HU Repository
HU Repository serves as an academic and research repository, offering a rich assortment of Haigazian Armenological Review research outputs along with publications from the Armenian Diaspora Research Center (ADRC) and Haigazian University Press (HU Press). Additionally, it hosts a repository of MA and MBA theses.
With a focus to meet the needs of scholars, students, and researchers within and beyond the Haigazian University community, our repository provides seamless access to a diverse range of scholarly materials. Whether you're delving into historical studies, exploring contemporary research topics, or seeking insights from thesis works, the HU Repository stands as a cornerstone for intellectual inquiry and collaboration.
Communities in Haigazian University
Select a community to browse its collections.
Recent Submissions
The Compass of Survival: Management Accounting Practices as Maps of Resilience in Lebanese Service and Manufacturing SMEs during the 2019–2025 Crisis
(2025) Angie Vartan Kirejian
Since 2019, Lebanese small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have operated under continuous economic and institutional turbulence, creating persistent challenges for managerial decision-making and organizational survival. This study explores how service and manufacturing SMEs perceived and used Management Accounting Practices (MAPs) during the 2019–2025 crisis period, and how these practices supported organizational resilience across different industry contexts. A comparative multiple-case qualitative design was employed, drawing on twelve semi-structured interviews with SME decision-makers and key personnel. Data were analyzed through reflexive thematic analysis, followed by cross-case synthesis to identify shared and industry specific patterns. The findings showed that MAPs served three interrelated functions. First, they supported short-term operational continuity and financial stability through cash-flow monitoring and cost control. Second, MAPs enabled strategic and adaptive responses through informal scenario assessments and lightweight digitization. Third, they were used to signal credibility to external stakeholders in a context of institutional distrust. The industry context shaped the relative emphasis placed on each role. By providing empirical evidence from a prolonged crisis environment, the study offers practical insights for managers and policymakers seeking to strengthen organizational resilience in highly unstable settings
Փաստը որպէս դրամատիկական հիմք Ուիլիըմ Սարոյեանի «Հայկական եռագրութիւն» թատերախաղերում
(2017) Անուշ Ասլիբէկեան
In 1986, five years after the death of William Saroyan, "Armenian Trilogy" ("Armenians" (1971), "Bitlis" (1975) and "Haraj" (1979) was taken from Saroyan's manuscripts and published by the efforts of Prof. Dickran Kouymjian. These were translated into Armenian and published in 2008. These plays are a revelation in the literary heritage of Saroyan not only in terms of open and quite bold statements concerning Armenian identity and the Armenian question but also in terms of form and structure. Saroyan called these plays "plays about Armenians".
In determining the genre of these plays, the author observes them in the post-modern context and highlights distinctive features of contemporary documentary drama in the plays. The author notes that in staging these plays directors may need to make use of features of documentary theater.
Լեւոն Շանթի «Հին աստուածներ»ը եւ եւրոպական թատերգութիւնը
(2017) Վաչագան Գրիգորեան
The author analyzes why Levon Shant's play, Hin Asdvadzner (Old Gods), written in the early 20th century, bought him unexpectable fame and appreciation.
He argues that the play was an absolute novelty in every sense of the word, compared to past and contemporary Armenian plays. The author notes that the innovations which characterised the play were not inspired by the legacy of Armenian plays and must have had a different source.
Accordingly, Grigoryan explores the plays of a number of leading European playwrights of the late 19th and early 20th century, including Henrik Ibsen, Knut Hamsun, Gerhart Hauptmann, Moris Meterlink, and Johan Strindberg. He compares the features of their plays and finds similarities between some of their features and those of Shant's Hin Asdvadzner.
Հայոց ցեղասպանութեան եւ վերապրումի թեման Դերենիկ Դեմիրճեանի ստեղծագործութիւններում
(2017) Կարինէ Ռաֆայէլեան
Derenik Demirchyan has always been solicitous of the Armenian people's fate and has written about it. WWI and the Armenian Genocide have not been an exception. Indeed, these have been reflected in Demirchyan's literary works, though the geography and chronology of the said catastrophes are not often clearly defined.
The study highlights Demirchyan's works which speak about the tragedy and its consequences. The author names the specific stories where Demirchyan emphasized these tragedies: "Avelorte" (The Redundant), "Jepite" (The Smile), "Asttso Tane" (In the House of God), and "Girk Tzaghkants" (the Book of Flowers).
The author notes that Demirchyan touched upon the subject prior to the Sovietization of Armenia and after the 1950s, as in the essay "The Armenian" (written in the 1920s) and the unfinished note called "Reflections on the Nagorno Karabakh and Nakhichevan issues" (written in the 1950s). In these two essays, Demirchyan more or less overtly speaks about the Armenian Genocide, without using the G word. He describes the catastrophe as a bloody conflict, massacre and depopulation.
In this publication we have made an attempt to reveal a few manifestations reflected in his works.
Համօ Օհանջանեանի նամակները Զօր Քէյսիի եւ Դրոյի (Բ. Համաշխարհային պատերազմի շրջան)
(2017) Զաւէն Մսըրլեան
During WWII, when the fate of the battle of Stalingrad was still undecided, the Soviet Armenian poet Avedik Issahakian submitted an article entitled "The Adventurers..." to the Armenian Diaspora media, accusing ARF party leaders Alexander Khadissian, Tro Ganayan and Ardashes Apeghian of collaborating with the Nazis. Months later, after the Nazis had surrendered in Stalingrad, Hamo Ohanjanian, a former prime minister of the first Republic of Armenia (1918-1920) and a leading member of the Tashnag Party Bureau, replied to Issahakian in an open letter, arguing that he had offered no proof and that the said leaders had neither uttered a word in favor of Hitler, nor signed any document, nor made any declarations.
Facts on the ground were different, however The Armenian National Council, led by Apeghian, had signed a document on February 15, 1943 calling for the liberation of Armenia from Soviet rule and for the political autonomy of Armenia under the protection of the Third Reich. In their publication, Azad Hayastan (Free Armenia), Apeghian had written a leading article on this subject.
News spread about the formation of national legions, including an Armenian legion. There were conflicting reports on the involvement of Tro, who had a team of 65 to 120 collaborators. Thus, Ohanjanian, wrote a letter to the British Minister of State, Richard Casey, dated July 15, 1943. Ohanjanian reminded Casey that the Party supported the Allied cause and reiterated that position, announcing that in the Nazi occupied European countries, where 150,000 Armenians resided, the Tashnag newspapers, chapters, and lecture halls had all ceased functioning, that there had been no formation of an Armenian Legion, and that the Armenian broadcast from Berlin Radio only gave news and no political speeches. It mentioned Goring's decree where had said Armenians were inimical to Germans. Furthermore, in the letter Ohanjanian requested that an accompanying letter addressed to Tro be dispatched to a party member either in Paris or Bucharest. The said letter was in Armenian and forbade Tro from undertaking any collaboration.
A commentary on both letters by British Col. Simson's indicated that, despite London's denial of the receipt of a letter dated July 6, 1941 which assured Tashnag party supoort to the Allies, that letter indeed had been sent and the Tashnag party had remained faithful towards the Allies. However, London had decided to cut all ties with the Tashnag party so as not to arouse the suspicions of Turkey and USSR. Simson noted that the main reason for Ohanjanian's letter was the undisciplined actions of some individuals in the occupied European territories. There were unconfirmed reports in October 1942 that Ganayan and Khadissian were collaborating with the Germans.
As the political section of British intelligence had given its orders, the Minister of State did not reply to the letter, but did send it to London.
These documents are being published for the first time, with comments on some of the matters raised by both letters.