Process PDW in Greece: About Time – Temporality and History in Organization Studies

We are inviting you to submit your extended abstract to the 10th International Process Symposium Theme: About Time: Temporality and History in Organization Studies

20-23 June 2018, Porto Carras Grand Resort, Halkidiki, Greece

Professional Development Workshop: 20/6/2018

General process-oriented and theme-focused papers are invited

Abstract Submission is now open at:

http://www.process-symposium.com/abstractsubmitform/abstractsubmitform.html

Deadline: 31 January 2018

The conference will take place between 20-23 June 2018, Porto Carras Grand Resort, Halkidiki, Greece (http://www.portocarras.com/)

 Conveners:

Juliane Reinecke, King’s Business School, King’s College London, UK

Roy Suddaby, University of Victoria, Canada & Newcastle University, UK

Ann Langley, HEC Montreal, Canada

Haridimos Tsoukas, University of Cyprus, Cyprus & University of Warwick, UK

Keynote Speakers:

William Blattner, Professor of Philosophy, Georgetown University, USA, author of Heidegger’s “Being and Time”

Tor Hernes, Professor of Organization Theory, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, author of A Process Theory of Organization

Eviatar Zerubavel, Board of Governors and Distinguished Professor of Sociology, Rutgers University, USA, author of Time Maps: Collective memory and the Social Shape of the Past

 Pre-Symposium Workshop Panels (20/6/2018)

 Pre-Symposium Workshop Panels (20/6/2018)

Taking time seriously in organizational research: Theoretical and methodological challenges

Tima Bansal, Ivey Business School, Canada

Paula Jarzabkowski, Cass Business School, UK

Majken Schultz, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark

History matters: The value and challenges of historical approaches to organizational and management research

Matthias Kipping, Schulich School of Business, Canada

Michael Rowlinson, University of Exeter Business School, UK

Dan Wadhwani, University of the Pacific, USA

 

Call for Papers

 Tenth International Symposium on

Process Organization Studies

 www.process-symposium.com

 

Theme:    

About Time: Temporality and History in Organization Studies

 General process-oriented and theme-focused papers are invited

20-23 June 2018

Professional Development Workshop: 20/6/2018

 Conveners:

Juliane Reinecke, Warwick Business School, UK (Juliane.Reinecke@wbs.ac.uk)

Roy Suddaby, University of Victoria, Canada & Newcastle University, UK  (rsuddaby@uvic.ca)

Ann Langley, HEC Montreal, Canada (ann.langley@hec.ca)

Haridimos Tsoukas, University of Cyprus, Cyprus & University of Warwick, UK (process.symposium@gmail.com)

 

Keynote Speakers:

William Blattner, Professor of Philosophy, Georgetown University, USA, author of Heidegger’s “Being and Time”

Tor Hernes, Professor of Organization Theory, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, author of A Process Theory of Organization

Eviatar Zerubavel, Board of Governors and Distinguished Professor of Sociology, Rutgers University, USA, author of Time Maps: Collective memory and the Social Shape of the Past

 Rationale: What is Process Organization Studies?

Process Organization Studies (PROS) is a way of studying organizations that is grounded on process metaphysics – the worldview that sees processes, rather than substances, as the basic forms of the universe. A process view: rests on a relational ontology, a performative epistemology, and a dynamic praxeology; focuses on becoming, change, and flux, and pays particular attention to forms of agency; prioritizes process over outcome, activity over product, change over persistence, novelty over stasis, open-endedness over determination; invites us to acknowledge, rather than reduce, the complexity of the world and, in that sense, it is animated by what philosopher Stephen Toulmin called an “ecological style” of thinking.

Purpose, Venue, and Organization

The aim of the Symposium is to consolidate, integrate, and further develop ongoing efforts to advance a sophisticated process perspective in organization and management studies.

PROS is an annual event, organized in conjunction with the publication of the annual series Perspectives on Process Organization Studies (published by Oxford University Press), and it takes place in a Greek island or resort, in June every year. Details of all hitherto Symposia, including topics, conveners and keynote speakers, can be seen at www.process-symposium.com.

Around 100 papers are usually accepted, following a review of submitted abstracts by the conveners.  PROS is renowned for offering participants the opportunity to interact in depth, exchange constructive comments, and share insights in a stimulating, relaxing, and scenic environment.

The Tenth Symposium will take place on 20-23 June 2018, at the Porto Carras Grand Resort, Halkidiki, Greece (http://www.portocarras.com/). The first day of the Symposium (20 June) will consist of the Professional Development Workshop. The Symposium venue, comfortable, relaxing, and situated in one of the most beautiful beachfront locations in rural Greece, in the feet of a mountain of pine trees, accessible by bus or taxi by Thessaloniki Airport, will provide an ideal setting for participants to relax and engage in creative dialogues.

As is customary by now, the Symposium is organized in two tracks – a General Track and a Thematic Track. Each track is described below.

  1. The General Track includes papers that explore a variety of organizational phenomena from a process perspective.

More specifically, although not necessarily consolidated under a process metaphysical label, several strands in organization and management studies have adopted a more or less process-oriented perspective over the years. Karl Weick’s persistent emphasis on organizing and the important role of sensemaking in it is, perhaps, the best-known process approach in the field. Early management and organizational research by Henry Mintzberg, Andrew Pettigrew and Andrew Van de Ven was also conducted from an explicitly process perspective. More recently, scholars such as Martha Feldman, Wanda Orlikowski, Robert Chia, Tor Hernes, and several others, have shown a sophisticated awareness of the importance of process-related issues in their research. Current studies that take an explicitly performative (or enactivist/relational/practice-based) view of organizations have similarly adopted, in varying degrees, a process vocabulary and have further refined a process sensibility. Indeed, the growing use of the gerund (-ing) indicates the desire to move towards dynamic ways of understanding organizational phenomena, especially in a fast-moving, inter-connected, globalized world.

Since a process worldview is not a doctrine but an orientation, it can be developed in several different directions, exploring a variety of topics in organizational research. For example, traditional topics such as organizational design, routines, leadership, trust, coordination, change, innovation, learning and knowledge, accountability, communication, authority, materiality and technology, etc., which have often been studied as “substances”, from a process perspective can be approached as performative accomplishments – as situated sequences of activities and complexes of processes unfolding in time. A process view treats organizational phenomena not as faits accomplish, but as (re)created through interacting embodied agents embedded in sociomaterial practices, whose actions are mediated by institutional, linguistic and material artifacts.

