History in Organization and Management Theory: More Than Meets the Eye

Conceptualizing Historical Organization Studies

“…The two schools are also differentiated by their approaches towards interpretation, the former advocating a skilful interplay of inductive and deductive reasoning, the latter drawing its inferences more directly from theory, evidence and analysis (Aron, 1959). Kipping and Üsdiken (2014), recognizing the importance of these distinctions, advance the debate by suggesting three ways in which history might relate to organization theory at the macro and micro levels of analysis: first, as a means of testing theory (which they term "history to theory"); second, as a means of informing theoretical perspectives ("history in theory"); third, as a means of incorporating historical complexity within the theorization process itself ("historical cognizance"). These are valuable ideas on which we build.…”

The Strategic Cognition View of Issue Salience and the Evolution of a Political Issue: Landis & Gyr, the Hungarian Uprising and East-West Trade, 1953–1967

“…Second, this study has used a striking and rather idiosyncratic case to elaborate on the issue salience model. In particular, I have emphasized the historical embeddedness of the focal company, as has been called for in the course of the "historic turn" in management and organization studies (e.g., Kipping and Üsdiken 2014;Vaara and Lamberg 2015). In doing so this study has revealed an important gap in the theoretical discussion of the issue salience literature: I have argued that in addition to the firm-centric explanation of issue salience, we must incorporate a macro-level perspective to reach a more comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms that drive firms' actions in response to stakeholder issues.…”

Reintroducing public actors in entrepreneurial dynamics: A co‐evolutionary approach to categorization

“…In this section, we discuss the contributions of our study to the categorization and entrepreneurship literatures. Kipping and Üsdiken () and Maclean et al () propose an integrationist historical analysis approach to enrich our understanding of organizations while keeping concerns about theory and explanations within the “social scientific” tradition. We follow this approach in outlining the contributions of our narrative, relating them to the importance of administrative categories, to the historical approach, and to a sociopolitical view of categorization.…”

“…In this section, we discuss the contributions of our study to the categorization and entrepreneurship literatures. Kipping and Üsdiken (2014) and Maclean et al (2016) propose an integrationist historical analysis approach to enrich our understanding of organizations while keeping concerns about theory and explanations within the "social 1957 1961 1964 1966 1968 1971 1973 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 F I G U R E 1 Membership evolution in Mail Order trade association. Source: Desaegher (1993): compilation from the SEVPC archives (1959)(1960)(1961)(1962)(1963)(1964)(1965)(1966)(1967)(1968)(1969)(1970)(1971)(1972)(1973)(1974) and the directory of SEVPCD members (1976( -1991( ).…”

“…A consensus has emerged in the academic literature about the value of the potential cross-fertilization of management studies and history, and their different stances on methods and theorization pretention (e.g. Kieser, 1994;Kipping & Üsdiken, 2014;Maclean et al, 2016;Vaara & Lamberg, 2016). As history displays various approaches based on different ontological and methodological assumptions (e.g.…”