Category: General

Princess Leia has a PhD

Steph

OK, not technically organizational history, but I could not resist 😉

It makes perfect sense that Princess Leia should have a PhD – but we need more female academics

When Princess Leia – older, wiser and tougher than ever – returned to the big screen two years ago in the latest Star Wars instalment, The Force Awakens, fans around the globe cheered.

Played with great wit and charisma by the late Carrie Fisher, the fictional Leia – known variously as princess, senator and general – is leader of first the Rebel Alliance, then the Resistance, fighting the monolithic forces of oppression that threaten her galaxy.

But when fans learned that Leia might have a PhD, thanks to a throwaway remark made by creator George Lucas on a 2004 DVD commentary that resurfaced when I tweeted about it recently, adoration for the Women’s March poster girl exploded online and in the press.

The Hollywood Reporter said fans were “shocked, but delighted” at the news, and Teen Vogue celebrated Leia as “a genius who somehow managed to get a PhD at age 19”. Even Mark Hamill, Fisher’s onscreen twin, Luke Skywalker, was “freaking out” about the story.

To read the full story, go to The Conversation.

A New History of Management

Steph

We are very pleased to announce that a new publication on the history of management is out now:

A New History of Management

by Stephen Cummings (Author), Todd Bridgman (Author), John Hassard (Author), Michael Rowlinson (Author)

 

Existing narratives about how we should organize are built upon, and reinforce, a concept of ‘good management’ derived from what is assumed to be a fundamental need to increase efficiency. But this assumption is based on a presentist, monocultural, and generally limited view of management’s past. A New History of Management disputes these foundations. By reassessing conventional perspectives on past management theories and providing a new critical outline of present-day management, it highlights alternative conceptions of ‘good management’ focused on ethical aims, sustainability, and alternative views of good practice. From this new historical perspective, existing assumptions can be countered and simplistic views disputed, offering a platform from which graduate students, researchers and reflective practitioners can develop alternative approaches for managing and organizing in the twenty-first century.

GoogleBooks

ResearchGate

Populism is Back! Why has this happened and why does it matter?

Steph

Reblogged from NEP-His:

chechurris's avatarThe NEP-HIS Blog

Populism and the Economics of Globalization

By Dani Rodrik (Harvard University)

Abstract: Populism may seem like it has come out of nowhere, but it has been on the rise for a while. I argue that economic history and economic theory both provide ample grounds for anticipating that advanced stages of economic globalization would produce a political backlash. While the backlash may have been predictable, the specific form it took was less so. I distinguish between left-wing and right-wing variants of populism, which differ with respect to the societal cleavages that populist politicians highlight. The first has been predominant in Latin America, and the second in Europe. I argue that these different reactions are related to the relative salience of different types of globalization shocks.

URL: http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:12119

Distributed by NEP-HIS on: 2017-07-09

Review by Sergio Castellanos-Gamboa (Bangor University)

Summary

Populism has been at the front of news headlines for a while…

View original post 1,242 more words

Born digital sources & historical research

Steph

Political History in the Digital Age: The challenges of archiving and analysing born digital sources.

Helen+McCarthy+5bcredit+Jonathan+Ring5dThe vast bulk of source material for historical research is still paper-based. But this is bound to change. Dr Helen McCarthy considers the lessons from the Mile End Institute’s conference on Contemporary Political History in the Digital Age. The specific challenges of using a ‘born digital source’ is an area that requires considerable attention. For political historians, the advent of ‘e-government’ and personal digital archives, and the many formats and artefacts involved, is thrilling but also intimidating.

Historians like digging around in archives.

The materiality of the primary source is part of the allure of historical research: rummaging through dust-covered files, turning the decomposing pages of thick-bound volumes, removing rusty paperclips, perusing bundles tied with ancient string – it’s all part of the voyage of discovery into the past which drew most of us to our careers as historians.

To continue reading go to the LSE blog.

 

PDW on Historical methods at AOM2017

Steph

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

Steph

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.

Historical Methods in Management and Organizational Research: A Bibliography

Dan3 Comments

In preparation for the development workshops devoted to methods (see Clio Palooza above) we have created a preliminary bibliography of references of papers, chapters, and books devoted to historical methods in management and organizational research. If you’ve got suggested additions to the list please let us know by coming to one of the sessions or by commenting on this post.

