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

CfP: SI Management & Political Philosophy

Call for Papers: Special Issue on Management and Political Philosophy (Philosophy of Management)

Deadline: 31 March 2021

Guest Editors: Marian Eabrasu and David Wilson

Political philosophy explores general questions about how to organize ourselves, and how to make legitimate decisions about how to organize ourselves, for the purpose of meeting our most fundamental needs of security and welfare.  Management philosophy, for its part, explores general questions about existing organizations and how they can best advance their goals. There is, thus, much overlap of subject area.  Political states themselves must engage in the management of public resources and public institutions; thus, historians of management typically start with a discussion of ancient thought about how to rule (see Witzel, 2016; Wren, 2020).  With the rise of industrialization, organizations that were independent of but hosted by the state began to proliferate, and management thought became focused on them instead.  However, not only does management continue to occur in both, but political behavior and organizational behavior strongly influence one another. Thus, inquiry in each area can be pertinent to the other. This idea joins the observation that in the past decades CSR took a political turn (Kourula et al., 2019). However, while welcoming papers discussing political CSR (Scherer et al., 2016), this call for paper opens a wider theoretical angle by inviting contributions to take a step back from the current conversations on the political roles of corporations and think more broadly on topics such as:

  • States are not exactly like corporations: some argue that it is a difference in degree, others that it is a difference in kind (Schrempf-Stirling, 2018). Among other things, this question bears on the extent to which the vast literature about ruling the state can be applied to managing the firm (Philips and Margolis, 1999; Moriarty, 2005; Taylor, 2017).
  • There are lively debates about the extent to which it is appropriate and desirable for the state to treat corporations as persons. What rights, and what responsibilities, are best accorded them? Are they more properly treated by the state (contrary to the first question) not as a different sort of state but as a different sort of citizen  (French, 1979; Ripken, 2019)?
  • Corporate management, along with state government, is an important variety of social authority. Many have argued that there is a strong case to be made for democracy in corporate management (Dahl, 1985; McMahon, 2017; Anderson, 2019). What would such democracy look like?
  • Political thought has been directed to supporting a robust notion of corporate social responsibility-owing, for example, to the deployment of the same arguments that are used to justify capitalism (Heath, 2020) or to the argument that they serve important political purposes (Singer, 2019). How can political thought support the notion of corporate social responsibility?
  • It is argued that it is appropriate and even desirable for the state to regulate managerial behavior with respect to, for example, safety, discrimination in hiring and pay, and whistleblowing. This, in other words, is the area of state-enforced worker’s rights (Werhane, 1985; Werhane, Radin, and Bowie, 2004). Should the state regulate managerial behavior – and if so, how?   
  • The increasing permeability of the boundary between public and private spheres raises the question of where the power should reside: business or politics? The struggles of influence between business and politics, often epitomized by formulas such as “big corporations” or “omnipotent government,” leaves open fundamental philosophical questions on how their relations should eventually be organized (Chomsky, 2013; Bakan, 2003; Reich, 2007; Blok, 2019).
  • Political philosophers generally make a space for civil disobedience in the case of illegitimate governments or laws (Simmons, 1979). At the same time, corporate social responsibility and business ethics literature typically assumes that businesses should obey the law.  Is there a space for civil disobedience by firms that are faced with corrupt political regimes or immoral laws? 

Details

Submissions are sought for review and publication in Philosophy of Managementwww.springer.com/journal/40926

Articles can be submitted at https://www.editorialmanager.com/phom/ by 31 March 2021.

Expected publication date: January 2022.

Word length: 6,000-10,000 words, excluding References.

Guest Editors:

David Carl Wilson, Professor of Philosophy, Webster University: wilson@webster.edu

Marian Eabrasu, Associate Professor, European Business School Paris, EM Normandie: eabrasu@yahoo.com

References

Anderson, E. (2019) Private Government (Princeton: Princeton University Press)

Bakan, J. (2005) The Corporation (New York: The Free Press)

Blok, V. (2020) ‘Politics versus Economics. Philosophical Reflections on the Nature of Corporate Governance’ Philosophy of Management 19, pp. 69–87

Chomsky, N. (2013) Making the Future (San Francisco: City Lights Open Media)

Dahl, R. A. (1985) A Preface to Economic Democracy (Berkeley: University of California Press)

French, P. (1979) ‘The Corporation as a Moral Person’ American Philosophical Quarterly 16(3), pp. 207-15

Heath, J. (2020) The Machinery of Government (New York: Oxford University Press)

Kourula, A., Moon, J., Salles-Djelic, M.-L. & Wickert, C. (2019). ‘New Roles of Government in the Governance of Business Conduct: Implications for Management and Organizational Research’ Organization Studies 40, pp. 1101-23

MacIntyre, A. (1981) After Virtue (South Bend:  University of Notre Dame Press)

McMahon, C. (2017) Authority and Democracy: A General Theory of Government and Management (Princeton: Princeton University Press)

