Onderzoek Organisatiewetenschappen

Wetenschappelijke kennis (beter) beschikbaar maken voor partijen buiten de universiteit, het zichtbaar(der) maken van de maatschappelijke waarde van het facultaire onderzoek, de zogenaamde valorisatie, is een belangrijk facet. Enkele voorbeelden van valorisatie:

• Crowdfunding in de creatieve industrie
• Rituelen bij transities in grote bouwprojecten
• Financieringsmogelijkheden van ondernemers in MKB Amsterdam

• A Contingency Theory of Organizational Response to Paradoxical Requirements: A Study of Emergency Response Organizations
  This programme studies how emergency response organizations in the Netherlands and the United States cope with the demands they must address while responding to crises.
• Contesting Corporate Social Responsibility
  Corporate Social Responsibility is an empirical domain to investigate how various parties seek to contest and affirm the legitimacy corporate behavior, in particular in relation to the social and environmental consequences of organizing.
• Cultural Change in Infrastructural Sector
  The programma gains insight into the manner in which collaborative cultures develop, into the dilemmas which develop as a result and into the manner in which public values can be enduringly safeguarded.

De bijdrage van promovendi aan het onderzoek van de afdeling Organisatiewetenschappen is van groot belang. De afgelopen jaren zijn diverse succesvolle promotieprojecten uitgevoerd die hebben geleid tot interessante proefschriften en artikelen in vooraanstaande wetenschappelijke tijdschriften. Ook de komende jaren willen we getalenteerde en enthousiaste onderzoekers de kans blijven bieden onderzoek te doen bij onze afdeling.

Er zijn verschillende manieren om bij de afdeling Organisatiewetenschappen aan een promotietraject te beginnen:

• Reageren op vacatures. Deze worden via diverse kanalen geadverteerd en via een reguliere sollicitatieprocedure aan de beste kandidaat gegund.
• (Bijna) Afgestudeerden met een idee voor de ontwikkeling van een eigen project wordt geadviseerd contact op te nemen met het afdelingshoofd om te bezien of een onderzoeksvoorstel kan worden ontwikkeld. Een dergelijk voorstel wordt bij voorkeur ingediend bij externe instanties zoals NWO, of bij de open competitie binnen de faculteit Sociale wetenschappen, teneinde subsidie voor het project te verwerven.
• Promoveren met een Mozaïekbeurs. Mozaïek is een subsidieprogramma van NWO dat tot doel heeft de instroom van talentvolle afgestudeerden uit minderheidsgroepen in de wetenschap te bevorderen. In samenwerking met leden van de afdeling kan een onderzoeksvoorstel worden ontwikkeld en ingediend bij NWO.

Bovengenoemde mogelijkheden hebben alle betrekking op promovendi die voor de duur van het project in dienst zijn bij de afdeling Organisatiewetenschappen. In principe duurt een project 4 jaar, hoewel een aantal promovendi er voor kiest het project in 5 jaar uit te voeren en één dag in de week als docent te werken binnen de afdeling.

Daarnaast bestaat de mogelijkheid aan een promotieproject te beginnen zonder in dienst te treden bij de afdeling. Medewerkers van organisaties die een wetenschappelijke interesse hebben, kunnen in samenwerking met leden van de afdeling een onderzoeksvoorstel ontwikkelen en uitvoeren, vaak binnen de organisatie waarin die medewerkers werkzaam zijn.

Geïnteresseerden worden van harte uitgenodigd contact op te nemen met de onderzoeksmanager of het afdelingshoofd van de afdeling Organisatiewetenschappen, zie daartoe de contactgegevens van het Management Team Organisatiewetenschappen.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is an empirical domain to investigate how various parties –stakeholders, NGOs, social movements, firms, governments– seek to contest and affirm the legitimacy corporate behavior, in particular in relation to the social and environmental consequences of organizing. Often, such issues have been approached from a stakeholder perspective. This perspective has sensitized managers for the needs and rights of those groups in society that are not directly essential to the economic survival of the firm, but it has also produced a simplified picture of those groups. The stakeholder approach suggests (a) that there may be moral rights associated with such entities that legitimate their stake in the firm and (b) that given such rights the firm should strive for a balance between their interests and those of shareholders and other stakeholders.

As has been exposed by others before, such entities cannot be properly understood through the instrumentality that is associated with the idea of them being solely pursuing a particular stake (e.g., de Bakker & den Hond, 2008a, b). They are not just “interest-driven”; they also have identities (Rowley & Moldoveanu, 2003) and ideologies (den Hond & de Bakker, 2007) that influence whether, when, and how they will mobilize in relation to corporations. Hence, although it may be wise for managers to consider the legitimacy and urgency of the claims following from their interests and the power that they have (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997), the question really is how such entities may develop leverage over the firm (Den Hond 2010).

This question is addressed by analyzing CSR as a contested concept – in terms of discourse, praxis, and justification (Den Hond, De Bakker & Neergaard 2007) – from a combination of institutional, social movement, and network perspectives. It seeks to explain outcomes of CSR contests by examining the use of tactics, coalitions and networks and the role of standards.

Recent publications Contesting CSR:

• Hond, F. den, F.G.A. de Bakker & J.P. Doh. (accepted for publication). What Prompts Companies to Collaboration with NGOs? Recent Evidence from the Netherlands. Business & Society.
• Wijk, J.J. van, W. Stam, T. Elfring, C. Zietsma, F. den Hond (accepted for publication). Activists and incumbents tying for change: The interplay between agency, culture and networks in field evolution. Academy of Management Journal.
• Bakker, F.G.A. de. 2012. Exploring networks of activism on corporate social responsibility: Suggestions for a research agenda. Creativity & Innovation Management, 21(2): in press.
• Hond, F. den & F.G.A. de Bakker. 2012. Boomerang politics: how transnational stakeholders impact multinational corporations in the context of globalization. In: Lindgreen, A., P. Kotler, J. Vanhamme & F. Maon (eds.). A Stakeholder Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility: Pressures, Conflicts, Reconciliation. Aldershot, Gower: 275-292.
• Bakker, F.G.A. de & F. den Hond. 2011. A disputed contract: IHC Caland in Burma. In: Dubbink, W., L. van Liedekerke  & H. van Luijk (eds.). European business ethics cases in context: The morality of corporate decision making. Dordrecht, Springer:  121-139.
• Bakker, F.G.A. de, I.R. Hellsten & A.M. Kok. 2011. Examining activists: Tracing networks and tactics on CSR. Notizie di Politeia: Rivista di Etica e Scelte Pubbliche, XXVII (103): 66-77.
• Hond, F. den. 2010. Reflections on relationships between NGOs and corporations." Business & Society, 49(1): 173-178 
• Hond, F. den, F.G.A. de Bakker & P. de Haan. 2010. The sequential patterning of tactics: institutional activism in the global sports apparel industry, 1988–2002. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 32(5/6): 648-665.
• Pol, P.K.C. van de & F.G.A. de Bakker. 2010. Direct-to-consumer advertising and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 94(2): 211-224

CROWDFUNDING THEORY UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Report from Amsterdam’s first academic research seminar

By Irina Enache

What is certainly true about the relatively new phenomenon of crowdfunding is that theory lacks behind practice. Should you happen to work with the former, it is furthermore difficult to be aware of other academic and research projects on the topic, since many are undergoing and yet to be published.

In this context, the initiative of the Vrije Universiteit (VU), Amsterdam Business School (UvA) and the Crowdfunding Hub to organize an academic research seminar on crowdfunding was more than welcomed.

Starting 2014, the Hub has organized monthly crowdfunding meetups but has so far gathered mostly entrepreneurs and crowdfunding platforms. The research seminar is thus a first attempt at connecting another important stakeholder in the industry: academics and researchers. This, argued Ronald Kleverlaan, founder of the Hub, is essential as the industry is growing quickly and cannot rely solely on “trial and error” wisdom. Data and insights coming from the theoretical perspective are needed to support a truly structural growth.

As a result, 12 presentations were held yesterday, June 5th at the Crowdfunding Hub’s location (the historic Beurs van Berlage, Amsterdam). The seminar’s first edition aims to bring together and connect various academics and researchers engaged with the alternative revenue model and map out current initiatives. It gathered around 20 participants.

Status scientific research
The first session of the seminar introduced the current status of scientific research on crowdfunding. Irma Borst from Vrije Universiteit’s Organizational Sciences department offered some context around why this revenue model is popular – namely, the financial crisis that brought with it public and private fund cuts, a failing trust in banks coupled with an increased desire of people to control their investments. In The Netherlands alone, the amount of money raised through various forms of crowdfunding was 14 million euro in 2012, via 29 crowdfunding platforms. 2014 has already raised 60 million euro with a number of 81 active platforms.

While existing literature already sketched the taxonomy of crowdfunding, multi-faceted research is essential and missing, Borst argued. What can we learn about from philanthropic studies, law and policy, linguistics, organizational science, social network analysis or entrepreneurial finance?, asked Borst, as she gave the floor to an eclectic mix of speakers, disciplines, and perspectives. Presentation ‘Current status of scientific research on crowdfunding’ 

Tsvi Vinig highlighted the topics that are relevant when considering crowdfunding from an entrepreneurial and innovation perspective.UvA is exploring the phenomenon crowdfunding with 10 Master students and 1 PhD candidate and started international collaboration with Berkeley’s global crowdfunding project. Presentation ‘Crowdfunding research @ UvA’

Philanthropic crowdfunding
Rene Bekkers, from the VU Philanthropic Studies, made a succinct case of how crowdfunding employs traditional philanthropy models. He enumerated the seven reasons why which people “give” in the latter: there is a need (an initiative depends on their donation), they are solicited  to do it, they perceive the cost to be reasonable for the benefit it provides, it gives them a chance to be altruistic, it adds to their reputation, rewards them (psychologically), it matches their values, and they see the impact of their donation. This structure is also reflected in the way crowdfunding campaigns are built, particularly when they boost the donors’ reputation and reward their involvement (either with a material reward or just psychologically). Bekkers focused on the role of social influence. People donate to a crowdfunding campaign when they see their close network do the same, and like to share their support of a project. Like in philanthropy, where trends show that people donate less when there is no suggested amount but tend to donate more when there is one, crowfunding tends to work the same way – it suggests different donation amounts (and the more you donate, the more perks you get). Presentation ‘The science of philanthropy in crowdfunding’

Crowdfunding might also be borrowing from the traditional membership schemes. Joris Ebbers from UvA Business School gave the example of established museums the likes of Stedelijk, Louvre or TATE, which allow people to become continuous donors that have different types of privileges, depending on how much they donate. The interesting pattern here is that those who donate a small amount (such as 50 Euro) tend to be good ambassadors and encourage their networks to become donors as well, while those paying 100-fold that amount never do. Could this pattern also apply in crowdfunding? Are small donators better ambassadors than big donators? Is there such a thing as an exclusivist circle of donators and investors? This might be very interesting to see in the equity crowdfunding. Current legislation proposals  provide a strict limit to the amount that non-accredited investors can pay for a project, while accredited investors invest much more. What will the dynamics be when both groups meet to support the same project? Will this make or break the monopolization of investments in equity crowdfunding? Presentation ‘Crowdfunding Hermitage’

Discussions became interesting when philanthropic behavior was viewed from a social network analysis. It has long been a fact that often donation-based crowdfunding relies on one’s strong ties (friends, families and acquaintances), unlike the museum memberships. This is a burning issue, since campaign creators need to set much smaller target amounts than they would when applying to public subsidies, because crowdfunding works on small donations. The question here is how can crowdfunding activate one’s latent ties (those outside the campaigner’s network – the real crowd) and how much are the latter donating compared to strong and weak ties. Irma Borst and Rene Bekkers studied 10 Voordekunstprojects in order to tentatively answer these questions. Their results showed that successful projects attract much more latent ties, and this is positively associated with Twitter social interaction rather than Facebook. Weak and latent ties donate less than strong ties, however. The research is undergoing and worth checking when it will be published. Presentation ‘Tie strength and social media activities’

Economic perspective
Also related to  the donation amount, but this time from a behavioral economics perspective, was Sander Onderstal’s proposal to experiment with different auction models. A recurrent problem is that projects often do not reach their target. Why? The problem seems to be a different value appreciation and an inefficient selling model. Onderstal is currently looking into better selling mechanisms so that creators of campaigns can better determine the value of their own product and adopt the right selling mechanism to maximize their success chance. Presentation ‘Beatles for sale’

Apart from value, do people have different behaviors when they donate as opposed to when they invest? UvA entrepreneurship student Lusine Shakhoyan created a fake crowdfunding platform with a real project that was raising money. Internet users who agreed to participate in her experiment were randomly allocate to either donate, invest or donate for a reward. She hopes that insights from this experiment will help businesses make a more informed decision on what crowdfunding model best suits their idea. Presentation ‘Equity crowdfunding’

Yet another different angle was offered by Thomas Gallas, VU masters student, who is tackling the field of renewable energy, which seems to be particularly fit to finance via crowdfunding. His research looks into a long term (2014-2020) development of renewable energy in The Netherlands by means of interviews and surveys with various stakeholders. Dutch retail investors are inquired on their interest in investing via crowdfunding, while panel solar creators are inquired on their willingness to crowdfund, so that both parts are drawn together in the effort. Presentation‘Crowdfunding for solar panels’.

Crowdfunding in China and US
Zooming out of the Dutch context, Liang Zhao, PhD candidate at the Amsterdam Business School (UvA), presented his study on crowdfunding in China. Despite major media outlets like Wall Street Journal reporting on the industry’s growth in the area, Zhao argues for a closer and more critical look. He identifies the state’s formal institutions as major influencers on the type of environment in which entrepreneurship flourishes (“institutions include formal rules and informal influences, like cultural norms”). ‘Western’ institutions strongly support the crowdfunding practice and its philosophy of tapping in strangers’ resources. Chinese institutions are not only more unstable due to an economic transition, but they embed different cultural practices (for example, the act of asking strangers to invest is in itself problematic, because family and friends networks are more important). As a result, Chinese entrepreneurs face more risks and need to rely on informal (relation-based) institutions for their endeavors. Zhao’s aim is to analyze how both formal and informal institutions shape the nascent practice of crowdfunding and to see whether this leads to “a Chinese theory of crowdfunding or theory of Chinese crowdfunding”. Presentation ‘Crowdfunding in China’.

Yang Song(Faculty of Economics and Business, UvA) discussed her exploratory study on how tech startups in the U.S  have been raising their funds in the last ten 10-15 years. She aims to see how funding models have changed in this time and what role their social media management played. For this, she is looking into an impressive database of companies she collected from CrunchBase via open APIs, as well as their number of followers, fans and activity online.  Preliminary results point out the size of the network directly impacts the amount of money start-ups raise, and that a strong social network with various types of fans and followers allow for different funding types, often recurrently. Abstract ‘Determinants of fundraising through social media for startups’

Crowdfunding toolkit
Finally, I (Irina Enache) introduced, together with Robert van Boeschoten, the MoneyLab Crowdfunding Toolkit. The toolkit – which will be launched in July – is a website targeting cultural and creative practitioners who wish to crowdfund their projects. It consists of three pillars. First, a series of 8 interviews with creators who already crowdfunded: a filmmaker, a performing arts group, a social entrepreneur etc. representing the major project categories on any crowdfunding platform. Second, the results of a survey that was also answered by creators who crowdfunded. This includes data on time effort involved, what type of funders are predominant (strong, weak?), average donation, average no. of funders, what help they needed and would they do it again. Third, an interactive visualization where users can explore a database of Dutch and international crowdfunding platforms. By selecting certain filters, the visualization then shows them the most relevant platforms for their project’s characteristics. The toolkit was, I believe, well received by the audience and we got useful feedback, including a suggestion to crowdfund the project in order to take it even further than the website. Presentation ‘Crowdfunding toolkit’

The organizers of the seminar hope to host yet another in the near future, and I look forward to also seeing a wider audience (also platform owners and prospective campaigners). Meanwhile, crowdfunding will surely have a chapter of its own in the upcoming MoneyLab Reader, which is expected to be published in early 2015.

Tags: Amsterdam Business School, crowdfunding academic seminar, Crowdfunding Hub, MoneyLab toolkit, Vrije Universiteit

EERSTE CROWDFUNDING RESEARCH SEMINAR OP 5 JUNI 2014

Dear colleague,

Herewith we would like to invite you for the first research seminar on Crowdfunding in Amsterdam.

Although crowdfunding is a rather new phenomenon, we notice that the number of researchers focusing on this topic is increasing rapidly. Last year, at the VU University Amsterdam, we started a NWO project on philanthropic crowdfunding for cultural heritage sector. One of the goals of our research project is to share results and knowledge with both practitioners and academic colleagues. For this reason, we have taken the initiative together with dr. Tsvi Vinig  (Amsterdam Business School, who as part of a consortium that is awarded FP7 grant to include crowdfunding  studies) and Ronald Kleverlaan (crowdfunding strategist and founder of the Crowdfunding Hub) to organize an informal research seminar in which researchers can present and discuss their crowdfunding research plans.  

Location:

Crowdfunding Hub will host the seminar in the Beurs van Berlage.

Date:

Thursday June 5th 2014

Program:

We aim to have a maximum of 12 presentations. Each presentation will take 20 minutes (10 minutes presentation and 10 minutes discussion).

9.30 – 10.00 registration and coffee

10.00 – 11.00 first round of presentations

11.00 – 11.15 coffee break

11.15 – 12.15 second round of presentations

12.15 – 13.00 lunch

13.00 – 14.00 third round of presentations

14.00 – 14.15 tea break

14.15 – 15.15 final round of presentations

Registration:

To register for a presentation, you are requested to submit an abstract (450 words) provided with your name and affiliation, research topic, research methods, and – if available – some preliminary results. Please send your submission to: w.a.m.borst@vu.nl.  Deadline for submission of the abstracts is Friday, May 9th 2014.