Historical Methods in Management and Organizational Research:
A Bibliography
August 2017

Coraiola, D.M., Foster, W.M. and Suddaby, R., 2015. Varieties of history in organization studies. The Routledge companion to management and organizational history, pp.206-221.

Decker, S., 2013. The silence of the archives: Business history, post-colonialism and archival ethnography. Management & Organizational History, 8(2), pp.155-173.

Decker, S., 2015. Mothership reconnection. The Routledge Companion to Management and Organizational History, p.222.

Durepos, G. and Mills, A.J., 2012. Actor-network theory, ANTi-history and critical organizational historiography. Organization, 19(6), pp.703-721.

Forbes, Daniel P., and David A. Kirsch. “The study of emerging industries: Recognizing and responding to some central problems.” Journal of Business Venturing 26, no. 5 (2011): 589-602.

Godfrey, P.C., Hassard, J., O’Connor, E.S., Rowlinson, M. and Ruef, M., 2016. What is organizational history? Toward a creative synthesis of history and organization studies. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), pp.590-608.

Heller, M. (20016). ‘Foucault, Discourse and the Birth of Public Relations’, Enterprise & Society, 17(3): 651-677.

Harvey, C. and Press, J., 1996. Databases in historical research: Theory, methods and applications. London: Macmillan.

Kirsch, D., Moeen, M. and Wadhwani, R.D., 2014. Historicism and industry emergence: industry knowledge from pre-emergence to stylized fact. Organizations in time: History, theory, methods, 217.

Kipping, M., Wadhwani, R.D. and Bucheli, M., 2014. Analyzing and interpreting historical sources: A basic methodology. Organizations in time: History, theory, methods, pp.305-329.

Lipartito, K., 2014. Historical sources and data. Organizations in time: History, theory, methods, pp.284-304.

Maclean, M., Harvey, C. and Clegg, S.R., 2016. Conceptualizing historical organization studies. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), pp.609-632.

Maclean, M., Harvey, C. and Clegg, S.R., 2017. Organization Theory in Business and Management History: Present Status and Future Prospects. Business History Review, 91(4), forthcoming.

Murmann, J. P. (2010). “Constructing Relational Databases to Study Life Histories on Your PC or Mac.” Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History 43(3): 109 – 123.

Pfefferman, T., 2016. Reassembling the archives: business history knowledge production from an actor-network perspective. Management & Organizational History, 11(4), pp.380-398.

Rowlinson, M., Hassard, J. and Decker, S., 2014. Research strategies for organizational history: A dialogue between historical theory and organization theory. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), pp.250-274.

Stutz, C. and Sachs, S., 2016. Facing the Normative Challenges: The Potential of Reflexive Historical Research. Business & Society, p.0007650316681989.

Taylor, S., 2015. Critical hermeneutics for critical organizational history. The Routledge Companion to Management and Organizational History, p.143.

Vaara, E. and Lamberg, J.A., 2016. Taking historical embeddedness seriously: Three historical approaches to advance strategy process and practice research. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), pp.633-657.

Taylor, S., Bell, E. and Cooke, B., 2009. Business history and the historiographical operation. Management & Organizational History, 4(2), pp.151-166.

Wadhwani, R.D., 2016. Historical Methods for Contextualizing Entrepreneurship Research. In A Research Agenda for Entrepreneurship and Context. Edward Elgar Publishing, Incorporated.

Wadhwani, R.D. and Decker, S. 2017. “Clio’s Toolkit: The Practice of Historical Methods in Organization Studies,” (with Stephanie Decker) In Sanjay Jain and Raza Mir (eds.) Routledge Companion to Qualitative Research in Organization Studies New York: Taylor and Francis, pp. 113-127.

JoAnne Yates, “Understanding Historical Methods in Organization Studies,” in Marcelo Bucheli and R. Daniel Wadhwani, eds., Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods (Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2013), pp. 265-283.

JoAnne Yates, “Time, History, and Materiality,” in Materiality and Time: Historical Perspectives on Organizations, Artefacts and Practices, ed. Francois-Xavier de Vaujany, Nathalie Mitev, Pierre Laniray, Emmanuelle Vaast (London: Palgrave McMillan: 2014), pp. 17-33.

