Category: Call for Papers

Prize Essay Competition in the Philosophy of History

Steph

THE ROYAL INSTITUTE OF PHILOSOPHY

2016 Prize Essay Competition

The Royal Institute of Philosophy and Cambridge University Press are pleased to announce the 2016 Philosophy Essay Prize. The winner of the Prize will receive £2,500 with his or her essay being published in Philosophy and identified as the essay prize winner.

The topic for the 2016 essay competition is:

Can there be a credible philosophy of history?

Many thinkers from classical times onward have seen history as having a predetermined direction. Some have seen it in terms of inevitable decline, others in terms of progress to a utopian future. The idea that history has a predetermined direction has been criticised by many, who stress the unpredictability of the future in general or the effects of human freedom, creativity and ingenuity, or other ways in which the course of events may change radically. Are these or other criticisms conclusive, or is it still possible to hold a deterministic or evolutionary view, either despite the criticisms or by refuting them directly? Even given historical unpredictability in detail, are there still trends in history which can be discerned? If history has no direction, is there anything left to be said about the philosophy of history? Authors may address the question by considering some of the issues raised above or by attempting other approaches of their own.

In assessing entries priority will be given to originality, clarity of expression, breadth of interest, and potential for advancing discussion. All entries will be deemed to be submissions to Philosophy and more than one may be published. In exceptional circumstances the prize may be awarded jointly in which case the financial component will be divided, but the aim is to select a single prize-winner.

Entries should be prepared in line with standard Philosophy guidelines for submission (see http://royalinstitutephilosophy.org/…/philosophy-informati…/). They should be submitted electronically in Word, with PRIZE ESSAY in the subject heading, to assistant@royalinstitutephilosophy.org<mailto:assistant@royalinstitutephilosophy.org>.

The closing date for receipt of entries is 3rd October 2016.

Entries will be considered by a committee of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, and the winner announced by the end 2016. The winning entry will be published in Philosophy in April 2017.

http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/

The Royal Institute of Philosophy is registered in the United Kingdom as a charity, number 313834, and is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales with number 205110, and with a registered office at 14 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0AR.

MOH SI: Imperialism & Coloniality in MOH

Steph

Management & Organizational History

Special issue call for papers:

Imperialism and Coloniality in Management and Organization History

Deadline: 16 December 2016

Management & Organizational History

The ongoing dialogue about the role that history can play in the formation of organization theory, and the role that organization theory can and does play in management and organization history (Maclean, Harvey, and Clegg 2015; Rowlinson, Hassard, and Decker 2014; Taylor, Bell, and Cooke 2009; Clark and Rowlinson 2004) should enjoinder greater engagement with areas where historians have long engaged in theoretical work. Classical theories of imperialism (Hobson 1902; Lenin 1999; Schumpeter 1951), historiographical theories of imperialism (Cain and Hopkins 2002; Gallagher and Robinson 1953; Jones 1980; West 1973), and post-colonial theory that explores the operation of capitalism (for example, Chibber 2014; Quijano 2007; Moraña, Dussel, and Jáuregui 2008) are all theory-sets that draw heavily on historical analysis. The already rich relationship between history and theory in these connected fields provides an opportunity to explore the contribution that management and organization history can make to both the theories and history of imperialism and coloniality, and how a reflection on these topics can provoke a richer and theory-informed understanding of how management and organizations replicate and form circuits of power–globally and locally.

In a contribution to the growing literature on coloniality, Aníbal Quijano writes that

In the beginning colonialism was a product of a systematic repression, not only of the specific beliefs, ideas, images, symbols or knowledge that were not useful to global colonial domination, while at the same time the colonizers were expropriating from the colonized their knowledge, specially in mining, agriculture, engineering, as well as their products and work. The repression fell, above all, over the modes of knowing, of producing knowledge, of producing perspectives, images and systems of images, symbols, modes of signification, over the resources, patterns, and instruments of formalized and objectivised expression, intellectual or visual. (Quijano, 2007, p.169).

The historical and contemporary claims made by Quijano that relate to management and organization (for instance, the simultaneous and ongoing imposition and expropriation of socio-economic knowledge) and its express linkage to business activities, resonates with the business history literature on the role that corporations have played in the process of imperialism in “informal” spheres, in particular in Latin America (for example, the classic work of Christopher Platt. See Platt 1977 as well as Jones 1980, and Miller 1999). While there have been recent contributions to that have reflected on the use of knowledge and organizational learning in the creation of colonial business activity (Mollan 2009) and the continuity of management practices from the colonial period to the present (Cooke 2003) there remains a gulf in knowledge of how business–and managerial practices of firms and other international organizations–created and sustained the social and economic relationships described by the writers on coloniality and imperialism. The methods of coercion, systemic integration, management control, and knowledge, remain largely opaque at the organizational level. Nevertheless, the continuity of these practices is present in what Bobby Banerjee has described as ‘necrocapitalism’, a contemporary form of colonialism; the power of corporations ‘to create lifeworlds and deathworlds in the contemporary political economy’ (Banerjee 2008, 1542). If this is so, then a fuller understanding of imperialism and coloniality in management and organization history will have much to reveal about international economic relations, social and economic development, enduring inequalities, and managerial and organizational behaviour in the liminal space between the ‘developed’ and ’emerging’ economies however considered with reference to period and place.

