Slaven doctoral colloquium 2018

Workshop report by Julia Fernando, doctoral student at Aston Business School:

This year, I had the pleasure of attending the seventh annual Tony Slaven Doctoral workshop held by the Association of Business Historians (ABH) conference. The workshop is designed to enable doctoral students to share their research with academics and other students from the field of business history and receive feedback.

I submitted my proposal to the workshop with some hesitation – my academic and professional background is firmly rooted in Work and Organisational Psychology, with a particular focus on the experiences of women in the world of work. My current research, however, is inter-disciplinary, drawing on Area Studies, Work Psychology and Business History to explore the contemporary and historical factors influencing the patterns of female entrepreneurship in Uganda.

Prior to my doctoral studies, I had come across historical methods in my wider reading of the social sciences but had never perceived a compatibility between the two disciplines. My lack of knowledge about history and historical methods threatened to dissuade me from applying to the workshop. However, the workshop’s reputation of having an informal and supportive atmosphere fought back the pangs of imposter syndrome and I successfully submitted a proposal.

The workshop preceded the annual ABH conference 2018, at the Open University, Milton Keynes. Upon arrival, I was invited to join a small selection of doctoral students and academics, who were congregating around the refreshments in the upstairs foyer of the Michael Young Building. My nerves immediately eased as we were warmly welcomed by Mitchell Larson and given an overview of the day.

The workshop comprised of presentations by doctoral students and skills sessions led by experienced academics. The day kicked off with two excellent student presentations on the history of banking and finance in the UK. Carolyn Keber discussed her research on UK investment trusts before WW1 and Oluwatoyin Olojido shared insights from her study on the role of aristocracy in British new share issues in 1891-1914.

A roundtable on doctoral examinations followed the morning’s presentations. I learnt about the common challenges facing final year students and the ways to best prepare for your final year defence from the perspective of experienced examiners in the room. As a first-year student, I listened in with great interest but a degree of psychological detachment – stressors for next year, I reminded myself…

After lunch, Professor Peter Miskell shared fascinating insights in his interactive session on the publication patterns of business historians. Learning that the Business History of Africa remains partial and less frequented, only further sparked my motivation for adopting historical methods in my study of female entrepreneurship in Uganda.

Beatriz Rodriguez and I presented our research on the Business History of developing economies. Beatriz shared her proposed research design investigating the financing varieties of capitalism in Colombia after 1950 and I gave an overview of my research and motivations to contribute a Business History of women entrepreneurs in Uganda. A lively discussion followed both of our presentations, which spilled over into side conversations and discussions sometime after the workshop closed.

I walked into the Tony Slaven Workshop unclear about how historical methods could precisely complement the research question I am pursuing. I walked out with a sense of direction, pages of recommended reading and contact details of the academics who have already offered me extensive, informal support. I have felt hugely supported by the Tony Slaven Workshop organisers, attendees and the ABH community as a whole and would thoroughly recommend the workshop to any doctoral students incorporating an element of business history in their research.

The Slaven doctoral colloquium will run again next year, please go to the ABH website for updates: http://www.abh-net.org/ 

 

Advertisements

TOC: BH 60(6)

The  new issue of Business History is out:

The British corporate network, 1904–1976: Revisiting the finance–industry relationship
John F. Wilson, Emily Buchnea & Anna Tilba
Pages: 779-806 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1333106

Retailing under resale price maintenance: Economies of scale and scope, and firm strategic response, in the inter-war British retail pharmacy sector
Peter Scott & James T. Walker
Pages: 807-832 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1340455

Development built on crony capitalism? The case of Dangote Cement
Akinyinka Akinyoade & Chibuike Uche
Pages: 833-858 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1341492

A moving target: The geographic evolution of Silicon Valley, 1953–1990
Stephen B. Adams, Dustin Chambers & Michael Schultz
Pages: 859-883 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1346612

‘In the best position to reap mutually beneficial results’: Sole-agency agreements and the distribution of consumer durables in inter-war Britain
Nicholas D. Wong & Andrew Popp
Pages: 884-907 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1360287

Deadlock in corporate governance: Finding a common strategy for private telephone companies, 1978–1998
Pasi Nevalainen
Pages: 908-929 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1366448

Book Reviews

Innovation and technological diffusion: An economic history of early steam engines
Alessandro Nuvolari
Pages: 930-931 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1369635

 

Profits and Sustainability. A History of Green Entrepreneurship
Ann-Kristin Bergquist
Pages: 931-933 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1371433

 

Natural resources and economic growth. Learning from history
Valeria Giacomin
Pages: 933-935 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1376391

 

From main street to mall: The rise and fall of the American department store
Franck Cochoy
Pages: 935-939 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1376396

 

Les banques françaises et la Grande Guerre
Hubert Bonin
Pages: 939-940 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2016.1269525

Erratum

Correction to: The expansion of branding in international marketing: The case of olive oil, 1870s–1930s
Pages: x-x | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1361621

Peter Miskell: Content & Practice of Business History

Last weekend at the Association of Business Historians’ Conference, Peter Miskell (Henley Business School) gave a really insightful talk about the current state of business history. He kindly agreed to share the slides and write up a short summary for the Organizational History Network.

