Nobel Prize

14,000,000 Leading Edge Experts on the ideXlab platform

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

The Experts below are selected from a list of 41640 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Mats Urde - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Swedish Academy #MeToo Scandal and the Reputation of the Nobel Prize
    2018
    Co-Authors: Stephen A. Greyser, Mats Urde
    Abstract:

    In May 2018, the Swedish Academy was engulfed in a #MeToo scandal that threatened its reputation, especially its reputation as the organization that awards the Nobel Prize in Literature. This scandal, which was first revealed in the previous November, also raised questions about the reputation of the Nobel Prize. The case is about reputation and crisis management, and more specifically about “reputational contagion” – “how one bad apple can spoil the barrel.” Reputational contagion occurs when something that happens in a related entity migrates to the subject entity. The case provides insights into an identity and reputation shaped and shared by several entities, and the potential consequences of a crisis in one of the associated entities. In this case, the reputation of “the world’s most prestigious award” – the Nobel Prize – is at issue. (Less)

  • teaching note the swedish academy metoo scandal and the reputation of the Nobel Prize
    HBS Case Collection; (919-410) (2018), 2018
    Co-Authors: Stephen A. Greyser, Mats Urde
    Abstract:

    A classroom guide to teaching the case, “The Swedish Academy #MeToo Scandal and the Reputation of the Nobel Prize” (HBS No. 5-919-410). A fictional case protagonist must present his evaluation to the Nobel Foundation of the scandal affecting one of the Nobel independent network members and its implications for the Foundation. Key issues include the reputational effects of the Swedish Academy scandal on the prestige of the Nobel Prize in Literature (awarded by the Academy) and on the Nobel Prize more broadly.At its heart, this is a case about the reputation of an international symbol of achievement and about managing an iconic brand. The case provides insights into the nature of a prestigious “heritage brand” and its challenges and opportunities to remain relevant and differentiated in the 21st century. In “protecting and safeguarding the standing of the Nobel Prize” the executive board faced the paradox of continuity and change with the reputation of “the world’s most prestigious award” at issue. A respected magazine article on the Nobel Prize concluded: “No other Prize has anything like the stature of a Nobel. . . . But some do whisper, ‘for how much longer?’” (The Economist, January 2, 2016) (Less)

  • the Nobel Prize the identity of a corporate heritage brand
    Journal of Product & Brand Management, 2015
    Co-Authors: Mats Urde, Stephen A. Greyser
    Abstract:

    Purpose – The purpose of this study is to understand the identity of the Nobel Prize as a corporate heritage brand and its management challenges. Design/methodology/approach – An in-depth case study analysed within a heritage brand model and a corporate brand identity framework. Findings – The Nobel Prize is a corporate heritage brand – one whose value proposition is based on heritage – in this case “achievements for the benefit of mankind” (derived directly from Alfred Nobel’s will). It is also defined as a “networked brand”, one where four independent collaborating organisations around the (Nobel) hub create and sustain the Nobel Prize’s identity and reputation, acting as a “federated republic”. Research limitations/implications – The new and combined application of the Heritage Quotient framework and the Corporate Brand Identity Matrix in the Heritage Brand Identity Process (HBIP) offers a structured approach to integrate the identity of a corporate heritage brand. In a networked situation, understandi...

  • The Nobel Prize: A 'Heritage based' Brand-oriented Network
    2014
    Co-Authors: Mats Urde, Stephen A. Greyser
    Abstract:

    Purpose – Understanding the Nobel Prize as a ‘true’ heritage brand in a networked situation and its management challenges, especially regarding identity and reputation.Methodology – The Nobel Prize serves as an in-depth case study and is analysed within an extended corporate brand identity framework that incorporates reputation.Findings – The Nobel Prize is a ‘true’ corporate heritage brand (in this case, organizational brand). It is the ‘hub’ of a linked network of brands – “a federated republic”. The brand core of the Nobel Prize is its set of core values supporting and leading to its promise; “for the benefit of mankind”. The core constitutes a hub around which the essential award-granting institutions, as well as the Nobel Foundation and other related entities and stakeholders gravitate. The laureates represent the Nobel Prize track record. The Will of Alfred Nobel, described as “The Nobel Prize federation’s constitution” is interpreted by us as indicating a brand-oriented approach within a network of interrelated institutions and organisations.Research implications – The concept of ‘brand-oriented networks’ is introduced. An individual organisation’s approach to its marketplace, brand-resources and strategy may to varying degrees be brand-oriented. This study suggests that brand-orientation also applies to a network of brands. Separately, the extended version of the “corporate brand identity matrix” provides a corporate brand framework for identity and reputation management, including networked brands. Practical implications – The new extended framework and the definition of a brand network with a ‘hub’ provide logic for managing the network. Essential managerial questions on how to leverage brand heritage or not are placed in perspective. Identifying and understanding one’s brand heritage and the importance of brand stewardship are reinforced. Suggestions for further research – The investigation of brand networks (market-oriented and/or brand oriented) and the application of the new “Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix”.Originality / Value – The first case study of the Nobel Prize from a strategic brand management perspective. The articulation and characterisation of it as a ‘brand-oriented network”. The development and application of the new CBIRM.Type of paper – Conceptual blended with empirical case study research

