Facing the Normative Challenges: The Potential of Reflexive Historical Research

Abstract

This article explores methodological problems of qualitative research templates, that is, the Eisenhardt and the Gioia case study approaches, which are relevant for the business and society (B&S) scholarship and outlines a reflexive historical research methodology that has the potential to face these challenges. Building on Hans-Georg Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics, we draw critical attention to qualitative B&S research and frame the methodological problems identified as the normative challenges of qualitative research, that is, to productively deal with both the researchers’ norms and the research subjects’ norms. We then introduce the reflexive historical case study (RHCS), a distinct research strategy to face normative challenges based on philosophical hermeneutics and the interpretive tradition of studying organizations. This research approach aims at theory elaboration while its mode of enquiry is reflexive. By explicating three of its key characteristics and using a case example to illustrate our approach, we demonstrate how B&S scholars can benefit from the “temporal filter” of the historical lens and from reflexive concerns about the nature of theory and empirical material. To tap the potential of historical research, we finally envision a research program for studying issues and debates associated with B&S scholarship.

Poverty's Monument: Social Problems and Organizational Field Emergence in Historical Perspective

“…Given that the existing historical literature takes an economic history approach, focusing on the rise of savings banks as responses to economic developments and managerial problems (Davis and Payne, ; Olmstead, ), my approach was to re‐interpret the emergence of savings banks by placing it in a different context, that of the social problem of poverty. In this sense, the revisionist approach involved shifting the secondary sources against which the primary sources are read and employing a social history interpretive approach that considers the normative perspective of the actors involved (Stutz and Sachs, ) rather than an economic history approach that interprets institutions in light of economic efficiency and viability.…”

Proto-CSR Before the Industrial Revolution: Institutional Experimentation by Medieval Miners’ Guilds

“…Further insights also draw on personal correspondence during a 3-h interview with Christoph Bartels in June 2017. To ensure further validity and objectivity (Stutz and Sachs 2018), we have complemented this information with other secondary data collected by other researchers (Kraschewski 2012;Stöllner 2012).…”

“…Our historical narrative, therefore, triangulates the available data with that mutual aid societies in other Central European mining districts, in particular, with the miners' guild in Schwaz, for which more evidence exists. This approach allows broader insights into the institutions of mutual social assistance in the general context of medieval mining (Stutz and Sachs 2018). Nevertheless, this focus on a particular region, although illustrative, is not entirely generalizable.…”

The Past, History, and Corporate Social Responsibility

“…Part of a broader literature dedicated to more historically informed theory and practice (Kipping and Üsdiken 2014;Maclean et al 2016;Rowlinson et al 2014;Stutz and Sachs 2018;Wadhwani and Bucheli 2014), the concept of historic corporate social responsibility (HCSR) addresses questions of responsibility and accountability for long-ago actions . HCSR considers how corporations manage the legitimacy of their activities when criticism of past wrongdoings flares up.…”

“…The second group of scholars appreciates prior historical periods as a "fervid laboratory of social innovation" (Husted 2015, p. 138) or a rich empirical repository of corporate misconduct among other topics of interest to CSR scholars. This camp uses history as a methodological approach to contribute to recent theoretical debates (e.g., Acosta and Pérezts 2019;Djelic and Etchanchu 2017;Marens 2018;Stutz and Sachs 2018;Warren and Tweedale 2002). This research interest follows a more general development in the broader management and organization studies, where the use of historical methods, evidence, and reasoning is increasingly considered a legitimate methodological option for business scholarship (Kipping and Üsdiken 2014;Maclean et al 2016;Rowlinson et al 2014;Van Lent and Durepos 2019;Wadhwani and Bucheli 2014).…”