Search

This article celebrates the life, career, and intellectual contribution of Leslie Hannah, while also summarising the other papers of this festschrift. We discuss Hannah's early life, the development of business history prior to the launch of the London School of Economics' Business History Unit (BHU), together with Hannah's contribution to business history research and disciplinary development during and after his time as BHU director. We conclude with brief summaries of the other eight articles in this special issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, an understanding is sought of how and why Foucault was to become such a major figure within UK organization studies. Setting the argument within a fashion frame, the text addresses the possible reasons behind Foucault's journey into organization studies. The key currents in Foucauldian thought within British business schools are summarized, and an understanding is sought of what it was about the context of the time that made Foucault so attractive to organization studies. Demonstrating the spread of Foucault into this field, the text highlights various means through which Foucault became institutionalized into organization studies. The translation of Foucault that happened when the French philosopher became fashionable in organization studies is discussed, and speculations are made about the retranslation to French organization studies. The paper concludes by speculating about the future of Foucault's thought within organization studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article aims to understand the process of production of knowledge in the field of business organisation and in problems of administration. It argues that the acquisition of this type of knowledge is greatly assisted by the developments of dialogue between academics and industrialists. It looks at a method which has been applied in England during the period late 1940s to early 1970s in three academic seminars: the Seminar in Problems of Administration at the LSE (1947–1972); the Industrial Seminar at Birmingham University (late 1950s‒1972); and the BPhil Seminar in Economics of Industry at the University of Oxford (1957–1974). By the mid-1970s, these three seminars had ceased to exist and left room for the rapid development of management studies, on the one hand, and the formalisation of industrial economics (game theory), on the other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reports on an application a multivariate analysis technique called Co-Plot. It replicates a study conducted among leading MBA programmes in the United States using the same technique; a statistical method especially suited for this type of analysis where there are samples with relatively few observations (business schools) and large numbers of variables (subject modules, core and elective). Using Co-Plot the paper presents a mapping of the structure of 32 Association of Masters of Business Administration (AMBA) accredited MBA programmes in the United Kingdom and compares the characteristics of the resultant groupings of MBA programmes and the relationship between group membership. The patterns of core and elective modules offered by the selected MBA programmes are then compared with the rankings of UK business schools. The research shows that in the UK, unlike in the US, the clustering is not as strong and clear. Five groups/clusters of schools are identified together with four main clusters of core and electives modules offered. Differentiation is only significant when the electives modules are taken into account unlike the US where differentiation is evident between programmes with the core modules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I intend to explore the validity of this interpretation of the significance of the institutional developments that have taken place, paying particular, but not exclusive, attention to the business schools. I shall argue that the expansion of provisions for formal management education cannot, in itself, be held to signify changes in business (2) recruitment and promotion practices even though, on the surface, the continued existence of institutions that certify managerial competence seems to imply that business recognizes the validity of this mode of assessment. I shall suggest that a simple demand model, in which the education system has merely responded to a new demand from business for "trained" managerial recruits, is insufficient to explain the growth of management education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the new Business History Unit in London, England. Professor Leslie Hannah who is Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, took up the Directorship of the Business History Unit on a part-time basis from August 1, 1978. This will become a full-time appointment, of professional status, on January 1,1979. A second post in the Unit was advertised at the end of September 1978 and further posts will be advertised during 1980. The idea of the Unit dates back to the period 1972 to 1973 when professor L.S. Pressnell, professor T.C. Barker and professor W.J. Reader got together to discuss how best to move from the writing of company history, which had made such great strides in Great Britain during the previous fifteen years, to the broader study of business history itself. There was general agreement that Business History was a branch of academic study, which had been rather neglected by British universities. It was agreed from the outset that the relation of science and technology to the growth of industry should form part of the proposed Unit's activities.

This article aims to provide a framework for exploration of a strategic approach to entrepreneurial university development. It draws on earlier reviews by the author of the entrepreneurial concept and of the now considerable global literature on the theme of the entrepreneurial university, although there is a strong focus in this article on the UK. It also draws lessons from practice in exploring with several universities the potential for creating strategic synergy between existing activities in the institution not all of which would be labelled entrepreneurial in the conventional sense. Each of these key activities are briefly reviewed in turn and presented as a basis for action in drawing together a strategy for the university. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]