reedy & Learmonth\, 2009). This special issue aims to generate new theory about fundamental alternative organizations and MLE and\, in so doing\, respond to calls for more critical thinking about the objectives of management education\, greater collaboration with other scholarly disciplines\, and a broadening of our pedagogical approaches (Colombo et al.\, 2024).  \n\n\n\nIllustrative Themes and Research Questions\n\n\n\nFundamental Alternative Organizations and the Business of Business Schools \n\n\n\n\nHow can challenges to incorporating fundamental alternatives be overcome by instructors\, business school leaders\, and accreditation agencies? For example\, would different approaches to business school governance—perhaps those modeled on fundamental alternatives themselves like Mondragon University (Wright et al.\, 2011)—be helpful in this regard?\n\n\n\nHow can fundamental alternatives be woven into professional and executive education programs targeted at professionals in both traditional businesses and fundamental alternatives? What are the opportunities to rethink existing business models in this regard\, such as developing targeted programs to support Cooperative Principle #5 on Education\, Training\, and Information from the statement of cooperative identity? (International Co-operative Alliance\, n.d.)\n\n\n\nHow does integrating fundamental alternatives into MLE affect business schools’ relationships with stakeholders such as corporate philanthropic partners?\n\n\n\nHow do fundamental alternatives configure in MLE in unique and contrasting ways across cultures? For instance\, do the form and/or effects of fundamental alternatives materialize differently in Global South versus Global North business school contexts?\n\n\n\nHow\, and to what effects\, could dominant publishers like Harvard Business Publishing better incorporate fundamental alternatives into their products? (Bridgman et al.\, 2016)\n\n\n\n\nFundamental Alternative Organizations and Management Learning \n\n\n\n\nWhat new skills and competencies can students acquire through different pedagogical strategies focused on fundamental alternatives? For example\, do these pedagogical strategies contribute to the development of civic capacities? (Colombo\, 2023) Paradoxically\, what skills and competencies might students inadvertently not acquire when moving MLE beyond its dominant focus on traditional business models to also include fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nWhat potential unintended consequences like the amplification of formal\, social\, and psychological disempowerment (Diefenbach\, 2020) might arise from teaching about fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nHow are instructors personally and professionally transformed through engaging with fundamental alternatives in their pedagogy? Do they\, for instance\, become more engaged in the governance of their business schools? Do they become more involved in activities that support the creation of fundamental alternatives? (Esper\, Cabantous\, Barin-Cruz\, & Gond\, 2017)\n\n\n\nHow can teaching fundamental alternatives inspire student entrepreneurs to develop new business models and practices (Pepin\, Tremblay\, Audebrand\, & Chassé\, 2024)?\n\n\n\nHow can teaching fundamental alternatives help students prefigure their paths toward a new economy (Schiller-Merkens\, 2024)? To what extent does it impact their identity (formation) as students\, as citizens\, and/or as entrepreneurs? (Solbreux\, Hermans\, Pondeville\, & Dufays\, 2024)\n\n\n\nDo the internal dynamics of fundamental alternatives offer new perspectives on diversity\, equity\, and inclusion (DEI) and\, if so\, how might they intervene in polemical debates over “woke” DEI policies taking place among business school academics? (Prasad & Śliwa\, 2024\n\n\n\n\nFundamental Alternative Organizations and Management Education \n\n\n\nFundamental alternative organizations have been largely ignored in contemporary MLE scholarship as evidenced in their omission in economics and management texts (e.g.\, Kalmi\, 2007; Rankin & Piwko\, 2022; Schugurensky & McCollum\, 2010). Instead\, the traditional investor-owned\, capitalist enterprise maintains a hegemonic presence in MLE despite growing concerns for more sustainability in business school education (Figueiró et al.\, 2022; Mailhot & Lachapelle\, 2024). MLE researchers can help unpack the factors that may have contributed to this state of affairs. \n\n\n\n\nRe-tracing the history of business schools (McLaren et al.\, 2021; Spicer\, Jaser\, & Wiertz\, 2021; Wanderley\, Alcadipani\, & Barros\, 2021)\, what key events may have contributed to the current marginal place of fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nWhat is the role of isomorphic pressures generated by key actors like accreditation bodies in silencing or making fundamental alternatives visible in management education? (Romero\, 2008)\n\n\n\nWhat is the role of broader social discourses like student consumerism (Naidoo et al.\, 2011) and managerialism (Clegg\, 2014) in undermining fundamental alternatives in MLE?\n\n\n\nWhy has MLE scholarship readily embraced incremental alternatives like social enterprises\, while not affording similar legitimacy to fundamental alternatives like worker cooperatives and broad-based employee ownership?\n\n\n\n\nWhile some authors have incorporated fundamental alternatives into their teaching (Audebrand et al.\, 2017; Fournier\, 2006)\, there is much to learn about how fundamental alternatives could be integrated into different pedagogies. Additionally\, we need a deeper understanding of the challenges instructors might face and how those challenges could be overcome. MLE scholarship has much to contribute to both of these closely related topics. \n\n\n\n\nHow can existing MLE pedagogies like experiential learning and service learning be translated to teach fundamental alternative organizations effectively? For example\, should students’ and instructors’ interactions with organizations in service learning projects (Mazutis\, 2024) differ in the case of fundamental alternatives versus incremental alternatives or traditional businesses?\n\n\n\nHow should educational efforts focused on fundamental alternatives be integrated and sequenced with those on traditional business topics (Pache & Chowdhury\, 2012)?\n\n\n\nHow can educational practices currently used to teach fundamental alternative organizations in other disciplines (e.g.\, Manley\, 2021; Meek & Woodworth\, 1990) be leveraged and translated into business schools?\n\n\n\nWhat challenges might instructors and students face when engaging with fundamental alternatives in different contexts (Audebrand et al.\, 2017; Fournier\, 2006)? For example\, how might student consumerism\, which varies across countries (Fairchild & Crage\, 2014)\, affect instructors’ implementation of pedagogical strategies targeted towards fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nHow can educational repositories like the Curriculum Library for Employee Ownership become legitimated as important empirical resources in delivering management education?\n\n\n\n\nSubmission Types\n\n\n\nWe welcome Research and Review\, Essay\, and Book and Resource Review submissions for this special issue. The agnostic ethos of AMLE in terms of underlying paradigms\, theories\, and methods is reiterated (for as long as a submission falls within the remit of AMLE). All of the journal’s standard formatting and peer review guidelines will apply. \n\n\n\nInquiries\n\n\n\nThose interested in contributing to this special issue are welcome to contact Simon Pek (spek@uvic.ca) and Ajnesh Prasad (prasad@tec.mx) with their questions. We encourage authors interested in submitting a book or resource review to contact us prior to preparing a manuscript. Authors interested in submitting a book or resource review should identify the work to be reviewed and a brief explanation of how it fits the remit of the special issue. \n\n\n\nPlease note that consultation with the guest editors is neither a prerequisite nor an expectation for submission to the special issue. \n\n\n\nSpecial Issue Timeline and Process\n\n\n\nSubmissions will be accepted via AMLE’s Manuscript Central portal between November 1\, 2025 and December 15\, 2025. \n\n\n\nPrior to submission\, we will hold an optional virtual professional development workshop on June 25\, 2025\, for interested authors to receive feedback on their ideas. Those interested in participating in the workshop should e-mail a 3\,000-word proposal (including references) to Simon Pek (spek@uvic.ca) and Ajnesh Prasad (prasad@tec.mx) by May 15\, 2025. We also plan to offer workshops to discuss this special issue at the 85th Academy of Management Conference in Copenhagen and the 41st EGOS Colloquium in Athens. We will share more details about these and other opportunities when available via the AMLE website and various listservs. While we encourage interested contributors to participate in these opportunities\, they are not a prerequisite for\, or a guarantee of\, eventual acceptance in the special issue. \n\n\n\nFollowing our first-round decisions\, we will hold a second optional professional development workshop for authors who receive a revise and resubmit decision following the first round of peer review. It is tentatively scheduled for Spring 2025\, and full details will be shared when available. \n\n\n\nReferences\n\n\n\nAudebrand\, L. K.\, Camus\, A.\, & Michaud\, V. 2017. A mosquito in the classroom: Using the cooperative business model to foster paradoxical thinking in management education. Journal of Management Education\, 41(2): 216–248. \n\n\n\nBarin Cruz\, L.\, Aquino Alves\, M.\, & Delbridge\, R. 2017. Next steps in organizing alternatives to capitalism: toward a relational research agenda. Introduction to the Special Issue. M@n@gement\, 20(4): 322–335. \n\n\n\nBattilana\, J.\, & Lee\, M. 2014. Advancing research on hybrid organizing – Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals\, 8(1): 397–441. \n\n\n\nBenkler\, Y.\, & Nissenbaum\, H. 2006. Commons-based peer production and virtue. Journal of Political Philosophy\, 14(4): 394–419. \n\n\n\nBhatt\, B.\, Qureshi\, I.\, Shukla\, D. M.