Moriarty, J. (2005) ‘On the Relevance of Political Philosophy to Business Ethics’ Business Ethics Quarterly 15(3), pp. 455-73

Phillips, R.A. & Margolis, J. D.  (1999) ‘Towards an Ethics of Organizations’ Business Ethics Quarterly 9(3), pp. 619-38

Reich, R. (2007) Supercapitalism (New York: Vintage)

Ripken, S. K. (2019) Corporate Personhood (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

Scherer, A. G., Rasche, A., Palazzo, G. & Spicer, A. (2016). ‘Managing for Political Corporate Social Responsibility: New Challenges and Directions for PCSR 2.0’ Journal of Management Studies 53, pp. 273-98

Schrempf-Stirling, J. (2018) ‘State Power: Rethinking the Role of the State in Political Corporate Social Responsibility’ Journal of Business Ethics 150, pp. 1-14

Simmons, J. (1979) Moral Principles and Political Obligations (Princeton:  Princeton University Press)

Singer, A. A. (2019) The Form of the Firm:  A Normative Political Theory of the Corporation (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

Taylor, R. S. (2017) Exit Left: Markets and Mobility in Republican Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

Werhane, P. H. (1985) Persons, Rights, and Corporations (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall)

Werhane, P., Radin, T., & Bowie, N. (2004) Employment and Employee Rights (London: Blackwell)

Witzel, R. (2016) A History of Management Thought, 2nd ed.  (London: Routledge)

Wren, D. & Bedeian, A. (2020) The Evolution of Management Thought, 8th ed. (New York: Wiley)

Accounting History International Emerging Scholars’ Colloquium

Call for Research Proposals

The Accounting History International Emerging Scholars’ Colloquium

Portsmouth, United Kingdom, 8 September 2021

The Accounting History International Emerging Scholars’ Colloquium (AHIESC) will be held as part of the eleventh Accounting History International Conference (11AHIC) being held in Portsmouth, United Kingdom during 8-10 September 2021.

This international forum is designed for emerging scholars of all ages and career stages, including doctoral degree students, new faculty and other emerging accounting researchers who have an interest in accounting history, and who seek to obtain feedback from senior faculty members on their historical accounting research projects in an intellectually stimulating environment.

Please find attached the ‘Call for Research Proposals’. Further details about the 11AHIC can be found at the following site: https://www.port.ac.uk/11AHIC

Please also note these important dates:

  • 2 November 2020 Submission opening
  • 19 March 2021 Submission deadline

Best wishes

Carolyn, Carolyn and Laura

Carolyn Cordery, Carolyn Fowler and Laura Maran

Editors, Accounting History

1st Organization Theory Winter Workshop

November 13–14, 2020 [online]

The Organization Theory (OT) Winter Workshop is aimed at organization and management researchers who wish to write high quality and impactful theoretical papers for journal publication (in Organization Theory, Organization Studies, Academy of Management Review, or elsewhere).

Call for Papers

The 1st Organization Theory (OT) Winter Workshop 2020 will offer detailed coaching and hands-on feedback sessions on participants’ papers as well as plenary sessions by members of the OT editorial team on key aspects of developing and writing theory (developing a theory contribution, construct clarity, genres of theory writing).
 
This will be the first edition of an annual workshop that will bring together organization and management scholars, the editors of Organization Theory, and senior academics with experience in writing theory papers as additional facilitators and mentors.
 
Applications for the OT Winter Workshop 2020 are now open (please see details below); we encourage both senior researchers as well as researchers in earlier stages of their careers to submit conceptual papers to be considered for this workshop. We are open to theoretical perspectives from outside the ‘mainstream’ and are keen to support the development of papers which are currently not under review. – Please note that empirical papers (those with either quantitative or qualitative data) will NOT be accepted.
 
This workshop will be online, with sessions taking place via ZOOM [tbc].

Convenors

Eva Boxenbaum | Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Joep Cornelissen | Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Penny Dick | University of Sheffield, United Kingdom
Joel Gehman | University of Alberta, Canada
Markus Höllerer | UNSW Sydney, Australia
Juliane Reinecke | King’s College London, United Kingdom
David Seidl | University of Zurich, Switzerland

This year’s theme: “New Theoretical Perspectives on Organizations, Organizing and the Organized”