Papers exploring any organizational research topic with a process orientation are invited for submission to the General Track.

  1. The Thematic Track includes papers addressing the particular theme of the Symposium every year.

For 2018 the theme is:

About Time: Temporality and History in Organization Studies

A description of this theme and its importance follows.

Process studies of organizations focus attention on how and why organizational actions and structures emerge, develop, grow or terminate over time (Langley, Smallman, Tsoukas & Van de Ven, 2013). Time, timing, and temporality, therefore, are inherently important to organizational process studies as “[no] concept of motion is possible without the category of time” (Sorokin & Merton, 1937: 615). Yet time remains an under-theorized construct in organization studies that has struggled to move much beyond chronological conceptions of “clock” time (Ancona, Goodman, Lawrence & Tushman, 2001; Clark, 1990).

Missing from this linear view of time are ongoing debates about objectivity versus subjectivity in the experience of time (Butler, 1995), linear versus alternative structures of time (Dawson & Sikes, 2016) or an appreciation of collective or culturally determined inferences of temporality (Zerubavel, 1981; Cunliffe, Luhman & Boje, 2004). This is critical because our understanding of time and temporality can shape how we view and relate to organizational phenomena – as unfolding processes or stable objects (Reinecke & Ansari, 2017). But we are only beginning to appreciate the role of temporality in organizational processes – i.e. how the materials of the present are used to impose meaning and understanding on both past experience and possible futures (Schultz & Hernes, 2013; Hernes, 2008; Reinecke & Ansari, 2015). As the noted German sociologist Norbert Elias (1993) observed, echoing St. Augustine, while we all experience time and have an intuitive sense of its passing, the concept of time so eludes precise articulation that it has attained the status of the “ultimate puzzle” in social theory.

History is an equally important but under-theorized concept in organization studies. While we have an intuitive sense of history as a process, organizational theorists have struggled to move beyond two limited conceptualizations of historical processes. One approach is to see history as a constraint on organization’s capacity for change. History, thus, limits agency through “path dependence” (North, 1990), “structural inertia” (Hannan & Freeman, 1984) or institutional “entropy” (Oliver, 1992). An alternative view is to see history as a unique source of competitive advantage, either through the conferral of unique resources (Porter, 1998; Barney, 1986), or through the historical conversion of routines into dynamic capabilities (Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997; Feldman, 2000). Both approaches suffer from the restrictive view of history as an objective set of “brute facts” that are somehow exterior to the individuals, organizations and collectives that experience them.

Emerging streams of process-oriented research have begun to move beyond viewing the past as a historically fixed object, instead conceptualized the past as being “as hypothetical as the future” (Mead, 1932: 31), or “up for grabs” (Kaplan & Orlikowski, 2013). Studies have addressed how actors continually reconstruct their view of the past in light of the emerging present (Bakken, Holt, & Zundel, 2013; Schultz & Hernes, 2013). But much work remains to be done. For instance, there is a distinct absence of understanding the socially constructive link between history and memory (Bluedorn & Denhart, 1988), history and organizational identity (Delahaye, Booth, Clark, Procter & Rowlinson, 2009) and, perhaps more significantly, an oversight of the common generic underpinnings of collective memories (Halbwachs, 1992) and how they constitute “mnemonic communities”  (Zerubavel, 2003).

Despite these conceptual tensions, there is clearly a growing interest in time, temporality and history in organizational studies. The turn to process has contributed to this interest (Chia, 2002; Thelen, 2000; Pettigrew, Woodward & Cameron, 2000; Roe, Waller & Clegg, 2009). The historical turn in management has similarly triggered an effort to re-theorize history in organizations in a more nuanced manner (Bucheli & Wadhwani, 2013; Rowlinson, Hassard & Decker, 2013; Kipping & Usdiken, 2014; Mills, Suddaby, Foster & Durepos, 2016; Suddaby & Foster, 2017). Increasingly, management theory is acquiring a “historical consciousness” – an awareness of time, history and memory as critical elements in processes of organizing (Suddaby, 2016).

The aim of this symposium is to draw together these various emerging strands of interest in adopting a more nuanced orientation toward time, temporality and history to better understand the temporal aspects of organizational processes. In this year’s Thematic Track we seek to encourage and enrich our understanding of different ways in which, by adopting a process-oriented view of time, temporality and history, we can reinvigorate established subjects in organization studies.

In particular, we encourage conceptual, empirical and methodological papers that use a process-oriented view of time, temporality and history to enrich our knowledge of topics that include, but need not be limited to:

Organizational identity: What is the role of time, temporality and history in shaping organizational identity? For instance, how do organizational members revise and re-imagine their collective past to re-construct its emergent present identity? (see Anteby & Molnar, 2012; Suddaby & Foster, 2016; Gioia, Schultz & Corley, 2000; Howard-Grenville, Metzger & Meyer, 2013; Lamertz, Foster, Coraiola & Kroezen, 2016; Schultz & Hernes, 2013; Ybema, 2010; Delahaye et al, 2009).

Organizational memory: How are different understandings of time, temporality and history involved in the emergence of organizational memory? How do collective memories emerge and come to constitute history? (see Rowlinson, Booth, Clarke, Delahaye & Proctor, 2010; Walsh & Ungson, 1991).

Strategic Management: What is the role of time, temporality and history in strategic management? How do actors construct collective organizational futures? How do they resolve the intertemporal paradox between present-day exploitation and future-oriented exploration? (see Brunninge, 2009; Foster, Suddaby, Minkus & Weibe, 2011; Hatch & Schultz, 2017; Kaplan & Orlikowski, 2013; Suddaby, Foster & Quinn-Trank, 2010).

Organizational Change: How do different, often implicit assumptions about time, temporality and history shape our models and conceptualization of organizational stability and change? How may (re-)constructions of the past, present or future affect actors’ ability to initiative, accelerate or prevent continuity or change? How does change become ‘inevitable’ or ‘irreversible’ over time? (see Dawson, 2014; Dawson & Sikes, 2016; Huy, 2001; Suddaby & Foster, 2017; Tsoukas & Chia, 2002).

Institutional Theory: How do institutions become ‘enduring’? What are the temporal qualities of institutions? What temporal patterns underpin processes of creation, maintenance and disruption of institutions? What is the pace and rhythms of institutionalization and institutional change? How may temporal norms and patterns themselves be socially constructed so as to enable or constrain certain institutional processes? (see Lawrence, Winns, & Jennings, 2001; Suddaby & Foster, 2013, Granqvist & Gustafsson, 2016; Rowell, Gustafsson & Clemente, 2016.