Topics might include but are not limited to:

  • The absorption and co-option of knowledge from colonized peoples into the organization(s) and management of empire
  • How management and organization perform agency and create structure in imperial and post-colonial contexts
  • Management and organization historical studies that explore classical, historiographical and post-colonial theories of imperialism and coloniality
  • New management and organization theories of imperialism and coloniality
  • Organizations as sites of contestation and liminality in imperial and colonial encounters
  • Management and organization as acts of colonial violence
  • The relationship between business, management, organization and (under)development in imperial and post-colonial periods
  • Management and organization as processes, and organizations as institutions, in the transmission of imperial power
  • Managers as colonial elites; colonial elites as managers
  • The development of management thought and its relationship to (neo)imperial ideas
  • Slavery and forced labour in the management and organization history of empire
  • Representations of empire in corporate history
  • Corporate archives as archives of imperialism
  • The colonial heritage of multinationals

References

Banerjee, Subhabrata Bobby. 2008. “Necrocapitalism.” Organization Studies 29 (12): 1541–63.
Cain, Peter J., and Anthony G. Hopkins. 2002. British Imperialism: 1688-2000. London: Pearson Education.
Chibber, Vivek. 2014. Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital. Verso Books.
Clark, Peter, and Michael Rowlinson. 2004. “The Treatment of History in Organisation Studies: Towards an ‘Historic Turn’?” Business History 46 (3): 331–52.
Cooke, Bill. 2003. “The Denial of Slavery in Management Studies.” Journal of Management Studies 40 (8). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: 1895–1918. doi:10.1046/j.1467-6486.2003.00405.x.
Gallagher, John, and Ronald Robinson. 1953. “The Imperialism of Free Trade.” The Economic History Review 6 (1). Wiley Online Library: 1–15.
Hobson, John Atkinson. 1902. Imperialism: A Study. Vol. 3. London.
Jones, Charles. 1980. “‘Business Imperialism’and Argentina, 1875-1900: A Theoretical Note.” Journal of Latin American Studies 12 (2). JSTOR: 437–44.
Lenin, Vladimir Ilʹich. 1999. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. Resistance Books.
Maclean, Mairi, Charles Harvey, and Stewart R Clegg. 2015. “Conceptualizing Historical Organization Studies.” Academy of Management Review.
Miller, Rory. 1999. “Informal Empire in Latin America.” Winks, Robin W., The Oxford History of the British Empire 5.
Mollan, Simon. 2009. “Business Failure, Capital Investment and Information: Mining Companies in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, 1900–13.” The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 37 (2): 229–48.
Moraña, Mabel, Enrique D Dussel, and Carlos A Jáuregui. 2008. Coloniality at Large: Latin America and the Postcolonial Debate. Duke University Press.
Platt, Desmond Christopher Martin. 1977. Business Imperialism, 1840-1930: An Inquiry Based on British Experience in Latin America. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Quijano, Aníbal. 2007. “Coloniality and Modernity/rationality.” Cultural Studies 21 (2-3). Taylor & Francis: 168–78.
Rowlinson, Michael, John Hassard, and Stephanie Decker. 2014. “Research Strategies for Organizational History: A Dialogue between Historical Theory and Organization Theory.” Academy of Management Review 39 (3): 250–74.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1951. The Sociology of Imperialism. Meridian Books.
Taylor, Scott, Emma Bell, and Bill Cooke. 2009. “Business History and the Historiographical Operation.”Management & Organizational History 4 (2): 151–66..
West, Katharine. 1973. “Theorising about ‘imperialism’: A Methodological Note.” The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 1 (2): 147–54.

Submission Instructions

Informal enquiries to the editors of the Special Issue are welcome:

The York Management School
University of York
Freboys Lane
Heslington
York
United Kingdom
YO10 5GD

Paper development workshops

To support the development of papers for this special issue, there will be two opportunities for intending authors to present and develop their work.

The Management History Research Group Annual workshop will be held in Sheffield on Tuesday 12 and Wednesday 13 July 2016. Panels relating to the Special Issue will be held at the workshop. Further details can be found at the web-link below:

http://mgt-hist.org/index.php/mhrg-2016-sheffield/

There will be a further one-day PDW held in the Autumn of 2016, details of which will be advertised in due course.

Deadline for article submissions: Friday 16 December 2016

Editorial information

Transparency and information management in financial institutions From the inside out — The Past Speaks

Steph

Reblogged from The Past Speaks:

Conference: 14 Sep 2016, Madrid, Spain European Business History Association in cooperation with Banco de España. Transparency is becoming an increasingly important theme, and mode of operation, in today’s financial institutions and global financial markets. This year’s eabh summer school will provide training on the latest developments in financial transparency and how financial archivists can serve their […]

via Transparency and information management in financial institutions From the inside out — The Past Speaks

Extended deadline for BH SI on History & Institutional Change

Steph

As we received several requests for extensions last week, the special issue editorial team decided to extend the submission deadline by three weeks to allow those authors who contacted us and any additional authors who may have missed the deadline because the of the Easter break to submit. Already submitted papers will be processed now, so you will hear from us shortly.

For the full call, see below:

!!! EXTENDED DEADLINE – NOW 25 APRIL 2016 !!!

 Business History Special Issue:

Historical Research on Institutional Change

Stephanie Decker, Aston University, UK, s.decker@aston.ac.uk
Lars Engwall, Uppsala University, Sweden, lars.engwall@fek.uu.se
Michael Rowlinson, Queen Mary University, London, m.rowlinson@qmul.ac.uk
Behlül Üsdiken, Sabanci University, Istanbul, Turkey, behlul@sabanciuniv.edu

The important role that institutions play for all forms of organizations has been recognized in a wide variety of disciplines. Douglass North’s (1990) book on the nature of institutional change in economic history was influential in both economics and history. Likewise has among others the article by DiMaggio and Powell’s (1983) been significant in sociology and organization studies. Nevertheless, the nature of institutional change has remained a heavily contested subject that has not seen the same degree of theoretical and empirical development.

Institutional change is by its very definition a process that unfolds over long time periods with fundamentally unpredictable outcomes that can only be properly evaluated with hindsight. Because institutional change is a fundamental feature in historical research, many historians do not necessarily define or reflect on this as a research phenomenon in its own right. On the other hand many research debates in organization studies have remained curiously a-historical when developing the antecedents, outcomes and mediating factors for processes of institutionalization, institutional maintenance, and deinstitutionalization (Dacin, Munir and Tracey, 2010).

Nevertheless, between these two extremes there are many processes of institutional change in organizations that develop over time periods that are too long to research with the standard methods of qualitative social science such as interviews or participant observations. Here some historical approaches based on archival research may create more interesting research designs (Wright and Zammuto, 2013). Historical theory also has different insights to offer organization studies (Rowlinson, Hassard et al. 2014). It is in these areas that management and organizational history could contribute by investigating phenomena from a more long-term perspective. Suddaby, Foster et al. (2014) have similarly argued for a more historical institutionalism to address unresolved issues in institutional theory, such as the paradox of embedded agency.

Within business and organizational history, there is an increasing interest in questions of theory and methodology. Alternative approaches, not just those drawn from the social sciences, but also from historiography, such as oral history or microhistory, offer new ways of approaching research. Historians interpret institutional theory in different ways from organization scholars (Rowlinson and Hassard 2013), which offers new avenues for interdisciplinary dialogue.

Submissions may address the following issues and questions, although this list is not exclusive:

  • The five C’s of historical thinking (change over time, context, contingency, causality and complexity) and the possibilities of institutional theory (Andrews and Burke, 2007)
  • New institutional theory in organizational sociology has lost the focus of old institutionalism on issues of politics and power. Would historical institutionalism offer a useful corrective?
  • Alternative methodologies for historical institutionalism: oral history, microhistory, ANTi-history
  • Institutional transplants beyond legal and economic history
  • Institutional entrepreneurs and institutional work – the return of historical actors and contingent decision-making
  • Institutional logics or politically-motivated ideologies: old wine in new bottles?
  • Routines, practices and process vs. the eventful temporality of history
  • Beyond path dependency in explaining long-term structural change in historical perspective

We hope to attract papers with a long-term perspective focusing on institutions, organizations as well as on organizational fields. We envisage that papers will be empirically rich but also they are linked to current institutional theories. In addition we shall also consider theoretically or methodologically oriented contributions provided they address both historical and institutional theory concerns.

Background of this proposal

This year the Standing Working Group 8 on Historical Perspectives in Organization Studies received over 50 submissions to its call on “History, Institutions and Institutional Change” for the European Group of Organizational Studies (EGOS) conference in Athens, Greece. Short paper submission from both historians and organization scholars were of very high quality and offered some exciting new approaches to both historical research and novel interpretations of institutional theory. As we are looking forward to the submission of long papers and the meeting in July 2015, we considered a special issue on this subject as timely and potentially significant for the further development of this interdisciplinary research. Considering the unusually large number of submissions, we feel confident that we will receive a significant number of high quality submissions for a special issue at Business History. We intend to have an open call for this special issue and use the EGOs track solely as a platform to advertise this call. The team of guest editors is international in composition, has different disciplinary backgrounds, and extensive editorial experience. Submission will be managed through Scholar One, and authors will be advised to submit their manuscripts directly to http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/fbsh.

Timeline

Publish call for special issue: 1 July 2015 (to coincide with EGOS 2015)

Extended call for special issue: Monday 25 April 2016

Final decisions: 1 August 2017

Publication: Spring 2018

About the guest editors

Stephanie Decker is Professor of Organization Studies and History at Aston Business School, UK. As a historian working at a business school, most of her work is concerned with the relation between organization theory and history. She is co-editor of ‘Business History’ and is the recipient of the prestigious Leverhulme Trust Research Fellowship 2014-15, as well as the principal organizer of a seminar series on organizational history funded by the Economic and Social Science Research Council (UK). She co-authored “Research Strategies for Organizational History” (Academy of Management Review, 2014) with Michael Rowlinson and John Hassard.

Lars Engwall is Professor of Business Administration at Uppsala University since 1981. His research has been directed towards the development of industries and organizations as well as the creation and diffusion of management knowledge. Among his publications related to the sub-theme can be mentioned Mercury Meets Minerva (2009/1992), Management Consulting (2002, ed. with Matthias Kipping), The Expansion of Management Knowledge (2002, ed. with Kerstin Sahlin-Andersson), and Reconfiguring Knowledge Production (2010 with Richard Whitley and Jochen Gläser).

Michael Rowlinson is Professor of Management and Organizational History in the School of Business and Management, Queen Mary University of London.  He has published widely on the relationship between history and organization theory in journals such as the Academy of Management Review, Business History, Human Relations, Organization, and Organization Studies. His research on corporate history concerns the representation of history by organizations, especially the dark side of their involvement in war, slavery, and racism. This has been published in journals such as Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Journal of Organizational Change Management, and Labour History Review. His current interests include the methodology of interpretive historical research in organization studies. He edited the journal Management & Organizational History from 2008 to 2013 and he is now a Senior Editor for Organization Studies and a co-editor for the Special Topic Forum of the Academy of Management Review on ‘History and Organization Studies: Toward a Creative Synthesis.’

Behlül Üsdiken is Professor of Management and Organization at Sabanci University, Istanbul, Turkey. Previously, he was a professor at Bogazici University. He has contributed to numerous journals as well as a variety of edited collections. He has served as a Co-editor of Organization Studies in 1996–2001 and a Section Editor of the Journal of Management Inquiry in 2007–2012. His current research focuses upon family business groups, management education and universities.

References

Dacin, MT., Munir K. and Tracey P. (2010) Formal Dining at Cambridge colleges: Linking ritual performance and institutional maintenance. Academy of Management Journal 53, 6: 1393-1418.

DiMaggio PJ. and Powell W. W. (1983) The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review 48,2: 147-160.

North DC. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rowlinson, M. and J. Hassard (2013). “Historical neo-institutionalism or neo-institutionalist history? Historical research in management and organization studies.” Management & Organizational History 8, 2: 111-126.

Rowlinson, M., J. Hassard and S. Decker (2014). “Research Strategies for Organizational History: A Dialogue between Historical Theory and Organization Theory.” Academy of Management Review 39,3: 205-274.

Suddaby, R., W. M. Foster and A. J. Mills (2014). Historical Institutionalism. Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods. M. Bucheli and R. D. Wadhwani. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 100-123.

Wright, A. L. and Zammuto, R. F. (2013). Wielding the willow: Processes of institutional change in Englısh county cricket. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 308–330

CfP: Corporate Archives & the Production of History

Steph

CALL FOR PAPERS
Private Interests or National Heritage?
Corporate Archives and the Production of History in a Global Perspective

An International Workshop organised jointly by the Unit for Economic History at Gothenburg
University and the Regional State Archives in Gothenburg
Venue: Regional State Archives in Gothenburg
Date: November 24th–25th 2016

As in many fields of social life, history has seen a turn to a transnational or global perspective, asking questions about the patterns  and variations  across and between  rather  than simply within countries. Corporate archives are preserved for a variety of reasons. Likewise they are preserved in a multitude of different places and under a multitude of different conditions.  These variations might reflect differences in how corporate records are viewed and valued, to whom they are seen to belong, and in the uses to which it is believed they can be put. Sometimes  companies  retain records out of habit or inertia. Others have a more active interest in preserving their history and perhaps in preparing for writing that history. The archive can be used for branding and marketing purposes, for image creation by the companies, for change management or for other strategic purposes. Some corporate archives are collected and organized to the highest standards of the archive profession, while others are merely a result of requirements to keep specific records. Other companies,  whether purposefully or otherwise, rarely retain archives or regularly destroy them/their records and documents. The fate of an archive when a company dies is another important question, as is the fate of the archives of state-owned enterprises experiencing  privatization.  In general, corporate owners of archives do not always recognize the contemporary  value or historical importance of their records.

Nonetheless, it is increasingly acknowledged that corporate archives can provide important material which enable new perspectives and alternative histories to be written and that they are useful not only for business historians and those commissioned to write corporate histories, but that they can also provide rich material and valuable sources for political and economic historians, and for social, labour, and cultural historians. Private archives in general and the corporate archives in particular, can, moreover, also be valuable for wider groups of users and many stakeholders have interest in the archives. Apart from owners and historians, the corporate archive can be valuable for museums, local communities and the public in general.

However,  private corporate archives are not always considered important to either national heritage or to historical writing. State archives are often charged with preserving what might be thought of as the public history of the nation. Private corporate  archives might be seen as having an inferior status to official governmental archives. Moreover, not even national archives have unlimited resources. There is then very little consistency or consensus about how, where or why corporate archives might be preserved and made available. This inconsistency  poses a potential threat to our understanding of the relationship between corporations, enterprise, and society.

Thus, as we have noted, corporate  archives are preserved in many different venues, by many different bodies, and for many different reasons. Besides private corporate archives stored in-house by the companies themselves, they can be preserved in large private organisations,  which retain private collections,  they can be deposited in museums or in national or regional public archives, in libraries, and in university collections. But if there is considerable variation and inconsistency at the national level then how much truer is this at an international or global level? What patterns can be observed? What are the implications of such patters, and what can they tell us? This is the focus of our workshop.

Our sense  is that choices around the institutions  and practices  of the archive have real implications for the kinds of history  generated. Are we correct in this? Our aim in organizing this conference on corporate  archives in global perspective is not simply to gain an overview of patterns and differences between countries  but also to enquire as to what consequences  these patterns and variations have for the production, dissemination, and reception of history. The international perspective will, it is intended, throw these issues into sharper relief.

We are delighted  to announce a two-day conference, to be hosted by the Regional State Archives in Gothenburg,  Sweden (organsied jointly with Unit of Economic History at Gothenburg University), with the aim of beginning to consider and address these questions. We are seeking the participation  of historians, archivists, and business owners and managers.

Questions that might be considered include but are not limited to:

  • What patterns and differences in the handling of private corporate archives can be observed from an international perspective?
  • How do these patterns and differences impact what is preserved and stored, how it is organized, who has access to it, and how (and by whom) it is used?
  • What is the role of public archives for private ones? Have models of organizations of material in public archive ‘spilled over’ on how private archives are organized?
  • What challenges and opportunities are created in this area by the rise of Multinational Enterprises and other forms of transnational organization and institution?
  • If there are variations to be observed, then can we see any sign of convergence on international norms and standards, as is happening in other fields of social life?
  • How might observed variations be explained? How important  are legal contexts, for example through variation in legal requirements for record keeping and corporate reporting?
  • Do observed patterns reflect deep across societies and cultures in terms of their relationship to history and the historical record? In other words, what might a society’s archiving choices tell us about its relationship to and use of history? Such variations might also alert us to variations in socio-cultural  attitudes towards private interests versus the public good.
  • Similarly, we are interested in the implications of any variations that might be observed have for the kinds of history that is preserved and for the kinds of histories (that might be textual or take many other forms) that are produced, from one country to another?

We invite paper proposals dealing with any of these topics.

Deadline for proposal is June 1, 2016.

Please address the proposals and all expressions of interest to either Susanna Fellman (susanna.fellman@econhist.gu.se) or Andrew Popp (andrew.popp@liverpool.ac.uk)

CFP: Workshop Series “Historical Approaches to Entrepreneurship” (Copenhagen, May 24, 2016)

Christina

CFP: Workshop Series “Historical Approaches to Entrepreneurship”

May 24, 2016, Copenhagen Business School

Porcelænshaven 16B, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark, “The Studio” (Ground Floor)

Deadline: April 18, 2016 for abstracts

Conveners: Bill Gartner (Copenhagen Business School), David Kirsch (Univ. of Maryland), Christina Lubinski (Copenhagen Business School, R. Daniel Wadhwani (Univ. of the Pacific), Friederike Welter (Univ. of Siegen and Institut für Mittelstandsforschung Bonn)

 

After previous workshops in Copenhagen (2014), Miami (2015) and Portland (2016) we are happy to announce the fourth workshop in the series “Historical Approaches to Entrepreneurship Theory & Research” to be held at Copenhagen Business School on May 24, 2016.

In recent years, both business historians and entrepreneurship scholars have grown increasingly interested in the promise of using historical sources, methods and reasoning in entrepreneurship research. History, it has been argued, can be valuable in addressing a number of limitations in traditional approaches to studying entrepreneurship, including in accounting for contexts and institutions, in understanding the relationship between entrepreneurship and economic change, in providing multi-level perspectives on the entrepreneurial process and in situating entrepreneurial behavior and cognition within the flow of time. Support for historical research on entrepreneurship has grown, with both leading entrepreneurship researchers and business historians calling for the use of historical perspectives and with Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal announcing a call for papers for a special issue devoted to history and entrepreneurship.

The purpose of this workshop is to provide scholars with developmental feedback on work-in-progress related to historical approaches to entrepreneurship and strategy, broadly construed. Our aim is to support the development of historical research on entrepreneurship for publication in leading journals, including for the special issue of Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal (see, http://sej.strategicmanagement.net/conf-dl/sej-historical-approaches-to-entrepreneurship-research.pdf). In addition to providing feedback and suggestions for specific topics, the workshop will address the commonly faced challenges of writing for a double-audience of historians and entrepreneurship/management scholars, engaging entrepreneurship theory and constructs, and identifying the most valuable historical sources and methods in studying entrepreneurial phenomena. We welcome work-in-progress at all stages of development. Interested scholars may submit two types of submissions for discussion: full research papers (8,000 words) or paper ideas (1,000 to 3,000 words).

The workshop will take place at Copenhagen Business School, one of the world leading environments for historical research at business schools and universities. If you have questions or are interested in participating, please submit an initial abstract of max. 300 words and a one-page CV before Monday, April 18, 2016 to David Kirsch (dkirsch@rhsmith.umd.edu), Christina Lubinski (cl.mpp@cbs.dk) or Dan Wadhwani (dwadhwani@pacific.edu). Invitations to the workshop will be sent out before April 28, 2016. Full paper (8,000) and paper idea (1,000 to 3,000 words) submissions will be expected by Friday, May 13, 2016. If you are planning to submit to the SEJ special issue, please follow the journal’s formal guidelines (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28ISSN%291932-443X/homepage/ForAuthors.html).

Please feel free to contact the organizers with your paper ideas if you are interested in early feedback or want to inquire about the fit of your idea with this PDW.