Nils Hansson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • the enactment of physician authors in Nobel Prize nominations
    PLOS ONE, 2020
    Co-Authors: Nils Hansson, Heiner Fangerau, Peter M Nilsson, Jonatan Wistrand
    Abstract:

    Several physicians have been nominated for the Nobel Prize in literature, but so far none of them have received it. Because physicians as women and men of letters have been a major topic of feuilletons, seminars and books for many years, questions arise to what extent medicine was a topic in the proposals for the Nobel Prize and in the Nobel jury evaluations: how were the nominees enacted (or not) as physicians, and why were none of them awarded? Drawing on nomination letters and evaluations by the Nobel committee for literature collected in the archive of the Swedish Academy in Stockholm, this article offers a first overview of nominated physician-author candidates. The focus is on the Austrian historian of medicine Max Neuburger (1868–1955), the German novelist Hans Carossa (1878–1956), and the German poet Gottfried Benn (1886–1956), but it also briefly takes further physician-author nominees into account such as Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) and William Somerset Maugham (1874–1965). The article is part of an interdisciplinary medical humanities project that analyses nominations and committee reports for physicians and natural scientists nominated for the Nobel Prize from 1901 to 1970.

  • Otorhinolaryngologists nominated for the Nobel Prize 1901–1940
    European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 2020
    Co-Authors: Nils Hansson, Marie Drobietz, Albert Mudry
    Abstract:

    Purpose Several scholars with links to ENT have received the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine. This overview takes into account ENT Nobel nominees, who never received the award. Methods Drawing a comparison on the nominations collected in the archive of the Nobel Committee for physiology or medicine in Stockholm, the Nobel archive database and secondary literature; the paper analyzes for the first time the nominations of Hans Schmid (Stettin), Hermann Gutzmann (Berlin), Karl Wittmaack (Hamburg), and Chevalier Jackson (Chicago). We also bring up nomination letters written by prominent German nominators such as Hermann Schwartze (one of the founders of this journal) and August Lucae. Results Hans Schmid was the first surgeon to be brought up in a Nobel Prize nomination for an ENT procedure (1901), but since he had passed away 5 years earlier he was not evaluated by the Nobel Committee. Hermann Gutzmann was a strong candidate in 1917 and reached the shortlist because of his pioneering work on stutter, but no Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine was awarded that year. In the 1930′s, both Karl Wittmaack and Chevalier Jackson were repeatedly nominated for ENT research. Conclusion Nobel Prize nominations are to date underused sources that shed new light on some scholars in ENT history.

  • Otorhinolaryngologists nominated for the Nobel Prize 1901-1940.
    European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated wi, 2020
    Co-Authors: Nils Hansson, Marie Drobietz, Albert Mudry
    Abstract:

    PURPOSE Several scholars with links to ENT have received the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine. This overview takes into account ENT Nobel nominees, who never received the award. METHODS Drawing a comparison on the nominations collected in the archive of the Nobel Committee for physiology or medicine in Stockholm, the Nobel archive database and secondary literature; the paper analyzes for the first time the nominations of Hans Schmid (Stettin), Hermann Gutzmann (Berlin), Karl Wittmaack (Hamburg), and Chevalier Jackson (Chicago). We also bring up nomination letters written by prominent German nominators such as Hermann Schwartze (one of the founders of this journal) and August Lucae. RESULTS Hans Schmid was the first surgeon to be brought up in a Nobel Prize nomination for an ENT procedure (1901), but since he had passed away 5 years earlier he was not evaluated by the Nobel Committee. Hermann Gutzmann was a strong candidate in 1917 and reached the shortlist because of his pioneering work on stutter, but no Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine was awarded that year. In the 1930's, both Karl Wittmaack and Chevalier Jackson were repeatedly nominated for ENT research. CONCLUSION Nobel Prize nominations are to date underused sources that shed new light on some scholars in ENT history.

