CfP: Special issue on War & Peace in Organizational Memory

Management and Organizational History

Call for papers

 Special Issue: War and Peace in Organizational Memory

 

Theme

Organizations are known for marking their own centennial, bicentennial and other anniversaries. These celebrations are good opportunities for organizations to reflect on their past. The commissioned corporate history that often stems from these events helps the organization to understand its past. This work can then be used externally to form part of its marketing strategy or internally as a way to firm up its identity (Suddaby, Foster and Quinn Trank 2016). The past and longevity also confers legitimacy upon the organization (Roowaan 2009). Other commemorative dates and remembrance ceremonies are of similar importance. While not the traditional focus of business historians, these dates are nevertheless observed by organizations as they participate in the social process of remembering events. This is especially apparent in the experience of war and, as we have seen more recently, terrorist attacks.

A special Issue of Management and Organizational History will be timed to coincide with 11th November 2018 as the 100th year anniversary of Armistice Day. It will be devoted to the examining the impact that war, as a social and political event, had upon organizational identity. How did organizations understand and rationalize their national, regional, religious or racial identity and behavior in times of conflict? What objects, rituals and ceremonies organizations initiate to remember and commemorate the lives lost in war – if at all? To what extent were memorials or commemorations specific to organisations themselves, albeit embedded within wider systems of meaning? How does the end of conflict and peace time change these gestures or attitudes towards other nations or groups? We welcome empirical and theoretical papers that consider case studies or adopt long run historical analysis as well as encouraging the submission of work that utilizes new approaches to concepts of memory. Papers that examine the influence of World War I would be pertinent contributions to the issue but it is not confined to focusing on this war alone. Submissions that consider other wars or conflicts, such as the Hundred Years War, Wars of Independence, Civil Wars, Napoleonic War, World War II, the Cold War, would be relevant and we invite papers from all periods and geographical zones.

Since the ‘historic turn’, a shift has begun to take place in the study of organizational change whereby business historians and historical analysis more generally has taken a greater role. Using history in forming organizational identity often involves sense-making by companies (Ravasi and Schultz, 2006). Recent research has included analysis of ceremonies, rituals and objects. Rituals, as historic events, contain rich levels of symbolism and follow a set of established conventions (Dacin et al., 2010). Objects, such as ornaments, portraits, other paraphernalia and even architecture or museums, exist as a manifestation of a collective memory, a historical record of the organization’s past (Decker 2014; Suddaby, Foster and Quinn Trank 2016, Barnes and Newton, 2017). They serve as ‘talking points’ or a ‘show and tell’ to explain organizational culture, an event or the meaning of an act which has taken place (Ames, 1980; Rafaeli and Pratt, 1993). Textual and oral memory forms can be used as memory cues, which enable those in the present to construct organizational identity that complies with current and future requirements (Schultz and Hernes 2013, 4). While the past can be used and manipulated, it is not always controlled by those with power at the top of the hierarchy (Rowlinson and Hassard 1993; Maclean et al. 2014).

There is a wealth of literature on the memorialization of war at the individual, national, European and international level.  Mosse examines the commemoration of soldiers after war, and the role this has in turning war into a sacred event (1990).  The role that remembering of war has in creating both national and European identities is considered by Niznik (2013) and its role in influencing post-war European politics is analyzed by Muller (2002). Others consider an international perspective (Sumartojo and Wellings, 2014), whilst the role of museums in remembering war is considered by Williams (2007) and Kjeldbaek (2009). Yet less has been written about how organizations remember war and how such remembering (or forgetting) influences their identify.

This call for papers invites potential contributions from those that employ innovative methodologies to examine individuals, groups or organizations and their experience of war.

Potential topics might include:

  • Corporate acts, events, rituals or memorials that remember the war and lives lost
  • Decisions not to mark or otherwise commemorate war and/or conflict
  • War reparations and other related acts
  • The organization’s narrative of its involvement in the war
  • The disruptive atmosphere of war and crisis management on staff
  • The impact of war or peace on the organization’s national, regional, religious or racial identity
  • Approach of multinational firms to this issue and uniformity or difference in subsidiary organisations
  • Remembering as a means of connecting with local stakeholders, such as customers and the general public
  • Debates about retaining war memorials and the issues with existing stakeholders

Process and timeline

Those interested in potentially contributing should contact the two guest editors at the earliest opportunity:

Victoria Barnes: Barnes@rg.mpg.de

Lucy Newton: L.A.Newton@henley.ac.uk

A paper development workshop will be held in Henley Business School, University of Reading in December 2017.

Manuscripts are to be submitted to Management and Organization History in the normal way. Authors should make it clear that the paper is intended to be part of the Special Issue.

The deadline for submission of papers for the Special Issue is February 28th 2018 with an aim to get final versions accepted by September 2018 for publication.

The Special Issue is timed to coincide with Armistice Day and will appear in November 2018 (Vol. 13, No. 4).

References

Ames, K.L., 1980. Material Culture as NonVerbal Communication: A Historical Case Study. J. Am. Cult. 3, 619–641. doi:10.1111/j.1542-734X.1980.0304_619.x

Dacin, M.T., Munir, K., Tracey, P., 2010. Formal Dining at Cambridge Colleges: Linking Ritual Performance and Institutional Maintenance. Acad. Manage. J. 53, 1393–1418. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.57318388

Decker, Stephanie. 2014. ‘Solid Intentions: An Archival Ethnography of Corporate Architecture and Organizational Remembering’. Organization 21 (4): 514–42. doi:10.1177/1350508414527252.

Kjeldbæk, Esben (ed.). 2009. The power of the object : museums and World War I.  Edinburgh : Museums Etc.

Maclean, M., Harvey, C., Sillince, J.A.A., Golant, B.D., 2014. Living up to the past? Ideological sensemaking in organizational transition. Organization 21, 543–567. doi:10.1177/1350508414527247

Mosse, George L. 1990. Fallen soldiers: reshaping the memory of the world wars.  New York and Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Müller, Jan-Werner (ed.). 2002.  Memory and power in post-war Europe: studies in the presence of the past.  Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Pres..

Niżnik, Józef (ed.). 2013.  Twentieth century wars in European memory.  Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Rafaeli, A., Pratt, M.G., 1993. Tailored Meanings: On the Meaning and Impact of Organizational Dress. Acad. Manage. Rev. 18, 32–55. doi:10.5465/AMR.1993.399750

Ravasi, D. M. and Schultz, Majken. 2006. ‘Responding to Organizational Identity Threats: Exploring the Role of Organizational Culture’. Academy of Management Journal 49 (3): 433-458

Roowaan, Reis. 2009. A Business Case for Business History: How Companies Can Profit from their Past. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Boom.

