The authors would like to thank Arthur G. Bedeian of Louisiana State University for his helpful comments on this paper.The emergence of The Journal of Management History, swelling numbers of submissions to the Management History Division of the Academy of Management, and a special issue of the Academy of Management Review devoted entirely to the topic of management history are but a few of the indicators pointing to a (re)surging interest in the development and evolution of the management discipline. But, excepting the efforts of a small number of experts who have offered boundaries on the domain of management history (Trent, 1992;Wren, 1994), the discipline is devoid of any systematic framework addressing the subject of historiography. The field is therefore lacking in an overall theoretical examination of management historiography which deals with the following queries: Why is the history of management, as a subject, worthy of study? How should this subject be approached? How might historical data be gathered? What are appropriate historical methodologies? To elucidate these questions, the present manuscript theoretically grounds management history as a unique and valuable "form of knowledge."
Identifying "forms of knowledge"The theory of "forms of knowledge" was advanced in 1965 by Paul Hirst (1965, 1975), an educational philosopher interested in developing criteria for justifying the relevance and value of given academic areas. Hirst explicated criteria that define "forms of knowledge." In the absence of conformance with these criteria, it can be argued that a subject is unworthy of study, research, or teaching -for the subject would lack the ability to inform its students. Since its advent, philosophers have often relied upon Hirst's framework to justify the existence of a field of interest when the Zeitgeist questioned its value.In the following sections, the four defining criteria developed by Hirst are identified (see Figure I).