No abstract

Regulation theories focus primarily on the behavior of regulatory agencies. In this article, the authors elevate the level of analysis to study the disputes these agencies address. This change of analytic level has two advantages. First, it highlights the importance of other forms of dispute resolution. Second, it provides for specific dispute resolution strategies. The article uses systems and behavioral theories as the underpinnings of a broad model of societal regulation that offers strategies for avoiding and managing societal disputes.

The scientific criterion comparative measurement of argument Although historical management research may often lack scientific validation, there is nothing inherent in historical research that makes it less scientifically valid than other management research. Scientific validity is not controlled by subject, data source, observation technique, or interpretation scheme. Indeed, one can use case studies, surveys, statistics, or even armchair musings and still respect (or disregard) scientific validation. The essence of scientific validation is delineated in Aristotle's definition of explanation [1, p. 165], and the most powerful feature is demonstrated superiority of an underlying argument by comparative measurement.Comparative measurement of argument (CMA) is powerful because it is easy and inexpensive; its benefits can be shown without subtle philosophical argument; and it pushes research to meet other validation criteria, such as operationalization, control groups, and independence of premiss.CMA is the essence of Popper's[2] falsification test but, since Popper's term is burdened with the philosophical connotations of "true" and "necessary", I avoid referencing falsification to remain focused on "valuable" and "easy" instead.CMA need not be viewed as a requirement, but as a valuable and easy addition to historical management research. If we can establish value and ease we should not need to argue necessity. To show value and ease, this paper illustrates a variety of CMA methods that can be added without upsetting a research design in any way. Some illustrations are my own, simply because CMA is not common in management research.As this paper progresses through its multiple illustrations, the advantages for CMA may appear overwhelming. This conclusion accurately reflects my belief that no one has proposed a case where CMA does not improve research at a minimal expense. I do not ask readers to accept every argument or embrace every illustration; what I ask is that readers try the technique and see for themselves.Unbiased terms may improve receptivity to CMA While this paper seeks demonstration rather than argument, it does assert that CMA provides direct value and narrowly tailors the argument to address management history scholars. CMA is taken for granted in the paradigm of positive science [3][4][5][6], but management history scholars may still reject or resist

No abstract