Homepage Contact us Sitemap
INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP: DISTRUST AND CONFLICT ESCALATION IN ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIETIES


GRONINGEN, THE NETHERLANDS, JANUARY 11-12, 2016
HOSTED BY

CHAIRPERSONS

Katinka Bijlsma-Frankema
Emeritus professor of Organization Science at EIASM
and senior researcher Faculty of Economics and Business, department of HRM & OB University of Groningen, The Netherlands



Sim Sitkin
Professor of Management and Faculty Director, Center of Leadership and Ethics
Duke University, USA

KEYNOTE SPEAKERS

Nelson Repenning
School of Management Distinguished Professor of System Dynamics and Organization Studies, MIT Sloan School of Management, USA



Roy Lewicki
The Abramowitz Memorial Professor of Management and Human Resources Emeritus at the Max M Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University, USA

&

Jörg Sydow
Professor of Management, in particular inter-firm cooperation, School of  Business and Economics, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

In this international workshop we aim to further systematic study  of the antecedents and consequences of escalated distrust and conflicts between individuals and groups in organizations and societies. Scholarly attention to distrust and conflict escalation and the relation between them is warranted for two main reasons, their harmful effects and the scattered scholarly attention to these phenomena.

Distrust and conflicts, especially if escalated, are harmful phenomena in organizations and societies alike. Distrust, often typified as unwillingness to accept vulnerability to another person or group, and conflicts between persons or groups do have in common that they are prone to escalate. Escalation, moreover, tends to become a self -reinforcing processes, ending up in ‘frozen distrust’ relations and intractable conflicts, often highly resistant to change.

Within organizations, escalated conflicts within and between groups, may harm the functioning of the org as a whole, like in medical specialists –administrators conflicts in hospitals. Within societies, members of minority  and majority groups may become locked in in mutual conflict and distrust. Harmful effects of such negative relations include disbelief and distortion of information the others provide, stigmatization, paranoia, avoidance of interaction, lack of cooperation, hostile actions, and diminished performance.

Scholars from different fields have paid attention to these harmful  processes, but the insights gathered are mainly spread within the field in which they were developed. We believe that much can be gained by crossing borders  between different fields, in our case the fields of distrust studies, conflict escalation studies and studies using dynamic models. In each of these fields, for instance, dynamic mechanisms have been distinguished, which, when brought together, could function as building blocks for a more encompassing understanding of how distrust and conflict emerge, escalate, and relate. A more encompassing understanding can also function as a springboard for gaining understanding about how these phenomena can be managed and ameliorated.

Right now, there are few answers, and many issues to pursue. Conceptual issues, for instance, include the distinction between trust and distrust and between tractable and intractable conflicts. And: is distrust key to intractability? Regarding the processes, distinguishing different dynamic mechanisms at work and how these operate in relation to each other is a challenging issue. The matter of factors that trigger escalation, punctuated or not, is also worth pursuing. And, once triggered whether and how distrust and conflict-laden cognitions and behaviors spread from one individual to another. Moreover, a close examination of organizational and societal consequences of escalated distrust and conflicts is warranted. For instance, how is the performance of organizations or the innovative potential of teams affected by distrust? How do conflicts between groups influence the effectiveness of institutional arrangements like the educational  system or the labor market? And can we, based on  our understanding of escalation, theorize about how to de-escalate conflicts or reverse the self-reinforcing processes involved? And these are just a few questions to begin with!

AIM

The workshop aims to bring together scholars from the fields of distrust studies, conflict escalation studies and studies using dynamic models, to exchange insights about the different dynamic mechanisms at work and how their workings relate. We hope that at the workshop the exchange of theoretical ideas and research findings across the three fields will produce new exciting insights, new forms of collaboration and new publications.

To enable comparability of findings, scholars are welcome to use a distrust scale that was recently developed by Katinka Bijlsma-Frankema, Barbara Wisse and Sim Sitkin. By changing the referent, this scale can be used in different relations. Mail to k.m.bijlsma-frankema@rug.nl  or b.m.wisse@rug.nl  to acquire the scale.

