Search results

This paper seeks to further develop the bargaining power model of political risk management by employing a historical case study to uncover issues not presently considered in the model.

It first examines current political risk research, primarily focusing on the bargaining power model and then reviews a historical case study to demonstrate that the model remains incomplete. Next, both the resource‐based view (RBV) of the firm and institutional theory are examined to develop propositions to guide future bargaining power research.

Examining the bargaining power model by employing a historical case study of Panton, Leslie and Company, which operated in the present day Southeastern USA during its tumultuous colonization period, not only provides an interesting historical account of how one firm managed political risk, it suggests the need to modify the bargaining power model to consider both the specific resources required for differentiation and the need to balance differentiation and conformity pressures in managing political risk. Based on what this case study reveals about the model, it is suggested that the RBV provides insights into factors that may help an multinational enterprise (MNE) maintain its bargaining power based on differentiation even under changing environmental conditions. Further, it is suggested that institutional theory highlights conditions that make it more or less necessary for an MNE to conform to host government demands, which can reduce or enhance its bargaining power, respectively. Thus, in tandem, both may provide useful insights to produce a more “balanced” bargaining power view of political risk.

For practitioners, the findings highlight critical considerations in managing political risk by illustrating the need to balance differentiation and conformity. In addition, this review provides propositions to guide future empirical political risk research, especially studies focusing on bargaining power issues.

This paper aims to extend Lewis and Simpson’s (2010) work on the complexity of (in)visibility and explores what it means to women’s entrepreneurship in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This piece contributes to the special issue on COVID-19 and the impact on women entrepreneurs. Specifically, it applies an (in)visibility lens to argue that responses to COVID-19 in Canada negatively affect women entrepreneurs disproportionately and that while initiatives such as the Women Entrepreneurship Knowledge Hub (WEKH) are threatened, they can also serve as an agitator during this time to advocate for an inclusive recovery approach.

Despite progress through such government funded initiatives as the Women Entrepreneurship Strategy (WES), which is targeting more than $2bn (Cdn) in investments towards women entrepreneurs, structural inequality and the (in)visibility of women’s entrepreneurship has been amplified during COVID-19. Through a particular understanding of the (in)visibility vortex notion (Lewis and Simpson, 2010), it is concluded the (in)visibility of women entrepreneurs as deeply embedded and that there is a continued need to advocate for a gender and diversity lens, to ensure inclusive recovery that benefits women and diverse entrepreneurs.

An (in)visibility lens brings an important addition to the literature on women’s entrepreneurship, as well as illuminates the important differences within this broad category, deepening the understanding of these trends and their impact during COVID-19 pandemic. It highlights how the complexities of intersectionality are critical to understand, and their recognition can help to drive a clear evidence base, as well as advocacy. The piece call researchers and practitioners alike to consider the question under COVID-19, will these conditions create a new vortex in this domain, or can the work of organizations and researchers position gender and intersectionality in women entrepreneurship as a disrupter for the future?

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the Special Issue developed from a joint research seminar of the Gender in Management and Identity Special Interest Groups of the British Academy of Management, entitled “Exploring the Intersectionality of Gender and Identity”. It also presents an introductory literature review of intersectionality for gender in management and identity/identity work researchers. The authors highlight the similarities and differences of intersectionality and identity approaches and introduce critiques of intersectional research. They then introduce the three papers in this Special Issue.

The authors review the intersectionality literature within and outside management and organisation studies and focus their attention on three intersectionality Special Issues (Sex Roles, 2008, 2013 and the European Journal of Women’s Studies, 2006).

The authors outline the ongoing debates relating to intersectionality research, including a framework and/or theory for identity/identity work, and explore the shared tenets of theories of intersectionality and identity. They highlight critiques of intersectionality research in practice and consider areas for future research for gender in management and identity researchers.

The authors provide an architecture for researchers to explore intersectionality and to consider issues before embarking on intersectional research. They also highlight areas for future research, including social-identities of disability, class and religion.

Gender in Management: An International Journal invited this Special Issue to make a significant contribution to an under-researched area by reviewing the shared and different languages and importantly the shared key tenets, of intersectionality, gender, identity and identity work from a multidisciplinary perspective.

Indigenous and racialized people have suffered multifaceted dispossession as a result of ongoing and historical violence by the Canadian state. Most greatly affected are Indigenous gender-queer and nonbinary people, who have been erased by law and policy and are targets of violence; Indigenous women, who are targeted by gender discrimination and violence; and Indigenous children, who continue to be removed from their communities. Nonwhite or racialized migrants to Canada are victims of the same colonial project, which relies on the slavery of Black and Brown bodies and Orientalist constructions that portray the West as “superior” in relation to the “barbaric” East. This dispossession, oppression, and violence are met by a constellation of local and global approaches to resist, heal, and create Fearless futures for Indigenous and racialized people.

Through collaborative storytelling, this chapter centers a radical project focused on resistance to gender violence, reconnection to land and body, Indigenous and settler solidarity, storytelling and witnessing, and healing through art. These efforts, including multiple community workshops and mural projects with Indigenous and racialized women, as well as queer and two-spirit people and youth, have recentered Indigenous healing and medicine, promoted intergenerational teachings, fostered intercommunity relationship building and solidarities through stories and witnessing, reconnected disconnected Indigenous peoples (both local and settler) to their bodies, lands, and communities, and unsettled colonial mentalities on gender and Indigeneity publicly and privately. This project was a collaboration between The Fearless Collective, based in South Asia, the Innovative Young Indigenous Leaders Symposium, based in British Columbia, Canada, and research from the School of Child and Youth Care, University of Victoria, British Columbia.

As a sector, higher education is at the low end of innovation rankings. The challenges we face – demographic, technological, political, and pedagogical – will require sustained innovation at a strategic level. Recent research with mature companies has identified exemplars in strategic innovation (e.g., O’Connor, Corbett, & Peters, 2018). This work explores whether – and how – higher education institutions might adapt insights from the corporate sector for strategic innovation in teaching and learning.

The introductory section provides an overview of the nature of strategic innovation (and why it is hard to sustain), strategic issues facing higher education, and the status and challenges of sustaining strategic innovation for teaching. The next two sections describe insights from research with corporate exemplars of sustaining strategic innovation. Each section uses a scenario from higher education as a proof-of-concept test to explore the application of the corporate sector insights for strategic innovation in higher education teaching and learning.

The final section of the chapter discusses the planned next steps to prototype and test adaptation of these corporate sector insights with institutional innovation leaders in higher education, as well as additional potential sources of insights (from other research in the corporate sector and from strategic innovation in the public sector).

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relatively hidden phenomenon of researchers who not only study dirty work but who also occupy the position of dirty workers. Drawing on the sociological debate on insider-outsider categories in research, this paper describes how these types of “dirty work/er researchers” understand and negotiate their occupational subjectivity and the methodological and epistemological resources they bring to their research practice.

Two biographical narratives from different types of “dirty work/er researchers” are analysed using a feminist epistemology of corporeality, social difference and power.

Ambivalence is an underlying dynamic of the narratives which indicate that the stigma attached to certain types of dirty work histories act to both facilitate and constrain research practice. Ambivalence disrupts strict binary categories often relied on in research such as insiders and outsiders, empowered and powerless and researcher and Other.

The experiences of “dirty work/er researchers” indicate a need to reconsider ethical, methodological, epistemological issues within social research.

Participatory research frameworks such as peer research should pay closer attention to issues of professional status, power and risk. Further research is required on what happens after peer researchers leave the field.

This paper contributes to the knowledge of the relatively hidden world of the “dirty work/er researcher”, their occupational experiences and the methodological and epistemological resources they bring to their job.

The purpose of this paper is to revisit theoretical positions on gender and the implications for gender in management by building upon current research on doing gender well (or appropriately in congruence with sex category) and re‐doing or undoing gender and argue that gender can be done well and differently through simultaneous, multiple enactments of femininity and masculinity.

This is a theoretical paper.

The authors argue that individuals can perform exaggerated expressions of femininity (or masculinity) while simultaneously performing alternative expressions of femininity or masculinity. The authors question claims that gender can be undone and incorporate sex category into their understanding of doing gender – it cannot be ignored in experiences of doing gender. The authors contend that the binary divide constrains and restricts how men and women do gender but it can be disrupted or unsettled.

This paper focuses upon the implications of doing gender well and differently, for gender and management research and practice, drawing upon examples of leadership, entrepreneurship, female misogyny and Queen Bee.

This paper offers a conceptualization of doing gender that acknowledges the gender binary, while also suggesting possibilities of unsettling it.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how two kinds of UK-based media positioned investment banking as dirty work during the financial crisis, thereby engaging in moral enterprise (Becker, 1963) and contributing to the shaping of society's normative contours (Cohen, 1972).

The authors employ rhetorical analysis to explore how newspaper editorials and an online blog portray investment banking as tainted between April 2008 and October 2009.

These media sources construct the values and behaviours of investment bankers, rather than the tasks of their occupation, as morally tainted. Through specific rhetorical strategies the authors advance three key arguments: bankers are morally tainted because their wealth is excessive; because their wealth is not earned; and because they are selfish and materialist.

In investigating media designations of investment banking as dirty work, the paper addresses two aspects of dirty work which are underexplored. First, it examines a high-prestige occupation and second, investigates the construction and attribution of taint to a previously untainted occupation. It makes two methodological contributions to the literature: contributing to the nascent interest in the media's construction of dirty work (e.g. Grandy and Mavin, 2012); and using rhetorical analysis to study the construction of taint.