Rowlinson, Michael and Hassard, John. 1993. ‘The Invention of Corporate Culture: A History of the Histories of Cadbury’. Human Relations 46: 299-326.

Suddaby, Roy, William M. Foster, and Chris Quinn Trank. 2016. ‘Re-Membering: rhetorical history as identity work’. In The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Theory and Behaviour, edited by Michael G. Pratt, Majken Schultz, Blake E. Ashforth and David Ravasi. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sumartojo, Shanti and Ben Wellings, (eds.). 2014. Nation, memory and Great War commemoration: mobilizing the past in Europe, Australia and New Zealand.  Bern, Switzerland : Peter Lang.

Williams, Paul Harvey. 2007. Memorial museums: the global rush to commemorate atrocities. Oxford : Berg.

 

LAEMOS 2018 – Organizational History & Memory

 LAEMOS 2018

 Sub-Theme Proposal –  Organizational History and Memory

Diego M. Coraiola – Universidade Positivo, Brazil (dcoraiola@gmail.com)

Roy Suddaby – University of Victoria, Canada (rsuddaby@uvic.ca)

Maria Jose Murcia – University of British Columbia, Canada and IAE Universidad Austral, Argentina (majosemurcia@gmail.com)

Mar Pérezts – EMLYON Business School, France (perezts@em-lyon.com)

Bill Cooke – York University, UK (bill.cooke@york.ac.uk)

The notion of organizational resilience implies an implicit theory of organizations in time. Organizational survival lies in the ability of adapting to present and future demands from the environment as well as remaining true to an organization’s essence. Simply put, resilience is about being able to change and yet to remain the same. Reaching a proper balance between the old and the new or the past and the future is an ambidexterous act of exploration and exploitation or a paradox of similarity-distinctiveness. It involves establishing links between the legacies of organizational identities established in the past to aspirational strategies of an imagined future organization. However, there is still little knowledge of how the connections between the present and past of organizational action are created and sustained over time.

There is mixed evidence about the role of the past and history in organization survival. The past, it seems, can both enable and constrain adaptation and change. While for some scholars history defines the boundaries of organizational action and the possibilities of organizational resilience (David, 1985; Hannan & Freeman, 1989; Marquis, 2003; Porter, 1998; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997), for others the meaning of past actions and events is open for reinterpretation and reshaping through present actions and capabilities. (Coraiola, Foster, & Suddaby, 2015; Mena, Rintamäki, Fleming, & Spicer, 2016; Suddaby & Foster, 2016; Suddaby, Foster, & Trank, 2010; Zundel, Holt, & Popp, 2016). Empirical research on the mnemonics of organizational life might provide a better understanding of the organizational capabilities in generating alternative paths and adapting to changing environmental conditions and at the same time remaining true to themselves.

Our goal for this sub-theme, therefore, is to encourage theory on the mnemonic processes managers and organizations engage with in order to generate continuity and change with the past in ways that assure organizational survival and advantage them in the present and future. This calls for great variety of theoretical perspectives and empirical settings in order to start generating the cumulative evidence about the influences of historical legacies and the organizational ability for managing the past. Submissions focusing on the mnemonics of organizational resilience could look at:

  1.  What are the implications of past managerial action for organizational success and survival (Greve & Rao, 2014; Marquis, 2003; Schrempf-Stirling, Palazzo, & Phillips, 2016; Sydow & Schreyögg, 2013)?
  2.  What are the practices and routines organizations engage with in order to balance the reproduction and renovation of the past (Coraiola, Suddaby, Foster, 2017; Suddaby, Foster, Quinn-Trank, 2010)?
  3.  How managers use history to manage processes of organizational change (Brunninge, 2009; Maclean, Harvey, Sillince, & Golant, 2014; Ybema, 2010)?
  4.  How organizational identity is created and reproduced over time through various processes of remembering and forgetting (Anteby & Molnár, 2012; Ravasi & Schultz, 2006; Schultz & Hernes, 2013; Suddaby, Foster, & Trank, 2016)?
  5.  How organizations develop mnemonic practices to manage legitimacy threats and corporate scandals (Janssen, 2012; Mena, Rintamäki, Fleming, & Spicer, 2016)?
  6.  What are the boundary conditions around the uses of organizational mnemonics to foster organizational resilience (Foster, Coraiola, Suddaby, Kroezen, & Chandler, Forthcoming; Zundel et al, 2016)?
  7.  How management and organization scholars contribute to the understanding and the engagement of managers and organizations with the past (Lasewicz, 2015; Suddaby, 2016; Taylor, Bell, & Cooke, 2009).

The focus of this sub-theme is thus to provide new and more encompassing evidence about the enabling and constraining effects of the past for organizational resilience and survival. Researchers are encouraged to submit papers for this sub-theme with theoretical, methodological, and empirical contributions. Our goal is to foster discussions around the influence of the past, present, and future of managerial action on organizational continuity and change.

References

Anteby, M., & Molnár, V. (2012). Collective Memory Meets Organizational Identity: Remembering to Forget in a Firm’s Rhetorical History. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 515-540.

Brunninge, O. (2009). Using history in organizations: How managers make purposeful reference to history in strategy processes. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22(1), 8-26.

Coraiola, D. M., Foster, W. M., & Suddaby, R. (2015). Varieties of History in Organization Studies. In P. G. McLaren, A. J. Mills & T. G. Weatherbee (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Management & Organizational History (pp. 206-221). New York: Routledge.

David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the Economics of QWERTY. The American Economic Review, 75(2), 332-337.

Foster, W. M., Coraiola, D. M., Suddaby, R., Kroezen, J., & Chandler, D. (Forthcoming). The strategic use of historical narratives: A theoretical framework. Business History.

Greve, H. R., & Rao, H. (2014). History and the present: Institutional legacies in communities of organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 34, 27-41.

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational Ecology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Janssen, C. I. (2012). Addressing Corporate Ties to Slavery: Corporate Apologia in a Discourse of Reconciliation. Communication Studies, 63(1), 18-35.

Lasewicz, P. C. (2015). Forget the Past? Or History Matters? Selected Academic Perspectives on the Strategic Value of Organizational Pasts. The American Archivist, 78(1), 59-83.

Maclean, M., Harvey, C., Sillince, J. A. A., & Golant, B. D. (2014). Living up to the past? Ideological sensemaking in organizational transition. Organization, 21(4), 543-567.