Creativity, Innovation & Entrepreneurship: How do actors imaginatively generate possible future trajectories of action that underpin entrepreneurial ventures? How is the past and future re-negotiated and re-invented in the present so as to create opportunities for creativity and innovation? How does history and tradition become a resource so as to allow actors to innovate from the past? (see Popp & Holt, 2013; Bátiz-Lazo, Haigh & Stearns, 2015).

Sensemaking: How do conceptions of time enter sensemaking processes? What is the role of temporal sensemaking in engaging with anticipations of the future and memories of the past to reconfigure present relations and structures? How do actors project sense into an uncertain future? (see Gioia, Corley & Fabbri, 2002; Wiebe, 2010).

Sustainability: How do actors reconcile multiple temporal orientations and timescapes, such as balancing the demands of the present with needs in the future, a tension that is at the heart of business sustainability? (see Reinecke & Ansari, 2015; Slawinski & Bansal, 2015).

Routines: How is the performance of routines played out in time? How does history shape the enactment of particular routines? How do particular temporalities implicated in different routines interact, with what results? How does timing affect the unfolding of routinized performances? (see Mutch 2016; Feldman, 2016).

Methodology: What research designs are best to capture time? How can methodologies move beyond chronological conceptions of time to include more experiential types of time? How might process researchers move beyond producing what Weick (1999: 135) labels “artifacts of retrospect” that look backward in time towards “narratives of prospect” that capture the experience of living forward? (see also Fachin and Langley, 2017; Shotter, 2006).

References:

Ancona, D. G., Okhuysen, G. A., & Perlow, L. A. (2001). Taking time to integrate temporal research. Academy of Management Review26(4), 512–529

Anteby, M., & Molnár, V. (2012). Collective memory meets organizational identity: remembering to forget in a firm’s rhetorical history. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 515-540.

Bakken, T., Holt, R., & Zundel, M. (2013). Time and Play in Management Practice: An Investigation Through the Philosophies of MctTaggart and Heidegger. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 29, 13–22.

Barney, J. 1991. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99-120.

Bátiz-Lazo, B., Haigh, T., & Stearns, D. L. 2015. How the Future Shaped the Past: The Case of the Cashless Society. Enterprise & Society, 15(1): 103-131.

Bluedorn, A. C., & Denhardt, R. B. 1988. Time and Organizations. Journal of Management, 14(2): 299-320.

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. (Eds.). (2013). Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods. Oxford University Press.

Butler, R. 1995. Time in Organizations: Its experience, explanation and effects. Organization Studies 16(6): 925-950.

Clark, P. 1990. Chronological codes and organizational analysis, Pp. 137-166 in Hassard, J. & Pym, D (Eds.), The Theory and Philosophy of Organizations: Critical issues and new perspectives. London: Routledge.

Cunliffe, A., Luhman, J.T. & Boje, D. 2004. Narrative Temporality: Implications for organizational research. Organization Studies 25(2): 261-286.

Dawson, P. 2014. Reflections: On time, temporality and change in organizations. Organizational Change Management 14(3): 285-308.

Dawson, P. & Sikes, C. 2016. Organizational Change and Temporality: Bending the Arrow of Time. New York: Routledge.

Delahaye, A., Booth, C. Clark, P., Proctor, S. & Rowlinson, M. 2009. The genre of corporate history. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22(1): 27-48.

Elias, N. (1993). Time: An essay. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Fachin, F. & Langley, A. 2017. (forthcoming). Researching organizational concepts processually: The case of identity, In C. Cassell, A. Cunliffe & G. Grandy (Eds.) SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Management Research Methods, London, UK: Sage Publications.

Feldman, M. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611–629.

Feldman, M. S. (2016). Routines as Process: Past, Present, and Future. In J. Howard-Grenville, C. Rerup, A. Langley, & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), Organizational Routines: How They Are Created, Maintained, and Changed (Vol. 5, pp. 23-46).

Foster, W. M., Suddaby, R., Minkus, A., & Wiebe, E. 2011. History as social memory assets: The example of Tim Hortons. Management & Organizational History, 6(1), 101-120.

Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., and Fabbri, T. (2002). Revising the Past (while Thinking in the Future Perfect Tense). Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(6): 622– 34.

Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. G. (2000). Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 63-81.

Goodman, P. S., Lawrence, B. S., Ancona, D. G., & Tushman, M. L. (2001). Introduction: Special topic forum on time and organizational research. Academy of Management Review26(4), 507–511.

Granqvist, N., & Gustafsson, R. (2016). Temporal institutional work. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 1009–1035.

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 149-164.

Hatch, M.J. & Schultz, M. 2017. Toward a Theory of Using History Authentically: Historicizing in the Carlsberg Group, Administrative Science Quarterly, 31 (1) (DOI: 10.1177/0001839217692535)

Halbwachs, M. (1992/ 1950). On Collective Memory. Translated by L. A. Coser. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hernes, T. (2008). Understanding organizations as process: Theory for a tangled world. Abington: Routledge.

Howard- Grenville, J., Metzger, M. L., and Meyer, A. D. (2013). “Rekindling the Old Flame: Processes of Identity Resurrection.” Academy of Management Journal, 56(1): 113– 36.

Huy, Q. N. (2001). Time, temporal capability, and planned change. Academy of Management Review26(4), 601–623.

Kaplan, S., & Orlikowski, W. J. 2013. Temporal Work in Strategy Making. Organization Science, 24(4): 965-995.

Kipping, M., & Üsdiken, B. (2014). History in Organization and Management Theory: More Than Meets the Eye. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 535-588.

Lamertz, K., Foster, W. M., Coraiola, D. M., & Kroezen, J. 2016. New identities from remnants of the past: An examination of the history of beer brewing in Ontario and the recent emergence of craft breweries. Business History, 58(5): 796-828.

Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity and flow. Academy of Management Journal56(1), 1–13.

Lawrence, T. B., Winn, M. I., & Jennings, P. D. (2001). The Temporal Dynamics of Institutionalization. The Academy of Management Review, 26, 624–644.

Mead, G. H. (1932). The Philosophy of the Present. LaSalle, Illinois: Open Court.

Mutch, A. (2016). Bringing history into the study of routines: contextualizing performance. Organization Studies, 37(8), 1171-1188.

