Conf: The Web that was

The Web that Was: Archives, Traces, Reflections

A three-day conference, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, June 19-21, 2019. The third biennial RESAW (Research Infrastructure for the Study of Archived Web Materials) conference. Organized by the University of Amsterdam.

 

*** Keynote speakers ***

Megan Ankerson, University of Michigan

Florian Cramer, Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences

Olia Lialina, Merz Akademie

Fred Turner, Stanford University

 

*** Special event ***

The conference will host a lecture-performance by Geert Lovink (Institute of Network Cultures, Hogeschool van Amsterdam) and guests on the history and preservation of Amsterdam’s early internet culture.

 

*** Call for contributions ***

As the first generation of web users goes grey, it’s clear that the internet they remember is no longer around. The early web is now simply another object of nostalgia. Tech anniversaries are a dime a dozen, while once cool digital aesthetics have made several ironic comebacks. All of this reinforces a sense that we’ve left behind a digital history that was as clunky and slow as it was idealistic and naïve.

 

How can we rethink this relationship to the web’s past and the past web? This question is crucial today as the open web continues to lose ground to platforms and apps. How can this history be reconstructed and re-evaluated, and how are web archives and web histories impacted by technological change? What do traditional problems of preservation and historiography look like at scale? And what stories capture the diverse transformations and continuities that mark nearly 30 years of web history?

 

There is of course no single web history, materially or conceptually speaking. There is instead a politics of archives, technologies and discourses that needs to be uncovered. How can we expand our view of web history beyond Silicon Valley and celebrated cases? And how can we reveal the technological, social and economic contexts that have shaped not just the present web, but how we access its past? What role do archives play in uncovering the histories of the web, platforms and apps, as well as their production and usage contexts?

 

This conference aims to bring together scholars, archivists and artists interested in preserving, portraying and otherwise engaging with the web that was. In addition to paper submissions, we invite proposals for audiovisual installations, posters, software demos, or other media that connects to the conference themes.

 

Submissions in the form of an abstract may relate to, but are not limited by, the following topics:

 

* Web and internet histories

* Historicizing the web and digital culture

* Web 1.0, Web 2.0 and critiquing periodizations

* Past futures and paths not taken

* Platformization and the changing structure of the web

* Social imaginaries of the early web

* Archives and access

* Research methods for studying the archived web

* Methods for platform and app histories

* Ethics of (studying) web archives

* Technicity of web archives

* Software histories

* Archived audiences and histories of internet use

* Identity, intersectionality and web history

* Digital activism and web history

* Histories of net criticism

* Media industries and their online histories

* Web histories elsewhere: forgotten and marginalized web cultures

* Realtime, time travel and other web temporalities

* Future histories and the archive of tomorrow

 

*** Submissions ***

Submissions are welcomed from all fields and disciplines, and we would particularly encourage postgraduate students and early career researchers to participate.

 

* Individual papers of 20 minutes length (750-word abstract and a short author bio of 100-150 words).

* Panel sessions consisting of three individual papers, introduced by a chair (750-word abstract for each paper, a brief description of 300 words of the purpose of the panel, and a short author bio of 100-150 words for each speaker).

* Posters, demonstrations, and audio/video/interactive installations (short abstract of no more than 300 words, a list of A/V or other requirements, and a short author bio of 100-150 words)

* Workshops (a 500-word rationale for the workshop, including discussion of why the topic lends itself to a workshop format, and a short author bio of 100-150 words for the workshop organiser(s)).

 

Deadline for submission is 19 October 2018.

 

Acceptance will be on the basis of double-blind peer review.

 

*** Timetable ***

May 2018 – dates out

June 2018 – first call for papers

July 2018 – second call for papers

August 2018 – third call for papers

September 2018 – final call for papers and submissions open

19 October 2018 – submission of abstracts

December 2018 – notification of acceptance

19–21 June 2019 – conference

 

*** Organizing Committee ***

Anne Helmond, University of Amsterdam, NL

Michael Stevenson, University of Amsterdam, NL

 

In collaboration with the RESAW Conference Committee:

Niels Brügger, Aarhus University, DK (organiser 2015)

Jane Winters, University of London, UK (organiser 2017)

Valérie Schafer, University of Luxembourg, LU (coming organiser 2021)

 

*** Program Committee ***

Susan Aasman, University of Groningen, NL

Gerard Alberts, University of Amsterdam, NL

Megan Ankerson, University of Michigan, USA

Anat Ben-David, The Open University of Israel, IL

Josephine Bosma, independent art critic and theorist, NL

Sally Chambers, Ghent University, BE

Frédéric Clavert, C2DH Luxembourg

Annet Dekker, University of Amsterdam, NL

Matthew Fuller, Goldsmiths, UK

Sophie Gebeil, Aix-Marseille University, FR

Robert W. Gehl, University of Utah, USA

Daniel Gomes, arquivo.pt, PT

Arquivo.pt: pesquise páginas do passado

arquivo.pt

O Arquivo.pt é um serviço público que preserva informação publicada na Web desde 1996.

