AOM Management History PDWs

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->… 

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

Inspiring sessions are looked for!


Matteo Cristofaro

EGOS2023 ST76: Organizing in Historically Marginalized Societies

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:…

Should you have any questions, please send us an email at, or

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

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)


  • 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

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:

CfP – International Congress on Business History in France

PARIS, 14-16 June 2023 – CALL FOR PAPERS




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.


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.


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 : 

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:

EGOS2023 ST64: Archival Data

Sub-theme 64: Qualitative Research with Archival Data

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


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).


  • 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,
  • 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.

PDW on business education at BHC 2023

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

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

Participants are expected to read all circulated papers. Please submit a paper draft or extended
abstract before January 10, 2023 to the workshop organizers.

  • Christoph Viebig, CBS Centre for Business History:
  • Anders Ravn Sørensen, CBS Centre for Business History:


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):

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

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 Tony Slaven Doctoral Workshop in Business History

Newcastle Business School
Northumbria University
29 June 2023

The ABH will hold its tenth annual Tony Slaven Doctoral Workshop on 29 June 2023. This event immediately precedes the 2023 ABH Annual Conference at Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University. Participants in the Workshop are encouraged to attend the main ABH Annual Conference following the Workshop. They will also have an opportunity to participate in the Poster Competition (explained in the main call for papers). The Workshop is an excellent opportunity for doctoral students to discuss their work with other research students and established academics in business history in an informal and supportive environment. It is important to note that this will not be a hybrid event and all participants need to attend the workshop in person. Students at any stage of their doctoral studies, whether in their first year or very close to submitting, are urged to apply. In addition to providing new researchers with an opportunity to discuss their work with experienced researchers in the discipline, the Workshop will also include at least one skill-related session. The Workshop interprets the term ‘business history’ broadly, and it is intended that students in areas such as (but not confined to) the history of management and organizations, international trade and investment, financial or economic history, agricultural history, the history of not-for- profit organisations, government-industry relations, accounting history, social studies of technology, and historians or management or labour will find it useful. Students undertaking topics with a significant business history element but in disciplines other than economic or business history are also welcome. We embrace students researching any era or region of history. Skills sessions are typically led by regular ABH members; in the past these have included ‘getting published’, ‘using historical sources’, and ‘preparing for your viva examination’ sessions. There will be ample time for discussion of each student’s work and the opportunity to gain feedback from active researchers in the field.

How to Apply for the Tony Slaven Workshop

Your application should be no more than 4 pages sent together in a single computer file: 1) a one-page CV; 2) one page stating the name(s) of the student’s supervisor(s), the title of the theses (a proposed title is fine), the university and department where the student is registered and the date of commencement of thesis registration; 3) an abstract of the work to be presented.

If selected for the workshop, you will be asked to prepare a 15-minute presentation that is either a summary of your PhD project (giving an overview of the overarching themes, research questions, and methodologies) or a chapter/paper.

You may apply via email to Dr Michael Aldous at m.aldous[at] Please use the subject line “Tony Slaven Workshop” and submit by 24 March 2023.

Call for Coleman Prize for Best PhD Dissertation

Association of Business Historians Annual Conference
Newcastle Business School
Northumbria University
30 June-1 July 2023

Named in honour of the British business historian Donald Coleman (1920-1995), this prize is awarded annually by the Association of Business Historians to recognise excellence in new research in Britain. It is open to PhD dissertations in Business History (broadly defined) either having a British subject or completed at a British university. All dissertations completed in the previous year (2022) to that of the Prize are eligible. In keeping with the ABH’s broad understanding of business history, applications are strongly encouraged from candidates in economic history, social history, labour history, intellectual history, cultural history, environmental history, the history of science and technology, the history of medicine, or any other subfield. The value of the prize is £500, sponsored by the Taylor & Francis Group, a scholarly publisher. To be eligible for the Prize, finalists must present their findings in person at the Association’s annual conference, held on 29th June-1st July 2023. A complete list of previous winners may be found at:

How to Apply for the Coleman Prize

Supervisors are encouraged to nominate recent PhDs, and self-nominations are also strongly welcomed. Please send a PDF including the title of your PhD dissertation and a brief abstract (up to 2 double-spaced pages) to by 24 February 2023. Shortlisted candidates will be requested to submit electronic copies of their theses 17 March 2023. Finalists will be notified by 14 April 2023.

