Deadline tomorrow! PhD course in ethnography

PhD Course: Doing ethnography of reforms in public organizations 

The PhD course is founded by The Ethnographic Research into Public Sector Reforms (The Danish Council for Independent Research, Culture and Communication) at Center for Alcohol and Drug Research, Aarhus BSS, Aarhus University in collaboration with University of Liverpool

Aim of course:

The aim of the PhD course is to bring together PhD students with disciplinary backgrounds such as anthropology, sociology, political science, public management, and business administration who share an ethnographic approach to the study of public sector reform and development. In doing that, we are part of an emerging trend to study politics, policy implementation, and public administration through ethnographic fieldwork. This approach has long been used by scholars of international development (Mosse 2004; Scott 1998), but only recently have political science and public administration turned to ethnography (Auyero & Joseph 2007). These works highlight a growing scholarly interest in understanding political and administrative systems by exploring the everyday practices of their multiple actors. Further, these studies demonstrate that the ethnographic research methods are well suited to examine both organizational contingencies and the processes through which micro-actions relate to, feed into, and ultimately transform macro-level structures. In the PhD course, we will examine and theorise the shared and country-specific ways in which the reform pace influence the work life and service delivery of public employees.

 Course objective:

The course is primarily targeting PhD students, who have applied or are going to apply ethnographic methods to study public organizations. In this course, we have a particular focus on ethnographies of political and administrative reforms and their implications for everyday practices. That is how new demands are perceived, translated and enacted in various local, organizational settings. The overall objective of the course is to assist the PhD students to:

  • Identify and discuss (potential) benefits and challenges applying an ethnographic approach to studies of reforms in public organizations.
  • Unpack field work material and identify potential analytical issues and how to contextualize these.
  • Discuss the development of analytical concepts and ideas.
  • How to write academic texts on the basis of ethnographic field work.

ECTS:  5 ECTs if all days are followed

Deliverables: Submission of up to 10 pages description of PhD project and subsequent assignment based on workshops at day 3

Dates: 29th-31st August 2017

Deadline for submission of abstracts: 6th June 2017. Please note, that there is a limited amount of participants in this course (16 students). Therefore, please send an abstract of no more than 200 words to Bagga Bjerge: bb.crf@psy.au.dk. Based on the submitted abstracts, 16 participants will be chosen by the organizers of the workshop.

Venue: Manchester, United Kingdom

Preparation for the course:

Prior to the course participants are requested to submit a description of their ideas of and reflections on how to apply ethnographic methods in their study or a description based on their actual experiences of applying these methods and the data collected (up to ten pages). Within 14 days after the PhD course, the students are required to hand in an assignment based on insights and inspirations gained from the course.

Day 1

Head of session: Mike Rowe, University of Liverpool, Liz Turner, University of Liverpool, Nina Holm Vohnsen, Aarhus University, Bagga Bjerge, Aarhus University,

Considering the present speed of reform in public organizations it is reasonable to say that legislative change and organizational reconfiguration have turned into a permanent condition for many public organizations. As a result, in many areas of intervention (e.g. policing, social work, tax inspection, and education) the work lives of public employees are characterized by the need to reconcile and adapt to competing programs and constantly revised legislation. The literature in anthropology, political science, and public administration all stress that the cooperation of public employees is vital for the implementation of national legislation and reforms. Yet little has been written about how public sector employees learn about the content of new acts and reforms; and how they navigate the various demands made of them and deliver their services within the framework of public organizations characterized by such perpetual change. Thus, the focus of this session is on the benefits and challenges of applying ethnographic methods, when studying political and administrative reforms in public organizations in the everyday practices of public sector employees. Further, by taking our point of departure from the PhD students´ papers, the sessions also focus on and identify potential analytical issues and how to contextualize these drawing on the readings for the course as well as supplementary literature. By thorough reading and feed-back from peers as well as senior researchers, the session aims to discuss the development of analytical concepts and ideas of each paper.

 

Day 2

On the second day, there are two workshops.

Starting out in the Field

Head of session: Mike Rowe, University of Liverpool, David Weir, Edge Hill University, Bagga Bjerge, Aarhus University

For those students at an early stage in their thinking and planning, this workshop will consider the familiar hurdles of ethical approval, gaining access and the little considered practicalities of venturing into unfamiliar terrain.  Supported by experienced researchers, the principal aim of the session is to dispel some familiar anxieties and instill some of the sense of excitement that we feel as practitioners every time we are privileged to share someone else’s space and thoughts.