Who are business historians, and what is it that they do? Or more bluntly, what is business history? These are questions that have troubled professional business historians for at least a couple of decades, and to which no clear consensus has yet emerged. In one sense, this doesn’t seem to matter greatly. Business history conferences continue to be relatively well attended, attracting scholars from a range of related disciplines; business history journals are publishing an increasing quantity of articles; and business history related sub-groups are evident within wider scholarly communities such as the Academy of Management, the American Historical Association, and the European Group on Organisation Studies. On this evidence business history is thriving. Yet if pressed to define the intellectual core of the discipline – the central questions it addresses and the methods it uses to tackle them – it is difficult to identify a clear answer on which all can agree. If business historians appear to lack an agreed sense of intellectual mission, they also lack a common institutional home. Those of us who may have the confidence to self-identify as business historians at social gatherings are not, as a rule, employed in departments of business history. Within our workplaces we are often lone scholars, and in many cases our identity as business historians co-exists with (or is subordinate to) another disciplinary identity. In this sense business history is not an academic disciplines on a par with, say, economics or psychology or communication studies. It is a sub-discipline, but it is not entirely clear (even among its practitioners) what it is a sub-discipline of.

Rather than attempting to identify the core intellectual identity of business history, or to outline a grand vision of how the (sub-)discipline should develop in the coming years, perhaps it would be more useful to pause and take stock of what the business community actually looks like. Where is it that business historians actually work? Who pays their (our) salaries? What are the institutional ‘rules of the game’ within which they (we) work?

In attempting to address these questions I decided to set myself the simple task of finding out which academic departments business historians are affiliated to. Academic departments in universities, I would argue, constitute the key institutional structures within which most intellectual disciplines function. Different academic disciplines have their own institutional norms and conventions, which are typically learned and reinforced within academic departments through mechanisms such as recruitment practices, mentoring, tenure and promotion systems. In most cases the health (and viability) of these departments is measured by their ability to attract students. (There are some countries where departments are also explicitly measured on the quality of their research outputs, but these provide indications of reputation or prestige rather than of financial viability). Departments which fail to attract a sufficient volume of students are at risk of closure or merger, as exemplified by the fate of many departments of economic history in the UK. This means that business historians (like most academics) ultimately make a living through their teaching rather than their research. And since there are very few students applying to study business history degrees (and thus no departments of business history), this in turn means one of two things for business historians: either they need to teach business history in such a way as to make it relevant and interesting to students whose primary focus is elsewhere; or they need to teach subject matter that would not normally be regarded as business history at all (which might be marketing, entrepreneurship, strategy, or perhaps 19th century literature, or 20th century European history). The types of academic departments within which business historians find themselves may be more a matter of necessity than of choice. Mapping out the institutional contexts within which business historians work is an important step in understanding the nature of the discipline, and the challenges (and opportunities) with which it is presented.

The way I have chosen to do this is by collecting data on every article published in the three leading business history journals during the five year period from 2013-2017. In each case the first-named author has been identified, along with their home institution, their academic department, as well as information about the article itself (period, sector and geographical focus of the study). Not all of the authors identified this way would identify themselves primarily as business historians (though much the same could be said of many people who attend business history conferences). By looking at those individuals who have taken the trouble to submit their research to the main business history journals, and whose work has been accepted after a process of peer review, we at least have access to a community of scholars who have shown a willingness to engage in ideas and debates that are of interest to business historians.

I do not pretend that the methodology employed here constitutes a comprehensive census of business history around the world. The exclusive focus on English language journals is one obvious limitation, the focus on journal articles rather than books is another. But the trends which emerge are, I think, important ones. I hope the slides that accompany this post, at least provide some empirical evidence in relation to claims and assertions that are often made about business history, and the institutional contexts within which it is conducted. I plan to work this up into a paper for publication (perhaps in one of the three journals referred to here), but in the meantime would be very happy to receive any thoughts or comments from those who are interested.

Peter Miskell, Henley Business School, UK

 

2018 Hagley Prize winner

Hagley Museum and Library and the Business History Conference are pleased to announce the 2018 winner of the Hagley Prize:  Matatu:  A History of Popular Transportation in Nairobi (The University of Chicago Press, 2017) by Kenda Mutongi of Williams College.   Hagley Museum and Library and the Business History Conference jointly offer the Hagley Prize awarded to the best book in Business History (broadly defined) and consists of a medallion and $2,500.  The prize was awarded at the Business History Conference annual meeting held in Baltimore, Maryland, April 7th, 2018.

