EBHA doctoral summer school

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

CfP: MHRG annual workshop

Call for Papers: Management History Research Group annual workshop

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

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

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

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

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

mhrg.manchester@gmail.com

Kind regards

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

CfP: Global Histories of Capital

CALL FOR PAPERS – EXTENDED DEADLINE MAY 1ST

Global Histories of Capital: New Perspectives on the Global South

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

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

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

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

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

Workshop Objectives

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

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

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

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND PHILANTHROPY

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

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

Theme of the Special Issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Process, Timeline and Information

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

 

 

CfP: Alternative organizational forms in the economy

Call for Papers:
International PhD Workshop

“Alternative Organizational Forms in the Economy”


June 21-22, 2017

Hertie School of Governance Berlin


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CfP: Use of Methodology in MH

Special issue call for papers from Journal of Management History

USES OF METHODOLOGY IN MANAGEMENT HISTORY

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

Submission deadline: 1 February 2018

Background

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

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

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

Further information

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

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

References

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

CfP: EBHA doctoral summer school

CALL FOR APPLICATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended deadline: History & Ethnography

Conference submission deadline extended to 31 March!!

12th Annual International Ethnography Symposium

“Politics and Ethnography in an Age of Uncertainty”

29 August – 1 September 2017 
Alliance Manchester Business School

Stream 3: History and Ethnography

Stephanie Decker and John Hassard

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

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

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

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

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

History & Ethnography conference

12th Annual International Ethnography Symposium

“Politics and Ethnography in an Age of Uncertainty”

29 August – 1 September 2017 
Alliance Manchester Business School

Stream 3: History and Ethnography

Stephanie Decker and John Hassard

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

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

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

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

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

Summer School in Responsible Capitalism

Summer School
Responsible Capitalism:
Micro and Macroinstitutional Conditions of Transformation

May 29 – June 1, 2017

Deadline to apply:
February 28, 2017

In its second edition, the Summer School on Responsible Capitalism is an initiative of VIU in cooperation with the two member universities Ca’ Foscari University of Venice and University of Lausanne.

It aims at the development of ideas that promote a more sustainable future by bringing together young scholars from all over the world to discuss their ideas on the future of Capitalism from the microlevel of individual decision-making to the organizational and the societal level. It gives participants the opportunity to discuss with eminent scholars in management theory and to test their ideas and present their work. Participants will be made familiar with recent research from a broad set of disciplines. They will work on their ability to engage in the transdisciplinary discourse which is required for the development of innovative answers to grand sustainability challenges.

Who is it for?
Applications are welcome from current PhD students, post-doc researchers in Management, Strategy, Organization Theory, Finance, Economic Sociology, and related disciplines from universities worldwide.

Faculty
Guido Palazzo – University of Lausanne (Coordinator)
Francesco Zirpoli – Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia
Giovanni Favero – Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia
Marie-Laure Djelic – Sciences Po
Juliane Reinecke – University of Warwick
Fabrizio Ferraro – IESE Business School

Application procedure and costs
The Program will admit 15 student participants.
Fees: € 180 incl. VAT
The fees will cover tuition, course materials, accommodation in multiple rooms at the VIU campus, meals in the VIU cafeteria and Social events.

Deadlines
Application via the VIU website: January 16 – February 28, 2017
Admitted candidates will be notified by March 7.

Venue
Venice International University
Island of San Servolo, Venice

For further information visit the Summer School website
Contacts and info: summerschools@univiu.org

Brochure
Application form

Venice International University
Isola di San Servolo
30133 Venice, Italy
T. +39 041 2719511
F. +39 041 2719510
www.univiu.org