 Theorising from data

Head of session: Nina Holm Vohnsen, Aarhus University, Manuela Nocker, University of Essex, Liz Turner, University of Liverpool

For those students who have begun or completed their fieldwork, this workshop will consider approaches to analysis of your fieldnotes, interviews, secondary materials and other data.  Supported by experience researchers, the session will discuss different approaches to analysis.  Some are more systematic, some are more intuitive.  We will explore the process of making sense of your data, connecting with theory and developing your own contribution to knowledge.  We will also discuss the challenges of then presenting that deep and rich understanding as a written text, a thesis.

 Day 3

On the third day, there is one workshop.

 Writing Workshop

Head of session: Mike Rowe, Matthew Brannan and Manuela Nocker, Editors of the Journal of Organizational Ethnography

This session is a writing workshop in which PhD students and other participants are invited to discuss their experiences of writing for, submitting to and receiving feedback from journals (as distinct from writing a thesis).  While the discussion is intended as an opportunity to learn about the processes of writing for publication, we will also seek to develop support for students through peer review and feedback on written submissions to the workshop.  In the spirit of encouraging experimentation, we will also consider the potential that the increasing use of on-line access has for publishing in new formats in academic journals.  Specifically, we will explore the use of sound and moving images embedded in texts.

Head of sessions:

Dr Mike Rowe, Management School, University of Liverpool

Dr Liz Turner, Sociology, Social Policy and Criminology, University of Liverpool

Professor David Weir, Business School, Edge Hill University

Dr Manuela Nocker, Business School, University of Essex

Dr Matthew Brannan, Management School, Keele University

Assistant Professor Nina Holm Vohnsen, Anthropology, Aarhus University

Associate Professor Bagga Bjerge, Center for Alcohol and Drug Research, Aarhus University

 Additional information

There is no fee for PhD students. The PhD course is run before and parallel with the 12th Annual Ethnography Symposium: Politics and Ethnography in an Age of Uncertainty in association with the Journal of Organizational Ethnography and Ethnographic Research into Public Sector Reforms, Aarhus University. PhD students are encouraged to participate in the symposium free of charges. For further information on the Symposium see: http://www.confercare.manchester.ac.uk/events/ethnography/

 Readings (app. 200 pages)

Auyero, J. and Joseph, L. (2007). Introduction: Politics under the Ethnographic Microscope, in Joseph, L., Mahler, M., and Auyero, J. (Eds.): New Perspectives on Political Ethnography, New York: Springer: 1-13.

Bjerge, B. (2012). Structural Reform as New Public Management Policy. Three Dilemmas in Danish Substance Misuse Treatment, in Hellman, M., Roos, G., and Wright, J. v. (Eds.): A Welfare Policy Patchwork – Negotiating the Public Good in Times of Transition. Stockholm, NVC: 181-201.

Bjerregaard, T. (2011). Co-existing institutional logics and agency among top-level public servants: A praxeological approach. Journal of Management and Organization 17(2): 194-209.

Boll, K. (2015). Deciding on Tax Evasion: Front Line discretion and Constraints. Journal of Organizational Ethnography. 4: 193-207.

Ferdinand, J., Pearson, G., Rowe, M., and8 Worthington, F. (2007). A different kind of ethics. Ethnography, 8(4): 521-544.

Mosse, D. (2004). Is good policy unimplementable? Reflections on the ethnography of aid policy and practice. Development and Change, 35(4), 639-671.

Rhodes, R. A. W. (2011). Everyday Life in British Government. New York: Oxford University Press. Chapter 1.

Stevens, A. (2011). Telling Policy Stories: An Ethnographic Study of the Use of Evidence in Policy-making in the UK. Journal of Social Policy, 40(2): 237-255.

Tsoukas, H. & Chia, R. C. H. (2002). On organizational becoming: rethinking organizational change. Organizational Science, 13(5): 567-582.