Marquis, C. (2003). The Pressure of the Past: Network Imprinting in Intercorporate Communities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(4), 655-689.

Mena, S., Rintamäki, J., Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2016). On the Forgetting of Corporate Irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 720-738.

Porter, M. E. (1998). Cluster and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 77-90.

Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. (2006). Responding to organizational identity threats: Exploring the role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 433-458.

Schrempf-Stirling, J., Palazzo, G., & Phillips, R. (2016). Historic Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 700-719.

Schultz, M., & Hernes, T. (2013). A Temporal Perspective on Organizational Identity. Organization Science, 24(1), 1-21.

Suddaby, R. (2016). Toward a Historical Consciousness: Following the Historic Turn in Management Thought. M@n@gement: Revue officielle de l’Association Internationale de Management Stratégique, 19(1), 46-60.

Suddaby, R., & Foster, W. M. (2016). History and Organizational Change. Journal of Management, 43(1), 19-38.

Suddaby, R., Foster, W. M., & Trank, C. Q. (2010). Rhetorical history as a source of competitive advantage. In J. A. C. Baum & J. Lampel (Eds.), Advances in Strategic Management: The Globalization of Strategy Research (pp. 147-173). Bingley: Emerald.

Suddaby, R., Foster, W. M., & Trank, C. Q. (2016). Re-membering: Rhetorical History as Identity-Work. In M. G. Pratt , M. Schultz, B. E. Ashforth & D. Ravasi (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Identity (pp. 297-316). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sydow, J., & Schreyögg, G. (2013). Self-reinforcing processes in and among organizations. Hampshire: Palgrave.

Taylor, S., Bell, E., & Cooke, B. (2009). Business history and the historiographical operation. Management & Organizational History, 4(2), 151-166.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.

Ybema, S. (2010). Talk of change: Temporal contrasts and collective identities. Organization Studies, 31(4), 481-503.

Zundel, M., Holt, R., & Popp, A. (2016). Using history in the creation of organizational identity. Management & Organizational History, 1-25.

 

Note: We thank Maria Del Pilar Acosta Collazos, Sébastien Mena, and William M. Foster for their contribution in developing the proposal for this sub-theme.

EBHA doctoral summer school

CALL FOR APPLICATIONS
9th EBHA DOCTORAL SUMMER SCHOOL
BUSINESS HISTORY: DEBATES, CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES


Keynote Speakers
: Franco Amatori (Bocconi University), Harold James (Princeton
University), Grietjie Verhoef (University of Johannesburg)

Faculty Members: Marten Boon (Norwegian University of Science and Technology),
Ludovic Cailluet (EDHEC Business School), Andrea Colli (Bocconi University), Abe de
Jong (Rotterdam School of Management), Jeffrey Fear (University of Glasgow), Andrea
Schneider (Gesellschaft für Unternehmensgeschichte), Ben Wubs (Erasmus University)

The 9th edition of the EBHA (European Business History Association) Summer
School will take place in Ancona (Italy) from Monday, September 4th to Saturday,
September 9th, 2017. The school aims at providing doctoral students with an overview of
relevant research results and of innovative tools and methodologies in the field of Business History. It is organised jointly by the European Business History Association (EBHA), the Università Politecnica delle Marche and the Italian Association for Business History (ASSI). Students will be accommodated in the beautiful town of Ancona debating and discussing their research with leading international scholars. The title of the school will be Business History: Debates, challenges and opportunities. The school will focus on theoretical, methodological and practical issues which are of relevance for advanced research in business history. The main aim of the school is to provide students with a full understanding of the newest trends in research in the field and to provide a friendly atmosphere in which to discuss their preliminary findings with leading scholars as well as among their peers. In this respect, the program features both lectures and seminars given by faculty and student presentations of their research projects. Each student will have 20 minutes maximum to present her/his project, stressing especially: research questions and goals, methodology, sources, challenges and provisional outcomes. After her/his presentation, each student will receive questions and comments from other students and from faculty members (approx 15-20 minutes).

The organisers will cover all local costs (accommodation in a double or triple room
and food), but participants are expected to pay their own travel expenses. Participation
will be limited to 15-20 PhD students.
Those interested in attending the summer school should send the following
documents by e-mail to the academic organiser Dr. Veronica Binda
(veronica.binda@unibocconi.it):

1) a brief CV (not exceeding one page);
2) a summary of their dissertation project (not exceeding three pages);
3) (if possible) an example of their work in progress, e.g. a draft chapter or a working paper (in any language).

The deadline for applications is May 14th , 2017. A maximum of 20 participants will be selected from these applications and will be notified by June 4th, 2017.

CfP: MHRG annual workshop

Call for Papers: Management History Research Group annual workshop

The 2017 Management History Research Group’s workshop will be held at the People’s History Museum, Manchester on July 10th and 11th.

The full call for papers is displayed on the MHRG webpages:

http://mgt-hist.org/index.php/2017/02/26/call-for-papers-mhrg-annual-workshop-2017-peoples-history-museum-manchester-july-10-11/

Further info about the workshop, e.g. registration fees and process, will be displayed there in due course.

We look forward to receiving your abstracts and/or suggestions for panels. The deadline for the receipt of abstracts is May 5th. Please send any abstracts to this dedicated email address below:

mhrg.manchester@gmail.com

Kind regards

Prof Leo McCann (on behalf of the workshop organizing committee).

CfP: Global Histories of Capital

CALL FOR PAPERS – EXTENDED DEADLINE MAY 1ST

Global Histories of Capital: New Perspectives on the Global South

Department of History, New York University and the Heilbroner Center for Capitalism Studies

The New York University Department of History and the Heilbroner Center for Capitalism Studies at the New School are inviting abstracts for a workshop entitled Global Histories of Capital: New Perspectives on the Global South. We are seeking paper proposals from advanced graduate students, post-doctoral fellows, and faculty working broadly on themes related to the history of capitalism, historical political economy, the history of economic life and new materialism. The workshop aims to connect scholars working on topics or countries considered part of the global south, international history and those engaged in comparative historical research.

The conference will take place the weekend of October 7th, 2017 in New York.

