Call for Papers: Multimodality in project studies: integrating discourses, visuals, and materiality

Project studies, defined as “an integrating label for the family of studies in, on and around projects” (Geraldi and Söderlund, 2018, p. 57), have revitalized our research community over the past decade by exhorting scholars to move beyond the classical paradigm rooted in “structured, mechanistic, top-down, system-model-based approaches” and “engineering-focused traditional system-based research” (Blomquist et al., 2010, p. 6). Characterized by inclusivity and cross-fertilization, project studies have led to the increasing appreciation of the socially constructed nature of project governance (Song et al., 2022) including building project capabilities for digital delivery (Lobo and Whyte, 2017), crises (Daood et al., 2024), legitimacy (Song et al., 2025), contracts (Clegg, 2025), the role of social media in influencing decision making (Lobo and Abid, 2020), narratives (Ninan et al., 2025), sensemaking (van Marrewijk et al., 2016), and even projects themselves (Floricel and Brunet, 2023), which transcend the metaphors of traditional project management research grounded in a unitary and objectivist view of the world where the strict, sequential, and linear application of processes in each stage of the project life cycle is assumed to lead to a successful project outcome (Clegg and Biygautane, 2025; Clegg et al., 2017). In this sense, narrative, rhetoric, discourses, and texts are not only reflections of inner thoughts but are also potentially formative of institutional reality (Cornelissen et al., 2015). While this socially constructed ontology has significantly extended our understanding (Locatelli et al., 2023), it inevitably creates a strong reliance on cognition and language while overshadowing the non-discursive practices and multimodal ensembles in projects (Phillips and Oswick, 2012; Song and Song, 2025).

To be clear, we distinguish “multimodality” from its usage in logistics or transportation (Algaba et al., 2019), where it refers to the integration of diverse ways of transporting goods. Within project studies, and following its roots in management and organization research, we define multimodality as both a social semiotic phenomenon “that all communication integrates a range of meaning-making resources, that is, images, words, sound, etc.” (Höllerer et al., 2019, p. 24), and a practice-based perspective of “situated constellations of parts of practices through which actors accomplish strategy as a social activity” (Knight and Wenzel, 2025, p. 730).

Given that projects unfold and are grounded in a material world (Clegg, 2025) replete with visual representations (e.g. photos, blueprints, software simulation illustrations, Ninan et al., 2020), physical artifacts (e.g. models, cellphones, laptops, Whyte et al., 2022), and the visceral presence of project staff (Song and Song, 2025), focusing exclusively on the verbal while overlooking the role of non-discursive dimensions will relegate the vigorous landscape of project life to an abstract and unidimensional description. Put differently, a language-dominant lens is practically inadequate for practitioners who strive to articulate sensory experiences that are often intangible and difficult to render in words alone. Simultaneously, it is analytically partial for scholars seeking to understand how discursive, visual, and embodied practices coexist and intertwine (Ewenstein and Whyte, 2009). For instance, as Toraldo et al. (2026) note in their introductory vignette, “I realized that another challenge was that I could not fully comprehend and grasp the designer’s embodied knowledge and his aesthetic experiences; it seemed that my scientific language was insufficient to fully understand and appreciate his creative sensibility […] Certainly, my research notes were not doing justice to the complexity of my visual impressions as well as the multiple layers of material and spatial perceptions during the experience”.

Against this background, a few scholars in general management have illustrated the indispensable role of multimodality in constituting project realities (Orlikowski and Scott, 2008), showing how drawings, slides, and sketches, serve as boundary objects that can either galvanize collective decision-making (Garreau et al., 2015) or, conversely, derail collaboration among project partners (Zuzul, 2019). Regrettably, multimodality has received surprisingly short shrift from the existing literature in project management. While adhering to formulaic genres and a language-centric ontology ensures commensurability and intellectual security (Daft and Lewin, 1990), these approaches are less helpful for breaking out of the epistemological “straitjacket” of traditional project management research (Geraldi et al., 2025). More importantly, multimodality represents a fertile ground for phenomenon-based (Fisher et al., 2021) and emancipatory styles of inquiry (Toraldo et al., 2026; Comi et al., 2025). This aligns well with the original ethos of project studies: a commitment to deeply engaging with practitioners' actualities, questioning established edifices of knowledge, and producing insights that are both reflexive and pragmatic (Geraldi et al., 2021; Geraldi and Söderlund, 2018).

The advent of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, coupled with the rapid proliferation of digital communication and frontier technologies (Ninan et al., 2026; Sergeeva and Ninan, 2025; Lobo and Abid, 2020), such as artificial intelligence (AI), virtual reality (VR), algorithms, and robotic tools, has not only catalyzed a growing volume of visual and embodied data (Langley et al., 2023), but also created profound possibilities for enhancing project activities and reshaping the everyday work of project staff. As Goldenstein et al. (2026, p. 8) noted, these advances have woven a “vast, complex web of virtual linkages and activities across people, organizations, societies, and even AI agents”. Recent insights have foregrounded the significance of capturing both verbal and nonverbal modalities within such a web, as they are omnipresent and jointly shape intraorganizational and interorganizational dynamics, unfolding during emergencies, collaboration, and sensemaking among various stakeholders (Luo et al., 2024). For instance, Whyte and Eshraghi (2025) highlight the emerging use of computer vision to understand progress on project sites, as well as the use of AI to synthesize data for planning major sporting events. In these cases, project sensemaking is driven by the algorithmic interpretation of discursive, visual, and spatial information.

