Podcast
Revise and Resubmit - The Mayukh Show
Hosted by Mayukh Mukhopadhyay · EN
In Revise and Resubmit, a dynamic AI duo— Nikita and Pavlov — guides you through the fascinating world of academic research. Whether they’re debating emerging trends, revisiting theories, or exploring the latest innovations, their conversational style makes scholarly insights accessible and engaging for academics. Papers chosen by Mayukh. Powered by Google NotebookLM.
23episodes
Episodes
Newest firstAll episodes
Kinship Interlocks (O’Brien, 2026) | FT50 ASR
1w ago01:37:00Tap to summarizeEnglish Podcast Starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:41:56Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:56:22Danish Podcast Starts at 01:20:39ReferenceO’Brien, S. (2026). Kinship Interlocks: How the Intimate Exchange of Wealth, Status, and Power Generates Upper-Class Persistence. American Sociological Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224261425688Youtube Channelhttps://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcherPodcast Websitehttps://mayukhmukhopadhyay.com/reviseandresubmit🎙️✨ Welcome to Revise and Resubmit.Sometimes a research paper does more than explain the world. Sometimes it lifts a corner of the fabric and shows us the hidden stitching, the quiet arrangements by which power survives itself. Today, I want to sit with one of those papers. 📚👀This episode turns to Kinship Interlocks: How the Intimate Exchange of Wealth, Status, and Power Generates Upper-Class Persistence by Shay O’Brien, published online on 25 March 2026 in the American Sociological Review, a prestigious FT50 journal published by SAGE Publications. That matters because the venue signals serious scholarship. But the paper’s real force comes from its question: how do some families remain on top for generations while others do not? 🏛️💼👑What makes this paper so striking is that the answer is not money alone. Wealth matters, yes, but O’Brien asks us to see something more intimate and more unsettling. Families at the top endure because they braid wealth, status, and power through kinship itself. Through marriage, obligation, protection, and the soft invisible traffic of advantage, they create what the paper calls kinship interlocks. 🧬🔗It is a powerful phrase because it captures a hard truth. The upper class is not just a collection of successful individuals. It is a networked inheritance machine. It protects its own from risk, cushions them from failure, and gives them lifts that can look from the outside like merit or luck, when often it is family structure quietly doing the work behind closed doors. 🚪✨And the paper does not let us look away from the social conditions of that durability. These arrangements are shaped by race, gender, and sexuality, by the deep cultural rules that decide who counts as proper family and who does not. So upper-class persistence is not only an economic story. It is a moral and political one. It is about who gets protected, who gets promoted, and who gets written into continuity itself. 🧠⚖️Using a remarkable mixed-methods dataset spanning 122 years of elite life in Dallas, Texas, O’Brien shows that elite persistence is not accidental. It is collaborative, organized, and intimate. A class project carried across generations in the language of loyalty and family, but with consequences far beyond the family tree. 🌳📊I love papers like this because they make abstraction feel personal, and the personal feel structural. They remind me that sociology, at its best, does not just name inequality. It shows us how inequality learns to reproduce itself with elegance, patience, and devastating efficiency.My sincere thanks to Shay O’Brien for this extraordinary work, and to SAGE Publications for publishing it in the American Sociological Review, one of the most prestigious journals on the FT50 list. 🙏📖If this kind of research conversation speaks to you, please subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify, and subscribe to the YouTube channel Weekend Researcher. You can also find the show on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcast. 🔔🎧📺And as we begin, here is the question I cannot shake: when privilege survives for generations, are we really looking at inheritance, or at a family’s quiet genius for turning intimacy into infrastructure? 🤔✨
Transcribe →
Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data (Langley, 1999) - Weekend Classics