\, & Hota\, P. K. 2024. Prefiguring alternative organizing: Confronting marginalization through projective cultural adjustment and tempered autonomy. Organization Studies\, 45(1): 59–84. \n\n\n\nBillsberry\, J.\, Ambrosini\, V.\, & Thomas\, L. 2023. Managerialist control in post-pandemic business schools: The tragedy of the new normal and a new hope. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 22(3)\, 439-458. \n\n\n\nBlasi\, J.\, Scharf\, A.\, & Kruse\, D. 2023. Employee ownership in the US: Some issues on ESOPs – overcoming the barriers to further development. Journal of Participation and Employee Ownership\, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/JPEO-11-2022-0028. \n\n\n\nBridgman\, T.\, Cummings\, S.\, & McLaughlin\, C. 2016. Restating the case: How revisiting the development of the case method can help us think differently about the future of the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 15(4)\, 724-741. \n\n\n\nCavotta\, V.\, & Mena\, S. 2023. Prosocial organizing and the distance between core and community work. Organization Studies\, 44(4): 637–657. \n\n\n\nChen\, K. K.\, & Chen\, V. T. 2021. “What if” and “if only” futures beyond conventional capitalism and bureaucracy: Imagining collectivist and democratic possibilities for organizing. In K. K. Chen & V. T. Chen (Eds.)\, Research in the sociology of organizations: 1–28. Emerald Publishing Limited. \n\n\n\nClegg\, S. R. 2014. Managerialism: Born in the USA. Academy of Management Review\, 39(4): 566–576. \n\n\n\nColombo\, L. A. 2023. Civilize the business school: For a civic management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 22(1): 132–149. \n\n\n\nColombo\, L. A.\, Moser\, C.\, Muehlfeld\, K.\, & Joy\, S. 2024. Sowing the seeds of change: Calling for a social–ecological approach to management learning and education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 23(2): 207–213. \n\n\n\nDiefenbach\, T. 2020. The democratic organisation: Democracy and the future of work. Routledge. \n\n\n\nEsper\, S. C.\, Cabantous\, L.\, Barin-Cruz\, L.\, & Gond\, J.-P. 2017. Supporting alternative organizations? Exploring scholars’ involvement in the performativity of worker-recuperated enterprises. Organization\, 24(5): 671–699. \n\n\n\nFairchild\, E.\, & Crage\, S. 2014. Beyond the debates: Measuring and specifying student consumerism. Sociological Spectrum\, 34(5): 403–420. \n\n\n\nFerreras\, I. 2017. Firms as political entities: Saving democracy through economic bicameralism. Cambridge University Press. \n\n\n\nFigueiró\, P. S.\, Neutzling\, D. M.\, & Lessa\, B. 2022. Education for sustainability in higher education institutions: A multi-perspective proposal with a focus on management education. Journal of Cleaner Production\, 339: 130539. \n\n\n\nFotaki\, M.\, & Prasad\, A. 2015. Questioning neoliberal capitalism and economic inequality in business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 14(4): 556–575. \n\n\n\nFournier\, V. 2006. Breaking from the weight of the eternal present: Teaching organizational difference. Management Learning\, 37(3): 295–311. \n\n\n\nFrye\, H. 2022. Commons\, Communes\, and Freedom. Politics\, Philosophy & Economics\, 21(2): 228–244. \n\n\n\nInternational Co-operative Alliance. n.d. Cooperative identity\, values & principles. https://www.ica.coop/en/cooperatives/cooperative-identity\, February 4\, 2021. \n\n\n\nKalmi\, P. 2007. The disappearance of cooperatives from economics textbooks. Cambridge Journal of Economics\, 31(4): 625–647. \n\n\n\nKociatkiewicz\, J.\, Kostera\, M.\, & Parker\, M. 2021. The possibility of disalienated work: Being at home in alternative organizations. Human Relations\, 74(7): 933–957. \n\n\n\nKumar\, A.\, Soundararajan\, V.\, Bapuji\, H.\, Köhler\, T.\, Alcadipani\, R.\, Morsing\, M.\, & Coraiola\, D. M. 2024. Unequal Worlds: Management Education and Inequalities. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 23(3)\, 379-386. \n\n\n\nLindebaum\, D. 2024. Management Learning and Education as “big picture” social science. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 23(1): 1–7. \n\n\n\nLocke\, R. R.\, & Spender\, J.-C. 2011. Confronting managerialism: How the business elite and their schools threw our lives out of balance. Bloomsbury Publishing. \n\n\n\nLuyckx\, J.\, Schneider\, A.\, & Kourula\, A. 2022. Learning from alternatives: Analyzing alternative ways of organizing as starting points for improving the corporation. In R. E. Meyer\, S. Leixnering\, & J. Veldman (Eds.)\, Research in the Sociology of Organizations: 209–231. Emerald Publishing Limited. \n\n\n\nMailhot\, C.\, & Lachapelle\, M. D. 2024. Teaching management in the context of Grand Challenges: A pragmatist approach. Management Learning\, 55(2): 167–191. \n\n\n\nMair\, J.\, & Rathert\, N. 2021. Alternative organizing with social purpose: Revisiting institutional analysis of market-based activity. Socio-Economic Review\, 19(2): 817–836. \n\n\n\nManley\, S. W.\, Julian. 2021. Co-operative education: From Mondragón and Bilbao to Preston. The Preston Model and Community Wealth Building. Routledge. \n\n\n\nMazutis\, D. 2024. Making a difference: Taking community stakeholders seriously. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, amle.2022.0342. \n\n\n\nMcLaren\, P. G.\, Bridgman\, T.\, Cummings\, S.\, Lubinski\, C.\, O’Connor\, E.\, et al. 2021. From the editors—new times\, new histories of the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(3): 293–299. \n\n\n\nMeek\, C. B.\, & Woodworth\, W. P. 1990. Technical training and enterprise: Mondragon’s Educational system and its implications for other cooperatives. Economic and Industrial Democracy\, 11(4): 505–528. \n\n\n\nMichael\, C. 2017. The Employee Ownership Trust\, an ESOP Alternative. Probate and Property\, 31(1): 42–47. \n\n\n\nNaidoo\, R.\, Shankar\, A.\, & Veer\, E. 2011. The consumerist turn in higher education: Policy aspirations and outcomes. Journal of Marketing Management\, 27(11–12): 1142–1162. \n\n\n\nPache\, A.-C.\, & Chowdhury\, I. 2012. Social entrepreneurs as institutionally embedded entrepreneurs: Toward a new model of social entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 11(3): 494–510. \n\n\n\nParker\, M. 2018. Shut Down the Business School. London: Pluto Press. https://ideas.repec.org//b/ucp/bkecon/9780745399171.html. \n\n\n\nParker\, M. 2021. The critical business school and the university: A case study of resistance and co-optation. Critical Sociology\, 47(7–8): 1111–1124. \n\n\n\nParker\, S.\, Racz\, M. M.\, & Palmer\, P. W. 2018. Decentering the learner through alternative organizations. Academy of Management Proceedings\, 2018(1): 16086. \n\n\n\nPek\, S. 2021. Drawing out democracy: The role of sortition in preventing and overcoming organizational degeneration in worker-owned firms. Journal of Management Inquiry\, 30(2): 193–206. \n\n\n\nPek\, S. 2023. Reconceptualizing and improving member participation in large cooperatives: Insights from deliberative democracy and deliberative mini-publics. M@n@gement\, 26(4)\, 68-82. \n\n\n\nPepin\, M.\, Tremblay\, M.\, Audebrand\, L. K.\, & Chassé\, S. 2024. The responsible business model canvas: Designing and assessing a sustainable business modeling tool for students and start-up entrepreneurs. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education\, 25(3): 514–538. \n\n\n\nPrasad\, A.\, & Śliwa\, M. 2024. Critiquing the backlash against wokeness: In defense of DEI scholarship and practice. Academy of Management Perspectives\, 38(2): 245-259. \n\n\n\nRankin\, R.\, & Piwko\, P. M. 2022. An analysis of the coverage of cooperatives in U.S. introductory business textbooks. Journal of Accounting and Finance\, 22(3). https://articlearchives.co/index.php/JAF/article/view/5228. \n\n\n\nReedy\, P.\, & Learmonth\, M. 2009. Other possibilities? The contribution to management education of alternative organizations. Management Learning\, 40(3): 241–258. \n\n\n\nRomero\, E. J. 2008. AACSB accreditation: Addressing faculty concerns. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 7(2): 245–255. \n\n\n\nSavic\, K.\, & Hoicka\, C. E. 2023. Indigenous legal forms and governance structures in renewable energy: Assessing the role and perspectives of First Nations economic development corporations. Energy Research & Social Science\, 101\, 103121. \n\n\n\nSchiller-Merkens\, S. 2024. Prefiguring an alternative economy: Understanding prefigurative organizing and its struggles. Organization\, 31(3): 458–476. \n\n\n\nSchugurensky\, D.\, & McCollum\, E. 2010. Notes in the margins: The social economy in economics and business textbooks. Researching the Social Economy: 154–175. University of Toronto Press. \n\n\n\nSolbreux\, J.\, Hermans\, J.\, Pondeville\, S.\, & Dufays\, F. 2024. It all starts with a story: Questioning dominant entrepreneurial identities through collective narrative practices. International Small Business Journal\, 42(1): 90–123. \n\n\n\nSpicer\, A.\, Jaser\, Z.\, & Wiertz\, C. 2021. The future of the business school: Finding hope in alternative pasts. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(3): 459–466. \n\n\n\nTracey\, P.\, & Phillips\, N. 2007. The distinctive challenge of educating social entrepreneurs: A postscript and rejoinder to the special issue on entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 6(2): 264–271. \n\n\n\nTubb\, D. G. L. 2018. The everyday social economy of Afro-descendants in the Chocó\, Colombia. In C. S. Hossein (Ed.)\, The Black social economy in the Americas: Exploring diverse community-based markets: 97–117. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. \n\n\n\nWanderley\, S.\, Alcadipani\, R.\, & Barros\, A. 2021. Recentering the Global South in the making of business school histories: Dependency ambiguity in action. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(3): 361–381. \n\n\n\nWright\, S.\, Greenwood\, D.\, & Boden\, R. 2011. Report on a field visit to Mondragón University: A cooperative experience/experiment. Learning and Teaching\, 4(3): 38–56. \n\n\n\nZamagni\, S.\, & Zamagni\, V. 2010. Cooperative enterprise: Facing the challenge of globalization. Edward Elgar Publishing. \n\n\n\nZulfiqar\, G.\, & Prasad\, A. 2021. Challenging social inequality in the Global South: Class\, privilege\, and consciousness-raising through critical management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(2): 156-181.
