JMH Special Issue on Entrepreneurship Thought and Behavior

Announcement of Special Issue in the Journal of Management History:

Entrepreneurship Thought and Behavior: Reflecting Back and Pushing Forward.

Timelines: 

  • Submissions open: August 2021
  • Submission deadline: 1st December 2021 
  • Revisions (expected): February/March 2022 
  • Final decisions (expected): May 2022 
  • Expected publication issue: Vol. 28 No. 4 in 2022 

Entrepreneurship has a long, and in many cases untold, history. Its discovery from the Irish French economist Richard Cantillon as a risk bearer was written around 1730, and ever since, entrepreneurship and the entrepreneur have remained important components of numerous economic and management theories. The entrepreneur plays a key role in the writings of Jean-Baptist Say, John Stuart Mill, Joseph Schumpeter, Frank Knight, and Friedrich Hayek, yet little historical work explores this in more depth. Moreover, while the Journal of Management History has published numerous articles exploring historical facets of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship over the years (cf., Murphy et al., 2006; Murphy, 2009; Smothers et al., 2014; Prieto and Phipps, 2014; Laudone et al., 2015; Prieto et al., 2017), to date no journal has featured entrepreneurship (broadly defined) as a topic of historical study.

Accordingly, this special issue of the Journal of Management History aims to stimulate research relating to entrepreneurship, entrepreneurs, and the historical foundations, assumptions, and roots of entrepreneurship theory and behavior. Themes may include, but are not limited to:

  1. The history and evolution of entrepreneurial thought and behavior
  2. Historical case analyses of entrepreneurs, their journeys, and their impact and influence
  3. Role and development of entrepreneurial ecosystems over time
  4. Evolution of entrepreneurship-relevant theories, their foundational assumptions and tenants, and how they have evolved over time (e.g., Bendickson et al., 2016)
  5. Emergence and history of research streams within entrepreneurship (social entrepreneurship, gender and entrepreneurship, corporate entrepreneurship, technology entrepreneurship, etc.)
  6. Historical foundations and evolution of entrepreneurial policy over time
  7. Mass proliferation of entrepreneurial support organizations (ESOs), their evolution, and impact
  8. Integration and widespread proliferation of entrepreneurship into education over time
  9. Historical role of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship in addressing the world’s biggest challenges (cf., United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, National Academy of Engineering Grand Challenges)

An intended outcome of this issue is to publish work that is relevant and capable of informing future entrepreneurship research and practice. Authors are encouraged to not just explore topics that are historically interesting, but also capable of having contemporary impact and meaningfulness. Accordingly, scholarship that is purely retrospective and offers little to no implications for contemporary entrepreneurship research and practice is likely not a great fit for the issue.

Given the intentionally wide range of topics that fit within this call for papers, and the special attention the editorial team is putting on the ability of accepted papers to inform contemporary theory and practice, prospective authors are encouraged to reach out to the lead special issue editor, Jeff Muldoon (jmuldoon@emporia.edu), with any queries they may have relating to topical fit and alignment (extended abstracts are welcome for review and feedback).

References:

Bendickson, J., Muldoon, J., Liguori, E. W., & Davis, P. E. (2016). Agency theory: background and epistemology. Journal of Management History, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 437-449.

Murphy, P.J., Liao, J. and Welsch, H.P. (2006), “A conceptual history of entrepreneurial thought”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 12-35.

Murphy, P.J. (2009), “Entrepreneurship theory and the poverty of historicism”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 109-133.

Smothers, J., J. Murphy, P., M. Novicevic, M. and H. Humphreys, J. (2014), “Institutional entrepreneurship as emancipating institutional work: James Meredith and the Integrationist Movement at Ole Miss”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 114-134.

Prieto, L.C. and T.A. Phipps, S. (2014), “Capitalism in question: Hill, Addams and Follett as early social entrepreneurship advocates”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 266-277

Laudone, R., Liguori, E.W., Muldoon, J. and Bendickson, J. (2015), “Technology brokering in action: revolutionizing the skiing and tennis industries”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 114-134.

Prieto, L.C., Phipps, S.T.A., Osiri, J.K. and LeCounte, J.F. (2017), “Creating an interface: Aiding entrepreneurial success via critical pedagogy and insights from African-American management history”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 489-506.

CfP SI Occupations and Memory in OS (JMS)

Call for Papers for a Special Issue

OCCUPATIONS AND MEMORY IN ORGANIZATION STUDIES

Submission Deadline: 30 November 2022

Guest Editors

  • Diego M. Coraiola, University of Victoria
  • Sébastien Mena, Hertie School
  • Mairi Maclean, University of Bath
  • Roy Suddaby, University of Victoria & Washington State University

JMS Editor

  • Daniel Muzio, University of York

Background

There is an intrinsic and enduring connection between occupations and memory. In the age before printing, mnemotechnics, or the “art of memory”, was a critical criterion of elite occupations in ancient Egyptian, Greek and Roman societies (Yates, 1966). The medieval guilds and craft apprenticeships, similarly, adapted techniques of memory handed down from the ancients as a discipline for training experts in religion, art, literature, and architecture (Kieser, 1989). Modernity and the expansion of bureaucracy have changed our relationship to the past (Koselleck, 1985). The development of a bureaucratic culture grounded on written records and the rise of historical memory has led to the development of new occupations and the reconfiguration of social remembering into ‘culturally institutionalized heritage’ (Assmann, 1995). As a result, the role of experts and institutions in preserving, organizing, and curating the past has changed profoundly in the modern era (Levine, 1986). The change is perhaps most pronounced for those experts charged with managing social and organizational memories in support of national policies (Anderson, 1983). More recently, the advent of analog and digital technologies for recording the past and the mediatization of society has introduced yet more changes to our relationship to the past and a new host of experts and practices of remembering and forgetting (Garde-Hansen, 2011). As this brief exploration suggests, expert work is both the outcome of and the source of collective memory work. In spite of the relevance of this recursive relationship, the intersection between occupations and memory is still under-studied and not well understood within management and organization studies.

Research on Occupations and Professions in Organizations (OPO) is a vivid area of scholarly activity that encompasses the study of professions, occupations, careers, and expert work (Anteby, Chan, & DiBenigno, 2016). In addition to more traditional functionalist and conflict-based approaches, organization scholars have recently developed an institutional approach that focuses on the parallel processes of professionalization and institutionalization (Muzio, Brock, & Suddaby, 2013; Suddaby & Viale, 2011). One of the advantages of studying occupations in connection to institutions is that it allows us to understand how they coevolve over time. This is relevant because “professional institutions are often unintelligible without reference to their historical development” (Burrage, 1990, p.18). However, the literature on OPO has not yet seriously grappled with the mnemonic component implicit in that formulation. In particular, OPO research has been little affected by the increasing attention to history and memory in organization studies (Clark & Rowlinson, 2004; Foroughi, Coraiola, Rintamäki, Mena, & Foster, 2020). Although historical research on professions and occupations has been on the rise (Burrage & Torstendahl, 1990), the focus has been on using historical methods to produce ‘history to theory’ (Kipping & Üsdiken, 2014). OPO scholars have generally ignored incorporation of memory, time, and history in theory. A better understanding of the role of the past and the place of memory in the development of expert work may contribute to the development of OPO theorizing.