 

Stefania Milan, University of Amsterdam, NL

Ian Milligan, University of Waterloo, CA

Francesca Musiani, CNRS, FR

Claude Mussou, Ina, FR

Janne Nielsen, Aarhus University, DK

Camille Paloque-Berges, CNAM, FR

Thomas Poell, University of Amsterdam, NL

Bernhard Rieder, University of Amsterdam, NL

Marta Severo, University of Paris Nanterre, FR

Kees Teszelszky, Koninklijke Bibliotheek/Royal Library, NL

Fred Turner, Stanford University, USA

Peter Webster, Webster Research & Consulting, UK

Katrin Weller, GESIS Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, DE

 

*** Sponsors ***

The conference is financed in part by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) as part of the research program Innovational Research Incentives Scheme Veni in connection with the projects “The Web that Was” (275-45-006) and “App ecosystems: A critical history of apps” (275-45-009).

 

*** Contact ***

https://thewebthatwas.net

organizers@thewebthatwas.net

Advertisements

CFP: New Histories of Business Schools and How They May Inspire New Futures

Academy of Management Learning and Education

New Histories of Business Schools and How They May Inspire New Futures

Initial submissions should be received by: March 31, 2020

Scheduled for Publication: June 2021

Guest Editors:

  • Patricia Genoe McLaren, Wilfrid Laurier University
  • JC Spender, Kozminski University
  • Stephen Cummings, Victoria University of Wellington
  • Todd Bridgman, Victoria University of Wellington
  • Ellen O’Connor, Dominican University of California
  • Christina Lubinski, Copenhagen Business School
  • Gabrielle Durepos, Mount Saint Vincent University (Canada)

 

We might do well to re-examine what we are doing and show the executive judgment and courage necessary to implement radical change (Khurana & Spender 2012: 636).

Business schools are the institutional locus of management learning and education. In recent years, we have gained a greater understanding of how their structures, processes, and power dynamics influence pedagogy and curricula, management theory and research, faculty, students, graduates, and society more broadly. We are also witnessing growing research into, and discussion about, the relative lack of innovation in management theory development, research, pedagogy, and curricula (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2012). While there have been a small number of inspirational works that have sought to push us towards changing business schools and business education (Augier and March, 2011; Hassard, 2012; Khurana 2007; Spender, 2016), they have not yet spurred the change we might have hoped for.
One under-explored route to encourage innovation in this regard is examining how our historical understanding of all aspects of business schools – including curriculum, pedagogy, research, structure, processes, stakeholders, power, and politics – may be limiting change. Histories highlight particular characters and plots but what we do not include – what we write out of history – is just as important as what is written in (Jenkins, 2003). History is constitutive, in that our own interpretations of the past define and shape our present and our future (Wadhwani & Bucheli, 2014). Compared with other stochastic fields of study, histories of management and business are simplistically linear and mono-cultural. This constrains how we see business schools in the present, and can subsequently limit their future development (Cummings & Bridgman, 2016).
The conventional history of business education tends to follow the emergence of American business schools: from the founding of the Wharton School in 1881, to the rapid growth of business school enrollment within American universities leading up to the 1950s, to the standardization of the schools after the publication of the Gordon-Howell and Pierson reports in 1959 (Hommel & Thomas, 2014). This history has been crafted over many years and now goes largely unchallenged. But it begs the questions: why is this the story we tell, who gains and who loses from its telling, and what events and people are missing from a narrative that should be inspirational for a broad range of people?
North American business education has been studied at various points in a straightforward assessment style – what are business schools doing, how could they
“improve” (Bossard & Dewhurst, 1931; Gordon & Howell, 1959; Pierson, 1959; Porter & McKibbin, 1988), and also with a more complex analysis of context, history, power, and influence (Engwall, Kipping, Usdiken, 2016; Khurana, 2007; Pettigrew, Corneul, & Hommel, 2014). Work has been done on the history of European management education (cf. Engwall, 2004; Harker, Caemmerer, & Hynes, 2016; Kieser, 2004; Kipping, Usdiken, & Puig, 2004; Tiratsoo, 2004; Usdiken, 2004), and some have looked at the global South (Cooke & Alcadipani, 2015). We are beginning to see alternative histories of the development of management theory and education (Bridgman, Cummings, & McLaughlin, 2016; Dye, Mills, & Weatherbee, 2005; Hassard, 2012; Peltonen, 2015). However, what about histories of schools of business and commerce from other parts of the world (Asia, Africa, Australasia, South America) in more detail? Or from earlier centuries? Or different examples from North America or Europe that did not survive or later morphed toward the standard form?
This special issue seeks to move things forward by looking differently when we look back. It encourages submissions that explore emerging interests, historical barriers to change, and their interrelationships by focusing on the emergence and development of business schools as complex entities that are interwoven with universities, the business community, government, and civil society. It also seeks submissions that explore how these broader understandings may stimulate innovation in the way we configure business schools and, consequently, how we teach, conduct research, view our profession, and relate to our stakeholders.
In this call for papers, we – professors/educators, researchers/inquirers, sufferers/critics, and aspirational as well as actual change agents – are the organizational actors, and business schools are our reflective historical setting; more importantly, they are our actual environment. We have a unique opportunity to push management theory, research methods, and interdisciplinarity to better understand and, more importantly, to reinvent business school(s) in light of what is socially or personally meaningful. We have contextual richness, personal and professional stakes, and a sense of crisis. Being able to change our practices from within, we are uniquely situated to bring scholarship, formal positioning, and inhabited experience to bear.
Better historical scholarship could, therefore, help us to change ourselves. To engage historical sensibilities and methods, and empirical richness, to push theory and change institutions. As a call for spurring this process we welcome contributions that address the following questions:
  1. What people, events, curriculum, pedagogy, form, and research of business schools’ past have been overlooked by conventional historical narratives?
  2. What role could new histories play in debates about how business schools should develop? Can new understandings of the past inspire us to think differently for the future?
  3. How can we write reflexive or critical histories of business schools that expose the power and politics of business education and what we teach, or do not teach, students?
  4. Are histories being used within business schools or other organizations, such as accreditation bodies, academies and societies, to perpetuate traditional structures and/or norms? Why and to what effect?
  5. What are the ‘invented traditions’ that support any or all aspects of the institution of business schools and what purpose were they invented to serve?
  6. What are the stories of the development of business education outside of North America or prior to the late 19th century? Are these different or the same as the current narrative? How, why, and what can we learn from these alternative histories?
  7. How has history traditionally been taught in business schools? What are the positive and limiting effects of this pedagogy? How could we teach history differently?
  8. Why should business school students learn more (or less) history? Or learn it differently?
  9. How might management scholars using history in their research influence business education?
Call on AMLE Website