URL:https://www.aom.org/calendar/amle-call-for-special-issue-papers-management-learning-and-education-as-drivers-of-fundamental-alternative-forms-of-organizing/
CATEGORIES:Call for Special Issue Papers,Call for Submissions,Event Calendar,Journals,Learning & Education
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.aom.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/amle_cfs.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20251201T000000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20251201T000000
DTSTAMP:20260406T174757
CREATED:20260226T045354Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260226T045354Z
UID:10000050-1764547200-1764547200@www.aom.org
SUMMARY:AMLE Virtual Paper Development Workshop on Special Section: Learning to Hope In and Through Management Learning & Education
DESCRIPTION:Virtual Paper Development Workshop on AMLE Special Section: Learning to Hope In and Through Management Learning & Education\n\n\n\nLed By\n\n\n\n\nDirk Lindebaum\, Editor AMLE\n\n\n\nAMLE Associate Editors: Katrin Muelfeld\, Laura Colombo\, Stuart Middleton\, Todd Bridgman\, Diego M. Coraiola\n\n\n\n\nAbout the Workshop\n\n\n\nThis virtual Paper Development Workshop (PDW) is for interested authors to receive feedback on their ideas on the call for papers to the AMLE Special Section: Learning to Hope In and Through Management Learning & Education. While we encourage interested contributors to participate in this PDW\, participation is not a prerequisite for\, or a guarantee of\, eventual acceptance for the special section. \n\n\n\nWorkshop Requirements\n\n\n\nThose interested in participating in the virtual workshop should submit either (a) a full draft paper or (b) a 4\,000–5\,000 word proposal (including an indication of the structure of the proposed paper\, its aims\, key arguments\, theoretical contribution to and practical implications for AMLE) by the 10th of November 2025.  \n\n\n\nWorkshop Structure\n\n\n\nThis workshop will consists of small groups and random assignments.
URL:https://www.aom.org/calendar/amle-virtual-paper-development-workshop-on-special-section-learning-to-hope-in-and-through-management-learning-education/
CATEGORIES:Event Calendar,Journal Workshops,Journals,Learning & Education
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.aom.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/amle_pdw.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Paris:20251208T090000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Paris:20251208T160000
DTSTAMP:20260406T174757
CREATED:20260226T045352Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260226T045352Z
UID:10000046-1765184400-1765209600@www.aom.org
SUMMARY:AMLE Paper Development Workshop\, Doha\, Qatar
DESCRIPTION:In-person Paper Development Workshop hosted by HEC Paris \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nEditorial Organization\n\n\n\n\nDiego M. Coraiola\n\n\n\nSimy Joy\n\n\n\n\nLocal Organizer\n\n\n\n\nPablo Martin de Hollan\n\n\n\n\nAbout AMLE\n\n\n\nAcademy of Management Learning & Education (AMLE) is part of the portfolio of journals published by the Academy of Management along with AMJ\, AMP\, AMP\, Annals\, and AMD. AMLE is rated as 4* in the UK AJG list and A* in the Australian Business Deans’ Council list of journals. \n\n\n\nAMLE publishes theory-driven studies on management learning\, management education\, or the business of business schools. For empirical papers\, this means that where the research sample is composed of learners\, they are higher education students in business school(s) or school(s) of management\, or they are managers learning in executive contexts. Where the sample is composed of faculty\, then they are situated within a business school(s) or school(s) of management.  \n\n\n\nRegistration\n\n\n\n\nThere is no registration fee\, but participants are responsible for arranging their own travel and accommodation. Registration\, submission of a short paper\, and commitment to attend are required for all participants wishing to attend both parts of the PDW. The places in Part 2 are limited and are allocated to the first 15 submissions that meet the requirements below.\n\n\n\nYou can still attend and participate if you do not have work to discuss in Part 2. Please let us know by 15 November 2025 if you wish to register without submitting work for Part 2.\n\n\n\n\nCatering\n\n\n\nRefreshments and lunch will be provided. HEC Paris\, Doha generously sponsored catering and lunch for a limited number of participants. \n\n\n\nRequirements\n\n\n\nShort papers (approximately 3\,000 words) that fit the aim and scope of AMLE. Prior editorials can serve as guideposts to clarify AMLE’s focus and content areas (Caza et al.\, 2024; Coraiola & Caza\, 2025; Hibbert\, in Rockmann et al.\, 2021; Hibbert et al.\, 2023; Lindebaum\, 2024; Vince and Hibbert\, 2018). \n\n\n\nWorkshop Structure\n\n\n\nThis workshop has two main parts: \n\n\n\n\nPart 1 comprises a general introduction to AMLE. The main focus is on writing manuscripts that advance our theoretical understanding of MLE phenomena for the research article and essay sections of the journal. This first part of the workshop is open to all interested participants\, including those who do not submit a short paper.\n\n\n\nPart 2 is focused on supporting and advising researchers on how to develop and refine their papers with submission to AMLE in mind. Those wishing to participate in Part 2 should note the requirements.\n\n\n\n\nApproximate schedule for the day: \n\n\n\n\n09:00–09:30 – Welcome reception \n\n\n\n09:30–10:30 – Introduction to AMLE and Q&A \n\n\n\n10:30–10:45 – Refreshments \n\n\n\n10:45–11:45 – Developing a theoretical contribution for AMLE \n\n\n\n11:45–12:00 – Coffee break \n\n\n\n12:00–13:30 – Roundtable discussion of submitted papers \n\n\n\n13:30–14:30 – Lunch \n\n\n\n14:30–16:00 – Continuation of roundtable discussion and Q&A \n\n\n\n\nSubmission\n\n\n\nYour submission must include: (1) a cover page with the author(s) name(s) and affiliation(s)\, three to four keywords\, and an email address for the lead author; and (2) your short paper (~3\,000 words). Please note that by submitting your paper\, you \n\n\n\n\nAgree to your paper being discussed in a small group with other participants\, as arranged by the workshop facilitators\, and be willing and able to provide a short (5-minute maximum) overview of your paper to others in the discussion group.\n\n\n\nCommit to attending the whole workshop if your submission is accepted.\n\n\n\n\nReferences\n\n\n\nCaza\, A.\, Harley\, B.\, Coraiola\, D. M.\, Lindebaum\, D.\, & Moser\, C. 2024. What Is a Contribution and How Can You Make One at AMLE? Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 23(4): 523–528. \n\n\n\nCoraiola\, D. M. & Caza\, A. 2025. Publishing Impactful Literature Reviews in AMLE. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 24(1): 9–17. \n\n\n\nHibbert P\, Caza A\, Coraiola DM\, et al. 2023. Why Be an Editor? Academy of Management Learning & Education. DOI: 10.5465/amle.2023.0435. \n\n\n\nLindebaum D. 2024. Management Learning and Education as “Big Picture” Social Science. Academy of Management Learning & Education 23(1): 1–7. \n\n\n\nRockmann K.\, Bunderson J.S.\, Leana C.R.\, et al. 2021. Publishing in the Academy of Management Journals. Academy of Management Learning & Education 20(2): 117–126. \n\n\n\nVince\, R.\, and Hibbert\, P. 2018. From the AMLE Editorial Team: Disciplined Provocation: Writing Essays for AMLE. Academy of Management Learning & Education 17(4): 397–400.
URL:https://www.aom.org/calendar/amle-paper-development-workshop-doha-qatar/
CATEGORIES:Event Calendar,Journal Workshops,Journals,Learning & Education
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.aom.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/amle_pdw.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20260327T090000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20260327T180000
DTSTAMP:20260406T174757
CREATED:20260225T060844Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260225T060845Z
UID:10000012-1774602000-1774634400@www.aom.org
SUMMARY:Joint AMD\, AMLE\, AMP Paper Development Workshop\, Ontario\, Canada
DESCRIPTION:In-person Paper Development Workshop hosted by Ivey Business School\, Western University\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAcademy of Management Perspectives (AMP)\, Academy of Management Discoveries (AMD)\, and Academy of Management Learning and Education (AMLE) are pleased to partner with the Ivey Business School (Ivey) and Western University (Western) to host an in-person Paper Development Workshop (PDW)\, to be held on the London\, ON campus\, on Friday\, 27 March 2026\, from 9:00 – 17:00 local time\, followed by a reception. \n\n\n\nPDW attendees will meet members of the three editorial teams and participate in breakout sessions and plenaries that enhance understanding of how to publish in AMP\, AMD\, and AMLE. \n\n\n\nRegistrants are not required to submit a proposal to attend the PDW. However\, those who wish to obtain individualized feedback on their specific research idea must submit a proposal at the time of registration. Proposals must indicate the target journal (AMP\, AMD\, or AMLE) and contain 3-4 pages that clearly and concisely detail the research idea. Please carefully review the mission and author guidelines on your focal journal’s website and clearly specify in the proposal how your research fits within these guidelines. Applicants will receive notice of acceptance of proposals by no later than 6 March 2026. \n\n\n\nPlease note that participation in the workshop does not guarantee acceptance of the paper to AMP\, AMD\, or AMLE or special preference in the review process. \n\n\n\nRegistration Information\n\n\n\nThere is a nonrefundable US$50 registration fee. Payment must be completed by 11 March 2026 or registration will be cancelled. If a coauthor plans to attend\, each coauthor is required to register separately. \n\n\n\nTo attend\, please register no later than 27 February 2026.  \n\n\n\nPDW Timeline\n\n\n\n\nRegistration and Proposal Submission Deadline: 27 February 2026 (payment is not required at the time of registration)\n\n\n\nProposal Acceptance Decision: 6 March 2026\n\n\n\n\nAccommodation and Logistics\n\n\n\nBreakfast\, lunch\, coffee breaks\, and a closing reception on 27 March are included in the registration fee. Travel and accommodation\, if needed\, are not. Travel suggestions and reasonable hotel options will be provided to those who register. Any questions about accommodations or logistics should be directed to Oana Branzei\, cc-ing her faculty assistant Sara Musa. \n\n\n\nTentative Agenda\n\n\n\nWe have planned a full and exciting agenda\, as follows (subject to change): \n\n\n\n8:00-9:00Registration and Breakfast9:00-9:15Welcome by Dean Julian Birkinshaw9:15-9:30Agenda and Introductions9:30-10:30Opening PanelJournal overviews. AMP\, AMD & AMLE10:30-11:00Coffee Break11:00-12:30Morning Breakouts and PlenariesExperienced scholars with accepted proposals will be assigned to journal-specific breakout sessions to receive focused feedback. Other experienced scholars in attendance are encouraged to join a breakout session. Less experienced scholars should attend one of the following plenaries:Plenary 1a: A beginner’s guide to writing for AMPPlenary 1b: A beginner’s guide to writing for AMDPlenary 1c: A beginners guide to writing for AMLE                      12:30-13:30Lunch13:30-15:00Afternoon Breakouts and PlenariesLess experienced scholars with accepted proposals will be assigned to journal-specific breakout sessions to receive focused feedback. Other less-experienced scholars in attendance are encouraged to join a breakout session. Experienced scholars should attend one of the following plenaries:Plenary 2a: An advanced guide to writing for AMPPlenary 2b: An advanced guide to writing for AMDPlenary 2c: An advanced guide to writing for AMLE                      15:00-15:30Coffee Break15:30-17:00Closing PlenaryWhat research matters to managers and how can scholars and practitioners work together to provide it?17:00-18:00Reception\n\n\n\nWe look forward to seeing you and helping you to develop your work!
URL:https://www.aom.org/calendar/joint-amd-amle-amp-paper-development-workshop-ontario-canada/
CATEGORIES:Discoveries,Journal Workshops,Journals,Learning & Education,Perspectives
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.aom.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/AMD-AMLE-AMR-Joint-Workshop-1.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260515T000000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20260515T000000
DTSTAMP:20260406T174757
CREATED:20260226T045742Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260226T045742Z
UID:10000066-1778803200-1778803200@www.aom.org
SUMMARY:AMLE Paper Idea Development Workshop\, Amsterdam\, The Netherlands
DESCRIPTION:In-person Paper Idea Development Workshop hosted by Vu Amsterdam\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nRegistration\, submission of an extended abstract (500 words)\, and commitment to attend are required for all participants. \n\n\n\nLed By\n\n\n\nDirk Lindebaum\, AMLE Editor-in-Chief\, and members of the current editorial team \n\n\n\nAbout AMLE\n\n\n\nAcademy of Management Learning & Education (AMLE) is rated as 4* in the UK CABS list and A* in the Australian Business Deans’ Council list of journals. The journal’s main emphasis is on theoretical debates about management learning and education\, and the business of business schools. For more details\, please consult these editorials: (Caza\, Harley\, Coraiola\, Lindebaum\, & Moser\, 2024; Coraiola & Caza\, 2025; Lindebaum\, 2024). \n\n\n\nFurther information: This is an idea-based PDW\, not a full paper PDW. Please submit your idea-based extended abstract when you register\, no later than 10 April 2026. \n\n\n\nReferences\n\n\n\nCaza\, A.\, Harley\, B.\, Coraiola\, D. M.\, Lindebaum\, D.\, & Moser\, C. 2024. What Is a Contribution and How Can You Make One at AMLE? Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 23(4): 523–528. \n\n\n\nCoraiola\, D. M. & Caza\, A. 2025. Publishing Impactful Literature Reviews in AMLE. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 24(1): 9–17. \n\n\n\nLindebaum D. 2024. Management Learning and Education as “Big Picture” Social Science. Academy of Management Learning & Education 23(1): 1–7.
URL:https://www.aom.org/calendar/amle-paper-development-workshop-amsterdam-the-netherlands/
CATEGORIES:Journal Workshops,Journals,Learning & Education
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.aom.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/amle_idw.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20261101T000000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20261214T235959
DTSTAMP:20260406T174757
CREATED:20260226T045734Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260306T183907Z
UID:10000054-1793491200-1797292799@www.aom.org
SUMMARY:AMLE Call for Special Issue Papers: Rethinking Business School Structures\, Standards\, and Success for Neuroinclusive Management Learning and Education
DESCRIPTION:This Call for Papers is available to download in these languages:\n\n\n\n\nChinese\n\n\n\nEnglish\n\n\n\nHindi\n\n\n\nSpanish\n\n\n\n\n\nGuest Editors\n\n\n\n\nMiriam Moeller (she/her)\, University of Queensland (Australia)\n\n\n\nDana L. Ott (she/her)\, University of Otago (New Zealand)\n\n\n\nMatevž (Matt) Rašković\, (he/him) University of Technology Auckland (New Zealand)\n\n\n\nSophie Hennekam (she/her)\, Audencia Business School (France)\n\n\n\nTimothy J. Vogus (he/him)\, Vanderbilt University (USA)\n\n\n\nJoy E. Beatty (she/her)\, Eastern Michigan University (USA)\n\n\n\nJudith Clair (she/her)\, Boston College (USA)\n\n\n\n\nAMLE Editor\n\n\n\n\nKatrin Mühlfeld (she/her)\, University of Trier (Germany)\n\n\n\n\nCall for Papers\n\n\n\nBusiness schools around the world are undergoing rapid transformation\, reflecting questions about their social license (Starkey & Tempest\, 2025; University Chancellors Council\, 2025)\, legitimacy and identity (Alajoutsijärvi et al.\, 2015)\, changing student demographics (Zhang et al.\, 2016)\, technological developments (Clegg & Sarker\, 2024; Hughes & Davis\, 2024)\, and evolving understandings of social justice\, equity\, inclusion\, and belonging (Fiset et al.\, 2025). Amid this period of re-evaluation and change\, recognition is growing that an estimated 15-20% of the global population is neurodivergent (Doyle\, 2020). With more than half of Gen Z (1997-2012) now identifying as neurodivergent (Palumbo\, 2025)\, it underscores the urgency of advancing theoretical\, empirical\, and pedagogical conversations about whom business school systems of teaching\, assessment\, and professional formation are designed to serve – and how they might evolve to achieve greater neuroinclusion. \n\n\n\nNeurodiversity\, a term collectively developed by neurodivergent individuals (Botha et al.\, 2024)\, refers to the full spectrum of natural variation in human cognitive functioning. Individuals who diverge from dominant neurocognitive norms are often described as neurodivergent\, encompassing cognitive profiles such as Autism Spectrum Conditions (ASC)\, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)\, dyslexia\, dysgraphia\, dyscalculia\, dyspraxia\, Tourette Syndrome\, and other forms of neurodivergence (Doyle et al.\, forthcoming; Quigley & Gallagher\, 2025). These forms of neurodivergence are not deficits to be ‘fixed’ but reflect different patterns of perception\, attention\, memory\, and communication\, which may entail both distinct challenges and unique strengths in educational and workplace settings (Kersten et al.\, 2025; Shaw et al.\, 2024). ADHD individuals\, for example\, may excel in high-energy\, fast-paced problem-solving (Doyle\, 2020) but face difficulties with sustained concentration during lengthy case discussions or traditional assessments. Dyslexic learners often demonstrate strong visual-spatial reasoning and creativity (LeFevre-Levy et al.\, 2023) yet may encounter barriers when coursework relies heavily on time-pressured reading and written tasks. \n\n\n\nThere has been a marked increase in the number of neurodivergent learners entering higher education in recent years\, driven by rising awareness and improved access pathways (McDowall & Kiseleva\, 2024). In the UK\, for example\, up to 2% of university students may meet diagnostic criteria for ASC\, with an additional 2-8% potentially being ADHD (Ahmann et al.\, 2018; Anderson et al.\, 2019). Dyslexia is also widespread\, with approximately 5% of higher education students being dyslexic (Clouder et al.\, 2020). Nonetheless\, these figures likely underestimate the true prevalence of neurodivergence in business and higher education as many learners remain undiagnosed or choose not to disclose their neurodivergent status (Clouder et al.\, 2020; Kennedy et al.\, 2025). \n\n\n\nBusiness schools traditionally tend to privilege narrow forms of learning\, expression\, and social interaction (Clouder et al.\, 2020; Hennekam et al.\, 2025; McDowall & Kiseleva\, 2024) that assume neurotypicality and place the burden of adaptation on neurodivergent individuals (Milton\, 2012; Milton et al.\, 2022). This approach fails to recognize that the challenges of neurodiversity are fundamentally breakdowns in mutual understanding between neurodivergent and neurotypical people grounded in differences in their patterns of attention\, communication\, and interpretation of social information (e.g.\, Williams\, 2021)—a double empathy problem (Milton\, 2012; Milton et al.\, 2022) rather than one party’s mind blindness or lack of empathy. Failing to see the double empathy problem produces pedagogical expectations that can disadvantage those whose strengths and needs do not align with these implicit norms\, limiting their ability to fully participate and succeed. For example\, a neurotypical academic staff member may misunderstand a neurodivergent student’s lack of eye contact or neutral facial expression as signs of lack of preparation or disinterest rather than intentional strategies to effectively manage sensory input and attentional resources. \n\n\n\nPedagogically\, group work\, a core element of many business schools\, similarly assumes strong relational and communication skills\, which may not align with all neurocognitive profiles. Similarly\, particularities of neurodivergent students\, such as hyperfocus among those with ADHD or monotropism\, referring to the tendency to focus one’s attention on a small or singular number of interests\, common among autistic students\, are often ignored or positioned as irrelevant (Wood\, 2023). Moreover\, challenges faced by neurodivergent learners are intensified for postgraduate students\, mature learners\, and those diagnosed later in life\, who often encounter disbelief\, inconsistent support\, or are completely overlooked by institutions (Butcher & Lane\, 2024; Coneyworth et al.\, 2020). \n\n\n\nEven when available\, neurodivergent learners may be unaware of available support or may refrain from requesting accommodations to which they are entitled due to the fear of stigmatization (Clouder et al.\, 2020). These students often attempt to conform to neurotypical norms\, masking their difficulties or distinctive traits (Hennekam et al.\, 2025). They consequently tend to manage their challenges by themselves (Mirfin-Veitch et al.\, 2020)\, a strategy that may prove unsustainable over time for them and their support groups (Hennekam et al.\, 2025). As a result\, and despite being academically capable\, degree completions remain low (Chown et al.\, 2018). For many\, the consequences extend beyond poorer academic outcomes to diminished access to meaningful employment (Bury et al.\, 2024)\, an issue particularly stark for autistic individuals whose employment rates remain among the lowest of any disability group (ABS\, 2022; Alemany & Vermeulen\, 2023; Austin & Pisano\, 2017; Ezerins et al.\, 2024; Moeller et al.\, 2021). \n\n\n\nWhile several excellent special issues have advanced the conversation on neurodiversity in management and organizations\, this special issue offers a fundamentally distinct vantage point. Whereas prior collections—such as those in the Journal of Management & Organization (2019)\, Human Resource Management (2025)\, and the forthcoming issues in Academy of Management Discoveries\, Personnel Review\, International Journal of Management Reviews\, and Group & Organization Management—center primarily on neurodiversity in relation to employment\, inclusion practices\, and organizational systems and outcomes\, this Academy of Management Learning & Education special issue uniquely foregrounds the importance of reimagining management learning and education to better serve all minds and to develop neurodiversity-informed managers who are equipped to make organizations more neuroinclusive. \n\n\n\nFor this special issue\, we encourage conceptual and empirical work that envisions business schools as models of neuroinclusion. Our call also shifts the focus from ‘accommodating and managing difference’ to ‘learning through difference’ and understanding how difference\, as a form of diversity\, enhances learning and group capabilities. In doing so\, it extends the dialogue beyond workplace adaptation to examining how neurodiversity both challenges and enriches the processes through which management knowledge is constructed\, taught\, and understood by learners\, and how this also impacts emergent group functions (i.e.\, decision-making and morality). We therefore invite a more inclusive understanding of learning and knowing in management education\, one that values diverse cognitive styles and experiences as integral to the co-creation of knowledge and practice. \n\n\n\nIn this vein\, we invite contributors to explore diverse perspectives that enrich and expand conversations on neurodiversity in management learning and education. In particular\, we encourage submissions that move beyond single-diagnosis approaches recognizing the breadth within and across neurodivergences\, including: developmental (e.g.\, ADHD\, dyslexia\, dyspraxia\, dyscalculia)\, acquired (e.g.