North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press.

Popp, A., & Holt, R. (2013). The Presence of Entrepreneurial Opportunity. Business History, 55(1), 9-28.

Reinecke, J. & Ansari, S. 2015. When times collide: Temporal brokerage at the intersection of markets and developments. Academy of Management Journal, 58(20: 618-648.

Reinecke, J., & Ansari, S. (2017). Time, Temporality and Process Studies. In A. Langley & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), Sage Handbook of Process Organization Studies. Sage.

Roe, R.A., Waller, M.J. & Clegg, S.R. (Eds.), Time in organizational research (pp. 204–219). Abingdon: Routledge.

Rowell, C., Gustafsson, R., & Clemente, M. (2016). How Institutions Matter “in Time”: The Temporal Structures of Practices and their Effects on Practice Reproduction. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 49A.

Rowlinson, M., Booth, C., Clark, P., Delahaye, A., & Procter, S. (2010). Social remembering and organizational memory. Organization Studies, 31(1), 69-87.

Rowlinson, M., Hassard, J., & Decker, S. (2013). Strategies for Organizational History: A Dialogue Between Historical Theory and Organization Theory. Academy of Management Review, 39(3): 250-274.

Schultz, M., & Hernes, T. (2013). A temporal perspective on organizational identity. Organization Science, 24(1), 1-21.

Shotter, J. 2006. Understanding process from within: An argument for ‘withness’-thinking. Organization Studies, 27(4): 585-604.

Slawinski, N., & Bansal, P. (2015). Short on Time: Intertemporal Tensions in Business Sustainability. Organization Science, 26, 531–549.

Sorokin, P., & Merton, R. (1937). Social Time: A Methodological and Functional Analysis. The American Journal of Sociology, 42, 615–629.

Suddaby, R. 2016. Toward a Historical Consciousness: Following the Historic Turn in Management Thought. M@n@gement: Revue officielle de l’Association Internationale de Management Stratégique, 19(1): 46-60.

Suddaby, R., Foster, W. M., and Quinn- Trank, C. (2010). “Rhetorical History as a Source of Competitive Advantage.” In Advances in Strategic Management:The Globalization of Strategy Research, vol. 27, edited by J. Baum and J. Lampel, 147– 73. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Suddaby, R. & Foster, W.M. 2016. Organizational Re-Membering: The use of rhetorical history to create identification”, in Oxford Handbook of Organizational Identity, edited by Michael Pratt, Majken Schultz, Blake Ashforth & Davide Ravasi, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Suddaby, R. & Foster, W.M. (2017). History and Organizational Change. Journal of Management, 43(1): 19-38.

Suddaby, R., Foster, W. M. and Mills, A. J. (2014). “History and Institutions.” In Organization Studies: Historical Perspectives, edited by M. Bucheli and D. Wadhwani, 100– 23. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509-533.

Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567–582.

Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. 1991. Organizational Memory. The Academy of Management Review, 16(1): 57-91.

Weick, K. E. 1999. That’s moving: Theories that matter. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8(2): 134-142.

Wiebe, E. (2010). Temporal sensemaking: Managers’ use of time to frame organizational change. In T. Hernes & S. Maitlis (Eds.), Process, sensemaking and organizing (pp. 213–241). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ybema, S. 2010. Talk of change: Temporal contrasts and collective identities. Organization Studies, 31(4): 481-503.

Zerubavel, E. 1981. Hidden Rhythms: Schedules and Calendars in Social Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Zerubavel, E. 2003. Time maps: collective memory and the social shape of the past. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.

 

 

Professional Development Workshop (20/6/2018)

Aim

The aim of the PDW is to provide a stimulating and interactive context for researchers to further develop their ideas and projects. More specifically, the PDW is designed to enable participants to: (a) refine their understanding of process thought; (b) share with others some of the methodological and theoretical challenges they have encountered in conducting, theorizing, and teaching process research, or putting process insights to practice in organizations; and (c) elicit/offer suggestions about how researching, theorizing, and teaching process may be further advanced.

 

The PDW will consist of (a) Workshop papers, (b) Panel Discussions, and (c) Plenary Panels.

 

 

Workshop Papers

We invite submissions of extended abstracts from researchers who have papers at an early stage of writing and would like helpful feedback as to how their papers may be further developed and published. Such submissions will be presented and extensively discussed in a roundtable format.

 

Panel Discussions

We invite submission proposals for panel discussions related to any process-related topic. An ideal submission will aim to: discuss a topic of broad relevance to process research and the challenges it presents; consolidate, update and further advance our knowledge of it; or introduce new topics that process-oriented researchers need to know about.

 

Panel discussions can focus either on theoretical or methodological topics. Up to four panel discussions will be accepted. Topics related to the conference theme are particularly welcome. Proposals will be evaluated in terms of clarity; novelty, relevance for and attractiveness to the process studies community; and developmental possibilities for its participants. A panel discussion will last for 90 minutes.

 

Plenary Panels

The following plenary panels will take place:

  • Taking time seriously in organizational research: Theoretical and methodological challenges

Tima Bansal, Ivey Business School, Canada

Paula Jarzabkowski, Cass Business School, UK

Majken Schultz, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark

  • History matters: The value and challenges of historical approaches to organizational and management research

Matthias Kipping, Schulich School of Business, Canada

Michael Rowlinson, University of Exeter Business School, UK

Dan Wadhwani, University of the Pacific, USA

Submissions

General process-oriented papers, theme-focused papers, as well as PDW workshop papers and panel discussion proposals are invited. Interested participants must submit  an extended abstract of about 1000 words for their proposed contribution by January 31st, 2018 through the following link:

 

http://www.process-symposium.com/abstractsubmitform/abstractsubmitform.html

 

The submission should contain authors’ names, institutional affiliations, email and postal addresses, and indicate the Track for which the submission is made (General or Thematic), or whether the submission is intended for the PDW. Authors will be notified of acceptance or otherwise by March 7th, 2018.  Full papers will be submitted by June 4th, 2018.

