Final Report Summary - AESTHETIC INNOVATION (Symbolic Value Creation: Constructing Technological and Aesthetic Evaluation Criteria in High-technology Markets)
Publishable summary
Throughout the second period, my research interests evolved. At the start of this grant, I was interested in researching how symbols—concrete or abstract ideas that represent a broader idea by evoking associated meanings—create value. I pursued this question in the context of aesthetic symbols in high-technology products: the shape, colors, textures, materials, ornamentations of products. In the course of this second period, I broadened my area of study beyond technology-producing organizations to examine organizational communication that relies on aesthetic symbols. Thus, I am now looking not only at products, but also at buildings and spaces.
This interest has led to collaborative work with colleagues here in Israel and a paper that is currently been invited for a resubmission at a top-ranked journal in the field Organization Studies: “Three-Way Streets: Toward a Theory of Effective Aesthetic Communication”. This paper focuses on material communication: a form of communication based on interactive, reciprocal, and multi-modal communication in which messages are conveyed, interpreted, and internalized not only verbally, but also through the manipulation of other senses, such as the visual or the spatial (c.f. Meyer et al., 2013). Importantly, material communication relies on a capacity to sense the meaning of artifacts and material surroundings without textual mediation, and as such requires a tacit form of knowing (Ewenstein & Whyte, 2007). This paper strives to understand when material messages are more likely to be interpreted according to senders’ intentions and to therefore constitute the emotions, behaviors, or identifications senders anticipate, we term this outcome as effective material communication from a managerial point of view. This collaboration has also led to another work in progress “Naming What You See: Facilitating Shared Interpretations of Visual Design.”
Further, I have begun to build a reputation in this area. My paper titled “Understanding Aesthetic Design in the Context of Technological Evolution” (Academy of Management Review 38(3): 332-351) has been acknowledged by the scholarly community and was a runner-up for the Academy of Management Review Best Paper of 2013 award. This is the field’s leading journal. I have also been invited to join the editorial board of the journal. In addition, I have been invited or selected to present these ideas in a wide variety of conferences and seminars in Israel, Europe, and North America.
Additionally, I collected more data for a paper I have been working on throughout both periods: “Manufacturing Excitement: Aesthetic Innovation in Technologically Stable Industries”. This paper empirically traces the emergence of aesthetic design as a competitive dimension in the Personal Computer industry throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. It examines both the role of firms and of journalists in manufacturing the importance of aesthetic appreciation in the context of this industry. This paper is being prepared for submission to a top ranked journal.
Overall, The Hebrew University holds these activities in high regard and ranks both The Academy of Management Review and Organization Studies as “A” journals and this high qualification positively affects the prospects for tenure at the university.
Project Objectives for the Period
I had set out to spend this period analyzing data and writing research papers. Indeed, I collected additional data for the “Manufacturing Excitement” paper and designed a methodological study for the “Effective Aesthetic Communication” paper. Further, I wrote up another version of the “Manufacturing Excitement” paper based on revision comments I received, wrote up and submitted “Effective Aesthetic Communication”, and wrote a first draft of “Naming What You See”. While I had intended to have another published paper at this point as well as a new paper in the review process, I have, in effect, two papers in the review process.
Lastly, I had also intended to travel to conferences to both solicit feedback about my work and to build my professional network. Indeed, I was invited to present these ideas in seminars at Tilburg University, and Cass Business School (London) as well as workshops and conferences at WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, VU University Amsterdam, Cardiff University, Columbia University, and Imperial College. I also presented this work in refereed conferences in Rotterdam (European Group for Organization Studies (EGOS) 2014), Athens (EGOS 2015), Cardiff (Organizational Discourse Conference), and Vancouver (Academy of Management 2015).
Work progress and achievements during the period
In all papers, my research interest focuses on the ways aesthetic and material attributes are important symbols in organizational contexts. In the projects “Three-Way Streets: Toward a Theory of Effective Aesthetic Communication” and “Naming What You See: Facilitating Shared Interpretations of Visual Design” aesthetic symbols are examined in the context of firms’ communication and their attempts to constitute and control organization environments. These papers are collaborations with leading Israeli scholars and are therefore indicative of my successful integration in the research community here (Dr. Michal Frenkel , The Hebrew University and Dr. Varda Wasserman, the Open University, Israel). In the projects “Manufacturing Excitement: Aesthetic Innovation in Technologically Stable Industries” and “Understanding Aesthetic Design in the Context of Technological Evolution,” aesthetic symbols are examined in the context of technological innovation. Below, I describe each project and its contribution and impact.
Three-Way Streets: Toward a Theory of Effective Aesthetic Communication: This project focuses on the increased interest in material communication: a form of communication based on interactive, reciprocal, and multi-modal communication in which messages are conveyed, interpreted, and internalized not only verbally, but also through the manipulation of other senses, such as the visual or the spatial (c.f. Meyer et al., 2013). Importantly, material communication relies on a capacity to sense the meaning of artifacts and material surroundings without textual mediation, and as such requires a tacit form of knowing (Ewenstein & Whyte, 2007). Much work has explored and unraveled the institutional conditions and design processes leading to material communication (e.g. Eisenman, 2013; Jones et al., 2012; Stigliani & Ravasi, 2012). As a whole, these scholars implicitly assumed that once material messages are designed and deployed, message receivers interpret them in a clear way that is well-aligned with message senders’ intentions, and as such, that material communication is inherently effective from a managerial point of view. Yet, a large body of evidence from a critical scholarly perspective showed that message senders cannot control the reception of material messages, and, in fact, material messages are often re-interpreted, negotiated, and sometimes explicitly resisted (e.g. Wasserman & Frenkel, 2011). This research project addresses this puzzle by asking when material messages are more likely to be interpreted according to senders’ intentions and to therefore constitute the emotions, behaviors, or identifications senders anticipate, we term this outcome as effective material communication from a managerial point of view.
This question is answered by focusing on senders, receivers, and the message itself. We draw from communications theory and its emphases on multi-modality and polysemy. We advocate a view of material messages as a complex of modes, types of communication such as visual and bodily stimuli: color, shape, or space alongside texts, and one that sees message construction and interpretation as culturally and socially embedded. We explain that material messages are complex and subject to different interpretations by different audiences. Consequently, message senders do not have the power to fully control the reception of their messages. On this basis, we design a study that explores material communication through a focus on messages, and the ways they are complex and or novel, messages senders, and the compromises and negotiations that affect message construction, and message receivers, and the ways in which their cultural and social embeddedness affects how they interpret material information.
Empirically, we pursue an inductive study that examines a material communication system in its entirety focusing on the material message, message senders, message receivers, and the interactions between them in the context of building and office space design. We conduct a comparative case study of several buildings, comprising of observations, interviews with designers and users, who are the senders and receivers in our framework and text analysis. Our design allows us to identify gaps between senders’ intentions and receivers’ interpretations as well as the relevance of the particular material elements and the overall institutional setting to these potential gaps.
This paper is at the forefront of research in this area and makes important contributions by integrating ideas about design and visuality from a strategic and institutional standpoint, critical approaches to organizational aesthetics, and communications to develop a clearer understanding of the mechanisms underlying material communication. We expect our work to clarify the important question pertaining to the ways in which this potentially powerful form of organizational communication is effective and fulfills managers’ goals. Currently, the theoretical development of these ideas is under “Revise and Resubmit” at Organization Studies, one of the field’s leading journals.
Naming What You See: Facilitating Shared Interpretations of Visual Design: The paper theorizes how market conditions affecting organizational fields construct the emergence of a clear set of criteria social actors, such as firms, cultural agents, and users, apply to interpret product designs. We view this emergence as a textual process. We explain that actors use rhetorical strategies, namely, strategies addressing the extent to which a design links form to function (i.e. logos), the ways in which it evokes sensory reactions (i.e. pathos), and the ways in which it reflects links to broader cultural ideas in which its production is embedded (i.e. ethos) to describe product designs. Importantly, different actors use these strategies in different ways and these differences lead to more or less consistent interpretations of design, which manifest as a more or less fixed set of adjectives actors use to describe products. We suggest that consistent interpretations manifest when actors use rhetorical strategies in similar ways in the context of a product design they are describing. Further, actors’ uses of rhetorical strategies vary in the context of conditions such as market concentration, strategic currents within industries, or the behavior of salient firms. Additionally, certain agents and users and the number of outlets for texts about product designs also affect the consistency of interpretations among actors and the ways in which they use various rhetorical strategies. Thus, the paper contributes to understanding how reactions to design are actively constructed and culturally embedded.
This paper is currently a working paper that has been presented at workshops and conferences, where it received constructive feedback (3rd European Theory Development Workshop, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands , June 2014 & The 30th EGOS Colloquium, Rotterdam, The Netherlands (July 2014)). On the basis of this feedback, the paper is being prepared for publication.
Manufacturing Excitement: Aesthetic Innovation in Technologically Stable Industries: This project empirically examines how firms in the Personal Computer industry increased their emphasis on the aesthetic design of their offerings as well as how journalists reviewing these products favored the aesthetic aspects of the machines over the technological ones. The arguments in this paper are that firms use aesthetic design attributes, such as color and shape, strategically, a process termed aesthetic innovation. The paper integrates the theoretical mechanisms underlying increased aesthetic innovation in the context of technological evolution with the ways firms and journalists socially construct the relevance of these innovations. Overall, results suggest that firms make aesthetic changes to products. Journalists reviewing these products construct the linguistic dimensions of these aesthetic innovations by describing firms’ design choices in language that is emotional and sensual. Further, these descriptions replace language that is more technology-oriented. Results suggest that aesthetic innovations were more prominent when growth slowed in the Personal Computer industry and as such, were a preferred strategic choice for firms. Further, results show increased linguistic activity discussing aesthetic attributes and reduced linguistic activity about well-understood aspects of the technology. As such, results articulate a field-level mechanism in which firms pursue aesthetic innovations and cultural agents work to disseminate the ideas that enable firms to realize the potential benefits of these innovations.
In the context of this project, I have engaged in data collection, theory development, and manuscript preparation. I collected additional data on the advertisements promoting computers and have analyzed it. I had the opportunity to present this work at several universities throughout the second period: Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion, The Hebrew University, and Bar Ilan Universities—all in Israel, as well as Tilburg University in the Netherlands. Further, I have submitted this paper to a leading journal, and while it did not ultimately get accepted, I received useful comments. At present, I am preparing this paper for submission to one of the field’s leading journals.
Understanding Aesthetic Design in the Context of Technological Evolution: The paper theorizes the co-evolution of technology and design by integrating research on the evolution of technology with ideas from sociology, marketing, and psychology that explain the effects of design. Specifically, it applies work arguing that visible design attributes, such as color, shape, or texture allow producers to explain what their products do and how best to use them, to excite users in a way that generates sales, and to extend the basic functionalities of their products by highlighting their symbolic meanings. It then theorizes that the relevance of these three uses varies in the context of technological evolution such that affecting products’ design-related attributes is a more central organizational process as product technologies emerge and when they are very mature, suggesting a U-shaped relationship between technological evolution and design. Next, the paper elaborates the moderators of this relationship: the frequency of successive product introductions, the social dynamics affecting consumption, the users’ level of technological knowledge, and the volume of discourse attending to design. Thus, the paper offers a holistic theory for understanding the strategic use of design in the context of technological production and as such, advances recent work positioning design as a primary strategic challenge.
In the second period, recognition for this paper increased. In particular, the paper was nominated for The Academy of Management Review Best Paper of 2013 Award and was a runner-up for the award. This is the field’s leading journal. I have also been invited to join the editorial board of the journal. On the basis of this recognition, I have been invited to present these ideas or to serve as a panelist in a wide variety of conferences and seminars in Israel, Europe, and North America (e.g. Academy of Management (August 2015), workshops at WU Vienna University (May 2014) and Imperial College (June 2016). Further, the paper has been cited in the call for papers of conferences and special issues (in particular, “Giving visual and material form to ideas, identity and imagination: Architecture, urbanism and sustainable construction,” workshop at WU Vienna University of Economics and Business (May 2014) and Organization Studies Special Issue on the Material and Visual Turn).
Overall, the theoretical direction of this work is at the forefront of research in this area. Currently, this work has been published, is under revision, or has been presented in the field’s leading journals and conferences. There is much academic interest in aesthetics and design and in the symbolic currency used by organizations. The level of scholarship I have been engaged in producing is recognized by others working in the area and defining the state of the art. Both the publication of the paper in The Academy of Management Review and the invitation to revise the paper at Organization Studies are outlets with high impact in the field.
So overall, throughout the second period, I have pursued a high impact research agenda. Furthermore, this agenda is important because it will push forward managers’ understandings of how to manage design strategically. Aesthetic design is a powerful tool used with increasing frequency in many high technology industries and is considered by some researchers to be a primary strategic challenge for 21st century managers (Cappetta, Cillo, Ponti, 2006; Ravasi and Rindova, 2008). The underlying argument in this proposal is that to manage technological innovation as well as aesthetic design, firms need to view themselves as producers of technology that are embedded in a specific societal culture which interprets their wares not only from a functional lens but from one which seeks to derive meaning and value from design. I believe that the outputs of these projects will offer guidance enabling firms to address these strategic challenges more successfully.
Throughout the second period, my research interests evolved. At the start of this grant, I was interested in researching how symbols—concrete or abstract ideas that represent a broader idea by evoking associated meanings—create value. I pursued this question in the context of aesthetic symbols in high-technology products: the shape, colors, textures, materials, ornamentations of products. In the course of this second period, I broadened my area of study beyond technology-producing organizations to examine organizational communication that relies on aesthetic symbols. Thus, I am now looking not only at products, but also at buildings and spaces.
This interest has led to collaborative work with colleagues here in Israel and a paper that is currently been invited for a resubmission at a top-ranked journal in the field Organization Studies: “Three-Way Streets: Toward a Theory of Effective Aesthetic Communication”. This paper focuses on material communication: a form of communication based on interactive, reciprocal, and multi-modal communication in which messages are conveyed, interpreted, and internalized not only verbally, but also through the manipulation of other senses, such as the visual or the spatial (c.f. Meyer et al., 2013). Importantly, material communication relies on a capacity to sense the meaning of artifacts and material surroundings without textual mediation, and as such requires a tacit form of knowing (Ewenstein & Whyte, 2007). This paper strives to understand when material messages are more likely to be interpreted according to senders’ intentions and to therefore constitute the emotions, behaviors, or identifications senders anticipate, we term this outcome as effective material communication from a managerial point of view. This collaboration has also led to another work in progress “Naming What You See: Facilitating Shared Interpretations of Visual Design.”
Further, I have begun to build a reputation in this area. My paper titled “Understanding Aesthetic Design in the Context of Technological Evolution” (Academy of Management Review 38(3): 332-351) has been acknowledged by the scholarly community and was a runner-up for the Academy of Management Review Best Paper of 2013 award. This is the field’s leading journal. I have also been invited to join the editorial board of the journal. In addition, I have been invited or selected to present these ideas in a wide variety of conferences and seminars in Israel, Europe, and North America.
Additionally, I collected more data for a paper I have been working on throughout both periods: “Manufacturing Excitement: Aesthetic Innovation in Technologically Stable Industries”. This paper empirically traces the emergence of aesthetic design as a competitive dimension in the Personal Computer industry throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. It examines both the role of firms and of journalists in manufacturing the importance of aesthetic appreciation in the context of this industry. This paper is being prepared for submission to a top ranked journal.
Overall, The Hebrew University holds these activities in high regard and ranks both The Academy of Management Review and Organization Studies as “A” journals and this high qualification positively affects the prospects for tenure at the university.
Project Objectives for the Period
I had set out to spend this period analyzing data and writing research papers. Indeed, I collected additional data for the “Manufacturing Excitement” paper and designed a methodological study for the “Effective Aesthetic Communication” paper. Further, I wrote up another version of the “Manufacturing Excitement” paper based on revision comments I received, wrote up and submitted “Effective Aesthetic Communication”, and wrote a first draft of “Naming What You See”. While I had intended to have another published paper at this point as well as a new paper in the review process, I have, in effect, two papers in the review process.
Lastly, I had also intended to travel to conferences to both solicit feedback about my work and to build my professional network. Indeed, I was invited to present these ideas in seminars at Tilburg University, and Cass Business School (London) as well as workshops and conferences at WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, VU University Amsterdam, Cardiff University, Columbia University, and Imperial College. I also presented this work in refereed conferences in Rotterdam (European Group for Organization Studies (EGOS) 2014), Athens (EGOS 2015), Cardiff (Organizational Discourse Conference), and Vancouver (Academy of Management 2015).
Work progress and achievements during the period
In all papers, my research interest focuses on the ways aesthetic and material attributes are important symbols in organizational contexts. In the projects “Three-Way Streets: Toward a Theory of Effective Aesthetic Communication” and “Naming What You See: Facilitating Shared Interpretations of Visual Design” aesthetic symbols are examined in the context of firms’ communication and their attempts to constitute and control organization environments. These papers are collaborations with leading Israeli scholars and are therefore indicative of my successful integration in the research community here (Dr. Michal Frenkel , The Hebrew University and Dr. Varda Wasserman, the Open University, Israel). In the projects “Manufacturing Excitement: Aesthetic Innovation in Technologically Stable Industries” and “Understanding Aesthetic Design in the Context of Technological Evolution,” aesthetic symbols are examined in the context of technological innovation. Below, I describe each project and its contribution and impact.
Three-Way Streets: Toward a Theory of Effective Aesthetic Communication: This project focuses on the increased interest in material communication: a form of communication based on interactive, reciprocal, and multi-modal communication in which messages are conveyed, interpreted, and internalized not only verbally, but also through the manipulation of other senses, such as the visual or the spatial (c.f. Meyer et al., 2013). Importantly, material communication relies on a capacity to sense the meaning of artifacts and material surroundings without textual mediation, and as such requires a tacit form of knowing (Ewenstein & Whyte, 2007). Much work has explored and unraveled the institutional conditions and design processes leading to material communication (e.g. Eisenman, 2013; Jones et al., 2012; Stigliani & Ravasi, 2012). As a whole, these scholars implicitly assumed that once material messages are designed and deployed, message receivers interpret them in a clear way that is well-aligned with message senders’ intentions, and as such, that material communication is inherently effective from a managerial point of view. Yet, a large body of evidence from a critical scholarly perspective showed that message senders cannot control the reception of material messages, and, in fact, material messages are often re-interpreted, negotiated, and sometimes explicitly resisted (e.g. Wasserman & Frenkel, 2011). This research project addresses this puzzle by asking when material messages are more likely to be interpreted according to senders’ intentions and to therefore constitute the emotions, behaviors, or identifications senders anticipate, we term this outcome as effective material communication from a managerial point of view.
This question is answered by focusing on senders, receivers, and the message itself. We draw from communications theory and its emphases on multi-modality and polysemy. We advocate a view of material messages as a complex of modes, types of communication such as visual and bodily stimuli: color, shape, or space alongside texts, and one that sees message construction and interpretation as culturally and socially embedded. We explain that material messages are complex and subject to different interpretations by different audiences. Consequently, message senders do not have the power to fully control the reception of their messages. On this basis, we design a study that explores material communication through a focus on messages, and the ways they are complex and or novel, messages senders, and the compromises and negotiations that affect message construction, and message receivers, and the ways in which their cultural and social embeddedness affects how they interpret material information.
Empirically, we pursue an inductive study that examines a material communication system in its entirety focusing on the material message, message senders, message receivers, and the interactions between them in the context of building and office space design. We conduct a comparative case study of several buildings, comprising of observations, interviews with designers and users, who are the senders and receivers in our framework and text analysis. Our design allows us to identify gaps between senders’ intentions and receivers’ interpretations as well as the relevance of the particular material elements and the overall institutional setting to these potential gaps.
This paper is at the forefront of research in this area and makes important contributions by integrating ideas about design and visuality from a strategic and institutional standpoint, critical approaches to organizational aesthetics, and communications to develop a clearer understanding of the mechanisms underlying material communication. We expect our work to clarify the important question pertaining to the ways in which this potentially powerful form of organizational communication is effective and fulfills managers’ goals. Currently, the theoretical development of these ideas is under “Revise and Resubmit” at Organization Studies, one of the field’s leading journals.
Naming What You See: Facilitating Shared Interpretations of Visual Design: The paper theorizes how market conditions affecting organizational fields construct the emergence of a clear set of criteria social actors, such as firms, cultural agents, and users, apply to interpret product designs. We view this emergence as a textual process. We explain that actors use rhetorical strategies, namely, strategies addressing the extent to which a design links form to function (i.e. logos), the ways in which it evokes sensory reactions (i.e. pathos), and the ways in which it reflects links to broader cultural ideas in which its production is embedded (i.e. ethos) to describe product designs. Importantly, different actors use these strategies in different ways and these differences lead to more or less consistent interpretations of design, which manifest as a more or less fixed set of adjectives actors use to describe products. We suggest that consistent interpretations manifest when actors use rhetorical strategies in similar ways in the context of a product design they are describing. Further, actors’ uses of rhetorical strategies vary in the context of conditions such as market concentration, strategic currents within industries, or the behavior of salient firms. Additionally, certain agents and users and the number of outlets for texts about product designs also affect the consistency of interpretations among actors and the ways in which they use various rhetorical strategies. Thus, the paper contributes to understanding how reactions to design are actively constructed and culturally embedded.
This paper is currently a working paper that has been presented at workshops and conferences, where it received constructive feedback (3rd European Theory Development Workshop, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands , June 2014 & The 30th EGOS Colloquium, Rotterdam, The Netherlands (July 2014)). On the basis of this feedback, the paper is being prepared for publication.
Manufacturing Excitement: Aesthetic Innovation in Technologically Stable Industries: This project empirically examines how firms in the Personal Computer industry increased their emphasis on the aesthetic design of their offerings as well as how journalists reviewing these products favored the aesthetic aspects of the machines over the technological ones. The arguments in this paper are that firms use aesthetic design attributes, such as color and shape, strategically, a process termed aesthetic innovation. The paper integrates the theoretical mechanisms underlying increased aesthetic innovation in the context of technological evolution with the ways firms and journalists socially construct the relevance of these innovations. Overall, results suggest that firms make aesthetic changes to products. Journalists reviewing these products construct the linguistic dimensions of these aesthetic innovations by describing firms’ design choices in language that is emotional and sensual. Further, these descriptions replace language that is more technology-oriented. Results suggest that aesthetic innovations were more prominent when growth slowed in the Personal Computer industry and as such, were a preferred strategic choice for firms. Further, results show increased linguistic activity discussing aesthetic attributes and reduced linguistic activity about well-understood aspects of the technology. As such, results articulate a field-level mechanism in which firms pursue aesthetic innovations and cultural agents work to disseminate the ideas that enable firms to realize the potential benefits of these innovations.
In the context of this project, I have engaged in data collection, theory development, and manuscript preparation. I collected additional data on the advertisements promoting computers and have analyzed it. I had the opportunity to present this work at several universities throughout the second period: Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion, The Hebrew University, and Bar Ilan Universities—all in Israel, as well as Tilburg University in the Netherlands. Further, I have submitted this paper to a leading journal, and while it did not ultimately get accepted, I received useful comments. At present, I am preparing this paper for submission to one of the field’s leading journals.
Understanding Aesthetic Design in the Context of Technological Evolution: The paper theorizes the co-evolution of technology and design by integrating research on the evolution of technology with ideas from sociology, marketing, and psychology that explain the effects of design. Specifically, it applies work arguing that visible design attributes, such as color, shape, or texture allow producers to explain what their products do and how best to use them, to excite users in a way that generates sales, and to extend the basic functionalities of their products by highlighting their symbolic meanings. It then theorizes that the relevance of these three uses varies in the context of technological evolution such that affecting products’ design-related attributes is a more central organizational process as product technologies emerge and when they are very mature, suggesting a U-shaped relationship between technological evolution and design. Next, the paper elaborates the moderators of this relationship: the frequency of successive product introductions, the social dynamics affecting consumption, the users’ level of technological knowledge, and the volume of discourse attending to design. Thus, the paper offers a holistic theory for understanding the strategic use of design in the context of technological production and as such, advances recent work positioning design as a primary strategic challenge.
In the second period, recognition for this paper increased. In particular, the paper was nominated for The Academy of Management Review Best Paper of 2013 Award and was a runner-up for the award. This is the field’s leading journal. I have also been invited to join the editorial board of the journal. On the basis of this recognition, I have been invited to present these ideas or to serve as a panelist in a wide variety of conferences and seminars in Israel, Europe, and North America (e.g. Academy of Management (August 2015), workshops at WU Vienna University (May 2014) and Imperial College (June 2016). Further, the paper has been cited in the call for papers of conferences and special issues (in particular, “Giving visual and material form to ideas, identity and imagination: Architecture, urbanism and sustainable construction,” workshop at WU Vienna University of Economics and Business (May 2014) and Organization Studies Special Issue on the Material and Visual Turn).
Overall, the theoretical direction of this work is at the forefront of research in this area. Currently, this work has been published, is under revision, or has been presented in the field’s leading journals and conferences. There is much academic interest in aesthetics and design and in the symbolic currency used by organizations. The level of scholarship I have been engaged in producing is recognized by others working in the area and defining the state of the art. Both the publication of the paper in The Academy of Management Review and the invitation to revise the paper at Organization Studies are outlets with high impact in the field.
So overall, throughout the second period, I have pursued a high impact research agenda. Furthermore, this agenda is important because it will push forward managers’ understandings of how to manage design strategically. Aesthetic design is a powerful tool used with increasing frequency in many high technology industries and is considered by some researchers to be a primary strategic challenge for 21st century managers (Cappetta, Cillo, Ponti, 2006; Ravasi and Rindova, 2008). The underlying argument in this proposal is that to manage technological innovation as well as aesthetic design, firms need to view themselves as producers of technology that are embedded in a specific societal culture which interprets their wares not only from a functional lens but from one which seeks to derive meaning and value from design. I believe that the outputs of these projects will offer guidance enabling firms to address these strategic challenges more successfully.