 

Clio Palooza at Academy of Management

Dan

This year, the Paper Development Workshops sponsored by the Management History Division at the Academy of Management will feature a series of sessions on historical methods. If you are attending the AoM, please consider joining us. And please let others who may be interested know about these sessions. A listing of sessions, presenters, and locations can be found below.

Historical Methods for Management and Organizational Research

Aug 4, 12:15-2:45pm, Hyatt Embassy Hall E

Coordinator: Stephanie Decker, Aston Business School

Coordinator: Diego Coraiola, U. of Alberta

Participant: William Foster, U. of Alberta

Participant: JoAnne Yates, MIT Sloan School of Management

Participant: Matthias Kipping, Schulich School of Bus, York U.

Participant: Michael Rowlinson, U. of Exeter

Presenter: Christina Lubinski, Copenhagen Business School

 

Some Words, A Story, Some Methods, and a Weapons Platform

Aug 4, 12:15pm-2:15pm, Hyatt Embassy Hall G

Coordinator: Andrew Cardow, Massey U.

Participant: Mie Augier, Naval Postgraduate School

Participant: Maciej Workiewicz, ESSEC Business School

Participant: M J Prietula, Emory U.

 

Frontiers of Digital History: Methods and Tools

Aug 4, 2:00pm – 4:00pm, Hyatt Hanover Hall E

Presenter: Michael Rowlinson, U. of Exeter

Organizer: Robin Gustafsson, Aalto U.

Presenter: Charles Edward Harvey, Newcastle U.

Presenter: Mirko Ernkvist, Ratio Institute

Presenter: Mairi Maclean, U. of Bath

Presenter: Johann Peter Murmann, U. of New South Wales

Organizer: Mirko Ernkvist, Ratio Institute

Moderator: Robin Gustafsson, Aalto U.

Presenter: David A. Kirsch, U. of Maryland

 

The Linguistic Turn in Management and Organizational History

August 5, 12:30pm-2pm. Hyatt, Embassy Hall A

Participant: Michael Heller, Brunel U.

Participant: Michael Rowlinson, U. of Exeter

Participant: Ulf Thoene, U. de La Sabana

Participant: Ellen Korsager, Copenhagen Business School

Participant: Anders Sorensen, Copenhagen Business School

 

Using Accounting Records for Management History

August 5, 2:45-pm-4:15pm Hyatt, Harris

Organizer: James M. Wilson, U. of Glasgow

Presenter: Kirsten Kininmonth, U. of Glasgow

Presenter: Sam McKinstry, U. of the West of Scotland

 

 

 

Call for Papers: Corporate Reputation

Dan
CALL FOR PAPERS
Journal of Business Ethics
Special Issue theme: “Linking Corporate Reputation and Accountability: Antecedents, Mechanisms, Paradoxes, and Outcomes”

Deadline: January 1, 2018

Guest Editors:
Craig E. Carroll, New York University, craig.carroll@nyu.edu
Rowena Olegario, Saïd Business School, University of Oxford, rowena.olegario@sbs.ox.ac.uk

Accountability is a concept about being answerable to someone for something that matters. It requires the accountor to be capable of being observed, monitored, and evaluated through its willingness to provide material information and provides clear consequences for failure. Scholars have investigated the roles of corporate governance, CSR reporting, auditors, and credit rating agencies, in upholding – or failing to uphold – corporate accountability (Bendell, 2005; Brennan & Solomon, 2008; Coffee, 2002; Gray, et. al., 1997; Newell, 2005; Partnoy, 1999; Utting, 2008; Valor, 2005). Yet even with these recent studies, corporate accountability remains under-researched and under-theorized.

Many studies of corporate reputation, as well as business folk-wisdom, assume that reputation is a mechanism for keeping companies honest, a crucial attribute of accountability. As business magnate Warren Buffet famously observed: “It takes twenty years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.” Implicit in Buffett’s formulation is the notion that the threat of losing a good reputation always constrains corporate opportunism. Yet recent and classic examples illustrate that even prominent public firms, which stand to lose the most from a tarnished reputation, engage in dishonest behavior for the sake of short-term benefits. At the same time, there are multiple cases of companies that have engaged in malfeasance without suffering lasting reputational harm. In 2017, for example, Volkswagen reported healthy sales despite having been subjected to fines and negative media scrutiny of its emissions cheating. Given that there are so many exceptions to the ‘Buffett rule,’ it is imperative to ask what role reputation plays in holding companies to account, provided that all organizations even care about their reputations in the first place.

We believe that this is an optimal moment to explicitly link the constructs of accountability and corporate reputation. In the past, scholars have equated accountability with being responsible (Lorenzo-Molo & Udani, 2013) or viewed accountability as an outcome of disclosing CSR investment (Brown-Liburd, Cohen, Zamora (in press). Only a few studies have specifically investigated how reputation constrains corporate wrongdoing (Lin-Hi and Blumberg, 2016; Wright, 2016; Sampath, Gardberg, Rahman, 2016; He, Pittman, and Rui, 2016; Hardeck and Hertl, 2014; Ma and Parks, 2012; Reuber and Fischer, 2010; Frances-Gomez and del Rio, 2008; Sacconi, 2007). Accountability, CSR, and corporate reputation are linked– many corporations engage in CSR precisely because they hope to burnish their reputations–but there is growing skepticism about the authenticity, effectiveness, and sufficiency of CSR disclosure and engagement for holding organizations accountable.

Our proposal then is to begin theorizing new ways that reputation can be linked with accountability. We welcome theoretical and empirical papers from a wide range of social science and humanities traditions, particularly on the following questions and approaches:

1. What are the links between corporate reputation, accountability, and ethics?

The special issue calls for papers to reflect upon the nature, full extent, and variety of configurations that can exist between reputation and accountability.

  • Which theoretical lenses explain the opportunities, risks, paradoxes, successes, and failures of reputation mechanisms?
  • How do definitions, goals, and criteria for corporate accountability differ for people on Main Street vs. Wall Street, and how do these different understandings affect the practice and efficacy of reputation mechanism?
  • To what extent are favorable perceptions of an organization’s social, financial, and environmental performance an outcome of, a precursor of, a substitute for, or a means to avoid, corporate accountability? Can transparency be used to avoid accountability?
  • What are the ethical issues at play when excellent performance in one sphere (for example, offering a highly popular consumer product) moderates, distracts, or compensates from poor reputations in other spheres (such as a corporation’s contributions to environmental degradation)?

2. What are the unexplored, adverse, unanticipated and paradoxical relationships between corporate reputation, accountability, and ethics? What are the impacts upon performance of these different relationships?

The special issue seeks papers that look ahead at how instituting accountability mechanisms creates new organization-society dynamics.

  • Is there/will there be such a thing as too much accountability? If so, how does this change our understanding of what constitutes ethical practices?
  • What is the relationship between ‘facts,’ reputation, and accountability? How will recent developments in online platforms and social media change those dynamics in the business sphere?
  • How does organizational performance change the relationship between reputation and accountability? How does accountability change the relationship between reputation and organizational performance?
  • What are the consequences for personal, organizational, and societal health?

References
Bendell, J. (2005). In Whose Name? The Accountability of Corporate Social Responsibility. Development in Practice 15 (3-4): 362-374. doi: 10.1080/09614520500075813

Brennan, N.M. and Solomon, J. (2008). Corporate Governance, Accountability and Mechanisms of Accountability: An Overview. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 21 (7): 885-906. doi:10.1108/09513570810907401

Brown-Liburd, H., Cohen, J., & Zamora, V. L. (in press) CSR Disclosure Items Used as Fairness Heuristics in the Investment Decision. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-15. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3307-3

Buffett, M. & Clark, D. (2006). The Tao of Warren Buffett: Warren Buffett’s Words of Wisdom.

Coffee, J.C. (2002). Understanding Enron: ‘It’s About the Gatekeepers, Stupid.’ The Business Lawyer 57 (4): 1403-1420. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40688097.

Frances-Gomez, P. & del Rio, A. (2008). Stakeholder’s Preference and Rational Compliance: A Comment on Sacconi’s ‘CSR as a Model for Extended Corporate Governance II: Compliance, Reputation and Reciprocity.’ Journal of Business Ethics 82(1) 59-76. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9562-6

Gray, R., Day, C., Owen, D., Evans, R., and Zadek, S. (1997). Struggling with the Praxis of Social Accounting. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 10 (3): 325-364. doi:10.1108/09513579710178106

Hardeck, I., & Hertl, R. (2014). Consumer Reactions to Corporate Tax Strategies: Effects on Corporate Reputation and Purchasing Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(2), 309-326. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1843-7.

He, X., Pittman, J., & Rui, O. (2016). Reputational Implications for Partners After a Major Audit Failure: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(4), 702-722. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2770-6

Lin-Hi, N. & Blumberg, I. (in press). The Link Between (Not) Practicing CSR and Corporate Reputation: Psychological Foundations and Managerial Implications. Journal of Business Ethics. 10.1007/s10551-016-3164-0

Ma, L., & McLean Parks, J. (2012). Your Good Name: The Relationship Between Perceived Reputational Risk and Acceptability of Negotiation Tactics. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(2), 161-175. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0987-6.

Newell, P. (2005). Citizenship, Accountability and Community: The Limits of the CSR Agenda. International Affairs 81 (3): 541-557. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2346.2005.00468.x

Partnoy, F. (1999). The Siskel and Ebert of Financial Markets: Two Thumbs Down for the Credit Rating Agencies. Washington University Law Quarterly 77 (3): 619-714.

Reuber, A. R., & Fischer, E. (2010). Organizations Behaving Badly: When Are Discreditable Actions Likely to Damage Organizational Reputation? Journal of Business Ethics, 93(1), 39-50. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0180-3.

Sacconi, L. (2007). A Social Contract Account for CSR as an Extended Model of Corporate Governance (II): Compliance, Reputation and Reciprocity. Journal of Business Ethics 75 (1): 77-96. Doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9014-8

Sampath, V. S., Gardberg, N. A., & Rahman, N. (in press). Corporate Reputation’s Invisible Hand: Bribery, Rational Choice, and Market Penalties. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-18. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3242-3

Utting, P. (2008). The Struggle for Corporate Accountability. Development and Change 39: 959-975. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2008.00523.x

Valor, C. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Citizenship: Towards Corporate Accountability. Business and Society Review 110 (2): 191-212. doi: 10.1111/j.0045-3609.2005.00011.x

Wright, C. F. (2016). Leveraging Reputational Risk: Sustainable Sourcing Campaigns for Improving Labour Standards in Production Networks. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(1), 195-210. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2552-1

Process for submitting papers
Questions about expectations, requirements, the appropriateness of a topic, etc, should be directed to the guest editors of the special issue: Craig Carroll or Rowena Olegario.

Papers submitted must not have been published, accepted for publication, or presently under consideration for publication elsewhere. Submissions should be approximately 8,000 words in length. Papers should employ standard English and provide authors’ names, affiliations, and e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, and physical addresses on the front page. Manuscripts must follow the journal’s guidelines. Authors are strongly encouraged to refer to the Journal of Business Ethics website and the instructions on submitting a paper. For more information see: http://www.springer.com/social+sciences/applied+ethics/journal/10551.

Submission to the special issue– by January 1, 2018 – is required through Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/busi/. Upon submission, please indicate that your submission is to this Special Issue of JBE, Linking Corporate Reputation + Accountability.

Proposed Schedule
The deadline for the first completed draft is January 1, 2018 followed by a peer-review process until April, 4, 2018. The deadline for the second draft is December 4, 2018. The deadline for the whole volume will be March 1, 2019.

About Journal of Business Ethics
The Journal of Business Ethics publishes only original articles from a wide variety of methodological and disciplinary perspectives concerning ethical issues related to business that bring something new or unique to the discourse in their field. The Journal’s impact factor is 1.837 (2015). This journal is one of the 50 journals used by the Financial Times in compiling the prestigious Business School research rank.

Craig Carroll, Ph.D.
Adjunct Professor
New York University
239 Greene Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10003
Office: (917) 410-0627
Mobile: (919) 360-9188
craig.carroll@nyu.edu
W: http://amazon.com/author/craigecarroll
L: http://www.linkedin.com/in/craigecarroll
For appointments, http://calendly.com/craigecarroll

AOM PDW on Historical methods

Steph

*** 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.

 

 

 

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.