References
Alvesson, M,. & Sandberg, J. 2012. Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and innovative research. Journal of Management Studies, 50(1): 128-152.

Augier, M. and March, J. 2011. The roots, rituals, and rhetorics of change: North
American business schools after the second World War. Stanford University Press.

Bossard, J. H. S., & Dewhurst, J. F. 1931. University education for business: A study of
existing needs and practices. Philadelphia. PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Bridgman, T., Cummings, S., & McLaughlin, C. 2016. Restating the case: How revisiting the development of the case method can help us think differently about the future of the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(4): 724-741.

Cooke, B., & Alcadipani, R. 2015. Toward a global history of management education: The case of the Ford Foundation and the São Paulo School of Business Administration, Brazil. Academy of Management Learning & Education,14(4): 482-499.

Cummings, S. & Bridgman, T. 2016. The limits and possibilities of history: How a wider,
deeper and more engaged understanding of business history can foster innovative thinking. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 15(2): 250-267.

Dye, K., Mills, A. J., & Weatherbee, T. 2005. Maslow: Man interrupted: Reading
management theory in context. Management Decision, 43(10): 1375-1395.

Engwall, L. 2004. The Americanization of Nordic management education. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 13(2): 109-117.

Engwall, L., Kipping, M., & Usdiken, B. 2016. Defining management: Business
schools, consultants, media. New York: Routledge.

Gordon, R. A., & Howell, J. E. 1959. Higher education for business. New York:
Columbia University Press.

Harker, M. J., Caemmerer, B., & Hynes, N. 2016. Management education by the French
Grandes Ecoles de Commerce: Past, present, and an uncertain future. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(3): 549-568.

Hassard, J. 2012. Rethinking the Hawthorne Studies: The Western Electric research in its
social, political and historical context. Human Relations, 65(11): 1431-1461.

Hommel, U., & Thomas, H. 2014. Research on business schools. In A. M. Pettigrew, E.
Corneul, & U. Hommel (Eds.), The institutional development of business
schools: 8-36. Oxford: Oxford University PRess.

Jenkins, K. 2003. Refiguring history: New thoughts on an old discipline. London, U.K.:
Routledge.

Khurana, R. 2007. From higher aims to hired hands: The social transformation of
American business schools and the unfulfilled promise of management as a profession. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Khurana, R., & Spender, J. C. 2012. Herbert A. Simon on What Ails Business Schools: More than ‘A Problem in Organizational Design’. Journal of Management Studies, 49: 619–639.

Kieser, A. 2004. The Americanization of academic management education in Germany.
Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2): 90-97.

Kipping, M., Usdiken, B., & Puig, N. 2004. Imitation, tension, and hybridization:
Multiple “Americanizations” of management education in Mediterranean Europe. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2): 98-108.

Peltonen, T. 2015. History of management thought in context: The case of Elton Mayo in Australia. In P. G. McLaren, A. J. Mills, & T. G. Weatherbee (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Management and Organizational History. Abindon, UK: Sage.

Pettigrew, A. M., Corneul, E., & Hommel, U. 2014. The institutional development of
business schools. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pierson, F. C. 1959. The education of American business men: A study in university-
college programs in business administration. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Porter, L. W., & McKibbin, L. E. 1988. Management education and development: Drift
or thrust into the 21st century? New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Spender, J.C. 2016. How management education’s past shapes its present. BizEd.

Tiratsoo, N. 2004. The “Americanization” of management education in Britain. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2): 118-126.

Usdiken, B. 2004. Americanization of European management education in historical and
comparative perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2): 87-89.

Wadhwani, D., & Bucheli, M. 2014. The future of the past in management and organization studies. In D. Wadhwani, & M. Bucheli (Eds.), Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods. New York: Oxford University Press.

CfP: Companies and organizations in a historical perspective

ASSI CONFERENCE 2018

Companies and organizations in a historical perspective

Bocconi University, Milan
20-21 December 2018

Call for papers
An organization is the result of a conscious effort to create channels of authority and communication in the productive activity of the company, as well as in the allocation of resources and the evaluation of their performance. The organizational challenge typically emerges when a company achieves a certain quantitative threshold in terms of size, turning the need for organization into a key issue. Below this threshold, the internal dynamics of a company and the relationships among the actors which operate inside it are usually spontaneous, and don’t require formalization. In more recent times, however, within the contemporary global and technological environment, small companies also face the issue of adopting an appropriate organizational structure.
How much does organizational design matter for a company? Can an inappropriate organization react promptly to changes in strategy?
Evidence proves that there isn’t an organizational formula which works for all companies over time and space. The best organization is the one able to mobilize, in the most efficient way, the resources of a company. Since the 1950s, for instance, industrial sociologists have demonstrated that Taylorism is not an organization of production that works for all sectors. It used to be the best way to manage the mass production of standardized products, but not the most efficient way to manage manufacturing in, say, the chemical and metal industries, or the production of big single pieces such as in the shipbuilding industry.
In the same way, a form of enterprise which gathers unrelated activities under the same roof can be at the origin of heterogeneous results according to the different kind of control exercised by headquarters.
Even though organization became an issue around the time of the Industrial Revolution, organizational matters were certainly not irrelevant in the life of large pre-industrial companies such as banks, trading companies, and arsenals.
Finally, it should not be forgotten that organization goes beyond the single company and includes also alliances among different companies aimed at controlling a market (cartels), networks and groups of enterprises, and geographical areas, as in the case of the industrial districts in which the production of a good is achieved through a sophisticated horizontal and vertical division of labor.
We ask that proposals have the “black box” — represented by the relationship between companies and their organization– at the center of their analysis, considering, for example, topics such as the genesis of an organization, the critical tangles of the connection between corporate strategies and organization, the successes and failures of organizational forms, the role of immaterial determinants in defining the organizational design, the relationship between the entrepreneur and the organization, the creation and resilience of managerial capabilities, or the interaction between formal and informal organization.
Contributions related to any industry, geographical area, and historical period are welcome.

Conference languages will be English and Italian.
Proposals of no more than 400-600 words together with a CV should be sent to: segreteria@assi-web.it, by September 20th, 2018. Decisions will be sent by October 5th, 2018.
For proposals that are accepted, the author(s) will be required to send either a paper of 7,000-9,000 words, or a long-abstract (approximately 1,500 words) of the presentation by November 30th, 2018.

CfP: Commercial Surveillance

Seeing Like a Capitalist:

Histories of Commercial Surveillance in America

 

 A Conference at the Hagley Museum and Library

Wilmington, Delaware, November 8-9, 2018

The history of surveillance is often associated with the history of the state. However, commercial organizations in the United States – from insurance companies to audience rating firms and database marketers, to corporate personnel and auditing departments – also exercise power over citizens through systems of identification, classification, and monitoring.  The history of commercial surveillance thus intersects with key issues concerning the history of privacy, information, social sorting and discrimination, and technologies of discipline and control.

For a conference sponsored by the Center for the History of Business, Technology, and Society on November 8-9, 2018, we invite proposals that explore the history of commercial surveillance in the United States, from settlement to the present. These (non-state) surveillance activities might be found in a variety of business settings and industries, involve a range of formal or informal practices, and might be directed at customers, media audiences, borrowers, consumer markets, employees, or labor. The long history of commercial surveillance serves to illuminate the precursors, continuities, and logic of today’s “surveillance capitalism.”