Everyone appearing on the programme must register for the meeting. PhD students whose papers are accepted for the meeting may apply for funds to partially defray their travel costs by applying to the Francesca Carnevali Travel Grant for PhD Students. A limited number of scholarships are available from the Francesca Carnevali fund of the ABH to contribute towards the travel, accommodation and registration costs of students doing a PhD in the United Kingdom, who are presenting in the Slaven Workshop, the ABH conference or the Coleman Prize.

Further details can be found at –

ABH2023 “Pushing the Boundaries”

ABH Logo

Description automatically generated

Pushing the Boundaries: Business History beyond the Discipline.

Keynote Speaker: Professor Andrew Popp (Copenhagen Business School)

29 June – 1 July 2023
Newcastle Business School
Northumbria University Newcastle

In the 2020s, business history remains ‘in an inventive mood, bursting with multiple futures and paths forward’ (Kipping et al., 2016; 19). Having moved on from the 20th century preoccupation with large corporations, business historians now engage with a multiplicity of themes and topics. While the discipline has yet to make a significant impact on the curricula of most business schools, and few schools of history teach the subject, judged from the perspective of the high ranking of its major journals business history has established a highly credible position across the social sciences and humanities. On the other hand, many have questioned whether the discipline has adapted sufficiently to what remains a highly challenging environment for business historians (Scranton and Fridenson, 2013; Wilson et al., 2022). Are we merely preaching to ourselves? Have we engaged with society’s biggest issues, and thereby limited the opportunities of influencing practice in an effective way? Is the preoccupation with the USA, Europe and Japan restricting our understanding of the many paths taken by business in other socio-cultural and political contexts?

In searching for answers to these questions, the conference will assess the extent to which the discipline ought to be more ambitious in developing its research agendas. This builds effectively on the themes of last year’s ABH conference at Strathclyde, when we debated the theme of ‘Turning points and persistent problems’. Crucially, we need to change the attitudes of senior university managers to the subject by demonstrating its considerable relevance to students’ intellectual development, as well as influencing the worlds of practice that rarely consider historical perspectives. Although this will provide business historians with major challenges, achieving these aims will generate much greater credibility and offer rich opportunities for the discipline. Above all, we want the discipline to have a wider impact, whether this be on other disciplines or the various worlds of practice, thereby extending the barriers that have limited business history’s potential to influence the world around us.

What are the areas into which business historians might delve?

The Worlds of Practice: In recognition of the ways in which ‘uses of the past’ have infiltrated disciplines such as strategy, corporate identity and human resource management, we need to investigate how business historians can work more extensively with practitioners, whether they be policy-makers, corporate executives or archivists. As impact is such an important issue, especially in the UK, business history must respond to the challenge.

Emerging Markets: we agree with Friedman and Jones (2017; p. 455), who strongly encourage business historians to engage in research projects that encompass economies outside the United States, Western Europe and Japan; ‘the future of business history rests in part on recognizing the centrality of this alternative business history, rather than treating the business history of Africa, Asia, and Latin America as tangential to the central themes of the discipline’. Scranton (2019, 2020) has already made this move, putting into practice what he and Fridenson (2013) noted in Reimagining Business History.

Sustainability: while Jones and Lubinski (2014; p. 18) made a strenuous appeal for business historians to analyse ‘why some firms become “greener” than others’, apart from the work of Bergquist (2017) and of Jones (2022), relatively little effort has been made to develop this theme and assess the wide sustainability agenda and corporate responses. The forthcoming book by Jones (2022) will no doubt stimulate much wider interest in the role business has played in accommodating the environmental agenda into corporate strategy and performance, focusing especially on the term ‘deep responsibility’.

Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance: while there has been extensive work done in these fields, given the extent of corporate misbehaviour and violations of corporate codes it is vital that business historians participate in these debates. For example, the British Academy’s Future of the Corporation project (2021) would benefit from greater historical insights into context and behaviour.