Applicants should submit a 250 – 300 word abstract to globalcapitalconference@gmail.com by May 1st, 2017. Suggested themes include but are not limited to:

Built-environments; slavery; labor; internationalisms; gender, gendered labor and unpaid work; concept histories; financialization; agrarian change; radical traditions; state structures; sovereignty; law; commodity histories; environmental historyhistories of economic thought; science, technology and the economy; culture and translation; decolonization; markets and market governance

Workshop Objectives

Our aim is to bring together graduate students working on areas of the non-west, broadly conceived, whose work approaches questions of the economic from political, environmental, intellectual and cultural perspectives. In light of growing interest in the status of the economic to social scientific inquiry — spurred by research programs from the history of capitalism to new materialism — our objective is to foster a critical conversation about how we write such histories from world-regions outside Western Europe and North America. By bringing together scholars of varied regional expertise, we hope we might more precisely reframe the relevance of categories such as the ‘global south’ and ‘non-west’ within their specific relationship to historical processes of globalization and imperialism.

Our emphasis on the ‘global’ nature of this history is not simply to fill-in a preexisting cartography that has been relatively neglected by new histories of capitalism. Rather, we intend to explore how the global emerged as a category under modern capitalism and the different moments in which it has been imagined and redefined, and perhaps misrecognized. Understanding the global spaces of capitalism requires close attention to methodological questions of comparability, scale, historical structure and unevenness. Therefore this workshop intends to group scholars thematically, rather than by region or periodization, in order to develop comparative vocabularies for doing this type of historical work.

Business History Review
Call for Papers for Special Issue of the Journal on

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND PHILANTHROPY

Guest editors: Charles Harvey*, Mairi Maclean** and Roy Suddaby***

*Professor of Business History and Management, Newcastle University, UK
**Professor of International Business, University of Bath, UK
***Winspear Chair of Management, University of Victoria, Canada

Theme of the Special Issue

Inequality is a deeply embedded feature of the contemporary world order (Reich, 2015). In this Special Issue, we focus on the related historical processes underpinning the amassing of entrepreneurial fortunes and large scale philanthropy (Baumol & Strom, 2014). Despite rising interest in charitable giving, philanthropy and the relationship of philanthropy to entrepreneurship remain under-researched and under-theorized. Business history research has much to offer in this regard. The engagement in philanthropy by enterprising individuals and families is a feature of many historical epochs in many countries, perhaps most famously associated with the Gilded Age in the United States and names such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller Sr., whose philanthropic foundations remain vital social institutions today (Hall, 1992; Zunz, 2012). The opportunity exists for historical research to inform current debates through research that offers long run perspectives and critical understandings of the relationships between entrepreneurship, wealth and philanthropy, each bound up with the economic, social, political and ideological forces that have shaped the new age of inequality (Boltanski & Chiapello, 2007; Piketty, 2014).

First, we observe that the making of entrepreneurial fortunes, often within the space of a few decades, is one factor driving the rise of inequalities within and between countries (Atkinson, 2015; Atkinson, Piketty & Saez, 2012; Bourguignon, 2015; Reich, 2015; Stiglitz, 2015). We are interested in how such fortunes have been made historically and the enabling conditions that gave rise to their creation, nationally and internationally. Second, we observe that the preservation and growth of large entrepreneurial fortunes has become an economic field in its own right, populated by allied accounting, taxation, wealth management and legal professional organizations that take advantage of enabling regulatory and legal frameworks across the world (Beaverstock & Hall, 2016; Palan & Mangravati, 2016). We are interested to learn more about how dedicated organizations such as family offices (Glucksberg & Burrows, 2016) have helped the super-rich to avoid contributing more to the societies in which they were nurtured. Third, we observe that significant numbers of entrepreneurs with large fortunes have become involved in large scale philanthropic ventures, seeking social improvement by combatting widespread economic and social disadvantages (Schervish, 2016). We are interested in why some entrepreneurs became entrepreneurial philanthropists and not others, how they selected and promoted their causes, and how they institutionalized their endeavours through the creation and endowment of philanthropic foundations.

The existing literature on the making and preservation of entrepreneurial fortunes and the investment of some part of these fortunes philanthropically is sparse relative to the
importance of the topic (Taylor, Strom & Renz, 2014; Hay & Beaverstock, 2016). Harvey, Maclean, Gordon and Shaw (2011) and Shaw, Gordon, Harvey and Maclean (2013) have defined the intersection of entrepreneurship and philanthropy as entrepreneurial philanthropy: the active deployment of various forms of capital by super-rich individuals and the companies and foundations they control in pursuit of ambitious social projects on a non-profit basis. The ideology and practices of entrepreneurial philanthropy are seen to have deep roots, originating in the second half of the nineteenth century and encapsulated in Carnegie’s famous essay The Gospel of Wealth (2014 [1889]). Conceived in one age of inequality, the entrepreneurial philanthropy construct remains a vital one today. It led to the first great wave of philanthropic foundations (Carnegie, Rockefeller, Kellogg, and Ford) and underpins the thinking behind the current wave of large scale philanthropic interventions of Gates and others (Bishop & Green, 2008). Entrepreneurial philanthropists bring to their interventions not only money but also their name, networks and business expertise, becoming activists and agents for change (Schervish, 2014). They are characterized by their drive to accumulate personal fortunes, together with a concomitant impulse to employ a share of their wealth in pursuit of philanthropic ventures which they control. Hence, their focus is directed towards the (entrepreneurial) creation of wealth and the (philanthropic) redistribution of that wealth to serve specified social objectives (Acs & Phillips, 2002; Audretsch & Hinger, 2014).

Yet despite growing attention paid to philanthropic giving (Bishop & Green, 2008) and the global reach of the phenomenon, entrepreneurial philanthropy remains under examined (Nicholls, 2010; Taylor, Strom & Renz, 2014), recent exceptions notwithstanding. Harvey, Maclean, Gordon and Shaw (2011), using capital theory to interpret the behavior of Andrew Carnegie, propose a transactional model of entrepreneurial philanthropy, moving the agenda to more critical terrain beyond the realms of altruism and disinterested social behaviour (Boulding, 1962), consonant with the work of Bekkers and Wiepking (2011), Bosworth (2011), Ostrower (1995), Schervish (2005, 2014) and Villadsen (2007). Maclean, Harvey, Gordon and Shaw (2015) take a further theoretical stride in showing how entrepreneurs who have become philanthropists deploy the metaphorical framework of the journey to navigate different social landscapes, and how philanthropic identities have unfolded through a process of wayfinding in response to events, transitions and turning points. Philanthropic identity narratives serve as ‘generativity scripts’ that empower wealthy entrepreneurs to generate a legacy that is both self and socially oriented. This finding is consistent with those of Feldman and Graddy-Reed (2014) who envision the emergence of community minded philanthropists as moving from a concern with business success to social success, as highlighted by social entrepreneurship scholars (Dees & Anderson, 2006; Maclean, Harvey & Gordon, 2013). Other research takes a more critical, pessimistic view of the social processes at work, identifying entrepreneurial philanthropy with the subjugation of democracy and the preservation of privilege on the part of super-rich entrepreneurs as a plutocratic class (Hay, 2016; Kapoor, 2016; Maclean & Harvey, 2016).

