LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Decker, Stephanie; Kipping, Matthias; Wadhwani, R. Daniel
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
We agree with de Jong et al.'s argument that business historians should make their methods more explicit and welcome a more general debate about the most appropriate methods for business historical research. But rather than advocating one ‘new business history’, we argue that contemporary debates about methodology in business history need greater appreciation for the diversity of approaches that have developed in the last decade. And while the hypothesis-testing framework prevalent in the mainstream social sciences favoured by de Jong et al. should have its place among these methodologies, we identify a number of additional streams of research that can legitimately claim to have contributed novel methodological insights by broadening the range of interpretative and qualitative approaches to business history. Thus, we reject privileging a single method, whatever it may be, and argue instead in favour of recognising the plurality of methods being developed and used by business historians – both within their own field and as a basis for interactions with others.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Anteby, M. and V. Molnár. Collective memory meets organizational identity: Remembering to forget in a firm's rhetorical history. Academy of Management Journal 55 (2012): 515-540.
    • Beckert, S. The Monied Metropolis: New York City and the Consolidation of the American Bourgeoisie. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
    • Berg, B. L. and H. Lune. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Boston, MA: Pearson, 2012.
    • Boldizzoni, Francesco. The Poverty of Clio: Resurrecting Economic History, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011.
    • Bruce, Kyle and C. Nyland. "Elton Mayo and the Deification of Human Relations." Organization Studies 32, No. 3 (2011): 383-405.
    • Buchanan , D. A. and A. Bryman , A. (eds.). The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. London: Sage, 2009.
    • Bucheli, Marcelo and R. Daniel Wadhwani. Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
    • Time: History, Theory, Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 3-32.
    • 9. Rowlinson, Hassard, and Decker, "Research Strategies for Organizational History".
    • 10. Decker, “The Silence of the Archives”; Kipping, Wadhwani, and Bucheli, "Analyzing 11. Fear, "Mining the Past"; Wadhwani and Bucheli, "The Future of the Past"; Yates, 15. Callon, “Introduction: the embeddedness”; Callon, Millo and Muniesa, Market Devices.
    • 25. Carter, “The Age of Strategy”; McKinlay, 'Dead Selves'; McKinlay, Following Foucault.
    • 32. McKinlay, "'Dead Selves'"; idem., "Following Foucault"; Decker, "Solid Intentions".
    • 33. Maclean, Harvey and Chia, "Sensemaking; Popp and Holt, Entrepreneurship and the 41. Suddaby, Foster, and Mills, Historical Institutionalism.
    • 42. Kipping and Üsdiken, History in Organization and Management Theory; Yates, 43. Rowlinson and Hassard, History and the Cultural Turn.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article