Search results

This paper aims to study the role of non-corporeal Actant theory in historical research through a case study of the trajectory of the New Deal as one of the foremost institutions in the USA since its inception in the early 1930s.

The authors follow the trajectory of the New Deal through a focus on Vice President Henry A. Wallace. Drawing on ANTi-History, the authors view history as a powerful discourse for organizing understandings of the past and non-corporeal Actants as a key influence on making sense of (past) events.

The authors conclude that non-corporeal Actants influence the shaping of management and organization studies that serve paradoxically to obfuscate history and its relationship to the past.

The authors drew on a series of published studies of Henry Wallace and archival material in the Roosevelt Library, but the study would benefit from an in-depth analysis of the Wallace archives.

The authors reveal the influences of non-corporeal Actants as a method for dealing with the past. The authors do this through the use of ANTi-History as a method of historical analysis.

The past is an important source of understanding of the present and future; this innovative approach increases the potential to understand.

Decisions are often black boxes. Non-Corporeal Actants are a new tool with which to see the underlying inputs of choice.

The purpose of this paper is to share the story-net approach and to situate it as one that benefits from blending story as Indigenous methodology with non-corporeal actant theory (NCAT). The authors hope it will serve useful in building storytelling communities where Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars are working to heal together from colonial trauma, reveal the inner workings of historical and ongoing colonial projects, dismantle the agency of colonial projects, and welcome heartful dialogue into the centre of MOS discourse.

The authors employ a storytelling approach which includes mapping the story-net territory and identifying the plot points along the journey. The authors use the story-net approach to story the approach.

This approach served helpful when engaging within story archives and with storytelling collectives comprised of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous persons, peoples and knowledges. The authors found four key premises, which help to narrate the ontology, epistemology, methodology and axiology of the story-net approach and six plot points, which help in mapping the lessons learned from engaging with stories, storytellers, story listeners and the socio-discursive contexts surrounding story-net work.

The authors story an approach that can be useful to support emerging Indigenous scholars while engaging with their non-Indigenous colleagues to do story-net work. This approach may be useful to navigate the tensions to create safer, more humane, inclusive, relational, strengths-based and trauma-informed spaces for engaging with Indigenous stories, storytellers, story listeners and discourses, as well as, to plot the points of contention so as to set the stage for deepening respectful research relations.

This paper aims to examine the role of James March and his actor-network in the development of a functionalist paradigm of organization theory (OT). Recognizing the important contribution of March to the development of the field of OT, the authors set out to understand the role that he played in establishing the oft-quoted development of founding a behavioral facet of the functionalist paradigm of management theory.

The authors draw on ANTi-History to study some of the key factors that contributed to the challenges associated with the creation of a functionalist paradigm of OT. ANTi-History is an amodernist method drawing attention to how history is produced, differing from a modernist method for identifying the single-most truth of a series of past events and from a postmodernist method for revealing the relativity of accounts of the past. To that end, the method of ANTi-History is to explore the intersections of a series of human (e.g. scholars), non-human (e.g. a textbook) and non-corporeal (e.g. paradigms) actors to assess their role in producing a version of the past (e.g. a unified field of OT).

The authors reveal how the history, producing the paradigmatic idea of OT as a supposed field of inquiry, is not an account of an actual field of inquiry as much as it is the outcome of the shared and conflicted worldviews of multiple actors.

The unique and original contribution is in the tracking over time of the relationship between a known and important actor James March and the formation of a specific paradigm of OT. In particular, the authors focus on the factors and activities that formed or failed to form OT at points in time and James March’s role in this. In the process, the authors set out to learn not simply what James March achieved but how he achieved it.

By engaging with recent debates between management historians over social constructionism, this paper aims to show the merits of adopting a new realist ontology of the business enterprise. In contrast with ANTi-History, the purpose is to provide a philosophically rigorous conception of social objects and to argue that enterprises are a member of this category.

Insights from Maurizio Ferraris’s documentality theory and Graham Harman’s philosophy of social objects are used to identify the ontological forming ground and developmental pathway of an Antipodean stevedoring company that operated prior to the deregulation of New Zealand’s ports in 1989.

With regard to social entities in general and firms in particular, continental philosophy’s resurgent realist movement provides a history-aware social ontology that incorporates the grain of truth lying within social constructionism. As exemplified by the writings of Ferraris and Harman, realism provides a viable conception of social objects and, in so doing, a more coherent ontological foundation for the business enterprise than the relational ontology embraced by management history ANTians.

By drawing on two realist perspectives hitherto neglected by management historians, this paper resolves disagreements about the ontology of the business enterprise.