Category: Call for Papers

New deadline: BHC 2023 PDW “Educating for business”

Steph

Educating for business – and the business of education – Historical Perspectives and developments

CBS Paper Development Workshop

Business History Conference, Detroit, March 16-18, 2023

The past years have seen an increasing scholarly interest in the historicity of management learning and education. Studies on historical interrelations between business and education have appeared as journal contributions and special issues across diverse fields such as business history, management- and entrepreneurship studies, and didactical research (Bok, 2009; Bridgman et al. 2016; Clinebell, & Clinebell 2009; Khurana 2007; Spender, 2016; Wadhwani & Viebig 2021), as business schools and educational programs in management are increasingly seen as having a transformational potential to address present-day global challenges. Instead of merely educating for business, business school curricula and didactics are now focused on educating for sustainable solutions and addressing grand challenges (Gatzweiler et al. 2022).  

In the PDW we focus on historicity of business education and, and we would like to explore recent developments as well as theories and methods that might shed new light on the historical development of business education.

The workshop offers an opportunity to get feedback and generate ideas of how to develop concrete paper drafts that deal, one way or the other, with historical aspects of business education. In addition, the PDW will serve as a forum where we can discuss future directions and opportunities for historical studies within the area. What questions and research that are yet to be explored? And what are the role for historians in shaping agendas and research questions?

Themes to be explored in the papers could include, amongst others:

  • The role and development of entrepreneurship education
  • The historicity of business- and management education
  • Historical responses to grand societal challenges
  • Future directions of business education
  • Business school pedagogy and didactics in historical perspective
  • The historical development of business education curricula
  • Theoretical and methodological perspectives connected to business education

Submitted texts could take form as extended abstracts or full paper drafts. The important thing is that readers can identify the key arguments, theories, and empirical material, for them to provide useful feedback, suggestions, and comments.

The PDW is developed in the context of a special issues call on entrepreneurship education in Management & Organizational History. Potential authors for the special issue are encouraged to participate in the workshop, but the PDW is not limited to contributions for this publication.

Participants are expected to read all circulated papers. Please submit a paper draft or extended abstract before February 14 2023 (new deadline) to the workshop organizers.

Christoph Viebig CBS Centre for Business History: cvi.mpp@cbs.dk

Anders Ravn Sørensen, CBS Centre for Business History: ars.mpp@cbs.dk

  • Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
  • Bridgman, T., Cummings, S., & McLaughlin, C. 2016. “Restating the case: How revisiting the development of the case method can help us think differently about the future of the business school”. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(4): 724-741.
  • Clinebell, S. K., & Clinebell, J. M. (2009). The tension in business education between academic rigor and real-world relevance: The role of executive professors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(1), 99-107.
  • Khurana, R. (2007). From higher aims to hired hands: The social transformation of American business schools and the unfulfilled promise of management as a profession. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Khurana & Spender, J. C. 2012 “Herbert A. Simon on What Ails Business Schools: More than ‘A Problem in Organizational Design’. Journal of Management Studies, 49: 619–639.
  • Wadhwani & Viebig (2021) “Social Imaginaries of Entrepreneurship Education: The United States and Germany, 1800–2020“ Academy of Management Learning & Education 20(3).
  • Gatzweiler et al. (2022) “Grand Challenges and Business Education: Dealing with Barriers to Learning and Uncomfortable Knowledge”, in Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 79, pp. 221-237.

CfP MOH: Histories of Entrepreneurship Education

Steph

Histories of entrepreneurship education: Exploring its past, understanding its present, and re-imagining its future

Manuscript deadline: 15 June 2023

Management & Organizational History

Special Issue Editor(s)

Christoph Viebig, Copenhagen Business School
cvi.mpp@cbs.dk

Christian Stutz, Jyväskylä School of Business and Economics
christian.stutz@jyu.fi

Anders Ravn Sørensen, Copenhagen Business School
ars.mpp@cbs.dk

Entrepreneurship education is a global phenomenon. Over the last decades, we have seen tremendous growth in political and societal support for entrepreneurship education and a steep increase in entrepreneurship courses and programs at higher education institutions (Kuratko & Morris, 2018). At the same time, we are witnessing a scholarly debate about the current status and future direction of entrepreneurship education scholarship (Landström et al., 2021; Neck & Corbett, 2018; Pittaway & Cope, 2007). Most contributions to this debate paint an image of entrepreneurship education as a contemporary phenomenon linked to zeitgeisty agendas of self-fulfillment, grand societal challenges, and ideas about allegedly unprecedented economic and technological transformations (Dimov & Pistrui, 2022; Hägg & Kurczewska, 2021; Ratten & Jones, 2019). While this framing around newness arguably has helped to drive student interest and attract political support for entrepreneurship education on a global scale, it can also be seen as a liability calling into question the field’s academic legitimacy and limiting the ways in which we understand the present and imagine the future of entrepreneurship education (Cummings & Bridgman, 2016; Wadhwani & Viebig, 2021).

Entrepreneurship education is an underexplored historical phenomenon. Extending the dominant framing of entrepreneurship education as a new phenomenon, a recent study has shown that this form of business education has, in fact, a long tradition going back to the early nineteenth century, hence predating the modern business school and research-based university (Wadhwani & Viebig, 2021). While Katz (2003) has highlighted earlier entrepreneurship education initiatives, the conventional historical narrative of entrepreneurship education suggests that entrepreneurship education emerged at US business schools during the 1970s and grew domestically throughout the 1980s and 1990s (Kuratko, 2005). Since the 1990s, entrepreneurship education has expanded into all areas of higher education and especially internationally (Dana, 1992). During the late 1990s and early 2000s, it has turned into a global phenomenon with still growing numbers of students, courses, and programs around the globe (Kuratko & Morris, 2018). Those historical narratives serve an important purpose because our interpretations of the past are constitutive of our understandings and influence how we think about the future. Hence, revisiting the history of entrepreneurship education holds the potential to shape the current debates about entrepreneurship education and stimulate new ways of thinking about its future.