The Broader Project

This workshop is part of a larger project that seeks to examine how analytical attention to history, context, and time may reshape theories of entrepreneurship as well as how these theories in turn allow us to re-consider how we account for agency, time and change in history. It follows on previous workshops in Copenhagen (2014), Miami (2015) and Portland (2016). The project is in the process of developing an intellectual community comprised of both historians and entrepreneurship theorists engaged in multidisciplinary and cross-disciplinary research on entrepreneurial history. Some of the questions the broader project will address include:

  • What is the relationship between theories of history and theories of entrepreneurship? How have they shaped one another over time and what are the ways in which they do so today?
  • In what ways different contexts (time, institutions, spatial contexts etc.) viewed in history and in entrepreneurship theory? How can more critical views of time and context contribute to our understanding of entrepreneurial behavior and the entrepreneurial process?
  • How do differences in methods and theorization matter to our understanding of entrepreneurship? Specifically, how should we think about the relationship between historians’ emphasis on deep context and narrative explanation and entrepreneurship researcher’s preference for valuing theoretical propositions from the point of view of advancing intellectual exchange between the two fields? What should we make of the tension between the theoretical inclination to gain insight through abstraction and the historical inclination to gain insight through contextualization? In what ways can the tension be productive or useful?
  • How does “history” or “the past” manifest itself in the entrepreneurial process? Is it constraining or enabling, and if “it depends,” then on what conditions does it depend? How is history “used” in the entrepreneurial process?
  • What is the relationship between narrative and history within the entrepreneurial process?
  • Can historical contextualization of the current moment (1970s-present) in entrepreneurship thought and practice help shed light on the present?
  • Can a deeper engagement with entrepreneurship theory allow us to understand the past in new ways and produce new history?

Individual and institutional support

The workshop and broader project is an initiative of the Copenhagen Business School’s Centre for Business History and Department of Management, Politics, and Philosophy in collaboration with scholars and institutions throughout Europe and North America. We are also grateful for support from the Entrepreneurship Platform and the Rethinking History in Business Schools Initiative at CBS.

CfP: Out of Africa – World Congress on Business History, Bergen 2016

Steph

‘OUT OF AFRICA’: The Globalisation of African Enterprises.

Call for Papers: 1st World Congress on Business History / University of Bergen, 2016.

 

An open call for papers from researchers of African Business History for the World Congress on Business History to be held 25th – 27th August 2016, in Bergen Norway. By bringing together business and economic historians of Africa, this panel seeks to strengthen the study of business history in Africa. Collaborating with new and existing scholars from the field, and a rich sample of case studies from across Africa, the panel aims to publish special issues on African business history in the global context. The deadline for abstracts is March 25th, 2016. Please send a maximum of 1000 words, outlining the proposed paper to Edward Kerby, London School of Economics and LEAP (Stellenbosch), e.m.kerby@lse.ac.uk

 

ABSTRACT

 

Grietjie Verhoef ∗  & Edward Kerby†

The African continent is largely missing from debates in business history with numerous method- ological and archival challenges. Yet recent headlines extoll how business is coming to Africa, with 3 of the 10 fastest growing global cities. A continent of 54 counties, it is home to a billion consumers. Bypassing the constraints of legacy infrastructure, half of the population are under the age of 15 and adopting new technology. With this growth, African enterprises have also been globalising. No longer can the continent be merely seen as a source of commodities or a recipient of aid, but rather a rapidly expanding market with African business champions meeting rising demands. This change has led to a greater focus on the internationalisation of enterprises, the role of foreign direct investment and the historical roots of African enterprises.

 

Yet African businesses have not operated in a vacuum but were shaped by the first wave of globalisa- tion, decolonisation and 50 years of independence. This lends their histories to comparative case studies with globalisation from Asia and Latin America. With unique opportunities and challenges, African businesses have adapted to diverse geographic, political and institutional settings. Multinationals from Africa are less well-known, such as MTN (ICT), Standard Bank (Finance) or Dangote (Industrials), but so are small and medium sized enterprises expanding operations outside of home borders. These businesses offers unique political, cultural, ethnic and migrant narratives from which business history scholarship can draw.

 

The main assumption of this panel is that a historical exploration of enterprises “Out of Africa” can shed light on the past development path of business in Africa, as well as informing current and future African business leaders. These include, but are by no means limited to the deeper understanding of patterns of internationalisation, the impact of macroeconomic and political context on African FDI, patterns of adaptation, organisation and management of African firms, entrepreneurial qualities of African business leaders, the state in business development, business groups, the impact of inward FDI on African business, culture and ethnicity in African business, etc.

 

Expected  Participants:

  1. Chaired by Christopher Kobrak, ESCP Europe and University of Toronto.
  2. Same as Co-ordinating
  3. Chibuike Uche, African Studies Centre,

 

∗CO-ORDINATING ORGANISERS: Grietjie Verhoef, University of Johannesburg. gverhoef@uj.ac.za

†Edward Kerby, London School of Economics and LEAP (Stellenbosch). e.m.kerby@lse.ac.uk

CfP: European Association for Evolutionary Political Economy

Steph

We are happy to announce the final Call for Papers for this year’s main event of the European Association for Evolutionary Political Economy.