Turner, E. and Rowe, M. (forthcoming), ‘Police culture, talk and action: exploring narratives in ethnographic data’, European Journal of Policing Studies

Vohnsen, N. H. (2015). Street-level planning; the shifty nature of `local knowledge and practice´. Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 4(2): 147-161.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Ethnography Symposium Manchester 2017

Ethnography symposium

History & Ethnography Track

Stephanie Decker & John Hassard

 

Thursday 31 August 2017

14:00-15:30         Session 1 – Ethnographies of Work, Workplaces, and Space

Guel Oczan (University of Istanbul): “At the Interface of History and Ethnography: Doing Research on Craftspeople, Shopkeepers and Apprentices in Istanbul”

Hiral Patel (University of Reading): “Exhibitions: Sites of intersection between history and ethnography”

Smitha Sebastian, Alison Hirst, Simon Down (Anglia Ruskin University) “Making sense of workplace and organizational ethnographies: A historical perspective”

Friday 1 September 2017

10:00-11:00         Session 2 – History and Ethnography in research practice

David Weir (York St. John’s University) “I have been here before:  reflections on the New Industrial Strategy”

Stella Stoycheva, Giovanni Favero (Ca’Foscari University, Venice) “Research strategies for ethnostatistics in organization studies”

11:00-11:30         Coffee break

11:30-13:00        Session 3 – Historicizing Ethnography

Budhaditya Das (Ambedkar University Delhi) “Coercion, concessions and trusteeship: a historical anthropology of state rule in post-colonial central India”

Marie Leth Meilvang (Univeristy of Copenhagen) “Historicizing professional practice”

Stephanie Decker, John Hassard: Closing remarks

13:00-14:00         Lunch

Extended deadline: History & Ethnography

Conference submission deadline extended to 31 March!!

12th Annual International Ethnography Symposium

“Politics and Ethnography in an Age of Uncertainty”

29 August – 1 September 2017 
Alliance Manchester Business School

Stream 3: History and Ethnography

Stephanie Decker and John Hassard

History and ethnography have largely evolved in parallel, despite some significant research contributions from historical ethnography and ethnographic history (Rowlinson, Hassard, & Decker, 2014). To a large extent, organizational ethnographers research ‘literate’ settings in which social actors essentially self-document their experience through a variety of genres of anthropological and sociological writing. However, as Paul Atkinson and Amanda Coffey have pointed out, “many qualitative researchers continue to produce ethnographic accounts of complex, literate social worlds as if they were entirely without documents or text” (Atkinson & Coffey, 2011, p. 78). In this stream, we aim to bring the practices of historical research (largely but not exclusively text-based) closer to the practices of organizational ethnographers (largely focused on direct observation).

History and ethnography appear to overlap in many ways: First, there is the history of organizational ethnography that has not seen extensive exploration. Attempts to understand the disciplinary, intellectual and organizational origins of a field are made as research areas mature and become more established (Hassard, 2012; O’Connor, 1999). Such an approach to history helps to challenge present-day understanding and open up new areas for research.

Second, as indicated in the quotation above, ethnographers encounter history during their fieldwork in a variety of ways. Ethnographies of museums or symbolic sites are obvious examples, but equally important are the oral histories elicited through interviewing, the public histories that organizations or its members produce, and in some cases the academic business histories about organizations that become reference points for action and identities (Yanow, 1998). History and memory overlap closely here, but nevertheless remain conceptually distinct. Histories are mobilized for particular organizational purposes in the present (Ybema, 2014) and form part of a wider organizational rhetoric (Suddaby, Foster, & Quinn Trank, 2010).

Third, historians have frequently taken an ethnographic sensibility to their research. Italian microhistory in the 1980s was an obvious case (Ginzburg, 2012; Levi, 1991), and cultural history has focused on research questions and methodological approaches that are closely related to ethnographic debates. Archival research can be approached just as entering a research site, and historians often serendipitously encounter the everyday among more standardized organizational documentation (Decker, 2013; McKinlay, 2002).

We welcome submissions dealing with the intersection between history and ethnography. Please submit a 500 word abstract or proposal by Tuesday 28th February 2017 to s.decker@aston.ac.uk.

History & Ethnography conference

12th Annual International Ethnography Symposium

“Politics and Ethnography in an Age of Uncertainty”

29 August – 1 September 2017 
Alliance Manchester Business School

Stream 3: History and Ethnography

Stephanie Decker and John Hassard

History and ethnography have largely evolved in parallel, despite some significant research contributions from historical ethnography and ethnographic history (Rowlinson, Hassard, & Decker, 2014). To a large extent, organizational ethnographers research ‘literate’ settings in which social actors essentially self-document their experience through a variety of genres of anthropological and sociological writing. However, as Paul Atkinson and Amanda Coffey have pointed out, “many qualitative researchers continue to produce ethnographic accounts of complex, literate social worlds as if they were entirely without documents or text” (Atkinson & Coffey, 2011, p. 78). In this stream, we aim to bring the practices of historical research (largely but not exclusively text-based) closer to the practices of organizational ethnographers (largely focused on direct observation).