The rise of Organizational Memory Studies (OMS) is associated with a renewed interest in memory in management and organization studies fostered by a realization that the past is not a given but is instead a social construction (Rowlinson, Booth, Clark, Delahaye, & Procter, 2010; Suddaby, Foster, & Trank, 2010). The past can be used to achieve organizational goals and generate competitive advantage (Foster, Coraiola, Suddaby, Kroezen, & Chandler, 2017; Maclean, Harvey, Sillince, & Golant, 2014; Suddaby, Coraiola, Harvey, & Foster, 2020). Indeed, empirical research has been largely based on single case studies and focused on the way top managers strategically use the past (e.g., Anteby & Molnár, 2012; Maclean, Harvey, Sillince, & Golant, 2018; Schultz & Hernes, 2013; Sinha, Jaskiewicz, Gibb, & Combs, 2020). This has limited the focus of studies to an organizational level of analysis, obscuring the connection between organizational memory and social institutions (Coraiola, Suddaby, & Foster, 2018; Ocasio, Mauskapf, & Steele, 2016). It has also attributed much agency to managers in shaping understandings of the past, with limited attention to other communities and occupations engaged in memory work (e.g., Cailluet, Gorge, & Özçağlar-Toulouse, 2018; Foroughi, 2020; Foster, Wiebe, Coraiola, Bastien, & Suddaby, 2021; Mena, Rintamäki, Fleming, & Spicer, 2016). There has been little work on how state institutions may seek to prevent remembering by marginalized communities (Maclean, Harvey, & Stringfellow, 2017). In other words, the micro and macro aspects of collective memory work are still poorly understood. More research is then needed to uncover how social institutions of memory impact organization and how the remembering and forgetting take place through the efforts of experts in organizational roles and outside of organizational boundaries.

Aims and Scope

The goal of this proposal is to foster the mutual development of the research on OPO (Anteby et al., 2016; Muzio et al., 2013) and OMS (Foroughi et al., 2020; Rowlinson et al., 2010). OMS is concerned with processes of remembering, forgetting, and representing the past in and around organizations (Coraiola, Barros, Maclean, & Foster, 2021). OPO studies the creation and legitimation of expert knowledge, the emergence of occupational communities, and the formation of boundaries and jurisdictions around professions (Abbott, 1988). So far, there has been limited cross-fertilization between these two research areas. Given the relevance of memory to the work of experts and the fundamental role experts play developing collective memory work, we call for more research on the intersection of the literature on OPO and OMS.

OMS scholars have focused on how the past can be reinterpreted and leveraged to achieve corporate goals (Suddaby et al., 2010; Wadhwani, Suddaby, Mordhorst, & Popp, 2018). They have paid less attention to the people doing memory work. Empirical research has focused on leaders and top managers, leaving other actors such as rank-and-file employees (e.g., Aeon & Lamertz, 2021; Foroughi & Al-Amoudi, 2020), the media (e.g., Cailluet et al., 2018), partner professional organizations (e.g., Coraiola & Derry, 2020) and other stakeholders such as NGOs (e.g., Mena et al., 2016) under-researched. Yet, many organizations hire professionals of memory such as archivists to manage their pasts (Foster et al., 2021; Lasewicz, 2015), often in dedicated archives and museums to preserve the memory of the company (Maclean et al., 2014; Nissley & Casey, 2002; Ravasi, Rindova, & Stigliani, 2019). Indeed, many organizations have realized that the past constitute social memory assets (Foster, Suddaby, Minkus, & Wiebe, 2011) that can be explored for marketing, advertising, and public relations (Illia & Zamparini, 2016; Misiura, 2006; Urde, Greyser, & Balmer, 2007). Apart from the memory work organizations do themselves, there are several professionals organizations that provide mnemonic services for a multiplicity of organizations such as The History Factory in the US (e.g., Weindruch, 2016), Grifo in Brazil, and the Centre for Business History in Sweden. The field of cultural memory and heritage has touched on content writers, tour guides, historical reenactors, museum curators, journalists, photographers, filmmakers, and influencers, but they still remain under-studied. With its focus on expert knowledge, the research on OPO can enrich our understanding of processes of remembering, forgetting, and representing the past taking place in and around organizations, and in particular the role of institutions and occupations therein.

Similarly, memory and history are assumed in OPO theories but hardly unpacked (Suddaby, Foster, & Mills, 2014). Although there has been growing historical research on occupations and professions (Burrage & Torstendahl, 1990), the past has been used as a field for testing OPO theories instead of a construct within OPO theorizing. Prior studies have focused on the emergence and diffusion of occupational categories (Baron, Dobbin, & Jennings, 1986; Dobbin, 1994), the transmission of professional norms and culture (Becker, Geer, Hughes, & Strauss, 1961; Orr, 1996), the historical gendering of professions (Arndt & Bigelow, 2005; Davies, 1996), and how professionals change and maintain institutions (Greenwood, Suddaby, & Hinings, 2002; Wright, Zammuto, & Liesch, 2017). These studies use constructs such as professionalization and institutionalization that assume that a community with claims about a body of knowledge becomes progressively accepted and endures over time (Abbott, 1988; Suddaby & Viale, 2011). In addition, institutional approaches to OPO use a variety of historical metaphors such as ‘sedimentation’ (Cooper, Hinings, Greenwood, & Brown, 1996), ‘layering’ (Thelen, 2004), and ‘legacies’ (Schneiberg, 2007) to capture the cumulation of remnants from the past and their translation across time and space (Daudigeos, 2013; Goodrick & Reay, 2011; Kipping & Kirkpatrick, 2013). OPO research also focuses on processes of categorization, socialization, and legitimation (Berger & Luckmann, 1967; Douglas, 1986), which presume the transmission of institutional contents and practices across generations of occupational members and the influence of past actions and decisions upon the present. OMS research can make explicit these assumptions about the past and help conceptualize the role of history and memory in OPO research (Kipping & Üsdiken, 2014).

This special issue builds on some disparate initial efforts connecting the two literatures. For example, Quattrone (2009) shows how the success of accounting was attached to the ancient practice of the art of memory. Suddaby & Greenwood (2005) report how history was used as a symbolic resource to gather legitimacy by a big accounting firm. Foster et al (2021) develop a model of memory work of corporate historians and archivists in Fortune 500 companies. Coraiola and Derry (2020) describe the central role played by lawyers and law firms in sustaining the strategy of social forgetting undertaken by US Big Tobacco. Blagoev, Felten, Kahn (2018) analyze how curators and catalogers constructed new affordances for technologies of memory within the British Museum. Nilsson & Blume (2021) reflect on the historical influence of gendering in the professionalization of textile conservators in Sweden. Crawford, Coraiola, & Dacin (In press) theorize how the memory work of boat guides contributed to preserve the Grand Canyon. Schultz & Hernes (2013) and Hatch and Schultz (2017) study the changes induced by external consultants’ revisiting of the organizational collective memory in Lego and Carlsberg. And Mena and Rintamäki (2020) together with Stutz and Schrempf-Stirling (2020) discuss the responsibility of managers and corporate archivists in reconstructing the past of the organization in relation to corporate social responsibility.