Over the past years, we have witnessed a growing criticism of the standard model of theorizing through propositions and hypotheses (“if, then” clauses), and the degree to which this model can by itself conceptually capture the complexity and dynamics of organizational phenomena. Based on this criticism, there has been a repeated call for alternative ways of theorizing that unsettle, challenge and extend our current ways of knowing and understanding organizations and processes of managing and organizing, including key topics such as CSR and sustainability, power and resistance, strategy, identity, change, design, knowledge, leadership, technology, sensemaking, routines, practices, and institutions.
Whilst the standard model has its strengths and limitation, it’s not the only viable way to develop theory (Cornelissen & Höllerer, 2020). There are other ways of theorizing and writing, including various forms of critique, process theorizing, provocative thought experiments, meta-theorizing, and hermeneutic inquiries, amongst other forms. The new EGOS journal Organization Theory (OT) is open to these different forms of theorizing, and in doing so aims to be the driving force behind intellectual pluralism and theoretical developments in our field.
In line with this pluralistic ethos and our aim of opening up new theoretical perspectives, we seek contributions for the OT Winter Workshop 2020 from a wide range of theoretical perspectives and on different topic areas. Specifically, our intention is to offer an open forum and supportive environment for theory development in the broadest possible sense; we aim to provide opportunities for authors to draw novel connections across proximate disciplines, including management studies, philosophy, social and political theory, sociology, and ethics, to name a few, while retaining a clear focus on organizations and practices of organizing. We are keen to receive work that challenges existing theory, as well as papers that significantly deepen and stretch our understanding of current organizational theories and topics. Furthermore, we explicitly encourage submissions which introduce theoretical ideas from different scholarly communities around the world and aim to disclose these to a broader international audience.
Following the workshop, the best papers from the workshop can be submitted for a fast-track review process for possible publication in Organization Theory. Details on this process will be shared during the workshop.

Submissions

The 1st Organization Theory Winter Workshop will take place online on November 13 & 14, 2020.


  • Those interested in participating should submit an abstract by September 7, 2020 through the OT Workshop website: https://osofficer.wixsite.com/otworkshop. – Abstracts should not comprise more than 1,000 words.
    Authors will be notified of acceptance or otherwise by September 21, 2020.
  • Full papers must be submitted by October 20, 2020.
  • Further details on the logistics of the workshop will be published through the OT Workshop website.

Reference

Cornelissen, J., & Höllerer, M.A. (2020): “An Open and Inclusive Space for Theorizing: Introducing Organization Theory.”
Organization Theory, 1 (1); first published on December 5, 2019
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2631787719887980

FBR SI: History-informed Family Business Research

Family Business Review (FBR) Special Issue on History-informed Family Business Research

SUBMISSION DUE DATE: July 1, 2021

Guest Editors

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

Brian S. Silverman, University of Toronto (silverman@rotman.utoronto.ca)

Alfredo De Massis, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano and Lancaster University (Alfredo.DeMassis@unibz.it)

Peter Jaskiewicz, University of Ottawa (Peter.Jas@uOttawa.ca)

Evelyn R. Micelotta, University of Ottawa (Micelotta@telfer.uottawa.ca)

Special Issue Theme

History is pervasive in family business settings, where values, beliefs, narratives, and artefacts of the founding family are handed down from generation to generation (Colli, 2003). The history of a family and its business therefore pervades family business goals, practices, and outcomes, creating a close link between the history of family businesses, their present traditions, and future aspirations (De Massis et al., 2016; Jaskiewicz et al., 2015; Zellweger et al., 2012).

Because of the prominence of history in family businesses, these firms have often been stigmatized as a form of business organization that is steadfast to its history and traditions, path dependent, conservative, resistant to changes and unable to adapt to dynamic and constantly evolving markets (Chandler, 1977; Morck & Yeung, 2003; Poza et al., 1997). Yet, family businesses remain dominant in any economy (La Porta et al., 1999), many of them are highly innovative (De Massis et al., 2018), resilient to crises, and equipped with the stamina to pursue entrepreneurial projects over generations (Jaskiewicz et al., 2016; Sinha, Jaskiewicz, Gibb, & Combs, 2020). The latter is consistent with emerging research suggesting that the history and traditions of families and their businesses do not have to be a rigid burden but, in some cases, can be a holy grail for enduring innovation and change (Erdogan et al., 2020; Jaskiewicz, Combs, & Ketchen, 2016; Suddaby & Jaskiewicz, 2020).

While researchers thus recognize the paradoxical nature of the family business as an organization that can be burdened or empowered by history, theory on how history actually ties into family business’ tradition, change, and aspiration remains scarce (De Massis, Frattini, Kotlar, Messeni Petruzzelli, & Wright, 2016; Erdogan et al., 2020; Sinha et al., 2020; Suddaby, Coraiola, Harvey, & Foster, 2020; Suddaby & Jaskiewicz, 2020). One reason for this unsatisfactory status quo is the weak connection between history and family business scholarship that has limited current understanding of what family business scholars can learn from the wealth of history and historical research, and how they can integrate related learnings in the study of family business (e.g., Colli, 2003; Colli & Fernandez Perez, 2020).

Considering the rapidly growing interest in studying the link between history and family businesses, we believe that it is warranted and timely to build a strong foundation for a history-informed approach to the study of family businesses, by which we refer to family business research that draws on historical research methods and/or leverages history as a key component (or variable) of theory or empirical analysis (Argyres et al., 2020; Sasaki et al., 2020; Sinha et al., 2020; Suddaby & Foster, 2017; Suddaby et al., 2020).

