Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T04:29:54.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Organization Theory in Business and Management History: Present Status and Future Prospects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 August 2017

Mairi Maclean ,
Charles Harvey  and
Stewart R. Clegg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A common lament is that business history has been marginalized within mainstream business and management research. We propose that the remedy lies in part with more extensive engagement with organization theory. We illustrate our argument by exploring the potentialities for business history of three cognitive frameworks: institutional entrepreneurship, evolutionary theory, and Bourdieusian social theory. Exhibiting a higher level of theoretical fluency might enable business historians to accrue scholarly capital within the business and management field by producing theoretically informed historical discourse, demonstrating the potential of business history to extend theory, generate constructs, and elucidate complexities in unfolding relationships, situations, and events.

Keywords

business historyhistorical organization studiesmanagement historynarrativeorganization theoryresearch methods
Type
Research Article
Information
Business History Review , Volume 91 , Special Issue 3: A Special Issue on Methodologies , Autumn 2017 , pp. 457 - 481
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Friedman, Walter A. and Jones, Geoffrey, “Business History: Time for Debate,” Business History Review 85, no. 1 (2011): 4.Google Scholar

2 Raff, Daniel M. G., “How to Do Things with Time,” Enterprise & Society 14, no. 3 (2013): 439Google Scholar. On uniqueness, see also Lippmann, Stephen and Aldrich, Howard E., “History and Evolutionary Theory,” in Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods, ed. Bucheli, Marcelo and Daniel, R. Wadhwani (Oxford, 2014), 124–46.Google Scholar

3 Taylor, Scott, Bell, Emma, and Cooke, Bill, “Business History and the Historiographical Operation,” Management & Organizational History 4, no. 2 (2009): 152.Google Scholar

4 Roy Suddaby, “Institutions and History: The Historic Turn in Management Theory” (keynote address, Association of Business Historians annual conference, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, U.K., 27 June 2014).

5 See Harvey, Charles and Wilson, John, “Redefining Business History: An Editorial Statement,” Business History 49, no. 1 (2007): 3Google Scholar; Harvey, Charles, “Business History: Concepts and Measurement,” Business History 31, no. 3 (1989): 1–5Google Scholar; Harvey, Charles and Jones, Geoffrey, “Business History in Britain into the 1990s,” Business History 32, no. 1 (1990): 5–16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Booth, Charles and Rowlinson, Michael, “Management and Organizational History: Prospects,” Management & Organizational History 1, no. 1 (2006): 5–30 Google Scholar.

6 Jones, Geoffrey and Zeitlin, Jonathan, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Business History (Oxford, 2007), 1Google Scholar.

7 Friedman and Jones, “Time for Debate”; Rowlinson, Michael, Hassard, John, and Decker, Stephanie, “Research Strategies for Organizational History: A Dialogue between Historical Theory and Organization Theory,” Academy of Management Review 39, no. 3 (2014): 250–74.Google Scholar

8 Friedman and Jones, “Time for Debate,” 1. See also Steinmetz, George, “The Relations between Sociology and History in the United States: The Current State of Affairs,” Journal of Historical Sociology 20, no. 1–2 (2007): 1–12 Google Scholar; and Hall, John R., “Where History and Sociology Meet: Forms of Discourse and Sociohistorical Inquiry,” Sociological Theory 10, no. 2 (1992): 164–93Google Scholar.

9 See Steinmetz, George, “Transdisciplinarity as a Nonimperial Encounter: For an Open Sociology,” Thesis Eleven 91, no. 1 (2007): 48–65 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Phelan, James, “Who's Here? Thoughts on Narrative Identity and Narrative Imperialism,” Narrative 13, no. 3 (2005): 205–10Google Scholar.

10 For useful exceptions, see Decker, Stephanie, “Corporate Legitimacy and Advertising: British Companies and the Rhetoric of Development in West Africa, 1950–1970,” Business History Review 81, no. 1 (2007): 59–86Google Scholar; Jones, Geoffrey and Miskell, Peter, “Acquisitions and Firm Growth: Creating Unilever's Ice Cream and Tea Business,” Business History 49, no. 1 (2007): 8–28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Mairi Maclean, Charles Harvey, and Lindsay Stringfellow, “Narrative, Metaphor and the Subjective Understanding of Historic Identity Transition,” Business History 59 (published electronically 7 Sept. 2016), doi: 10.1080/00076791.2016.1223048.