1w ago01:19:25Tap to summarizeEnglish Podcast starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:22:42Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:43:52Danish Podcast Starts at 01:03:07ReferenceLangley, A. (1999). Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2553248Youtube channel link https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcherPodcast Websitehttps://mayukhmukhopadhyay.com/reviseandresubmit/From Process Data to Process Theory (webinar by Ann Langley)https://www.youtube.com/live/C3xqP_EVYXQ?si=9mlCWPf7HLrikBRv🎙️✨ Welcome to Revise and Resubmit and to this episode of Weekend Classics.There are some papers I read for insight, and then there are some I return to almost like conversation. Not because they are easy, and not because they flatter me with certainty, but because they remind me that scholarship, at its best, is a way of staying honest in the presence of complexity. 📚💭Today, I’m revisiting Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data by Ann Langley, published on 1 October 1999 in the Academy of Management Review, one of those FT50-listed spaces where ideas are expected to carry weight, and published by the Academy of Management. And this paper does carry weight, though not the heavy, joyless kind. It carries the weight of someone who has looked at the mess of organizational life and refused to reduce it too quickly. 🧠🌀What Langley seems to understand, and what I find deeply moving as a researcher, is that organizations do not live in neat categories. They live in time. They unfold. They hesitate. They collide with contingency. They become what they are through sequences, through interruptions, through moments that only later begin to look like patterns. ⏳🔍This paper takes that messiness seriously. It walks us through seven strategies for making sense of process data, those sprawling, temporal, often unruly traces of change that researchers know so well. Some strategies cling closely to narrative. Some impose structure through visual maps or quantification. Some reach toward replication and broader generality. And all of them, in one way or another, wrestle with the same difficult hope: how do we make theory from movement without betraying the movement itself? ✨📈That is what I love here. Langley does not offer a magic trick. She offers judgment. She offers humility. She reminds us that method and theory are not strangers meeting after the fact. They grow up together. And she says something that feels true far beyond academia, that no strategy, however rigorous, can spare us the creative leap. Small perhaps, but necessary. Human, definitely human. 🎧❤️There is also real generosity in this paper. It does not insist on one correct road. It makes room for plurality, for mixed strategies, for the possibility that useful theory is sometimes accurate but untidy, sometimes elegant but partial, and often born from the researcher’s willingness to sit with ambiguity a little longer than is comfortable. 🌱🧩So in this episode, I want to linger with this classic, not just as a methods paper, but as a meditation on what it means to see organizations in motion and to think with care while the world is still unfolding.My heartfelt thanks to Ann Langley for this remarkable work, and to the Academy of Management for publishing it. 🙏📖If you enjoy these reflective journeys into foundational research, please subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify, and subscribe to the Weekend Researcher channel on YouTube. You can also listen on Amazon Prime Music and Apple Podcast. 🔔🎙️📱And as we begin, here’s the question I want to leave hanging in the air between us: when we theorize from process data, are we really explaining change, or are we learning, little by little, how to become more patient witnesses to it? 🤔✨
Transcribe →
Contention, Corporate Activism, and Collaboration (Odziemkowska & Briscoe, 2026) | FT50 AOMA
2w ago01:45:57Tap to summarizeEnglish Podcast Starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:45:06Hindi Podcast Starts at 01:08:04Danish Podcast Starts at 01:30:06ReferenceOdziemkowska, K., & Briscoe, F. (2026). Contention, Corporate Activism, and Collaboration: The Blurring Boundaries Between Firms and Social Movements. Academy of Management Annals. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2024.0273Youtube Channelhttps://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcherPodcast Websitehttps://mayukhmukhopadhyay.com/reviseandresubmit🎙️✨ Welcome to Revise and Resubmit.Some academic articles do more than summarize a field. They shift the light. They make familiar institutions look newly strange, and newly important. Today, I want to sit with one of those pieces. 📚🌍This episode turns to Contention, Corporate Activism, and Collaboration: The Blurring Boundaries Between Firms and Social Movements by Kate Odziemkowska and Forrest Briscoe, published online on 8 May 2026 in the Academy of Management Annals, published by the Academy of Management. This is a prestigious FT50-listed journal, one of the most respected venues in management research. 🏛️✨What makes this article so compelling is its central claim: the old line between firms and social movements is no longer as clear as we once believed.For years, the script seemed straightforward. Movements challenged corporations. Activists applied pressure. Firms responded, resisted, or adapted. But this review shows that the story has changed. Sometimes firms are still the target of contention. Sometimes they act as participants, taking public positions on social and political issues. And sometimes they become partners, collaborating directly with activists and movements. 