Business history, we propose, have much to offer to research on the interrelated topics of entrepreneurship and philanthropy. Friedman and Jones (2011), the current editors of the Business History Review, have argued persuasively that business historians should engage more fully with the defining issues of the moment. In this way, they might speak truth to power by establishing the historical contexts and forces, nationally and internationally, that have informed and continue to inform the present. History affords the opportunity to stand back and identify what has changed and what remains the same in structures and situations, establishing the perspectives necessary for sound policy making (Moody & Breeze, 2016; Reich, Cordelli & Bernholz, 2016). Events that may once have seemed of little consequence often turn out to be decisive, especially those that work subtly to effect far-reaching institutional change (North, 1990; Suddaby, Foster & Mills, 2014). The full effects of the prosecution of the neo-liberal agenda are salient in this regard (Harvey, 2005). Economic historians have already done much to inform the global debate on inequality and its consequences, to which the works of Piketty (2014) and Atkinson (2016) in particular bear elegant testimony. Within the domain of business history, the research of Hall (1992, 2006) and Zunz (2012) are exemplary in demonstrating the linkages between entrepreneurship and philanthropy. Both authors trace the development of philanthropy in the United States in the context of institutional and ideological change, particularly with respect to the formation of large private foundations, laying the groundwork for future work on more specific themes and issues. From a European standpoint, Roza, Vermuelen, Liket and Meijs (2014) point to the need for cross-nationally comparative historical research in highlighting the impact on philanthropic endeavours of different models of civil society and ideologies within different countries.

An essential quality of all papers selected for publication in the Special Issue is deep historical scholarship, exhibiting variously sensitivity to specific historical contexts, historiographical exactitude and skilled analysis of archival and other primary sources. As guest editors, we also urge potential contributors to the Special Issue to demonstrate engagement with appropriate theory and models in addition to excellence in historical research and analysis (Maclean, Harvey & Clegg, 2016a; 2016b; Suddaby, Hardy & Huy, 2011). In this way, we intend that articles selected for publication should speak to as wide an audience as possible inside and outside academia, bringing a real historical perspective to current debates on entrepreneurship and philanthropy and their role, actual and prospective, in the generation and mitigation of the inequalities that have become so entrenched within the world in which we live.
Potential Topics

The following list is indicative of the range of topics contributors might wish to develop, but it is not exhaustive and authors should feel free to put forward research on any topic consistent with the broad theme of the Call for Papers. We particularly welcome historical research that is relevant to contemporary debates, including articles that are comparative across nations. We are looking for historical contributions that make connections between entrepreneurial and philanthropic practices and processes.

  • Historical origins and transitions: the journey into philanthropy.
  • Philanthropic ideas, rewards, satisfactions and motivations.
  • Philanthropic activities, methods, problems, learning and commitments.
  • Social expectations and the choice of philanthropic causes and beneficiaries.
  • The origins and changing discourse of philanthropy.
  • Identity conflict and self-interest in the philanthropic endeavours of entrepreneurs.
  • Founder imprinting and the strategies and transitions of philanthropic foundations.
  • Historical institutionalism, institutional change and philanthropy.
  • Historical actors, philanthropy and the accumulation of social and symbolic capital.
  • Spouses and families in philanthropic decision making.
  • Philanthropy, social innovation and the rise of the non-profit sector.
  • Historical corporate philanthropy and corporate strategy.
  • Entrepreneurial, super-rich and philanthropic networks of the past.
  • Philanthropy, power, elite domination and social control in historical perspective.
  • Distributive justice and the ethics of entrepreneurial philanthropy.

Process, Timeline and Information

The deadline for the submission of papers for consideration for inclusion in the Special Issue is 31st December 2017.

Potential contributors should alert one of the guest editors of their intention to submit an article and seek advice as necessary at the earliest opportunity:

Charles Harvey: charles.harvey@ncl.ac.uk
Mairi Maclean: kmm57@bath.ac.uk
Roy Suddaby: rsuddaby@uvic.ca

A related workshop on Entrepreneur-Philanthropists in Theory and History will take place on the afternoon of 28th June 2017 at the University of Glasgow hosted by the guest editors. This will include a paper development session and there will be opportunities to meet personally with the guest editors.

All articles should be prepared following Business History Review conventions and should not exceed 10,000 words inclusive of footnote references, tables and charts. Submission is by the normal process for the journal clearly signalling that the article is intended for consideration for the Special Issue. The normal Business History Review blind reviewing process will apply.
Final decisions on submissions will be made by the journal editors, Walter Friedman and Geoffrey Jones, following recommendations from the guest editors.