Topics of Interest

We encourage contributions focused on, but not limited to, the following four themes:

1. Institutions of memory and the institutionalization of mnemonic practices: Institutions ‘direct and control’ (Douglas, 1986) the memory of a community. At the same time, social institutions are influenced by collective memory (Ocasio et al., 2016). Modernity fostered the emergence of new areas of expertise about the past encapsulated in ‘institutions of memory’, i.e. schools, archives, libraries, museums (Anderson, 1983). Recently, several other organizations have been influencing the way we define, engage with, and understand the past (e.g., Ancestry, Facebook, me too, Black Lives Matter). These developments raise several questions such as: How expertise about the past has changed with the rise of new technologies? How do new forms of expertise and organization shape the way we see the past? How do they impact on the memory work of organizations and their narratives about the past? How do experts inside and outside organizations contribute to the remembering, forgetting, and representing the past? What is the role of the media and social media in shaping our understanding of the past? How do social movements change the texture of the past?

2. Professional projects, collective identities and institutional work: Experts engage in collective projects to achieve legitimacy and establish jurisdictions. The past can be a source of symbolic resources for the development of professional projects and institutional work. The past can also be an arena in which different occupations compete to legitimate their knowledge. Within an organizational field, professional organizations and experts alike may find in the past a source for constructing a distinctive identity and innovate in the creation of new categories. Some related questions include: What role does memory play in collective action? How is memory work and institutional work related? What is the role of tradition in expert practice? How do professions and organizations rework the past for institutional change and maintenance? How are past rituals, ceremonies and attire used for the construction professional identities? How our changing relationship with the past contributes to the emergence of new occupations (e.g., fact checker, genealogist, living historian) and the revitalization of old crafts (e.g., brewmaster, tailor, leatherworker)?

3. Professionals in organizations and professional organizations: Memory work can be internalized or outsourced. The challenges memory experts face, the way they behave and use their expert judgement, and the practices they engage into may vary depending on the autonomy given to expert workers and the form of governance in which they are organized. The state has been the traditional home for memory experts. However, the recognition of the past as a source of competitive advantage has led many business organizations to create corporate archives and history departments, and to develop other projects based on the past. In addition, growing demand has fostered the emergence of a heritage industry with several professional organizations dedicated to managing the past. Some possible questions in this theme include: What role do archivists and historians play in organizations? How do they use their expert judgement? How have these new organizational occupations developed? How does internal and external memory work differ? How do professional organizations develop memory work? How do heritage experts and organizations rework and represent the past? How has the cultural heritage industry coevolved with heritage experts?

4. Politics of remembering, professional responsibility and ethics: Memory is power-laden. Social groups and organizations often compete in their interpretations of the past. In addition, every act of remembering, forgetting, and representing the past involves a powerful moral and normative component. The way we remember the past sets the tone for what we do in the present and how it should be remembered for the future. The past can be either a source of pride or shame. Expert knowledge is used to remember and forget the good and the bad in different communities of memory. In this sense, there are important implications connecting the work of experts with issues of social and historical responsibility and ethics. Questions related to this theme would include: What are the ethical standards binding the work of memory experts? How do they manage the ethical dilemmas of managing the past? How are memory and professional misconduct related? How do experts deal with the dark past of organizations? What is the role of experts in processes of historical (in)justice?

Submission Process and Deadlines

Manuscript Development Workshop

The authors asked to revise and resubmit (R&R) their papers will also be invited to a manuscript development workshop (to be held in the first half of 2023; location and other details to be announced at a later date). During the workshop they will have the opportunity to present and discuss their papers with other attendees and the guest editors. Please note that participation in the workshop does not guarantee acceptance of the paper in the Special Issue. Likewise, attendance is also not a prerequisite for paper acceptance.

References

Abbott, A. D. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Aeon, B. and Lamertz, K. (2021). ‘Those who control the past control the future: The dark side of rhetorical history’. Organization Studies, 42, 575-93.

Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.

Anteby, M., Chan, C. K. and DiBenigno, J. (2016). ‘Three Lenses on Occupations and Professions in Organizations: Becoming, Doing, and Relating’. Academy of Management Annals, 10, 183-244.

Anteby, M. and Molnár, V. (2012). ‘Collective Memory Meets Organizational Identity: Remembering to Forget in a Firm’s Rhetorical History’. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 515-40.

Arndt, M. and Bigelow, B. (2005). ‘Professionalizing and Masculinizing a Female Occupation: The Reconceptualization of Hospital Administration in the Early 1900s’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 233-61.

Assmann, J. (1995). ‘Collective Memory and Cultural Identity’. New German Critique, 65, 125-133.

Baron, J. N., Dobbin, F. R. and Jennings, P. D. (1986). ‘War and Peace: The Evolution of Modern Personnel Administration in U.S. Industry’. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 350-83.

Becker, H. S., Geer, B., Hughes, E. C. and Strauss, A. L. (1961). Boys in White: Student Culture in Medical School. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Berger, P. L. and Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin.

Blagoev, B., Felten, S. and Kahn, R. (2018). ‘The Career of a Catalogue: Organizational Memory, Materiality and the Dual Nature of the Past at the British Museum (1970–Today)’. Organization Studies, 39, 1757-83.

Burrage, M. (1990). ‘Introduction: The Professions in Sociology and History’. In M. Burrage and R. Torstendahl (Eds.), Professions in theory and history: Rethinking the study of the professions. London: Sage.

Burrage, M. and Torstendahl, R. (1990). Professions in theory and history: Rethinking the study of the professions. London: Sage.

Cailluet, L., Gorge, H. and Özçağlar-Toulouse, N. (2018). ‘‘Do not expect me to stay quiet’: Challenges in managing a historical strategic resource’. Organization Studies, 39, 1811-35.

Clark, P. and Rowlinson, M. (2004). ‘The Treatment of History in Organisation Studies: Towards an ‘Historic Turn’?’. Business History, 46, 331-52.

Cooper, D. J., Hinings, B., Greenwood, R. and Brown, J. L. (1996). ‘Sedimentation and transformation in organizational change: The case of Canadian law firms’. Organization Studies, 17, 623-47.

Coraiola, D. M., Barros, A., Maclean, M. and Foster, W. M. (2021). ‘History, memory, and the past in management and organization studies’. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 61, 1-9.

Coraiola, D. M. and Derry, R. (2020). ‘Remembering to Forget: The Historic Irresponsibility of U.S. Big Tobacco’. Journal of Business Ethics, 166, 233-52.

Coraiola, D. M., Suddaby, R. and Foster, W. M. (2018). ‘Organizational Fields as Mnemonic Communities’. In J. Glückler, R. Suddaby and R. Lenz (Eds.), Knowledge and Institutions (Vol. 13). Berlin: Springer, 45-68.

Crawford, B., Coraiola, D. M. and Dacin, M. T. (In press). ‘Painful memories as mnemonic resources: Grand Canyon Dories and the protection of place’. Strategic Organization, 1476127020981353.

Daudigeos, T. (2013). ‘In Their Profession’s Service: How Staff Professionals Exert Influence in Their Organization’. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 722-49.