  • Nominee and nominator, but never Nobel Laureate: Vincenz Czerny and the Nobel Prize
    Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery, 2016
    Co-Authors: Nils Hansson, Annette Tuffs
    Abstract:

    Purpose The Heidelberg surgeon Vincenz Czerny (1842–1916) is remembered as pioneer of innovative operations as well as entrepreneur of interdisciplinary cancer therapy. The purpose of this paper is to describe his role during the early history of the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine. Method Based on documents from the Nobel Archive, this paper investigates how Czerny contributed, both as nominee and nominator, in shaping the early years of Nobel Prize history. Results Vincenz Czerny was nominated at least three times for the Nobel Prize, but he was never selected. Czerny’s own nomination letters pinpoint important trends in medicine around the turn of the century. At least seven of the candidates he put forward, became Nobel Laureates. Conclusion Czerny—like many other internationally renowned surgeons during the first decades of the twentieth century—missed out on the Nobel Prize, partly because it is not a lifetime award and his work would have to have been more recent. However, with his nominations, Czerny helped to shape the Nobel Prize to become the most important scientific award worldwide.

  • PSYCHIATRY AND THE Nobel Prize: EMIL KRAEPELIN’S NobelIBILITY
    Trames. Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 2016
    Co-Authors: Nils Hansson, Thorsten Halling, Heiner Fangerau
    Abstract:

    1. Introduction In 1910, Emil Kraepelin was invited to nominate a scholar for the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine. He replied to the Nobel Committee: "After receiving the invitation, I contacted colleagues in other medical fields for advice, because as it seems, no researcher in my field can possibly compete for such an honourable award" (Nobel archive (NA), Kraepelin yearbook 1910). It is speculative whether Kraepelin implied that "no other researcher in my field but me" should resonate in the mind of the readers, but his reply reveals three aspects of medicine and science associated with questions of personal achievements and reputation which will be investigated further in this paper. First, the staging of excellence in medicine with the help of the Nobel Prize; second, the role of psychiatry in the cast of the medical disciplines; and third, Kraepelin's story as a Nobel Prize runner-up. Given the focus of this journal, we will not discuss the Prize-worthiness of Kraepelin's scientific work or his legacy in detail. It is in this context sufficient to mention that Kraepelin's name still stands for excellence in psychiatry: Established in 1928, the Golden Kraepelin Medal (awarded by the German Research Institute of Psychiatry) is one of the world's most renowned awards in psychiatry. Reflecting upon this reputation, it is perhaps not surprising that Kraepelin was nominated several times for the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine. In this paper we demonstrate the ambivalence of excellence and failure preserved in the Nobel Prize archive by tracing the nominations for Emil Kraepelin, one of the founders of modern scientific psychiatry. A few of the arguments presented here were also highlighted in a recent correspondence piece for World Psychiatry (Hansson and Fangerau 2016). Taking Kraepelin's case as an example, we try to deconstruct the aura surrounding the Nobel Prize, arguably--at least nowadays--the strongest symbol of scientific excellence worldwide. The key questions concern how and why particular scientists have been acknowledged as the greatest in their respective fields. We do that by analyzing Nobel Prize nominations collected in the archive of the Nobel Committee for physiology or medicine in Sweden. These files offer new perspectives on reward mechanisms in medicine and on how excellence has been attributed within particular scientific communities during the 20th century. Moreover, the nominations can help to reconstruct networks in medicine and science, and even more so if--where applicable--personal letters between nominator and nominee and comments in the daily press are added to the analysis. Bo S. Lindberg, for example, combined such sources and presented new nuances in terms of international reputation of the strong Nobel Prize candidate and renowned Swedish neurologist Salomon Henschen during the first decades of the 20th century (Lindberg 2013). Following this approach, we are interested in why some often nominated candidates fail in the end. To understand Kraepelin's Nobel Prize candidacy--or Nobelibility, Juri Allik coined this neologism at the Tartu conference "Emil Kraepelin 160/30" in February 2016, meaning the eligibility for winning a Nobel Prize--better, we will first have a brief look at the Nobel Prize nomination procedure and zoom in on the rather few Prizes for psychiatrists. Second, the nominations for Kraepelin will be reconstructed in order to understand why he as one of the most important psychiatrist of his time was never awarded the Prize. In the end, Kraepelin could not, to use his own words: "compete for such an honourable award". Thus, we finally have to ask, why he was only a second best option for the Nobel Prize committee. The focus will be on Kraepelin as a nominee, although he also acted as a nominator himself on several occasions. From 1901 to 1921 he nominated in chronological order, according to the official Nobel Prize nomination database, scholars of different nationalities working in various fields of medicine: Robert Koch (1901, 1905), Jules Bordet (1910, 1912, 1914), Bernhard Naunyn (1910), Felix Marchand (1911, 1912), Franz Nissl (1919), and August von Wassermann (1920, 1921) (https://www. …

Stephen A. Greyser - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Swedish Academy #MeToo Scandal and the Reputation of the Nobel Prize
    2018
    Co-Authors: Stephen A. Greyser, Mats Urde
    Abstract:

    In May 2018, the Swedish Academy was engulfed in a #MeToo scandal that threatened its reputation, especially its reputation as the organization that awards the Nobel Prize in Literature. This scandal, which was first revealed in the previous November, also raised questions about the reputation of the Nobel Prize. The case is about reputation and crisis management, and more specifically about “reputational contagion” – “how one bad apple can spoil the barrel.” Reputational contagion occurs when something that happens in a related entity migrates to the subject entity. The case provides insights into an identity and reputation shaped and shared by several entities, and the potential consequences of a crisis in one of the associated entities. In this case, the reputation of “the world’s most prestigious award” – the Nobel Prize – is at issue. (Less)

  • teaching note the swedish academy metoo scandal and the reputation of the Nobel Prize
    HBS Case Collection; (919-410) (2018), 2018
    Co-Authors: Stephen A. Greyser, Mats Urde
    Abstract:

    A classroom guide to teaching the case, “The Swedish Academy #MeToo Scandal and the Reputation of the Nobel Prize” (HBS No. 5-919-410). A fictional case protagonist must present his evaluation to the Nobel Foundation of the scandal affecting one of the Nobel independent network members and its implications for the Foundation. Key issues include the reputational effects of the Swedish Academy scandal on the prestige of the Nobel Prize in Literature (awarded by the Academy) and on the Nobel Prize more broadly.At its heart, this is a case about the reputation of an international symbol of achievement and about managing an iconic brand. The case provides insights into the nature of a prestigious “heritage brand” and its challenges and opportunities to remain relevant and differentiated in the 21st century. In “protecting and safeguarding the standing of the Nobel Prize” the executive board faced the paradox of continuity and change with the reputation of “the world’s most prestigious award” at issue. A respected magazine article on the Nobel Prize concluded: “No other Prize has anything like the stature of a Nobel. . . . But some do whisper, ‘for how much longer?’” (The Economist, January 2, 2016) (Less)

  • the Nobel Prize the identity of a corporate heritage brand
    Journal of Product & Brand Management, 2015
    Co-Authors: Mats Urde, Stephen A. Greyser
    Abstract:

    Purpose – The purpose of this study is to understand the identity of the Nobel Prize as a corporate heritage brand and its management challenges. Design/methodology/approach – An in-depth case study analysed within a heritage brand model and a corporate brand identity framework. Findings – The Nobel Prize is a corporate heritage brand – one whose value proposition is based on heritage – in this case “achievements for the benefit of mankind” (derived directly from Alfred Nobel’s will). It is also defined as a “networked brand”, one where four independent collaborating organisations around the (Nobel) hub create and sustain the Nobel Prize’s identity and reputation, acting as a “federated republic”. Research limitations/implications – The new and combined application of the Heritage Quotient framework and the Corporate Brand Identity Matrix in the Heritage Brand Identity Process (HBIP) offers a structured approach to integrate the identity of a corporate heritage brand. In a networked situation, understandi...

  • The Nobel Prize: A 'Heritage based' Brand-oriented Network
    2014
    Co-Authors: Mats Urde, Stephen A. Greyser
    Abstract:

    Purpose – Understanding the Nobel Prize as a ‘true’ heritage brand in a networked situation and its management challenges, especially regarding identity and reputation.Methodology – The Nobel Prize serves as an in-depth case study and is analysed within an extended corporate brand identity framework that incorporates reputation.Findings – The Nobel Prize is a ‘true’ corporate heritage brand (in this case, organizational brand). It is the ‘hub’ of a linked network of brands – “a federated republic”. The brand core of the Nobel Prize is its set of core values supporting and leading to its promise; “for the benefit of mankind”. The core constitutes a hub around which the essential award-granting institutions, as well as the Nobel Foundation and other related entities and stakeholders gravitate. The laureates represent the Nobel Prize track record. The Will of Alfred Nobel, described as “The Nobel Prize federation’s constitution” is interpreted by us as indicating a brand-oriented approach within a network of interrelated institutions and organisations.Research implications – The concept of ‘brand-oriented networks’ is introduced. An individual organisation’s approach to its marketplace, brand-resources and strategy may to varying degrees be brand-oriented. This study suggests that brand-orientation also applies to a network of brands. Separately, the extended version of the “corporate brand identity matrix” provides a corporate brand framework for identity and reputation management, including networked brands. Practical implications – The new extended framework and the definition of a brand network with a ‘hub’ provide logic for managing the network. Essential managerial questions on how to leverage brand heritage or not are placed in perspective. Identifying and understanding one’s brand heritage and the importance of brand stewardship are reinforced. Suggestions for further research – The investigation of brand networks (market-oriented and/or brand oriented) and the application of the new “Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix”.Originality / Value – The first case study of the Nobel Prize from a strategic brand management perspective. The articulation and characterisation of it as a ‘brand-oriented network”. The development and application of the new CBIRM.Type of paper – Conceptual blended with empirical case study research

Britt Mcgowan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Michelle Lahey - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Related terms

Nobel Prize - 15 days free trial to Access Experts & Abstracts