References

Acs, Z.J. and Phillips, R.J. (2002). Entrepreneurship and philanthropy in American capitalism. Small Business Economics, 19: 189-294.
Atkinson, A.B. (2015). Inequality: What can be done? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Atkinson, A.B., Piketty, T. and Saez, E. (2012). Top Incomes in the Long Run. Institute for Research on Labor and Employment: University of California, Berkeley.
Audretsch, D.B. and Hinger, J.R. (2014). From entrepreneur to philanthropist: Two sides of the same coin? In Taylor, M.L., Strom, R.J. and Renz, D.O. (2014). Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurs’ Engagement with Philanthropy: Perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar: 24-42.
Baumol, W.J. and Strom, R.J. (2014). Entrepreneurship and philanthropy: Protecting the public interest. In Taylor, M.L., Strom, R.J. and Renz, D.O. (eds) (2014). Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurs’ Engagement with Philanthropy: Perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar: 11-23.
Beaverstock, J.V. and Hall, S. (2016). Super-rich capitalism: Managing and preserving private wealth management in the offshore world. In Hay, I. & Beaverstock (eds), Handbook on Wealth and the Super-Rich. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar: 401-421.
Bekkers, R. and Wiepking, P. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5): 924-973.
Bishop, M. and Green, M. (2008). Philanthrocapitalism. London: Black.
Boltanski, L. & Chiapello, E. (2007). The New Spirit of Capitalism. Trans. G. Elliott. London: Verso.
Bosworth, D. (2011). The cultural contradictions of philanthrocapitalism. Society, 48: 382-388.
Boulding, K. (1962). Notes on a theory of philanthropy. In F.G. Dickinson (Ed.), Philanthropy and public policy. Boston: NBER, 57-72.
Bourguignon, F. (2015). The Globalization of Inequality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Carnegie, A. (2014). The Autobiography of Andrew Carnegie and His Essay ‘The Gospel of Wealth’. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.
Dees, J.G. and Anderson, B.B. (2006). Framing a theory of social entrepreneurship. In R. Mosher-Williams (Ed.), Research on social entrepreneurship (pp. 39-66). Indianapolis, IN: ARNOVA.
Feldman, M.P. and Graddy-Reed, A. (2014). Local champions: Entrepreneurs’ transition to philanthropy and the vibrancy of place. In Taylor, M.L., Strom, R.J. and Renz, D.O. (eds) (2014). Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurs’ Engagement with Philanthropy: Perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar: 43-76.
Friedman, W.A. and Jones, G. (2011). Business history: Time for debate. Business History Review 85(1): 1-8.
Glucksberg, L and Burrows, R. (2016) Family Offices and the Contemporary Infrastructures of Dynastic Wealth’, Sociologica: Italian Journal of Sociology, forthcoming.
Hall, P.D. (1992). Inventing the nonprofit sector and other essays on philanthropy, voluntary and nonprofit organizations. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hall, P.D. (2006). A historical overview of philanthropy, voluntary associations, and nonprofit organizations in the US, 1600-2000. In Powell, W.W. and Steinberg, R. (2006). The nonprofit sector: A research handbook. 2nd Ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press: 32-65.
Harvey, C., Maclean, M., Gordon, J. and Shaw, E. (2011). Andrew Carnegie and the foundations of contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy. Business History, 53(3): 424-448.
Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hay, I. and Beaverstock (eds) (2016), Handbook on Wealth and the Super-Rich. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
Hay, I. (2016). On plutonomy: Economy, power and the wealthy few in the Second Gilded Age. In Hay, I. & Beaverstock (eds), Handbook on Wealth and the Super-Rich. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar: 68-93.
Kapoor, I. (2016). Billionaire philanthropy: ‘decaf capitalism’. In Hay, I. and Beaverstock (eds) (2016), Handbook on Wealth and the Super-Rich. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar: 113-131.
Maclean, M., Harvey, C. and Gordon, J. (2013). Social innovation, social entrepreneurship and the practice of contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy. International Small Business Journal, 31(7): 747-763.
Maclean, M., Harvey, C., Gordon, J. and Shaw, E. (2015). Identity, storytelling and the philanthropic journey. Human Relations, 68(10): 1623-1652.
Maclean, M. and Harvey, C. (2016). “Give it Back, George”: Network Dynamics in the Philanthropic Field’. Organization Studies, 37(3): 399-423.
Maclean, M., Harvey, C. and Clegg, S.R. (2016a). Conceptualizing historical organization studies. Academy of Management Review, e-print ahead of publication.
Maclean, M., Harvey, C. and Clegg, S.R. (2016b). Organization theory in business and management history: Present status and future prospects.
Moody, M. and Breeze, B. (eds) (2016). The Philanthropy Reader. Abingdon: Routeledge.
Nicholls, A. (2010). The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: Reflexive isomorphism in a pre-paradigmatic field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4): 611-633.
Ostrower, F. (1995). Why the Wealthy Give: the Culture of Elite Philanthropy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Palan, R. and Mangraviti, G, (2016). Troubling tax havens: Multi-jurisdictional arbitrage and corporate tax footprint reduction. In Hay, I. & Beaverstock (eds), Handbook on Wealth and the Super-Rich. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar: 422-441.
Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-first Century. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Reich, R. (2015). Saving Capitalism: For Many, Not the Few. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Reich, R., Cordelli, C. and Bernholz, L. (eds) (2016). Philanthropy in Democratic Societies: History, Institutions, Values. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Roza, L., Vermeulen, M., Liket, K. and Meijs, L. (2014). Contemporary European E2P; Towards an understanding of European philanthrepreneurs. In Taylor, M.L., Strom, R.J. and Renz, D.O. (eds) (2014). Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurs’ Engagement with Philanthropy: Perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar: 197-233.
Schervish, P.G. (2005). Major donors, major motives: The people and purposes behind major gifts. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 47, 59-87.
Schervish, P.G. (2014). Hi-tech donors and their impact on philanthropy: The conventional, novel and strategic traits o0f agent-animated wealth and philanthropy. In Taylor, M.L., Strom, R.J. and Renz, D.O. (2014). Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurs’ Engagement with Philanthropy: Perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar: 148-183.
Schervish, P.G. (2016). Making money and making the self. In Hay, I. and Beaverstock, J.V. (eds), Handbook on Wealth and the Super-Rich. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar: 132-154.
Shaw, E., Gordon, J., Harvey, C. and Maclean, M. (2013). Exploring contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy. International Small Business Journal, 31(5), 580-599.
Stiglitz, J.E. (2015). The Great Divide. New York: W.W.Norton.
Suddaby, R., Hardy, C. and Huy, Q.N. (2011). Introduction to special topic forum: Where are the new theories of organization? Academy of Management Review, 36(2): 236-246.
Suddaby, R., Foster, W.M. and Mills, A. J. (2014). Historical institutionalism. In M. Bucheli and R.D. Wadhwani (Eds.), Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Method: 100-123. Oxford: OUP.
Taylor, M.L., Strom, R.J. and Renz, D.O. (eds) (2014). Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurs’ Engagement with Philanthropy: Perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Villadsen, K. (2007). The emergence of ‘neo-philanthropy’. Acta Sociologica, 50: 309-323
Zunz, O. (2012). Philanthropy in America. Princeton, NF: Princeton University Press.

 

 

CfP: Alternative organizational forms in the economy

Call for Papers:
International PhD Workshop

“Alternative Organizational Forms in the Economy”


June 21-22, 2017

Hertie School of Governance Berlin


We invite PhD students from universities worldwide to participate in a workshop to be hosted at the Hertie School of Governance in Berlin on June 21-22. The event is supported by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) as part of the IPID4all programme. Financial support is available for students from universities abroad.

The workshop is organized in cooperation with Prof. Johanna Mair, the Knowledge Initiative on Organizations and Society (KIOS, https://www.hertie-school.org/kios) and the research cluster “Organisation, Management and Leadership”.

Economic crises and complex social problems such as inequality and poverty are calling into question the sustainability of traditional models of organizing the economy and providing public goods in both advanced and developing economies. Alternative organizational forms include social entrepreneurship, public-private partnerships, impact investing, and corporate social responsibility and innovation, among others.

