Handbook of Research on Management and Organizational History

Abstract

At the April 2017 Economic and Social Research Council workshop on organizational history in Exeter, UK, Peter Miskell asked Gabrielle Durepos and Albert Mills 'who is the ANTi-Historian?' The group assembled for the small workshop included those most influential (including, but not limited to, Michael Rowlinson, Charles Booth and Peter Clark) in shaping what, over the past 10 years has become ANTi-History. Gabrielle took the liberty to answer simply: as an actor that does critical organizational history, my composition has been shaped by all of you, my network. Thus, I'm an ANTi-Historian, but only by virtue of you. The answer was inspired by a simple actor-network theory concept, actors (me, you) are punctuated networks (groups of other influential academics) that assume their configuration through translating and enrolling actors with similar interests (Callon, 1986). Our reply to Miskell was short and, likely, insufficient. Nonetheless, the question is stimulating. In this chapter, we take the opportunity to develop a more thoughtful answer to: who is the management ANTi-Historian?The question is timely and important. It is important because it invokes a normative answer that we feel is increasingly problematic. That normative answer is: the historian is the person (human actor) who writes history. Historians assume their status as such by undergoing years of professional academic training where they learn the disciplinary conventions and craft of history and historiography (Marwick, 2001). The training involves acquiring specialized knowledge of existing interpretations in the field and the ability for disciplined reading of primary and secondary sources through which the methods of verification are internalized (Elton, 1967;Munslow, 2006Munslow, [1997). Through this training, historians acquire a licence to legitimately translate stories of the past into history. So, what is the problem with this answer? And, why is it timely?Calls for an historic turn in 2004 led to increased attention on doing history research in management and organization studies (MOS) (Clark and Rowlinson, 2004;Üsdiken and Kieser, 2004). Though calls for more history did not result in a wholesale transformation of MOS as had been hoped for, many MOS researchers have taken an active interest in doing history. The attention is evidenced in the numerous edited collections (

Taking an eventful historic turn down the cultural memory lane

“…By recognizing the potential of integrating mnemohistory into MOS that has been uncharted to date, we respond to Booth and Rowlinson's (2006) call for alternative ways of integrating history into the management and organizational domain through Godfrey et al's (2016) notion of "creative synthesis." In particular, we argue that a meaningful historic turn involving mnemohistory leads our field away from antagonistic fragmentation engendered by the division between historic positivist and post-positivist actor networks (Bowden, 2018(Bowden, , 2019(Bowden, , 2020Bruce, 2020;Cummings et al, 2017;Mills and Novicevic, 2020;Mollan, 2019). We ponder the potential of mnemohistory insofar as to how it could be instrumental in theorizing the meanings of, and the relationships among, past-related constructs such as organizational heritage, legacy and identity.…”

“…As this special issue so keenly demonstrates, these so-called tensions have simmered underneath the surface for quite some time but, as of late, have spilled over into the realm of archetypical feuds between proponents of "walking the party line" of historical positivism (Bowden, 2020) and those who argue for historical scholarship on business and organizations to take a historic turn toward historical post-positivism (Cummings et al, 2017). This feud is manifested in Kyle Bruce's (2020) recent research companion, Handbook of Research on Management and Organizational History, for instance, but also extends to the numerous outlets and platforms including professional development workshops, symposia and paper sessions at the Academy of Management, as well as special journal issues, monographs, edited collections and book chapters and reviews. Clearly this controversy within the community of management historians (Novicevic and Mills, 2019) characterizes a fragmenting feel to our discipline (Durepos, 2017) engendered by the growing community of the "historic turners".…”

Historical Organization Studies

“…It is precisely owing to unease over a potential lowering of the exacting standards demanded by history that some business historians have been wary of promoting greater use of history in organization studies, concerned that a preoccupation with theory might be linked to a lack of respect for and sensitivity to history. Bruce (2020) argues that there is currently a battle ongoing for the heart and soul of management and organizational history. White (1987: 164) warns of the dangers of historical dilettantism:…”

The Evolution of Management Thought: reflections on narrative structure

“…Historical organization studies are now recognized as a distinct subfield of management and organization studies. As Maclean et al (2016, p. 609) explain, the field is dedicated to fostering “organizational research that draws extensively on historical data, methods, and knowledge to promote historically informed theoretical narratives attentive to both disciplines.” The literature associated with historical organization studies is now abundant, evident in numerous special issues (McLaren et al , 2021; Helms Mills and Mills, 2021; Godfrey et al , 2016; Cooke et al , 2006), edited books (McLaren et al , 2015; Bruce, 2020; Clegg et al , 2020; Decker et al , 2022), monographs (Bowden, 2018; Cummings et al , 2017; Durepos and Mills, 2012) and book series (Palgrave’s Debates in Business History series; De Gruyter Studies in Organizational and Management History) dedicated to the topic. As part of these scholarly efforts, a philosophical debate has developed among modern and postmodern researchers concerning how to do organizational history (Bowden, 2021; Muldoon, 2020a, 2020b, 2021; Muldoon et al , 2022).…”