Davies, C. (1996). ‘The Sociology of Professions and the Profession of Gender’. Sociology, 30, 661-78.

Dobbin, F. (1994). ‘Cultural models of organization: The social construction of rational organizing principles’. In D. Crane (Ed.), The sociology of culture: Emerging theoretical perspectives. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 117–41.

Douglas, M. (1986). How institutions think. Syracusescott: Syracuse University Press.

Foroughi, H. (2020). ‘Collective Memories as a Vehicle of Fantasy and Identification: Founding stories retold’. Organization Studies, 41, 1347-67.

Foroughi, H. and Al-Amoudi, I. (2020). ‘Collective Forgetting in a Changing Organization: When memories become unusable and uprooted’. Organization Studies, 41, 449-70.

Foroughi, H., Coraiola, D. M., Rintamäki, J., Mena, S. and Foster, W. M. (2020). ‘Organizational Memory Studies’. Organization Studies, 41, 1725-48.

Foster, W. M., Coraiola, D. M., Suddaby, R., Kroezen, J. and Chandler, D. (2017). ‘The strategic use of historical narratives: A theoretical framework’. Business History, 59, 1176-200.

Foster, W. M., Suddaby, R., Minkus, A. and Wiebe, E. (2011). ‘History as social memory assets: The example of Tim Hortons’. Management & Organizational History, 6, 101-20.

Foster, W. M., Wiebe, E., Coraiola, D. M., Bastien, F. and Suddaby, R. (2021). ‘Memory Work: Corporate Archivists and Long-Term Remembering in Organizations’. In J. Reinecke, R. Suddaby, A. Langley and H. Tsoukas (Eds.), Time, Temporality, and History in Process Organization Studies, 240-58.

Garde-Hansen, J. (2011). Media and memory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Goodrick, E. and Reay, T. (2011). ‘Constellations of Institutional Logics’. Work and Occupations, 38, 372-416.

Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R. and Hinings, C. R. (2002). ‘Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields’. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 58-80.

Hatch, M. J. and Schultz, M. (2017). ‘Toward a Theory of Using History Authentically: Historicizing in the Carlsberg Group’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62, 657-97.

Illia, L. and Zamparini, A. (2016). ‘Legitimate Distinctiveness, Historical Bricolage, and the Fortune of the Commons’. Journal of Management Inquiry, 25, 397-414.

Kieser, A. (1989). ‘Organizational, Institutional, and Societal Evolution: Medieval Craft Guilds and the Genesis of Formal Organizations’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 540-64.

Kipping, M. and Kirkpatrick, I. (2013). ‘Alternative Pathways of Change in Professional Services Firms: The Case of Management Consulting’. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 777-807.

Kipping, M. and Üsdiken, B. (2014). ‘History in Organization and Management Theory: More Than Meets the Eye’. The Academy of Management Annals, 8, 535-88.

Koselleck, R. (1985). Future Pasts: On the Semantics of Historical Time. New York: Columbia University Press.

Lasewicz, P. C. (2015). ‘Forget the Past? Or History Matters? Selected Academic Perspectives on the Strategic Value of Organizational Pasts’. The American Archivist, 78, 59-83.

Levine, P. (1986). The Amateur and the Professional: Antiquarians, Historians and Archaeologists in Victorian England 1838-1886. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Maclean, M., Harvey, C., Sillince, J. A. A. and Golant, B. D. (2014). ‘Living up to the past? Ideological sensemaking in organizational transition’. Organization, 21, 543-67.

Maclean, M., Harvey, C., Sillince, J. A. A. and Golant, B. D. (2018). ‘Intertextuality, Rhetorical History and the Uses of the Past in Organizational Transition’. Organization Studies, 39, 1733-55.

Mena, S. and Rintamäki, J. (2020). ‘Managing the Past Responsibly: A Collective Memory Perspective on Responsibility, Sustainability and Ethics’. In O. Laasch, D. Jamali, R. E. Freeman and R. Suddaby (Eds.), The research handbook on responsible management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 470-83.

Mena, S., Rintamäki, J., Fleming, P. and Spicer, A. (2016). ‘On the Forgetting of Corporate Irresponsibility’. Academy of Management Review, 41, 720-38.

Misiura, S. (2006). Heritage marketing. Routledge.

Muzio, D., Brock, D. M. and Suddaby, R. (2013). ‘Professions and Institutional Change: Towards an Institutionalist Sociology of the Professions’. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 699-721.

Nilsson, J. M. and Blume, K. S. (2021). ‘The Swedish textile conservators’ transformation: From the museum curator’s assistant to a profession in its own right’. Journal of Professions and Organization, 8, 168-83

Nissley, N. and Casey, A. (2002). ‘The politics of the exhibition: Viewing corporate museums through the paradigmatic lens of organizational memory’. British Journal of Management, 13, S35-S45.

Ocasio, W., Mauskapf, M. and Steele, C. (2016). ‘History, Society, and Institutions: The Role of Collective Memory in the Emergence and Evolution of Societal Logics’. Academy of Management Review, 41, 676-99.

Orr, J. E. (1996). Talking about Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Quattrone, P. (2009). ‘Books to be practiced: Memory, the power of the visual, and the success of accounting’. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34, 85-118.

Ravasi, D., Rindova, V. and Stigliani, I. (2019). ‘The Stuff of Legend: History, Memory, and the Temporality of Organizational Identity Construction’. Academy of Management Journal, 62, 1523-55.

Rowlinson, M., Booth, C., Clark, P., Delahaye, A. and Procter, S. (2010). ‘Social Remembering and Organizational Memory’. Organization Studies, 31, 69-87.

Schneiberg, M. (2007). ‘What’s on the path? Path dependence, organizational diversity and the problem of institutional change in the US economy, 1900–1950’. Socio-Economic Review, 5, 47-80.

Schultz, M. and Hernes, T. (2013). ‘A Temporal Perspective on Organizational Identity’. Organization Science, 24, 1-21.

Sinha, P. N., Jaskiewicz, P., Gibb, J. and Combs, J. G. (2020). ‘Managing history: How New Zealand’s Gallagher Group used rhetorical narratives to reprioritize and modify imprinted strategic guideposts’. Strategic Management Journal, 41, 557-89.

Stutz, C. and Schrempf-Stirling, J. (2020). ‘Using the past responsibly: What responsible managers and management academics can learn from historians’ professional ethics’. In O. Laasch, D. Jamali, R. E. Freeman and R. Suddaby (Eds.), The research handbook on responsible management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 745-58.

Suddaby, R., Coraiola, D., Harvey, C. and Foster, W. (2020). ‘History and the micro‐foundations of dynamic capabilities’. Strategic Management Journal, 41, 530-56.

Suddaby, R., Foster, W. M. and Mills, A. J. (2014). ‘Historical Institutionalism’. In M. Bucheli and R. D. Wadwhani (Eds.), Organizations in time: History, theory, methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 100-23.

Suddaby, R., Foster, W. M. and Trank, C. Q. (2010). ‘Rhetorical history as a source of competitive advantage’. In J. A. C. Baum and J. Lampel (Eds.), Advances in Strategic Management: The Globalization of Strategy Research. Bingley: Emerald, 147-73.

