Notes on the Evolution of a Research Community: Organization Studies in Anglophone North America, 1945–2000

Abstract

S ince the Second World War, the field of organizations studies has grown substantially in the number of researchers, number of publications, and amount of research produced. It has moved from being a combination of established disciplines to becoming a quasi-discipline of its own, with its own journals and professional associations. It has established a standardized set of ancestors, a stylized history. It has solidified an academic home in business schools. This history has implications for understanding both the future of organizations research and the social dynamics of the development of scholarly communities. Despite this long heritage, the contemporary field of organization studies is primarily a creation of a shorter and more parochial history created in the last half of the twentieth century in Anglophone North America. 1 The focus on North American scholarship is not to overlook the substantial twentieth century contributions from other parts of the world. European scholars such as Tom Burns, Ronald Coase, Michel Crozier, David Hickson, Edith Penrose, Derek Pugh, Claude Riveline, George Stalker, and Joan Woodward were major figures in the middle of the century, as were scholars such as Nils Brunsson, Lex Donaldson, Giovanni Dosi, Alfred Kieser, Bruno Latour, Johan Olsen, Andrew Pettigrew, and Jean-Claude Theonig in the latter part. Scholarly fields often bury their early and geographically distant contributors through some combination of ignorance, localized ambitions for recognition, and convenient conceptions of progress; and the field of organization studies in North America clearly exhibits such myopia. However, there are special features of twentieth century history that shaped the development of the organizations research community after 1945 in such a way as to lead to a relatively autonomous genealogy.

Coauthorship Trends in the Field of Management: Facts and Perceptions

“…Prior studies suggest that management as a field has grown continuously in terms of the numbers of business schools (i.e., hiring departments), faculty members, and students (Augier, March, & Ni Sullivan, 2005).…”

Ensino superior em administração entre os anos 1940 e 1950: uma discussão a partir dos acordos de cooperação Brasil-Estados Unidos

“…At this time Management strengthened its ties with academia, with broader and more sophisticated theories. This was achieved either by incorporating theories from other fields of knowledge or through the development of more thorough studies in the field (KHURANA and SPENDER, 2012;MARCH, 2007;AUGIER, MARCH and SULLIVAN, 2005;LOCKE, 1996). Theories also arose that are still among the most diffuse in this field, such as the systems theory and the contingency theory, which remain central to contemporary discussions (KELLEY, MILLS and COOKE, 2006).…”

Introduction: Special Symposium “Carnegie school and organization studies”

“…The lack of a clear unifying paradigm would make a history of thought(s) too complex, and unbearable, to write. For instance, Augier et al (2005) write:…”

“…"Wouldn't organizational economy be the more appropriate term?" it might ask ... (Simon, 1991, p. 27) In the immediate post-war period, this shared interest in organizations helped to build a common home for scholars who worked in different academic homes (Augier et al, 2005). Herbert Simon and James March for instance, were political scientists.…”

“…Interview with Amartya Sen, April 2012. 3 In their note on the evolution of the organization studies research community in North America, Augier, March and Sullivan (2005) compared the citations by discipline -e.g., organization studies, economics, sociology, anthropology -in three handbooks of organization studies (Baum, 2002;March, 1965;Nystrom & Starbuck, 1981). They found that the fraction of references to organization studies journals and books has increased between the mid 1960s and the years 2000.…”