11 Certeau, Michel de, The Writing of History (New York, 1988), 3.Google Scholar

12 See Jones, Geoffrey and Khanna, Tarun, “Bringing History (Back) into International Business,” Journal of International Business Studies 37, no. 4 (2006): 453–68Google Scholar; Keulen, Sjoerd and Kroeze, Ronald, “Understanding Management Gurus and Historical Narratives: The Benefits of a Historic Turn in Management and Organization Studies,” Management & Organizational History 7, no. 2 (2012): 171–89Google Scholar; Mills, Albert J., Weatherbee, Terrance G., and Durepos, Gabrielle, “Reassembling Weber to Reveal the Past-as-History in Management and Organization Studies,” Organization 21, no. 2 (2014): 225–43Google Scholar; Rowlinson, Michael, Booth, Charles, Clark, Peter, Delahaye, Agnès, and Procter, Stephen, “Social Remembering and Organizational Memory,” Organization Studies 31, no. 1 (2010): 69–87 Google Scholar; Rowlinson, Michael and Carter, Chris, “Foucault and History in Organization Studies,” Organization 9, no. 4 (2002): 527–47Google Scholar; and Rowlinson, Michael and Hassard, John S., “Historical Neo-Institutionalism or Neo-Institutionalist History? Historical Research in Management and Organizational Studies,” Management & Organizational History 8, no. 2 (2013): 111–26Google Scholar.

13 Maclean, Mairi, Harvey, Charles, and Clegg, Stewart R., “Conceptualizing Historical Organization Studies,” Academy of Management Review 41, no. 4 (2016): 609–32Google Scholar.

14 Tsoukas, Haridimos and Knudsen, Christian, “Introduction: The Need for Meta-Theoretical Reflection in Organization Theory,” in The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory, ed. Tsoukas, Haridimos and Knudsen, Christian (Oxford, 2003), 2Google Scholar.

15 Raff, “How to Do Things,” 435; Scranton, Philip and Fridenson, Patrick, Reimagining Business History (Baltimore, 2013), 205Google Scholar.

16 Maclean, Harvey, and Clegg, “Conceptualizing Historical Organization Studies.”

17 See, in particular, Kieser, Alfred, “Why Organization Theory Needs Historical Analyses—and How This Should Be Performed,” Organization Science 5, no. 4 (1994): 608–20Google Scholar; and Clark, Peter and Rowlinson, Michael, “The Treatment of History in Organisation Studies: Towards an ‘Historic Turn’?” Business History 46, no. 3 (2004): 331–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Zald, Mayer N., “More Fragmentation? Unfinished Business in Linking the Social Sciences and the Humanities,” Administrative Science Quarterly 41, no. 2 (1996): 256Google Scholar.

19 See Bucheli, Marcelo and Wadhwani, R. Daniel, eds., Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods (Oxford, 2014)Google Scholar; Greenwood, Anna and Bernardi, Andrea, “Understanding the Rift, the (Still) Uneasy Bedfellows of History and Organization Studies,” Organization 21, no. 6 (2014): 907–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Kipping, Matthias and Üsdiken, Behlül, “History in Organization and Management Theory: More Than Meets the Eye,” Academy of Management Annals 8, no. 1 (2014): 535–88Google Scholar.

20 Rowlinson, Hassard, and Decker, “Strategies for Organizational History.”

21 Maclean, Harvey, and Clegg, “Conceptualizing Historical Organization Studies.”

22 R. Daniel Wadhwani and Marcelo Bucheli, “The Future of the Past in Management and Organization Studies,” in Bucheli and Wadhwani, Organizations in Time, 23.

23 Hambrick, Donald C., “The Field of Management's Devotion to Theory: Too Much of a Good Thing?” Academy of Management Journal 50, no. 6 (2007): 1346Google Scholar.

24 Wilkins, Mira, “Business History as a Discipline,” Business and Economic History, vol. 17 (1988): 1Google Scholar.

25 Raff, “How to Do Things,” 439.

26 Davis, Gerald C., “Do Theories of Organizations Progress?” Organizational Research Methods 13, no. 4 (2010): 690–709 Google Scholar.

27 Ibid., 707.

28 Hambrick, “Management's Devotion to Theory.”

29 White, Hayden, The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation (Baltimore, 1987)Google Scholar.

30 Maclean, Harvey, and Clegg, “Conceptualizing Historical Organization Studies”; Lippmann and Aldrich, “History and Evolutionary Theory.”