🤝⚡That shift matters. Because once corporations begin speaking the language of justice, values, and social change, we have to ask harder questions. Are they amplifying important causes, or absorbing them? Are they supporting movements, or reshaping them in the image of corporate power? 🧠⚖️Odziemkowska and Briscoe do not offer easy answers, and that is part of what makes the paper so good. They show both the promise and the tension in this new landscape. Digital media, political polarization, and executive visibility have made firms more present in public life than ever before. And with that presence comes influence, not just economic influence, but cultural and symbolic power. 📱🏢💬To me, this is what makes the article feel so timely. We are living in a world where brands can sound like movements, CEOs can sound like activists, and collaboration can sometimes blur into co-optation. The old boundaries have not vanished. But they have become unsettled, and that unsettled space is exactly where this paper asks us to think. 🌫️📖So in today’s episode, I want to explore what happens when firms are no longer just pressured by social movements, but start becoming architects of the social and political landscape itself.A sincere thank you to the authors, Kate Odziemkowska and Forrest Briscoe, and thanks as well to the Academy of Management for publishing this important article in the prestigious FT50 journal Academy of Management Annals. 🙏📘If you enjoy episodes like this, please subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify, and subscribe to Weekend Researcher on YouTube. You can also listen on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcast. 🎧📺🍎And as we begin, here is the question I want to leave hanging in the air: when corporations start speaking in the language of movements, are they advancing social change, or quietly redefining who gets to lead it? ❓✨
Transcribe →
Constructing Opportunities for Contribution (Locke & Golden-Biddle, 1997) - Weekend Classics
2w ago01:40:35Tap to summarizeEnglish Podcast starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:46:34Hindi Podcast Starts at 01:05:08Danish Podcast Starts at 01:27:03ReferenceLocke, K., & Golden-Biddle, K. (1997). Constructing Opportunities for Contribution: Structuring Intertextual Coherence and “Problematizing” in Organizational Studies. Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1023–1062. https://doi.org/10.5465/256926Youtube channel link https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcherPodcast Websitehttps://mayukhmukhopadhyay.com/reviseandresubmit/VSSER-2026 Paper Explainer Websitehttps://mayukhpsm.github.io/vsser26/🎙️✨ Welcome to Revise and Resubmit, and to another episode of Weekend Classics.Some papers do not just sit in the archive of management scholarship. They keep breathing. They keep whispering to anyone who has ever stared at a blinking cursor and wondered, “But what exactly is my contribution?” 📚🤔Today, I want to spend some time with one of those papers. It is Constructing Opportunities for Contribution: Structuring Intertextual Coherence and “Problematizing” in Organizational Studies by Karen Locke and Karen Golden-Biddle, published in the Academy of Management Journal on October 1, 1997, by the Academy of Management. And even now, nearly three decades later, it feels startlingly alive. 🌟What I love about this paper is that it tells the truth about academic writing, a truth many of us learn the hard way. Research does not enter the world simply because it is insightful. It enters because it is written into the world persuasively, carefully, almost artfully. ✍️🧠Locke and Golden-Biddle show us that contribution is not just discovered. It is constructed. First, scholars build what they call intertextual coherence. In other words, they gather the scattered voices of prior research and make them sound, for a moment, like a conversation. Sometimes that conversation feels unified, sometimes progressive, sometimes contradictory. But it must feel like a recognizable intellectual space. 🧩📖And then comes the bolder move. Problematizing. The turn where the writer says: yes, this is the conversation, but something is missing here. Something is unresolved. Something we thought we understood may not be understood at all. That is where the opening appears. That is where a paper makes room for itself. 🚪⚡I find this deeply human, maybe because it mirrors how we make meaning in life too. We inherit stories, patterns, assumptions. Then, if we are brave enough, we ask whether those stories are complete. Whether the pattern holds. Whether the assumptions deserve to survive. 💭❤️This is a paper about rhetoric, yes. But it is also about intellectual courage. About the quiet architecture of persuasion. About how scholars do not merely report knowledge, but shape the very conditions under which knowledge can matter. 🎓🔍So in today’s Weekend Classics, I want to revisit this enduring piece not as a technical artifact, but as a kind of field guide for anyone who writes, revises, doubts, and dares to claim that their work belongs. ☕📘Thank you to the authors, Karen Locke and Karen Golden-Biddle, and thanks as well to the Academy of Management for publishing this remarkable paper. 🙏If you enjoy episodes like this, please subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify, and to the Weekend Researcher channel on YouTube. You can also find the podcast on Amazon Prime Music and Apple Podcast. 🎧📺🍎So here is the question I want to leave with you as we begin: when we say a paper makes a contribution, are we discovering a gap in the world, or are we learning how to write one into view? ✨❓
Transcribe →
A Curation Approach to Identity Management (Arnett 2026) | FT50 ASQ
3w ago01:07:17Tap to summarizeEnglish Podcast Starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:18:56Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:36:40Danish Podcast Starts at 00:51:25ReferenceArnett, R. D., Lee, S. S., & Hewlin, P. F. (2026). A Curation Approach to Identity Management: The Costs of Combining Identity Expression and Suppression. Administrative Science Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392261431827Youtube Channelhttps://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcherPodcast Websitehttps://mayukhmukhopadhyay.com/reviseandresubmitAcademy of Management PDW on Space Economy Registration Flyerhttps://cto.aom.org/discussion/flagship-aom-2026-pdw-space-economy-consolidating-a-research-agenda-8🎧 Welcome to Revise and Resubmit.There are some research papers that do more than explain the workplace. They reveal what it costs to survive it.Today, I want to spend a little time with a remarkable new paper titled A Curation Approach to Identity Management: The Costs of Combining Identity Expression and Suppression by Rachel D. Arnett, Serenity S. Lee, and Patricia Faison Hewlin, published online on 12 April 2026 in Administrative Science Quarterly 📚✨, one of the most prestigious academic journals in management and organization studies, and proudly part of the FT50 journal list. That matters, of course, because FT50 signals rigor, influence, and scholarly weight. But what matters even more to me is the ache inside this paper, the human truth it is trying to name.Because what this article studies is not simply identity at work. It studies the exhausting choreography of deciding, every day, which parts of yourself can come into the room and which parts must wait outside. 🪞💼The authors focus on employees from marginalized groups, especially employees of color, and they examine something called curation. Now that word sounds elegant, almost artistic. It makes you think of museums, playlists, beautiful selections. 🎨🎵 But in the workplace, curation can mean something far more intimate and far more painful. It means expressing parts of your identity in ways that feel acceptable, while suppressing other parts that might be judged, misunderstood, or used against you.And what this paper shows, with stunning clarity, is that this balancing act is not necessarily a smart compromise. It may actually deepen psychological strain. Why? Because it creates ambivalence. It leaves a person wondering whether their identity is a source of strength or a source of danger. 🌗💭 A resource or a liability. A truth to live by or a truth to edit.That tension does something to the spirit. It wears people down. It turns self-presentation into self-surveillance. And eventually, for many, it does not just produce discomfort. It produces the desire to leave.I think that is what makes this paper so powerful. It does not only tell us something about marginalized employees. It tells us something about institutions, about belonging, and about the hidden emotional taxes that formal inclusion can still fail to erase. 🧠❤️So in this episode, I want to sit with that tension. I want to ask what happens when authenticity becomes strategic, and when survival at work begins to look like a form of careful, exhausting curation.If you value thoughtful conversations on powerful academic research, please subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify 🎙️ and follow Weekend Researcher on YouTube 📺✨. You can also find the channel on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcast 🍎🎧 Your support truly helps keep these conversations alive.My sincere thanks to the authors, Rachel D. Arnett, Serenity S. Lee, and Patricia Faison Hewlin, and to SAGE Publications for bringing this important research into the world 🙏📘So here is the question I want to leave with you today 🤔When a person spends each workday deciding what to reveal and what to conceal, are they managing identity, or are they quietly paying the price of a workplace that still does not know how to welcome a whole human being?
Transcribe →
Entrepreneurial fear of failure (Cacciotti et al 2020) - Weekend Classics VSSER26
3w ago01:02:22Tap to summarizeEnglish Podcast starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:15:22Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:27:33Danish Podcast Starts at 00:46:27ReferenceCacciotti, G., Hayton, J. C., Mitchell, J. R., & Allen, D. G. (2020). Entrepreneurial fear of failure: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(5), 106041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2020.106041Youtube channel link https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcherPodcast Websitehttps://mayukhmukhopadhyay.com/reviseandresubmit/VSSER-2026 Paper Explainer Websitehttps://mayukhpsm.github.io/vsser26/🎙️✨ Welcome to Revise and Resubmit and to another episode of Weekend Classics.I am glad you are here.Some papers do not just study a phenomenon. They lean in close to the human condition. This one does exactly that. 💭📘Today, I am exploring Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure: Scale Development and Validation by G. Cacciotti, J.C. Hayton, J.R. Mitchell, and D.G. Allen, published in the Journal of Business Venturing on 17 June 2020. And yes, this is an FT50-listed journal, which tells us something about the rigor. But what stays with me is not only the rigor. It is the recognition that entrepreneurship is not just about vision, hustle, and heroic perseverance. It is also about fear. Real fear. Quiet fear. The kind that sits beside ambition and asks what happens if this all falls apart. 🎧🔥What I find deeply compelling about this paper is that it refuses the easy version of the story. It does not ask people to imagine failure from a safe distance. It does not treat fear of failure as a fixed personality flaw. Instead, it turns toward entrepreneurs in the mess of lived experience, where uncertainty is not theoretical and risk is not a classroom exercise. There, fear appears as something more layered, more immediate, more human. It is cognitive, yes, but also affective. It is thought and feeling braided together. 🧠❤️The authors build and validate a multidimensional scale to understand this fear as it is actually experienced by entrepreneurs. And in doing so, they give us something precious. They give us language for the invisible weather inside entrepreneurial life. 🌧️🚀 Concerns about money. Doubts about personal ability. Worries about social esteem. The ache of possibly not becoming who you hoped you could become.That matters because once we measure something well, we stop romanticizing it poorly.So in today’s episode, I want to sit with this paper not merely as a methodological contribution, but as a reminder that behind every venture is a person making meaning under pressure. Someone hoping, calculating, improvising, and at times trembling. 📚✨If you enjoy these deep dives into classic research, please subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify, and also follow the YouTube channel Weekend Researcher 🔔🎥 You can also listen on Amazon Prime Music and Apple Podcast. Your support helps keep these conversations alive and thoughtful. 🙏My thanks to the authors, G. Cacciotti, J.C. Hayton, J.R. Mitchell, and D.G. Allen, and to Elsevier, the publisher, for this remarkable contribution.So here is the question I want to leave you with today 🤔💡When we say an entrepreneur is brave, are we talking about the absence of fear, or about the strange and deeply human skill of learning how to continue while fear quietly remains?
Transcribe →
Identifying and Using NICs (Salmen et al 2026) | FT50 JoM
Apr 2601:13:41Tap to summarizeEnglish Podcast Starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:23:11Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:46:11Danish Podcast Starts at 00:56:26ReferenceSalmen, A., Urbig, D., & Aguinis, H. (2026). Identifying and Using Nonlinear and Interactive Control Variables. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063261431571Youtube Channelhttps://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcherPodcast Websitehttps://mayukhmukhopadhyay.com/reviseandresubmitAcademy of Management PDW on Space Economy Registration Flyerhttps://cto.aom.org/discussion/flagship-aom-2026-pdw-space-economy-consolidating-a-research-agenda-8🎙️✨ Welcome to Revise and Resubmit... the podcast where ideas are not just summarized, but felt, turned over, questioned, and brought a little closer to life.Today, we step into a paper that does something rare in academic research. It does not merely point out a mistake. It reveals a habit of seeing. A habit so ordinary, so widely accepted, that most scholars barely notice it at all... until someone shows us what has been missing in plain sight. 👀📚The article is titled Identifying and Using Nonlinear and Interactive Control Variables, written by Andreas Salmen, Diemo Urbig, and Herman Aguinis, and published online on 24 April 2026 in the Journal of Management 🏛️, one of the most prestigious academic journals in the world and proudly part of the FT50 journal list. Published by SAGE Publications, this is the kind of article that does not simply add to a conversation. It changes the terms of the conversation itself. 💡Here is the trouble at the heart of the paper. In management research, we often test relationships that are not neat or straight. Life is rarely linear. Organizations are not linear. Human behavior is not linear. So scholars increasingly examine nonlinear and interactive effects. And yet, even while doing that, many continue to rely on only linear control variables, as if complexity in the main argument can somehow coexist with simplicity in the background. 🔍📈Salmen, Urbig, and Aguinis show us why that is risky. After reviewing 548 quantitative articles published between 2021 and 2023 in Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Management, and Strategic Management Journal, they found something startling ⚠️: about 73% tested for nonlinear and interactive effects, but only 3% included nonlinear and interactive control variables. Just 3%.That number lands with force because the omission is not innocent. It can bend the evidence. It can distort statistical tests. It can bias effect sizes. It can even reverse the very conclusions researchers thought they had discovered. 🧠⚡And so this paper offers more than critique. It offers a path. A five-step, theory-driven guide for identifying, evaluating, and incorporating the control variables that complexity requires. It is methodological, yes. But it is also moral in the scholarly sense. It asks researchers to be more honest about causality, more transparent about omission, and more careful about what we call knowledge. 📝✨If you care about robust research, causal inference, theory development, or simply the hidden architecture of good scholarship, this episode is for you.🎧 Subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify, and follow the YouTube channel Weekend Researcher for more conversations like this. You can also find us on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcasts. 🚀📺🍎Our thanks to the authors, Andreas Salmen, Diemo Urbig, and Herman Aguinis, and to SAGE Publications for this important contribution in the Journal of Management.So here is the question we carry into today’s episode 🤔: if so much of what we believe depends on what we choose to control for, then how many celebrated findings have been shaped not by what researchers saw, but by what they never thought to look for?
Transcribe →
Toward a theological turn in entrepreneurship (Smith et al 2021) - Weekend Classics VSSER26
Apr 2501:07:31Tap to summarizeEnglish Podcast starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:18:32Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:36:47Danish Podcast Starts at 00:53:30ReferenceSmith, B. R., McMullen, J. S., & Cardon, M. S. (2021). Toward a theological turn in entrepreneurship: How religion could enable transformative research in our field. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(5), 106139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2021.106139Youtube channel link https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcherPodcast Websitehttps://mayukhmukhopadhyay.com/reviseandresubmit/VSSER-2026 Paper Explainer Websitehttps://mayukhpsm.github.io/vsser26/https://mayukhpsm.github.io/vsser26_smithetal2021/🎙️✨ Welcome to Revise and Resubmit, and to this episode of Weekend Classics.I am always drawn to papers that do more than make an argument. I love the ones that quietly open a door, then ask us whether we have been standing in the wrong room all along. 📚💭Today’s paper does exactly that.We are looking at Toward a theological turn in entrepreneurship: How religion could enable transformative research in our field by Smith, B. R., McMullen, J. S., and Cardon, M. S., published in the Journal of Business Venturing on 8 July 2021, and brought to us by Elsevier. 🌍🕊️At first glance, entrepreneurship is often told as a story of markets, incentives, risk, innovation, and profit. And yes, those things matter. But this paper gently, and then forcefully, reminds us that millions of people across the world do not live by economic logic alone. They live by belief, by calling, by faith, by sacred obligation, by a sense that work is not merely transactional but meaningful. 🔍🙏What happens, then, when entrepreneurship research begins to take religion seriously, not as a side note, not as an inconvenient variable, but as a living force in how people imagine opportunity, endure failure, make decisions, and define success? That is the bold invitation at the heart of this editorial.The authors argue that religion has been strangely neglected in entrepreneurship scholarship, despite being so central to human life across history and across cultures. They show us why that neglect happened, from assumptions of secularization to the practical difficulties of measurement, but they also show us why those barriers should not stop us. 🚪⚡In fact, they suggest that a theological turn could make the field richer, more honest, and far more transformative. It could help us understand why some entrepreneurs are driven not only by profit, but by service. Not only by opportunity, but by purpose. Not only by recovery after failure, but by redemption after loss. 🌱🔥And what I find especially moving here is that this is not just a methodological suggestion. It is a reminder that people are whole beings. They do not leave their deepest convictions at the door when they start a venture. They carry them into uncertainty, into ambition, into struggle, and into hope.So in this episode, I want us to sit with that possibility together. What if entrepreneurship research has been listening carefully, but not completely? What if some of the most powerful explanations have been hiding in plain sight, in prayer, in doctrine, in ritual, in belief, in the moral imagination of the entrepreneur? 🤔✨Thank you for joining me on Revise and Resubmit. If you enjoy these episodes, please subscribe to the podcast on Spotify, and also follow the YouTube channel Weekend Researcher 🎧📺. You can also find the show on Amazon Prime Music and Apple Podcasts 🍎🎙️My thanks to the authors, Smith, B. R., McMullen, J. S., and Cardon, M. S., and to Elsevier for the original publication. 🙏📘And now, here is the question I cannot stop thinking about: if faith shapes how so many people understand risk, purpose, suffering, and possibility, then how much of entrepreneurship have we misunderstood by pretending the sacred was never in the room?
Transcribe →
Human–AI partnerships (Patil et al. 2026) | FT50 JCP
Apr 1901:37:30Tap to summarizeEnglish Podcast Starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:42:56Hindi Podcast Starts at 01:00:49Danish Podcast Starts at 01:22:41ReferencePatil, R. K., Rice, D. H., & Janiszewski, C. (2026). Human–AI partnerships: Living and working with AI Assistants, AI Agents, and AI Companions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 00, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.70025Youtube Channelhttps://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcherPodcast Websitehttps://mayukhmukhopadhyay.com/reviseandresubmitAcademy of Management PDW on Space Economy Registration Flyerhttps://cto.aom.org/discussion/flagship-aom-2026-pdw-space-economy-consolidating-a-research-agenda-8🎙️✨ Welcome to Revise and Resubmit.There are some papers that do more than explain a trend. They pause long enough to notice a change in the weather of ordinary life. This is one of them.Today, we are turning to a fascinating new article, Human–AI Partnerships: Living and Working with AI Assistants, AI Agents, and AI Companions, by Ripinka Koli Patil, Dan Hamilton Rice, and Chris Janiszewski, published online on 16 April 2026 in the Journal of Consumer Psychology 🧠📘, a prestigious FT50 journal, published by the Society for Consumer Psychology under John Wiley & Sons Ltd.And what makes this paper feel so timely, so quietly intimate, is that it does not ask only what AI can do. It asks what AI can become in our lives.For a long time, we treated technology like a hammer 🔨, or a search bar, or a machine waiting for commands. Useful, yes. Intelligent, maybe. But still a thing. Still an object. Still something outside the circle of relationship.This paper suggests that circle is changing.The authors offer a taxonomy that feels less like a technical map and more like a portrait of our near future. Some AI systems will remain assistants 🤖, helping us finish tasks, organize choices, and smooth the rough edges of daily life. Some will become agents ⚙️, acting with greater autonomy, making decisions, carrying out intentions, and operating almost like delegated selves. And some may become companions 💬💙, woven into our routines not only through competence, but through familiarity, trust, and something that starts to resemble presence.That is where the paper becomes deeply human. Because repeated interaction changes everything. The more often we return to an intelligent system, the more that system stops feeling like software and starts feeling like a participant in our decision-making, our consumption, our habits, and perhaps even our emotional world.📍This is not just a paper about technology. It is a paper about attachment, dependence, convenience, agency, and the subtle ways people make room for new kinds of partners in everyday life.And because this appears in the Journal of Consumer Psychology, one of the prestigious journals on the FT50 list, it also signals something important for scholars and practitioners alike: this conversation is no longer peripheral. It is central.So as we begin, I want to sit with the question at the heart of this paper. If an AI helps us choose, remember, advise, comfort, and act, again and again, at what point does it stop being a tool in our hand and start becoming a presence in our life? 🤔✨🙏 My sincere thanks to Ripinka Koli Patil, Dan Hamilton Rice, and Chris Janiszewski, and to the Society for Consumer Psychology under John Wiley & Sons Ltd., for this important and timely contribution.🔔 If you enjoy thoughtful research conversations like this, please subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify and subscribe to Weekend Researcher on YouTube.🎧 You can also listen on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcast.So let us begin with a question that feels both scholarly and strangely personal: when AI starts to know us well enough to help shape our choices, are we using it, or are we already learning how to live with it?
Transcribe →
Contextualizing Entrepreneurship (Welter 2011) - Weekend Classics VSSER26
Apr 1801:22:05Tap to summarizeEnglish Podcast starts at 00:00:00Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:18:58Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:40:08Danish Podcast Starts at 01:03:31ReferenceWelter, F. (2011). Contextualizing Entrepreneurship—Conceptual Challenges and Ways Forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165-184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00427.xYoutube channel link https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcherPodcast Websitehttps://mayukhmukhopadhyay.com/reviseandresubmit/VSSER-2026 Paper Explainer Websitehttps://mayukhpsm.github.io/vsser26_welter2011/🎙️✨ Welcome to Revise and Resubmit and to this episode of Weekend Classics.I am glad you are here, because today we are stepping into a paper that quietly changes the way we see entrepreneurship, not as a story of lone genius or raw hustle, but as something shaped by place, time, memory, institutions, and the people around us.📚 Today’s featured paper is Contextualizing Entrepreneurship: Conceptual Challenges and Ways Forward by Friederike Welter, published in Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, an FT50 listed journal, in January 2011 by SAGE Publications.What I love about this paper is that it asks us to slow down. It asks us to look again. Because entrepreneurship does not happen in thin air. It happens somewhere. It happens under pressure. It happens within families, within neighborhoods, within rules, within histories, and sometimes within the ruins of systems that have already collapsed.🌍 Welter reminds us that context is not background scenery. It is part of the plot. Social context shapes what feels possible. Spatial context shapes where ideas can travel. Institutional context shapes what gets supported, what gets punished, and who even gets to begin.And that changes everything.The entrepreneur, then, is not just a bold individual standing against the world. The entrepreneur is also someone moving through a world already crowded with customs, constraints, expectations, and invisible permissions. In that sense, context can be a gift 🎁 or a burden 🧱. It can open doors, and it can quietly lock them.What makes this paper especially powerful is that it does not just say context matters. It shows that entrepreneurship itself can also reshape context. People do not merely inherit environments. Sometimes, through action, persistence, and improvisation, they alter them.💡 So this is not just a paper about entrepreneurship. It is a paper about humility. About seeing economic life as human life. About resisting the temptation to tell clean, heroic stories when the truth is messier, richer, and far more interesting.As we enter this conversation together, I want you to hold onto one simple but unsettling thought: if entrepreneurship always emerges from context, then how much of what we call talent, vision, or courage is really a conversation between the person and the world that made them possible? 🤔🙏 My thanks to Friederike Welter and to SAGE Publications for this remarkable contribution.🔔 If you enjoy episodes like this, please subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify, and subscribe to the YouTube channel Weekend Researcher.🎧 You can also find the show on Amazon Prime Music and Apple Podcast.So come with me into this paper, and let us ask the question that lingers after the first page and stays long after the last: when we celebrate the entrepreneur, are we really seeing the individual, or are we finally beginning to see the world that made that individual imaginable?
Transcribe →