Advertisements

CfP: Social Aims of Finance

Social aims of finance
eabh conference

eabh in cooperation with Fondazione 1563 per l’Arte e la Cultura della Compagnia di San Paolo
15 June 2018, Torino, Italy

‘The City is too big and socially useless’ said Lord Adair Turner, former chairman of the UK Financial Services Authority in 2009. That legitimacy question has not gone away since, indeed, if anything it appears to grow stronger.  This conference explores how financial institutions have tackled it by developing alternative goals
and business forms for durable financial services. Joint-stock banks are traditionally seen as the hallmarks of capitalism, relentlessly pursuing profits. There is an alternative story, however. Some banks have a long history of devoting themselves to wider social goals rather than profit, others chose business forms which freed them from that relentless pursuit. The growing importance of durability raises the need for financial services to think beyond the bottom line, yet that raises new issues: how much profit does a business need to sustain both continuity and alternative goals, and how can alternative business forms compete in a capitalist world without losing their unique identity?

Many banks in Italy, the Netherlands, Germany and assumedly other countries had social business models in the 19th century which they gave up in the 20th century and now they seem to make a reappearance. Why is that? Can it be connected to the Great Financial Crisis and its aftermath? Businesswise there is two ways for banks setting up or acting in a social context: either as foundations with charitable aims; or otherwise, create institutions with specific organisation forms (coops, for instance) or business goas going beyond just making profits for shareholders. In Europe, several institutions were created with specific organisation forms (coops, for instance) or business goals going beyond just making profits for shareholders. In Italy for example, several contemporary banks were initiated as secular or religious institutions characterized by charitable purposes, some of them of medieval origins, others born in the 16th century to help the poor and sick, to provide fair money lending or to protect or to educate girls and women; in many cases those charities, as shareholders, contributed to maintain the social orientation of the banking activity over time. Even until today these credit institutions maintain a non-profit role through their corporate foundations (Compagnia di San Paolo, Banco di Napoli, etc.) or local mutual banks. In the NL they have, apart from the coop Rabo, two such, Triodos and ASN, which both devote their business to pursuing wider, durable social aims beyond profits; so, do some German cooperative and savings banks or at least did in the past when they were an essential contributor to small communities’ life and business. Furthermore, the microfinance movement is worth mentioning under this heading and so are the mutual insurance companies whose history deserves a closer investigation for long. Last but not least there is very recent movement of social currencies that aim at strengthening local communities within the context of globalisation, like for instance the Brixton Pound that was created when gentrification started to hit South-London communities.

In short, we look for submissions of genuine research about the history dimension of:

• non-profit banking and finance models with social or environmental goals in their statutes
• non-profit and (financial) crises
• banking foundations
• microfinance, Grameen bank
• mutual insurance
• cooperative finance, Raiffeisen banks (rural credit banks)
• saving banks
• building societies
• local currencies
• institutional investors as social financiers

The committee responsible for this content is formed by: Anna Cantaluppi (Fondazione 1563), Lilia Costabile (Naples University), Carmen Hofmann (eabh) and Joost Jonker (Amsterdam/ Utrecht University).

Selected participants will be asked to:
• submit an abstract and a short linear CV no later than 31 January 2018
• deliver a full paper 1 month prior to the conference
• give a 10 – 15 Minutes presentation in Torino in June 2018
• for submissions and questions please mailto:c.hofmann@bankinghistory.org

Academic paper givers will have the opportunity for their papers to be considered for peer reviewed publication in the Financial History Review.

PDW: Organizational and institutional change

FIFTH ANNUAL UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH BUSINESS SCHOOL

PAPER DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP 

ORGANISATIONAL AND INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE

Sponsored by the Society for the Advancement of Management Studies

Additional support from the Organization Development & Change and Organization & Management Theory Divisions of the Academy of Management, and the Centre for Strategic Leadership at the University of Edinburgh Business School

To be held at University of Edinburgh Business School,

March 5, 2018

Following previous successful events held in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017, we are very pleased to be able to announce that the fifth annual paper development workshop on organisational and institutional change will take place on March 5, 2018. This workshop has been generously sponsored by the Society for the Advancement of Management Studies. As previously, this workshop offers an opportunity for scholars to develop their ongoing work related to organisational and/or institutional change. The workshop will be developmental with each paper having as a discussant a senior scholar with a track record of multiple publications in, and editorial/editorial board experience with, our leading journals.

Confirmed discussants include Shaz Ansari (University of Cambridge), Royston Greenwood (University of Alberta and University of Edinburgh), Jennifer Howard-Grenville (University of Cambridge), Candace Jones (University of Edinburgh), Tom Lawrence (University of Oxford), Nelson Phillips (Imperial College), Juliane Reinecke (King’s College London) and John Amis (University of Edinburgh).

Authors will also receive feedback from peers with similar research interests. It should be of special interest for colleagues recently graduated with a Ph.D., and doctoral students with quite well developed manuscripts; scholars more advanced in their careers are also welcome to attend. Selection of papers will be based on an abstract of 500 words.  The deadline for submission of abstracts is January 11, 2018. Full papers will be required by February 23, 2018.

Scholarships

The generous support of the ODC Division of the Academy of Management will allow us to provide a small number of $500 scholarships to help defray expenses for some doctoral students. Successful applicants to the workshop will automatically be considered for a scholarship: no separate application is required.

Logistics and Support to Participants

The Centre for Strategic Leadership at the University of Edinburgh Business School is pleased to host and jointly organize this workshop. The conference will consist of around 50 young faculty, student participants and senior colleagues who will discuss papers and offer developmental advice.

The atmosphere is expected to be collegial and informal, but centred on progressing working papers with the objective of getting them published in leading journals. There will also be a panel at which our discussants will provide insight into the publication process drawing on their experience as authors, editorial board members, and editors.

There is no conference fee, and no charge for lunch, coffee breaks and closing reception. Participants must make their own travel arrangements and pay for accommodation – we will provide recommendations of where to stay and hotels with a negotiated preferential rate. Participants are expected to attend for the whole day. If participants wish to extend their trip to enjoy Edinburgh and the surrounding area, we can help with advice and arrangements.

Key Dates

Submission of abstract: January 11, 2018

Notification of acceptance: January 15, 2018

Full paper due: February 23, 2018

Workshop: March 5, 2018

Rowntree Lectures

The Rowntree Lectures and the British Interwar Management Movement

Workshop, 18 January 2018

The Research Team (from the University of Exeter and the School of Management at the University of Bath) are running a Research Workshop on 18 January 2018 at The University of Bath’s Building, 83 Pall Mall, St. James’, London SW1Y 5ES. The morning session is designed to develop skills in being more effective in archives, discussing (and demonstrating) data capture and Optical Character Recognition software. We expect participants to undertake a small-scale OCR project. The team will be joined by Dr Mike Anson, Archive Manager at the Bank of England Archive, who will discuss the Bank Archive’s recent experiments with automated transcription software. This practical session continues methods of retrieving that material in writing up research. In the afternoon session, Professors Alan Booth, Gareth Shaw and Mairi Maclean will present interim findings and conclusions on the Rowntree Lectures and the interwar management movement.