Suddaby, R. and Greenwood, R. (2005). ‘Rhetorical Strategies of Legitimacy’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 35-67.

Suddaby, R. and Viale, T. (2011). ‘Professionals and field-level change: Institutional work and the professional project’. Current Sociology, 59, 423-42.

Thelen, K. (2004). How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Urde, M., Greyser, S. A. and Balmer, J. M. (2007). ‘Corporate brands with a heritage’. Journal of Brand Management, 15, 4-19.

Wadhwani, R. D., Suddaby, R., Mordhorst, M. and Popp, A. (2018). ‘History as Organizing: Uses of the Past in Organization Studies’. Organization Studies, 39, 1663-83.

Weindruch, B. (2016). Start With the Future and Work Back: A Heritage Management Manifesto. Lanham, MD: Hamilton Books.

Wright, A. L., Zammuto, R. F. and Liesch, P. W. (2017). ‘Maintaining the Values of a Profession: Institutional Work and Moral Emotions in the Emergency Department’. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 200-37.

Yates, F. A. (1966). The Art of Memory. London: Routledge.

CfP: University of Tübingen & University of Glasgow PhD Summer School

Business Beyond the Abyss: Crisis Management, Institutional Memory and Learning

3-5 November 2021, Tübingen, Germany.

The University of Tübingen’s Collaborative Research Center 923 – “Threatened Orders: Societies under Stress” (Germany) – provides funding for an intensive three-day event aimed at PhD students in business history or economic history working on any topic that overlaps with the theme of the school (for more details, see “Further Notes for Applicants” below). Students will, the pandemic permitting, be hosted in the historic town of Tübingen and will present, debate and discuss their works-in-progress with leading international scholars within a world-class university.

The school aims to provide doctoral students with an overview of relevant research and innovative tools and methodologies in the fields of business and economic history, including legal perspectives. It is the third event in this series organised jointly by the Seminar für Neuere Geschichte (Tübingen) and the Centre for Business History in Scotland (University of Glasgow), and this time joined by the Center for Law and Social Science (Emory University School of Law).

The school will take the form of presentations from students (c.25 minutes) and workshops hosted by established experts in the field. The aims of the school are:

1) to deepen students’ understanding of current themes in historical research (and how this can inform their own work);

2) to enhance research skills through masterclasses on methods for researching and writing history;

3) to explore the main theoretical underpinnings particular to business and economic history; and

4) to provide a welcoming and convivial environment in which students can discuss their research with leading scholars and peers.

Students will benefit from the experience of academics from Tübingen and beyond. Confirmed speakers include Prof. Dr. Boris Gehlen (Stuttgart), Dr Daniel Menning (Tübingen) and Dr Christopher Miller (Glasgow). We hope to confirm additional speakers in the coming weeks and months.

Funding will cover flights and/or trains (up to an agreed limit, to be reimbursed after the school), accommodation, lunches, and the conference meal for up to fourteen students. There may also be limited space for applicants who wish to self-fund or who have received funding from their own institution.

Those interested in attending the summer school should e-mail the following documents to the organisers, Dr Daniel Menning (Daniel.Menning@uni-tuebingen.de), Dr Christopher Miller (Christopher.Miller@glasgow.ac.uk), and Prof Rafael Pardo (rafael.pardo@emory.edu):

1)   a brief CV (two pages maximum);

2)   a summary of their PhD (two pages maximum); and

3)  a title and abstract for their desired presentation topic, which should incorporate one or more major themes of the student’s PhD (one page maximum).

While not required, applicants are strongly encouraged to submit with their materials an example of a work-in-progress (e.g., a draft chapter, article, or working paper), preferably in English, German, or French. Please note, however, that all presentations and discussions will be in English.

The deadline for applications is 15 July 2021A maximum of 14 funded applicants will be selected and notified shortly afterwards.

Further Notes for Applicants:

Overview of Scope and Aims of the School:

(This overview is only a guide. Students working on similar topics to those listed below are encouraged to speak to Daniel Menning and/or Christopher Miller in the first instance.)

With the COVID-19 virus spreading across the globe and many major economic countries shutting down social life and significant parts of the economy, we have been witnessing an economic contraction ensuing at an astonishing pace as well as an equally swift, though rather more varied, re- start. Though it is too early yet to estimate the effects and predict the duration of the economic difficulties (including, for example, current shortages of raw materials), it is clear that many businesses suffered and many remain in trouble. A significant number most likely will not survive, all governmental bailout packages notwithstanding. While interest in economic crises and their effects on businesses has increased over the past few years, the current conditions will likely give a new boost to research and result in a new thoughtfulness and a recalibration of research methods.

Research Background:

Business and economic history has been at the forefront of explaining some of the major changes in economies and societies – starting with the work of Alfred Chandler in the 1960s. (Chandler 1962, 1977). Nevertheless, with regards to the business history of crises and crisis management  specifically, the literature is far less well developed. There are three reasons for this neglect. First, the tradition of business history for several decades, until comparatively recently, was to study the history of individual firms, or less frequently sectors. Indeed, business history was once considered an applied branch of economic history for scholars wishing to move beyond macroeconomic trends. The net effect has been that the literature on firms has been dominated by commissioned histories where the historian is paid by the (surviving) company and given use of its archives. While often extremely valuable, these studies can tend towards “rise and fall” narratives.

Second, where business histories have studied crises specifically, commissioned works can potentially have some further methodological problems. Most obviously, many of the firms survived until at least the point the history was commissioned. Thus, it is perhaps a case of selection bias towards success – or at the very least towards the largest and most important companies (Berghoff 2006). Related to this, the nature of commissioned studies has also drawn criticism: namely, that success is often attributed to management rather than luck, while episodes of failure are attributed to external or unpredictable factors outside of management control.

Third, the causes and aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008 have generated many millions of pages of scholarship and commentary in the last decade, with the effect of prompting historians to draw comparisons with the Wall Street Crash and Great Depression. For instance, Werner Abelshauser (2009) is one of many interested in learning from economic crises explicitly through using the examples of 1931 and 2008. While not every crisis was like 2008 in cause, scale or scope, it is not necessarily a new phenomenon: the 2000 dot-com bubble was compared in much the same way. (Ojala and Uskali 2006). As a result, the stock market crash in 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression have become by far the most studied economic crisis in history, with renewed interest from 2008 (Tooze 2019), while the effect of the more regular, smaller scale, economic crises suffered by businesses before and after 1929 is largely neglected.

The current economic conditions promise to bring new momentum to the study of businesses in times of larger and smaller economic difficulties, and we are therefore inviting PhD students working in the areas of business and

–            Crisis Management

–            Institutional memory

–            Learning

to submit proposals for the summer school.

CfP: BHC conference 2022

Business History in Times of Disruption: Embracing Complexity and Diversity

Historia empresarial en tiempos de incertidumbre: acogiendo la complejidad y la diversidad [haga clic aquí para leer la convocatoria en español]

Annual Meeting of the Business History Conference

Sheraton Mexico City María Isabel Hotel

Ciudad de México, México

April 7-9, 2022

The Covid-19 crisis arrived with little warning, disrupting global business and trade. Industries as different as tourism, retail, and manufacturing were plunged into disarray by travel restrictions, broken supply chains, and quarantines. The pandemic also underscored the growing dangers posed by economic inequality and environmental degradation, hinting at a more tumultuous future.  We have, it seems, entered into a new age of uncertainty.