Associated with these organizational forms are practices such as governing with stakeholders, evaluating impact, and measuring progress that defy established ways of doing things following a more sectorial approach that distinguishes between the private, public and social sector. We are interested in why and how these organizations and their practices emerge and take root in different institutional contexts. We therefore invite papers studying the drivers, challenges, and outcomes of these organizational forms drawing on different perspectives from organization studies, sociology, public administration, management, and comparative political economy. Papers should focus on one or more of the following aspects:

  • Social enterprises and entrepreneurship
  • Public-private partnerships and governance implications
  • Provision of public goods through private partners
  • Institutions and alternative forms of organizing from a comparative perspective: field-level dynamics, varieties of capitalism, institutional legacies, welfare state implications
  • Corporate social responsibility
  • Nonprofit sector activity and new forms of philanthropy
  • The constitution and role of social problems in motivating and legitimizing social change organizations
  • Configurations of hybrid organizing

In the workshop, we will discuss these issues and invite PhD students to submit papers speaking to any of the aspects mentioned. We are open to different theoretical and methodological approaches.

Workshop format:
Each participant will present a 10-page paper in one of about five sessions (with 2-3 papers each). Fellow PhD students and senior scholars from the Hertie School and partner schools will be present to discuss the papers.

Please apply by submitting your proposal or extended abstract (max. 2 pages) and a CV by April 15, 2017.

Participants will be informed by May 2 and are expected to send an extended version 1-2 weeks before the workshop.

Please send your applications to: phd-team@hertie-school.org

Participants from universities outside of Germany will receive a travel lump sum depending on the country of residence and a per diem lump sum to cover accommodation costs.

Contact:
Hertie School of Governance GmbH | Graduate Programmes Hertie School of Governance GmbH | KIOS

Verena Neumann, M.A. | Associate for PhD Affairs Dr. Nikolas Rathert | Postdoctoral Researcher

Friedrichstr. 180 | 10117 Berlin |Germany Friedrichstr. 180 | 10117 Berlin |Germany

phd-team@hertie-school.org rathert@hertie-school.org

CfP: Use of Methodology in MH

Special issue call for papers from Journal of Management History

USES OF METHODOLOGY IN MANAGEMENT HISTORY

Guest Editors:
Wim van Lent, Montpellier Business School
Gabrielle Durepos, Mount Saint Vincent University

Submission deadline: 1 February 2018

Background

Ever since the “historical turn” in organisation studies (Clark and Rowlinson 2004), the importance of history to understanding organisations and institutions has been increasingly recognized (e.g. Sydow, Schreyogg and Koch 2009, Ocasio, Mauskapf and Steele 2015, Suddaby 2016, Durepos and Mills 2012). Since history provides an alternative to the dominant science paradigms in organisation studies (Zald 1993), studies using a historical approach are contributing to and even shaping a growing number of scholarly debates (Decker, Kipping and Wadhwani 2015). The growing appreciation of historical approaches to building and testing organisation theory has spawned a body of work on how to engage in historical analysis with the specific aim of bridging the gap between the historical and organisational scientific communities (e.g. Rowlinson, Hassard and Decker 2014, De Jong, Higgins and Van Driel 2015, Whittle and Wilson 2015, Suddaby 2016, Durepos 2015). The fundamental insight that emerges from it is that history is no less fragmented than organisational theory (Rowlinson et al. 2014: 269). According to Bowden (2016), management scholars are essentially divided along a continuum with on the one extreme De Jong et al.’s (2015) position that history should be empirical and theory-oriented, and on the other extreme Whittle and Wilson’s (2015) “ethnomethodological” perspective, which is rooted in postmodernism and takes a more critical perspective on history-writing. Scholars find themselves either on the continuum with genealogy (Decker et al. 2015) and rhetorical history (Suddaby, Foster and Quinn Trank 2010) and even beyond with ANTi-History (Durepos and Mills 2012, 2017).
Although methodological diversity could impede moving the field forward, the variety that they encompass comes with potential, for example in terms of diversity of research questions and richness of historical knowledge (Decker et al. 2015). Fortunately, the conditions for the further development of management history (also in relation to other fields) seem to be in place: despite history’s growing permeation of organisation studies, there is still a lot of evidence enclosed in corporate archives with which management historians can formulate novel insights into the working of organisations and institutions (Rowlinson et al. 2014, Mills and Helms Mills 2017). However, in order to fully realize this potential, management history will have to go beyond “merely” continuing the proliferation of research using alternative types of historical data and analysis. Most importantly, research should be multidisciplinary (Bucheli and Wadhwani 2014), connecting an understanding of organisational theory and methods with historical contexts and source material (Rowlinson et al. 2014), or involving multiple sources and methods for data analysis (Bowden 2016). In addition, since histories are not uncontested records, management history is greatly helped by methodological reflexivity (Rowlinson et al. 2014). That is, when researchers are aware of their role in selecting certain traces over others, what their sources cover, and how and why they were put together, as well as the shaping influence of the historical context within which they construct theoretical arguments, they may improve the plausibility of their analyses and better identify scope conditions (Bowden 2016).

Aims and Scope
This special issue has two broad purposes: 1) to move forward the methodological debates in management history and 2) to demonstrate the use of / refine historical methods in organisational research through empirical analysis. We therefore welcome both theoretical and empirical papers. Below we suggest a non-exhaustive list of specific topics that contribute to the above two goals. Papers focusing on topics that are not included but sufficiently related to the goals highlighted above would also be welcome as submissions to the special issue.
•    Epistemology and management history
•    Typification of research methodologies
•    Novel research methods in management history
•    Ways in which different methods can be combined for richer empirical insights
•    Empirical demonstrations of the use of one or several methodologies
•    Methodological refinement through empirical analysis
•    Benefits / drawbacks of research methods for a management history audience

Submission Process
Submitted papers must conform to the submission guidelines of the Journal of Management History. Manuscripts are due by 1 February 2018 and must be submitted using the JMH submission system at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jmh. Authors should indicate that they would like their document to be considered for the special issue “Uses of Methodology in Management History”. Authors of papers invited to be revised and resubmitted will be expected to work within a tight timeframe for revisions.

Further information

Questions pertaining to this special issue may be directed to:
•    Wim van Lent (w.vanlent@montpellier-bs.com)
•    Gabrielle Durepos (gabrielle.durepos@msvu.ca)
•    Bradley Bowden (b.bowden@griffith.edu.au)

For questions about submitting to the special issue contact the JMH Publisher, Patti Davis (pdavis@emeraldinsight.com).

