Mini Tracks – Calls for Papers

Benefits and Limitations of the Intellectual Capital Metaphor

Intellectual Capital of Nations, Regions and Cities

Social Capital

The Dynamics of Intellectual Capital

Intellectual Capital for Universities and Research Organisations

Measuring the Effect of Knowledge Management

Measuring Intellectual Capital

IC Centres Across the Globe

Doctoral Consortium
Intellectual Capital Strategies in Emerging Markets

Read the
author guidelines

Download .pdf files

Mini track on Benefits and Limitations of the Intellectual Capital Metaphor.
Track chair: Prof. Dr. Daniel Andriessen, INHolland University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands

The concept of intellectual capital (IC) is based on the metaphor “Knowledge as Capital”. The way this works is that characteristics of the source domain of capital are used to describe the target domain of knowledge. These characteristics include: capital is valuable and important, capital is an asset for the future and not an expenditure, capital can be capitalized, capital allows for a return and Capital resonates with managers and CFO’s. At the same time capital has certain characteristics that can or should not be transferred to the target domain of knowledge. These may include: capital can be owned, capital is additive, capital is a stock, and capital can and must be measured and managed. Most abstract concepts are based on metaphors and any metaphor highlights certain things and hides others.

This track explores the benefits and the limitations of capital as a metaphor for knowledge and other intangibles.  We invite papers that explore questions like:

§           What have been the benefits over the past years of conceptualizing intangibles as capital? What has it highlighted that we did not see before?

§           For example, what have been the benefits that the concept of capital resonate easily with CEO’s, CFO’s, analysts, accountants and other stakeholders?

§           What are some of the limitations of the IC metaphor? What does it hide that is important?

§           How can the realization that intellectual capital is based on a metaphorical conceptualization help in solving heated discussions in the field, including discussions about  IC as stock or flow, the dynamic s of IC, the reification or ‘thingification’ of knowledge, and the question whether IC should be on the balance sheet?

§           What alternative metaphors can highlight important aspects of knowledge and other intangibles that the IC metaphor cannot?

For mini track submission details, see the call for papers page.

Daniel Andriessen

Mini track on Intellectual Capital of Nations, Regions and Cities.
Track chair: Dr Ahmed Bounfour, University Paris-Sud, France

Over the last five years, Intellectual capital for Regions, Nations and Cities has emerged as an important topic for research and actions.In spite of the progress made, several issues are still posed:

§         How to modelise IC for nations, how to measure it and how to report on IT ?

§         How to modelise and manage IC of regions and Cities?

§         What types of advances are made in concrete terms for Intellectual capital of regions and cities?

§         Are there specific idiosyncraties that should be taken into account? (cultural, size of organisations, size of communities ... ).

The Mini track aims at attracting theoretical as well as empirical papers addressing some of these issues.

For mini track submission details, see the call for papers page.

Ahmed Bounfour

Mini track on Social Capital.
Track chair: Tjip de Jong, University of Twente The Netherlands

Social capital in the form of networks of trust has value for individuals, teams and organisations. It is an indicator for economic success, measurable through constructs like trust, reciprocity, shared norms and values. Social capital is a popular paradigm in organisational studies. The use of social capital theory in the fields of business studies has increased exponentially in recent times. It offers new insight in explaining organisational dynamics, knowledge sharing, learning processes and innovation. While there is an extensive body of knowledge on the benefits of social capital, less attention has been paid to understanding how and why social capital evolves within organisational settings. It is interesting to gain insights into why social capital changes and what the effect is on knowledge sharing, knowledge productivity, learning processes and innovation.

This brief description suggests a number of interesting research questions. We encourage papers that view social capital through individual, team, organisation or higher levels of analysis. In this track the following questions will be explored:

§         How does social capital evolve in organisational settings?

§         How does social capital affect knowledge productivity and innovation?

§         What is the relation between social capital and learning processes?

§         What is the role of trust in innovation and knowledge productivity?

§         How can we built social capital and make it work to the organisational advantage?

§         What factors enhance social capital and what factors inhibit social capital in organisations?

This track explicitly encourages both inter -and intra-organisational research on social capital theory.

For mini track submission details, see the call for papers page.

Tjip de Jong

Mini track on The Dynamics of Intellectual Capital
Track Chair: Dr. Aino Kianto, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland

The mini-track aims to target the dynamic dimension of IC. According to Kianto (2008), the dynamic dimension of IC relates mainly to three issues: 1) practice-based approach to IC; 2) dynamics of IC-based value creation; and 3) renewal, change and innovation of IC. The papers within this mini-track can address any of these three issues. Both theoretical and empirical papers are sought for. The topics addressed can include, for example, the following:

§           IC value creation dynamics

§         Intersection of IC, innovation and organizational learning

§         Dynamic capabilities and IC

§         The role of IC management in organizational change processes

§         Imagination and creativity

§         Antecedents and processes of IC building, creation, modification and change

§         Connections between the static and dynamic aspects of IC

For mini track submission details, see the call for papers page.

Aino Kianto

Mini track on Intellectual Capital for Universities and Research Organisations.
Track chair: Dr. Karl-Heinz Leitner, Austrian Research Centers, Austria

In the last couple of years, IC management and reporting have gained importance for research organisations and universities across Europe. A couple of university departments and research organisations have implemented IC reports and in Austrian universities are even obliged by law to publish IC reports. IC management systems provide comparable information for the universities’ management but also for external stakeholders such as industrial partners or science and education policy. However, to exploit its potential in this sector, the specifics of science, research and innovation process must be addressed. IC management systems should enhance strategic development, innovativeness and knowledge sharing within research institutions and have to be linked to other instruments and tools for management and governance such as evaluation, performance measurement, and benchmarking.

Key questions addressed in this track include:

§         What is the specific role of IC management instruments in the context of other instruments such as evaluation, benchmarking, quality management and performance agreements?

§         How can we design IC management systems in order to foster innovativeness and creativity and not become a bureaucratic exercise? 

§         Which methods and instruments are appropriate to measure and manage intangibles in universities and research organisations?

§         To what extent do we have to standardise IC models and indicators on the (inter)national level or for different science disciplines?

For mini track submission details, see the call for papers page.

Karl-Heinz Leitner

Mini track on Measuring the Effects of Knowledge Management.
Track chair: Dr. Antti Lönnqvist, Tampere University of Technology, Finland

A large variety methods, models and practices for managing an organization’s knowledge assets have been produced by academics and practitioners. There are even different fields of research, e.g. knowledge management, intellectual capital and business intelligence, focusing on different types of knowledge and information management tasks. It seems clear that there is a need for many of these managerial tools. Also, it seems likely that the utilization of these tools would result in concrete business benefits. However, there is so far limited evidence of the actual impacts of knowledge management activities. In addition, it is not clear which management approach would provide the best results in a specific case.

Some examples of interesting research issues are listed below:

§         Which benefits, if any, result from knowledge management practices? (empirical evidence)

§         Which problems hamper the utilization of knowledge management tools in practice?

§         Which knowledge management models are utilized widely in companies (utilization is, of course, a precondition for impacts)?

§         Why do knowledge management programs and intellectual capital management initiatives fail?

§         Is there empirical evidence of the relative success of different knowledge management approaches in a specific context?

§         What kind of research settings and methodologies are applicable for studying the impacts?

For mini track submission details, see the call for papers page.

Antti Lönnqvist

Mini track on Measuring Intellectual Capital.
Track chair: Professor Bernard Marr, The Advanced Performance Institute, UK

The measurement and assessment of intellectual capital and intangible assets is one of the most important and challenging issues for research and practice today. Many argue that without measures we can know nothing and understand nothing. Without measures we can’t do any research, organizations can’t manage their intangibles and they can’t produce meaningful IC statements. However, when it comes to measurement we are facing a real dilemma: we can’t really measure our intangibles in the same way we can measure tangible aspects of performance. When it comes to intangibles we often have to rely on proxy measures or need to find new ways of measuring performance. This in turn has important implications of how we can use those measures.

Key questions arising from this include:

§         Can we actually measure intangibles? And if so, how should we do this? Do we use quantitative methods, qualitative methods or a mix of both? Do we need to differentiate between terms such as measurement, assessment and evaluation?

§         What are the implications of the limited measurability on research, management, compensation and reporting?

§         Are tools such as Balanced Scorecards, Strategy Maps and IC Reports appropriate for today’s information needs?

§         What are the implications for traditional financial accounting of intangibles?

We would like to invite submissions of papers addressing these important issues to this track. For a further discussion of these topics see also:
Marr, B. (2008) Impacting Future Value: How to Manage your Intellectual Capital, Management Accounting Guideline, jointly published by AICPA, CMA, CIMA
Marr, B. (2006) Strategic Performance Management: Leveraging and Measuring your Intangible Value Drivers, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Marr, B. (2005) Perspectives on Intellectual Capital: Multidisciplinary Insights into Management, Measurement and Reporting, Elsevier, Boston

For mini track submission details, see the call for papers page.

Bernard Marr

Practitioner mini track on IC Centres Across the Globe.
Track chair: Dr. Gordon McConnachie, Coordinator Global Association of IC Practitioners

In more and more countries organisations are set up to stimulate intellectual capital management.  Examples are The Arab Knowledge Economy Association, The developing China IC Support Network, CIP Gothenburg, The Hong Kong based Asia Pacific IC Centre, The IA Centre Scotland, The Indonesia IC Research Centre, InHolland University IC Research Centre, Lund University IC Centre, The Ministry of Economics Trade and Industry Japan, The Taiwan IC Research Centre, The Croatian IC Research Centre, The Finland Futures Research Centre, The IP Academy of Singapore, and The Syrian Economic Business Centre. These organisations are driven in some cases predominantly by the desire to create new knowledge and in others by the desire to apply knowledge and IC to foster economic development.

This track is a special track set up to facilitate learning between people from all over the world who are involved with IC Centres. The minitrack will act as a platform for all interested organisations to network and share experience in this new and developing field. Questions that will be addressed include:

§         What are the difficulties of setting up and maintaining IC Centres and how can these be overcome?

§         Is it useful to set up a community of practice (a real one, not only a virtual one) of people who work for IC Centres to exchange knowledge about how to run a successful IC Centre?

§         Should such a group act as an Association or Federation for IC practitioners?

§         If so, how could such a group work on global IC Curriculum development?

§         Should it start activities aimed at accreditation and or registration of IC practitioners?

§         Should the group get involved in the debate about standardisation of a number of practices, including the valuation of IC and the reporting of IC?

§         Can the group get involved in the gathering of experiences from all over the world in applying IC tools? There are many tools but there is hardly any evidence about their effectiveness.

To facilitate the learning process, participants are encouraged to write and present a short (5 page) case description about their own experiences with IC Centres. We encourage you to not only write a success story but to focus on the dilemmas and hurdles you have experienced and the solutions you have found (or have not found). We all know we learn most from our mistakes!

To submit a paper for this mini track, please read the submission details on the call for papers. Case descriptions will not be peer reviewed.

Gordon McConnachie

Mini track: Doctoral Consortium.
Track co-chairs: Don Ropes and Christiaan Stam, Centre for Research in Intellectual Capital, INHolland University of Applied Sciences, Haarlem, The Netherlands

The Doctoral Consortium is designed for full and part-time Ph.D. students in the field of intellectual capital or related subjects, at any stage of their studies. The accepted candidates for the Consortium will submit a written paper on his or her dissertation and give a brief presentation followed by a 10-15 minute feedback session.

The goals of the Consortium are to:

§         Help doctoral students with their research by providing advice on work in progress and direct feedback from peers, other researchers, and practitioners.

§         Facilitate networking events that will allow doctoral students to meet other students, academics, practitioners, journal editors, and potential recruiters.

§         Provide advice on writing a good dissertation.

The submission criteria for Doctoral Consortium papers are the same as for other academic papers. However, participants in the Doctoral Consortium are asked to submit papers related to his or her dissertation. This implies that papers can vary from PhD-proposals to abstracts of complete dissertations. Papers could include literature reviews, problem definitions, relevance issues, methodological issues, etc.

It is important to note that the aim of the Doctoral Consortium is to help Ph.D. students with their research. Therefore, we strongly recommend you to submit a paper related to a research topic which is still under construction! In order to focus the discussion about your paper it is strongly recommended to submit one or more questions you would like to address during your presentation.

For mini track submission details, see the call for papers page.

Christiaan Stam

Mini track on Intellectual Capital Strategies in Emerging Markets.
Track co-chairs: Dr. Marien van den Boom, INHolland University of Applied Sciences and Prof. Dr Rongbin W. B. Lee, Hong Kong Polytechnic University

In the knowledge era emerging economies (or countries in rapid transition like China, India and Brazil) seem to turn their specific historical background, contextual circumstances, and social-cultural values to account. E.g. India enhanced its service industry by utilizing its cultural emphasis on the value of abstract knowledge. Malaysia strengthened its position in the global knowledge economy through employment of its strong government-business synergies and partnerships.

In this mini track we invite papers that explore the specific knowledge strategies of emerging markets or economies in rapid transition. Papers could address one or more of the following issues:

§           the knowledge strategy of an emerging or rapidly changing country and the specific choices that are made at a national or regional level;

§           contextual, historical or social-cultural factors that may have determined these choices for a specific strategy;

§           contributions to our understanding of the process of value creation in the knowledge economy.

For mini track submission details, see the call for papers page.

Marien van den Boom


Rongbin W. B. Lee