Programme

10 am                  Workshop opens

10.15                   Brief Introduction and Welcome: Alan Booth

10.30                   Practical Skills in the Archive: Alan Booth, Rachel Pistol and Mike Anson

This session will involve the use of a digital camera in the archive and the use of OCR software to process those images. We intend to create an OCR exercise for participants

11.45                   Databases and other forms of information retrieval: Alan Booth, Rachel Pistol

The session will demonstrate an Access database designed for the individual scholar and a more ambitious project suited to bigger research teams.

12.30                   Lunch

1.30                     Preliminary Findings

Gareth Shaw, ‘An Introduction to the Rowntree Papers as a Research Resource’

Alan Booth, ‘The cliff edge: British Industry and the pervading sense of crisis after the First World War’

Mairi Maclean, ‘Management Learning and the Rowntree material’.

4.00                     Workshop closes

For further details, please contact Professor Alan Booth at a.e.booth@exeter.ac.uk

Conference: Hidden Capitalism @ Hagley

The program  (https://www.hagley.org/research/conferences) for the conference, Hidden Capitalism: Beyond, Below, and Outside the Visible Market is now available. This one-day conference will take place November 10, 2017 at the Hagley Museum and Library in Wilmington, Delaware.

The conference’s twelve papers seek to expand understandings of capitalism by exploring the substantial economic activity that occurs at the margins and in the concealed corners of the formal economy. Uncovering these forgotten or obscured activities can focus new attention on our understanding of how capitalism works both with formal market institutions and at the same time incorporates informal, less visible institutional apparatus.  The papers especially highlight the mutual dependency of the visible and invisible features of capitalism and how the moralities of each both converge and diverge.

The papers are transnational in scope, addressing episodes in France, the United States, Communist China, and India, as well as nationally-ambiguous cases of free-trade zones and offshore banking havens. They trace episodes involving apparel, scrap metal, liquor, lumber, and cotton, as well as regulatory conflicts over food and household commodities, knock-off clothing designs, businesses advertising “immoral” services, and enterprises operated by Hispanics and African Americans. All cases engage, in one way or another, with the boundaries of legality and the relationship between the official marketplace and the spaces that lie outside.

This conference was initiated by Lisa Jacobson (University of California, Santa Barbara) and Ken Lipartito (Florida International University), who were joined on the program committee by Roger Horowitz and Amrys Williams from the Hagley Library and Wendy Woloson from Rutgers University – Camden. The conference runs from 8:30-5:30 and will meet in the Copeland Room of Hagley’s library building.

Advance registration is free but required.  Lunch is available onsite for advance payment of $15.00.  A link to all of the conference papers will be available to those who have registered.  To sign up to attend the conference, please contact Carol Lockman, clockman@Hagley.org  or 302-658-2400, x243.

 

Carol Ressler Lockman

Manager, Hagley Center

PO Box 3630

Wilmington DE  19807

clockman@hagley.org

 

 

 

ABH CfP 2018

Association of Business Historians Annual Conference

‘Pluralistic perspectives of business history: gender, class, ethnicity, religion’

The Open University Business School, 29-30 June 2018

Call for papers

The 2018 Association of Business Historians Annual Conference will be held on 29-30 June 2018 at the Open University Business School in Milton Keynes. The conference theme is ‘Pluralistic perspectives of business history: gender, class, ethnicity, religion’. The role of different social groups and identities in business is an important, though under researched, topic in business history. However, there is, increasing recognition that, for example, women were not simply ‘angels in the home’, keeping their distance, when compared with men, from the grime of the industrial revolution and the financial transactions which that involved. Social class had an impact in the City, and Quakers, for example, were important in the banking sector. There is now evidence of women occupying roles, not just as workers but also as lenders, business owners, managers, and investors in significant numbers. To what extent did culture or religions influenced occupation of these roles? There is evidence also that lower social classes did invest to some extent in newly launched companies, as did members of the clergy, as in ‘Widows, clergymen and the reckless’.

This conference aims to explore the impact of gender, social class, ethnicity, and religion on business success, fraud, funding, financial markets, corporate governance, and corporate social responsibility. Proposals for individual papers, or for full sessions, panel discussions or other session formats are invited on this topic, broadly conceived. Specific topics may include, but are not restricted to:

  • Ethnic, religious, class groups and women as entrepreneurs, lenders, investors, managers and/or workers.
  • Archival sources and methodologies to document and analyse different social groups’ participation in business.
  • Comparative studies of different social groups in business.
  • Social groups and business failure.
  • Social roles and relations in the workplace.
  • Cross-cultural issues in business and management.
  • Business and social movements.
  • Cultural, religious, gendered, class-related business networks.
  • Social groups and fraud, business failure, or market bubbles.
  • The influence of the law on different social groups or classes’ financial and business decision making.
  • Social groups or identities and corporate social governance.
  • Social groups, business and philanthropy.
  • Social groups or identities and the family firm.
  • The impact of social groups on business and corporate finance.
  • Social groups or identities, business, legislation and taxation.
  • Gendered, cultural, religious and class preferences for business characteristics.
  • Social groups as colonial and foreign investors.

As always, the ABH also welcomes proposals that are not directly related to the conference theme.

How to submit a paper or session proposal

The program committee will consider both individual papers and entire panels. Individual paper proposals should include a one-page (up to 300 word) abstract and one-page curriculum vitae (CV).

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 15 January 2018.

If you have any questions, please contact the local organisers: dimitris.sotiropoulos@open.ac.uk or Janette.Rutterford@open.ac.uk

Your application for the conference should come through our online submission platform: http://unternehmensgeschichte.de/public/C4

First you make a choice for uploading a single paper or a full-session. After pressing each button you will find a mask guiding you through the upload process. Please have available your CV and your Abstract.

Any other idea regarding the conference – workshops, poster sessions, or panel discussions – must be suggested directly to the Programme Committee.

