Artillery Supported by Infantry: The Royal Artillery at the Battle of Monmouth Courthouse

This paper analyzes three questions concerning the Royal Artillery at the Battle of Monmouth Courthouse: how many artillery pieces were used during the battle, which units were employed, and what role the Royal Artillery played in relationship to its parent organizations, the British Army and the British Board of Ordnance. Each of these topics have been seldom discussed, especially in connection to the narrative of the Battle of Monmouth. It is hoped that these inquiries can provide some clarity on the Royal Artillery’s part in the battle, and might spark new efforts of research by future scholars of the American Revolutionary War. In examining these points, careful attention was made in discussing the overall structure of the Royal Artillery and offering a comparison/contrast with its opponent: the Continental Artillery. The main primary source consulted in this discussion was the official Papers of Brigadier-General James Pattison, commander of Royal Artillery forces in North America. These research endeavors resulted in a concrete number of guns used during the Monmouth campaign, some strong indications for the particular units employed, as well as some new insights concerning the traditional interpretation of the battle that may require future analysis.

Military Enterprises and Entrepreneurship

The main aim of this chapter is to advance a structure for understanding the notion of military-run enterprise/entrepreneurship. The chapter appraises the macro-level of military entrepreneurship rather than the micro-level (e.g., veteran, military families, or military intrapreneurs) to uncover the paradoxes underpinning this genre of military entrepreneurship. Through a critical review of literature, the presence of “extrepreneurship,” which represents a crossbreed idea located between the concepts of entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship, is revealed. Extrepreneurs manage/operate for-profit spin-off organizations on behalf of their non-profit parent organizations to generate incomes/profits, among other requirements.

Types of Spin-Out Firms and Collaborations With Parent Organizations

This chapter provides a framework for understanding the diverse types of spin-outs and how they collaborate with the parent organizations from which their founders came. It organizes the still-growing literature on types of spin-outs based on (a) the previous employment sector of spin-out entrepreneurs and (b) the parental involvement in the spin-out process. Both factors affect employee entrepreneurs’ motives for creating spin-outs, the spin-outs’ inheritance of capabilities, and subsequent performance. The chapter also relates the types of spin-outs with the variety of collaborative relationships between a spin-out firm and its parent organization at both the interorganizational and interpersonal levels. It describes research directions based on the subtle yet conceptually and managerially significant differences between the types of spin-outs, and based on the corresponding variety in their patterns or modes of collaborative relationships with parents.

Assessing Nonprofit Rule Interpretation and Compliance

Nonprofit organizations operate within the confines of formalized agreements structured by parent organizations, funders, and partners. Compliance with the rules comprising these agreements leads to organizational legitimacy and the resulting access to resources. At times, compliance can be challenging because internal and external stakeholders exert pressures on nonprofits that can sometimes dissuade rule adherence. These pressures can be amplified when a nonprofit is an affiliate. Affiliate nonprofits must meet accountability demands of their local constituencies while aligning missions, organizational structures, governance, and programmatic activities with parent organizations that might be geographically distant. Affiliate status thus adds a layer of complication to an already complex environment. We conduct an institutional analysis as a basis for assessing how nonprofit affiliates interpret global rules for maintaining affiliate status and factors most important to them in maintaining continued compliance with such rules. Our research is conducted in the context of United Way (UW) affiliate organizations in Indiana.

Case Study of an Unsustainable Community-Academic Partnership: Toward Core Standards for the Structure of Emerging Participatory Research

<p>This report retrospectively examines the structure of an emerging community-academic participatory research (PR) partnership that was not sustainable, despite attempts to adhere to PR principles and demonstrable success in research outcomes. The influence of community and academic parent organizations on the PR process and outcomes is presented in the context of the Donabedian Model. We dissected the structural elements contrib­uted by parent organizations to forming the structure of the PR partnership (memo­randum of understanding, policy environ­ment, human resources and effort, com­munity and academic resources, expertise and experience, and funding) and explored the influence of potential and actual con­flicts on the PR partnership’s sustainability. The effect of potential and actual conflict on the PR process and quality of PR outcomes is discussed. Based on this, we conclude by proposing seven core standards for the establishment and development of emerging community-academic PR partnerships. <em>Ethn Dis</em>. 2015;(3):363-372.</p>

The American Ballet's Caravan

This article chronicles the formation and first season of the dance company Ballet Caravan (1936–1940) with a special focus on the role of Lincoln Kirstein in the troupe's founding. This account of the Caravan's early history draws upon an array of primary sources to offer new perspectives on the company's relationship to modern dance circles and its parent organizations (the American Ballet and School of American Ballet, co-founded by Kirstein and George Balanchine in 1934). It traces Ballet Caravan's touring activities during 1936 (including its debut at Bennington College) and details ballets created for the company by Lew Christensen, Eugene Loring, and William Dollar, as well as previously unknown early choreographic work by Erick Hawkins. This account reveals that Ballet Caravan was initially conceived of neither as a dancer-driven initiative nor a deliberate attempt by Kirstein to pursue an American artistic agenda (as it has been previously understood by scholars), but rather was a practical response to institutional crises in the larger Balanchine–Kirstein ballet enterprise. The American Ballet and Ballet Caravan thus reveal themselves in 1936 as more contiguous than distinct, sharing personnel and aesthetic values, as well as the involvement of Balanchine himself.