\, traumatic brain injury\, epilepsy)\, mental health (e.g.\, anxiety\, obsessive-compulsive disorder; Edwards et al.\, 2024)\, and physical health conditions (e.g.\, chronic fatigue syndrome\, hearing or vision impairment). These categories are not mutually exclusive and neurodivergent conditions often co-occur. For example\, those who present with ADHD and anxiety\, or those who are dyspraxic and autistic\, may experience both distinctive challenges and synergies in learning and workplaces. \n\n\n\nFurthermore\, this special issue welcomes contributions that embrace conceptual plurality\, engaging with alternative or adjacent conceptualisations of neurodiversity – whether framed as natural variation and ecology (Chapman\, 2021) or through disability (Brown & Leigh\, 2020)\, misfit (Billsberry et al.\, 2023)\, being ‘different’ or other evolving terms that capture the complex ways individuals experience (mis)alignment with institutional learning environments and how this also impacts emergent group functions and group-level outcomes. Embracing such plurality also requires turning the lens toward academic and professional staff who shape these environments. Doing so exposes a broader empirical and theoretical blind spot in understanding the attitudes and experiences of academic and professional staff with disabilities (Anderson\, 2006; Brown & Leigh\, 2020; Little et al.\, 2023) and\, in particular\, those with neurocognitive conditions (Alexander\, 2024). \n\n\n\nOf interest in this special issue also are how inclusive pedagogy\, constructive alignment\, Universal Design for Learning (UDL)\, and learner partnership models can transform educational design and practice to better serve the full spectrum of learners (CAST\, 2024; Rose & Meyer\, 2006). For example\, a management educator might offer students multiple ways to demonstrate learning\, such as a written essay\, an infographic\, or forms of digitalization (Walkowiak\, 2024)\, or a recorded presentation\, thereby valuing diverse modes of cognition and communication. Similarly\, predictable course rhythms and clearly scaffolded tasks can reduce cognitive load and anxiety for neurodivergent students while increasing engagement and clarity for everyone. Finally\, incorporating learner partnership models—where students collaborate with educators to co-design learning activities\, assessment criteria\, or feedback processes—can cultivate a sense of shared ownership\, agency\, and belonging across the entire student cohort. For business schools\, this will result in very real considerations of workload models\, academic and professional staff training\, and the redistribution of institutional resources to ensure that inclusive pedagogical intentions are supported by genuine structural and financial commitment. \n\n\n\nAttention should likewise be directed to an intersectional perspective on neurodivergence (Gottardello et al.\, 2025)\, which acknowledges that intersecting identities—such as gender\, race\, and culture—interact and fundamentally shape how neurological differences are understood and enacted. For example\, the experience of a dyslexic woman of color in academia or that of a neurodivergent international student navigating an unfamiliar education system may reveal unique intersections of cognitive\, cultural\, and structural differences (Crenshaw\, 1991; Lewis & Arday\, 2023; Rivera\, 2022)\, which offers an opportunity to explore the interactions of dispositional and circumstantial diversity. In particular\, we encourage research and reflections from diverse cultural and national contexts which support and extend ecological understandings of neurodiversity and challenge dominant epistemological assumptions. Consequently\, we provide a space to decenter Eurocentric and Anglophone paradigms of management learning and education\, enabling more culturally grounded understandings of neurodivergence (Atherton et al.\, 2023; Bernier & McCrimmon\, 2022; de Leeuw et al.\, 2020; Felix & Hennekam\, in press; Ott et al.\, 2025; Tupou et al.\, 2024). These perspectives will ultimately challenge dominant Western deficit discourses and offer novel pathways for pedagogical and institutional inclusion\, as well as opening promising frontiers for the application of institutional theory (Cook\, 2024) and intersectionality research (Gottardello et al.\, 2025). \n\n\n\nAt a theoretical level\, management learning and education continues to be informed by approaches that presume and privilege neurotypicality and associate neurodivergence with medicalized deficits rather than as part of a natural ecology. We posit that institutions that implement inclusive teaching practices often do so without interrogating the deeper epistemic assumptions that define what counts as legitimate knowledge\, effective pedagogy\, or “good” learning. To illustrate\, efforts to engage neurodiversity in practice and management learning and education research have largely been narrow and at the individual-level\, overlooking a more ecological perspective that focuses on the interplay of factors at micro\, meso\, and macro levels (Chapman\, 2021). Drawing on Bronfenbrenner’s (2000) ecological systems theory—which posits that individual development is shaped by multiple\, interrelated environmental layers—may offer a valuable lens for examining how business schools can become more inclusive. For this special issue\, we therefore encourage pursuing the above-mentioned ideas and contexts from various theoretical perspectives\, epistemological assumptions\, and levels of analysis. \n\n\n\nIn conjunction with the ecological systems view\, a range of theoretical lenses\, such as social identity theory and identity work\, critical race or critical disability theories\, queer theory and power lenses\, but also decolonial perspectives may be pertinent to studying intersectional identities\, forms of oppression\, and co-occurring conditions (Mallipeddi & Van Daalen\, 2022). Social learning theory and especially self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura\, 1997)\, learned helplessness (Kapp\, 2022)\, and the internalization of negative beliefs about their competencies or stigma (Hennekam et al.\, 2025) might likewise be relevant to studying educational outcomes as well as the school-to-work transition of neurodivergent students in business schools (O’Byrne et al.\, 2019). This is supported by empirical research showing that neurodivergent students often report lower self-efficacy than their neurotypical peers\, which may hinder confidence and career readiness (Buckley et al.\, 2024). \n\n\n\nIn sum\, we encourage contributions that critically examine how insights from neuroscience and neuro-ethics can inform\, but should not uncritically determine\, approaches to neuroinclusive management learning and education (Cavanaugh et al.\, 2016; Lindebaum et al.\, 2018). We invite scholars\, educational practitioners\, business school leaders\, policymakers\, and even practitioners from across inclusive education\, disability studies\, critical management studies\, organizational behavior and theory\, and other fields to enrich neurodiversity discourse and contribute to a more expansive\, socially just\, and humanizing vision of management learning and education. \n\n\n\nIllustrative Themes and Research Questions\n\n\n\nIn the context of the Business of Business Schools\, the following questions could be explored: \n\n\n\n\nHow does neurodiversity help reimagine social justice and DEI in business schools?\n\n\n\nWhat tensions emerge between performance metrics and inclusion for neurodivergent students\, academic and professional staff\, and how are such trade-offs effectively managed?\n\n\n\nHow do policies on reasonable accommodations align (or conflict) with institutional objectives and wider institutional logics?\n\n\n\nHow is neurodiversity effectively addressed in non-WEIRD (Western\, Educated\, Industrialized\, Rich\, and Democratic) environments and institutional settings in higher education contexts? \n\n\n\nHow does a country’s legal context shape the expectations\, obligations\, and opportunities for business schools to develop and deliver more neuroinclusive pedagogy?\n\n\n\nHow can existing practices and processes within business schools be adjusted and/or redesigned to be more neuroinclusive (e.g.\, recruiting and selection\, onboarding\, networking\, and organizational culture)?\n\n\n\nHow can business schools attract and retain neurodivergent talent (learners\, academics and professional staff)?\n\n\n\nHow can business schools support neurodivergent academic and professional staff and challenge ableism as an organizational paradigm?\n\n\n\nHow do business schools address the neurodiversity of learners\, academic\, and professional staff at different levels (i.e.\, undergraduate\, postgraduate\, executive education) and in different cultural and institutional contexts?\n\n\n\n\nIn the context of management learning\, the following questions could be explored: \n\n\n\n\nHow do neurodivergent learners\, academic and professional staff experience management learning processes differently and what unique challenges do they face?\n\n\n\nWhat are the experiences of learners and academic and professional staff with intersectional social identities involving neurodiversity?\n\n\n\nWhat is the role of institutional logics/culture\, pedagogy\, peer learners\, and academic and professional staff in the way neurodivergent individuals and groups experience and navigate their management education\, including from an intersectionality perspective? \n\n\n\nWhat insights can be gleaned from the experiences of neurodivergent learners and academic and professional staff regarding neurotypical norms in management education? What role do visibility and representation specifically play in this?\n\n\n\nHow can cross-neurotype (between neurodivergent and neurotypical individuals) collaboration and connection be fostered and leveraged in the classroom and outside it (i.e.\, bridging the “double empathy problem\,” Milton\, 2012)?\n\n\n\nHow do neurodiverse groups of learners (i.e.\, those with neurotypical and neurodivergent members) work together (e.g.\, the biases experienced or avoided\, the interpersonal challenges) and perform (e.g.\, task performance\, creativity)?\n\n\n\nHow do neurodivergent individuals experience the transition into the workforce as well as from secondary school into management education? What practices\, supports\, and tools aid more successful transitions? How do these transitional practices vary across global cultures?\n\n\n\nWhat role does executive functioning\, sensory processing\, or divergent social cognition play in shaping reflection and feedback loops within learning processes?\n\n\n\nIn what ways can experiential learning or study abroad be adapted for neurodivergent learners and educators?\n\n\n\nHow does neurodiversity inform alternative models of learner identity and transformation?\n\n\n\nWhat is the impact of educational support on academic achievements and the employability of neurodivergent individuals?\n\n\n\nWhat role do internships and mentoring play in the academic achievements and work-readiness of neurodivergent management learners? \n\n\n\nHow can business schools foster neuro-inclusion as a leadership and management capability?\n\n\n\n\nIn the context of management education\, the following questions could be explored:   \n\n\n\n\nHow can universal design for learning and inclusive pedagogy reshape management education?\n\n\n\nHow can constructive alignment more effectively incorporate the needs and experiences of neurodivergent learners and educators across different levels and contexts?\n\n\n\nWhat can we learn from neuro-inclusive education in other fields? What best practices\, policies\, and procedures can be identified?\n\n\n\nHow do assessment and participation norms impact neurodivergent learners’ educational outcomes?\n\n\n\nHow does neurodiversity intersect with other (potentially) stigmatizing attributes or sources of social identities\, such as gender\, age\, race\, ethnicity\, sexual orientation\, or other disabilities among management learners?\n\n\n\nHow do individuals with multiple co-occurring neurocognitive conditions navigate higher management education?\n\n\n\nWhat teaching innovations have emerged in neurodiversity-informed business courses and programs?\n\n\n\nHow important is visibility and representation among academic and professional staff?\n\n\n\nHow may internalized ableism and embodied pedagogy affect neurodivergent academic and professional staff?\n\n\n\nHow do inclusive pedagogies engage with issues of masking\, disclosure\, and psychological safety?\n\n\n\nHow can technology\, and in particular artificial intelligence\, be meaningfully leveraged to support neurodivergent learners in management education? How can such technologies be used to enhance cross-neurotype collaborations and relationships?\n\n\n\nHow are higher education institutions and educators adapting AI-driven educational technologies to support neurodivergent learners in management programs?\n\n\n\n\nSubmission types\n\n\n\nFor this special issue\, we invite submissions to all of the Academy of Management Learning & Education’s peer-reviewed sections\, including Research and Reviews\, Essays\, and Book and Resource Reviews. We particularly welcome research studies based on extensive data—qualitative\, quantitative\, and mixed method—using any well-executed and rigorous methodology and strong theoretical framing. Finally\, related to the issue of representation\, we especially encourage submissions from neurodivergent authors and author teams. Submissions will be subject to the normal editorial decision-making and peer-review processes. All the journal’s standard formatting and peer review guidelines will apply. \n\n\n\nInquiries\n\n\n\nIf you have any questions or would like to discuss a possible submission\, please contact Miriam Moeller and Dana L. Ott. Please note that such consultation is not a precondition\, requirement\, or guarantee of acceptance for any submission. Authors who have not consulted with the Guest Editor Team are equally welcome to submit. \n\n\n\nSubmission details\n\n\n\nWe invite special issue submissions to occur between 1 November 2026 and 14 December 2026 through the AMLE’s manuscript central system. \n\n\n\nPrior to submission\, we will hold an optional virtual professional development workshop at the end of May 2026\, for interested authors to receive feedback on their ideas. Those interested in participating in the workshop should e-mail a 3\,000-word proposal (including references) to Miriam Moeller and Dana L. Ott by 13 May 2026. \n\n\n\nWe also plan to offer workshops to discuss this special issue at the European Academy of Management in June 2026 (Kristiansand\, Norway)\, the European Group of Organisational Studies in July (Bergamo\, Italy)\, the Academy of International Business conference in July 2026 (Manchester\, UK)\, the Academy of Management conference in August 2026 (Philadelphia\, Pennsylvania) and the Brazilian Academy of Management in October 2026. We will share more details about these and other opportunities when available via the AMLE website and various listservs. \n\n\n\nWhile we encourage interested contributors to participate in these opportunities\, they are not a prerequisite for\, or a guarantee of\, eventual acceptance in the special issue. \n\n\n\nAcknowledgments \n\n\n\nThis Call for Papers was translated using an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Translator tool developed by The University of Queensland in collaboration with the Association for Information Systems Taskforce on AI Translation for Inclusive\, Impactful Science. We thank James Boyce\, David Goyeneche Ramirez\, Luis Alfredo Arango Soler\, Marut Jain\, Pooja Madaan\, Saarwani Komanduri\, Hetiao Xie\, and Gloria Zheng for cross-checking and refining the AI-translated version to ensure linguistic and contextual accuracy. \n\n\n\nReferences \n\n\n\nABS. 2022. Autism in Australia 2022. https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/autism-australia-2022. \n\n\n\nAhmann\, E.\, Tuttle\, L. J.\, Saviet\, M.\, & Wright\, S. D. 2018. A descriptive review of ADHD coaching research: Implications for college students. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability\, 31(1)\, 17-39. \n\n\n\nAlajoutsijärvi\, K.\, Juusola\, K.\, & Siltaoja\, M. 2015. The legitimacy paradox of business schools: Losing by gaining? Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 14(2)\, 277-291. \n\n\n\nAlemany\, L.\, & Vermeulen\, F. 2023. Disability as a source of competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review\, 101(7-8)\, 106-115. \n\n\n\nAlexander\, D. A. 2024. The dyslexic academic: Uncovering the challenges faced as neurodiverse in academia and establishing a research agenda. Disability & Society\, 39(11)\, 3036-3041. \n\n\n\nAnderson\, A. H.\, Stephenson\, J.\, Carter\, M.\, & Carlon\, S. 2019. A systematic literature review of empirical research on postsecondary students with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders\, 49(4)\, 1531-1558. \n\n\n\nAnderson\, R. C. 2006. Teaching (with) disability: Pedagogies of lived experience. The Review of Education\, Pedagogy\, and Cultural Studies\, 28(3-4)\, 367-379. \n\n\n\nAtherton\, G.\, Morimoto\, Y.\, Nakashima\, S.\, & Cross\, L. 2023. Does the study of culture enrich our understanding of autism? A cross-cultural exploration of life on the spectrum in Japan and the West. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology\, 54(5)\, 610-634. \n\n\n\nAustin\, R. D.\, & Pisano\, G. P. 2017. Neurodiversity as a competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review\, 95(3)\, 96-103. \n\n\n\nBandura\, A. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs\, NJ: Prentice Hall. \n\n\n\nBaron-Cohen\, S. 2011. Zero degrees of empathy: A new theory of human cruelty. London\, England: Allen Lane. \n\n\n\nBernier\, A. S.\, & McCrimmon\, A. W. 2022. Attitudes and perceptions of Muslim parents toward their children with autism: A systematic review. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders\, 9(3)\, 320-333. \n\n\n\nBillsberry\, J.\, Hollyoak\, B. M.\, & Talbot\, D. L. 2023. Insights into the lived experience of misfits at work: A netnographic study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology\, 32(2)\, 199-215. \n\n\n\nBotha\, M.\, Chapman\, R.\, Giwa Onaiwu\, M.\, Kapp\, S. K.\, Stannard Ashley\, A.\, & Walker\, N. 2024. The neurodiversity concept was developed collectively: An overdue correction on the origins of neurodiversity theory. Autism\, 28(6)\, 1591-1594. \n\n\n\nBronfenbrenner\, U. (2000). Ecological systems theory. American Psychological Association. \n\n\n\nBrown\, K. R.\, & Leigh\, J. 2020. Ableism in academia: Theorising experiences of disabilities and chronic illnesses in higher education. Disability & Society\, 35(1)\, 1-16. \n\n\n\nBuckley\, E.\, Sideropoulos\, V.\, Pellicano\, E.\, & Remington\, A. 2024. Higher levels of neurodivergent traits associated with lower levels of self-efficacy and wellbeing for performing arts students. Neurodiversity: 2. \n\n\n\nBury\, S. M.\, Hedley\, D.\, Uljarević\, M.\, Li\, X.\, Stokes\, M. A.\, & Begeer\, S. 2024. Employment profiles of autistic people: An 8-year longitudinal study. Autism\, 28(9)\, 2322-2333. \n\n\n\nButcher\, L.\, & Lane\, S. 2024. Neurodivergent (Autism and ADHD) student experiences of access and inclusion in higher education: An ecological systems theory perspective. Higher Education. \n\n\n\nCAST. 