Concepts and methods of quantitative assessment of risk to groundwater resources

This work presents a two-dimensional approach of risk assessment method based on the quantification of the probability of the occurrence of contaminant source terms, as well as the assessment of the resultant impacts. The risk is calculated using Monte Carlo simulation methods whereby synthetic contaminant source terms were generated to the same distribution as historically occurring pollution events or a priori potential probability distribution. The spatial and temporal distributions of the generated contaminant concentrations at pre-defined monitoring points within the aquifer were then simulated from repeated realisations using integrated mathematical models. The number of times when user defined ranges of concentration magnitudes were exceeded is quantified as risk. The utilities of the method were demonstrated using hypothetical scenarios, and the risk of pollution from a number of sources all occurring by chance together was evaluated. The results are presented in the form of charts and spatial maps. The generated risk maps show the risk of pollution at each observation borehole, as well as the trends within the study area. This capability to generate synthetic pollution events from numerous potential sources of pollution based on historical frequency of their occurrence proved to be a great asset to the method, and a large benefit over the contemporary methods.

New business histories! Plurality in business history research methods

We agree with de Jong et al.'s argument that business historians should make their methods more explicit and welcome a more general debate about the most appropriate methods for business historical research. But rather than advocating one ‘new business history’, we argue that contemporary debates about methodology in business history need greater appreciation for the diversity of approaches that have developed in the last decade. And while the hypothesis-testing framework prevalent in the mainstream social sciences favoured by de Jong et al. should have its place among these methodologies, we identify a number of additional streams of research that can legitimately claim to have contributed novel methodological insights by broadening the range of interpretative and qualitative approaches to business history. Thus, we reject privileging a single method, whatever it may be, and argue instead in favour of recognising the plurality of methods being developed and used by business historians – both within their own field and as a basis for interactions with others.

Organizations in time:history, theory, methods

Book review: Organizations in Time, edited by R Daniel Wadhwani and Marcelo Bucheli, Oxford University Press, 2014. The title of this edited volume is slightly misleading, as its various contributions explore the potential for more historical analysis in organization studies rather than addressing issues associated with time and organizing. Hopefully this will not distract from the important achievement of this volume—important especially for business historians—in further expanding and integrating business history into management and organization studies. The various contributions, elegantly tied together by R. Daniel Wadhwani and Marcelo Bucheli in their substantial introduction (which, by the way, presents a significant contribution in its own right), opens up new sets of questions, especially in terms of future methodological and theoretical developments in the field. This book also reflects the changing institutional location of business historians, who increasingly make their careers in business schools rather than history departments, especially in Europe, reopening old questions of history as a social science. There have been several calls to teach more history in business education, such as the Carnegie Foundation report (2011) that found undergraduate business education too narrow in focus and highlighted the need to integrate more liberal arts teaching into the curriculum. However, in the contemporary research-driven environment of business and management schools, historical understanding is unlikely to permeate the curriculum if historical analysis cannot first deliver significant theoretical contributions. This is the central theme around which this edited volume revolves, and it marks a milestone in this ongoing debate. (In the spirit of full disclosure, I should add that even though I did not contribute to this volume, I have coauthored with several of its contributors and view this book as central to my current research practice.)