The prize committee encourages the submission of books from all methodological perspectives.  It is particularly interested in innovation studies that have the potential to expand the boundaries of the discipline.   Scholars, publishers, and other interested parties may submit nominations.  Eligible books can have either an American or an international focus.   They must be written in English and be published during the two years (2017 or 2018 copyright) prior to the award.

Four copies of a book must accompany a nomination and be submitted to the prize coordinator, Carol Ressler Lockman, Hagley Museum and Library, PO Box 3630, 298 Buck Road, Wilmington DE  19807-0630,  The deadline for nominations is November 30, 2018.   The 2019 Hagley Prize will be presented at the annual meeting of the Business History Conference in Cartagena, Colombia, March 16th, 2019.

 

ABH 2018 is finally here!

Association of Business Historians Annual Conference 2018

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

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 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.

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.

Image of Dr Joel Greenberg

Keynote speaker: Dr Joel Greenberg

We are delighted to announce this year’s keynote will be given by author and historian Dr Joel Greenberg. His talk is entitled ‘The Business of Signals Intelligence’. Further details are available to download.

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.

 

For full details and the conference programme, click here.

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.

Job advert: The rise of corporate titans

Queen’s University Centre for Economic History is looking for a highly-skilled Postdoctoral Research Fellow to work on a Leverhulme Trust-funded project (Title: “The Rise of Corporate Titans: CEOs in the UK, 1900-2016”) together with Professor John Turner and Dr Michael Aldous. This is a full-time, fixed-term post for 24 months only, starting 1st September 2018 (or as soon as possible thereafter).

 

The main objectives of the project are to:

  1. Discover the characteristics and career paths of UK CEOs from 1900 to 2016.
  2. Identify changes in the role of the CEO over time.
  3. Examine the effects that changes in legal and political institutions, economic environment and industrial organization have on CEO characteristics.
  4. Analyse the relationship between CEO characteristics and firm performance in the long run.

Candidates should hold or be about to obtain a PhD in a discipline with a strong methodological focus in Economic or Business History, or related Management fields.

Informal enquiries may be directed to Dr Michael Aldous, email: m.aldous@qub.ac.uk.

How to apply and further details can be found here.

Event at the HBS Business History Initiative

Understanding and Overcoming the Roadblocks to Sustainability

Over the past several decades, a vibrant scholarly community has generated thousands of empirical and conceptual studies on the complex relationship between business and the natural environment. At the same time, many large corporations have created positions of Corporate Sustainability Officer with the goal of achieving steady improvements in their sustainability performance. Despite substantial academic research and management attention, complex ecological challenges continue to grow. This unfortunate disconnect between aspirations and reality has begun to provoke some self-reflection in the business and natural environment literature concerning its impact and relevance.

A significant body of research on corporate sustainability has examined win-win outcomes, where firms have reduced their environmental and other impacts while reaping economic benefits. Less attention has been devoted to tensions inherent in corporate sustainability, where moving in the direction of sustainability has required managers to change their business models, form risky partnerships, and otherwise incur net costs. Recent empirical business history research appears to show that profits and sustainability have been hard to reconcile throughout history. These tensions and conflicts merit careful examination from a variety of scholarly and practitioner perspectives.

This conference will focus on the roadblocks to sustainability since the 1960s and develop a research agenda for scholars seeking to overcome those roadblocks. In addition to offering a retrospective analysis of where corporate sustainability has fallen short, the conference will explore the incentives, organizational designs, and institutional systems that would allow sustainability to take hold.

Registration details can be found on the conference registration page.

 

ToC: BH 60,5 SI on Institutional Change

Special issue in: Historical research on institutional change

Special issue introduction: Historical research on institutional change
Stephanie Decker, Behlül Üsdiken, Lars Engwall & Michael Rowlinson
Pages: 613-627 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2018.1427736

Interfield Dynamics: Law and the creation of new organisational fields in the nineteenth-century United States
R. Daniel Wadhwani
Pages: 628-654 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1346610

Moral dividends: Freemasonry and finance capitalism in early-nineteenth-century America
Pamela A. Popielarz
Pages: 655-676 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2016.1248946

Hey DJ, don’t stop the music: Institutional work and record pooling practices in the United States’ music industry |
Neil Thompson
Pages: 677-698 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1308485

Managing the paradox of unwanted efficiency: The symbolic legitimation of the hypermarket format in Finland, 1960–1975
Jarmo Seppälä
Pages: 699-727 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1304540

Change dynamics in institutional discontinuities: Do formal or informal institutions change first? Lessons from rule changes in professional American baseball
Aya S. Chacar, Sokol Celo & William Hesterly
Pages: 728-753 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1342811

From data problems to questions about sources: elements towards an institutional analysis of population-level organisational change. The case of British building societies, 1845–1980
Olivier Butzbach
Pages: 754-777 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2016.1274304
Corrigendum

Correction to: Interfield Dynamics: Law and the creation of new organisational fields in the nineteenth-century United States
Pages: x-x | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2018.1432458