Guest Editor:
Steffen Roth, ESC Rennes School of Business, France

On the one hand, things could not be clearer. Piracy is a problem rather than a key for economic development and growth. Be it in South East Asia (Vagg, 1995), the Western Indian Ocean (Dua, 2013) or on the Internet (Peitz and Waelbroeck, 2006), piracy represents a – maybe partially excusable – deviation from the standard case of productivity enhancing entrepreneurial activities (Eckhardt and Shane, 2003). Even if piracy can sometimes be considered an act of emancipation, it remains a form of informal economic activities that calls for a re-embedding into the formal economy (Webb et al., 2009) or simply has to be prevented (Sinha and Mandel, 2008). Walking the lines of yesterday’s grassroots and today’s grasshopper capitalism, the freebooter is a token for a politico-economic tertium datur and dreaded and condemned by both the conservative and the progressive establishment: product piracy represents an attack on both the wealth of a nation and its social or ecological standards. IPR piracy undermines both the business models of developed economies and the indigenous rights of its creative classes. Robbery on the international seaways clearly calls for military interventions because the pirates violate the intimate rights not only of the merchants on the high seas, but also of the human nature in their failed states’ home environments. The worst case of piracy is probably bio-piracy (Odek, 1994), i.e. the act of robbing Gaia’s own genetic resources. A pirate is virtually an economic terrorist.

On the other hand, the concept of piracy has obviously struck a chord for quite some time already. Neither paragon nor pariah (Smith, 1980), the pirate emerged as a role model attractive to larger parts of the creative classes, which are actually said to suffer most from piracy. Even more so, as a label, piracy is the least common denominator of both the business models and the political lobby of the growing number of digital nomads and natives, while acclaimed information piracy springs wikileaks and streams the stuff digital heroes are made of. Anti-piracy is therefore increasingly considered an old-school form of pro-capitalist propaganda (Yar, 2008) and power politics directed against the core values, creative potential and (social) entrepreneurial activities of the recent fibre-roots movements. Besides, recent research has found that product piracy can have positive effects even for the victims, which is true for cases whenever the copy of a product multiplies the publicity and the value of the original (De Castro et al., 2008).

Within the tension zone of these two contradicting perspectives, the question of whether particular individuals or groups are pirates or entrepreneurs (Atsushi, 2010) is as hard to answer today as it has always been throughout the entire history of the concept. Piracy therefore calls into reconsideration the question for legitimate business models (Choi and Perez, 2007) as well as the question for frameworks that are sufficiently consistent in defining the legitimacy of entrepreneurial activities. Looking at the history of piracy, we find this question located at the very heart of the wealth of the then-emerging nations, as the answer to the question of whether a privateer was considered a legitimate politico-economic entrepreneur or warranted the death penalty depended very much on whose of the compet-ing nation’s Letter of Marque the freebooter held.

The present call is therefore for contributions that focus on the line between entrepreneurship and piracy from a non-patriotic perspective. Successful submissions will not implicitly consider entrepreneurs as functional and pirates as dysfunctional chessmen in a game of international innovation competition. Rather, they will challenge the distinction of entrepreneur and pirate itself, or look at piracy and entrepreneurship through pirates’ eyes.

In doing so, conceptual or empirical submissions could focus on contemporary or historical examples of pirate entrepreneurship. Who has labelled which forms of entrepreneurial activities as piracy? How has piracy contributed to regional economic development? Which particular forms of political environments have an elective affinity for piracy? How do pirates share the booty? Which forms of (self-) organisation have been realised by pirate organisations? What are, or could be, past, present or future pirate business models? Who are or have been major antagonists and allies of pirate entrepreneurs? How is piracy related to congenial concepts, such as hacking or hacktivism? How about piracy and creative destruction? Is there a measurable link between piracy and creativity? Is piracy a feature, tool, or virtue of emerging economies? What maps do pirates have of the blue ocean?

Subject Coverage

Suitable topics include but are not limited to:

• The history, lessons learned, and history repeated of piracy
• Piracy, organisation and self-organisation
• Piracy, moral and pirate codes
• Piracy and emerging markets
• Buccaneer and entrepreneurial lifestyles
• Safe harbours, buried treasure and blue oceans
• Booties, bounties and business models
• Spaces and places, roots and routes of contemporary piracy
• The risks, pains and pleasures of piracy
• Lessons learned from the early days of piracy
• Role models and examples of modern pirate heroes
• Piracy: exit strategies and retirement modes
• Piracy as attribute, label and brand
• Social footprints of piracy
• Entrepreneurial and economic policies of pirate parties
• Priveteerism and regional development
• Letters of marque: where to get them, and at what costs?
• Vessels, weapons, strategies and targets of contemporary piracy

Important Dates

• Full paper submission: January 20, 2014
• Feedback: March 20, 2014
• Revisions due: April 20, 2014

Link to full Call for Papers

Abstract: Despite its influence in Central European sociology, Niklas Luhmann’s Social Systems theory remains a marginal branch of international sociology. In this paper, the theory questions the reasons for its own marginality in general and for its marginality in the Anglophone centers of sociology in particular, with the latter still being a surprise against the background of the theory’s cybernetic roots in the US. The theory arrives at the conclusion that, while Europe, or ‘the continent’, is still perceived as old compared with the Anglophone new world(s), it still is Anglophone sociology that preserves ‘Old European’ semantics. Sociology in continental ‘Old Europe’, however, seems to have a chance of slowly being acquainted with a new, post-enlightenment mindset focused on semantics and communication rather than on humans and action.