This Special Issue therefore calls for new, interdisciplinary research on family firms that extends our understanding of how and why history and historical research methods can enrich theoretical explanations of family business behavior and of temporal phenomena happening in family business settings. We call for both “history in theory” and “history to theory” studies. We call for original studies that propose novel and more fine-grained theoretical understanding of the role and use of history in family business processes as well as a reconceptualization of history and the use of history in family business research. At the same time, we encourage scholars to develop and apply historical research methods that allow them to use historical data and records to build and test their theoretical models about family business behaviors and outcomes. By doing so, this Special Issue favors the development and application of new perspectives and innovative methodological approaches for addressing critical questions in family business that favor a better integration of the academic fields of history and family business.

Manuscripts may address, but are not limited to, the following topics:

  • How can family business phenomena be better theorized when the historical context where they take place, and the complex temporal dimensions through which they occur, are explicitly taken into account?
  • How do family businesses and their actors use history to give meaning to the present, inform their expectations about the future, and make business and family decisions?
  • What is the role of rhetorical history in shaping family business behavior, its determinants and outcomes? (Suddaby, Foster, & Trank, 2010). What is the relationship between narrative, story-telling, and history in the strategy processes of a family business?
  • How can traditions be (re-)conceptualized in family business settings to better account for their ambivalent roles for family business’ goals, behavior, and outcomes?
  • How can history-informed research be used to manage the tradition and innovation paradox or other typical paradoxes characterizing family business behavior?
  • How can family firms leverage their history, and/or resources pertaining to different points in their past, to make their way toward the future through acts directed to innovation (e.g., “innovation through traditions”) and/or entrepreneurship (e.g., “entrepreneurial legacy”), or other vital organizational processes?
  • How can change and innovation be used in a family business setting to perpetuate history and traditions (e.g., “tradition through innovation”)?
  • What are the distinctive organizational routines and capabilities that enable family firms to combine and reconfigure their history over time and build a bundle of valuable historical resources?
  • What are the distinctive organizational routines and capabilities that enable family firms to adopt retrospective and prospective approaches to using their resources to concurrently perpetuate tradition and achieve innovation (e.g., “temporal symbiosis”)?
  • How do the past and the historical context inform how family-centered and business-centered goals are set in the family business context?
  • How do the past and the historical context inform how new business opportunities are identified, evaluated and exploited? What’s the role played by history for transgenerational entrepreneurship in the family enterprise?
  • How can the assumptions behind transgenerational or path dependence-based predictions about family business behavior (e.g., decline in entrepreneurial attitude across generations) be understood when the historical context is considered?
  • How did specific and non-recurrent events or actions in the history of the family and/or its business lead to particular firm behaviors, and to the development of organizational capabilities (or lack thereof)?
  • What are the advantages of employing a historically embedded approach to improve current understanding of how family businesses learn, innovate, and make strategic decisions over time? How can such approaches be adapted and extended by family business scholars?
  • How do family business phenomena and practices evolve over time, and how are they shaped by the interactions between family firms, families, and their histories?
  • What are the unpredictable, nonrecurrent events either in the family or in the business system that change the course of history and the evolution of a family business organization?
  • How do different actors, groups, or family business organizations perceive time when it is conceived as a complex, socially constructed concept?
  • How do individuals and groups within family businesses conceive time in practice, and allocate their attention differently to the past, present, and future?
  • How do different temporal foci and/or orientations of different actors within the family business, and /or their perception of the past, influence the behavior and performance of the family firm? How do such orientations change in the presence of specific situational factors, such as intra-family succession or business exit?
  • How can an “historical cognizance” perspective (Kipping & Üsdiken, 2014) that incorporates period effects and historical contingencies into the theorizing process be useful to predict family firm behavior and its effect on family and business outcomes?
  • How can historical research methods and historical data be useful to family business research for understanding the context of contemporary phenomena, identifying sources of exogenous variations, developing and testing informed causal inferences and theories, and supporting analyses of temporal phenomena occurring across generations?

Submission Process

Manuscripts must be submitted through the Family Business Review web site indicating “Special Issue History” as the manuscript type. The special issue guest editors will review the received manuscripts for publication consideration in this special issue of FBR. Editors reserve the right to desk reject complete papers if they are deemed underdeveloped for this issue.

Timeline for 2022 Special Issue on History

May 28/29, 2021       Paper Development Workshop at FERC Conference

July 1, 2021               Manuscripts due. Please submit manuscripts via the FBR online submission portal at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/fbr (please be sure to select “Special Issue History” as the submission type).

