Interview with Renate Meyer, new chair of EGOS

User Rating: / 12
PoorBest 

This interview was conducted by Chris Steele, a PhD student at Northwestern University.

In 2011 Renate Meyer was named Chair of the European Group for Organization Studies (EGOS).  She kindly agreed to talk with us over email about the connections and differences she sees between EGOS and AoM, the reasons to get involved in both, and her plans for the future of EGOS:

Could you tell us a little about the general similarities and differences that you see between EGOS and AoM?

Perhaps I start with some similarities: Both associations are a community of very committed and inspiring researchers, devoted to high quality research, have an international orientation, are the key professional associations on their continent, strongly engage in developing scholarship further, push new and challenging questions, encourage the involvement of PhD students and early career researchers, provide platforms for collaborations, and many things more.

A first difference that comes to my mind is size and all its consequences for the administration of the associations and their annual conferences. EGOS is still a much closer knit network with a more personal touch than AoM. In addition, as EGOS was founded to provide a platform for expression and advancement of a great variety of different European traditions, perspectives and viewpoints of organizational research, it is strongly devoted to mirror this plurality in its colloquia programs and governance structures.

At the annual conferences there are major differences in terms of format: EGOS colloquia are essentially based on the idea of subthemes where participants stay together over three days and seven sessions. This allows for a dialogue (apart from feedback to the papers) to unfold over the colloquium. Especially for young scholars this format makes it a lot easier to connect and become part of a debate. Another difference is that EGOS is hosted by a university (or several universities in close distance) with local EGOSians as organizers who have considerable influence on the overall theme, selection of subthemes etc. This means that each conference has a distinct local flavor. I personally find that at AoM I need to be much more organized: which sessions to go, who to meet etc. – everything has to be arranged in advance. At EGOS, I run into people (although this has been changing with the increasing size every year).

If you were to point to one key difference between the two, what would it be? And do you see this difference as cultural, substantive, theoretical, or philosophical (or otherwise)?

I suppose one could start looking for (and find) differences along the lines of European versus North American research traditions, but I don’t think that this would do justice to either of the associations. For me, the key difference is the more open and pluralistic dialogue that the EGOS format allows and that is what makes the “EGOS spirit”.

Could you tell us what advantages you see, for individual scholars, in being involved in both EGOS and AoM?

In my opinion it is like reading two high quality newspapers that provide different perspectives on issues: To read one is good; to read both gives you a far more comprehensive picture.

Scholars on both sides of the Atlantic need to move out of our comfort zones, see different systems at work, present their ideas and work in different discussion arenas, benefit from the different formats, learn the implicit “rules of the game” on both sides of the Atlantic, and, ideally, engage in collaborations. I don’t mean to say that we all should do the same type of research, follow the same paper templates etc. Nonetheless, for us Europeans it is important to get exposed to the North American style of doing research and publishing. For North Americans it is equally important to learn from European scholarship, contextualizing their work and getting exposure to other ways of pursuing relevant questions and doing excellent research.

Being involved in both associations allows for a much richer view of the field of organizational and management studies, and permits to identify and realize opportunities for collaboration at the intersections. Our Colloquium in Montréal in 2013 can be a formidable opportunity for North American researchers to experience EGOS!

More generally, how closely connected have EGOS and AoM been historically?

EGOS and AoM have had overlapping memberships for quite some time. This means that with regard to intellectual inspirations, the travel of thoughts and ideas, the connection has been there for a long time, in both directions, and steadily growing. However, this was predominantly on an individual level, through personal initiatives and collaborations; there were very few institutional links. It is in this sense that I see a lot of potential for the future.

How do you see this changing? And what role do you see EGOS playing in the growing internationalization of the AoM?

On a more institutional level, there are currently several initiatives to cooperate and strengthen the connection. With OMT we have established mutual invitations of a representative to attend each other’s Executive Board Meetings. A first joint initiative is the Organization Studies (the EGOS journal) paper development workshop on power and institutions that is sponsored by EGOS, OMT, and Sage Publications and will take place at Judge Business School in April 2012. We are currently also exploring possibilities for connecting with other AoM divisions, something which until now has happened on a more informal basis, through members of these divisions who have been/are involved in shaping the agendas of several permanent or temporary EGOS communities. A good example for this is the Career Division at AoM and the Standing Working Group on Career at EGOS.

Another excellent example in this context is the Strategizing Activities and Practices community that was formed and consolidated at EGOS and has now become recognized as an interest group at AoM.

The fact that Eero Vaara, the former chair of EGOS, is currently a member of the Board of Governors of AoM is of course an excellent opportunity to further intensify our ties. I would equally like to encourage North American scholars to stand as candidates in the EGOS Board elections.

What is the role of EGOS in the internationalization of AoM? I guess the same as the other way around: Both associations are the key players on their continents; both are becoming more and more international in terms of membership. Europeans are a considerable and growing part of the AoM members; and North Americans of EGOS. This mirrors the global relevance of the research questions we have to address today and also the professional world in which academics live: job markets, publications, grants, collaborations are increasingly international and demand that we understand and listen to each other’s perspectives and viewpoints. To cooperate in any way that serves and benefits our members is the natural thing to do. And especially with OMT we share our ambition and aims: To push research on organizations and the societies they exist in further into unknown territories.

Could you tell us a little about your other plans for the future of EGOS?

One first point here is internationalization: In addition to AoM, we are also seeking to intensify our collaborations with other associations. We have a very lively collaboration with LAEMOS (the Latin American and European Meeting on Organization Studies). Their bi-annual conference (http://laemos2012.org) is co-sponsored by EGOS which means that we assist in the organization and contribute to program content encouraging EGOSians to offer tracks together with Latin American scholars, and are very active in bringing researchers from the different regions together. We are planning similar joint events in the future with APROS, our Asian-Pacific “sister” association. A particular interest we have is broadening the involvement of Eastern European scholars. EGOS colloquia have been hosted by institutions in Eastern Europe before (e.g. Ljubljana 2004), but we are now strengthening and expanding these connections.

Another focus that is related to internationalization is our aim to include scholars from areas where the financial opportunities to attend international conferences are very limited. For each colloquium, we offer several scholarships that cover the travel expenses and fees. Although this is small in terms of numbers, the feedback we receive from our “guest researchers” is just overwhelming.  We will certainly continue this in the future.

For the annual colloquium, we are constantly probing new formats and flexible ways to provide a platform for the various initiatives and needs of the EGOSians. Exploring the opportunities of new technologies to offer more flexible formats for scholars to collaborate is – especially in times when travel budgets are being reduced – equally on our agenda as are new pre-conference formats.

And finally: EGOS is today one the few leading communities of organizational researchers worldwide. EGOS has been constantly growing over the last decade. This is a very good sign as it shows how very vivid EGOS is. At the same time, this implies for example that we are reaching a point where it gets increasingly difficult to find universities that are large enough to be able to host our conference. A very important challenge therefore is to encourage the growth and internationalization but retain the personal touch, the interdisciplinary scope and the distinct EGOS spirit. This also implies that we have the responsibility to make sure we are not only doing research on organizations and power but are aware of our own activities and their implications in the respect. EGOS has to remain the place where the unpopular questions are posed, deviant ideas debated, and minority perspectives equally represented.

Thank you so much for the interview!