{"id":8137,"date":"2019-04-28T22:50:59","date_gmt":"2019-04-29T02:50:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.servsig.org\/wordpress\/?p=8137"},"modified":"2019-04-30T17:34:29","modified_gmt":"2019-04-30T21:34:29","slug":"cfp-market-shaping-and-innovation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.servsig.org\/wordpress\/2019\/04\/cfp-market-shaping-and-innovation\/","title":{"rendered":"CfP JBR: Market Shaping and Innovation"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Special Issue of the Journal of Business Research<\/em><\/p>\n

Market Shaping and Innovation<\/strong><\/p>\n

Submission deadline: <\/strong>1 October 2019<\/p>\n

Editors:\u00a0<\/strong>Suvi Nenonen, Julia Fehrer,\u00a0Roderick J. Brodie<\/p>\n

Mainstream marketing often implicitly built on neoclassical economics, and ended up viewing the market as an a priori, self-generating reality (Ellis et al. 2010), which is \u201cgiven\u201d and outside the control of the firm (Coviello and Joseph 2012). Thus, the market orientation and marketing capabilities literature was traditionally dominated by sense-and-respond discussions (Morgan 2012), where the job of marketing was to generate better understanding of the market and help the organization to respond to this understanding.<\/p>\n

However, market conceptualizations have advanced (Mele, Pels, & Storbacka, 2015), following three interrelated trajectories. First, building on economic sociology (Granovetter, 1992; Fligstein, 2002) markets are increasingly portrayed as socially constructed (Kjellberg & Helgesson 2006; Araujo, 2007; Geiger, Kjellberg, & Spencer, 2012; Kjellberg et al., 2012), and, therefore,\u00a0plastic and malleable\u00a0(Nenonen et al. 2014).<\/p>\n

Second, research in B2B marketing (Mattsson & Johanson, 2006; Johanson & Vahlne, 2011; Aarikka-Stenroos & Ritala, 2017, Nenonen, Storbacka & Frethey-Bentham, 2018), stakeholder marketing (Hult et al., 2011; Hillebrand, Driessen, & Koll, 2015), consumer behaviour (Giesler & Fischer, 2017), and strategic management (Iansiti & Levien, 2004; Adner, 2017) progressively see markets as networks, systems, or ecosystems. This systemic view forces firms to look beyond the blinders of the seller\u2013buyer dyad: to see the dyad as part of a larger value-creating system of actors who all contribute resources. Recently, Mars, Bronstein and Lusch (2012) compared biological and organizational ecosystems and emphasized that organizational\u00a0ecosystems are a result of\u00a0a mixture of\u00a0conscious design\u00a0and emergence.<\/p>\n

Third, research in consumer behaviour (Scaraboto & Fischer, 2012; Chaney, Slimane, & Humphreys 2015), and service-dominant logic (Vargo & Lusch, 2016) is drawing on institutional theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991), with the argument that an institutional perspective can create new insights into market dynamics (Hult, 2011). Value-creating systems are argued to be governed by actor-generated institutions and institutional arrangements (Vargo & Lusch, 2017), raising the questions as to the ability of a focal actors to\u00a0influence\u00a0how\u00a0institutions\u00a0are “created, diffused, adopted, and adapted over space and time” (Scott, 2005, p. 461).<\/p>\n

Hence, instead of viewing markets as a given and deterministic context, exogenous to the firm (Priem, Butler & Li, 2013), markets can be conceptualized as malleable value-creating systems governed by institutions. In addition to sense-and-respond, i.e., analysing markets to find opportunities, firms take an agentic view as active creators of market opportunities (Alvarez & Barney, 2007; Sarasvathy, 2008). Some authors even suggest that firms can reap so-called influence-rents, \u201cextra profits earned by an economic actor because the rules of the game of business are designed or changed to suit an economic actor or a group of economic actors\u201d (Ahuja & Yayavaram, 2011, p. 1631).<\/p>\n

The outcome from a managerial point of view is that markets (and opportunities) are not precursors of strategy, but rather outcomes of deliberate and designed actions (Nenonen & Storbacka, 2018), thus inviting firms to engage in\u00a0market-shaping strategies\u00a0(Gavetti, Helfat, & Marengo, 2017; Kindstr\u00f6m, Ottoson, & Carlborg, 2018)<\/p>\n

Research on the empirical phenomenon of market-shaping may draw on insights from various theories and literatures (Nenonen, Storbacka & Windahl, 2019), such as market creation (O\u2019Connor & Rice, 2013), niche construction (Luksha, 2008) and market formation (Lee, Struben, & Bingham, 2018) related to radical\u00a0technology innovation; on\u00a0business model innovation\u00a0(Amit & Zott, 2012; Foss & Saebi, 2017); or on\u00a0institutional innovation\u00a0(Battilana, Leca & Boxenbaum, 2009), and institutional work (Lawrence, Leca, & Zilber, 2013) to mention a few.<\/p>\n

The outcome of successful market-shaping can be viewed as a\u00a0market innovation, defined as \u201cthe emergence and institutionalization of new solutions\u201d (Vargo, Wieland, & Akaka, 2015, p. 64), or \u201cthe successful change of existing market structure, the introduction of new market devices, the alteration of market behavior, and the reconstitution of market agents\u201d (Kjellberg, Azimont, & Reid, 2015, p. 6)<\/p>\n

Against this backdrop, this special issue calls for both conceptual and empirical papers that synthesize current research streams related to market-shaping and\/or market innovation, or provide comprehensive and managerially applicable frameworks on the subject.<\/p>\n

Topics for submissions may include, but are not limited to the following:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Market conceptualizations and managerial consequences
\nMarket elements that can be shaped
\nCapabilities for market shaping
\nFrom market orientation to market shaping orientation
\nMarket-shaping strategies: Antecedents, elements and outcomes
\nEmpirical analysis of market shaping processes
\nPatterns of market shaping activities
\nThe role of value propositions in market shaping
\nThe balance between design and emergence in market shaping
\nCollaborative strategy in market shaping
\nThe dark side of market shaping
\nInstitutional work as market shaping
\nCustomer agency in market shaping
\nHow do customers engage in institutional work?
\nThe role of media, technology, and professions in shaping markets
\nRadical innovation and market-shaping
\nBusiness model innovation and market-shaping<\/p>\n

Main Editor<\/strong><\/p>\n

Professor Suvi Nenonen, University of Auckland s.nenonen@auckland.ac.nz<\/p>\n

Editors<\/strong><\/p>\n

Dr. Julia Fehrer University of Auckland j.fehrer@auckland.ac.nz<\/p>\n

Professor Roderick J. Brodie University of Auckland r.brodie@auckland.ac.nz<\/p>\n

Submission guidelines and deadlines<\/p>\n

When preparing your submission, please check the JBR website for guidelines on style and paper length:\u00a0http:\/\/www.elsevier.com\/journals\/journal-of-business-research\/0148-2963\/guide-for-authors.<\/a><\/p>\n

Manuscript submission for the review process will be done in the Elsevier Editorial system at the following website:\u00a0http:\/\/www.journals.elsevier.com\/journal-of-business-research\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Submission deadline: 1 October 2019
\nFirst revisions due: 15 February 2020
\nFinal revisions due: 15 June 2020
\nExpected publication date: end of 2020<\/p>\n

Inquiries should be sent by email to the main JBR Guest Co-Editor Professor Suvi Nenonen (s.nenonen@auckland.ac.nz).<\/p>\n