More on scholarship in management history: moving the “interesting stuff from the bottom of the page to the top

Lamond, David

doi:10.1108/jmh.2008.15814caa.001

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…text and period); similarly, it may be a reflection of the currents from within the field itself that could stand to benefit from writing up history in more transparent terms. Nonetheless, through the efforts of our research, we are reminded of the sage advice of David Lamond (2008, p. 309), a former editor of this journal, who pleaded for management historians to consider “the importance of having an understanding of, and appreciation for, the ontological and epistemological underpinnings of scholarship” in their work.…”

Section: Making Sense Of It All: History Research Strategies and Conceptions Of Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting for management and organizational history: strategies and conceptions

Arseneault

Deal

Mills

2021

JMH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to answer the question of where the course of the collective efforts in historical research on business and organizations has taken this discipline. By raising two key contributions that have sought to reshape the contours of management and organizational history, the authors trace the work of their field since their inception and, in doing so, critique the utility of these typologies as representative of diverse historical knowledge in management and organization studies (MOS). Design/methodology/approach Drawing on elements of an integrative review that seeks to critically appraise the foundation of knowledge built in a scholarly field, the authors interrogate the historical knowledge that has been (and is being) produced in three leading management and organizational history journals by synthesizing the posture history takes as an object and subject of study in MOS. Over 400 articles were closely examined and categorized using Rowlinson et al.’s (2014) research strategies in organizational history and Maclean et al.’s (2016) four conceptions of history. Then, this research was used to examine the integrity of these two typologies and their practice by management historians. Findings The bulk of the work our field has produced mirrors an analytically structured history feel – where “doing history” straddles careful divide between data analysis and narrative construction. Narrating as a conception of history used in organization studies research remains the most subscribed representation of the past. It was found that while some work may fit within these typologies, others especially those considered peripheral of mainstream history are difficult to confine to any one strategy or conception. The authors’ examination also found some potential for a creative synthesis between the two typologies. Research limitations/implications Because only three management history journals are used in this analysis, bracketed by the choice of the periodization (between 2016 and 2019 inclusive), this study must not be viewed as being wholly representative of all historical research on business and organizations writ-large. Practical implications This research attempts to demonstrate the recent direction management and organizational historians have taken in crafting history. The authors embrace the opportunity to allow for this paper to act as a tool to familiarize a much broader audience to understand what has been constituted as historical research in MOS to-date and is especially useful to those who are already contributing to the field (e.g. doctoral students and junior scholars who have demonstrable interest in taking up historically inspired dissertations, articles, chapters and conference activities). Originality/value The research conducted in this article contributes to the debates that have sought to define the scholastic character of management and organizational history. The authors build on recent calls to take part in creating dialogue between and among each other, building on the collective efforts that advance history in both theory and practice.

show abstract

Section: Making Sense Of It All: History Research Strategies and Conceptions Of Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting for management and organizational history: strategies and conceptions

Arseneault

Deal

Mills

2021

JMH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Not only is using a theoretical lens to transform the past into history inevitable, we argue that it is one step on the road to using history as critique. As Lamond (2008) notes, understanding the philosophical assumptions that underpin histories is important and necessary.…”

Section: A ‘Radical’ Philosophical Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Suddaby (2016), for example, comments on the differences in ontology and epistemology that exist among those currently engaged in historical research. Lamond (2008), past editor of Journal of Management History (JMH), also called for historical work to be transparent of its epistemological and ontological roots. For some, explicit and implicit philosophical differences in approaches to history work lead only to stalled conversations caused by paradigmatic differences and an overall sense of field-level fragmentation (Toms and Wilson, 2010).…”

Section: Introduction: the Inherent Uncertainty Of The Historic Turnmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing critical organizational history: Context, practice and implications

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Historical research now has a relatively high profile in organization studies, and organization theories are better represented in business history, thanks to increased interdisciplinary dialogue over the last decade. It might therefore be that the ‘historic turn’ has materialized in organization studies, and that business history has become significantly more conceptual in nature. We argue, however, that in terms of the original definition of the historic turn, as a rejection of scientism, acceptance of more heterogeneous forms of history, and reflexive accounts of the social construction of historicized narratives, there has been little progress. We revisit the idea of the turn in depth here, to examine the ways of doing history that might encourage a more substantial turn towards theory and towards history as a means of developing it. In particular, we suggest that an approach we term ‘critical organizational history’ remains underdeveloped, as a theoretically informed historicized approach to understanding how and why we come to be where we are in contemporary organized societies. Our aim is to take stock of the historic turn’s progress, reminding critically oriented organizational scholars and practitioners of organizational history of the importance of completing the turn with the underlying purpose of critique. To do this, we surface seven aspects of practice and three implications of them that demonstrate the underside of theorizing historically that we suggest are central to critical analysis. Understood and practised collectively, these could provoke considerable more critical organizational history to the benefit of all.

show abstract

More on scholarship in management history: moving the “interesting stuff from the bottom of the page to the top

Cited by 2 publications

References 11 publications

Accounting for management and organizational history: strategies and conceptions

Accounting for management and organizational history: strategies and conceptions

Developing critical organizational history: Context, practice and implications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

More on scholarship in management history: moving the “interesting stuff from the bottom of the page to the top

Cited by 2 publications

References 11 publications

Accounting for management and organizational history: strategies and conceptions

Accounting for management and organizational history: strategies and conceptions

Developing critical organizational history: Context, practice and implications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

More on scholarship in management history: moving the “interesting stuff from the bottom of the page to the top