Guest Edited by:

Background

The key to innovation, creativity, is commonly attributed to persons (Amabile, 1997; Amabile, et al., 2005; John-Steiner, 1997; Zhou & Shalley, 2003), groups (Florida, 2002; Miura & Hida, 2004; Paulus & Nijstad, 2003), organizations (Davila, et al., 2006; Drazin, et al., 1999), or entire economies (Friedman, 2006; Howkins, 2002). In all of these perspectives, the different forms of creativity are considered qualities displayed or possessed by individual or collective “creative selves” (Prichard, 2002).

Recent research, however, has generally emphasized the role of plays and games as sources and resources of creativity (Dodgson, et al., 2005) as well as, in particular, spaces and media for business strategy and management education (Andersen, 2001). As games are social by nature, they transcend the borders of actor-centered attribution and call for a focus on specific qualities or steering technologies of communication (Thygesen, 2007). The emerging interest in the interrelation of play, game, creativity, and innovation, therefore, reflects and effects quite fundamental changes of the Executive wish lists (McCosh, et al., 1998) of “Proven Methods of Innovation Management”, which have not been met by systematic updates of the corresponding list of supplies of creativity and innovation management tools yet. The emerging body of literature on specific aspects such as design thinking in product development, structural constellations in change management, Lego Serious Play in strategic management, serious games in management education, or the recently detected gamification of crowdsourcing, hence,calls for comprehensive analyses of the underlying climate change to a more playful ecology of minds.

The special issue on the “Gamification of Innovation” will therefore focus on the collection and reflection of the games played in the Olymp(ic)s of creativity and innovation management. We particularly welcome contributions opening up and entering the tension zone of gamification and innovation to explore the ways in which games shape and reshape the forms and functions of communication in order to stimulate creativity. In addition, inputs, which link gamification to aspects of ideation, design thinking, social media, and computer communication, will also receive full consideration.

We welcome articles that address issues related, without being limited, to the following areas:

• Productive Games for Product Innovation
• The Serious Games of Change Management
• MPOGs and Marketing Innovations
• Offline Games for Innovation
• Innovation Games for the Bottom of the Pyramid
• Game, Competition, and Innovation Openness
• Crowd, Wisdom, and Creativity
• Games, Tools, and Design Frameworks for Innovation
• Gamification, Sense-making, and Storytelling
• Fun, Stress, and Creativity
• Playing, Thinking, and Feeling
• The Retro-Future of Ludic Innovation Management

Download CFP (Link: Call for Papers)

Deadline and Submissions

Manuscripts should be prepared according to the CIM author guidelines, and need to be submitted through the online submission system of CIM: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cim. The deadline for the submission of papers is July 15th 2013. When submitting it is important that you clearly state that your submission is intended for the special issue.

Contacts:

The Guest editors are pleased to discuss ideas for papers and can be emailed at the below addresses:

Call for Papers

Special Issue on: “Sustainability of Innovation, Innovation of Sustainability”

The demand for sustainability is omnipresent in various discourses across the globe. Political policies have to be made in a sustainable manner, ensuring long-term financial balance of national budgets; companies have to rethink their businesses in a sustainable manner, using less resources while providing secure employment; consumers are urged to buy “green” or “ethical” and shift their habits of mobility, eating, clothing and leisure time behaviour. Sustainability is thereby just as much a fashion fad, a newly dominant power discourse or a marketing tool as it is a real necessity on a finite planet.

The favoured road to sustainability in all of its discourses is innovation. The vast majority of decision makers in politics and business adhere to the belief that by introducing novelty – new product development, technological breakthroughs, new institutional instruments, and also new social arrangements of how to consume or how to organise for a more sustainable democracy – the problem of non-sustainability of current circumstances can be solved.

However, every increase in efficiency by the introduction of novelty induces a rebound effect — Jevons’ paradox. The direct rebound increases demand for the novel good, while the indirect rebound stems from increased possibilities in alternative consumption. Both effects directly lead to economic growth and largely destroy ecological gains through innovation. The triangle of innovation, sustainability and growth is paradoxical and its dissolution poses what Heinz von Foerster called an “undecidable question.”

Twenty years after the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, this special issue on “Sustainability of Innovation, Innovation of Sustainability” tries to address – not answer – this undecidable question from three different perspectives.

For further details please refer to the official call fiche at the World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development  (WREMSD) website.

Link to conference homepage

The extended deadline for abstracts and workshop proposals is May 15th, 2012!

Link to conference homepage

Registration starts in April!

Supported by the Open Society Foundations HESP Academic Fellowship Program

25-26 January, 2011

Chairs: Assoc-Prof. Steffen Roth, Assoc.-Prof. Artur Atanesyan, Ass.-Prof. Dr. Arsen Bobokhyan, Dr. Hasmik Khalapyan.

Program