Post-Doc at Hagley

Post-Doctoral Fellowship Opportunity at the Hagley Library

The NEH-Hagley Fellowship on Business, Culture, and Society supports residencies in Hagley’s Center for the History of Business, Technology, and Society by scholars who have received their doctoral degrees. Recent PhD recipients as well as advanced scholars are eligible to apply. In accordance with NEH requirements, these postdoctoral fellowships are restricted to United States citizens or to foreign nationals who have been living in the United States for at least three years. These fellowships are made possible by support from the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Hagley is the pre-eminent research library in the United States on business and its impact on the world. It holds more than seven miles of manuscript materials, more than 300,000 published sources, and visual items in excess of 3 million. Publications drawn from our collections provide foundational knowledge for the rise and influence of big business on politics and society as well as the cultural history of modern consumer society. Documentation of the extensive international operations of firms have provided entry for scholars exploring business and business influences in all areas of the world. While historical research is the principal purpose for most scholars, its active research grant program has funded projects from many fields in the social sciences and humanities.

Two postdoctoral fellowships are available, one of four months and one for eight months. The eight-month fellowship must be taken during the September through May academic year. The fellowships provide a monthly stipend of $4,200, amounting to $33,600 for the eight-month fellowship and $16,800 for the four-month fellowship. Fellows receive complimentary lodging in the scholar’s housing on Hagley’s property for the duration of their residency, as well as office space and the full privileges of visiting scholars, including special access to Hagley’s research collections. They are expected to be in regular and continuous residence and to participate in the Center’s scholarly programs. They must devote full time to their study and may not accept teaching assignments or undertake any other major activities during their residency. Fellows may hold other major fellowships or grants during fellowship tenure, in addition to sabbaticals and supplemental grants from their own institutions, but only those that do not interfere with their residency at Hagley. Other NEH-funded grants may be held serially, but not concurrently.

Applications are due December 1 and should be sent as a .pdf file and include, in the following order:

  • A current CV
  • A 3,000-word explanation of the project and its contributions to pertinent scholarship
  • A statement of no more than 500 words explaining how residency at Hagley would advance the project, particularly the relevance of our research collections.
  • A statement indicating a preference for the four or eight month fellowship.

Applicants also should arrange for two letters of recommendation to arrive separately by the application deadline. These should sent directly to Hagley.

All applications materials, including recommendations letters, should be sent to Carol Lockman, clockman@Hagley.org and must be received by that date for the application to be considered by the selection committee. The committee will make decisions by February 1, with residency beginning as early as July 1. Questions regarding this fellowship may be sent to Carol Lockman as well.

Advertisements

Business Historian Podcast Alert: Wharton’s Natalya Vinokurova On Whether the U.S. Headed for Another Mortgage Crisis?

Reblogged from The Past Speaks:

The Past Speaks

From the Knowledge@Wharton blog:

Ten years after the mortgage-fueled Great Recession, several of the market and structural components remain in place that could set the environment for the next crisis. In her latest research, Wharton management professor Natalya Vinokurova takes a historical look at the development of mortgage-backed securities and finds fascinating parallels to the present day. She spoke to Knowledge@Wharton about her papers, “Failure to Learn from Failure: The 2008 Mortgage Crisis as a Déjà vu of the Mortgage Meltdown of 1994” (Business History) and “How Mortgage-Backed Securities Became Bonds: The Emergence, Evolution, and Acceptance of Mortgage-Backed Securities in the United States, 1960–1987,” (Enterprise and Society) and why one should heed the warnings of history.

You can listen to the podcast here.

View original post

PhDs & PostDocs at Stellenbosch University

A new generation of historians and other social scientists is reinterpreting African history using individual-level archival records. The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation-funded Biography of an Uncharted People project builds on this momentum, using micro-level evidence of groups often excluded from aggregate statistical records, charting a new biography of South Africans.

Want to be at the frontier of new methodological innovations? Want to study the lives of people often neglected in historical sources? Want to be part of an exciting team of international scholars in the beautiful university-town of Stellenbosch? Then join us in 2019.