Submit your Papers and Sessions: http://unternehmensgeschichte.de/public/C4

Call for Tony Slaven Doctoral Workshop in Business History, 28th June 2018

The ABH will hold its seventh annual Tony Slaven Doctoral Workshop on 28 June 2018. This event immediately precedes the 2018 ABH Annual Conference held in Milton Keynes. Participants in the Workshop are encouraged to attend the main ABH Annual Conference following the Workshop. The Workshop is an excellent opportunity for doctoral students to discuss their work with other research students and practicing academics in business history in an informal and supportive environment. Students at any stage of their doctoral career, 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 skills-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 international trade and investment, financial or economic history, agricultural history, 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 welcome 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’ and ‘using sources’ 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

An 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 names of the student’s supervisors, 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. You may apply via email to Dr Mitch Larson at mjlarson@uclan.ac.uk.

Please use the subject line “Tony Slaven Workshop” by the 15 January 2018.

Call for Coleman Prize for Best PhD Dissertation

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 calendar year 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 29-30 June 2018.

A complete list of previous winners may be found at: http://www.gla.ac.uk/external/ABH/coleman.html

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 christine.leslie@glasgow.ac.uk by 15 January 2018. Shortlisted candidates will be requested to submit electronic copies of their theses by 15 February 2018. Finalists will be notified by 15 March 2018.

Deadline for All Submissions

The deadline for receipt of all proposals (papers, sessions and panels, Coleman Prize, and Tony Slaven Workshop) is 15 January 2018. Acceptance letters will be sent by 15th March 2018. Everyone appearing on the program 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 or the ABH conference. These will be awarded competitively prior to the Workshop. Please indicate in your application whether you would like to be considered for one of these travel grants.

To apply for this grant please email Christine.Leslie@glasgow.ac.uk by 31 March 2018. Further information about the Carnevali Grant will be placed on the ABH website early in the New Year at: http://www.gla.ac.uk/external/ABH Submit your Papers and Sessions: http://unternehmensgeschichte.de/public/C4

CfP: BHC 2018 – Money, Finance and Capital

Money, Finance, and Capital

2018 Business History Conference Annual Meeting

Baltimore, Maryland, April 5 – April 7, 2018

Money, Finance, and Capital is the theme of the 2018 Business History Conference meeting. Historians who want to write compelling histories of capitalism must grapple with the manifold roles that money, finance, and capital have played in political, economic, social and cultural dynamics. Yet, for many years, the abstruse and elusive character of these phenomena encouraged many historians of economic life to maintain a safe distance from them. Of course, there have always been some historians willing to figure out where money, finance, and capital fit into broader histories of our societies. Still, much of what we know about currency and credit, investment and profit, bonds and futures results from highly specialised research whose technical quality reinforces the enigmatic character of these subjects.

Historians are not alone in encountering difficulties in making sense of money, finance, and capital. In 1931, for example, when distinguished British economist, John Maynard Keynes, gave a radio address on the “slump”, he emphasised that “the behaviour of the financial system and the banking system is capable of suddenly going off the rails, so to speak, and interfering with everyone’s prosperity for obscure and complicated reasons.” Keynes pointed out that it was unreasonable to expect the ”man in the street” to understand such reasons. Yet, he also emphasised that professed experts tended ”to talk much greater rubbish than an ordinary man” largely because ”the science of economics, of banking, of finance is in a backward state.” More recently, Alan Greenspan infamously admitted his “shocked disbelief” at the onset of the recent crisis and former governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, portrayed money and finance as “alchemy”. Technical expertise in these domains, it seems, is not necessarily a route to greater understanding.

Fortunately, money, finance, and capital have moved to the forefront in many historiographies in recent years. Whether it is the business of slave plantations and trade, of consumer credit and railroading, of government finance, securities markets and international banking, the history of business offers exciting insights on these important and perplexing themes. That was already apparent in some of the pioneering research that historians carried out on money, finance, and capital and it has become clearer still with the recent new wave of research by political, cultural, social, literary and economic historians.

The theme of the 2018 BHC conference is designed to encourage contributions from a variety of approaches to historical research on the themes of money, finance, and capital, covering a broad range of periods and geographies. The program committee of David Sicilia (chair), Christy Ford Chapin, Per Hansen, Naomi Lamoreaux, Rory Miller, Julia Ott, and Mary O’Sullivan (BHC president) invites papers addressing, inter alia, the following questions:

  • How have money, finance, and capital bound different people and places together over time in relationships of mutual advantage, dependence or exploitation?
  • How much change do we observe in concepts such as currency, credit, and capital and their associated practices between more distant and recent pasts?
  • What is the role of money, finance, and capital in the emergence and persistence of varieties of capitalism around the world?
  • What historical variations do we observe among businesses in their conception and measurement of capital, its control, investment and utilisation, as well as in the risks and rewards associated with it?
  • Without neglecting the post-World War II trend towards “financialization”, what might we say about the changing relationship between finance and capital over the very long run?
  • What has been the role of money, finance, and capital in the origins and diffusion of international crises in history?
  • What types of commentators have generated powerful ideas about money, finance, and capital? How have economic commentators, historians, business leaders, journalists and other writers helped to construct and contest these ideas?
  • Do the historical roles of money, finance, and capital allow us to demarcate capitalism as a distinctive type of social organisation or does it suggest, as Deirdre McCloskey claims, that the term “capitalism” is a scientific mistake?

While we encourage proposals to take up this theme, papers addressing all other topics will receive equal consideration by the program committee in accordance with BHC policy. The program committee will consider both individual papers and entire panels. Individual paper proposals should include a one-page (300 word) abstract and one-page curriculum vitae (CV). 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. To submit a proposal go to http://thebhc.org/2018meeting and click on the link Submit a Paper/Panel Proposal.

All sessions take place at the Embassy Suites Baltimore Inner Harbor. Rooms (all suites) are $159/night and include a full breakfast.

The K. Austin Kerr Prize will be awarded for the best first paper delivered by a new scholar at the annual meeting.  A “new scholar” is defined as a doctoral candidate or a Ph. D. whose degree is less than three years old. You must nominate your paper for this prize on the proposal submission page where indicated. Please check the appropriate box if your proposal qualifies for inclusion in the Kerr Prize competition.

The deadline for receipt of all proposals is 2 October 2017. Acceptance letters will be sent by 31 December 2017. Everyone appearing on the program must register for the meeting. Graduate students and recent PhDs (within 3 years of receipt of degree) whose papers are accepted for the meeting may apply for funds to partially defray their travel costs; information will be sent out once the program has been set.