Please have in mind that electronic Abstract Submission is already open here:
http://eaepe.org/?page=events&side=annual_conference&sub=eaepe2016_abstract_submission

The 28th EAEPE Annual Conference will take place in Manchester on 3-5 November 2016. The conference theme is inspired by the historical legacy of the Industrial Revolution that has made Manchester a pre-eminent industrial metropolis of the world. The theme invites contributors to consider social and economic implications of industrialisation, deindustrialisation and transformation with particular attention to those institutions that flourish and decline around industries and manufacturing. Following the usual EAEPE format, prospective participants are invited to submit a paper on either the conference theme or one of the 22 EAEPE Research Areas. Abstracts (300-750 words) should include the following: the name(s), email address, affiliation of the authors, along with the name and code of the relevant Research Area. Following a notification of acceptance, a full paper will be invited.

Background to the 2016 Conference Theme

The organisers intend to celebrate the legacy of Manchester’s status as a cradle of the Industrial Revolution that determined the global path for well-being creation by manufacturing and technologies, and later by services and creative industries. The conference theme also recognises how Manchester has shaped the people’s history and encouraged intellectual advancements on such important issues as workers’ rights, trade unions, co-operatives, civil rights, and liberal critique of the shortcomings of the capitalist system.

The North-West of England is specifically, known for experiencing the consequences of deindustrialisation as well as successful examples of recovery.  Many problems have not yet been solved, but the prospects of further regeneration and sustainable progressive long-term development through the opportunities linked to the knowledge economy, creative industry, services and progressive business formats, it is believed, could provide footing for the successful future of the region.  Participants are encouraged to engage in a relevant discussion from the angle of regional specificities and challenges through contributions that could shape political and economic discourse on sustainable solutions to socio-economic dynamics.

Sample topics related to the 2016 Conference Theme

De-manufacturing and economic policy; The economic policy and economic analysis related legacy of Marx and Engels; New industrialisation and growth; The use of historical lenses in Economics and Management; The sociology of management; Sustainable counteraction to socio-economic decline; Economic policy for urban regeneration; Industrial specialisation and imbalances within the European Union; Industrial excellence and the business-university ties; Future of Industrial Relations; Business history of manufacturing.

 Keynote Speakers:

Prof. Bill Cooke, University of York

The second speaker: to be confirmed at a later date.

 Local Organizers and Co-chairs:

Dr. Andrea Bernardi (MMU)

Dr. Olga Kuznetsova (MMU)

Scientific Committee

Andrea Bernardi (Manchester Metropolitan University, UK); Charles Dannreuther (University of Leeds, UK);Wolfram Elsner (University of Bremen, Germany); Damian Grimshaw (University of Manchester, UK); Ismail Erturk (University of Manchester, UK); Hardy Hanappi (Vienna University of Technology, Austria); Olga Kuznetsova (Manchester Metropolitan University, UK); Nathalie Lazaric (University of Nice Sophia Antipolis, France); Lukasz Mamica (Krakow University of Economics, Poland); Salvatore Monni (University of Rome III, Italy); Jorge Muñoz (Université Bretagne Occidentale, France); Marco Raberto (University of Genoa, Italy); Michael Rowlinson (Queen Mary University of London, UK); Francesca Romagnoli (British Treasury – OECD, UK); Jill Rubery (University of Manchester, UK); Dimitrios Syrrakos (Manchester Metropolitan University, UK); Pasquale Tridico (University of Rome III, Italy); Caroline Vincensini (ENS de Cachan, France); Hugh Willmott (Cass Business School, UK).

 Special sessions

Special parallel sessions and roundtables with academics, practitioners and policymakers will be organised. These will include “Manchester Industrial Relations-ADAPT”, “The Northern business powerhouse”, “Co-operative business model for the future”, “OECD special session on Cities”, and “Manchester Devolution and local economic policy”.

The conference also wishes to reflect on the variety of national and regional approaches to the structural socio-economic changes through the use of historical and institutional perspectives. To achieve this, the organisers call for proposals for a limited number of special sessions. Please, submit your session proposal to the organisers by February 2016 outlining the focus and objectives with a minimum of five abstracts.

As in the past, early career researchers’ Pre-Conference and early career researchers’ special sessions will be organised.

 Important dates

January 31, 2016: abstract submission opens

May 15, 2016: abstract submission deadline

June 18, 2016: notification of acceptance; registration opens

July 31, 2016: early registration closes

September 14, 2016: late registration closes (for authors to be included in the scientific programme).

October 01, 2016: full papers submission deadline.

Conference Fees

The conference fees and the EAEPE membership fees are denominated in Euros and are paid on the website of the association.

 Members’ regular rate:

by 15th July 2016 – 190 €

after 15th July 2016 – 250 €

Non-members’ regular rate:

by 15th July 2016 – 270 €

after 15th July 2016 – 330 €

 Members’ special rates:

PhD/Masters students 90 €

Subsidized fee – 100 €

For participants from developing countries and regions particularly affected by crisis Please apply in advance to Pasquale Tridico (tridico@uniroma3.it) and Oliver Kessler (oliver.kessler@uni-erfurt.de).

Venue

The conference will take place at Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, All Saints Campus, Oxford Rd, Manchester, M15 6BH. This is a 5 minutes walk from Oxford Road train station or a 15 minutes walk from Piccadilly station.

Contacts

Academic queries: Dr. Andrea Bernardi (a.bernardi@mmu.ac.uk), Dr. Olga Kuznetsova (o.kuznetsova@mmu.ac.uk).

