This article focuses on the recent developments in business history as an academic discipline. Recently, the strategies used by commissioned, academic researchers are to make corporate history an institutional form of knowledge production. Corporate history is the more narrowed, often commissioned, brand of business history. Whereas in the past the commissioned activities of the business historians were looked down upon, with the increasing pressure towards valorization of knowledge, their work is connected with the importance of contract research from within the university. In this paper we use the actor network approach to show how the book — the most important output of the business historian — plays a role in the recognition of business history as a academic discipline.Throughout the article, the business history of the Royal Dutch Shell is used as an illustration.
Bamberg, J.1994. The history of the British Petroleum Company. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
Bamberg, J.2008. Honderd Jaar Olie. De Academische Boekengids, trans. Inge Klinkers.
3.
Beekers, W.2007. Tussen Scylla en Charybdis: Over een kleine eeuw historisch-wetenschappelijk onderzoek in opdracht. In Onderzoek in opdracht. De Publieke Functie van de Universitaire wetenschap in Nederland sedert 1876, ed. L.J. Dorsman and P.J. Knegtmans.Hilversum: Verloren .
4.
Blasing, J.1999. Hoofdlijnen van de Moderne Bedrijfsgeschiedenis. Leiden: Nijhoff.
5.
Bloor, D.1975. Psychology or epistemology?Studies in History and Philosophy of Science13: 267-297.
6.
Blume, S., and I. Geesink.2000. Vaccinology: An industrial science? Science as Culture9(1): 41-72.
7.
Boersma, F.K.2002. Inventing structures for industrial research: A history of the Philips Nat.Lab., 1914-1946. Amsterdam: Aksant Academic Publishers.
8.
Boersma, F.K.2003. Structural ways to embed a research laboratory into the company: A comparison between the research departments of Philips and General Electric. History and Technology19(2): 1-18.
9.
Boersma, F.K., and M. de Vries .2008. Transitions in industrial research: The case of the Philips Natuurkundig Laboratorium (1914-1994). Business History50(4): 509-529.
10.
Boersma, F.K., C. Reinecke, and M. Gibbons.2008. Organizing the university-industry relationship: A case study of research policy and curriculum restructuring at the North-West University in South Africa. Tertiary Education and Management14(3): 209-226.
11.
Booth, C.2003. Does history matter in strategy?: The possibilities and problems of counterfactual analysis. Journal of Management History41(1): 96-104.
12.
Booth, C., and M. Rowlinson.2006. Management and organizational history: Prospects. Management & Organizational History1(1): 5-30.
13.
Bosscher, D.2007. Elke winstkans uitgebaat: Een bespreking van de Geschiedenis van Koninklijke Shell, Historisch Nieuwsblad.
14.
Callon, M., and J. Law.1982. On interests and their transformation: Enrolment and counter-enrolment. Social Studies of Science12: 615-625.
15.
Carson, P.P., and K.D. Carson.2003. An exploration of the importance of history to managers: The meaningful, manipulative, and memorable uses of milestones . Organizational Dynamics32(3): 286-308.
16.
Clark, B.2001. The entrepreneurial university: New foundations for collegiality, autonomy and achievement. Higher Education Management13(2): 9-24.
17.
Coleman, D.1987. The uses and abuses of business history. Business History29(2): 141-156.
18.
Collinson, E., and E. Shaw.2001. Entrepreneurial marketing: A historical perspective on development and practice. Management Decision39(9): 761-766.
19.
Corley, T.A.B.1993. Firms and markets: Towards a theory of business history . Business and Economic History22(1): 54-66.
20.
Czarniawska, B., and T. Hernes.2005. Actor-Network Theory and Organizing . Copenhagen. Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press.
21.
Danhof, W.2007. Alles uit de kast voor 100 jaar Shell [All efforts for 100 year Shell]. Kunststof en Rubber9(Sept.): 9-11.
22.
De Boer, H., J. Enders, and L. Leisyte.2007. Public sector reform in Dutch higher education: The organizational transformation of the university. Public Administration1(85): 27-46.
23.
Delahaye, A., C. Booth, P. Clark, S. Procter, and M. Rowlinson.2009. The genre of corporate history. Journal of Organizational Change Management22(2): 27-48.
24.
De Vries, M. (with contributions by F.K. Boersma). 2005. 80 years of research at the Philips Natuurkundig Laboratorium (1914-1994). Amsterdam: Pallas Publications.
25.