Sept. 1, 2021              1st round feedback on reviews provided to authors

Feb 1, 2022                Invited revisions due

April 1, 2022              2nd round feedback on reviews provided to authors

Sept 1, 2022               2nd round invited revisions due

Nov 1, 2022               3rd round feedback on reviews provided to authors

Jan 1, 2023                 All papers & editor’s introduction finalized; contents transferred to Sage

March 2023               FBR Special Issue “History-informed Family Business Research” published

Paper Development Workshop

We encourage authors to attend the Paper Development Workshop (PDW) for this Special Issue before submitting their manuscripts. The PDW will be offered during the Family Enterprise Research Conference (FERC) at the University of Florida Atlantic University, Delray Beach, Florida on May 28-29, 2021. More information about FERC in 2021 can be found here: https://business.fau.edu/ferc-2020/. We will add more detailed information on the PDW to the webpage at the beginning of 2021.

About FBR

Launched in 1988, Family Business Review is an interdisciplinary scholarly forum publishing conceptual, theoretical, and empirical research that aims to advance the understanding of family business around the world. FBR has a 2-year impact factor of 6.188, ranking it 13th out of 147 journals in the category business.

Conclusion

We look forward to receiving your manuscripts and working hard with you to make this issue a success for our field. For questions, please contact any member of the Special Issue co-editors.

References

Argyres, N. S., De Massis A., Foss N. J., Frattini F., Jones G., Silverman B.S. (2020). History-informed strategy research: The promise of history and historical research methods in advancing strategy scholarship. Strategic Management Journal, 41(3), 343-368.

Chandler, A. D. (1977). The visible hand: The managerial revolution in American business. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Colli, A. (2003). The history of family business, 1850-2000 (Vol. 47). Cambridge University Press.

Colli, A., & Perez, P. F. (2020). Historical methods in family business studies. In Handbook of qualitative research methods for family business. Edward Elgar Publishing.

De Massis, A., Audretsch, D., Uhlaner, L., Kammerlander, N. (2018). Innovation with limited resources: Management lessons from the German Mittelstand. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(1), 125-146.

De Massis, A., Frattini, F., Kotlar, J., Messeni-Petruzzelli, A., Wright M. (2016). Innovation through tradition: Lessons from innovative family businesses and directions for future research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(1), 93-116.

Erdogan I., Rondi E., De Massis A. (2020). Managing the tradition and innovation paradox in family firms: A family imprinting perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 44(1), 20-54.

Jaskiewicz, P., Combs, J. G., Ketchen Jr, D. J., & Ireland, R. D. (2016). Enduring entrepreneurship: antecedents, triggering mechanisms, and outcomes. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal10(4), 337-345.

Jaskiewicz, P., Combs, J. G., & Rau, S. B. (2015). Entrepreneurial legacy: Toward a theory of how some family firms nurture transgenerational entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing30(1), 29-49.

Kipping, M., & Üsdiken, B. (2014). History in organization and management theory: More than meets the eye. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 535-588.

La Porta, R., Lopez‐de‐Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (1999). Corporate ownership around the world. The journal of finance54(2), 471-517.

Morck, R., & Yeung, B. (2003). Agency problems in large family business groups. Entrepreneurship theory and practice27(4), 367-382.

Poza, E. J., Alfred, T., & Maheshwari, A. (1997). Stakeholder perceptions of culture and management practices in family and family firms ‐ A preliminary report. Family Business Review10(2), 135-155.

Sasaki, I., Kotlar, J. Ravasi, D., & Vaara, E. (2020). Dealing with revered past: Historical identity statements and strategic change in Japanese family firms. Strategic Management Journal, 41(3), 590-623.

Sinha, P. N., Jaskiewicz, P., Gibb, J., & Combs, J. G. (2020). Managing history: How New Zealand’s Gallagher Group used rhetorical narratives to reprioritize and modify imprinted strategic guideposts. Strategic Management Journal41(3), 557-589.

Suddaby, R., Coraiola, D., Harvey, C., & Foster, W. (2020). History and the micro‐foundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal41(3), 530-556.

Suddaby, R., & Foster, W. M. (2017). History and organizational change. Journal of Management43(1), 19-38.

Suddaby, R., Foster, W. M., & Trank, C. Q. (2010). Rhetorical history as a source of competitive advantage. Advances in Strategic Management27, 147-173.

Suddaby, R. & Jaskiewicz, P. (2020). Managing traditions: A critical capability for family business success. Family Business Review, forthcoming.

Zellweger, T. M., Kellermanns, F. W., Chrisman, J. J., & Chua, J. H. (2012). Family control and family firm valuation by family CEOs: The importance of intentions for transgenerational control. Organization Science23(3), 851-868.