We are interested in original, empirically-grounded unpublished essays that consider one or more of the following questions:

 

  • How have commercial surveillance systems contributed to the production of knowledge about individuals or populations? To what extent have private-sector classification systems shaped categories of identity and social status in the United States?
  • In what ways have commercial surveillance systems contributed to understandings of gender and race in the United States? How have these understandings been formalized or institutionalized?
  • How does the development of commercial surveillance fit into broader social, political, or economic efforts to discipline behavior or control risk?
  • To what extent have commercial surveillance systems overlapped – or collaborated – with state surveillance systems, such as law enforcement, social services, or statistical data gathering?
  • What legal issues have attended the history of commercial surveillance? How have commercial surveillance practices been regulated, particularly with regard to discrimination and privacy?
  • To what extent have distinctions between work and leisure been blurred by commercial surveillance?
  • How does the history of commercial surveillance help contextualize the development of big data and predictive analytics in our own time? What underlying structures, norms, or business objectives can be discerned?
  • What technologies have been developed, and for what specific purposes, to facilitate commercial surveillance?

 

Sarah E. Igo (Vanderbilt University) will open the conference with a keynote address on the evening of November 8. She will discuss her new book, The Known Citizen: A History of Privacy in Modern America, to be published by Harvard University Press in May 2018.

 

If you are interested in proposing a paper, please submit proposals of no more than 500 words and a one-page C.V. to Carol Lockman at clockman@hagley.org by May 1, 2018. We welcome submissions from historians as well as ethnographically oriented social scientists.  Presenters will receive lodging in the conference hotel and up to $500 to cover their travel costs.

This conference was initiated by Josh Lauer (University of New Hampshire), and he is joined on the program committee by Roger Horowitz (Hagley Museum and Library) and Ken Lipartito (Florida International University).

AOM PDW on Historic CSR

Please register for the AOM PDW!

Special Issue Paper Development Workshops

Historic Corporate Responsibility:

Its Extent, Limits, and Consequences

The guest editors of the Journal of Business Ethics Special Issue on Historic Corporate Social Responsibility will arrange paper development workshops at the following conferences:

  • Academy of Management (10-14 August in Chicago),
  • International Association for Business & Society (7-10 June in Hong Kong), and
  • European Business History Association (6-8 September in Ancona, Italy)[1]

During the workshops, authors will present and discuss their papers and receive feedback from discussants and peers.

Attendance at these workshops is NOT a precondition for submission to the Journal of Business Ethics Special Issue.

Confirmed discussants at the Academy of Management in Chicago include Stephanie Decker (Aston Business School), Gabrielle Durepos (Mount Saint Vincent University), Paul C. Godfrey (Brigham Young University), Stefan Hielscher (University of Bath), Michael Rowlinson (University of Exeter), Sébastien Mena (Cass Business School), and Roy R. Suddaby (University of Victoria and Newcastle University).

 

Submission Information and Deadlines

Scholars interested in one of the workshops are asked to contact the guest editors according to requirements for each conference. Please see the following table for the key dates and contact information.

  IABS conference AoM conference EBHA conference
Require-ments Elevator pitch format. Interested authors might wish to contact Rob Phillips prior to the conference. To be considered for a PDW at either AoM or EBHA, an abstract (no more than 2’000 words or 8 pages all in) should be submitted to the responsible guest editor. The guest editors will then select promising abstracts and notify the authors. After acceptance, the authors are asked to submit a full paper (8’000-10’000 words).
Submission of abstracts none May 15, 2018 June 17, 2018
Submission of full paper July 1, 2018 August 1, 2018
Date and location of workshop June 7-10, 2018

Hong Kong

August 10-14, 2018

Chicago, IL

September 6-8, 2018

Ancona, Italy

Contact Rob Phillips

rphillips@schulich.yorku.ca

Judith Schrempf-Stirling

judith.schrempf-stirling@unige.ch

Christian Stutz

Christian.stutz@fh-hwz.ch

 

[1] The workshop proposal at the EBHA is currently under evaluation—to be confirmed.

PDWs on Historic Corporate Responsibility

Special Issue Paper Development Workshops

Historic Corporate Responsibility:

Its Extent, Limits, and Consequences

The guest editors of the Journal of Business Ethics Special Issue on Historic Corporate Social Responsibility will arrange paper development workshops at the following conferences:

  • Academy of Management (10-14 August in Chicago),
  • International Association for Business & Society (7-10 June in Hong Kong), and
  • European Business History Association (6-8 September in Ancona, Italy)[1]

During the workshops, authors will present and discuss their papers and receive feedback from discussants and peers.

Attendance at these workshops is NOT a precondition for submission to the Journal of Business Ethics Special Issue.

