Tag: Time

CfP in JWB “Time Matters”

Steph

“Time Matters: Rethinking the Role of Time in International Business Research”

Submissions open August 15, 2020; Submissions due August 30, 2020

Guest Editors:

  • Emmanuella Plakoyiannaki, University of Leeds, UK
  • Eriikka Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, University of Turku, Finland
  • Melanie E. Hassett, University of Sheffield, UK
  • Elizabeth L. Rose, University of Leeds, UK
  • Peter W. Liesch, The University of Queensland, Australia

Supervising Editor:

  • Ulf Anderson, Mälardalen University, Sweden

Special Issue Overview

This special issue intends to stimulate thinking on the role and impact of time in International Business (IB) theory and practice. We seek conceptual, theoretical and empirical – both qualitative and quantitative – papers that advance our understanding of temporal issues as they pertain to IB phenomena.

The current global environment is changing rapidly. Climate change, migration, trade wars, political volatility, technological disruptions (e.g., artificial intelligence) and the depletion of natural resources create grand challenges for firms. Such rapid changes pose challenges to the applicability of traditional theories. While scholars are calling for grand theories to address grand challenges (e.g., Buckley, Doh & Benischke, 2017), firms are struggling with the timing of their international activities in an increasingly uncertain, disruptive and complex environment (Doh, 2015).

Time is central to IB theory and practice, relevant to both stability and change in internationalization and cross-border operations. It has a crucially important role in the three domains – the philosophical, conceptual, and the methodological (George & Jones, 2000). The literature reflects a strong interest in processes, particularly with respect to internationalization (Knight & Liesch, 2016; Odlin, 2019; Welch, Nummela, Liesch, 2016; Welch & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki 2014). However, much IB research seeks to advance our understanding of internationalization processes by focusing on antecedents and consequences of specific events, rather than on the events’ temporal emergence and their associated dynamic mechanisms (Jones & Coviello, 2005; for similar arguments see Pettigrew, 2012; Van de Ven 1992). For example, the focus is often on explaining firms’ attaining specific internationalization-related goals rather than explaining the temporally-embedded processes of how they reach the goals (Welch & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, 2014). Researchers are more likely to study initial foreign entry with less consideration given to subsequent post-entry strategies and their evolution (Chen, Sousa, & He, 2019; Fuad & Gaur, 2019).

While one of the first principles of process research is the study of events over time, several scholars (e.g., Hurmerinta, Paavilainen-Mäntymäki & Hassett, 2016; Jones & Coviello, 2005) have expressed concern in current and unfolding phenomena, such as Brexit and the trade wars between the US and China, highlight how political uncertainty can affect the timing of events in domestic and international business.

In addition, while IB research has long emphasized the importance of context (Delios, 2017; Teagarden, Von Glinow & Mellahi, 2018), we advocate explicit attention to time in our consideration of context to offer more deeply-contextualized explanations of IB phenomena (Welch, Piekkari, Plakoyiannaki, & Paavilainen, 2011). Accomplishing this will require the use of different methodological approaches, including the addition of deep historical accounts (e.g., Jones & Khanna 2006) and the application of novel tools such as interactive visualization (Schotter, Buchel, Vashchilko, 2018).

Few studies fully adopt a “temporal paradigm” (Pauwels & Matthyssens, 1999) vis-à-vis fieldwork, data sources (e.g. real time; longitudinal, retrospective) and focal phenomena (e.g. dynamic, discontinuous, historical). Time is often neglected despite its inherent presence in research design. Analytical approaches seldom allow for a processual contribution, rather relying on the prevailing variance-oriented approaches that disconnect processes through categorizations and coding (Welch & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, 2014).

The IB field will benefit from making effective use of processual analytical methods aimed at uncovering dynamics and the relationships between constructs, rather than focusing on their similarities and differences or their antecedents and consequences (Maxwell & Miller, 2008). Bringing business history perspectives and the analogous futures research methods to the IB toolkit will help IB scholars make stronger theoretical contributions. Methodological advances are needed.

In qualitative research, the methodological approaches used in IB for analyzing temporal and processrelated phenomena remain underdeveloped (Plakoyiannaki, Wei, & Prashantham, 2019). Process and temporal research is currently subject to limitations associated with narratives that may be considered as chronologies of anecdotes that can be potentially flawed due to memory bias, hindsight-based conclusions and subjective choices regarding what is included in retrospective studies. Observational, visual and multimodal research are scarce in IB despite their potential to represent, contextualize and theorize temporal phenomena. There are also concerns about the feasibility of contemporaneous research, given time and financial constraints, and the challenges associated with analyzing longitudinal or processual data.

For quantitative research, there are well-established statistical approaches for analyzing time-series data. However, effective estimation of these time-series models (e.g., ARIMA) requires access to a long history of data (see, e.g., Rose, 1993). This is problematic in IB, as the assumption of consistent underlying mechanisms across long periods of time (e.g., a minimum of 100 years if the data are annual) is highly questionable. Therefore, we need to develop different approaches for accounting for time, without resorting to assumptions that relationships are consistent across different eras.

Objectives of this Special Issue

  • To understand how assumptions about time shape theorizing in IB
  • To incorporate the role of time in the conceptualization of IB phenomena
  • To account for time more explicitly in IB research
  • To develop more effective ways to include time empirically in qualitative and quantitative IB research

Illustrative Topics

We encourage conceptual, methodological and empirical contributions that address, but are not limited to, the following topics:

Philosophical domain: Theorizing about time in IB

  • How do different conceptions of time (e.g., subjective; organic; cyclical) advance knowledge of IB phenomena?
  • How do different philosophical traditions (e.g., interpretivism, phenomenology, critical realism, positivism) define the study of time in IB scholarship?