CfP in JWB “Time Matters”

“Time Matters: Rethinking the Role of Time in International Business Research”

Submissions open August 15, 2020; Submissions due August 30, 2020

Guest Editors:

  • Emmanuella Plakoyiannaki, University of Leeds, UK
  • Eriikka Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, University of Turku, Finland
  • Melanie E. Hassett, University of Sheffield, UK
  • Elizabeth L. Rose, University of Leeds, UK
  • Peter W. Liesch, The University of Queensland, Australia

Supervising Editor:

  • Ulf Anderson, Mälardalen University, Sweden

Special Issue Overview

This special issue intends to stimulate thinking on the role and impact of time in International Business (IB) theory and practice. We seek conceptual, theoretical and empirical – both qualitative and quantitative – papers that advance our understanding of temporal issues as they pertain to IB phenomena.

The current global environment is changing rapidly. Climate change, migration, trade wars, political volatility, technological disruptions (e.g., artificial intelligence) and the depletion of natural resources create grand challenges for firms. Such rapid changes pose challenges to the applicability of traditional theories. While scholars are calling for grand theories to address grand challenges (e.g., Buckley, Doh & Benischke, 2017), firms are struggling with the timing of their international activities in an increasingly uncertain, disruptive and complex environment (Doh, 2015).

Time is central to IB theory and practice, relevant to both stability and change in internationalization and cross-border operations. It has a crucially important role in the three domains – the philosophical, conceptual, and the methodological (George & Jones, 2000). The literature reflects a strong interest in processes, particularly with respect to internationalization (Knight & Liesch, 2016; Odlin, 2019; Welch, Nummela, Liesch, 2016; Welch & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki 2014). However, much IB research seeks to advance our understanding of internationalization processes by focusing on antecedents and consequences of specific events, rather than on the events’ temporal emergence and their associated dynamic mechanisms (Jones & Coviello, 2005; for similar arguments see Pettigrew, 2012; Van de Ven 1992). For example, the focus is often on explaining firms’ attaining specific internationalization-related goals rather than explaining the temporally-embedded processes of how they reach the goals (Welch & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, 2014). Researchers are more likely to study initial foreign entry with less consideration given to subsequent post-entry strategies and their evolution (Chen, Sousa, & He, 2019; Fuad & Gaur, 2019).

While one of the first principles of process research is the study of events over time, several scholars (e.g., Hurmerinta, Paavilainen-Mäntymäki & Hassett, 2016; Jones & Coviello, 2005) have expressed concern in current and unfolding phenomena, such as Brexit and the trade wars between the US and China, highlight how political uncertainty can affect the timing of events in domestic and international business.

In addition, while IB research has long emphasized the importance of context (Delios, 2017; Teagarden, Von Glinow & Mellahi, 2018), we advocate explicit attention to time in our consideration of context to offer more deeply-contextualized explanations of IB phenomena (Welch, Piekkari, Plakoyiannaki, & Paavilainen, 2011). Accomplishing this will require the use of different methodological approaches, including the addition of deep historical accounts (e.g., Jones & Khanna 2006) and the application of novel tools such as interactive visualization (Schotter, Buchel, Vashchilko, 2018).

Few studies fully adopt a “temporal paradigm” (Pauwels & Matthyssens, 1999) vis-à-vis fieldwork, data sources (e.g. real time; longitudinal, retrospective) and focal phenomena (e.g. dynamic, discontinuous, historical). Time is often neglected despite its inherent presence in research design. Analytical approaches seldom allow for a processual contribution, rather relying on the prevailing variance-oriented approaches that disconnect processes through categorizations and coding (Welch & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, 2014).

The IB field will benefit from making effective use of processual analytical methods aimed at uncovering dynamics and the relationships between constructs, rather than focusing on their similarities and differences or their antecedents and consequences (Maxwell & Miller, 2008). Bringing business history perspectives and the analogous futures research methods to the IB toolkit will help IB scholars make stronger theoretical contributions. Methodological advances are needed.

In qualitative research, the methodological approaches used in IB for analyzing temporal and processrelated phenomena remain underdeveloped (Plakoyiannaki, Wei, & Prashantham, 2019). Process and temporal research is currently subject to limitations associated with narratives that may be considered as chronologies of anecdotes that can be potentially flawed due to memory bias, hindsight-based conclusions and subjective choices regarding what is included in retrospective studies. Observational, visual and multimodal research are scarce in IB despite their potential to represent, contextualize and theorize temporal phenomena. There are also concerns about the feasibility of contemporaneous research, given time and financial constraints, and the challenges associated with analyzing longitudinal or processual data.

For quantitative research, there are well-established statistical approaches for analyzing time-series data. However, effective estimation of these time-series models (e.g., ARIMA) requires access to a long history of data (see, e.g., Rose, 1993). This is problematic in IB, as the assumption of consistent underlying mechanisms across long periods of time (e.g., a minimum of 100 years if the data are annual) is highly questionable. Therefore, we need to develop different approaches for accounting for time, without resorting to assumptions that relationships are consistent across different eras.