Confirmed discussants at the Academy of Management in Chicago include Stephanie Decker (Aston Business School), Gabrielle Durepos (Mount Saint Vincent University), Paul C. Godfrey (Brigham Young University), Stefan Hielscher (University of Bath), Michael Rowlinson (University of Exeter), Sébastien Mena (Cass Business School), and Roy R. Suddaby (University of Victoria and Newcastle University).

Submission Information and Deadlines

Scholars interested in one of the workshops are asked to contact the guest editors according to requirements for each conference. Please see the following table for the key dates and contact information.

  IABS conference AoM conference EBHA conference
Require-ments Elevator pitch format. Interested authors might wish to contact Rob Phillips prior to the conference. To be considered for a PDW at either AoM or EBHA, an abstract (no more than 2’000 words or 8 pages all in) should be submitted to the responsible guest editor. The guest editors will then select promising abstracts and notify the authors. After acceptance, the authors are asked to submit a full paper (8’000-10’000 words).
Submission of abstracts none May 15, 2018

(extended deadline)

June 17, 2018
Submission of full paper July 1, 2018 August 1, 2018
Date and location of workshop June 7-10, 2018

Hong Kong

August 10-14, 2018

Chicago, IL

September 6-8, 2018

Ancona, Italy

Contact Rob Phillips

rphillips@schulich.yorku.ca

Judith Schrempf-Stirling

judith.schrempf-stirling@unige.ch

Christian Stutz

Christian.stutz@fh-hwz.ch

 [1] The workshop proposal at the EBHA is currently under evaluation—to be confirmed.

CfP: 50 years of Management Learning

Call for Papers: Anniversary Special Issue of Management Learning
Celebrating 50 years of Management Learning:
Historical reflections at the intersection of the past and future

Deadline for submissions: June 01, 2018
Guest Editors:
Gabrielle Durepos, Mount Saint Vincent University, Canada
Rafael Alcadipani, FGV-EAESP, Brazil
Mairi Maclean, University of Bath, UK
Stephen Cummings, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Management Learning marks its 50th anniversary in 2020. Management Learning has a
long history of publishing critical, reflexive scholarship on organizational knowledge and learning. This special issue provides a forum to celebrate and build on this history
through critical and reflective engagement with the past, present and future of
management learning, knowledge and education. Taking a historical approach is all the
more pressing given recent and impending crises – geo-political, technological,
environmental and humanitarian – since some crises only make sense when seen in the
fullness of time (Casson and Casson, 2013). We therefore encourage scholarship that
challenges the disciplinary past of management knowledge, learning and education and
enables more diverse, innovative futures to be imagined.
There are a growing variety of approaches and conceptual frameworks in management
and organization studies for writing histories of organizations (Maclean, Harvey and
Clegg, 2016; Rowlinson, Hassard and Decker, 2014), management thought (Bucheli and
Wadhwani, 2014; Cummings, Bridgman, Hassard and Rowlinson, 2017) and researching
management in historically conscious ways (Jacques, 1996; Kieser, 1994). This has been
accompanied by a rise in critical organizational histories (Cooke, 1999; Ibarra-Colado,
2006; Scott, 2007). Although diverse, this scholarship is characterized by reflexivity
(Cunliffe, 2002), anti-performativity – history is generated for reasons beyond improving
future business efficiency and effectiveness – and commitment to an agenda of denaturalizing both hegemonic organizations, by exposing problematic pasts, and dominant historiography like positivism that seeks unitary truth (Fournier and Grey, 2000). The rise of critical history research has involved scholarship on management learning and education that challenges the dominant history of management thought in a number of ways (Jacques, 1996; Genoe Mclaren, Mills and Weatherbee, 2015). While some have exposed processes of exclusion and marginalization of management knowledge in textbooks (Cummings and Bridgman, 2011; Grant and Mills, 2006), others have uncovered knowledge politics and marginalization around geographical boundaries.

 

Full details are here: http://journals.sagepub.com/pb-assets/cmscontent/MLQ/ML%2050%20anniversary%20SI.pdf

Financial History Review New Scholars workshop

New Scholars Fast-Track Workshop 

13 June 2018

Torino, Italy

Financial History Review invites submissions of research papers from advanced PhD students and recent postdoctoral researchers (with less than five years from completing their PhD) in banking, financial and monetary history for a

eabh in cooperation with Fondazione 1563 per l’Arte e la Cultura della Compagnia di San Paolo and Compagnia di San Paolo

Papers on any topic and period are welcome. Please find the Call for Papers and additional information at http://bankinghistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2018_Torino_FHR_NSW_Final.pdf

Deadline is 30 April 2018

 

CfP Hagley workshop

CALL FOR PROPOSALS

Seeing Like a Capitalist:

Histories of Commercial Surveillance in America

A Conference at the Hagley Museum and Library

Wilmington, Delaware, November 8-9, 2018

 

The history of surveillance is often associated with the history of the state. However, commercial organizations in the United States – from insurance companies to audience rating firms and database marketers, to corporate personnel and auditing departments – also exercise power over citizens through systems of identification, classification, and monitoring.  The history of commercial surveillance thus intersects with key issues concerning the history of privacy, information, social sorting and discrimination, and technologies of discipline and control.