This special issue seeks to begin a more profound conversation about the history of entrepreneurship education by linking the scholarship of entrepreneurship education with the lively debates about the history of business education. Unlike the history of management education and the history of business school (Amdam & Dávila, 2021; Engwall et al., 2016), historical research about entrepreneurship education has been scarce and largely inexistent in the debates about the history of business education (McLaren et al., 2021). Developing new histories of entrepreneurship education requires identifying educational initiatives for entrepreneurs in temporal and regional contexts where the terminology of entrepreneurship may not (yet) exist and making a strong case to show that those educational initiatives can be accounted for as entrepreneurship education. In doing so, we encourage scholars to go beyond today’s definitions of entrepreneurship education and broaden our understanding of what has been an education for, in, and about different forms of entrepreneurship. We believe that by developing new historical perspectives (Bucheli & Wadhwani, 2014; Stutz & Sachs, 2018), this special issue can make a strong contribution to our contemporary understanding of the teaching and learning of entrepreneurship and link this form of education with debates about the history of business education more broadly.

Therefore, we invite empirical and conceptual submissions on the following topics and questions, amongst others.

Revisiting the dominant histories of entrepreneurship education and their effects:

  • What are the current prevailing historical narratives of entrepreneurship education? Which stories, characters, events, and plots do those histories use? Are there dominant narratives in the past that disappeared again? How and why did they appear, exist, and disappear?
  • How have the existent histories of entrepreneurship education been used? Which purposes, aims, and interests did those narratives serve? How do the prevailing histories influence the self-identity of entrepreneurship education research and practice? What can we learn from these histories-and what not (cf. Cummings et al., 2017).

Challenging prevailing narratives with deeper and broader histories:

  • What are underexplored or overlooked aspects of the currently dominant histories of entrepreneurship education? What is the history of entrepreneurship education outside North America and Western Europe? What can we learn from incorporating those aspects into the prevailing narratives?
  • What educational institutions within and outside higher education offered entrepreneurship education? How was their approach different from contemporary or other past forms of entrepreneurship education?
  • What is the historical relationship between management, commercial and other forms of business education with entrepreneurship education? What are the differences and similarities between those forms of education?
  • What is the relationship between different forms of entrepreneurship education and different contexts? Why did entrepreneurship initiatives appear in some contexts and not in others?
  • How have family entrepreneurs been educated? What characterized family entrepreneurship education, and how is that different from contemporary approaches to entrepreneurship education?

History of entrepreneurship thought and pedagogies; historical consciousness:

  • What is entrepreneurship education’s history of thought? What ideas have been influential in the formation of entrepreneurship education initiatives? What other ideas have existed and been forgotten? What can we learn from recovering those (cf. Prieto et al., 2021)?
  • What pedagogies have been used to educate entrepreneurs historically? What advantages and disadvantages did those pedagogies have, and how did they shape the image and results of entrepreneurship education?
  • What, if any, is the pedagogical role of practicing historical consciousness in educating entrepreneurs (cf. Tennent et al., 2020)?

References :

Augier, M., & March, J. G. (2011). The roots, rituals, and rhetorics of change: North American business schools after the Second World War. Stanford Business Books.

Bucheli, M., & Wadhwani, R. D. (Eds.). (2014). Organizations in time: History, theory, methods (First edition). Oxford University Press.

Dana, L. P. (1992). Entrepreneurial education in Europe. Journal of Education for Business, 68(2), 74–78. doi.org/10.1080/08832323.1992.10117590

Dimov, D., & Pistrui, J. (2022). Entrepreneurship Education as a First-Person Transformation. Journal of Management Inquiry, 31(1), 49–53. doi.org/10.1177/1056492620964592

Engwall, L., Kipping, M., & Üsdiken, B. (2016). Defining management: Business schools, consultants, media. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Hägg, G., & Kurczewska, A. (2021). Entrepreneurship education: Scholarly progress and future challenges. Routledge.

Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 283–300. doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00098-8

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

Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577–598. doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00099.x

Kuratko, D. F., & Morris, M. H. (2018). Examining the future trajectory of entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 56(1), 11–23.

Landström, H., Gabrielsson, J., Politis, D., Sørheim, R., & Djupal, K. (2021). The social structure of entrepreneurial education as a scientific field. Academy of Management Learning & Education.

McLaren, P. G., Bridgman, T., Cummings, S., Lubinski, C., O’Connor, E., Spender, J.-C., & Durepos, G. (2021). From the Editors-New Times, New Histories of the Business School. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 20(3), 293–299. doi.org/10.5465/amle.2021.0318

Neck, H. M., & Corbett, A. C. (2018). The Scholarship of teaching and learning entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 8–41. doi.org/10.1177/2515127417737286

Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479–510. doi.org/10.1177/0266242607080656

Ratten, V., & Jones, P. (Eds.). (2019). Transformational entrepreneurship. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Stinchcombe, A. L. (1965). Social structures and organizations. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of Organizations (pp. 142–193). Rand McNally.

Wadhwani, R. D., & Viebig, C. (2021). Social imaginaries of entrepreneurship education: The United States and Germany, 1800–2020. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 20(3), 342–360.

JIBS Special Issue “Beyond History Matters”

Steph

A Happy New Year everyone!

Just a reminder – if you have any questions about our forthcoming #specialissue in Journal of #InternationalBusiness Studies, take a look at this #video with some of the guest editors below.

We answer questions such as:
– What do you mean by Moving beyond “#history matters”?
– What kind of #research are you looking for in this special issue?
– What would a great contribution to the SI look like?
– What are the next steps?

Guest editors for this special issue:
Stephanie Decker – Klaus Meyer – Geoffrey Jones – Catherine Welch – rebecca piekkari

You can find the #callforpapers here: https://lnkd.in/ek3zgDmP
#bizhis

AOM Management History PDWs

Steph
Dear management history colleagues,

With extreme pleasure, I can announce that submissions for the Professional Development Workshop for the Management History Division at the Academy of Management are now open!

Look at the Call for PDW here-> aom.org/events/annual-meeting/submitting/… 

Deadline: 10 January 2023 at 17:00 ET (GMT-5/UTC-5)

Inspiring sessions are looked for!