References

Bowden, B (2016) Editorial and note on the writing of management history. Journal of Management History, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 118-129.
Bucheli M and Wadhwani D (2014) Organizations in time: history, theory, methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clark P and Rowlinson M (2004) The treatment of history in organisation studies: toward an “historic turn”? Business History, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 331-352.
De Jong A, Higgins DM and Van Driel H (2015) Towards a new business history? Business History, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 5-29.
Decker S, Kipping M and Wadhwani D (2015) New business histories! Plurality in business history research methods. Business History, Vol. 57, No.1, pp. 30-40.
Durepos G (2015) ANTi-history: Toward amodern histories, in P Genoe McLaren, AJ Mills and T Weatherbee (Eds.), The Routledge companion to management and organisational history (pp. 153-180). New York: Routledge.
Durepos G and Mills A (2012) ANTi-history: Theorizing the past, history, and
historiography in management and organizational studies. Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.
Durepos G and Mills A (In press, 2017) ANTi-history: An alternative approach to historiography, in C Cassell, A Cunliffe and G Grandy (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative business and management research methods. London: Sage.
Mills A and Helms Mills J (In press, 2017) Archival research, in C Cassell, A Cunliffe and G Grandy (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative business and management research methods. London: SAGE.
Ocasio W, Mauskapf M and Steele CWJ (2016) History, society, and institutions: the role of collective memory in the emergence and evolution of societal logics, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 676-699.
Rowlinson M, Hassard J and Decker S (2014) Research strategies for organisational history: a dialogue between historical theory and organization theory, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 250-274.
Suddaby R (2016) Toward a historical consciousness: following the historic turn in management thought, M@n@gement, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 46-60.
Suddaby R, Foster W and Quinn Trank C (2010) Rhetorical history as a source of competitive advantage, Advances in Strategic Management, Vol. 27, pp. 147-173.
Sydow J, Schreyögg G and Koch J (2009) Organisational path dependence: opening the black box, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 689-709.
Whittle A and Wilson J (2015) Ethnomethodology and the production of history: studying ‘history-in-action’, Business History, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 41-63.
Zald M (1993) Organisation studies as a scientific and humanistic enterprise: towards a reconceptualization of the foundations of the field, Organisation Science, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 513-528.

CfP: EBHA doctoral summer school

CALL FOR APPLICATIONS

9th EBHA DOCTORAL SUMMER SCHOOL BUSINESS HISTORY: DEBATES, CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

The 9th edition of the EBHA (European Business History Association) Summer School will take place in Ancona (Italy) from Monday, September 4th to Saturday, September 9th, 2017. The school aims at providing doctoral students with an overview of relevant research results and of innovative tools and methodologies in the field of Business History. It is organised jointly by the European Business History Association (EBHA), the Università Politecnica delle Marche and the Italian Association for Business History (ASSI). Students will be accommodated in the beautiful town of Ancona debating and discussing their research with leading international scholars.

The title of the school will be Business History: Debates, challenges and opportunities. The school will focus on theoretical, methodological and practical issues which are of relevance for advanced research in business history. The main aim of the school is to provide students with a full understanding of the newest trends in research in the field and to provide a friendly atmosphere in which to discuss their preliminary findings with leading scholars as well as among their peers. In this respect, the program features both lectures and seminars given by faculty and student presentations of their research projects. Each student will have 20 minutes maximum to present her/his project, stressing especially: research questions and goals, methodology, sources, challenges and provisional outcomes. After her/his presentation, each student will receive questions and comments from other students and from faculty members (approx 15-20 minutes).

The organisers will cover all local costs (accommodation in a double or triple room and food), but participants are expected to pay their own travel expenses. Participation will be limited to 15-20 PhD students.

Those interested in attending the summer school should send the following documents by e-mail to the academic organiser Dr. Veronica Binda (veronica.binda@unibocconi.it): 1) a brief CV (not exceeding one page); 2) a summary of their dissertation project (not exceeding three pages); 3) (if possible) an example of their work in progress, e.g. a draft chapter or a working paper (in any language).

The deadline for applications is May 14th, 2017. A maximum of 20 participants will be selected from these applications and will be notified by June 4th, 2017.

Extended deadline: History & Ethnography

Conference submission deadline extended to 31 March!!

12th Annual International Ethnography Symposium

“Politics and Ethnography in an Age of Uncertainty”

29 August – 1 September 2017 
Alliance Manchester Business School

Stream 3: History and Ethnography

Stephanie Decker and John Hassard

History and ethnography have largely evolved in parallel, despite some significant research contributions from historical ethnography and ethnographic history (Rowlinson, Hassard, & Decker, 2014). To a large extent, organizational ethnographers research ‘literate’ settings in which social actors essentially self-document their experience through a variety of genres of anthropological and sociological writing. However, as Paul Atkinson and Amanda Coffey have pointed out, “many qualitative researchers continue to produce ethnographic accounts of complex, literate social worlds as if they were entirely without documents or text” (Atkinson & Coffey, 2011, p. 78). In this stream, we aim to bring the practices of historical research (largely but not exclusively text-based) closer to the practices of organizational ethnographers (largely focused on direct observation).

History and ethnography appear to overlap in many ways: First, there is the history of organizational ethnography that has not seen extensive exploration. Attempts to understand the disciplinary, intellectual and organizational origins of a field are made as research areas mature and become more established (Hassard, 2012; O’Connor, 1999). Such an approach to history helps to challenge present-day understanding and open up new areas for research.

Second, as indicated in the quotation above, ethnographers encounter history during their fieldwork in a variety of ways. Ethnographies of museums or symbolic sites are obvious examples, but equally important are the oral histories elicited through interviewing, the public histories that organizations or its members produce, and in some cases the academic business histories about organizations that become reference points for action and identities (Yanow, 1998). History and memory overlap closely here, but nevertheless remain conceptually distinct. Histories are mobilized for particular organizational purposes in the present (Ybema, 2014) and form part of a wider organizational rhetoric (Suddaby, Foster, & Quinn Trank, 2010).

Third, historians have frequently taken an ethnographic sensibility to their research. Italian microhistory in the 1980s was an obvious case (Ginzburg, 2012; Levi, 1991), and cultural history has focused on research questions and methodological approaches that are closely related to ethnographic debates. Archival research can be approached just as entering a research site, and historians often serendipitously encounter the everyday among more standardized organizational documentation (Decker, 2013; McKinlay, 2002).

We welcome submissions dealing with the intersection between history and ethnography. Please submit a 500 word abstract or proposal by Tuesday 28th February 2017 to s.decker@aston.ac.uk.