2024. The UDL Guidelines. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/ \n\n\n\nCavanaugh\, J. M.\, Giapponi\, C. C.\, & Golden\, T. D. 2016. Digital technology and student cognitive development: The neuroscience of the university classroom. Journal of Management Education\, 40(4)\, 374-397. \n\n\n\nChapman\, R. 2021. Neurodiversity and the social ecology of mental functions. Perspectives on Psychological Science\, 16(6)\, 1360-1372. \n\n\n\nChown\, N.\, Joanna\, B.-R.\, Liz\, H.\, Nicola\, C. K.\, & Byrne\, P. 2018. The ‘high achievers’ project: An assessment of the support for students with autism attending UK universities. Journal of Further and Higher Education\, 42(6)\, 837-854. \n\n\n\nClegg\, S.\, & Sarker\, S. 2024. Artificial intelligence and management education: A conceptualization of human-machine interaction. International Journal of Management Education\, 22(3)\, 101007. \n\n\n\nClouder\, L.\, Karakus\, M.\, Cinotti\, A.\, Ferreyra\, M. V.\, Fierros\, G. A.\, & Rojo\, P. 2020. Neurodiversity in higher education: A narrative synthesis. Higher Education\, 80(4)\, 757-778. \n\n\n\nConeyworth\, L.\, Rachel\, J.\, Pauline\, M.\, & White\, G. 2020. The overlooked cohort? – Improving the taught postgraduate student experience in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International\, 57(3)\, 262-273. \n\n\n\nCook\, A. 2024. Conceptualisations of neurodiversity and barriers to inclusive pedagogy in schools: A perspective article\, JORSEN\, 24(3)\, 627-636. \n\n\n\nCrenshaw\, K. 1991. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality\, identity politics\, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review\, 43(6)\, 1241-1299. \n\n\n\nde Leeuw\, A.\, Happé\, F.\, & Hoekstra\, R. A. 2020. A conceptual framework for understanding the cultural and contextual factors on autism across the globe. Autism Research\, 13(7)\, 1029-1050. \n\n\n\nDoyle\, N. 2020. Neurodiversity at work: A biopsychosocial model and the impact on working adults. British Medical Bulletin\, 135(1)\, 108-125. \n\n\n\nDoyle\, N.\, McDowall\, A.\, Hennekam\, S.\, Lewis\, C.\, Moeller\, M.\, Santuzzi\, A.M.\, Szulc\, J.\, & Tomczak\, M.T. (forthcoming). Concepts\, language\, and framing. The Handbook of Neurodiversity at Work. Sage Publications. \n\n\n\nEdwards\, M. S.\, Cox\, L. E.\, Martin\, A. J.\, & Ashkanasy\, N. M. 2024.Introduction and historical review. Research Handbook of Academic Mental Health\, edited by Marissa S. Edwards\, Angela J. Martin\, Neal M. Ashkanasy\, & Lauren E. Cox. Cheltenham\, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing\, 1-30. \n\n\n\nEzerins\, M. E.\, Simon\, L. S.\, Vogus\, T. J.\, Gabriel\, A. S.\, Calderwood\, C.\, & Rosen\, C. C. 2024. Autism and employment: A review of the “new frontier” of diversity research. Journal of Management\, 50(3)\, 1102-1144. \n\n\n\nFelix\, B.\, & Hennekam\, S. in press. The unsustainable nature of the career ecosystem of autistic individuals in Brazil. Career Development International. \n\n\n\nFiset\, J.\, Al Hajj\, R.\, Petersen\, B.K.\, & Oldford\, E. 2025. Do business schools walk the talk? A critical examination of espoused values and reputational facades. Academy of Management Learning & Education. \n\n\n\nGottardello\, D.\, Calvard\, T.\, & Song\, J-W. 2025. When neurodiversity and ethnicity combine: Intersectional stereotyping and workplace experiences of neurodivergent ethnic minority employees\, Human Resource Management\, 64(3)\, 841-859. \n\n\n\nHennekam\, S.\, Kulkarni\, M.\, & Beatty\, J. E. 2025. Neurodivergence and the persistence of neurotypical norms and inequalities in educational and occupational settings. Work\, Employment and Society\, 39(2)\, 449-469. \n\n\n\nHughes\, H. P. N. & Davis\, M. C. 2024. Preparing a graduate talent pipeline for the hybrid workplace: Rethinking digital upskilling and employability. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 23(4)\, 578-599. \n\n\n\nKapp\, S. K. 2022. Models of helping and coping with autism. In The Routledge International Handbook of Critical Autism Studies (pp. 255-269). Routledge. \n\n\n\nKennedy\, L. J.\, Richdale\, A. L.\, & Lawson\, L. P. 2025. Comparing disclosure and supports used by higher-education students with neurodivergent or mental health conditions. Autism in Adulthood. \n\n\n\nKersten\, A.\, Scholz\, F.\, van Woerkom\, M.\, Krabbenborg\, M.\, & Smeets\, L. 2025. A strengths‐based human resource management approach to neurodiversity: A multi‐actor qualitative study. Human Resource Management\, 64(1)\, 229-245. \n\n\n\nLeFevre-Levy\, R.\, Melson-Silimon\, M.\, Harmata\, R.\, Hulett\, A. L.\, & Carter\, N. T. 2023. Neurodiversity in the workplace: Considering neuroatypicality as a form of diversity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology\, 16\, 1-19. \n\n\n\nLewis\, C. J.\, & Arday\, J. 2023. We’ll see things they’ll never see: Sociological reflections on race\, neurodiversity and higher education. The Sociological Review\, 71(6)\, 1299-1321. \n\n\n\nLindebaum\, D.\, Al-Amoudi\, I.\, & Brown\, V. L. 2018. Does leadership development need to care about neuro-ethics? Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 17(1)\, 96-109. \n\n\n\nLittle\, C.\, Pearson\, A.\, & Gimblett\, K. 2023. Reasonable adjustment\, unfair advantage or optional extra? Teaching staff attitudes towards reasonable adjustments for students with disabilities. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice\, 11(2)\, 135-146. \n\n\n\nMallipeddi\, N. V.\, & Van Daalen\, R. A. 2022. Intersectionality within critical autism studies: A narrative review. Autism Adulthood\, 4(4)\, 281-289. \n\n\n\nMcDowall\, A.\, & Kiseleva\, M. 2024. A rapid review of supports for neurodivergent students in higher education. Implications for research and practice. Neurodiversity\, 2. \n\n\n\nMilton\, D. E. 2012. On the ontological status of autism: The ‘double empathy problem’. Disability & Society\, 27(6)\, 883-887. \n\n\n\nMilton\, D.\, Gurbuz\, E.\, & López\, B. (2022). The ‘double empathy problem’: Ten years on. Autism\, 26(8)\, 1901-1903. \n\n\n\nMirfin-Veitch\, B.\, Jalota\, N.\, & Schmidt\, L. 2020. Responding to neurodiversity in the education context: An integrative literature review. New Zealand: Donald Beasley Institute. \n\n\n\nMoeller\, M.\, Ott\, D. L.\, & Russo E. 2021\, September 8. Neurodiversity can be a workplace strength – if we make room for it. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/neurodiversity-can-be-a-workplace-strength-if-we-make-room-for-it-164859. \n\n\n\nO’Byrne\, C.\, Caroline\, J.\, & and Lawler\, M. 2019. Experiences of dyslexia and the transition to university: a case study of five students at different stages of study. Higher Education Research & Development\, 38(5)\, 1031-1045. \n\n\n\nOtt\, D. L.\, Moeller\, M.\, & Koveshnikov\, A. 2025. Incorporating neurodiversity into International Business research. Critical Perspectives on International Business. \n\n\n\nPalumbo\, J. J. 2025\, January 19. How AI is transforming education for neurodivergent children. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferpalumbo/2025/02/19/the-business-case-for-neurodivergent-leadership/ \n\n\n\nQuigley\, E.\, & Gallagher\, T. 2025. Neurodiversity and higher education: Double masking by neurodivergent students. European Journal of Special Needs Education\, 1-17. \n\n\n\nRivera\, H. R. 2022. The intersection of gender diversity and neurodiversity: How to support gender diverse youth and young adults on the Autism Spectrum in the educational setting (Doctoral dissertation\, Alliant International University). \n\n\n\nRose\, D. H.\, & Meyer\, A. 2006. A Practical Reader in Universal Design for Learning. US: Harvard Education Press. \n\n\n\nShaw\, S. C. K.\, Brown\, M. E.\, Jain\, N. R.\, George\, R. E.\, Bernard\, S.\, Godfrey‐Harris\, M.\, & Doherty\, M. 2024. When I say… neurodiversity paradigm. Medical Education\, 59(5)\, 466. \n\n\n\nStarkey\, K.\, & Tempest\, S. 2025. The business school and the end of history: Reimagining management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 24(1)\, 111-125. \n\n\n\nTupou\, J.\, Ataera\, C.\, Wallace-Watkin\, C.\, & Waddington\, H. 2024. Supporting tamariki takiwātanga Māori (autistic Māori children): Exploring the experience of early childhood educators. Autism\, 28(3)\, 705-717. \n\n\n\nUniversity Chancellors Council. 2025\, July. Social licence initiative. Retrieved July 31\, 2025\, from University Chancellors Council website: https://ucc.edu.au/social-licence \n\n\n\nWalkowiak\, E. 2024. Digitalization and inclusiveness of HRM practices: The example of neurodiversity initiatives. Human Resource Management Journal\, 34(3)\, 578-598 \n\n\n\nWilliams G. L. 2021. Theory of autistic mind: A renewed relevance theoretic perspective on so-called autistic pragmatic ‘impairment’. Journal of Pragmatics\, 180\, 121-130. \n\n\n\nWood\, R. 2023. Autism\, intense interests and support in school: From wasted efforts to shared understandings. In Mapping the Field (pp. 332-352). Routledge. Zhang\, M. M.\, Xia\, J.\, Fan\, D.\, & Zhu\, J. C. 2016. Managing student diversity in business education: Incorporating campus diversity Into the curriculum to foster inclusion and academic success of international students. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 15(2)\, 366-380
URL:https://www.aom.org/calendar/amle-call-for-special-issue-papers-rethinking-business-school-structures-standards-and-success-for-neuroinclusive-management-learning-and-education/
CATEGORIES:Call for Papers,Call for Special Issue Papers,Call for Submissions,Event Calendar,Journals,Learning & Education
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.aom.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/amle_cfs.png
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR