24-25 March 2026
Møller Institute, Storey’s Way, Cambridge, CB3 0DE, United Kingdom
A Conference Sponsored by the Journal of Management Studies and the Society for the Advancement of Management Studies
I don’t know what to believe anymore!
Academia was once portrayed as a lighthouse for discovering and disseminating truth, with scholars viewed as beacons of wisdom and science that help tackle important societal problems. Today, however, we operate in an era where algorithmic systems and artificial intelligence spread misinformation or falsehood at scale (Hajli et al., 2022), organizations manipulate knowledge to serve strategic interests (Hassan et al., 2023), and political or sociocultural polarization undermines consensus on even the most fundamental facts (Knight & Tsoukas, 2019). In this context, the concept of “truth” is no longer neutral or self-evident, but rather shaped, negotiated, and often challenged in ways that impact human behavior, organizational dynamics, geopolitics, and trust in institutions.
While there is a growing body of work on (mis)information, integrity, and bias in decision-making (e.g., Aversa et al., 2018; Cooper et al., 2023; Petratos & Faccia, 2023), management research and allied fields have insufficiently engaged with the concept of truth itself (Wright et al., 2024). The mechanisms through which truth is examined, constructed, communicated, and legitimized across society, organizations, and professional practice remain poorly defined and under-theorized. Moreover, what constitutes truth in scientific inquiry is increasingly questioned by the public, policymakers, and even within academia. These realities call for a renewed and critical research agenda on how truth is shaped, validated, and challenged in today’s complex landscape.
At the same time, truth is not only a cognitive or discursive phenomenon – it is also affective. Emotions such as fear, hope, outrage, and belonging play a powerful role in how individuals and collectives come to believe, defend, or reject particular truths. In organizations, emotional investments often underpin commitment to institutional logics, strategic narratives, or professional identities. As such, understanding the emotional architecture of truth – how it is felt, defended, or weaponized – adds a vital dimension to our study of epistemic dynamics in organizations, institutions, and the workplace. This calls for research that considers the embodied, emotional, and intersubjective dimensions of truth-making alongside its rational or procedural forms.
At the 2026 Journal of Management Studies (JMS) conference, we invite scholars to critically engage with the role of truth in societal, organizational, and professional domains. In practice, multiple and often “conflicting truths” shape decision-making, yet there are few foundational principles to consistently and reliably guide understanding of what makes knowledge credible across contexts (Wright et al., 2024). Practitioners increasingly question the relevance of academic theories, while scholars themselves have become more critical of the integrity of knowledge systems (Cronin et al., 2025). At the same time, political actors routinely construct selective narratives as truth to advance strategic agendas, further blurring the line between evidence and persuasion (Knight & Tsoukas, 2019). These dynamics reflect a broader societal challenge where polarization and growing uncertainty undermine our shared understandings of reality.
Against this backdrop, we welcome theoretical and empirical contributions that examine how truth is understood and how different versions of truth are constructed, mobilized, and contested across different levels. JMS has long been committed to an inclusive research ethos, embracing a wide range of theoretical perspectives, methods, and disciplinary insights (Clark et al., 2014). In this spirit, the conference invites engagement not only from business, management, and organization studies, but also from adjacent and contrasting disciplines to explore truth in relation to organizational life and institutional dynamics.
Possible questions include, but are not limited to:
Implications for management scholars:
- How do scholars experience and relate to “truth” as a concept, and how does this shape academic identity, motivation, and knowledge production in an era of epistemic uncertainty?
- How can academics better communicate/collaborate with practice to come to a shared rather than a divided understanding of the world of work?
- What constitutes “truth” in management and organization studies, and how do different epistemological traditions (e.g., positivist, interpretivist, critical) approach its construction, critique, and application?
Implications for management scholarship:
- How do governance structures and routines shape truth-telling practices, particularly in high-stakes contexts like whistleblowing, crisis management, and corporate scandal?
- In what ways do polarized stakeholder environments influence organizational truth-telling, transparency, and legitimacy strategies?
- How can we remain open to alternative truths? How can collaboration across truths lead to better team and organizational functioning?
- How do organizations manage the coexistence of multiple, potentially conflicting truths within multicultural, diverse, or multinational environments?
- What happens when internal organizational truths (e.g., values, mission) conflict with external ones (e.g., public opinion, market pressures), and how are these reconciled?
- How do institutional logics and cultural narratives embed and reproduce particular claims of truth over time?
- In what ways do organizational leaders construct, manage, and sometimes manipulate “truth narratives” to maintain legitimacy and authority?
- What role do organizational routines and institutional logics play in shaping the production, dissemination, and contestation of truth?
- How do strategic narratives shape organizational perceptions of truth in times of transformation, innovation, or disruption?
- What are the truths beyond Western values, norms, and governance ideals? How do they differ in terms of content and claim on universality and normative superiority? And what are their effects on organizations?
- How do firms signal membership and allegiance to a truth held by one particular camp or cluster of nations? And how does this allegiance enable and constrain their activities, for example, by making it harder to penetrate markets in opposing clusters?
- How do different kinds of audience members categorize firms to be associated with one truth or the other? What possible indicators do audience members rely on in their categorization effort, maybe national identity or political ideology?
- How do AI-driven systems reshape organizational notions of authority, expertise, and legitimacy in decision-making processes?
- How do organizational cultures adapt to managing truth conflicts exacerbated by AI-generated misinformation?
- What governance mechanisms can organizations implement to ensure the ethical use of AI in truth-sensitive areas such as compliance, HR, and public relations?
- In what ways can AI disrupt or reinforce existing organizational boundaries regarding expertise, authority, and the custodianship of knowledge/truth?
- Who is – or should be – in charge of developing and training these algorithms? Should developers have a responsibility for their algorithms later in use, and in case, what is the normative grounding for that responsibility?
- How do employees respond when organizational narratives conflict with their own lived experiences or beliefs about “truth”?
- In what ways do voice, silence, and knowledge hiding reflect deeper tensions over what is perceived as credible or authentic in the workplace?
- How do AI-driven systems influence employees’ trust in organizational communications, decisions, or ethical norms?
- What role does identity (e.g., cultural, ideological, professional) play in shaping how employees negotiate competing organizational “truths”?
Keynote Speakers
To be confirmed.
Call for Developmental Proposals
Due to the interdisciplinary nature of this JMS conference, we are not asking participants to submit a full paper but rather to submit a developmental proposal for presentation and discussion at the conference.
To apply for the conference, please complete this Online Registration Form. In addition, you will be asked to supply a 5-page developmental proposal of your research idea that you will present at the JMS conference in the form of a developmental paper for discussion.
All references and tables should be included within the 5 pages which may be single spaced and must be in 12-point type throughout.
This developmental proposal should specify:
- Why, how, and in what way your idea relates to the notion of “truth”
- The originality and significance of your intended topic
- The proposed contribution of the research, giving consideration to which research conversations you propose to join within a management studies context.
- Your intended methodological perspectives or epistemological positions.
Contributions should be submitted to business.jms@durham.ac.uk no later than midnight (Greenwich Mean Time) on 5th December 2025.
Confirmation of acceptance (or not) of proposals will be notified by 16th January 2026.
Presentations will be due 3rd March 2026.
Authors of papers presented at the conference will be invited to develop their papers for possible publication in a follow-up special issue of the Journal of Management Studies related to the topic of the conference. A formal call for papers for the JMS special issue on truth will appear within the twelve months following the conference.
Presentation at the conference does not guarantee publication of the proposed article nor will submissions to the special issue be limited to those that present at the conference.
Call for Participation
There is no conference fee, and we encourage a variety of modes of participation, from presentation of research to the contribution of debate by taking on the role of discussant. We specifically encourage early career scholars to submit their work, as a special PDW will immediately precede the conference on 23 March 2026, for which a separate call will be circulated.
Financial Support
The Karen Legge Bursary Scheme operated by the Society for the Advancement of Management Studies (SAMS) offers financial support to attend in-person events organized by the Journal of Management Studies (JMS) through the provision of a limited number of bursaries. This is a needs-based scheme, recognising that limited financial means can be the result of many factors. We therefore encourage applications from PhD students, Early Career Researchers, and those from under-represented groups (including but not limited to, gender, identity, ethnicity, etc.), and/or geographic areas. Details of the bursary and the application form will be made available to successful conference applicants.
