New business histories! Plurality in business history research methods

Abstract

We agree with de Jong et al.'s argument that business historians should make their methods more explicit and welcome a more general debate about the most appropriate methods for business historical research. But rather than advocating one ‘new business history’, we argue that contemporary debates about methodology in business history need greater appreciation for the diversity of approaches that have developed in the last decade. And while the hypothesis-testing framework prevalent in the mainstream social sciences favoured by de Jong et al. should have its place among these methodologies, we identify a number of additional streams of research that can legitimately claim to have contributed novel methodological insights by broadening the range of interpretative and qualitative approaches to business history. Thus, we reject privileging a single method, whatever it may be, and argue instead in favour of recognising the plurality of methods being developed and used by business historians – both within their own field and as a basis for interactions with others.

Keywords::

• research methods
• interpretative and qualitative approaches
• interactions with other disciplines

Acknowledgements

Authors contributed equally; names appear in alphabetical order. We thank Julia Ott, Louis Hyman, and Alfred Reckendrees, the editors of this special issue, and an anonymous referee for their helpful comments and suggestions. The usual disclaimer applies.

Notes

^1. Both in this volume.

^2. Authors

^3.Boldizzoni, The Poverty of Clio.

^4.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/method

^5. Here is where for instance Stinchcombe, The Logic of Social Research sees the specific role for historical methods in social research as compared to quantitative, ethnographic and experimental ones.

^6. e.g. Berg and Lune, Qualitative Research Methods; Buchanan and Bryman, The SAGE Handbook.

^7.Hansen and Wadhwani, “Can Business History”; Wadhwani and Bucheli, “The Future of the Past.”

^8.Sewell, Logics of History.

^9.Rowlinson, Hassard, and Decker, “Research Strategies for Organizational History”.

^10.Decker, “The Silence of the Archives”; Kipping, Wadhwani, and Bucheli, “Analyzing and Interpreting”; Schwarzkopf, “What is an Archive.”

^11.Fear, “Mining the Past”; Wadhwani and Bucheli, “The Future of the Past”; Yates, “Understanding Historical Methods.”

^12.Ricoeur, Time and Narrative.

^13.Lamoreaux, Raff, and Temin, “Beyond Markets and Hierarchies.”

^14.Raff, “How to Do Things with Time”; see also Winter, “An Evolutionary Program.”

^15.Callon, “Introduction”; Callon, Millo and Muniesa, Market Devices.

^16. Fridenson, Patrick, “Business History and History”, in Oxford Handbook of Business History, ed. by G. Jones and J. Zeitlin, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007: 9–36.

^17.Lipartito, “Culture”; , “Organizational Culture” and “Business History”; Mordhorst, “From Counterfactual History.”

^18. Scranton and Fridenson, Reimagining Business History, 9 and 38.

^19. E.g. Beckert, The Monied Metropolis; Galambos, “Is This a Decisive Moment?”; Mihm, A Nation of Counterfeiters; Ott, When Wall Street; Hyman, Debtor Nation.

^20. For more detail on the scientisation of business education and research and the related marginalisation of historical approaches, see Engwall, Kipping, and Üsdiken, “Public Science Systems”; Üsdiken and Kipping. “History and Organization Studies.”

^21.Zald, “Organization Studies,” 526–527.

^22.Kieser, “Why Organization Theory Needs Historical Analyses.”

^23. , “The Emerging Organizational Synthesis” and “Technology, Political Economy, and Professionalization.”

^24.Clark and Rowlinson, “The Treatment of History”; Rowlinson and Hassard, “History and the Cultural Turn”; Hansen, “Organizational Culture.”

^25.Carter, “The Age of Strategy”; McKinlay, “Dead Selves” and “Following Foucault.”

^26.Kipping and Üsdiken, “History in Organization.”

^27.Freeland, The Struggle for Control. Interestingly enough, even if the book does not rely on hypothesis testing, de Jong, Higgins, and van Driel (in “Towards a New Business History?”) also use it to back up their claims for a new business history.

^28.Rowlinson et al.Research Strategies for Organizational History.

^29.Jones, Renewing Unilever.

^30. , Strategy and Structure and The Visible Hand.

^31.Gelderblom, de Jong, and Jonker. “The Formative Years.”

^32. , “‘Dead Selves’” and “Following Foucault”; Decker, “Solid Intentions.”

^33. Eloranta et al (2010).

^34.Maclean, Harvey, and Chia, “Sensemaking; Popp and Holt, Entrepreneurship and the Organization of Being” and “The Presence of Entrepreneurial Opportunity.”

^35.Jones, Maoret, Massa, and Svejenova, “Rebels with a Cause;” Khaire and Wadhwani, “Changing Landscapes;” Suddaby, Foster, and Mills, “Historical Institutionalism;” Hargadon and Douglas, “When Innovations Meet Institutions.”

^36.Bruce and Nyland. “Elton Mayo”; Hassard, “Rethinking the Hawthorne Studies”; O'Connor, “The Politics of Management Thought.”

^37.Foster, Suddaby, Minkus and Wiebe, “History as Social Memory Assets”; Suddaby, Foster and Trank, “Rhetorical History”; Anteby and Molnár, “Collective Memory.”

^38. See namely Burgelman, “Bridging History and Reductionism”; Kipping and Lamberg, “Historical Methods”; and, in general, Langley, “Strategies.”

^39.Chandler, “Organizational Capabilities.”

^40. E.g. Daneels, “Trying to Become”; Tripsas and Gavetti, “Capabilities, Cognition, and Inertia.”

^41.Bucheli and Wadhwani, Organizations in Time.

^42.Lippmann and Aldrich, “History and Evolutionary Theory.”

^43.Suddaby et al. “Historical Institutionalism.”

^44.Kipping and Üsdiken, “History in Organization”; Yates, “Understanding Historical Methods”; Lipartito, “Historical Sources and Data”; Wadhwani and Bucheli, “The Future of the Past”; Fear, “Mining the Past.”

^45.Rowlinson and Hassard, “History and the Cultural Turn.”

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Stephanie Decker

Stephanie Decker is Professor of Organization Studies and History at Aston Business School, UK. As a historian working at a business school, most of her work is concerned with the relation between organization theory and history. She is co-editor of Business History, the recipient of the Leverhulme Trust Research Fellowship 2014-15, and the principal organizer of a seminar series on organizational history funded by the Economic and Social Science Research Council (UK). Her recent publications include “Research Strategies for Organizational History” (Academy of Management Review, 2014, co-authored with Michael Rowlinson and John Hassard).

Matthias Kipping

Matthias Kipping is Professor of Policy and Chair in Business History at the Schulich School of Business, York University in Toronto, Canada. His research has focused on the development and role of the different institutions of management knowledge, namely management consulting and business education. In his publications, as well as in his teaching, he has been trying to link historical research with organizational theory. They include an article (jointly with Behlül Üsdiken) on “History In Organization and Management Theory: More Than Meets the Eye.” The Academy of Management Annals 8, no. 1 (2014).

R. Daniel Wadhwani

R. Daniel Wadhwani is Fletcher Jones Professor of Entrepreneurship at University of the Pacific, USA and Visiting Professor at the Centre for Business History, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark. He is co-editor of Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods and co-editor for recently announced special issues on “uses of history” in Organization Studies and on “historical approaches to entrepreneurship research” in Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. His research has been published in Academy of Management Journal, Business History, and Business History Review, among other journals.