 

For a conference sponsored by the Center for the History of Business, Technology, and Society on November 8-9, 2018, we invite proposals that explore the history of commercial surveillance in the United States, from settlement to the present. These (non-state) surveillance activities might be found in a variety of business settings and industries, involve a range of formal or informal practices, and might be directed at customers, media audiences, borrowers, consumer markets, employees, or labor. The long history of commercial surveillance serves to illuminate the precursors, continuities, and logic of today’s “surveillance capitalism.”

 

We are interested in original, empirically-grounded unpublished essays that consider one or more of the following questions:

 

  • How have commercial surveillance systems contributed to the production of knowledge about individuals or populations? To what extent have private-sector classification systems shaped categories of identity and social status in the United States?
  • In what ways have commercial surveillance systems contributed to understandings of gender and race in the United States? How have these understandings been formalized or institutionalized?
  • How does the development of commercial surveillance fit into broader social, political, or economic efforts to discipline behavior or control risk?
  • To what extent have commercial surveillance systems overlapped – or collaborated – with state surveillance systems, such as law enforcement, social services, or statistical data gathering?
  • What legal issues have attended the history of commercial surveillance? How have commercial surveillance practices been regulated, particularly with regard to discrimination and privacy?
  • To what extent have distinctions between work and leisure been blurred by commercial surveillance?
  • How does the history of commercial surveillance help contextualize the development of big data and predictive analytics in our own time? What underlying structures, norms, or business objectives can be discerned?
  • What technologies have been developed, and for what specific purposes, to facilitate commercial surveillance?

 

Sarah E. Igo (Vanderbilt University) will open the conference with a keynote address on the evening of November 8. She will discuss her new book, The Known Citizen: A History of Privacy in Modern America, to be published by Harvard University Press in May 2018.

 

If you are interested in proposing a paper, please submit proposals of no more than 500 words and a one-page C.V. to Carol Lockman at clockman@hagley.org by May 1, 2018. We welcome submissions from historians as well as ethnographically oriented social scientists.  Presenters will receive lodging in the conference hotel and up to $500 to cover their travel costs.

This conference was initiated by Josh Lauer (University of New Hampshire), and he is joined on the program committee by Roger Horowitz (Hagley Museum and Library) and Ken Lipartito (Florida International University).

CfP BH extended deadline

Bank-Industry versus Stock Market-Industry Relationships: A Business History Approach

Business History Call for Papers: Special Issue

Extended Deadline: 31 May 2018

http://explore.tandfonline.com/cfp/bes/fbsh-bank-vs-stock-market-industry/

During the Golden Age of the western economies (1950s-1960s) became clear that each country had to follow its own way to industrialization. For the full understanding of these processes, there was a growing interest for the use of an historical perspective. In this line of research, the book that Alexander Gerschenkron, professor at Harvard University, published in 1962 entitled Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective had much impact. In this seminal book, which proposed the concept of the “conditional convergence”, Gerschenkron proposed that financial institutions (not financial markets), by acting as “substitutive factor”, play a fundamental role in industrialization, as the German case had proved.

Gerschenkron’s thesis was challenged by Raymond Goldsmith, the author of Financial Structure and Development (1969), who proposed not to leave financial markets out of the analysis, because they were also part of the financial system and could contribute to economic development, understood as something broader than industrialization. Goldsmith’s approach was also influential, although Gerschenkron’s book fit better with the spirit of Golden Age governments, which were willing to put the banks (both public and private) at the service of the industrial policies (see Tortella & García-Ruiz 2013, Chapter 8, for the emblematic Spanish case).

From the Gerschenkron-Goldsmith debate, a line of research was developed by focusing on identifying the financial systems of countries as either bank-oriented or market-oriented (Bordo & Sylla 1995; Allen & Gale 2000), stressing the differences between them. Later on, Caroline Fohlin (2007, 2012, 2016) believed that this was a false polemic and gave historical arguments for a skeptical view of the issue. Nevertheless, she presents a new taxonomy, a “rough classification”, of the different financial systems based on the prevalence of different type of banks.

At the time, the economist Ross Levine and his associates (e.g. Levine & Zervos 1998) wanted to approach the problem from a quantitative perspective, trying to answer a very simple question: which system contributes most to economic development? Levine managed to involve the World Bank in his research and promoted the creation of the Global Financial Development Database (Beck, Demirgüç-Kunt & Levine 2000), whose recent exploitation is allowing a better exploration in the long run of the complexity of the relationships proposed in the 1960s by Gerschenkron and Goldsmith.