Th submission deadline is over

TRACK I: DISTRUST AND CONFLICT ESCALATION

TRACK I:  DISTRUST AND CONFLICT ESCALATION
Steven C. Currall, University of California, Davis, USA

In this track, we seek research that explores the predictors and outcomes of distrust, and the predictors and outcomes of conflict escalation.  Because distrust and conflict escalation are also causally intertwined, we welcome research that examines the complex interplay of how distrust affects conflict escalation and how conflict escalation fosters distrust (and erodes trust).

We invite papers that explore research questions such as the following: How does increasing distrust impact the choice of negotiation and conflict resolution maneuvers and the choice of influence tactics?  Does increasing distrust lead to more extreme behaviors in negotiation and conflict resolution? For example, does distrust increase the likelihood of the use of lock-in tactics? If distrust can be diminished, does the resolution of conflict become more likely?  Do distrust and conflict escalation “co-evolve,” in that, the psychological dynamics of distrust change as conflict escalation changes, and vice versa?

For questions and further information: scc@ucdavis.edu

Authors intending to participate are requested to upload an 800-1000 word abstract by July 19, 2015. The abstract must include: Title of paper, name, academic affiliation and address of author(s), research questions, research methodology, and (preliminary) results, if available.
Deadline for uploading the final  papers of 6.000-10.000 words and 1,5 spacing is November 30, 2015.

If you want to submit to this track, please go to the “call for papers” section and upload your abstract electronically. Please do not forget to mention that it is submitted to this track, by using the scroll down menu you will see when submitting.

 

TRACK II: DYNAMIC MECHANISMS IN DISTRUST AND CONFLICT ESCALATION

TRACK II:  DYNAMIC MECHANISMS IN DISTRUST AND CONFLICT ESCALATION
Katinka Bijlsma-Frankema, University of Groningen, and Karen S. Cook, Stanford University, USA

It is commonly agreed that distrust and conflict escalation take the form of a self-reinforcing cycle. Yet we know little about the exact components of such a cycle, and how amplification of conflict and distrust is enhanced within the cycle. We contend that several dynamic mechanisms play a role in this amplification process. In the literatures on conflict escalation and the dynamics of distrust, several mechanisms are identified, but there is a failure to provide a thorough analysis of their nature, how they operate, and their correlates. Examples include overmatching in negative reciprocal actions (Gouldner, 1960; Youngs, 1986), negative attribution biases (Adams & John, 1997; Wu et al, 2014), pervasiveness (eg. the spreading of negative perceptions in one domain to other domains in the relationship, Sitkin & Roth, 1993; Sitkin & Stickel, 1996) and the intensification of negative attributions through within group convergence ( Labianca et al, 1998; Nelson, 1989), a mechanism specific to intergroup distrust. Recently, a study of intergroup distrust proposed that several of these mechanisms combine to produce a cycle of distrust escalation (Bijlsma-Frankema et al, in press : http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/orsc.2015.0977  ). There is, however, a pressing need for more studies that focus on the working of these and other dynamic mechanisms.

With this track we aim to further our understanding of the separate dynamic mechanisms that make up the cycle of distrust and conflict escalation. We invite theoretical and empirical papers that contribute to elucidating how these mechanisms, separately and jointly, lead to escalation of the conflict and perpetuate distrust.

For questions and further information: k.m.bijlsma-frankema@rug.nl

Authors intending to participate are requested to upload an 800-1000 word abstract by  July 19, 2015 The abstract must include: Title of paper, name, academic affiliation and address of author(s), research questions, research methodology, and (preliminary) results, if available.
Deadline for uploading the final  papers of 6.000-10.000 words and 1,5 spacing is November 30, 2015.

