Research Strategies for Organizational History: A Dialogue Between Historical Theory and Organization Theory

Abstract

If history matters for organization theory, then we need greater reflexivity regarding the epistemological problem of representing the past; otherwise, history might be seen as merely a repository of ready-made data. To facilitate this reflexivity, we set out three epistemological dualisms derived from historical theory to explain the relationship between history and organization theory: (1) in the dualism of explanation, historians are preoccupied with narrative construction, whereas organization theorists subordinate narrative to analysis; (2) in the dualism of evidence, historians use verifiable documentary sources, whereas organization theorists prefer constructed data; and (3) in the dualism of temporality, historians construct their own periodization, whereas organization theorists treat time as constant for chronology. These three dualisms underpin our explication of four alternative research strategies for organizational history: corporate history, consisting of a holistic, objectivist narrative of a corporate entity; analytically structured history, narrating theoretically conceptualized structures and events; serial history, using replicable techniques to analyze repeatable facts; and ethnographic history, reading documentary sources "against the grain." Ultimately, we argue that our epistemological dualisms will enable organization theorists to justify their theoretical stance in relation to a range of strategies in organizational history, including narratives constructed from documentary sources found in organizational archives.

Facing the Normative Challenges: The Potential of Reflexive Historical Research

“…Our article thus also contributes to the very recent debate about the future direction of historical organization studies (Kipping & Üsdiken, 2014;Maclean et al, 2016;Rowlinson et al, 2014; and business history (Decker, Kipping, & Wadhwani, 2015). Thirdly and finally, we have introduced a particular type of history to B&S scholarship in order to extend the work already done.…”

“…The RHCS constitutes a novel approach to studying organizations and rests on two pillars: The recent methodological knowledge about doing history in MOS (Maclean et al, 2016;Rowlinson et al, 2014;etc. ) and the interpretive research tradition to study organizations, which is also influenced by Gadamer's thinking (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007;Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011;Mantere & Ketokivi, 2013).…”

“…To be specific, our proposed methodology is built on the conceptualizing alternative to history (Maclean et al, 2016), modified for the purpose of dealing with the normative challenges. Other variants of historical approaches serve different epistemic aims and are underpinned by philosophical assumptions different to those of RHCS (see also Rowlinson et al, 2014, and. For instance, scholars interested in understanding the origins of CSR and its development in time are best served by the narrating methodological alternative to historical research, as conceptualized by Maclean and colleagues (2016).…”

“This degrading and stealthy practice”

“…It is not easy to discover what was not; negative spaces, by their very nature, can be voids. There is also the question of reflexivity in research of this kind (Rowlinson, Hassard, & Decker, 2014). The accounting mechanisms we are examining were set in place by non-Indigenous Australians who have, historically, maintained power, and continue to maintain power, over the Indigenous population.…”

Novas Fontes, Novas Versões: Contribuições do Acervo da Comissão Nacional da Verdade

“…Na área de estudos organizacionais, o interesse dos pesquisadores por fontes e acervos históricos cresce a cada dia (Rowlinson, Hassard, & Decker, 2014). Uma parte desses estudos assume as fontes históricas como potencial de confirmação e refino de teorias gerais, seleção de variáveis e geração de hipóteses em um contexto teórico específico (Usdiken & Kipping, 2014).…”