History and ethnography appear to overlap in many ways: First, there is the history of organizational ethnography that has not seen extensive exploration. Attempts to understand the disciplinary, intellectual and organizational origins of a field are made as research areas mature and become more established (Hassard, 2012; O’Connor, 1999). Such an approach to history helps to challenge present-day understanding and open up new areas for research.

Second, as indicated in the quotation above, ethnographers encounter history during their fieldwork in a variety of ways. Ethnographies of museums or symbolic sites are obvious examples, but equally important are the oral histories elicited through interviewing, the public histories that organizations or its members produce, and in some cases the academic business histories about organizations that become reference points for action and identities (Yanow, 1998). History and memory overlap closely here, but nevertheless remain conceptually distinct. Histories are mobilized for particular organizational purposes in the present (Ybema, 2014) and form part of a wider organizational rhetoric (Suddaby, Foster, & Quinn Trank, 2010).

Third, historians have frequently taken an ethnographic sensibility to their research. Italian microhistory in the 1980s was an obvious case (Ginzburg, 2012; Levi, 1991), and cultural history has focused on research questions and methodological approaches that are closely related to ethnographic debates. Archival research can be approached just as entering a research site, and historians often serendipitously encounter the everyday among more standardized organizational documentation (Decker, 2013; McKinlay, 2002).

We welcome submissions dealing with the intersection between history and ethnography. Please submit a 500 word abstract or proposal by Tuesday 28th February 2017 to s.decker@aston.ac.uk.

EGOS tracks with history

Next year, the Standing Working Group 8: History in Organization Studies, will no longer run at the European Group for Organization Studies Annual Conference. But since Copenhagen Business School is celebrating its centenary (please see the final call for sub-theme 44), there are in fact three tracks that mention history in their call. Hopefully see you next year at one of these tracks!

Sub-theme 04: (SWG) Long-shots and Close-ups: Organizational Ethnography, Process and History

… Ethnography – or, to emphasize its processual nature: ethnographying (Tota, 2004) – typically means, first, having a prolonged and intensive engagement with the research setting, following actors, issues, materials as they move through time and space (fieldwork). Second, ethnography embraces a sensibility towards overt, tacit and/or concealed processes of meaning-making (sensework). Third, ethnographic analyses are commonly presented through a written text, which places both author and reader at the scene, in the midst of a process, while also placing the day-to-day happenings within a social, political, and historical context (textwork). This allows organizational ethnographers to capture the unfolding of organizational life and its dynamism in at least two different ways (van Hulst et al., forthcoming; Ybema et al., 2009): taking ‘long shots’ that follow developments over an extended period of time (long-term dynamics) and making ‘close-ups’ of the dynamics of day-to-day organizational life (short-term dynamics). Some ethnographic researchers stretch their fieldwork over many months or years of present-time work; others include historical analysis and archival data. Both of these allow researchers to follow slow-paced developments or sudden transformations over long periods of time. These longitudinal ethnographies offer in-depth accounts of organizational life across time. A second potential strength of ethnography for studying organizational processes lies in its quality of eyeing the moment-to-moment details of everyday organizing. Having a shorter term focus, these studies bring into view, for instance, situational dynamics or organizational bricolage. …

For more details, please see the EGOS website.

Sub-theme 43: Theorizing the Past, Present and Future in Organization Theory

We have already posted the full call, but here just a quick introduction:

“Many organizational outcomes are the result of processes that occur over long periods of time. In spite of this, within much macro-level research the passage of time tends to be assumed or ignored, rather than theorized rigorously (Bluedorn & Denhardt, 1988; Goodman et al., 2001; Lee & Liebenau, 1999). One way in which we exclude time from our theories is by studying climactic moments of change. Although these “moments of institutional choice” are inherently interesting, focusing on them risks privileging the instance of change at the expense of the essential groundwork that generated the conditions under which the opportunity for change emerged (Pierson, 2004, p. 136). That is, our preference for studying dramatic instances of revolutionary change means that we know relatively little about processes of evolutionary change.”

For more details, please see the EGOS website.