Administrative queries: eaepe2016@mmu.ac.uk.

CfP: Histories of Capitalism 2.0

Steph2 Comments

Conference: Histories of Capitalism, v2.0

CALL FOR PAPERS

Histories of Capitalism, 2.0

Cornell University

September 29 to October 1, 2016

In 2014, Cornell’s History of Capitalism Initiative hosted a conference on the “Histories of American Capitalism” to showcase the deep connection between traditional subfields of social history (race, gender, sexuality and class) and the new history of capitalism. Building on the success of that conference and on developments in this rapidly-growing field, we invite proposals for panels that continue to illustrate the diversity of the histories of capitalism(s) through a variety of perspectives, including intellectual, legal, gender, environmental history, as well as the history of science and technology.

We hope that the previous conference’s focus, which sought to bring social and cultural history categories into dialogue with capitalism, will continue to infuse the conversation this year. We would also especially like to see panels and papers that incorporate non-U.S., regional, transnational, or global histories.

For the 2016 conference we are open to all proposals and particularly encourage submissions on:

  • Science and Technology
  • Migration
  • Unfree Labor
  • Family and Home
  • Environment and Built Environment
  • Criticizing, Defending and Defining Capitalism
  • Regulation and the State

Plenary Speakers include:

  • Jedidiah Purdy (Duke)
  • Marcus Rediker (Pittsburgh)
  • Emma Rothschild (Harvard University)
  • Juliet Walker (University of Texas-Austin)

 

Submission:

  • Our invitation is open to scholars at any stage of their careers. We will accept both panels and individual papers.
    • For each panel, please include a 500 word description of the panel, a 250 word description of each paper in the panel and a short c.v. for each paper giver.
    • For each paper, please submit a 250 word description of the paper and a short c.v.
  • To submit the paper proposals please go to http://hoc.ilr.cornell.edu/fall-2016-conference
  • Submissions are due by March 1, 2016

Call for Papers

We are currently accepting proposals for the 2016 conference.

Register for the Conference

Registration to attend the conference has not yet begun.

Please contact Rhonda Clouse with any questions or concerns.

Call for applications:Junior Scholars Forum In Civil Society, the Nonprofit Sector, and Philanthropy

Steph

2016 Call for applications 

Junior Scholars Forum In Civil Society, the Nonprofit Sector, and Philanthropy

pacscenter.stanford.edu/junior-scholars-forum

June 15-17, 2016

Berlin Application Deadline: February 22, 2016

The annual Stanford PACS Junior Scholars Forum brings together newer researchers, including graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and junior faculty, working in the general areas of civil society, the nonprofit sector, and philanthropy to increase the sense of intellectual community and enhance the overall quality of research. The goal of the forum is to highlight exciting work being done by junior scholars and to contribute to the development of their scholarship. Background In summer 2014 the Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society hosted its inaugural Junior Scholars Forum, a gathering that brought together newer researchers with senior scholars for two days of presentations, intensive discussions and socializing. The forum highlighted exciting work being done in the fields of philanthropy and civil society. The 11 junior scholars selected were drawn from a competitive pool of applications and came from political science, economics, sociology, anthropology, and other disciplines. In 2015, the second forum was held featuring 9 junior scholars from an equally broad range of disciplines. About the Junior Scholars Forum in 2016 We are excited to announce that the 2016 JSF will be convened in Berlin, Germany June 15 – 17th, 2016 at the Hertie School of Governance. Applicants who are selected will receive funding for travel, accommodation, and eligible travel expenses. Each paper selected will have two discussants, one an established scholar working in the area of research, the other a graduate student or a postdoctoral fellow also working on the topic. The forum will provide ample time for discussion and meals together so that we can begin build an intellectual community that we hope will last beyond the event. We are open to a wide variety of topic areas.
Without limiting submissions to items on this list, here is description of some themes that we are particularly interested in and in which there is active work under way at Stanford:

  • The expansion of global governance, particularly transnational organizations and their causes and impact
  • The role of social movements and advocacy groups in policy reform or revolt efforts at measuring effectiveness in the social sector
  • The relationship between philanthropy and democracy
  • New organizational forms, ranging from hybrids to b corps, from cooperatives to for-profits with a purported social mission; corporate social responsibility; impact investing
  • Novel approaches to analyzing the role of social capital in civil society
  • New open models of public media and knowledge, ranging from journalism to encyclopedias to scientific production

Submission details

We welcome submissions by graduate students and postdoctoral fellows as well as junior faculty. We want to cast a wide net and welcome submissions from a robust variety of disciplines and professional schools. The committee will favor solo-authored papers from junior scholars, and papers that examined civil society and philanthropy through new lenses. Please submit a research paper by email to Sam Spiewak, Program Manager, at spiewak@stanford.edu. Please make your subject line: “Junior Scholars Forum.” There are no specific length or formatting requirements for the paper and advanced drafts will be accepted along with published papers. We will select eight to eleven papers for the 2016 forum. The “we” includes the faculty co-directors of the Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society, other Stanford Faculty, and several distinguished members of the larger academic community who will join us at the June forum. We will notify all applicants of the outcomes by early April. Funding will be provided to cover travel expenses and accommodations will be arranged in Berlin.

For more information, contact Sam Spiewak (spiewak@stanford.edu).