31 Hüseyin Leblebici, “History and Organization Theory: Potential for a Transdisciplinary Convergence,” in Bucheli and Wadhwani, Organizations in Time, 72.

32 Ibid.

33 Ricoeur, Paul, “Explanation and Understanding,” in The Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur: An Anthology of His Work, ed. Reagan, Charles E. and Stewart, David (Boston, 1978), 149–66Google Scholar.

34 Wilkins, “Business History,” 5.

35 R. Daniel Wadhwani, “Re-imagining History in Unsettled Times” (plenary session, European Group for Organizational Studies annual conference, Rotterdam, 4 July 2014).

36 Chandler, Alfred D. Jr., Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise (Cambridge, Mass., 1962)Google Scholar, The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge, Mass., 1977)Google Scholar, and Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism (Cambridge, Mass., 1990)Google Scholar.

37 Chandler, Strategy and Structure.

38 Chandler, Visible Hand; Chandler, Scale and Scope.

39 Maclean, Mairi, Harvey, Charles, and Press, Jon, “Managerialism and the Postwar Evolution of the French National Business System,” Business History 49, no. 4 (2007): 531–51Google Scholar.

40 Ericson, Mona, Melin, Leif, and Popp, Andrew, “Studying Strategy as Practice through Historical Methods,” in Strategy as Practice, 2nd ed., ed. Golsorkhi, Damon, Rouleau, Linda, Seidl, David, and Vaara, Eero (Cambridge, U.K., 2015), 507Google Scholar.

41 Harvey and Wilson, “Redefining Business History.”

42 Raff, “How to Do Things,” 444. See Bucheli, Marcelo, Mahoney, Joseph T., and Vaaler, Paul M., “Chandler's Living History: The Visible Hand of Vertical Integration in Nineteenth Century America Viewed under a Twenty-First Century Transaction Cost Lens,” Journal of Management Studies 47, no. 5 (2010): 859–83Google Scholar; and Lipartito, Kenneth J., “The Future of Alfred Chandler,” Enterprise & Society 9, no. 3 (2008): 430–32Google Scholar.

43 Jones, Geoffrey, Multinationals and Global Capitalism: From the Nineteenth to the Twenty-First Century (Oxford, 2005)Google Scholar.

44 Friedman and Jones, “Time for Debate,” 8.

45 See Hannan, Michael T. and Freeman, John, “The Population Ecology of Organizations,” American Journal of Sociology 82, no. 5 (1977): 929–64Google Scholar; and Aldrich, Howard E. and Ruef, Martin, Organizations Evolving, 2nd ed. (London, 2006)Google Scholar.

46 Suddaby, “Institutions and History.” See also Suddaby, Roy, Hardy, Cynthia, and Huy, Quy N., “Introduction to Special Topic Forum: Where Are the New Theories of Organization?” Academy of Management Review 36, no. 2 (2011): 236Google Scholar.

47 Braudel, Fernand, On History (Chicago, 1980)Google Scholar.

48 Lippmann and Aldrich, “History and Evolutionary Theory,” 142

49 Judt, Tony, Thinking the Twentieth Century, with Timothy Snyder (London, 1992), 272Google Scholar.

50 On path dependence, see David, Paul A., “Clio and the Economics of QWERTY,” American Economic Review 75, no. 2 (1985): 332–37Google Scholar; and Sydow, Jörg, Schreyögg, Georg, and Koch, Jochan, “Organizational Path Dependence: Opening the Black Box,” Academy of Management Review 34, no. 4 (2009): 689–709 Google Scholar. With respect to structural inertia, see Hannan, Michael T. and Freeman, John, “Structural Inertia and Organizational Change,” American Sociological Review 49, no. 2 (1984): 149–64Google Scholar. On imprinting, see Stinchcombe, Arthur L., “Social Structure and Organizations,” in Handbook of Organizations, ed. March, James G. (Chicago, 1965), 142–93Google Scholar; and Marquis, Christopher, “The Pressure of the Past: Network Imprinting in Intercorporate Communities,” Administrative Science Quarterly 48, no. 4 (2003): 655–89Google Scholar.

51 See Wernerfelt, Birger, “A Resource-Based View of the Firm,” Strategic Management Journal 5, no. 2 (1984): 171–80Google Scholar; and Raff, Daniel M. G., “Superstores and the Evolution of Firm Capabilities in American Bookselling,” Strategic Management Journal 21, no. 10–11 (2000): 1043–59Google Scholar. On organizational ecology, see Ruef, Martin, “The Demise of an Organizational Form: Emancipation and Plantation Agriculture in the American South, 1860–1880,” American Journal of Sociology 109, no. 6 (2004): 1365–410Google Scholar. On organizational emergence, see Forbes, Daniel P. and Kirsch, David A., “The Study of Emerging Industries: Recognizing and Responding to Some Central Problems,” Journal of Business Venturing 26, no. 5 (2011): 589–602 Google Scholar.

52 See Leblebici, Hüseyin, Salancik, Gerald R., Copay, Anne, and King, Tom, “Institutional Change and the Transformation of Interorganizational Fields: An Organizational History of the US Radio Broadcasting Industry,” Administrative Science Quarterly 36, no. 3 (1991): 333–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Roy Suddaby, William M. Foster, and Albert J. Mills, “Historical Institutionalism,” in Bucheli and Wadhwani, Organizations in Time, 100–23.

53 See Marshall, David R. and Novicevic, Milorad M., “Legitimizing the Social Enterprise: Development of a Conformance Framework Based on a Genealogical Pragmatic Analysis,” Management & Organizational History 11, no. 2 (2016): 99–122 Google Scholar. On organizational memory, see Anteby, Michel and Molnár, Virág, “Collective Memory Meets Organizational Identity: Remembering to Forget in a Firm's Rhetorical History,” Academy of Management Journal 55, no. 3 (2012): 515–40Google Scholar. On historical entrepreneurship, see R. Daniel Wadhwani and Geoffrey Jones, “Schumpeter's Plea: Historical Reasoning in Entrepreneurship Theory and Research,” in Bucheli and Wadhwani, Organizations in Time, 192–216; and Popp, Andrew and Holt, Robin, “The Presence of Entrepreneurial Opportunity,” Business History 55, no. 1 (2013): 9–28 Google Scholar. On process theory, see Schultz, Majken and Hernes, Tor, “A Temporal Perspective on Organizational Identity,” Organization Science 24, no. 1 (2012): 1–21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On strategic change and strategy as practice, see Ericson, Mona, “Exploring the Future Exploiting the Past,” Journal of Management History 12, no. 2 (2006): 121–36Google Scholar; and Ericson, Melin, and Popp, “Studying Strategy as Practice.”

54 Weick, Karl E., Sensemaking in Organizations (Thousand Oaks, Calif., 1995)Google Scholar; Maclean, Mairi, Harvey, Charles, Sillince, John A. A., and Golant, Benjamin D., “Living Up to the Past? Ideological Sensemaking in Organizational Transition,” Organization 21, no. 4 (2014): 543–67Google Scholar; Suddaby, Roy, Foster, William M., and Trank, Christine Quinn, “Rhetorical History as a Source of Competitive Advantage,” in The Globalization of Strategy Research, ed. Baum, Joel A. C. and Lampel, Joseph (Bingley, U.K., 2010), 147–73Google Scholar.

55 Popp and Holt, “Presence of Entrepreneurial Opportunity.”

56 DiMaggio, Paul J., “Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory,” in Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment, ed. Zucker, Lynne G. (Cambridge, Mass., 1988), 3–22 Google Scholar; Battilana, Julie, Leca, Bernard, and Boxenbaum, Eva, “How Actors Change Institutions: Towards a Theory of Institutional Entrepreneurship,” Academy of Management Annals 3, no. 1 (2009): 65–107 Google Scholar.

57 Munir, Kamal A. and Phillips, Nelson, “The Birth of the ‘Kodak Moment’: Institutional Entrepreneurship and the Adoption of New Technologies,” Organization Studies 26, no. 11 (2005): 1165–87Google Scholar.

58 Greenwood, Royston and Suddaby, Roy, “Institutional Entrepreneurship in Mature Fields: The Big Five Accounting Firms,” Academy of Management Journal 49, no. 1 (2006): 29Google Scholar.

59 Fulbrook, Mary and Rublack, Ulinka, “In Relation: The ‘Social Self’ and Ego-Documents,” German History 28, no. 3 (2010): 236Google Scholar.

60 See Collingwood, R. G., The Idea of History (Oxford, 1993)Google Scholar; Sewell, William H. Jr., Logics of History: Social Theory and Social Transformation (Chicago, 2005)Google Scholar; and de Certeau, The Writing of History.

61 Leblebici et al., “Institutional Change,” 336.

62 Munir and Phillips, “Birth of the ‘Kodak Moment.’”

63 See North, Douglass C., Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (Cambridge, U.K., 1990)Google Scholar. This point is made by Dacin, M. Tina, Goodstein, Jerry, and Scott, W. Richard in “Institutional Theory and Institutional Change: An Introduction to the Special Research Forum,” Academy of Management Journal 45, no. 1 (2002): 45–57 Google Scholar.

64 Suddaby, Foster, and Mills, “Historical Institutionalism,” 100.

65 Harvey, Charles, Maclean, Mairi, Gordon, Jillian, and Shaw, Eleanor, “Andrew Carnegie and the Foundations of Contemporary Entrepreneurial Philanthropy,” Business History 53, no. 3 (2011): 424–48Google Scholar. See also Nasaw, David, Andrew Carnegie (New York, 2006)Google Scholar.

66 Hutner, Gordon, introduction to The Autobiography of Andrew Carnegie, by Carnegie, Andrew (1920; New York, 2006), vii–xvi Google Scholar.

67 Fligstein, Neil, “Social Skill and the Theory of Fields,” Sociological Theory 19, no. 2 (2001): 105–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68 Maclean, Mairi and Harvey, Charles, “‘Give It Back, George’: Network Dynamics in the Philanthropic Field,” Organization Studies 37, no. 3 (2016): 399–423 Google Scholar.

69 Carnegie, Andrew, The Gospel of Wealth Essays and Other Writings (Harmondsworth, U.K., 2006), 7Google Scholar; Bishop, Matthew and Green, Michael, Philanthrocapitalism (London, 2008)Google Scholar.

70 Lippmann and Aldrich, “History and Evolutionary Theory”; Nelson, Richard R. and Winter, Sidney G., An Evolution Theory of Economic Change (Cambridge, Mass., 1982)Google Scholar.

71 Meyer, John W. and Rowan, Brian, “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony,” American Journal of Sociology 83, no. 2 (1977): 333–63Google Scholar.

72 Lippmann and Aldrich, “History and Evolutionary Theory,” 129.

73 Ibid., 132; Johnson, Victoria, “What Is Organizational Imprinting? Cultural Entrepreneurship in the Founding of the Paris Opera,” American Journal of Sociology 113, no. 1 (2007): 97–127 Google Scholar.

74 Baron, James N., Dobbin, Frank R., and Jennings, P. Devereaux, “War and Peace: The Evolution of Modern Personnel Administration in U.S. Industry,” American Journal of Sociology 92, no. 2 (1986): 350–83Google Scholar.

75 Raff, “Superstores,” 1055.

76 Braudel, On History, 27.

77 Raff, “How to Do Things,” 445–46.

78 Naomi R. Lamoreaux, Daniel M. G. Raff, and Peter Temin, “Economic Theory and Business History,” in Jones and Zeitlin, Oxford Handbook of Business History, 37–66.

79 Jones and Khanna, “Bringing History (Back),” 462; Casson, Mark and Casson, Catherine, The Entrepreneur in History: From Medieval Merchant to Modern Business Leader (Basingstoke, 2013)Google Scholar.

80 Aldrich and Ruef, Organizations Evolving, xiv; Raff, “How to Do Things,” 435.

81 Gorski, Philip S., “Bourdieu as a Theorist of Change,” in Bourdieu and Historical Analysis, ed. Gorski, Philip S. (Durham, N.C., 2013), 1Google Scholar. See also Bourdieu, Pierre and Chartier, Roger, The Sociologist and the Historian (Cambridge, U.K., 2015)Google Scholar.

82 Bourdieu, Pierre and Raphael, Lutz, “Sur les rapports entre l'histoire et la sociologie en Allemagne et en France,” Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 106–7, no. 1 (1995): 108–22Google Scholar, quoted in Calhoun, Craig, “For the Social History of the Present,” in Bourdieu and Historical Analysis, ed. Gorski, Philip S. (Durham, 2013), 37Google Scholar.

83 Friedman and Jones, “Time for Debate,” 4.

84 See, for example, Swartz, David L., “Bringing Bourdieu's Master Concepts into Organizational Analysis,” Theory and Society 37, no. 1 (2008): 45–52Google Scholar; and Oakes, Leslie S., Townley, Barbara, and Cooper, David J., “Business Planning as Pedagogy: Language and Control in a Changing Institutional Field,” Administrative Science Quarterly 43, no. 2 (1998): 257–92Google Scholar.

85 See Mutch, Alistair, “Communities of Practice and Habitus: A Critique,” Organization Studies 24, no. 3 (2003): 383–401Google Scholar; Maclean, Mairi, “New rules – old games? Social capital and privatisation in France, 1986–1998, Business History 50, no. 6 (2008): 795–810 Google Scholar; Maclean, Mairi, Harvey, Charles, and Chia, Robert, “Dominant Corporate Agents and the Power Elite in France and Britain,” Organization Studies 31, no. 3 (2010): 327–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

86 See, for example, Bourdieu, Pierre, “Intellectual Field and Creative Project,” Social Science Information 8, no. 2 (1969): 89–119 Google Scholar; Bourdieu, Pierre, “The Forms of Capital,” in Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, ed. G., John Richardson (New York, 1986), 241–58Google Scholar; Bourdieu, Pierre, “Champ du pouvoir et division du travail de domination,” Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 190, no. 5 (2011): 126–93Google Scholar.

87 Bourdieu's work has been used by business historians to explore the creative industries, in particular the mechanisms of taste formation and dissemination across a broad swath of society, eventually becoming institutionalized. See Harvey, Charles, Press, Jon, and Maclean, Mairi, “William Morris, Cultural Leadership, and the Dynamics of Taste,” Business History Review 85, no. 2 (2011): 245–71Google Scholar.

88 Bourdieu, Pierre, The State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power (Cambridge, U.K., 1996)Google Scholar.

89 Harvey et al., “Andrew Carnegie,” 436.

90 Bourdieu, “Intellectual Field,” 89, 91.

91 Ibid., 96.

92 Martin, John Levi, “What Is Field Theory?” American Journal of Sociology 109, no. 1 (2003): 1–49 Google Scholar.

93 Fligstein, “Social Skill.”

94 Taylor, Bell, and Cooke, “Business History.”

95 Maclean, Harvey, and Clegg, “Conceptualizing Historical Organization Studies.”

96 Suchman, Mark C., “Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches,” Academy of Management Review 20, no. 3 (1995): 571–610 Google Scholar.

97 Ibid., 594.

98 Wilkins, “Business History,” 1.

99 Ibid., 5.

100 Rosen, Christine M., “What Is Business History?” Enterprise & Society 14, no. 3 (2013): 476Google Scholar.

101 Lipartito, “Future of Alfred Chandler,” 432; Judt, Thinking the Twentieth Century, 267.

102 Friedman and Jones, “Time for Debate,” 6.

103 Harvey and Wilson, “Redefining Business History,” 4.

104 Judt, Thinking the Twentieth Century, 268; Taylor, Bell, and Cooke, “Business History,” 158.

105 Raff, “How to Do Things,” 458, 447.

106 Weber, Max, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (New York, 1947)Google Scholar.

107 Collingwood, The Idea of History, 377.

108 De Certeau, The Writing of History, 4.

109 Collingwood, The Idea of History, 419.

110 Wadhwani and Jones, “Schumpeter's Plea,” 195; Jones and Khanna, “Bringing History (Back).”

111 Suddaby, Hardy, and Huy, “New Theories of Organization,” 236.

112 Braudel, On History, 48.

113 Collingwood, The Idea of History, 383.

114 Braudel, On History, 51.

115 Morck, Randall and Yeung, Bernard, “History in Perspective: Comment on Jones and Khanna ‘Bringing History (Back) into International Business,’” Journal of International Business Studies 38, no. 2 (2007): 357–60Google Scholar.

116 Collingwood, The Idea of History, 417; de Certeau, The Writing of History, 12.

117 Braudel, On History, 40.

118 De Certeau, The Writing of History, 13.

119 Rowlinson, Hassard, and Decker, “Strategies for Organizational History,” 269.

120 Taylor, Bell, and Cooke, “Business History,” 162; Suddaby, Hardy, and Huy, “New Theories of Organization,” 236.

121 De Certeau, The Writing of History, xxii.

122 Wadhwani and Bucheli, “The Future of the Past,” 23.

123 See, for example, Ulrich, Laurel Thatcher, A Midwife's Tale: The Life of Martha Ballard, based on Her Diary, 1785–1812 (New York, 1991)Google Scholar; and Popp and Holt, “Presence of Entrepreneurial Opportunity.”