Doolin, B.2003. Narratives of change: Discourse, technology and organization . Organization10(4): 751- 770.
26.
Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow.1994. The new production of knowledge: Science and research in contemporary societies. London: SAGE.
27.
Gibbons, M.1998. Higher education relevance in the 21st century. Paris: UNESCO.
28.
Harper, R.H.R.1998. Inside the IMF: An ethnography of documents, technology and organisational action. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
29.
Heller, M.2009. Review essay: A history of Royal Dutch Shell. Business History51(1): 122-125.
30.
Herderscheê, G., and L. Sahadat.2007. Boekje open over 100-jarige Shell [Revealing the 100 years of Shell]. de Volkskrant (21 August).
31.
Hounshell, D.1990. Interpreting the history of industrial research and development. The case of E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society134(4): 387-407.
32.
Jones, G., and J. Zeitlin (eds.). 2008. The Oxford handbook of business history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33.
Jonker, J.1999. Bedrijfshistoricus is Wetenschapper. de Volkskant (4 January).
34.
Kieser, A.1994. Why organization theory needs historical analyses: And how this should be performed. Organization Science5(4): 608-620.
35.
Lamond, D.2005. On the value of management history: Absorbing the past to understand the present and inform the future. Management Decision43(10): 1273-1281.
36.
Latour, B.1987. Science in action. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
37.
Latour, B.2005. Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38.
Merton, R.K. [ 1942] 1996.The ethos of science. In On social structure and science, ed. P. Sztompka.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
39.
Mooij, A.2007. De Markt en het Forum: Bijdragen en Mededelingen Betreffende de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden. Vol. 122-2.
Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons.2002. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
42.
Pestre, D.2003. Regimes of knowledge production in society: Towards a more political and social reading. Minerva41: 245-261.
43.
Phillips, N., and C. Hardy.2002. Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social construction. London: SAGE.
44.
Rip, A.2002. Reflections on the transformation of science (essay review). An International Journal for the History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science11(3): 317-323.
45.
Rip, A.2004. Strategic research, post-modern universities and research training. Higher Education Policy17: 153-166.
46.
Rowlinson, M., and S. Procter.1999. Organizational culture and business history. Organization Studies20(3): 369-396.
47.
Rowlinson, M.2009. Review essay: The Oxford handbook of business history . Business History51(2): 292-294.
48.
Sluyterman, K.E.2005. Dutch enterprise in the twentieth century: Business strategies in a small open economy. London and New York: Routledge.
49.
Stager Jacques, R.2006. History, historiography and organization studies: The challenge and the potential. Management & Organizational History1(1): 31-49.
50.
Star, S.L., and J. Griesemer.1989. Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. Social Studies of Science19(3): 387- 420.
51.
Van Gelder, H.2007. Jubileumuitgave Shell van meer dan 10 kilo [Anniversary edition Shell more than 10 kilogram]. de Volkskrant (7 June).
52.
Van Zanden, J.L., J. Jonker, S. Howarth, and K. Sluyterman.2007. A history of Royal Dutch Shell. Oxford: Oxford University Press (joint with Boom Uitgeverij, Amsterdam). And the version in Dutch: Van Zanden, J.L. , J. Jonker, S. Howarth, and K. Sluyterman.2007. Geschiedenis van Koninklijke Shell, Amsterdam: Boom .
53.
Von der Dunk, W.Opdrachten horen Tussengerechten te zin, geen Hoofdgerechten. Bijdragen en Mededelingen Betreffende de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden. 122(2).
54.
Wennekes, W.1998. Geschiedenis is geen Koopwaar. de Volkskrant (21 December).
55.
Ybema, S.2004. Managerial postalgia: Projecting a golden future. Journal of Managerial Psychology19(8): 825-841.
56.
Zabusky, S., and Barley, S.1997. ‘You can’t be a stone if you’re cement’: Reevaluating the emic identities of scientists in organizations. Research in Organizational Behaviour19: 361-404.
57.
Zeiss, R., and P. Groenewegen.2009. Engaging boundary objects in OMS and STS?: Exploring the subtleties of layered engagement. Organization16(1): 81-100.
58.
Zom, D.-J.2007. Shell wilde een 100 procent eerlijk verhaal. Historici Luiten van Zanden en Sluyterman over hun 10 kilo geschiedenis van Royal Dutch Shell [Shell wanted to have a 100% fair story. The historians Luiten van Zanden and Sluyterman about their 10 kilogram of history on the Royal Dutch Shell] , in: NRC, 5 July 2007.