Conference Organizing Committee
The conveners of the conference are: Paolo Aversa (King’s College London), Johann Fortwengel (King’s College London), Claudia Gabbioneta (University of York), Hannes Leroy (Rotterdam School of Management), Chidiebere Ogbonnaya (King’s College London), and Yasin Rofcanin (University of Bath), and the editorial management team of JMS: Margaret Turner, James Totty, Nicole Broadbent, and Alice Williams.
References
Acemoglu, D., Ozdaglar, A. and Siderius, J. (2024). ‘A model of online misinformation’. Review of Economic Studies, 91, 3117-3150.
Aversa, P., Cabantous, L. and Haefliger, S. (2018). ‘When decision support systems fail: Insights for strategic information systems from Formula 1’. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 27, 221-236.
Balasubramanian, N., Ye, Y. and Xu, M. (2022). ‘Substituting human decision-making with machine learning: Implications for organizational learning’. Academy of Management Review, 47, 448-465.
Brynjolfsson, E. and McAfee, A. (2011). Race against the machine: How the digital revolution is accelerating innovation, driving productivity, and irreversibly transforming employment and the economy. Lexington, MA: Digital Frontier Press.
Clark, T., Wright, M., Iskoujina, Z. and Garnett, P. (2014). ‘JMS at 50: Trends over Time’. Journal of Management Studies, 51, 19-37.
Cooper, B., Cohen, T. R., Huppert, E., Levine, E. E. and Fleeson, W. (2023). ‘Honest behavior: Truth-seeking, belief-speaking, and fostering understanding of the truth in others’. Academy of Management Annals, 17, 655-683.
Cronin, M. A., Galvin, B. M., George, E., Gruber, M., Lindebaum, D., Markman, G. D., Miller, C. C., Rose, E. L., Thatcher, S. M. B. and Wood, G. T. (2025). ‘From a portfolio of journals to a system of knowledge production’. Academy of Management Annals, 19, 1-8.
Faraj, S., Pachidi, S. and Sayegh, K. (2018). ‘Working and organizing in the age of the learning algorithm’. Information and Organization, 28, 62–70.
Fisch, J. E., Labouré, M. and Turner, J. A. (2019). ‘The emergence of the robo-advisor’. In Agnew, J. and Mitchell, O. S. (eds), The Disruptive Impact of FinTech on Retirement Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 13-37.
Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press.
Giansiracusa, N. (2021). How algorithms create and prevent fake news. Berkeley, CA: Apress.
Gillespie, T. (2014). ‘The relevance of algorithms’. In Gillespie, T., Boczkowski, P. J. and Foot, K. A. (eds), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 167-193.
Hajli, N., Saeed, U., Tajvidi, M. and Shirazi, F. (2022). ‘Social bots and the spread of disinformation in social media: the challenges of artificial intelligence’. British Journal of Management, 33, 1238-1253.
Hassan, S., Kaur, P., Muchiri, M., Ogbonnaya, C. and Dhir, A. (2023). ‘Unethical leadership: Review, synthesis and directions for future research’. Journal of Business Ethics, 183, 511-550.
Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A. and Christin, A. (2020). ‘Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control’. Academy of Management Annals, 14, 366-410.
Kim, H. S., and Cameron, G. T. (2011). ‘Embracing or explaining corporate crisis? Expectancy violations theory as a framing mechanism’. Public Relations Review, 37, 152–155.
Knight, E. and Tsoukas, H. (2019). ‘When Fiction Trumps Truth: What ‘post-truth’ and ‘alternative facts’ mean for management studies’. Organization Studies, 40, 183-197.
Lai, K. and Fortwengel, J. (2025). ‘Constructing an organizational identity with political ideology: The case of Huawei, 1987-2020’. Strategic Organization, https://doi.org/10.1177/14761270251327988.
Lazer, D. M., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., Metzger, M. J., Nyhan, B., Pennycook, G. and Rothschild, D. (2018). ‘The science of fake news’. Science, 359(6380), 1094-1096.
Lumineau, F. and Keller, A. (2025). ‘War as a phenomenon of inquiry in management studies’. Journal of Management Studies, https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13213.
Martin, K. (2019). ‘Ethical implications and accountability of algorithms’. Journal of Business Ethics, 160, 835-850.
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W. and Hewlin, P. F. (2003). ‘An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why’. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1453–1476.
Mitchell, T. M. (2009). ‘Mining our reality’. Science, 326(5960), 1644-1645.
Muzio, D. (2022). ‘Re-conceptualizing management theory: How do we move away from western-centred knowledge?’. Journal of Management Studies, 59, 1032-1035.
Möhlmann, M. and Henfridsson, O. (2019). ‘What people hate about being managed by algorithms, according to a study of Uber drivers’. Harvard Business Review, 30, 1-7.
Newell, S. and Marabelli, M. (2015). ‘Strategic opportunities (and challenges) of algorithmic decision-making: A call for action on the long-term societal effects of ‘datification’’. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24, 3-14.
Orlikowski, W. J. and Scott, S. V. (2014). ‘What happens when evaluation goes online?: exploring apparatuses of valuation in the travel sector’. Organization Science, 25, 868-891.
Petratos, P. N. and Faccia, A. (2023). ‘Fake news, misinformation, disinformation and supply chain risks and disruptions: risk management and resilience using blockchain’. Annals of Operations Research, 327, 735-762.
Raisch, S. and Krakowski, S. (2021). ‘Artificial intelligence and management: The automation–augmentation paradox’. Academy of Management Review, 46, 192-210.
Sarala, R. M., Post, C., Doh, J. and Muzio, D. (2025). ‘Advancing Research on the Future of Work in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (AI)’. Journal of Management Studies, https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13195.
Serenko, A. (2020). ‘Knowledge sabotage as an extreme form of counterproductive knowledge behavior: Conceptualization, typology, and empirical demonstration’. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24, 1561–1585.
Serenko, A. and Bontis, N. (2016). ‘Understanding counterproductive knowledge behavior: Antecedents and consequences of intra-organizational knowledge hiding’. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20, 1199–1224.
Teece, D. J. (2022). ‘A wider-aperture lens for global strategic management: The multinational enterprise in a bifurcated global economy’. Global Strategy Journal, 12, 488-519.
Valle-Cruz, D., García-Contreras, R. and Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2024). ‘Exploring the negative impacts of artificial intelligence in government: the dark side of intelligent algorithms and cognitive machines’. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 90, 353-368.
Van Lint, J. W. C. (2010). ‘Empirical evaluation of new robust travel time estimation algorithms’. Transportation Research Record, 2160, 50-59.
Vanneste, B. S. and Puranam, P. (2024). ‘Artificial intelligence, trust, and perceptions of agency’. Academy of Management Review, https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2022.0041.
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D. and Aral, S. (2018). ‘The spread of true and false news online’. Science, 359(6380), 1146-1151.
Wright, T. A., Emich, K., Pearce, J. L., Ramoglou, S., Ashkanasy, N., Bartunek, J. M., Kunisch, S., Denyer, D. Foss, N. J., Klein, P. G., Town, S., Hollwitz, J., Barney, C. E., Harms, P., Munyon, T. P., Seijts, G. and Tsang, E. W. (2024). ‘Advocacy and the search for truth in management scholarship: Can the twain ever meet?’. Journal of Management Inquiry, 33, 11-25.
Xivuri, K. and Twinomurinzi, H. (2023). ‘How AI developers can assure algorithmic fairness’. Discover Artificial Intelligence, 3, 27.
Zhou, Y., Wang, L. and Chen, W. (2023). ‘The dark side of AI-enabled HRM on employees based on AI algorithmic features’. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 36, 1222-1241.
Zimdars, M. and McLeod, K. (2020). Fake news: understanding media and misinformation in the digital age. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Zimmer, F., Scheibe, K., Stock, M. and Stock, W. G. (2019). ‚Fake news in social media: Bad algorithms or biased users?’. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, 7, 40-53.