Gender and Race: again, while the literature on women and racial issues in business have expanded over the course of the last thirty years, these remain significant areas for investigation because of the way they open up our understanding of how business and society interact. This would also link with the decolonization agenda that is now sweeping the world. One might also add that masculinity is another neglected area of study; even though sociologists have written extensively about ‘hegemonic masculinity’ (Connell & Wood, 2005), the business history literature has failed to assess how this influenced the achievement and execution of power.

Social Science Theory: Following the ‘historic turn’ in organization studies (Clark and Rowlinson, 2004) and the recent surge in interest amongst strategy and international business scholars in the incorporation of historical analysis into research agendas (Perchard et al., 2017), a substantial debate has been occupying a lot of space in prominent journals. Although the methodological issues arising from this work have yet to be resolved, it is essential to assess how business historians can engage with theoretical concepts when conducting research.

Needless to say, there could well be other agendas that need to be incorporated into the ambit of business history, an issue that will no doubt be raised at the conference. The key issue here is finding a place for business history in debating the ‘Big Issues’ that face society, applying our skills and knowledge to finding solutions that are both effective and sustainable. By pursuing this strategy, we might better engage with both the worlds of practice and senior university managers, demonstrating our credibility and relevance to the major debates of our time.


British Academy (2021), Future of the Corporation, British Academy.

Clark, P., & Rowlinson, M. (2004). The treatment of history in organization studies: Towards an ‘historic turn’? Business History, 46(3), 331–352.

Connell, R.W., & Wood, J. (2005). Globalization and business masculinities. Men and Masculinities, 7(4), 347–364.

Friedman, W.A. and Jones, G. (2017). Time for debate. Business History Review, 85 (Spring), pp.1-8.

Jones, G. (2022). The Search for the Deep Responsibility of Business. Boston, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Jones, G. & Lubinski, C. (2014). Making ‘Green Giants’: Environment sustainability in the German chemical industry, 1950s–1980s, Business History, 56(4), pp.1-14.

Kipping, M., Kurosawa, T., & Wadhwani, R. D. (2016). A revisionist historiography of business history: a richer past for a richer future. In J.F. Wilson, S. Toms, A. de Jong, & E. Buchnea (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Business History (pp. 19–35). Routledge.

Perchard, A., MacKenzie, N.G., Decker, S., & Favero, G. (2017). Clio in the business school: Historical approaches in strategy, international business and entrepreneurship. Business History, 59(6), 904–927.

Scranton, P., & Fridenson, P. (2013). Reimagining Business History. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

Scranton, P. (2019). Fixing holes in the plan: Maintenance and repair in Poland, 1945–1970. Enterprise et Histoire. 103, pp.54-72.

Scranton, P. (2020). Collaboration, coordination, cooperation and subversive entrepreneurship in Socialist Hungary’, paper given to the Business History Conference.

Wilson, John F. Ian G. Jones, Steven Toms, Anna Tilba, Emily Buchnea and Nicholas Wong (2022), Business History. A Research Overview, Routledge, pp.148.

How to submit a paper or session proposal

The programme committee will consider both individual papers and entire panels. We are keen to encourage both developmental and mature papers. Individual paper proposals should include a one-page (up to 300-word) abstract and brief biographical note. Panel proposals should include a cover letter stating the rationale for the panel and the name of its contact person; one-page (300-word) abstract and author’s CV for each paper; and a list of preferred panel chairs and commentators with contact information. The deadline for submissions is 27 January 2023. Please use the conference e-mail address (below) to submit proposals.

Poster submissions

The ABH also welcomes poster proposals from graduate students on all aspects of business history covering a wide range of periods and countries.

Poster presenters will normally be in either the First or Second Year of their PhD.  We also strongly encourage those who have previously presented a poster will submit a paper proposal to the main conference in a subsequent year.

Those wishing to be considered for inclusion in the programme must submit an application by 27 January 2023.  This should provide:

  • Title of your PhD project.
  • An abstract (300 words).*
  • A current CV.

*The abstract should explain the background to the poster; the questions addressed; the sources and methods employed; and likely conclusions.

Approved posters must be submitted by 1 June 2023.

If you have any questions, please contact the Conference Organisers via: