Revise and Resubmit - The Mayukh Show

Bayesian Experimentation in Early-Stage Ventures (Contigiani et al. 2026) | FT50 SEJ

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00 Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:48:48 Hindi Podcast Starts at 01:07:41 Danish Podcast Starts at 01:26:30 Reference Contigiani, A., Denoo, L., & Hablicsek, M. (2026). Toward a theory of Bayesian experimentation in early-stage ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.70031 ‌Youtube Channel ⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠ Podcast Website https://mayukhmukhopadhyay.com/reviseandresubmit Academy of Management PDW on Space Economy Registration Flyer https://cto.aom.org/discussion/flagship-aom-2026-pdw-space-economy-consolidating-a-research-agenda-8 🎙️📚 Welcome to Revise and Resubmit ✨ There is something strangely comforting about the myth of the entrepreneur who simply knows. The founder with perfect instincts. The visionary who walks into uncertainty and somehow comes out carrying the future in both hands. But this paper, thoughtful and quietly provocative, asks us to slow down and reconsider that story. 🤔⚡ Today, we’re diving into Toward a Theory of Bayesian Experimentation in Early-Stage Ventures by Andrea Contigiani, Lien Denoo, and Márton Hablicsek, published online on 20 May 2026 in the Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 📖🌍 And this matters not only because the ideas are powerful, but because Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal belongs to the prestigious FT50 journal list, one of the most respected collections of academic journals in management and business research. 🎓🏆 What fascinated me about this article is its refusal to worship experimentation as some universal cure. In startup culture, we hear endless praise for testing, pivoting, iterating. But the authors ask a harder question: what if experimentation itself carries costs? 💡⚙️ Using a Bayesian framework, the paper explores when startups should experiment and when they should move directly into the market. And the answer, as it turns out, depends on uncertainty, adaptation costs, and the lurking possibility that competitors may copy what founders learn along the way. 📈🔍 The paper becomes even more human when it talks about bias. Founders often begin with strong beliefs about what customers want, beliefs shaped by ego, hope, obsession, or intuition. The authors argue that the more biased those beliefs are, the more valuable experimentation becomes. In other words, testing is not just about learning about the market. Sometimes it is about learning the limits of ourselves. ❤️🧠 I kept thinking about how deeply this applies beyond startups. We all carry priors into our lives. Assumptions about work, relationships, ambition, success. And reality keeps handing us evidence, asking whether we are brave enough to update what we believe. 🌌 This paper gives entrepreneurs a rigorous framework, even a measurable “Return to Experimentation,” but beneath the equations is a profoundly human tension between conviction and correction. Between holding onto an idea and letting the world reshape it. ✨ So maybe the real question is not whether experimentation helps startups succeed. Maybe it’s this: how do we know when persistence is wisdom, and when it is simply refusing to learn? 🎧🤍 Our thanks to Andrea Contigiani, Lien Denoo, Márton Hablicsek, and to John Wiley & Sons Ltd and the Strategic Management Society for publishing this remarkable work. 🙏📘 Subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify and follow Weekend Researcher on YouTube 🎥🎙️ Also available on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcasts 🍎🎶

Bayesian Entrepreneurship (Agrawal et al. 2026) - Weekend Book Review

English Podcast starts at 00:00:00 Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:52:17 Hindi Podcast Starts at 01:03:46 Danish Podcast Starts at 01:25:56 Reference Agrawal, A., Camuffo, A., Gambardella, A., Gans, J., Scott, E. L., & Stern, S. (Eds.). (2026). Bayesian Entrepreneurship. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/15918.001.0001 Review Essay Mukhopadhyay, M. (2026). Book review Bayesian entrepreneurship : edited by Ajay Agrawal, Arnaldo Camuffo, Alfonso Gambardella, Joshua Gans, Erin L Scott and Scott Stern, US, The MIT Press, 2026, 348, $120.00 (Hardcover), ISBN 9780262052153 . Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2026.2672838 ‌Youtube channel link https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher Podcast Website https://mayukhmukhopadhyay.com/reviseandresubmit Academy of Management PDW on Space Economy Registration Flyer https://cto.aom.org/discussion/flagship-aom-2026-pdw-space-economy-consolidating-a-research-agenda-8 🎙️📚 Welcome back to Revise and Resubmit, and this is another episode of Weekend Book Review 🌙☕ Some books try to teach you how to build a company. Bayesian Entrepreneurship asks something deeper: how do we make decisions when the future refuses to sit still? 🤔✨ Published in 2026 by The MIT Press, this edited volume brings together Ajay Agrawal, Arnaldo Camuffo, Alfonso Gambardella, Joshua Gans, Erin L. Scott, and Scott Stern, scholars whose work lives at the intersection of innovation, strategy, and uncertainty. 📖⚙️ What makes this book refreshing is its quiet rejection of the startup myth. Instead of glorifying instinct or genius, the editors frame entrepreneurship as a process of learning. Founders begin with beliefs, test them through experiments, gather evidence, and revise their assumptions along the way. 🌱📈 At the center of the book is Bayesian reasoning, the idea that progress comes from updating what we think we know when reality pushes back. Entrepreneurs here are not fortune tellers. They are investigators, carrying bold theories into uncertain markets and learning, sometimes painfully, what survives contact with the real world. 🔍✨ I found myself drawn to the humanity of that idea. Because outside business, isn’t that how most of us live? We move forward with incomplete information, revising ourselves in real time. ❤️ Ajay Agrawal’s influence on experimentation and innovation is felt throughout the book, while Joshua Gans brings sharp insights into strategy and persuasion. Arnaldo Camuffo and Alfonso Gambardella add depth from the world of management and innovation studies, and Erin L. Scott and Scott Stern ground the collection in practical entrepreneurial learning. Together, the editors create a conversation that feels rigorous, but deeply alive. 🎓🌍 So as we step into Bayesian Entrepreneurship, maybe the real question is not whether entrepreneurs can predict the future. Maybe it’s this: how willing are we to change our minds when the evidence asks us to? 🌌🎧 My thanks to the editors and to The MIT Press for this thoughtful collection. 🙏📘 Subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify and follow Weekend Researcher on YouTube 🎥🎙️ Also available on Amazon Prime Music and Apple Podcasts 🍎🎶

Kinship Interlocks (O’Brien, 2026) | FT50 ASR

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00 Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:41:56 Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:56:22 Danish Podcast Starts at 01:20:39 Reference O’Brien, S. (2026). Kinship Interlocks: How the Intimate Exchange of Wealth, Status, and Power Generates Upper-Class Persistence. American Sociological Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224261425688 ‌Youtube Channel ⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠ Podcast Website https://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? 🤔✨

Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data (Langley, 1999) - Weekend Classics

English Podcast starts at 00:00:00 Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:22:42 Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:43:52 Danish Podcast Starts at 01:03:07 Reference Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2553248 ‌Youtube channel link https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher Podcast Website https://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? 🤔✨

Contention, Corporate Activism, and Collaboration (Odziemkowska & Briscoe, 2026) | FT50 AOMA

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00 Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:45:06 Hindi Podcast Starts at 01:08:04 Danish Podcast Starts at 01:30:06 Reference Odziemkowska, 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.2024.0273 ‌ ‌Youtube Channel ⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠ Podcast Website https://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? ❓✨