PhD and postdoc positions are available. Specific competencies in historical geography (GIS) are highly recommended for one of the postdoc positions, but applications from all subfields of history are welcome. Please visit unchartedpeople.org for more information. Applications close 1 October 2018.

Johan Fourie
johanf@sun.ac.za

Call for Editors – Journal of Global History

Reblogged from Imperial and Global Forum:

Imperial & Global Forum

Professor William Gervase Clarence Smith, Professor Barbara Watson Andaya, and Professor Merry Wiesner-Hanks will shortly be coming to the end of their tenure as editors of the Journal of Global History (JGH). Cambridge University Press, in collaboration with an Editorial Board search committee, is now inviting applications for their successor(s).

The deadline for applications is 30 September, 2018.

JGH addresses the main problems of global change over time, together with the diverse histories of globalization. It also examines counter-currents to globalization, including those that have structured other spatial units. The journal seeks to transcend the dichotomy between ‘the West and the rest’, straddle traditional regional boundaries, relate material to cultural and political history, and overcome thematic fragmentation in historiography. The journal also acts as a forum for interdisciplinary conversations across a wide variety of social and natural sciences.

View original post 320 more words

CfP: History, Memory, and the Past

CALL FOR PAPERS
HISTORY, MEMORY, AND THE PAST IN MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION STUDIES

RAE-Revista de Administração de Empresas
(Journal of Business Management)
Deadline: June 30th 2019
Guest editors: Amon Barros (FGV´s Sao Paulo School of Business Administration – EAESP),
Diego M. Coraiola (University of Alberta), Mairi Maclean (University of Bath), William M. Foster (University of Alberta)

Details of the call can be found here.

Call for papers. ‘Business and the law: historical perspectives on legal change.’ Deadline extended to 31 October.

Special Issue of Management and Organizational History: Business and the Law. Historical Perspectives on Legal Change

Firms act in tightly regulated legal environments. Yet as new products, production processes, and economic practices emerged that environment has been constantly questioned, undermined, and rebuilt. At the same time, legal innovations challenged established economic practices like the ban on child labor or new cartel laws. Assuming that innovations were always in line with the legal system or that firms simply complied with new laws is misleading. Usually, the more accurate picture was that of a highly contingent process of negotiation and rule breaking. In the long term, firms needed to succeed in positioning their products and services as legitimate and inside the law. To see this process as a one way street of political primacy would be historically incorrect and a bad assumption to solve current problems of regulation. Given the fundamental importance of the alignment, legal change figures as a central explanatory problem for understanding the course of economic development.
The aim of the SI is to understand legal change as a contingent change in routines that affected the way businesses and courts interpreted the “rules of the game”. Such a change could manifest itself in written law or lead to a fundamentally different way of interpreting it. In both cases the focus of the papers should be on economic and legal practices, i.e. on the question what the law meant in its historical context and how it actually affected economic actions. We are looking for theoretical work as well as empirical case studies that help to shed light on the historical transformations of legal institutions at the intersection of businesses and the law. Specifically, we are looking for papers that address at least one of the following research questions.

1. The Relation of Firm Behavior and the Law: Conceptual Clarifications and Historical Perspectives
2. Direct Intervention: The Practice of Political Entrepreneurship and Its Effects
3. Subtle Evasion: The Stubbornness of Business Routines in the Face of Legal Change
4. Legal Provocations: Schumpeterian “Rule Breaking” and Business Scandals

Each submission will initially be reviewed by the guest editors to determine its suitability for the special issue. Before final acceptance papers will also be double-blind reviewed. Publication of the special issue is planned for the year 2019.
For further information, please contact sebastian.teupe@uni-bayreuth.de
The deadline for submissions is 31 October 2018.