We aim to have 12 presentations. In case there are more than 12 applications a selection will be made. In case of smaller number of applications, we will shorten the program accordingly. All abstracts will be bundled and made available to all participants.

It is also possible to attend a seminar without giving a presentation. Please indicate this in your registration mail.

Costs:

Participation in this seminar is free of charge.

We hope that the seminar will provide a lot of inspiration and we look forward meeting you on the 5th of June.

Crowdfunding is een alternatieve manier om een product of project te financieren. Om kapitaal te verwerven gaat een ondernemer niet meer naar de bank of een culturele instelling naar de subsidiegever, maar presenteert hij zijn project op een (online) platform en probeert hij meerdere particuliere investeerders of donateurs aan te trekken. Deze vorm van financiering is met name interessant voor (culturele) organisaties die door teruglopende subsidiemogelijkheden onder druk zijn komen te staan.

Door middel van grootschalige veldexperimenten en nauwe samenwerking met platforms als Voordekunst.nl, zal een team van onderzoekers aan de VU inzicht proberen te krijgen in de motivaties en het gedrag van particuliere investeerders of donateurs van crowdfunding-projecten.

Wat maakt crowdfunding projecten succesvol en welke karakteristieken van de individuele crowdfunders beïnvloeden het geefgedrag? Wat zijn de implicaties van het gebruik van deze financieringsvorm voor een organisatie?
De resultaten van het onderzoek leveren een belangrijke bijdrage aan de ontwikkeling van crowdfunding en de wijze waarop organisaties deze manier van financiering het beste in kunnen zetten.

Lees meer over het onderzoek op de Engelstalige website van Crowdfunding in the cultural sector

Recent developments in the international infrastructural sector have led to a rethink of organizational culture and cultural collaborative relationships. Previous research (Veenswijk, 2004; Van Marrewijk, 2005; Boersma & Kingma, 2005) has borne out that many organizations taking part in infrastructural chains are struggling with questions concerning cultural identity and the (relative) positioning of one’s own organization in relation to the partners in the chain. The central theme in the sub-programme Cultural Change and Innovation in the Infrastructural Sector concerns the nature of the relationship between developments of organizational cultures on the one hand and the safeguarding of substantive public values on the other hand (e.g. Jørgensen and Bozemann, 2002). With our research, we wish to gain insight into the manner in which collaborative cultures develop, into the dilemmas which develop as a result and into the manner in which public values can be enduringly safeguarded. In particular, we will focus on four research questions:

1. What have been the dominant cultural developments in the (international) infrastructural chain in the post-war period and how can they be marked out?
2. How have public and private parties given direction to this, of which specific cultural intervention instruments have they availed themselves and what dominant types of sectorial cultures came about as a result?
3. What are the most important cultural dilemmas that public and private parties are struggling with in their mutual (collaborative) relations and what “coping strategies” are developed in the process?
4. Which best practices surrounding the formation of new orientations of cultures in project-based collaborations can best safeguard such public values as dependability, accessibility, sustainability as well as safety and transparency?

Researchers:

• Prof. Dr. Marcel Veenswijk (VU University Amsterdam)
• Prof. Dr. ing. Alfons van Marrewijk (VU University Amsterdam)

A Contingency Theory of Organizational Response to Paradoxical Requirements:
A Study of Emergency Response Organizations

This programme studies how emergency response organizations in the Netherlands and the United States cope with the demands they must address while responding to crises. The main goal is to study how professionals in each country manage the challenges that they face in order to identify strategies in use and evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of those strategies. This project contributes through basic research that develops a more general theory of paradox, response and organizational change.  The research also has the potential to ground the development of more systematic instruments for assessing paradox, moderating contingencies, and responses. The project also contributes to our understanding of emergency response organizations, an important type of organization that is representative of networked organizations and fluid organizational forms. Emergency response is a critical function in society.  By furthering our understanding of emergency response the project can yield practical advice on how to cope with conflicting demands in emergency situations.  This can inform design of structures and processes for emergency response organizations. The programme intents to perform multidisciplinary research towards the crisis management domain at several levels (multi-level research) and share the findings with practitioners and scholars in the U.S.A. and the Netherlands.

Timeframe: 2010-2013 (research will be continued after 2013)

Further information:
AREA: Amsterdam Research on Emergency Administration
ISR: Institute for Societal Resilience

Publicaties (Bron: METIS VU)