Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the debate initiated by the “historic turn.” This debate has seen several rebuttals of the methodologies and conceptual frameworks advocated by proponents of the “historic turn” including ANTi-History. In contributing to this debate, this paper provides a discussion on some of the ongoing debates within the field. The purpose is to neither condemn nor defend – but to clarify and find points of agreement.
Design/methodology/approach
The design implied is an overview of some of the themes in the field – locating key concepts of agreement and key aspects of disagreement.
Findings
There is a middle ground between the two schools. One is a continued focus on primary sources, the use of new methodologies, understanding context and some new approaches. We must carefully consider context and text and limit the use of concepts that have real limitations.
Originality/value
This is an overview of the field by someone who was considered a critic of the new history. The purpose is to find middle ground.
Subject
History and Philosophy of Science,General Business, Management and Accounting
Reference67 articles.
1. Managerial fads and fashions: the diffusion and rejection of innovations;Academy of Management Review,1991
2. Elements and identity: homans as an industrial sociologist,2006
3. What is new in ‘a new history of management’;Journal of Management History,2019
Cited by
8 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献