Informed by these developments, the 2022 Business History Conference will explore the diverse ways that entrepreneurs, firms, and organizations coped with complexity, uncertainty, and disruption over the long run. The Program Committee welcomes individual papers and session proposals that explore this theme. Submissions can address a host of topics: the historical challenge posed by complexity and uncertainty; the stories told about periods of turbulence, disruption and chaos; the ways that disruptions have engendered adaptation and resilience in different times and places; and any number of related subjects.

The Program Committee is especially interested in sessions and papers that contribute to a more inclusive, global, and pluralistic vision of business history. For example, submissions could address diverse geographic locales and time periods; analyze the different ways that race, class, and gender have affected the ability of entrepreneurs and firms to survive and thrive in previous eras of uncertainty; address the role of governments, politics, and power in deciding winners and losers in tumultuous times; and any number of similar subjects. Finally, the organizers welcome proposals with innovative formats that promote discussion on how to conduct research and teach business history in the so-called post-pandemic era.

While we encourage submissions to take up these themes, papers addressing all other topics will receive equal consideration by the program committee in accordance with BHC policy. Graduate students and emerging scholars in the field are particularly encouraged to attend. Graduate students and recent PhDs whose papers are accepted for the meeting may apply for funds to partially defray their travel costs; information will be sent out once the program has been set.

The Program Committee includes Stephen Mihm (University of Georgia) (co-chair); Paloma Fernández Pérez (Universitat de Barcelona) (co-chair); Gustavo del Angel (Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, CIDE); Christy Chapin (University of Maryland); Ai Hisano (Kyoto University, 京都大学, Kyōto daigaku); Chinmay Tumbe (Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, IIMA); along with BHC President Andrea Lluch (CONICET and Universidad de los Andes).

Proposals and Submissions

Proposals may be submitted for individual papers or entire sessions. Each presentation proposal should include a one-page (300 words) abstract and one-page curriculum vitae (CV) for each participant. Individual paper submissions will be combined into new sessions defined by themes chosen at the Program Committee’s discretion.

Session proposals (unless a roundtable) should include a maximum of four individual presentations. All session proposals should have a cover letter containing a title, a one-paragraph session description, and the names and affiliations of a recruited chair, as well as the contact information for the session organizer.

To submit a proposal, go to https://thebhc.org/proposal-instructions

For the second time, the BHC annual meeting will include two or three sessions with Spanish and Portuguese presentations to encourage the participation of colleagues from Latin America. In addition, the second edition of the Workshop on ‘Latin American Business in a Global and Historical Perspective’ will be organized on April 7th, co-organized with the Mexican Economic History Association. A separate Call for Papers for this Workshop will be circulated later. In the meantime, for more details about this special event, contact the AMHE at: amhe.historia@gmail.com.

The deadline for receipt of all paper and session proposals is October 1, 2021. Notification of acceptance will be given by November 15, 2021. Information on registration and fees for participation and the provisional program will be announced at the beginning of February 2022. Everyone appearing on the program must register for the meeting. 

Hotel Venue and the Coronavirus Situation

The BHC Conference 2022 will take place at the Sheraton Mexico City Maria Isabel Hotel (https://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/mexis-sheraton-mexico-city-maria-isabel-hotel/.  Special rates for standard rooms are $145 single/double occupancy, and deluxe rooms are $175 single/double plus tax.

Of course, we cannot yet determine if it will be possible for us to gather in Mexico City. We will closely follow the Coronavirus Disease situation. If necessary, we will switch to an online (or hybrid) mode in order to guarantee safe participation from presenters around the world.

General questions regarding the BHC’s 2022 annual meeting may be sent to conference coordinator Roger Horowitz, rh@udel.edu

Prizes

The K. Austin Kerr Prize will be awarded for the best first paper delivered by a new scholar at the annual meeting. A “new scholar” is defined as a doctoral candidate or a Ph.D. whose degree is less than three years old. You must nominate your paper for this prize on the proposal submission page where indicated. Please check the appropriate box if your proposal qualifies for inclusion in the Kerr Prize competition. 

The BHC awards the Herman E. Krooss Prize for the best English-language dissertation in business history by a recent Ph.D. in history, economics, business administration, history of science and technology, sociology, law, communications, and related fields. To be eligible, dissertations must be completed in the three calendar years immediately prior to the 2022 annual meeting and may only be submitted once for the Krooss prize. After the Krooss committee has reviewed the proposals, it will ask semi-finalists to submit copies of their dissertations. Finalists will present summaries of their dissertations at a plenary session and will receive a partial subsidy of their travel costs to the meeting. Proposals accepted for the Krooss Prize are not eligible for the Kerr Prize. If you wish to apply for this prize, submit a cover letter, dissertation abstract, and author’s c.v., using this form: https://thebhc.org/krooss-prize-nomination. The deadline for proposals for the Krooss prize is October 1, 2021.

The Martha Moore Trescott Award is awarded to the best paper at the intersection of business history and the history of technology presented at the Business History Conference’s annual meeting. The prize will be awarded on the basis of the written version of a paper to be presented at the annual meeting. Those wishing to be considered for the prize must indicate so at the time of submitting their original proposal for the meeting. Self-nominating scholars must also provide the written paper to the Chair of the committee not less than one month before the annual meeting. Though the prize will be awarded on the basis of the written paper, candidates must register for the meeting and present their work. Scholars who are eligible for the Kerr Prize may also enter the Trescott Prize. There are no other restrictions on eligibility. Written papers should be no longer than 4,000 words (exclusive of notes, bibliography, appendices, figures, and illustrations).

Doctoral Colloquium in Business History  

The Doctoral Colloquium in Business History will be held in conjunction with the BHC annual meeting. This prestigious workshop, funded by Cambridge University Press, will occur in Mexico City (April 7th). Typically limited to ten students, the colloquium is open to early-stage doctoral candidates pursuing dissertation research within the broad field of business history, from any relevant discipline. Topics (see https://thebhc.org/doctoral-colloquia for past examples) may range from the early modern era to the present and explore societies across the globe. Participants work intensively with a distinguished group of BHC-affiliated scholars (including at least two BHC officers), discussing dissertation proposals, relevant literatures and research strategies, and career trajectories. Typically, participants receive partial stipends to defray the costs of travel to the annual meeting.

 Applications for the doctoral colloquium are due by Monday, November 15, 2021, via email to Carol Lockman (clockman@Hagley.org ) and should include: a statement of interest; CV; preliminary or final dissertation prospectus (10-15 pages); and a letter of support from your dissertation supervisor (or prospective supervisor). Questions about the colloquium should be sent to its director, Prof. Eric Godelier (eric.godelier@polytechnique.edu). Applicants will receive notification of the selection committee’s decisions by Monday, December 20, 2021.

CfP BH: Business & Finance in Latin America

Call for Papers-Special Issue, Business History “Business and Finance in Latin America: From the Oil Shock to the Debt Crisis”

Call for Papers-Special Issue, Business History “Business and Finance in Latin America: From the Oil Shock to the Debt Crisis”

Since the 2008-9 financial crisis, Latin America has experienced a period of sluggish economic activity and increasing levels of external debt. In a world of low interest rates, the liquidity injected into the US and European banking systems flew over into Latin American economies as global demand dropped and commodities prices crashed downwards. The boom of private and public indebtedness over the past decade has increased the economic and financial vulnerabilities of a region that has historically been dependent on international trade and exposed to external shocks such as the current pandemic. In a context where governments have stepped in to offset the impact of the coronavirus crisis, debt levels are now approaching the peak seen during the international debt crisis of the 1980s, raising fears amongst policymakers and business leaders of new defaults and another “lost decade”.

The Special Issue “Business and Finance in Latin America: From the Oil Shock to the Debt Crisis” aims to bring new insights into the current debates by looking at how local and foreign entrepreneurs, financiers and state actors reacted to, and dealt with, the unstable economic and political context that preceded and followed the outbreak of the international debt crisis of 1982.

The scholarship on the business history of Latin America has expanded markedly over the last three decades. The number of historical studies of firms and entrepreneurship in the region grew considerably and covers a large variety of topics, such as foreign investment, multinational enterprises (MNEs) diversification strategies, family-based economic groups, business connections with social and political elites, and sectors or industries, namely trade, banking, mining, transport, agricultural and manufacture. However, while the bulk of these research has concentrated on firms that dominated before 1914 and the interwar and post-World War II years, the turbulent period of the 1970s and 1980s has received much less attention. Indeed, little is known about how the multiple crises that the region experienced in these years affected the way firms and entrepreneurs ran their businesses and overcame their debt and financial difficulties. The reasons why some companies disappeared while others survived and new ones entered the Latin American market has not yet been explored.

This Special Issue will contribute to filling this gap and provide new light on how the economic, financial, and political crises affected industries and business organizations operating in the region. To that end, the guest editors Carlo Edoardo Altamura (Graduate Institute, Geneva) and Sebastian Alvarez (University of Zurich/University of Oxford) welcome contributions and interdisciplinary research from scholars who use historical methods and original or primary sources to explore:

  • The behaviour and business strategies of financial and non-financial companies in the run-up to, and the aftermath of, the 1982 financial fallout.
  • The impact of the debt crisis and the responses of MNEs and domestic firms in Latin America.
  • The way that national and international companies managed economic and political risk in the region during the 1970s and 1980s.
  • How business actors coped with foreign debt, inflation, and the uncertainties unleashed by changing government policies and crises during the 1970s and 1980s.
  • The effects of the debt crisis and economic and structural reforms on state-business and domestic-foreign capital relationships.
  • The long-term outcomes of the crisis and the reorientation of businesses in line with the neoliberal policies of Latin American politics.

Please send your proposals as an extended abstract (max 2000 words) to the guest editors (edoardo.altamura@graduateinstitute.chsebastian.alvarez@history.ox.ac.uk) specifying the research question, methodological approach, sources, and main contribution to the literature. The deadline for the submission is April 15, 2021. Selected authors will be required to submit full papers by June 2022. Submitted papers will be subject to peer review according to BH publication procedure.

CfP: 2nd International Conference on Indian Business & Economic History [Online]

Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad 

August 24 (Tue), Aug 25 (Wed), Aug 26 (Thu), Aug 27 (Fri), 2021 

Conference Website: https://conference.iima.ac.in/history/ 

Founded in 1961, the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (IIMA) has emerged as the leading management school of India and is regularly ranked among the Top 50 Business Schools of the world. Set amidst an iconic campus designed by Louis Kahn, it is also the birthplace of ‘business history’ as a discipline in India under the stewardship of Prof. Dwijendra Tripathi (1930-2018), a faculty member of IIMA from 1964 to 1990. 

The first International Conference on Indian Business & Economic History was held in memory of Prof. Dwijendra Tripathi at IIMA on August 29-31, 2019. 

The 2nd International Conference on Indian Business & Economic History will be hosted online, anchored by IIMA, on August 24-27, 2021. It will be a forum to host research papers, provide a workshop for PhD students, and spark conversations on this subject. The conference will draw in leading scholars working in the field within and outside India. 

Conference Organizing Committee 

Chinmay Tumbe (IIM-Ahmedabad, India) 

Tirthankar Roy (London School of Economics & Political Science) 

Medha Kudaisya (National University of Singapore) 

Bishnupriya Gupta (Warwick University) 

Chikayoshi Nomura (Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo) 

Conference Timeline 

Submission Deadline: April 30, 2021 

Notification to selected students and speakers by May 10, 2021 

Conference Dates: August 24 (PhD Student Workshop), August 25, 26, 27 (Research Papers and other sessions), 2021 

Conference Mode 

Registration to the conference is free and participants can log-on to the proceedings from anywhere in the world. 

CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS 

The conference invites researchers to submit research papers and ideas to two separate tracks of the conference – PhD Student Workshop and Conference Research Papers. 

PhD Student Workshop 

The conference will commence online on Tuesday, August 24th, 2021, with a 1-day workshop for PhD students working on Indian business or economic history or keen to explore this research interest in the near future. Students may belong to any disciplinary background. The workshop will provide feedback on the student’s research topics and ideas and have sessions conducted by leading scholars of the field. 

To apply, students have to submit their CV, one-page synopsis of their ongoing research and a one-page statement of interest, as a zipped file, via the conference website submission link, before April 30, 2021. 

Students from within and outside India are encouraged to apply for the workshop. Women and students from historically marginalized communities are particularly encouraged to apply for the workshop. MPhil and Masters’ level students can also apply if they are able to demonstrate their keenness to work in the field, and the application would require an additional reference letter from their research supervisor. 

Selected students will be notified about their applications by May 10, 2021, and are expected to participate in all the days of the conference proceedings. 

Conference Research Papers 

The conference theme is broad with the following suggestive themes covering the Indian subcontinent in the 19th and 20th centuries, 

  • Merchants and Trade 
  • The legacy of colonial and princely states on economic development 
  • Regional variations in development in historical perspective 
  • Urban histories 
  • Sector wise histories: eg. Aviation, Media, Advertising, Finance, Real Estate, Coal, etc. 
  • Firm level histories and individual biographies 
  • Management histories 
  • Histories of business associations 
  • Technology transfer and international collaborations 
  • Business in Periods of Crises 

The conference also invites research spanning other time periods and topics. 

A 500-1000 word abstract with title and participant’s affiliation, should be submitted online via the conference website submission link, before April 30, 2021. Selected speakers will be notified by May 10, 2021, and full research papers are expected to be submitted by August 1, 2021. PhD students close to submitting their final theses can also submit their work in this track for consideration. 

Tentative Programme 

Tuesday, August 24, 2021: 

Workshop for PhD Students with sessions taken by leading scholars of the field 

Wed-Thu-Fri, August 25-26-27, 2021: 

Conference Research Papers 

Session on Archives 

Session on Teaching Business & Economic History 

The proceedings are likely to take place between 4pm-8pm Indian Standard Time. The program will be updated with further details in early-August 2021. 