If you want to submit to this track, please go to the “call for papers” section and upload your abstract electronically. Please do not forget to mention that it is submitted to this track, by using the scroll down menu you will see when submitting.

TRACK III: INTERGROUP DISTRUST. EMERGENCE, ESCALATION AND DE-ESCALATION

TRACK III:  INTERGROUP DISTRUST. EMERGENCE, ESCALATION AND DE-ESCALATION
Susanne Täuber & Martijn van Zomeren, University of Groningen, the Netherlands

While trust in intergroup relations has received a lot of research attention, distrust is less widely studied. However, distrust has been recognized as a distinct concept from trust due to its unique antecedents (e.g., perceived value incongruence) and consequences (e.g., avoidance of interaction, lack of cooperation, and hostile actions). The main goal of this track is to provide an overview of state-of-the-art on distrust in intergroup relations and to develop an innovative and integrative research agenda based on this overview. To meet this goal we seek to bring together senior and junior scholars from different fields (e.g., marketing, social and organizational psychology, communication science, political sciences). Specifically, this track aims to bring together scholars who study the role of distrust in relation to how incidental, structural, and even intractable conflicts emerge, escalate, and de-escalate. We particularly invite contributions that focus on  antecedents and consequences of distrust in intergroup relations (e.g., in terms of communication and group history), the spreading of distrust within and between social groups (e.g., through gossiping or group-based emotions),  exit strategies in escalation-prone conflicts (e.g., the impact of group representatives and leaders), and de-escalation strategies in situations of fully developed intergroup distrust.

The type of groups is conceptualized broadly: We are looking for conflict dynamics in nations, minority-majority groups, and organizations (e.g., during mergers). Both theoretical and empirical contributions are welcome.

For questions and further information: s.tauber@rug.nl

Authors intending to participate are requested to upload an 800-1000 word abstract by  July 19, 2015. The abstract must include: Title of paper, name, academic affiliation and address of author(s), research questions, research methodology, and (preliminary) results, if available.
Deadline for uploading the final  papers of 6.000-10.000 words and 1,5 spacing is November 30, 2015.

If you want to submit to this track, please go to the “call for papers” section and upload your abstract electronically. Please do not forget to mention that it is submitted to this track, by using the scroll down menu you will see when submitting.

 

TRACK IV: A NETWORK PERSPECTIVE ON CONFLICT AND DISTRUST

TRACK IV:  A NETWORK PERSPECTIVE ON CONFLICT AND DISTRUST
Filip Agneessens, University of Surrey, UK, and Giuseppe (Joe) Labianca, University of Kentucky, USA

Every social entity has associative forces that draw together members, but also dissociative forces that create conflict and distrust, and that drive apart individuals (Simmel, 1908; 1955; Labianca, 2014). While much of the research on conflict and distrust is conducted on a dyadic level, these relationships often occur within a broader social structure, with interested third parties affecting conflicts and how much trust is invested in others (e.g., Marineau, Brass, Borgatti & Vecchi, 2012; Marineau, Kane, & Labianca, 2014). Increasingly, researchers are studying the context in which these relationships are embedded from a network perspective to better understand such questions as where conflict or distrust is most likely to erupt (Chua, Ingram, & Morris, 2008), where it is more likely to be resolved, where it is more likely to spread and escalate (Smith, 1989), as well as its effects on individuals and bystanders (Venkataramani, Labianca, & Grosser, 2014). They are doing this within a growing variety of settings, including education (e.g., Huitsing, et al., 2012), online (e.g., Szell & Thurner, 2010), international relations (e.g., Smith, Lopez-Kidwell, Halgin, Labianca, Brass, & Borgatti, 2014), and business organizations (e.g., Sherf & Venkataramani, forthcoming).

This track invites submissions employing a network perspective on conflict and distrust across any level of inquiry, including individuals, groups, organizations, industries, and nations. Preference will be given to studies focusing on dynamic network approaches (e.g., Doreian & Krackhardt, 2001; Agneessens & Wittek, 2008; Sasovova, Mehra, Borgatti, & Schippers, 2010; Berger & Dijkstra, 2013), though other under-represented cross-sectional research (e.g., cognitive social structure research on conflict and distrust) is also encouraged.