Regards

Matteo Cristofaro

EGOS2023 ST76: Organizing in Historically Marginalized Societies

Steph

Hi friends and colleagues,

If you are to attend EGOS 2023 in Cagliari, we would like to attract your attention to our EGOS sub-theme: “Theorizing Organizing in ‘Historically Marginalized Societies’: Embracing, Calibrating or Distancing from Mainstream Organizational and Management Theories?“

Format: Hybrid | Deadline for submitting the abstract: January 10, 2023, 23:59:59 CET.

Convenors: Sofiane Baba (University of Sherbrooke), Innan Sasaki (Warwick University) and Taïeb Hafsi (HEC Montréal).

Link to the CfP: www.egos.org/2023_Cagliari/…

Should you have any questions, please send us an email at sofiane.baba@usherbrooke.ca, innan.sasaki@wbs.ac.uk, or taieb.2.hafsi@hec.ca.

All the best,

The convenors

****

Historically marginalized societies are those societies that have experienced oppression, marginalization, and cultural genocide from a more dominant force at some point in their recent history through colonization, wars, and other forms of domination (e.g., Baba, Sasaki, & Vaara, 2021). Despite gaining their freedom and independence, many of these societies are coping with historical marginalization’s long-term psychological and sociological effects (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015). As a result, these societies continue to be tied with colonial legacy and institutions imposed by the dominant force while deliberately ignoring local identities. This situation generates strong tensions for these societies as they seek to (re)imagine their future ideal society as characterized by their unique identity and values (Djilali, 2017). It is all people’s right to be valued for who they are and for the cultural values and traditions they uphold. However, history and today’s society show that such fundamental human right is not always respected. In this vein, this sub-theme delves into the theorization of organizing in historically marginalized societies where cultural survival is vital, both in developing and developed countries. In particular, this sub-theme seeks to understand how actors navigate through these historical legacies, how they become who they really are, and how they try to influence the future of their society.
 
These societies are scattered worldwide, from the First Nations of Canada to those of Australia, from Northern Africa to Southern Africa, including Latin American countries and many more. These societies tend to have strong ontological differences from the Western view, i.e., circular view of time rather than linear, a strong role of traditions, religious beliefs and spirituality, collectivist societies rather than individualistic (Baba & Fortin-Lefebvre, 2021; Cilliers, 2018). While they are different, these societies are also simultaneously searching for themselves and their uniqueness (Stora, 2021). Historically marginalized societies have lost both material and symbolic resources due to colonization, wars, and other forms of domination (Bourdieu, 1962). Such loss is often followed by coping mechanisms like mourning, resistance, escaping, or accepting and adapting to survive (e.g., Alkhaled & Sasaki, 2021; Martí & Fernández, 2013). However, these losses have long-lasting effects, which scholars are still discovering. From what we know, they lead to instability in the society marked by historically deeply rooted ideological and political conflicts, to institutional voids, and overall, to identity issues (Harbi, 2001). But a common objective in these societies is usually the struggle to culturally survive and uphold their unique traditions, cultures, and way of life while being influenced by more dominant cultural values and systems, especially emanating from the dominant forces and former colonizers (Fortin-Lefebvre & Baba, 2021).
 
The Age of Enlightenment, the pivotal period of modernity, is probably still central to our vision of management and organizations: effectiveness, efficiency, rationality being the mottoes. In this quest to rationalize the behavior of organizations, management, and organizational theories have never been so abundant and popular. Paradoxically, these theories have never been so criticized for their questionable utility, the process that shapes them (Filatotchev, Ireland, & Stahl, 2022), their Western hegemony (Bruton et al., 2022), and their impacts on ecosystems (Parker, 2002). We build on Petriglieri’s (2020) insight that we need to put “to rest the way we conceive and portray and practice management” and that we “need a truly human management, one that makes room for our bodies and spirits alongside our intellect and skills”.
 
All in all, theoretically, it is worthwhile theorizing how actors in such historically marginalized societies organize themselves because management and organization theories remain considerably colored by Western realities and phenomena and this, for a long time (Kiggundu, Jørgensen, & Hafsi, 1983). Overall, we are interested in studies from around the world that explore and unpack how the culture, worldviews, and everyday life (individual, social and institutional) of historically marginalized contexts (re)shape our understanding of organizing and organizations. More specifically, with such an idea in mind, we suggest (but should not be limited to) the following possible research questions. Empirical, conceptual, as well as methodological papers are welcomed. Examples of research questions of interest are listed in the CfP.

EGOS2023 ST71 – Secrecy & Transparency

Steph

We welcome your submissions to Subtheme 71 on Secrecy and Transparency at 39th EGOS Colloquium 2023 in Cagliari, Italy!

Subtheme 71: Secrecy and Transparency in Governing and Regulating a Good Life 

Submission Deadline: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 (3,000 words all inclusive)

Convenors:

  • Ziyun Fan, University of York, United Kingdom
  • Lars Thøger Christensen, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
  • Dan Kärreman, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, & University of London, United Kingdom

The legacy of modernity celebrates transparency as a necessary source of reason, rationality, and good governance (Vattimo, 1992). These ideals and the implied promises of accessibility, visibility, openness, inclusivity, and equality have given rise to a ‘transparency explosion’ in recent decades and a sense that secrecy might eventually be a thing of the past. Although Simmel (1906/1950) in his influential work on the sociology of secrecy argued that knowledge is partial and intertwined with ignorance and inaccessibility, secrecy is often associated with impropriety (Wilson, 1913/2011) and unfairness in ways that benefit in-groups, but harm others (e.g., Bok, 1982; see also Jung, 2001/1933). Secrecy, or the speculation of its existence, triggers a quest for more transparency.
 
While transparency has become the currency of our time, the assumed ‘zero-sum’ relationship between transparency and secrecy, where the rise of transparency reduces secrecy, has been increasingly problematized (e.g., Albu & Flyverbom, 2019; Birchall, 2021; Christensen et al., 2021; Fenster, 2017). The inevitable links between transparency and secrecy establish the parameters of what can be seen, imagined, and practiced in the name of ‘rationality’ in and of our contemporary society. Hence, to understand transparency, we ought to understand secrecy.
 