Contact Us 

Please send all conference related queries to history21@iima.ac.in. 

Conference related details will be regularly updated on the conference website: 

Important event happening later today: Racial Justice at the Intersection of Business & Society

SOCIAL ISSUES IN MANAGEMENT DIVISION PRESENTS:

RACIAL JUSTICE AT THE INTERSECTION OF BUSINESS AND SOCIETY

March 26, 2021, 11:00am-12:30pm EST – Racial Justice, History, and Business Ethics

Hosts: Paul T. Harper (Pittsburgh) & David Wasieleski (Duquesne)

REGISTRATION: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/racial-justice-history-and-business-ethics-tickets-133140341345

Andrew Smith (Liverpool)

Jennifer Johns (Bristol)

Leon Prieto (Clayton State)

Simone Phipps (Middle Georgia State)

Panel will provide examples of the ways ahistorical methods and temporal frames expose and occlude the role of race in knowledge creation processes. The Atlantic Slave Trade as a context for understanding current management practices will be discussed as well as the unrecognized history of Black entrepreneurship in the U.S.

Event Sponsor: Viragh Institute for Ethics in Business

Upcoming Event:

May 7, 2021, 11:00am-12:30 EST – Racial Justice and Sustainability

Hosts: Robbin Derry (Lethbridge) & Jeffrey York (Colorado)

REGISTRATION: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/racial-justice-and-sustainability-tickets-133144676311

Visit SIM Website for full series details: https://sim.aom.org/new-item7

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS – Special Issue on “Racial Justice and Business Ethics”

Guest Editors: Paul T. Harper (Pittsburgh), Robbin Derry (Lethbridge), and Gregory Fairchild (Virginia)

Submission Deadline: October 1, 2021

Visit JBE website for full details: https://www.springer.com/journal/10551/updates/18290364

BAM conference 2021 – Management & Business History Track

BAM2021 Conference in the Cloud, Lancaster University Management School.

31st August – 3rd September 2021

BAM2021 Key Dates and Deadlines

  • Paper submission site opens (15th January)
  • Deadline to submit paper (5th March)
  • Review process starts (12th March)
  • Paper acceptance notification (29th April)
  • Deadline for at least ONE author to register for the Conference (28th May)
  • Final paper upload (18th June)
  • Asynchronous paper presentation deadline (16th July)

Link to Conference and Paper Submission Guidelines: https://www.bam.ac.uk/events-landing/conference.html

Track:Management and Business History

Track Chairs: James Fowler, University of Essex James.Fowler@essex.ac.uk

 Roy Edwards, University of Southampton r.a.edwards@soton.ac.uk

Track description: This track encourages the growing number of management and business historians who work in business schools and social science departments to engage in constructive debate with a wide range of management scholars. The 2021 conference theme, ‘‘Covid Economy Recovery and the Role of Responsible Management’’, is a superb opportunity to explore the value of historical study for current management. This year the conference will remain online, but we are keen to offer the opportunity for all accepted papers to be presented live online and to receive the kind of commentary and feedback that would normally be expected at a face to face conference.

In this track we specialize in chronologically or longitudinally motivated research. Histories of organizations, industries and institutions give us the opportunity to understand how managers have dealt with crises in the past. History is replete with disasters of varying magnitude. We would welcome papers that explore how economies and wider society have responded to extreme circumstances – from war to natural disasters and economic collapse, humanity has been remarkably resilient in dealing with adversity. But how has this happened? What has been the role of the private and public sector in dealing with emergency?

We welcome papers, symposia or workshop proposals either using new and innovative methodologies or applying archival methodology to a new disciplinary context. We are also interested in context specific papers using more traditional historical methodology but which take innovative approaches to relate their findings to wider social science concerns including the diversity of experience in present day businesses, regions and communities. While the main conference theme ought to feature prominently in all submissions, we encourage cross-disciplinary papers and workshop submissions that link different Tracks.

As a group we are inherently multi-disciplinary and believe in the application of theory to historical analysis, and there is no single epistemology for approaching this. We aim to encourage theoretically orientated social science history with a clear relationship to present day debates in the management discipline. Contributions might focus on but are not limited to: the economic or social history of business, historical case studies for theory building, theoretical contributions on the relevance of history to management studies, the uses of history, history as a method for management studies. Please note that while we are open-minded work not featuring a historical dimension, broadly defined, will not be accepted.

This article is a useful initial point of reference:

Tennent, K. (2020). Management and business history – a reflexive research agenda for the 2020s. Journal of Management Historyhttps://doi.org/10.1108/JMH-09-2020-0061.

These articles offer commentary on the ‘dual integrity’ of business history methods as a combination of social science and historical craft:

Decker, S., Usidken, B., Engwall, L. & Rowlinson, M. (2018). Special issue introduction: Historical research on institutional change. Business History, 60(5). pp613-627. https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2018.1427736

Maclean, M., Harvey, C. and Clegg, S.R., (2016). Conceptualizing historical organization studies. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), pp.609-632. DOI:
10.5465/amr.2014.0133

Rowlinson, M., Hassard, J. & Decker, S. (2014). Research Strategies for Organisational History: A Dialogue between Historical Theory and Organisation Theory. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), pp250–274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0203

Organizational Memory Studies – Perspectives piece & EGOS track

Posted on behalf of Dr Hamid Foroughi:

Dear colleagues,

I hope you are keeping well in these unsettling times. 
I just thought our recent Organization Studies perspective piece- Organizational Memory Studies– might be of interest to you. In this article, Diego Coraiola, Jukka Rintamaki, Sebastian Mena, Bill Foster and I provide an overview of the developments in the filed in the last decade or so. See the link to the article below.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0170840620974338?journalCode=ossa

Bill Foster, Sebastian Mena and I are also organizing an EGOS sub-theme- to take this conversation further.
Sub-theme 49: Organizational Memory Studies: Toward an Inclusive Research Agenda
We would be of course delighted to see any contribution from yourself or your coauthors to our subtheme.
We appreciate if you also share this to other colleagues of yours who might be interested in this.

CfP for the Business History Collective ‘Spring Webinar Series’

Deadline for submissions: Wednesday, 9th December

Following a highly successful summer webinar series, we are pleased to invite applications to contribute towards our spring webinar series, February – May 2021.

These events are primarily intended as a platform to share and discuss ongoing research, including working papers, dissertation chapters, and manuscripts under review.

Applications are not limited to a particular theme or set of topics; however, priority will be given to proposals of particular novelty, use of qualitative approaches, and historical periods preceding 1800 or subsequent to 1950.

We are also particularly interested in hearing from early career researchers, researchers from minority backgrounds (e.g., women, LGBTQ+, ethnic and racial minorities, underrepresented backgrounds/populations, etc.), as well as research and researchers located outside of Europe, North America, China and Japan.

Please write to the spring organizers, Ashton Merck (awb27@duke.edu) and Adam Nix (adam.nix@dmu.ac.uk), with any questions about the webinar series.

If you want to join as a presenter click here.

If you want to join as discussant or member of the audience click here