Objectives of this Special Issue

  • To understand how assumptions about time shape theorizing in IB
  • To incorporate the role of time in the conceptualization of IB phenomena
  • To account for time more explicitly in IB research
  • To develop more effective ways to include time empirically in qualitative and quantitative IB research

Illustrative Topics

We encourage conceptual, methodological and empirical contributions that address, but are not limited to, the following topics:

Philosophical domain: Theorizing about time in IB

  • How do different conceptions of time (e.g., subjective; organic; cyclical) advance knowledge of IB phenomena?
  • How do different philosophical traditions (e.g., interpretivism, phenomenology, critical realism, positivism) define the study of time in IB scholarship?

Conceptual domain: The role of time in the conceptualization of IB phenomena

  • How can we define time in IB research?
  • What is the role of time in theorizing in IB?
  • How can process and variance-oriented research complement one another in providing IB with stronger theoretical bases?
  • How is time conceptualized in IB research?
  • How can time-related concepts be defined in IB research?
  • How do IB researchers take advantage of dynamic theories?

Methodological domain: Accounting for time in research design

  • How do we define and distinguish between dynamic and static theories in IB?
  • How can we incorporate time into the assembly of qualitative and quantitative data in IB research?
  • How can we analyse longitudinal or process data – qualitatively and quantitatively?
  • How can we incorporate practices and methods from business history research into IB?
  • How can we make strong theoretical contributions using temporal, processual and longitudinal research?

We look forward to your submissions that address the important issue of advancing our understanding of time in the context of IB.

Submission Process

Between August 15 and August 31, 2020, authors should submit their manuscripts online via the Journal of World Business submission system. To ensure that all manuscripts are correctly identified for consideration for this Special Issue, it is important that authors select ‘VSI: Time Matters’ when they reach the “Article Type” step in the submission process. Manuscripts should be prepared in accordance with the Journal of World Business Guide for Authors available at http://www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-world-business/1090-9516/guide-for-authors . All submitted manuscripts will be subject to the Journal of World Business’s double-blind review process.

Manuscript Development Workshops

The editors of the Special Issue anticipate holding information sessions and development workshop at different conferences. Participation in these events does not guarantee acceptance of the paper for publication in JWB, and attendance is not prerequisite for publication in the special issue. The first event is a panel titled “When Time Matters: Rethinking the Role of Time in IB Theory and Practice” organized at the 45th EIBA Annual Conference in Leeds in December 2019. We will announce details of these events through different channels.

For more information, please contact the guest editors

Emmanuella Plakoyiannaki, e.plakoyiannaki@leeds.ac.uk

Eriikka Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, eriikka.paavilainen-mantymaki@utu.fi

Melanie E. Hassett, melanie.hassett@sheffield.ac.uk

Elizabeth L. Rose, e.rose@leeds.ac.uk

Peter Liesch, p.liesch@business.uq.edu.au

CfP in JHRM: Past Practices as Prologema

Journal of Historical Research in Marketing

Call for Papers

Special Issue on ‘Past Practices as Prologema: Marketing Before, During and After COVID-19’

The Journal of Historical Research in Marketing invites submissions for a special issue focused on ‘Past Practices as Prologema: Marketing Before, During and After COVID-19.’  The global reaction to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic is having a significant impact on people and organizations around the globe.  Whether it is loss of revenue due to closures of retail and service workplaces as mandated by public health organizations; disruptions to manufacturing of goods and product distribution due to the interruption of previously synchronized cross-border flows in supply chains; the almost complete cessation of demand for international travel, tourism and hospitality; or the uncertainties reverberating through commodity and futures markets; few, if any, sectors remain untouched.  Despite a long history of pandemics, COVID-19 is the first in modern times that has both been global in nature – and has been seen to be global in nature.  Pandemics are treated as unusual events because of the gaps in time between them; or as disasters/crises that overwhelm our ability to respond.  Consequently, their apparent rarity has meant little engagement with pandemics from a marketing perspective.  What little research there is, focuses on the AIDS pandemic or can be found in the tourism and destination marketing literatures.  Paradoxically, while marketing academics have paid little if any attention to past pandemics and their effects on the practices of marketing, the current COVID-19 crisis has spurred the American Marketing Association to provide education and issue guidance to its membership – a sign of the looming importance of understanding the relationship between pandemics, their effects and impacts, and the general practice of marketing.  The intent of the special issue is to seek ‘lessons’ from the past that will help inform practitioners and researchers in the present/future.  We are soliciting submissions that explore the general themes of marketing activities during pandemics and of marketing’s contribution to the creation of post-pandemic ‘normalities.’  Papers may investigate these from either positive (e.g., retooling on a voluntary basis to produce needed medical protective equipment) or negative perspectives (e.g., the sale of ‘miracle’ cures). 