Sub-theme 44: Rethinking History, Rethinking Business Schools

The EGOS Colloquium in 2017 coincides with the 100th anniversary of Copenhagen Business School (CBS), which will be commemorated in part by the publication of a history of the Business School written by members of the Centre for Business History at CBS. This coincidence provides an opportunity to rethink both the role of history in business schools, as well as the history of business schools themselves, along with the part played by management and organization studies within that history.

Both business schools and organization studies have sought to legitimate themselves through history in relation to older disciplines in the university. Textbooks regularly claim Max Weber as a founder for the so-called “Classical School” of management and organization studies even though Weber himself could never have been an adherent of such a school because it was only invented, along with organization studies, long after he died (Cummings & Bridgman, 2011). When Harvard Business School was facing criticism in the 1930s for the banality of management research, one response from the Dean, Wallace B. Donham, was to hire a historian to study management and to use a donation from the retailer Gordon Selfridge to buy historical business documents from Italy relating to the Medici family during the Renaissance (O’Connor, 2012, p. 58). …

For more details, please see the EGOS website.

Using history to explore routines

Today’s blog has been written by Alistair Mutch from Nottingham Business School, who has recently explored the role of historical research in organizational routines. If you enjoyed reading this, and have some ideas or content you would like to blog about, let us know!

Stephanie, Dan & Christina

Using history to explore routines

By Alistair Mutch

At a symposium on historical approaches to management research at Oxford in September 2015 a very good question was asked about the feasibility of historical investigations of practice. This was in the context of a widespread shift to looking at practices, such as organizational routines, from a processual perspective. This focuses on the dynamic nature of such routines, examining them from the inside. It follows that to do this, intensive research methods, such as ethnography, are favoured. Where does this leave history?
If we conceptualise routines in this manner, then quite clearly history, even oral history, is going to struggle. However, as I argue in a recent article in Organization Studies (doi: 10.1177/0170840616634134), there are downsides to the focus on change and process. One is that we lose a sense of the ‘routineness’ of routines. Another is that they become detached from the broader context which supplies the parameters within which action takes place. For these reasons, I suggest, history has a role. It is rare to get first hand descriptions of practices. We are much more likely to have the traces of practices, traces which are particularly valuable when they appear in documents which were produced as a routine part of operations. What a practice lens does is to encourage us to pay attention to the mundane and taken-for-granted, to the evidence that is overlooked when our focus is on events and organizations. I explore the nature of one routine, the visitation of local churches, in three different times and contexts: fifteenth-century Catholic Italy, eighteenth-century Anglican England and eighteenth-century Presbyterian Scotland.
The latter is particularly blessed with extensive record survivals. Access to these through digital imaging and the use of analysis tools like spreadsheets makes it easier than ever before to do extensive comparative work. For my book on eighteenth-century Scotland, for example, I examined some 1,800 accounting balances across 80 parishes to be able to show that in only a tiny number of cases were balances negative at the annual reconciliation. This becomes significant when contrasted to what we know of England, where over half of such balances were negative. This says something about the organizational forms and practices that characterised each church.
I hope that this article addresses some of the concerns about investigating practices using historical methods. It might also show how historical work can contribute to contemporary debates in organizational theory.

References

  • Alistair Mutch, ‘Bringing history into the study of routines: contextualizing performance’, Organization Studies, 2016, doi: 10.1177/0170840616634134.
  • Alistair Mutch, Religion and National Identity: Governing Scottish Presbyterianism in the Eighteenth Century, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2015.

Full program ESRC seminar 17 February 2016

ESRC Seminar Series: Historicising the theory and practice of organizational analysis

Seminar 4: Ethnography and Phenomenological Approaches

 17 February 2016, Alumni Club Room, Alliance Manchester Business School, Booth Street West, Manchester M15 6PB

Final programme and arrangements

0930-1000       Arrival and Refreshments

1000-1015       Welcome and Introduction

1015-1100       Alan McKinlay (Newcastle U): “Foucault and the archive”

1100-1145       Bill Cooke (York U): “The affect of the archive”

1145-1200       Coffee/Tea

1200-1245       Andrea Whittle (Newcastle U): “History-in-action”

1245-1330       Buffet Lunch

1330-1415       Andrea Bernardi (Manchester Metropolitan U): “Auto-ethnography”

1415-1500       Stephanie Decker (Aston U) “Archival ethnography”

1500-1515       Coffee/Tea

1515-1600       Lucy Newton (Reading U): “Corporate identity”

1600-               Discussion and Closing Remarks

Registration and attendance:  The workshop is basically “full” but we have been allocated a few extra free places and these will be allocated on a “first come first served” basis. A conference registration fee of £30.00 will be charged on additional places and this will include refreshments and buffet lunch.