This special issue aims to shift multimodality from the periphery to the forefront of project studies. In doing so, it promises not only to introduce novel topics and methods but also to fundamentally reconceptualize the ontological assumptions that underpin the field.

With this special issue, we aim to advance the understanding of multimodality in project studies and contribute to a more holistic depiction of project activities. Our call for papers seeks not only to explore of previously under-appreciated non-discursive resources in projects but also to examine the interconnections among multiple modes, the affordances at play for each mode (Orlikowski and Scott, 2008), their different uses by diverse stakeholders, and how all these drive the evolution of project phenomena.

While multimodality has been underexplored in project studies, here we want to provide three basic approaches for scholars to better engage with this issue.

Scholars in this approach treat multimodality as an integration of distinct modes with unique and separable affordances. Within this perspective, the hierarchy or dominance of specific modes and the complexity of intermodal intertwinement serve as key analytical variables (Kuric and Höllerer, 2026). This view treats multimodal resources as strategic assets, resources, or symbols that researchers can map, categorize, and measure. For example, Song et al. (2025) identify five verbal strategies, three visual strategies, and two intermodal associations employed by the State Power Investment Corporation Limited in China to maintain the legitimacy of its nuclear power and solar energy projects during industry crises. In another example, Clegg et al. (2002) show how project alliances rely on artifacts such as planning documents, spatial representations, performance metrics, and visual mapping tools that interact to shape participants' understanding of responsibilities and risks.

Thus, scholars may explore:

1. How do visual, material, olfactory, or other sensory elements and resources shape project management and project governance? What affordances are at play?

2. How do discursive and non-discursive elements interact with one another and jointly contribute to project management?

3. How do different stakeholders employ these elements to influence decision making, build project capabilities and include largely invisible voices of environmental stakeholders, for instance?

Compared to project studies on multimodality, scholars in this approach adopt stronger ontologies that treat modes as highly intertwined components, such as the practice ontology (e.g. Schatzki, 2002). In this perspective, multimodal practices are constitutive fabrics of project life. This implies that project organizing is not merely supported by different modes but is enacted through a multimodal ensemble where meaning and action are inseparable from the specific modes that carry them (Song and Song, 2025). For instance, Burger et al. (2019) adopt social practice theory to examine how materials, skills, and meanings are inextricably linked during early-stage project workshops. By analyzing video recordings of micro episodes, they illustrate that the workshop is a multimodal ensemble where the physical and the discursive are woven together to constitute the actual practice of project organizing.

In addition, scholars may also embrace more radical relational ontologies toward multimodality, such as the stances from science and technology studies (STS) (e.g. Latour, 1993) or sociomateriality (e.g. Orlikowski and Scott, 2008). The former indicates distributed cognition across humans and nonhumans, while the latter refers to the interwoven and indistinguishable relationship between humans and technology. In particular, Geraldi et al. (2021) note that while sociomateriality helps to challenge Cartesian dualistic thinking, it is often discussed at a philosophical level and is rarely operationalized in empirical studies. In contrast, engineers tend to grant equal credit to the roles of the material, technology, and the physical environment in their own right. Scholars in project studies will benefit from learning from this engineering engagement with materiality.

Thus, we welcome contributions from different disciplines with various ontological assumptions.

Potential research may explore:

1. How are power relations enacted and stabilized through the interplay of discourse, bodies, technologies, and material artifacts in project work?

2. How does the multimodal constitution of project organizing shape temporal experiences such as urgency, delay, rhythm, sequencing, and anticipation?

3. How are spatial arrangements, physical settings, and digital environments implicated in the accomplishment of coordination and control in projects?

4. How do multimodal practices constitute professional identities, group belonging, and role boundaries within project organizations?

5. How are multimodal practices reconfigured during moments of disruption, conflict, or transition in projects?

Scholars in this approach treat multimodality as a way to “better grasp, analyze, and theorize our observations” (Toraldo et al., 2026). This orientation implies at least two promising avenues for extending our analytical reach.

First, project studies through multimodality involves a methodological extension rooted in the collection and analysis of data such as videos, images, voices, gestures, smells, sensory reactions, and emotions (Langley et al., 2023; Burger et al., 2019). Within this context, computational methodologies including natural language processing, digital image processing, large language models, and transformer models based on neural networks serve as practical techniques to process multimodal data at scale (Goldenstein et al., 2026).

In addition, scholars can explore how multimodal genres, formats, and contents can be employed to compose the manuscript itself (Toraldo et al., 2026). As “a picture is worth a thousand words” (Höllerer et al., 2018, p. 617), a video is worth ten thousand, and a model like a digital twin captures reality – these formats can transcend the logocentric expression when translating complex ideas into scholarly forms. A compelling example is provided by Lehtonen and Putkonen (2023), who utilize three graphic novels to craft their paper and communicate their findings.

Potential research may explore.

1. How can researchers use video ethnography or sensory mapping to capture the unspoken and embodied dynamics of project work that traditional interviews might miss?

2. In what ways can computational tools like computer vision or automated sentiment analysis of voice recordings enhance our understanding of stakeholder engagement during major project disruptions?

3. How does the use of nontraditional formats, such as visual essays or graphic narratives, change the way practitioners and scholars conduct project studies?

4. How can researchers capture and analyze highly personal multimodal data, such as facial expressions or emotional biometrics, within project organizations?