For questions and further information: f.agneessens@surrey.ac.uk

Authors intending to participate are requested to upload an 800-1000 word abstract by  July 19, 2015. The abstract must include: Title of paper, name, academic affiliation and address of author(s), research questions, research methodology, and (preliminary) results, if available.
Deadline for uploading the final  papers of 6.000-10.000 words and 1,5 spacing is November 30, 2015.

If you want to submit to this track, please go to the “call for papers” section and upload your abstract electronically. Please do not forget to mention that it is submitted to this track, by using the scroll down menu you will see when submitting.

TRACK V: DISTRUST IN HIERARCHICAL RELATIONS

TRACK V:  DISTRUST IN HIERARCHICAL RELATIONS
Barbara Wisse, University of Groningen, the Netherlands, and Sim Sitkin, Duke University, USA

Trust is widely recognized as having important positive organizational consequences, and a large volume of work has examined trust at the interpersonal, group, and organizational level. Distrust, as a distinct concept has attracted less attention in the field of organization studies. Scholars have yet to define distrust’s core constructs or causal dynamics, even though the available studies of distrust have identified a variety of consequences, such as a lack of cooperation (Cho, 2006; Sitkin & Stickel, 1996), information distortion and disbelief (Kramer, 1994), hostility towards distrusted others (Chambers & Melnyk, 2006), or intractable conflicts (Fiol et al, 2009; Tomlinson & Lewicki, 2006). Yet, despite the recognition of these ill effects, little is understood about how organizations can identify distrust and it’s antecedents in intra-organizational relations. Especially distrust in hierarchical relations can be expected to produce employee behaviors that are detrimental to the organization and harm it’s performance. And in times of organizational restructuring and change, these effects may be especially pronounced.

In this track we concentrate on distrust in hierarchical relations. We invite papers that focus on the antecedents that trigger distrust in relations between supervisors and subordinates, supervisors and teams, or relations between organizational members and senior management; on the dynamic, self-reinforcing nature of distrust in hierarchical relations; and on consequences for the organization and for the members involved in distrustful vertical relations.

A distrust scale, developed by Bijlsma-Frankema, Wisse and Sitkin, to measure employee distrust in supervisors and supervisor’s distrust in subordinates, can be obtained by mailing to: b.m.wisse@rug.nl

Authors intending to participate are requested to upload an 800-1000 word abstract by  July 19, 2015. The abstract must include: Title of paper, name, academic affiliation and address of author(s), research questions, research methodology, and (preliminary) results, if available.
Deadline for uploading the final  papers of 6.000-10.000 words and 1,5 spacing is November 30, 2015.

If you want to submit to this track, please go to the “call for papers” section and upload your abstract electronically. Please do not forget to mention that it is submitted to this track, by using the scroll down menu you will see when submitting.

 

TRACK VI: THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL CONTROL AND DISTRUST

TRACK VI :THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL CONTROL AND DISTRUST
Fabrice Lumineau, Purdue University, USA & Bart de Jong, VU University Amsterdam

After decades of scholarly focus on trust, organizational scholars are starting to take an increased interest in the concept of distrust, not only in relation to trust (Lumineau, forthcoming), but also as a variable of interest in its own right (Bijlsma-Frankema, Sitkin, & Weibel, in press). While this growing scholarly interest is encouraging, many questions and issues surrounding distrust remain poorly understood, and more research is therefore sorely needed.

One of the key issues pertains to the interplay between distrust and organizational control, where the latter is broadly defined and encompasses a wide variety of formal and informal mechanisms (Cardinal, Sitkin, & Long, 2010; De Jong, Bijlsma-Frankema, & Cardinal, 2014). By focusing on organizational control and distrust, this track explicitly positions itself at the intersection between the emerging stream of research on distrust and the more established body of research on the relation between trust and control (Bachmann, Knights, & Sydow, 2001; Bijlsma-Frankema & Costa, 2005; Cao & Lumineau, 2015; Malhotra & Lumineau, 2011). As recent research suggests (Lumineau, forthcoming), such an approach possesses great potential for cross-pollination, whereby research on distrust is advanced by drawing on insights on trust and control, and research on trust and control is reinvigorated by emerging insights on distrust.

We invite papers that are aimed to enhance our understanding of the relationship between control and distrust. In the interest of being inclusive and maximizing the variety of scholarly contributions, we welcome theoretical as well as empirical contributions, both qualitative and quantitative empirical approaches. Papers may focus on any manifestation of control, any referent of distrust, any level of analysis, and on control and distrust either within or between organizations. Control may occupy any role in relation to distrust (i.e., antecedent, consequence, mediator, moderator). Finally, control and distrust may either be studied statically or dynamically. Topics and research questions addressed by these papers may include (but are not limited to): Which types of control trigger self-reinforcing cycles of distrust? How does control relate to the beneficial and/or detrimental outcomes of distrust? How does the interplay between control and distrust foster the emergence and escalation of conflict? How does distrust influence managerial choices of types and levels of organizational control?

For questions and further information: lumineau@purdue.edu

Authors intending to participate are requested to upload an 800-1000 word abstract by  July 19, 2015. The abstract must include: Title of paper, name, academic affiliation and address of author(s), research questions, research methodology, and (preliminary) results, if available.
Deadline for uploading the final  papers of 6.000-10.000 words and 1,5 spacing is November 30, 2015.

If you want to submit to this track, please go to the “call for papers” section and upload your abstract electronically. Please do not forget to mention that it is submitted to this track, by using the scroll down menu you will see when submitting.

TRACK VII: INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF DISTRUST

TRACK VII:  INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF DISTRUST
Guido Möllering, Jacobs University Bremen, Germany

This track addresses the question of how distrust may become institutionalized and how its institutionalization is maintained and possibly challenged. Institutionalization of distrust means that distrusting emerges as a taken-for-granted norm within and between social systems or fields (e.g. group, organization, society). Such a norm may be formal or informal, intentionally or unintentionally created. Its degree of institutionalization is marked by the fact that it is no longer questioned and the norm of distrust is passed on via socialization to new members so that it no longer depends on specific individuals. In this track a distinction is made between  institutionalization as a state (How strongly is distrust institutionalized?) and as a process (How does the institutionalization of distrust happen; how is it maintained or disrupted?).  We are interested in questions such as: Why is distrust institutionalized in some systems and fields but not in others? Under which conditions is the institutionalization of distrust desirable or undesirable? What is the role of actors and networks in creating, maintaining or disrupting institutionalized distrust? What is the difference between in-group distrust and out-group distrust and how are they connected? How can we explain persistent dysfunctional distrust? What are the long-term effects of (short-term) measures that seek to repair trust by means of distrust, e.g. tightening controls, increasing transparency? This track is open to any dynamic perspective on distrust, above and beyond dyadic relationships, that addresses one or more of these research questions.

For questions and further information: g.moellering@jacobs-university.de

Authors intending to participate are requested to upload an 800-1000 word abstract by  July 19, 2015. The abstract must include: Title of paper, name, academic affiliation and address of author(s), research questions, research methodology, and (preliminary) results, if available.
Deadline for uploading the final  papers of 6.000-10.000 words and 1,5 spacing is November 30, 2015.

If you want to submit to this track, please go to the “call for papers” section and upload your abstract electronically. Please do not forget to mention that it is submitted to this track, by using the scroll down menu you will see when submitting.

TRACK VIII: THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN WITHIN GROUP DIVERSITY AND DISTRUST

TRACK VIII: THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN WITHIN GROUP DIVERSITY AND DISTRUST
Michelle Bligh, NEOMA Business School, Paris, France

This track is intended  to further explore the (dynamic) interplay between diversity within teams and distrust between team members ( including the team manager).  Dissenting opinions and divergent viewpoints on matters relevant to teams, which are often perceived as signals of work value diversity, may promote team learning, and thus contribute to the team’s performance, but not in all circumstances (Hoever et al, 2011). Several studies on the relation between work value diversity and  team performance show negative results (Jehn, et al. 1999; Van Knippenberg et al, 2004). And while cross-cultural teams are expected to harbor dissent, studies demonstrated that multinational teams in large corporations engaged in less knowledge sharing, team learning and innovativeness than single nationality teams (Cummings, 2004; Gibson & Gibbs, 2006; Zellmer-Bruhn & Gibson, 2006). As soon as other team members are categorized as fostering different values, harmful effects such as inter-group biases and threatened psychological safety may constrain the level of cooperation the team needs to perform well. These negative results are in accord with insights from distrust studies, that value incongruence perceptions which promote feelings of vulnerability, will trigger distrust if a threshold is surpassed. Once distrust is engendered, cooperation is strongly diminished (Bijlsma-Frankema et al, in press).

Scholars have tried to clarify conditions that moderate the relation between diversity and team learning and performance and found team interdependence (Schippers, 2003), team identification (Van der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005) , intra team trust (Rosendaal & Bijlsma-Frankema, 2013), diversity leadership (Hopkins & Hopkins, 1998), cultural tightness-looseness (Gefand et al., 2006) and positive communication climate (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006). These results do suggest that a certain degree of bonding relations, or shared identity, may undo the potential harmful effects of value incongruence interpretations that engender distrust, but this suggestion has not been put to systematic inquiry so far.

In this track we invite papers that address  the matter of how harmful effects to team learning and performance, produced by diversity through triggering distrust, relate to the positive effects that trust or team identification can exert on team learning by bridging diverse insights, work values or cultural backgrounds. Studies using a dynamic approach are especially valued. Topic addressed may include, but are not limited to: which characteristics of diversity are key to triggering distrust and distrust escalation? Which context factors play a part in the escalation  process? Are diversity perceptions also escalating as distrust escalates? Which elements of trust are key to bridging diversity within groups? Is there an optimal degree of diversity beyond which trust loses its binding function?

For questions and further information: michelle.bligh@neoma-bs.fr

Authors intending to participate are requested to upload an 800-1000 word abstract by  July 19, 2015. The abstract must include: Title of paper, name, academic affiliation and address of author(s), research questions, research methodology, and (preliminary) results, if available.
Deadline for uploading the final  papers of 6.000-10.000 words and 1,5 spacing is November 30, 2015.

If you want to submit to this track, please go to the “call for papers” section and upload your abstract electronically. Please do not forget to mention that it is submitted to this track, by using the scroll down menu you will see when submitting.

WORKSHOP PROGRAMME

Please click HERE to download the workshop programme.

ABOUT GRONINGEN AND THE UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN

Education

Top-quality education

The University provides top-quality education. Groningen offers a varied range of interesting, highly regarded degree programmes. As a student you will receive high-quality supervision and have many options to choose from.
More on the quality of education at Groningen University

Research

Top-notch research

In terms of research, Groningen is among the top universities in Europe. The University carries out ground-breaking and socially relevant research, and builds bridges between disciplines. As a student, you will be involved in this research.
More on research at Groningen University

A nice day in the city center

Vibrant student life

Groningen is a vibrant student city. Its population has the lowest average age in the Netherlands; one in six inhabitants is a student. Students can be seen everywhere: studying in the Noorderplantsoen park, enjoying the nightlife, and at work in various part-time jobs.
More on the vibrant student life in Groningen

The good life

A nice place to live

Groningen is a pleasant and safe place to live. With a population of 190,000 it is truly a city; lively, convivial and offering everything you need. At the same time, Groningen has the ambience of a village where you'll soon bump into someone you know. When you want to escape the hustle and bustle, the peace and quiet of the vast countryside is just a stone’s throw away.
More on the province of Groningen

The academy building

Rich historical heritage

The University of Groningen has a rich history and an excellent reputation. Many prominent Dutch people have studied at Groningen, including Bernard and Maurits van Vollenhoven (Princes of Orange-Nassau), Epke Zonderland (the ‘Flying Dutchman’) and television journalist Eelco Bosch van Rosenthal.
More information about the history of Groningen

Culture

A city of culture

Groningen has a great deal to offer in terms of cultural activities. The city hosts unique festivals, including Eurosonic Noorderslag. There are many museums, such as the Groninger Museum with its fine contemporary exhibitions. The many theatres, cinemas and performance venues cater for all tastes.
More on the festivals in Groningen

Facilities

PRACTICALITIES

JOINING INSTRUCTIONS

If you are coming in from Belgium, Germany or the Netherlands you can consider coming by train. The German Railways (www.db.de ) provide excellent coverage of your options and the ability to procure tickets online. If you book ahead, the train ride can be very affordable. Similarly, the Belgian (www.b-rail.be ) and Dutch (www.ns.nl ) railways provide coverage of your options, although pricing is flat.

If you are coming in from elsewhere, your best option is to come in by airplane and fly either to Schiphol, Bremen or even the Hammlet airport in Groningen. While Schiphol and Bremen are well connected, Groningen airport only carries flights to selected destinations. From Schiphol there is a direct connection by intercity to Groningen Central station, which takes two hours. From Bremen there is a bus a number of times a day (www.publicexpress.net ) and there is a train (www.db.de).

From Groningen Hamlet airport there is a bus.

The workshop venue is in the centre of Groningen and , like many hotels, on walking distance from the central station.

LOCATION,

The Workshop will take place at "het Kasteel"
Melkweg 1, 9718 EP Groningen
The Netherlands

See some pictures on :
https://www.google.be/maps/uv?hl=fr&pb=!1s0x47c9cd4932766115:0x84e74cd57cc4d101!2m5!2m2!1i80!2i80!3m1!2i100!3m1!7e1!4shttps://picasaweb.google.com/lh/sredir?uname%3D101845239346703774106%26id%3D5886302932214648530%26target%3DPHOTO!5shet+kasteel+groningen+-+Recherche+Google&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0CLwBEKIqMApqFQoTCIzr9aaRoccCFYe3FAodX2IE-A

ACCOMMODATION

We advise you to book your room via www.booking.com

If you are looking for budget accommodation you can consider some of the hostel options in Groningen such as the Bud Gett Hostel or the Simplon Hostel.


MAP OF THE CITY

Please click HERE to see the map of the city.
You will find a number of hotels suggestions.  
Note that all the hotels are at walking distance to the workshop location "het Kasteel"

FEE

The fees include participation to the workshop, documents, USB Key containing the workshop papers, lunches and morning and afternoon refreshments.

   
For participants affiliated with an institution that is member or associate member of the EIASM's
Academic Council
284 € (Exclusive of VAT)
For participants coming from another academic institution 350 € (Exclusive of VAT)

Cancellations made before December 16, 2015 will be reimbursed minus 20% of the total fee. No reimbursement will be possible after that date.

Payments should be made by :

  • The following credit cards: Visa or Eurocard/Mastercard/Access

DOWNLOAD LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

DOWNLOAD ACCEPTED PAPERS

ADMINISTRATION

Ms. Graziella Michelante - EIASM Conference Manager
EIASM - PLACE DE BROUCK√ąRE-PLEIN - 31 - 1000 BRUSSELS - BELGIUM
Tel: +32 2 226 66 62 - Fax: +32 2 512 19 29
Email: michelante@eiasm.be