Editorial information

Guest Editor: Sebastian Teupe, University of Bayreuth, Germany (Sebastian.teupe@uni-bayreuth.de)
Guest Editor: Louis Pahlow, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main, Germany (Pahlow@jur.uni-frankfurt.de)

CFP: New Histories of Business Schools and How They May Inspire New Futures

Academy of Management Learning and Education

New Histories of Business Schools and How They May Inspire New Futures

Initial submissions should be received by: March 31, 2020

Scheduled for Publication: June 2021

Guest Editors:

  • Patricia Genoe McLaren, Wilfrid Laurier University
  • JC Spender, Kozminski University
  • Stephen Cummings, Victoria University of Wellington
  • Todd Bridgman, Victoria University of Wellington
  • Ellen O’Connor, Dominican University of California
  • Christina Lubinski, Copenhagen Business School
  • Gabrielle Durepos, Mount Saint Vincent University (Canada)

 

We might do well to re-examine what we are doing and show the executive judgment and courage necessary to implement radical change (Khurana & Spender 2012: 636).

Business schools are the institutional locus of management learning and education. In recent years, we have gained a greater understanding of how their structures, processes, and power dynamics influence pedagogy and curricula, management theory and research, faculty, students, graduates, and society more broadly. We are also witnessing growing research into, and discussion about, the relative lack of innovation in management theory development, research, pedagogy, and curricula (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2012). While there have been a small number of inspirational works that have sought to push us towards changing business schools and business education (Augier and March, 2011; Hassard, 2012; Khurana 2007; Spender, 2016), they have not yet spurred the change we might have hoped for.
One under-explored route to encourage innovation in this regard is examining how our historical understanding of all aspects of business schools – including curriculum, pedagogy, research, structure, processes, stakeholders, power, and politics – may be limiting change. Histories highlight particular characters and plots but what we do not include – what we write out of history – is just as important as what is written in (Jenkins, 2003). History is constitutive, in that our own interpretations of the past define and shape our present and our future (Wadhwani & Bucheli, 2014). Compared with other stochastic fields of study, histories of management and business are simplistically linear and mono-cultural. This constrains how we see business schools in the present, and can subsequently limit their future development (Cummings & Bridgman, 2016).
The conventional history of business education tends to follow the emergence of American business schools: from the founding of the Wharton School in 1881, to the rapid growth of business school enrollment within American universities leading up to the 1950s, to the standardization of the schools after the publication of the Gordon-Howell and Pierson reports in 1959 (Hommel & Thomas, 2014). This history has been crafted over many years and now goes largely unchallenged. But it begs the questions: why is this the story we tell, who gains and who loses from its telling, and what events and people are missing from a narrative that should be inspirational for a broad range of people?
North American business education has been studied at various points in a straightforward assessment style – what are business schools doing, how could they
“improve” (Bossard & Dewhurst, 1931; Gordon & Howell, 1959; Pierson, 1959; Porter & McKibbin, 1988), and also with a more complex analysis of context, history, power, and influence (Engwall, Kipping, Usdiken, 2016; Khurana, 2007; Pettigrew, Corneul, & Hommel, 2014). Work has been done on the history of European management education (cf. Engwall, 2004; Harker, Caemmerer, & Hynes, 2016; Kieser, 2004; Kipping, Usdiken, & Puig, 2004; Tiratsoo, 2004; Usdiken, 2004), and some have looked at the global South (Cooke & Alcadipani, 2015). We are beginning to see alternative histories of the development of management theory and education (Bridgman, Cummings, & McLaughlin, 2016; Dye, Mills, & Weatherbee, 2005; Hassard, 2012; Peltonen, 2015). However, what about histories of schools of business and commerce from other parts of the world (Asia, Africa, Australasia, South America) in more detail? Or from earlier centuries? Or different examples from North America or Europe that did not survive or later morphed toward the standard form?
This special issue seeks to move things forward by looking differently when we look back. It encourages submissions that explore emerging interests, historical barriers to change, and their interrelationships by focusing on the emergence and development of business schools as complex entities that are interwoven with universities, the business community, government, and civil society. It also seeks submissions that explore how these broader understandings may stimulate innovation in the way we configure business schools and, consequently, how we teach, conduct research, view our profession, and relate to our stakeholders.
In this call for papers, we – professors/educators, researchers/inquirers, sufferers/critics, and aspirational as well as actual change agents – are the organizational actors, and business schools are our reflective historical setting; more importantly, they are our actual environment. We have a unique opportunity to push management theory, research methods, and interdisciplinarity to better understand and, more importantly, to reinvent business school(s) in light of what is socially or personally meaningful. We have contextual richness, personal and professional stakes, and a sense of crisis. Being able to change our practices from within, we are uniquely situated to bring scholarship, formal positioning, and inhabited experience to bear.
Better historical scholarship could, therefore, help us to change ourselves. To engage historical sensibilities and methods, and empirical richness, to push theory and change institutions. As a call for spurring this process we welcome contributions that address the following questions:
  1. What people, events, curriculum, pedagogy, form, and research of business schools’ past have been overlooked by conventional historical narratives?
  2. What role could new histories play in debates about how business schools should develop? Can new understandings of the past inspire us to think differently for the future?
  3. How can we write reflexive or critical histories of business schools that expose the power and politics of business education and what we teach, or do not teach, students?
  4. Are histories being used within business schools or other organizations, such as accreditation bodies, academies and societies, to perpetuate traditional structures and/or norms? Why and to what effect?
  5. What are the ‘invented traditions’ that support any or all aspects of the institution of business schools and what purpose were they invented to serve?
  6. What are the stories of the development of business education outside of North America or prior to the late 19th century? Are these different or the same as the current narrative? How, why, and what can we learn from these alternative histories?
  7. How has history traditionally been taught in business schools? What are the positive and limiting effects of this pedagogy? How could we teach history differently?
  8. Why should business school students learn more (or less) history? Or learn it differently?
  9. How might management scholars using history in their research influence business education?
Call on AMLE Website