Conceptual domain: The role of time in the conceptualization of IB phenomena

  • How can we define time in IB research?
  • What is the role of time in theorizing in IB?
  • How can process and variance-oriented research complement one another in providing IB with stronger theoretical bases?
  • How is time conceptualized in IB research?
  • How can time-related concepts be defined in IB research?
  • How do IB researchers take advantage of dynamic theories?

Methodological domain: Accounting for time in research design

  • How do we define and distinguish between dynamic and static theories in IB?
  • How can we incorporate time into the assembly of qualitative and quantitative data in IB research?
  • How can we analyse longitudinal or process data – qualitatively and quantitatively?
  • How can we incorporate practices and methods from business history research into IB?
  • How can we make strong theoretical contributions using temporal, processual and longitudinal research?

We look forward to your submissions that address the important issue of advancing our understanding of time in the context of IB.

Submission Process

Between August 15 and August 31, 2020, authors should submit their manuscripts online via the Journal of World Business submission system. To ensure that all manuscripts are correctly identified for consideration for this Special Issue, it is important that authors select ‘VSI: Time Matters’ when they reach the “Article Type” step in the submission process. Manuscripts should be prepared in accordance with the Journal of World Business Guide for Authors available at http://www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-world-business/1090-9516/guide-for-authors . All submitted manuscripts will be subject to the Journal of World Business’s double-blind review process.

Manuscript Development Workshops

The editors of the Special Issue anticipate holding information sessions and development workshop at different conferences. Participation in these events does not guarantee acceptance of the paper for publication in JWB, and attendance is not prerequisite for publication in the special issue. The first event is a panel titled “When Time Matters: Rethinking the Role of Time in IB Theory and Practice” organized at the 45th EIBA Annual Conference in Leeds in December 2019. We will announce details of these events through different channels.

For more information, please contact the guest editors

Emmanuella Plakoyiannaki, e.plakoyiannaki@leeds.ac.uk

Eriikka Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, eriikka.paavilainen-mantymaki@utu.fi

Melanie E. Hassett, melanie.hassett@sheffield.ac.uk

Elizabeth L. Rose, e.rose@leeds.ac.uk

Peter Liesch, p.liesch@business.uq.edu.au

Postdoctoral Position in Entrepreneurial History at University of Southern California

Christina

The Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies at the Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, seeks applicants for a postdoctoral scholar interested in entrepreneurial history.

The postdoctoral researcher will work under the supervision of Professors Noam Wasserman and Christina Lubinski of the Greif Center and in conjunction with Professor Dan Wadhwani of the University of the Pacific. Professor Wasserman is the founding director of the Greif Center’s Founder Central initiative and Professor Lubinski leads its entrepreneurial-history activities.  Founder Central’s new course on Entrepreneurial History will debut in the Spring of 2019.

The position is for 1 year, with the potential of extending this to 2 years. In addition to research, the postdoc will teach one entrepreneurship or general business course per year if qualified, and will receive mentoring in this teaching role.

The Greif Center is among the nation’s leaders in entrepreneurship education and research. Its faculty includes a diverse mix of researchers and practitioners. This year, our undergraduate entrepreneurship program was ranked #4 and our graduate program #8 by US News and World Report. The Greif Center is one of the organizers of the West Coast Entrepreneurship Research Symposium and the sponsor of the Greif Entrepreneurship Research Impact Award — given annually at the Academy of Management conference. In addition to offering courses in the school’s undergraduate and MBA programs, we offer specialized graduate degrees in social entrepreneurship (MSSE) and innovation (MSEI).

Requirements: You should have a Ph.D. (or expect to complete your Ph.D. by September 2018) in history or should have engaged in historically-oriented work in a related discipline (e.g., management, sociology, anthropology, law, economics). Candidates should be interested in historical perspectives on entrepreneurship and its role in socio-economic change. Experience with archival and primary source research is preferred. You will be expected to participate in at least one existing research project while also having time to continue developing your own research.

Qualified candidates should email the following documents to entrepreneur@marshall.usc.edu:

  • Cover letter
  • Curriculum vitae, specifying research, teaching, and work experience
  • Research statement
  • Teaching statement
  • Two letters of recommendation

Timing: Review of applications will begin immediately, and continue until the position is filled. The position is expected to start September 2018, although the start date is flexible.

For questions about the position, please contact Christina Lubinski (cl.mpp@cbs.dk) or Noam Wasserman (nwasserm@marshall.usc.edu)

USC Marshall is renowned for its high-ranking undergraduate, graduate, international and executive education programs, an exceptional faculty engaged in leading-edge research, a diverse and creative student body, and a commitment to technological advancement. The research productivity of Marshall’s 200 full-time faculty ranks among the top 15 business schools in the world. For more information about the Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California, please go to: http://www.marshall.usc.edu.

The University of Southern California (USC), founded in 1880, is located in the heart of downtown L.A. and is the largest private employer in the City of Los Angeles. USC is an equal-opportunity educator and employer, proudly pluralistic and firmly committed to providing equal opportunity for outstanding persons of every race, gender, creed and background. The University particularly encourages women, members of underrepresented groups, veterans and individuals with disabilities to apply. USC will make reasonable accommodations for qualified individuals with known disabilities unless doing so would result in an undue hardship. Further information is available by contacting uschr@usc.edu.

 

EGOS tracks with history

Steph

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.