The BHC awards the Herman E. Krooss Prize for the best dissertation in business history by a recent Ph.D. in history, economics, business administration, the history of science and technology, sociology, law, communications, and related fields. To be eligible, dissertations must be completed in the three calendar years immediately prior to the 2018 annual meeting, and may only be submitted once for the Krooss prize. After the Krooss committee has reviewed the proposals, it will ask semi-finalists to submit copies of their dissertations. Finalists will present summaries of their dissertations at a plenary session of the 2018 BHC annual meeting and will receive a partial subsidy of their travel costs to the meeting. Proposals accepted for the Krooss Prize are not eligible for the Kerr Prize. If you wish to apply for this prize please send a cover letter indicating you are applying for the Krooss prize along with a one-page CV and one-page (300 word) dissertation abstract via email to BHC@Hagley.org. The deadline for proposals for the Krooss prize is 2 October 2017.

The BHC Doctoral Colloquium in Business History will be held in conjunction with the BHC annual meeting. This prestigious workshop, funded by Cambridge University Press, will take place in Baltimore Wednesday April 4 and Thursday April 5. Typically limited to ten students, the colloquium is open to early stage doctoral candidates pursuing dissertation research within the broad field of business history, from any relevant discipline. Topics (see link for past examples) may range from the early modern era to the present, and explore societies across the globe.  Participants work intensively with a distinguished group of BHC-affiliated scholars (including at least two BHC officers), discussing dissertation proposals, relevant literatures and research strategies, and career trajectories.  Applications are due by 15 November 2017 via email to BHC@Hagley.org should include: a statement of interest; CV; preliminary or final dissertation prospectus (10-15 pages); and a letter of support from your dissertation supervisor (or prospective supervisor). Questions about the colloquium should be sent to its director, Edward Balleisen, eballeis@duke.edu. All participants receive a stipend that partially defrays travel costs to the annual meeting.  Applicants will receive notification of the selection committee’s decisions by 20 December 2017.

General questions regarding the BHC’s 2018 annual meeting may be sent to Secretary-Treasurer Roger Horowitz, rh@udel.edu.

 

PDW on Historical methods at AOM2017

Last Friday we ran our professional development workshop on the uses of historical methods at the Academy of Management. We had a full house, seven excellent presentations and lively discussions with the audience. We also distributed our draft bibliography on historical methods in a previous post and hope you can give us some feedback and suggestions.

Dan, Diego and I plan to run future events focused on historical methodology in management and organization studies and are open to your feedback, suggestions and requests. Below you find links to our presentations from the day.

Introduction: AOM2017_PDW Hist Meth intro

JoAnne Yates: JY history and organizational studies AOM 2017

Michael Rowlinson: AOM pdw Historical Methods

Steph Decker: AOM2017_PDW-Archival Ethnography

Bill Foster: 2017 AOM Ethnostatistics PDW presentation

Christina Lubinski: AOM Distant Markets Christina

Michael Prietula: AoM-2017-PDW-prietula-2

 

All Academy Event on economic nationalism

On Sunday the Management History division at the Academy of Management hosted an all academy symposium on historical perspectives on business and management in an age of rising nationalism.

The panel comprised of Dan Wadhwani as the host and moderator, Matthias Kipping (York University), Takafumi Kurosawa (Kyoto University) and myself, Stephanie Decker (Aston University).

We argued that history can provide management scholars with a unique lens for understanding the current rise of nationalism, and the choices that businesses, managers, and entrepreneurs face in response to those changes. In part, this is because both supporters and critics of the current wave of nationalism point to historical examples and their consequences in justifying their positions. But, even more so, historical waves of globalization and de-globalization allow us a mirror for reflecting on the options and consequences that both policymakers and managers face today.

For instance, on the eve of World War I, much of the world economy was economically integrated, with the relatively free mobility of firms, people, and capital across borders. This earlier wave of global integration fell apart with the rise of nationalism and nationalist policies during the interwar period, and a different kind of globally integrated economy had to be rebuilt by policymakers and businesspeople in the post-World War II world.

We discussed not only potential lessons of earlier waves of nationalism de-globalization, but also the uses of the past by politicians, and the way in which corporate strategies can be shaped in the long term by historical experiences.

Ultimately, the discussion revolved around the relevance of history for understanding managerial choices and consequences in the face of nationalism in our own time.

AOM PDW on Historical methods

*** Apologies for cross-posting ***

 

PDW on “Historical Methods for Management and Organizational Research”

 

Coordinators

Stephanie Decker, Aston Business School

Diego M. Coraiola, U. of Alberta

 

Participants

William Foster, U. of Alberta

JoAnne Yates, MIT Sloan School of Management

Matthias Kipping, Schulich School of Bus, York U.

Michael Rowlinson, U. of Exeter

Christina Lubinski, Copenhagen Business School

 

Program Information

Session Type: PDW Workshop

Program Session: 107 | Submission: 12154 | Sponsor(s): (MH, CMS)

Scheduled: Friday, Aug 4 2017 12:15PM – 2:45PM at Hyatt Regency Atlanta in Embassy Hall E

 

 

Description

The PDW will be divided in two parts.

  1. In the first part the participants will present on topics related to the use of historical methods in management and organizational research. After the presentations we will have time for questions and answers from the audience.
  2. In the second part the participants will be distributed in roundtables and the audience will be invited to join them to discuss specific topics of the practice and publishing of historical research in management journals and receive feedback on their research projects.

 

Registration

***No registration required.

 

We do not require a formal registration. However, if you are planning to join us, we strongly encourage you to prepare a brief summary of a research project you are working on together with any doubts or puzzling issues you have been facing that you might want to discuss and get feedback on during the roundtables.

 

Abstract

Historical approaches to management and organizations have seen many promising developments in recent years, with several articles, special issues and edited books highlighting the important contribution that historical research can make to our understanding of contemporary organizations. Theoretical debates on the status of historical approaches within management and organization studies have dominated so far. These are important as they determine what kind of historical methods align with scholars’ epistemological and theoretical approach. Hence this PDW has two aims: to introduce scholars interested in the more practical questions of how we can use historical methods for organizational research to a range of option, and by highlighting the methodological implications of using specific historical approaches. This PDW will bring together several scholars who have used historical methodologies in their research. Their presentations will introduce participants to a range of methodologies and offer them the opportunity to subsequently discuss the relevance of these approaches for participants’ research projects in small groups in the second half of the session.