Despite being identified as an important aspect of organizational life in general and of transparency in specific, secrecy remains under-researched. Existing studies have explored secrecy and its roles in concealing trade secrets and preserving organizational competitive advantages (e.g., Hannah, 2005), in triggering conspiracy and forming the sense of stigmatization in organizational life (e.g., Parker, 2016; Wolfe & Blithe, 2015), in cultivating confidential gossip as part of the unmanaged organization (Fan et al., 2021; Fan & Dawson, 2021), and in (re)shaping identity management that (un)links individuals to an organization (e.g., Scott, 2013). Secrecy, thus, shapes our behaviour and interactions at work in ways that constitute normative orders and expectations, which in turn (re)shapes the demand for and understanding of transparency. Contemporary discussions of organizations and organizing therefore must look beyond the familiar and immediately recognizable and integrate the less observable into our thinking and understanding about the complex and challenging roles transparency plays.
 
Our subtheme is a call to explore new boundaries in processes of understanding the nexus between transparency and secrecy, to speak the unspoken, to reveal the hidden, as a platform to offer theoretical, practical, and policy insights and to address the broader significance of transparency and secrecy in governing and regulating a good life for individuals, organizations, and society.
 
We welcome papers from a range of theoretical and empirical approaches and from different cultures to discuss the possible topics and questions that could include but are not limited to the followings:

  • How could we (re)conceptualize the relationship between transparency and secrecy in contemporary democratic societies? While existing studies indicate that their relationship is ‘mutually constitutive’ (e.g., Birchall, 2021; Costas & Grey, 2016; Cronin, 2021; Fan & Liu, 2021), how should we unpack and understand such ‘mutual constitution’ in a specific (organizational) context?
  • Through the explosion of legislative and institutional reforms calling for further disclosure about the working of organizations, what might be the risks of transparency? Can transparency as a principal regulation and governance of good life lead to dysfunctional consequences? In what ways does secrecy play a role in this?
  • While transparency ideals influence legislative reforms, should transparency itself be reformed for constructive policy and organizational implications on sustainability, inclusion, and ethics? If so, how might it be? Can secrecy help?
  • Does any particular form of secrecy (e.g., Costas & Grey, 2014, 2016; Horn, 2011; Scott, 2013; Taussig, 1999) play a role in the sense-making and sense-giving process of transparency? Do specific approaches to transparency (e.g., Albu & Flyverbom, 2019) provoke particular conditions and consequences of secrecy?
  • Can we learn from historical examples and archival cases about the nexus of transparency and secrecy?
  • What is the influence of the expansion of digitalization, artificial intelligence, and big data on transparency, secrecy, and their interrelations (e.g., Birchall, 2021; Dean, 2002; Flyverbom, 2019; Stohl et al., 2016)? How should we understand the tensions between our ‘right to know’ and technological surveillance; and between privacy and security in such cases?

Looking forward to meeting you in Cagliari! Ziyun, Lars, and Dan

CfP PDW for BHC 2023

Steph

The Business History of Natural Resources

Business History Conference, Detroit, 16th March, 2023

In recent years, both business historians and economic historians have been reconsidering the significance of natural resources, and there has been a growing interest in examining the historical role of natural resource management and policy in shaping some of the key challenges and trends in the modern world. The economic history of natural resources lies at critical intersections of business, environmental, and political history, as well as providing key opportunities to critically examine histories of race, gender, labour, and imperialism. As our world becomes increasingly reliant on internationalized systems, utilizing business history as a framework through which to examine natural resources is a timely emerging area of historical research with powerful resonance for contemporary issues and strong interdisciplinary potential.

In collaboration with the 2023 Business History Conference and its theme of ‘Reinvention’, this workshop provides an opportunity to share and develop papers on topics relating to the business history of natural resources, broadly defined. The purpose of the workshop is to support the development of historical research on natural resources for publication in high-quality outlets, including The Routledge Handbook on the Economic History of Natural Resources. In addition, workshop participants will discuss how to address the common challenge of writing economic histories of natural resources for multiple audiences across historical, business, political science, and environmental science disciplines, including more explicitly presenting engagement with theoretical debates and demonstrating the necessity of reinvention for harnessing the potential of business history to interrogate emerging phenomena in our current, globalized natural resource industries.

Participants are expected to read all circulated papers. Please submit an extended abstract before January 20th, 2023 to the workshop organizers.

Organizers: Madeleine Dungy, Audrey Gerrard and Espen Storli, Department of Modern History and Society, NTNU.

For any questions about the workshop, or to submit an abstract, please send to: espen.storli@ntnu.no

CfP – International Congress on Business History in France

Steph

2nd INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON BUSINESS HISTORY IN FRANCE
PARIS, 14-16 June 2023 – CALL FOR PAPERS

CRISES, TRANSITIONS AND RESILIENCIES:

NEW VIEWS ON COMPANIES IN FRANCE AND IN THE FRENCH-SPEAKING WORLD


INTRODUCTION

In France and in the French-speaking world, companies, like their counterparts in the rest of the world, have been experiencing crises and profound transformations in recent years. The Covid-19 pandemic, which has developed in a lightning fashion since the beginning of 2019, has given rise, as it does after every crisis, to numerous analyses on the changes in the economic world. These questions have been rekindled and sharpened, particularly in Europe, by the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, which, in particular, is dealing serious blows to the world trade system and, through it, to the globalisation of the years 2000-2010. As always, many commentators have wondered and continue to wonder whether the ‘world after’ will be the same as before.

PART 1: PROBLEMS

Crises, conflicts or wars put companies to the test. They force them to transform themselves and test their resilience. But they also engage the state. The Keynesian resonances of the measures taken in recent times in response to the Covid-19 crisis have contributed to questioning the economic or political models that were previously dominant. They remind us that the state, understood in the broadest sense, is and remains a major player in times of crisis. With hindsight, how can we not think of other periods in history? The cyclical economic crises of the 19th century – that of 1846-47, for example, or the long depression of 1883-1896 – or those of the 20th century – 1921-1922, 1926-27, and even more so the ‘Great Depression’ of the 1930s, or the recurring crises of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, or, closer to home, the shocks of 2007-2009. How can we not also mention the increasingly industrialised military conflicts that led to total war and then to the nuclear age and indirect conflicts between past, present and emerging superpowers? These crises are followed by periods of reconstruction, restructuring and more or less brutal transformations. These questions are not new. Historians, as well as researchers from other disciplines, have already studied these periods and the processes of adaptation, reconversion or mutation of national or regional economies, companies and their respective actors. While some sectors of the economy have resisted or even benefited from the crises, others have suffered to the point of sometimes disappearing to the benefit of foreign actors. New structures, new balances and new ways of thinking or doing things have often emerged from these periods.
What can we learn from History here? The difficulties, or even the collapse of certain sectors constitute a first source of understanding of current events. The historical distance allows us to look back at the concepts, to identify the permanences and contingencies and to reveal the temporalities of these major phenomena. This leads us to question their possible novelty or modernity, and allows us to know what they can generate in terms of ‘transitions’ or ‘resilience’… If there are to be ruptures, where, when, how and why are they likely to appear in the historical dimension? Should we not rather speak of the acceleration of older trends? How do these phenomena question the intellectual frameworks, tools and methods of French business history? Answering these questions is the objective of the second Paris Congress.


In a spirit of intellectual and disciplinary openness, the aim is to bring together as many researchers as possible from different traditions of the humanities. It is sufficient if they place their work in a historical perspective or if they address questions related to the historical dynamics of companies. In addition to collaborations and confrontations between French and foreign teachers and researchers, the objective of this congress is also to encourage exchanges between the academic world and the actors of economic life, both public and private, who are interested in the history of companies, their positioning and functioning, their performance, their structures and strategies, and, more broadly, that of organisations and all those who live and work in them. Finally, the congress logically sets itself the objective of offering, with regard to these objects, the opportunity to reflect on the way in which the history of companies is being made and written today in France or in the French-speaking world.

Three main groups of issues will be addressed.

PART 2: SUGGESTED AREAS OF FOCUS

In line with the preceding questionnaires, three major axes emerge. First, the strengths and weaknesses of French and foreign companies in a crisis environment will be assessed and/or measured. Secondly, the practices and behaviours of French companies in the face of the challenge of change and adaptation should be examined. Finally, the question arises as to whether or not French business history has the tools and concepts to think about transition and resilience today?

1- Strengths and weaknesses of companies – French or foreign – in a crisis environment

In fact, trying to assess or measure the strengths and weaknesses of companies and/or foreign companies implies answering some fundamental questions: what are the constraints they are facing? What strategies are they developing to cope with them or to ensure and/or continue their growth? What impact do these have on structures (governance, forms of ownership)? Have these in turn had an impact on constraints and strategies? Can we therefore identify a French model of organisation and management?

1.1- Constraints
– Weight of national public institutions (State, economic policies, public companies, role of law and social laws, legal and regulatory framework, etc.);
– The issue of national independence;
– Specificities of the functioning of the labour market and social relations;
– Modalities of regulation of markets and competition (prices, standards, norms, lobbies, cartels, business and competition law, etc.);
– Weight of associative and cooperative organisations in the economic dynamic.

1.2- Strategies
– Strategic choices and geographical choices: positioning on the value chain in globalised capitalism;
– French companies and technology (production methods, robotisation, product technology, innovation and research);
– The entrepreneurial and managerial issue (risks versus innovations);
– Training (recruitment of managerial elites, role of engineers, weight of consultants);
– Methods of financing economic activity (banks, capital markets, monetary and financial regulation, etc.);
– Accounting, financial or marketing practices, personnel management.

1.3- Structures
– Governance, forms of ownership (family, shareholding), legal status, control methods;
– Structure and dynamics of investment, research and innovation support policies;
– Existence and/or persistence of a French model (forms of organisation, management styles and techniques, mentalities, values and specific ideologies).

2- French companies facing the challenges of change and adaptation

 It is also desirable to look at the practices and behaviour of French firms in the face of the challenge of change and adaptation: the impact of health crises (and not just Covid-19), the global rebalancing of investment flows (as with the Ukrainian crisis), internal transformations (composition and organisation of companies) and external transformations (impact of data and geopolitical factors), the emergence of new national and international regulation to the point where, both in doctrine and in practice, we can speak of the end of liberalism.

 2.1- The impact of health crises over the long term (from plagues to Covid)

– Lessons from past health crises (even distant ones) on how to manage crises (emergency, sustainable development and pollution, information and communication technologies of yesterday and today, specific contributions of archaeology);

– The place of ethical considerations (regalian power and individual liberties, corporate social responsibility (CSR), etc.)

– New forms of work and organisation, question of minorities and respect for diversity.

 2.2- The global rebalancing of investment flows

– Are we witnessing a change in the historical dynamics of certain French activities on the world markets: return of investments in France and Europe? Refocusing strategy?

– Evolution or adaptation of the weight and role of foreign companies in France.

 2.3- Transformations of the company

– Internal transformations: composition and organisation of companies (gender, visible minorities, positive action);

– External transformations: companies in the geopolitical relations of France with other world economies or other cultural areas (Asia, Africa, Europe, North America, Latin America).

 2.4- Towards a new national and international regulation: the end of liberalism?

– Evolution of regulatory doctrines and policies (from global to local) ;

– Evolution of private (competition, monopolies, cartels, etc.), public (planning, nationalisation, etc.) and mixed (carbon tax, etc.) regulation practices.

 3- Does French business history have the tools and concepts to think about transition and resilience today?

Such questions also imply a methodological dimension: does the history of companies in France have the tools and concepts to think about transition and resilience today? This implies identifying the relevant concepts and frameworks, looking back at the sources and their exploitation, taking into account the accumulated experiences and the new paths that are being outlined today. Finally, in a period of profound transformation in the transmission of knowledge, it has become crucial to consider the question of the publication of research work and results (languages, support, property rights and dissemination of knowledge).

 3.1- Concepts and intellectual frameworks

– Theories and practices of pluri-, inter- and trans-disciplinarity;

– National schools (of history, management, etc.) and methodological approaches, international schools (especially Anglo-Saxon);

– Alternatives between quantitative and qualitative (econometric, institutionalist approaches, etc.);

– Dialogue with “new” actors: archivists, researchers from the human and social sciences – historians, managers, sociologists, economists, anthropologists, etc. -, communication and history companies, lawyers, journalists, journals, newspapers, learned societies and academic associations, think-tanks, etc. How to dialogue?

 3.2- Sources and their exploitation: accumulated experience and new paths

– Risks and challenges for the business historian (accessibility of archives, control, property rights, destruction of archives, new sources, new forms of conservation or valorisation of funds by companies, etc.).

– The practices of corporate history (conservation of the memory, tools for valorisation and communication, training of employees, lever for change, construction of strategy, etc.).

– The impact of new technologies (constitution of archives, conservation, accessibility, communication, rights of use and ownership).

 3.3- Making research results public

– Language and languages (how to speak, role of English, etc.)

– Media (media, journals, publications)

– Intellectual property and dissemination (copyright, open source, etc.)

– Constitution of immediate or very recent corporate memory (archives collected on ongoing crises, oral archives, communication of recent digital archives to researchers, etc.).

4- Eiffel Centenary

In the context of the centenary of Gustave Eiffel’s death, the congress will offer a significant place to works and communications that will address the issues and themes presented in this call for proposals. Papers, sessions or contributions that mobilise sources, history or products related to Eiffel’s career, the history of his inventions and his companies will be welcome. 

Note : to submit a proposal, you must first open an account on SciencesConf site : https://www.sciencesconf.org/user/createaccount 

Full thematic sessions:

* Opening: September 23, 2022   Submit a proposal

* Deadline for submission of proposals: January 4, 2023

Individual communication :

* Opening: October 15, 2022   Submit a proposal

* Deadline for submission of proposals: January 9, 2023

Doctoral School :

* Opening of applications: 23 September 2022  Apply for doctoral school

* Deadline for applications: January 9, 2023

Poster session: 

* Application opening: October 28, 2022  Submit a proposal

* Deadline for applications: February 24, 2023

Prize for the best business history book published between 2020 and 2022  and prize for the best PHD dissertation:

Details of these awards.

– Website: https://businesshist23.sciencesconf.org/

EGOS2023 ST64: Archival Data

Steph

Sub-theme 64: Qualitative Research with Archival Data

We continue our series of history-relevant sub-themes at next year’s EGOS.

Convenors:

Call for Papers

Qualitative researchers have developed an arsenal of tools for theory development, including techniques for research design, data collection, and data analysis (Grodal et al., 2021). In years past, archival qualitative data – textual traces that actors (e.g,. people, organizations or markets) leave behind when they go about their daily business – was often used as a side dish to field work – interviews and ethnographic observations – and was thus not given much methodological consideration (Yates, 2014). Today, archival research is becoming more prominent in organization studies (e.g., Aversa et al., 2021; Grodal, 2018). This recent growth has been largely spurred by the digitalization of “texts” – for example, written documents, visual representations, and physical designs (Kahl & Grodal, 2016). Some of this digitalization pertains to recent events: as our social and work lives increasingly move online, we leave digital traces of interactions both within and across organizations. Yet digitalization of data is not limited to contemporaneous data. Textual sources have been produced for centuries, and these older archives are increasingly being digitalized, providing us with unprecedent access to textual data that span both time and space. For example, all New York Times articles are now available with the touch of a keyboard, and The Library of Congress’ is steadily expanding the digitalization of its entire content. The time is thus ripe to give this important tool for theory development its deserved attention.
 
Drawing on archival materials presents researchers with an opportunity to extend our theories by studying phenomena from unique and unexplored angles. First, archives reflect the actions, cognitions, and meanings produced outside of the research context. In this respect, archives act as ethnographic materials in which actions and sensemaking can be observed as they occur in their natural setting . Archives can simultaneously span multiple temporal or spatial locations, allowing the researcher to transcend the physical limitations of being in multiple places at the same time. Thus we can trace organizational phenomena across longer time periods, as well as historical events no longer accessible to us, thus enriching longitudinal and process studies (Bansal et al., 2018; Langley, 1999). Lastly, archival data allows us to trace aggregate phenomena that are not readily observed with an ethnographic gaze, such as field-level studies (Ventresca & Mohr, 2002).
 
While archival research is increasing in prominence, we lack adequate techniques to tackle each stage of research, from sampling to collection to analysis, and lastly theory development. New challenges arises both from the heterogeneity and abundance of the archival data. First, qualitative researchers have historically drawn on snowball sampling (Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981), convenience sampling, or direct observation. These techniques arose out of the limited availability of possible sources. But the surge in archival materials now confronts us with the problem of abundance rather than scarcity. There is a nearly infinite availability of data, but our capacity to collect, analyze and theorize these data are finite. While quantitative techniques can hande such large data sets, as qualitative scholars we need to consider how we can manage this abundance throughout the research cycle, from collecting and sampling to analyzing large data sets.
 
Second, traditional qualitative research emphasizes data created and collected first-hand by one or a few researchers. Archival sources instead confront us with heterogeneity: Out data may have been created by multiple authors or stakeholders (sometimes anonymous), for different audiences, and presented in multiple genres (Orlikowski & Yates, 1994). In addition, digital “texts” are not only written materials; they include videos, audio, visuals; moreover, they can be paired with physical objects as well (Kahl & Grodal, 2015; Phillips & Hardy, 2002). Each text is imbued with cultural meanings that cannot be separated from its medium (Meyer et al., 2013). For example, the meaning of an emoji cannot be adequately captured through verbal description. Archival data are situated social products (Prior, 2003); they may be the subject of study (their contents) or the object of study (who created them, why, under what conditions). For this reason, archival analysis foregrounds epistemological considerations that have become taken-for-granted in qualitative field research. Heterogeneity additionally brings up questions for how we can collect and analyze such data while developing rigorous and parsimonious theories.
 
These are just some of the questions pertaining qualitative research using archival data that we hope to address in this sub-theme. The first goal of this sub-theme is to create a community of qualitative scholars engaged in with archival methods. Second, we aim to begin a collective conversation about the tools, techniques, and best practices that we need to tackle to collect, analyze, and theorize archival data. Studies in this track may include, but are not restricted to theoretical or empirical papers that cover these topics:

  • Reflections and/or proposed techniques for using archival methods;
  • Studies drawing on historical archives;
  • Studies that rely on contemporaneous and dynamic archives, such as a currently unfolding or ongoing event, e.g., “whistleblower files”;
  • Studies drawing on digital data, such as online discussion forums, social media, “digital ethnographies” or other sources;
  • Studies that focus on archives from a single organization, place, or single event; as well as studies that draw from multiple organizations, broad industries or field, or connect various events together;
  • Studies that use archives as a primary data source, and supplement or combine it with first-hand sources (interviews or ethnographies).

References

  • Aversa, P., Bianchi, E., Gaio, L., & Nucciarelli, A. (2021): “The Grand Tour: The Role of Catalyzing Places for Industry Emergence.” Academy of Management Journal, first published online on September 10, 2021, https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2019.1303.
  • Bansal, P., Smith, W.K., & Vaara, E. (2018): “New ways of seeing through qualitative research.” Academy of Management Journal, 61 (4), 1189–1195.
  • Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981): “Snowball Sampling: Problems and Techniques of Chain Referral Sampling.” Sociological Methods Research, 10 (2), 141–163.
  • Grodal, S. (2018): “Field expansion and contraction: How communities shape social and symbolic boundaries.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 63 (4), 783–818.
  • Grodal, S., Anteby, M., & Holm, A.L. (2021): “Achieving rigor in qualitative analysis: The role of active categorization in theory building.” Academy of Management Review, 46 (3), 591–612.
  • Kahl, S.J., & Grodal, S. (2015): “Multilevel Discourse Analysis: A Structured Approach to Analyzing Longitudinal Data.” In: K.D. Elsbach, R. Kramer (eds.): Handbook of Qualitative Organizational Research. New York: Routledge, 373–381.
  • Kahl, S.J., & Grodal, S. (2016): “Discursive strategies and radical technological change: Multilevel discourse analysis of the early computer (1947–1958).” Strategic Management Journal, 37 (1), 149–166.
  • Langley, A. (1999): “Strategies for theorizing from process data.” Academy of Management Review, 24 (4), 691–710.
  • Meyer, R.E., Höllerer, M.A., Jancsary, D., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2013): “The visual dimension in organizing, organization, and organization research: Core ideas, current developments, and promising avenues.” Academy of Management Annals, 7 (1), 489–555.
  • Orlikowski, W.J0,. & Yates, J. (1994): “Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative practices in organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 39 (4), 541–574.
  • Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002): Discourse Analysis: Investigating Processes of Social Construction. New York: SAGE Publications.
  • Prior, L. (2003): Using Documents in Social Research. New York: SAGE Publications.
  • Ventresca, M.J., & Mohr, J.W. (2002): “Archival Research Methods.” In: J.A.C. Baum (ed.): The Blackwell Companion to Organizations. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, 805–828.
  • Yates, J. (2014): “Understanding historical methods in organization studies.” In: M. Bucheli & R.D. Wadhwani (eds.): Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 265–283.
  •  

Stine Grodal is a Distinguished Professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation at Northeastern University’s D’Amore-McKim School of Business, USA. Her research focuses on the emergence and evolution of markets, industries and organizational fields with a specific focus on the role categories and their associated labels play in this process. Stine’s work is interdisciplinary and blends theories from sociology and psychology with strategy. She mostly draws on qualitative methods but combines qualitative analysis with quantitative analysis and experiments when necessary. Her work has, among others, been published in ‘Administrative Science Quarterly’, ‘American Sociological Review’, ‘Organization Science’, and ‘Academy of Management Journal’.

Anders Dahl Krabbe is an Assistant Professor at King’s College London, UK. His research focuses the evolution of markets and industries, often with attention to technological change and broader cultural trends in society. In terms of methods, Anders opts for inductive, qualitative approaches, often drawing on archival material. His research has been published or is forthcoming in ‘Research Policy’ and ‘Research in the Sociology of Organizations’.

Micah Rajunov is a PhD candidate in the Management & Organizations Department at Boston University, USA. Trained in qualitative methods, his research experience encompasses fieldwork, archival methods, and digital ethnography. Theoretically, Micah is interested in occupations, technology, and the future of work; current projects include an analysis of physicians during the AIDS epidemic, and a study on the careers of competitive video gamers.

EGOS 2023 ST51: Organizational History

Steph

This is the first in our series of calls for papers from EGOS 2023 that are relevant to the Organizational History Network. It’s a good year again, and the conference will be in Cagliari, Sardinia, which is even better!

Sub-theme 51: Organizational History for Good: Legacy, Collective Memory, and Change –> HYBRID!

Convenors:

Call for Papers

In this sub-theme, we are interested in exploring different ways that past legacies both enable but also restrict opportunities for organizational renewal, social change, and the emergence of new forms of organizing. On the one hand, collective memories can be a source of authentication and strategy restoration (Miller et al., 2020); on the other hand, past legacies could restrict our imagination by enforcing path-dependency. Organizations with a long or significant history often find that their legacy is at odds with the realities of the present or the directions they envision for the future (Hatch & Schultz, 2017; Kroeze & Keulen, 2013), while newly formed organizations are creating their legacy through their actions and as they tell their story internally and in the public forum. In either case, when aspects of the purpose of an organization, understood as its raison d’être, change or the emphasis shifts from one aspect to another, the organizational identity is threatened and legacy becomes an obstacle to overcome in order to effect change. We do not know yet what factors make this tension more difficult to resolve or whether this tension is stronger in some sectors, for instance, in purpose-driven organizations, given members’ emotional attachment to old memories and identities (Foroughi, 2020). We propose that the difference lies with the way the past is remembered. Literature on collective memory and history and on the ways in which organizations connect past, present, and future provides an umbrella for further study on legacies, uses of the past, and the paths towards reconciling the enabling and restricting roles that legacy plays in organizations.
 
Importantly, some organizations seek ways to leverage their legacy for change, i.e., how they can re-imagine, understand, and enact their organizational identity. For example, Radio City Music Hall built on its radio origins to emphasize radio-related qualities – e.g., public, inexpensive, accessible – while forgoing radio as medium for other channels and outputs such as live performance, TV, and digital streaming (Coman & Casey, 2021). Imagining a different future that does not erase an organization’s identity and legacy but utilizes them as scaffolding for realizing the organization’s new directions – whether an entirely new vision or, more often, a reimagination of its current vision – is an attractive proposition, but there are many limitations. From legal restrictions (e.g., clauses preventing change in charitable donations and bequests) to optics (e.g., the clash between legacy and envisioned future is so significant that connecting the two appears insincere), the challenges at the intersection of legacy and change are as great as the opportunities. Whether a challenge or an opportunity, the relation between an organization’s past and its future is vital for its present (Brunninge, 2009; Bucheli & Wadhwani, 2014; Casey & Coman, 2020; Casey & Olivera, 2011; Coraiola et al., 2015).
 
Central to understanding the relationship between the legacies and imagined future is the recognition that what we understand as our legacy is socially and politically construed (Foroughi et al., 2020)and is shaped by the agentic work of actors who can be termed, agents of memory, (Schwartz, 1991) or “identity custodians” (Dacin et al,, 2019, p. 344). While this custodianship is important in maintaining and restoring past legacies, at the same time, it often implies silencing certain histories that are deemed incompatible (Anteby & Molnar, 2012). For instance, histories and legacies of alternative organizational forms are often not commemorated and largely forgotten (Rodgers et al., 2016), which can further restrict our imagination about different forms of purpose-driven organizing.
 
This sub-theme aims to contribute a deeper understanding of legacies and imagined futures as they pertain to organizational identity and change. We hope papers will shed light on how organizations can imagine constructive models for navigating this fundamental tension. We invite submissions that explore this topic in organizations where questions of legacy, memory, and identity are pivotal to the case. We would welcome papers with theoretical and empirical contributions that address, but are not restricted to, the following questions:

  • How do we theorize legacy and change in relation to organizational identity?
  • How does the intersection of legacy and change emerge in different types of organizations such as purpose-driven organizations?
  • How has legacy been successfully leveraged for organizational change that contributed to societal well-being? Under what conditions does legacy promote change/rigidity?
  • What factors influence how the tension between legacy and change is experienced in an organization?
  • Why is the tension between legacy and change stronger in some sectors, such as purpose-driven organizations?
  • How can critical historical work help recover forgotten histories of alternative forms of organization?
  • How can we envision alternative forms of organizing by critically examining past legacies?

References

  • Anteby, M., & Molnar, V. (2012): “Collective memory meets organizational identity: Remembering to forget in a firm’s rhetorical history.” Academy of Management Journal, 55 (3), 515–540.
  • Brunninge, O. (2009): “Using history in organizations: How managers make purposeful reference to history in strategy processes.” Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22 (1), 8–26.
  • Bucheli, M., & Wadhwani, R.D. (2014): The Future of the Past in Management and Organization Studies. Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Casey, A., & Coman, S. (2020): “The enduring presence of the founder in collection museums: A historical and interdisciplinary perspective.” In: M. Maclean, S.R. Clegg, R. Suddaby, & C. Harvey (eds.): Historical Organization Studies: Theory and Applications, New York: Routledge, 131–148.
  • Casey, A.J., & Olivera, F. (2011): “Reflections on organizational memory and forgetting.” Journal of Management Inquiry, 20 (3), 305–310.
  • Coman, S., & Casey, A. (2021): Metahistories of Microhistories: How organizations narrate their origin story at different points in their history. Paper presented at the 37th EGOS Colloquium, Amsterdam, July 8–10, 2021.
  • Coraiola, D.M., Foster, W.M., & Suddaby, R. (2015): “Varieties of history in organization studies.” In: P.G. McLaren, A.J. Mills, & T.G. Weatherbee (eds.): The Routledge Companion to Management and Organizational History. New York: Routledge, 363–372.
  • Dacin, M.T., Dacin, P.A., & Kent, D. (2019): “Tradition in organizations: A custodianship framework.” Academy of Management Annals, 13 (1), 342–373.
  • Foroughi, H. (2020): “Collective memories as a vehicle of fantasy and identification: founding stories retold.” Organization Studies, 41 (10), 1347–1367.
  • Foroughi, H., Coraiola, D.M., Rintamäki, J., Mena, S., & Foster, W.M. (2020): “Organizational memory studies.” Organization Studies, 41 (12), 1725–1748.
  • Hatch, M.J., & Schultz, M. (2017): “Toward a theory of using history authentically: Historicizing in the Carlsberg Group.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 62 (4), 657–697.
  • Kroeze, R., & Keulen, S. (2013): “Leading a multinational is history in practice: The use of invented traditions and narratives at AkzoNobel, Shell, Philips and ABN AMRO.” Business History, 55 (8), 1265–1287.
  • Miller, K.D., Gomes, E., & Lehman, D.W. (2019): “Strategy restoration.” Long Range Planning, 52 (5).
  • Rodgers, D.M., Petersen, J., & Sanderson, J. (2016): “Commemorating alternative organizations and marginalized spaces: The case of forgotten Finntowns.” Organization, 23 (1), 90–113.
  • Schwartz, B. (1991): “Iconography and collective memory: Lincoln’s image in the American mind.” The Sociological Quarterly, 32 (3), 301–319.
  •  

Andrea Casey is Associate Professor of Human and Organizational Learning at George Washington University, USA. From her book chapter on Collective Memory in Organizations (1997) to her recent book, “Organizational Identity and Memory: A Multidisciplinary Approach (2019), published by Routledge, Andrea’s research interests have primarily focused on organizational memory and history, and organizational identity.

Hamid Foroughi is Associate Professor in Business and Society at Essex Business School, University of Essex, UK. His interest revolves around understanding mechanisms and conditions that facilitate organizing social change. Hamid has published in leading journals, such as ‘Organization Studies’ and ‘Journal of World Business’.

Sonia Coman is Director of Digital Engagement at Washington National Cathedral, USA, She headed Marketing and Communications at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Asian Art, taught at Columbia University, and conducted curatorial work for art collections and museums, including the Louvre. is the co-editor, with Andrea Casey, of a new book series, De Gruyter Studies in Organizational and Management History. Sonia’s publications focus on identity formation in the creative industries and on legacy in long-lived organizations.