For this special issue of JHRM, specific themes and topics might include, but are not limited to:

  • Advertising and Communications
    • Social Marketing/Public Relations (in)effective enterprise or organizational response to stakeholder communications during a pandemic
    • How do organizations orient themselves as actors in relation to their stakeholders (with regard to pricing, public relations, etc.)
  • Products
    • Repositioning/rebranding of products/services to meet pandemic needs
    • New product/service development
    • Repurposing or alternative uses of existing product offerings
  • Marketing Ethics in a Pandemic
    • Anti-Marketing or Propaganda
    • Marketing/Selling of miracle cures
    • Price gouging
  • Changes in Marketing Practices
    • Changes to distribution/value proposition
    • Marketing changes introduced during crisis that have persisted
    • Demarketing
  • Tourism and Event Marketing
    • Destination Marketing in Pandemics
    • Sports and Event Marketing in Pandemics
  • Pandemic Marketing in Other Organizations
    • Higher Education Marketing
    • Public Health Marketing


The submission window for this special issue is May 1, 2021 to June 30, 2021
with an expected publication date in Volume 14, 2022.  If you are unsure of the suitability of your topic, or have questions regarding a submission, please contact the special issue guest editors Donna Sears, Associate Professor of Marketing, F.C. Manning School of Business, Acadia University, at donna.sears@acadiau.ca or Terrance Weatherbee, Professor of Management, F.C. Manning School of Business, Acadia University, at terrance.weatherbee@acadiau.ca.  

How to submit to the Journal of Historical Research in Marketing

Submissions for this special issue of JHRM should be made using ScholarOne Manuscripts, the online submission and peer review system. Registration and access is available on the journal’s ScholarOne site: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jhrm. Full information and guidance on using ScholarOne Manuscripts is available at the Emerald ScholarOne Manuscripts Support Centre: http://msc.emeraldinsight.com/.

CfP Emotions and History of Business

Emotions and the History of Business

Mandy Cooper (UNC-Greensboro) and Andrew Popp (Copenhagen Business School)

We are developing a proposal for an edited volume on emotions and the history of business and seek further contributions. In the first instance, the proposal will be submitted to a series on the history of emotions edited by Peter Stearns and Susan Matt and published Bloomsbury.

Why emotions and the history of business?
A small but growing body of work has already begun to demonstrate the potential in bringing the histories of emotions and of business into greater dialogue.[1] We aim to more fully and systematically explore that potential through this proposed volume. What does bringing emotions in add to the history of business? Does business not inhabit a world of rationality? We firmly believe that from individual entrepreneurs to family firms to massive corporations, businesses have in many ways relied on, leveraged, generated, and been shaped by emotions for centuries. Examining business in all its facets through the lens of the history of emotion allows us to recognize the emotional structures behind business decisions and relationships and to question them. The very presence—or absence—of emotions and emotional language have the power to alter the structure and content of relationships between individuals and between businesses and communities. This collection asks what happens when emotions and emotional situations, whether fear/anxiety, nostalgia, love, or the longing of distance and separation, affect businesses and, in turn, how businesses affect the emotional lives of individuals and communities. In terms of framing, therefore, we emphasize the work that emotions do and recognize the performative nature of emotions.

Scope:
We do not wish to impose any restrictions in terms of geographic or temporal scope and would strongly welcome proposals from or on the Global South. Existing work in this area has often focused on emotions in family firms, but we welcome proposals across the full range of potential business settings and contexts. Likewise, much work in the history of emotions has adopted micro-historical perspectives and methodologies; we would particularly welcome work exploring emotions in large or macro-scale business contexts or phenomena, market crashes (or booms) being only the most obvious possibility. Similarly, we are open to studies utilizing the full range of historical sources and methodologies. Studies exploring change in the relationships between emotions and business over time will be warmly welcomed, as will studies exploring the relationship between race, gender, and business. Proposals may well be themed around a specific emotion, but that is not the only approach imaginable. Naturally, proposals from across a wide range of cognate disciplines – economic history, the history of capitalism, cultural and social history, material history and more – are most welcome.

A far from exhaustive list of possible themes might include:

  • Gendered and/or racialized emotion and business
  • Boredom/ennui
  • Love
  • Fear and anxiety
  • Rationality as an emotion
  • Subjugation
  • Satisfaction/fulfilment
  • Disappointment
  • Identity formation/the self/authenticity
  • Contagion, risk, and panic
  • Solidarity
  • Business as drama
  • The forms of expression of business emotions: language, sites, rites, rituals, symbols
  • Cultural representations of business emotions
  • Commemoration and history as emotions
  • Emotions as commodities
  • Alienation and estrangement

Logistics:

Please send proposals of no more than 500 words to emotionsandbusiness@gmail.com by July 31st 2020. Please include a brief biography of all authors, as well as contact details. Proposals should seek to present setting, theme, perspective or framing, and sources and methods. Please use the same email address to approach us with any questions or queries.

Mandy Cooper
Lecturer, Department of History UNC-Greensboro

Andrew Popp
Professor of history, Department of Management, Politics, and Philosophy Copenhagen Business School

[1] See, for example, the special issue on “Emotions et Enterprises Familiales,” Enterprises et Histoire, No. 91 (2018)