Travel & accommodation: Expenses should be covered by participants (except speakers, whose travel and accommodation costs will be covered). Accommodation for speakers (for night of 16 February) is at the Pendulum Hotel, Sackville Street, Manchester, M1 3BB (note: the Pendulm Hotel is approximately 10 minutes’ walk from Manchester Piccadilly station and 10 minutes walk from Alliance Manchester Business School).  Workshop organisers will be in the lobby of the Pendulum Hotel at 0900-0915  on 17 February to walk delegates to AMBS (West Building).

Pre-conference dinner: A preconference dinner will be held for speakers and organisers at Evuna NQ, 79 Thomas Street, Manchester M4 1LQ.   The dinner is scheduled to start at 8pm.  The restaurant is in the “Northern Quarter” district of the city. Speakers and organisers will meet at 1930 in the lobby of the Pendulum Hotel and walk to the restaurant (weather permitting). Can anyone who has specific dietary requirements (vegetarian, vegan, diabetic, etc) please advise Nighat Din in advance.

Venue: The workshop will be held in the Alumni Club Room, Alliance Manchester Business School, Booth Street West, Manchester M15 6PB.  Alliance Manchester Business School is approximately 15 minutes walk from Manchester Oxford Road station (20 minutes from Manchester Piccadilly). See University of Manchester website for details. The entrance to AMBS is the main door (West Building) on Booth Street West (note: there is currently current building work in operation connected with the refurbishment of the School but this does not affected access from Booth Street West).

For further enquiries: Please contact the conference administrator (Nighat Din: nighat.din@mbs.ac.uk] or members of the organizing team: John Hassard (john.hassard@mbs.ac.uk) and Damian O’Doherty (damian.odoherty@mbs.ac.uk), both at Manchester Business School); Stephanie Decker (s.decker@aston.ac.uk) at Aston Business School; or Mick Rowlinson (m.rowlinson@qmul.ac.uk) at Queen Mary University London.

 

 

ESRC seminar 4

esrc-logoESRC Seminar Series: Historicising the theory and practice of organizational analysis

Seminar 4: Ethnography and Phenomenological Approaches

17 February 2016, Alliance Manchester Business School, Oxford Road, Manchester

Our next event in the ESRC seminar series will be hosted by Alliance Manchester Business School on Wednesday 17 February 2016. The programme is as follows:

0900-0930       Arrival and Refreshments
0930-0945       Welcome and Introduction
0945-1030       Alan McKinlay (Newcastle U): “Foucault and the archive”
1030-1115         Bill Cooke (York U): “The affect of the archive”
1115-1130         Coffee/Tea
1130-1215       Andrea Bernardi (Manchester Metropolitan U): “Auto-ethnography”
1215-1300       Andrea Whittle & John Wilson (Newcastle U): “History-in-action”
1300-1345       Buffet Lunch
1345-1430      Stephanie Decker (Aston U): “Archival ethnography”
1430-1515       Lucy Newton (Reading U): “Corporate identity”
1515-1530       Coffee/Tea
1530-1615       Daniel Mai (Consultant: Berlin): “Cultures of remembrance”
1615                Discussion and Closing Remarks

Registration: There are 25 free (ESRC-sponsored) places that will be allocated on a “first come first served” basis. A conference registration fee of £30.00 will be charged on additional places and this will include refreshments and buffet lunch.

Travel & accommodation: Expenses should be covered by participants (except speakers, whose travel and accommodation costs will be covered).

The workshop will be held in Alliance Manchester Business School, Booth Street West, Manchester M15 6PB. Alliance Manchester Business School is approximately 15 minutes walk from Manchester Oxford Road station. See University of Manchester website for details.

For further enquiries please contact the conference administrator (Nighat Din: nighat.din@mbs.ac.uk] or members of the organizing team: John Hassard (john.hassard@mbs.ac.uk) and Damian O’Doherty (damian.odoherty@mbs.ac.uk), both at Manchester Business School); Stephanie Decker (s.decker@aston.ac.uk) at Aston Business School; or Mick Rowlinson (m.rowlinson@qmul.ac.uk) at Queen Mary University London.