Understanding the rift, the (still) uneasy bedfellows of History and Organization Studies

Abstract

Although the use of History has become increasingly discussed and more widely applied within Organization Studies (OS), its relevance for OS still remains far from centrally accepted. This article historicizes the relationship between Sociology and History as a means of better understanding the tensions, perceived and real, that exist between History and Organization Studies. In particular we analyse three differences of epistemological standpoint (method, objectivity and usefulness) that are commonly seen as the foundation stones to incompatibility. Perhaps surprisingly for an analysis of apparent disciplinary differences, we find that these distinctions in terms of approach, once closely examined, are rarely clear-cut and historians and OS scholars are frequently closer in intention and method than they are distant. However, despite their large intersection of interests, we argue that important distinctions between the two fields should be acknowledged. Our contribution to the debates over the need for more historical approaches within OS therefore centrally rests on abandoning aspirations for fully integrative models of working together, in favour of cooperative modes that concede the fields’ differences. This subtle shift of emphasis will, we believe, greatly benefit OS scholars who hope to include historical perspectives in their work.

Constructing Trustworthy Historical Narratives: Criteria, Principles and Techniques

“…Researchers suggest that historical accounts provide new perspectives that could infuse organizational theories with a greater sensitivity to the issues raised by the humanities (Burrell, ; Zald, ), a richer understanding of organizations (Sydow, Schreyögg and Koch, ) and a new outlook on accepted assumptions (Jacques, ). Yet organization studies continues to neglect history (Alvesson and Sköldberg, ; Warren and Tweedale, ) and retains an ahistorical character (Üsdiken and Kieser, ) as the two fields of research struggle to reconcile (Greenwood and Bernardi, ).…”

“…The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive and supportive comments in developing this paper. ahistorical character (Üsdiken and Kieser, 2004) as the two fields of research struggle to reconcile (Greenwood and Bernardi, 2014).…”

Co-Opted Biased Social Science: 64 Years of Telling Half Truths about the Kibbutz

“…One such measure must be the practice of seniors rather than only juniors perform preliminary field work and pilot studies, acquiring "the profound intuitions gained from personal familiarity with the field" ([60] p. 3). Wallerstein [147] proposes another measure, integration of disciplines by "historical social sciences", and the critique of kibbutz historians who exposed some of functionalists' mistakes supports this, but integration is difficult to achieve due to different academic backgrounds and research methods [148]; one should note kibbutz historians' failure to utilize classics of sociology and political science for deciphering leaders' practice changes from early high-moral radical to later conformist autocratic oligarchic. In addition, much history is written in the spirit of the leaders who shaped it.…”

The Recursive Nature of Institutional Change

“…This essay encourages organizational scholars to trespass the borders of their fields of inquiry by embracing the structural and more slowly changing historical components that constitute the matter of past and contemporary epochs. Despite calls to incorporate history into organization studies (Clark & Rowlinson, 2004;Kieser, 1994;Kipping & Üsdiken, 2014), concepts and frameworks imported from the field of history are few, and thorny issues remain about what role history should have in organizational studies (Kipping & Üsdiken, 2014;O'Sullivan & Graham, 2010), how to reconcile the two disciplines conceptually (Diaz-Bone, 2014;Rowlinson, Hassard, & Decker, 2013), and how to enhance their integration (Greenwood & Bernardi, 2013). The first hindrance is that organizational studies often do not specify a historical period, rather arbitrarily they divide time into successive stages with no attention to duration or transition phases (Kieser, 1994).…”