At the beginning of the 21st century, the deregulation of financial systems led to an approximation between institutions and financial markets that paved the way to the belief that the old divide had become obsolete (Rajan & Zingales 2003). However, the latest analyses detect the persistence of significant differences between national financial systems (Gambacorta, Yang & Tsatsaronis 2014).

It seems clear that much can be learned about the bank-industry and stock market-industry relationships if they are addressed from a Business History perspective, which until now has been almost completely neglected. For this reason it is proposed the launching of a special issue of Business History, based on a Call for Papers, aiming to obtain fresh articles that address the classical issues on the subject with a new Business History approach:

– Evidence of the advantages of the bank-industry relationship over the stock market-industry relationship or vice versa;

– The banking-industry relationship in the networks of large national banks and the networks of small local banks (Vasta et al. 2017);

– Persistence of the differences between financial systems based on Varieties of Capitalism (VoC) and/or Law & Finance (common law versus civil law countries) approaches;

– Access to finance by business size: large, medium and small companies facing markets and financial institutions;

– The role of managers in fostering the stock market performance of the firms;

– The best way to innovate: is the stock market the most appropriate way to finance and promote the innovative capabilities of the firm?;

– The problem of “financialisation”: too much money in the economy breaks the direct relationship between financing and economic development as proposed (Law & Sing, 2014)?

Submission instructions

This special issue welcomes contributions on the history of the bank-industry and stock market-industry relationships, especially if they use interdisciplinary and new methodologies and cross-country comparisons.

Articles should be based on original research and should not be under consideration by other journal. All articles should be submitted by 31 March 2018 via ScholarOne (https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/fbsh? utm_source=CPB&utm_medium=cms&utm_campaign=JMO03712) , using the drop down to select submission to the Special Issue on Bank-Industry versus Stock Market-Industry Relationships: A Business History Approach. All the articles will be peer reviewed and, therefore, some may be rejected. Authors should ensure that their manuscripts comply with the Business History formatting standards, which can be found on the ‘Instructions for Authors’ (http://tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=fbsh20&page=instructions&utm_source=CPB&utm_medium=cms&utm_campaign=JMO03712) page. Authors who are not English native speakers are responsible for having a native English-speaking copyeditor check and correct their texts before final acceptance.

The articles initially selected for the Special Issue will be presented in a workshop that will take place in Madrid in June 2018, sponsored by available public funds. The final version of the papers should be the result of this workshop.

References

Allen, F. & Gale, D. (2000), Comparing Financial Systems, Cambridge (Mass.), MIT Press.

Beck, T., Demirgüç-Kunt, A. & Levine, R. (2000), “A New Database on Financial Development and Structure,” World Bank Economic Review, 14, 597-605.

Bordo, M. & Sylla, R. (eds) (1995), Anglo-American Financial Systems: Institutions and Markets in the Twentieth Century, New York, Irwin.

Fohlin, C. (2007), Finance Capitalism and Germany’s Rise to Industrial Power, Cambridge & New York, Cambridge University Press.

Fohlin, C. (2012), Mobilizing Money: How the World’s Richest Nations Financed Industrial Growth, Cambridge & New York, Cambridge University Press.

Fohlin, C. (2016), “Financial Systems and Economic Development in Historical Perspective,” in C. Diebolt & M. Haupert (eds), The Handbook of Cliometrics, Berlin, Springer Verlag, 393-430.

Gambacorta, L., Yang, J. & Tsatsaronis, K. (2014), “Financial Structure and Growth,” BIS Quarterly Review, March, 21-35.

Gerschenkron, A. (1962), Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective: A Book of Essays, Cambridge (Mass.), The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Goldsmith, R.W. (1969), Financial Structure and Development, New Haven, Yale University.

Law, S.H. & Singh, N. (2014), “Does Too Much Finance Harm Economic Growth?,” Journal of Banking and Finance, 41, 36-44.

Levine, R. & Zervos, S. (1998), “Stock Markets, Banks and Economic Growth,” American Economic Review, 88, 537-558.

Rajan, R. & Zingales, L. (2003), Banks and Markets: The Changing Character of European Finance, Cambridge (Mass.), NBER Working Paper 9595.

Tortella, G. & García-Ruiz, J.L. (2013), Spanish Money and Banking. A History, Basingstoke & New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

Vasta, M., Drago, C., Ricciuti, R. & Rinaldi, A. (2017), “Reassessing the Bank-Industry Relationship in Italy, 1913-1936: A Counterfactual Analysis,” Cliometrica, 11, 183-216.

Editorial information

Guest Editor: José L. García-Ruiz, Complutense University of Madrid, Spain (jlgarciaruiz@ccee.ucm.es)

Guest Editor: Michelangelo Vasta, University of Siena, Italy (michelangelo.vasta@unisi.it)