References
Alvesson, M,. & Sandberg, J. 2012. Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and innovative research. Journal of Management Studies, 50(1): 128-152.

Augier, M. and March, J. 2011. The roots, rituals, and rhetorics of change: North
American business schools after the second World War. Stanford University Press.

Bossard, J. H. S., & Dewhurst, J. F. 1931. University education for business: A study of
existing needs and practices. Philadelphia. PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Bridgman, T., Cummings, S., & McLaughlin, C. 2016. Restating the case: How revisiting the development of the case method can help us think differently about the future of the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(4): 724-741.

Cooke, B., & Alcadipani, R. 2015. Toward a global history of management education: The case of the Ford Foundation and the São Paulo School of Business Administration, Brazil. Academy of Management Learning & Education,14(4): 482-499.

Cummings, S. & Bridgman, T. 2016. The limits and possibilities of history: How a wider,
deeper and more engaged understanding of business history can foster innovative thinking. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 15(2): 250-267.

Dye, K., Mills, A. J., & Weatherbee, T. 2005. Maslow: Man interrupted: Reading
management theory in context. Management Decision, 43(10): 1375-1395.

Engwall, L. 2004. The Americanization of Nordic management education. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 13(2): 109-117.

Engwall, L., Kipping, M., & Usdiken, B. 2016. Defining management: Business
schools, consultants, media. New York: Routledge.

Gordon, R. A., & Howell, J. E. 1959. Higher education for business. New York:
Columbia University Press.

Harker, M. J., Caemmerer, B., & Hynes, N. 2016. Management education by the French
Grandes Ecoles de Commerce: Past, present, and an uncertain future. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(3): 549-568.

Hassard, J. 2012. Rethinking the Hawthorne Studies: The Western Electric research in its
social, political and historical context. Human Relations, 65(11): 1431-1461.

Hommel, U., & Thomas, H. 2014. Research on business schools. In A. M. Pettigrew, E.
Corneul, & U. Hommel (Eds.), The institutional development of business
schools: 8-36. Oxford: Oxford University PRess.

Jenkins, K. 2003. Refiguring history: New thoughts on an old discipline. London, U.K.:
Routledge.

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

Khurana, R., & Spender, J. C. 2012. Herbert A. Simon on What Ails Business Schools: More than ‘A Problem in Organizational Design’. Journal of Management Studies, 49: 619–639.

Kieser, A. 2004. The Americanization of academic management education in Germany.
Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2): 90-97.

Kipping, M., Usdiken, B., & Puig, N. 2004. Imitation, tension, and hybridization:
Multiple “Americanizations” of management education in Mediterranean Europe. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2): 98-108.

Peltonen, T. 2015. History of management thought in context: The case of Elton Mayo in Australia. In P. G. McLaren, A. J. Mills, & T. G. Weatherbee (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Management and Organizational History. Abindon, UK: Sage.

Pettigrew, A. M., Corneul, E., & Hommel, U. 2014. The institutional development of
business schools. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pierson, F. C. 1959. The education of American business men: A study in university-
college programs in business administration. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Porter, L. W., & McKibbin, L. E. 1988. Management education and development: Drift
or thrust into the 21st century? New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Spender, J.C. 2016. How management education’s past shapes its present. BizEd.

Tiratsoo, N. 2004. The “Americanization” of management education in Britain. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2): 118-126.

Usdiken, B. 2004. Americanization of European management education in historical and
comparative perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2): 87-89.

Wadhwani, D., & Bucheli, M. 2014. The future of the past in management and organization studies. In D. Wadhwani, & M. Bucheli (Eds.), Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods. New York: Oxford University Press.

Windrush scandal: a historian on why destroying archives is never a good idea

Reblogged from the Imperial and Global Forum:

Imperial & Global Forum

File 20180424 57604 lrbqk.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Sanwal Deen/Unsplash

Dora Vargha
University of Exeter

Archival practices rarely make headlines. Databases are sexy, archives less so – at least for most people. Whenever we do read about archives, it’s almost exclusively in the context of something disappearing. Apparently, we never know a good thing until it’s gone.

Most recently, it transpired that the Home Office apparently destroyed Windrush landing cards eight years ago. These, it now seems, were crucial documents in establishing the legal status of Caribbean-born residents who arrived in the 1950s and 1960s. The question of exactly who is to take the blame for this action remains under debate.

This is not the first time the government has had to admit to this kind of practice. A few months ago the Foreign Office admitted to its role in key documents “disappearing” from the National Archives. Among them were papers on the colonial administration of…

View original post 773 more words

Management History Division: Get Involved and VOTE

In recent years management and organizational history has become an exciting and rapidly changing field, with new ideas and approaches transforming the field and many publication opportunities at leading journals. The AOM’s Management History Division is one of the key institutional foundations for these developments, but the Division needs involvement and support from scholars who are engaged and care about the future of the field. So please get involved. The AOM recently announced the release of the ballot for division elections. If you are already a member of the MH Division, please take time to vote!!! If you are not a member but care about management history, please join the Division, vote now, and join us in Chicago!  The instructions for joining the MH Division can be found here: http://aom.org/FAQs/Membership/How-do-I-change-or-add-an-additional-division-or-interest-group-to-my-profile-.aspx

CFP: Business History Conference 2019, Cartagena

Reblogged from the Past Speaks:

The Past Speaks

The 2019 annual meeting of the Business History Conference will be held in Cartagena de Indias, Colombia, on March 14–16. The theme of the meeting will be “Globalization and De-Globalization: Shifts of Power and Wealth.” The recent phenomena of the spread of populist and economic nationalist regimes throughout North America, Europe, Asia and elsewhere taking positions against the major trading blocks and the free movement of people and goods make the topic of this conference very timely. The conference aims to concentrate on business history research agendas that enable a nuanced understanding of the phenomena of globalization and de-globalization.

The conference theme encourages contributions from a variety of approaches to business history research, covering a broad range of geographies and periods. The program committee of Marcelo Bucheli (co-chair), Andrea Lluch (co-chair), Takafumi KurosawaEspen StorliLaura Sawyer, and Teresa da Silva Lopes (BHC president) invites paper proposals…

View original post 730 more words