In enacting the three movements needed to make a ‘historic turn’ in Management and Organization Studies (MOS) this paper investigates the proposed concept of the ‘historical break’ – a point where MOS ceased to be historical in its research endeavours. By eschewing the methodological realism that dominates much of the history in management research in favour of directly engaging with a theory of History, the construction of a historical narrative is presented. This narrative may be read as a ‘history of the present’ and a potential explanation for the absence of engagement with history in MOS.
AbellaA.2009. Soldiers of Reason: The RAND Corporation and the Rise of the American Empire. New York: Mariner Books.
2.
AdlerP.ForbesL.WillmottH.2007. ‘Critical Management Studies.’ The Academy of Management Annals1(3): 119–79.
3.
AlvessonM.KarremanD.2000. ‘Taking the Linguistic Turn in Organizational Research: Challenges, Responses, Consequences.’ The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science36(2): 136–58.
AugierM.MarchJ.SullivanB.2005. ‘Notes on the Evolution of a Research Community: Organization Studies in Anglophone North America, 1945–2000.’ Organization Science16(1): 85–95.
6.
BarnesT.2001. ‘Lives Lived and Lives Told: Biographies of Geography’s Quantitative Revolution.’ Environment and Planning D: Society and Space19(4): 409–29.
7.
BarnesT.HannahM.2001. ‘Guest Editorial.’ Environment and Planning D: Society and Space19(4): 379–83.
8.
BergerP. L.LuckmannT.1967. The Social Construction of Reality. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
9.
BerkhoferR.1988. ‘The Challenge of Poetics to (Normal) Historical Practice.’ Poetics Today9(2): 435–52.
10.
BerkhoferR.1997. Beyond the Great Story: History as Text and Discourse. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11.
BhaskarR.1997. A Realist Theory of Science, 2nd Edn.London: Verso.
12.
BhaskarR.2009. Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation, 2nd Edn.New York: Routledge.
13.
BoothC.RowlinsonM.2006. ‘Management and Organizational History: Prospects.’ Management and Organizational History1(1): 5–30.
14.
BoothmanB.2001. ‘A Theme Worthy of Epic Treatment: N.S.B. Gras and the Emergence of American Business History.’ Journal of Macromarketing21(1): 61–73.
15.
BrownT.1938. ‘Science, Statistics, and Business.’ Harvard Business Review16(3): 281–9.
16.
BurrellG.MorganG.1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. London: Heinemann.
17.
CalhounC.1993. ‘Postmodernism as Pseudohistory.’ Theory, Culture and Society10(1): 75–96.
18.
CarrE. H.1961. What Is History? The George Macaulay Trevelyan Lectures Delivered in The University of Cambridge. London: Macmillan.
19.
ChandlerA.1962. Strategy and Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
ChandlerA.1990. ‘The Enduring Logic of Industrial Success.’ Harvard Business ReviewMarch–April: 130–14.
21.
CheitE. F.1985. ‘Business Schools and their Critics.’ California Management Review27(3): 43–62.
22.
ClarkE.2004. History, Theory, Text: Histories and the Linguistic Turn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
ClarkP.RowlinsonM.2004. ‘The Treatment of History in Organization Studies: towards an “Historic Turn”?’ Business History46(3): 331–52.
24.
ConantJ.1947. ‘Science and the Practical Arts.’ Harvard Business Review25(4a): 545–53.
25.
CookeB.1999. ‘Writing the Left out of Management Theory: The Historiography of the Management of Change.’ Organization6(1): 81–105.
26.
CookeB.2003. ‘The Denial of Slavery in Management Studies.’ Journal of Management Studies40: 1895–918.
27.
CookeB.MillsA. J.2008. ‘The Right to be Human and Human Rights: Maslow, McCarthyism and the Death of Humanist Theories of Management.’ Management & Organizational History3(1): 27–47.
28.
CookeB.MillsA. J.KelleyE.2005. ‘Situating Maslow in Cold War America.’ Group and Organization Management30(2): 129–52.
29.
CooperR.BurrellG.1988. ‘Modernism, Postmodernism and Organizational Analysis: An Introduction.’ Organization Studies9(1): 91–112.
30.
DeudneyD.IkenberryG.1993/1994. ‘The Logic of the West.’ World Policy Journal10(4): 17–25.
31.
DonhamW.1922a. ‘Business Teaching by the Case System.’ The American Economic Review12(1): 53–65.
32.
DonhamW.1922b. ‘Essential Groundwork for a Broad Executive Theory.’ Harvard Business Review1(1): 1–10.
33.
DureposG.MillsA.2012. ANTi-History: Theorizing the Past, History, and Historiography in Management and Organizational Studies. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
34.
DureposG.MillsA.WeatherbeeT.2011. ‘Theorizing the Past: Realism, Relativism, Relationalism and the Reassembly of Weber.’ 7th International Critical Management Studies Conference, Naples, Italy.
35.
DyeK.MillsA. J.WeatherbeeT. G.2005. ‘Maslow: Man Interrupted: Reading Management Theory in Context.’ Management Decision43(10): 1375–95.
36.
ErmarthE.1992. Sequel to History, Postmodernism and the Crisis of Representational Time. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
37.
FeyerabendP. K.1975. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
38.
FoucaultM.1990. Politics, Philosophy, Culture: Interviews and other Writings, 1977–1984. London: Routledge.
39.
FournierV.GreyC.2000. ‘At the Critical Moment: Conditions and Prospects for Critical Management Studies.’ Human Relations53(1): 7–32.
40.
FuchsS.1992. The Professional Quest for Truth: A Social Theory of Science. Albany, NY: State University of New York.
41.
FuchsS.2002. ‘What Makes Sciences Scientific?’ In Handbook of Sociological Theory, edited by TurnerJ. (pp. 21–35). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
42.
GalisonP.HevlyB., Eds. 1992. Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
43.
GeorgeC.1968. The History of Management Thought. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
44.
GeorgeC.1972. The History of Management Thought. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
45.
GilderhausM.2010. History and Historians: A Historiographical Introduction, 7th Edn.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
46.
GordonR. A.HowellJ. E.1959. Higher Education for Business. New York: Garland Publishing.
47.
GouldS.1996. The Mismeasure of Man: The Definitive Refutation to the Argument of the Bell Curve. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
48.
GrantJ.MillsA.2006. ‘The Quiet Americans: Formative Context, the Academy of Management Leadership, and the Management Textbook, 1936–1960.’ Management and Organizational History1(2): 201–24.
49.
GrasN. S. B.LarsonH.HowerR.de RooverF.StalsonJ.1937. ‘The Literature of Business History.’ Harvard Business Review41(Autumn): 105–25.
50.
GreenwoodW.1972. ‘Future Management Theory: A “Comparative” Evolution to a General Theory.’ Academy of Management Journal17(3): 503–13.
51.
HackingI.1999. The Social Construction of What?London: Harvard University Press.
52.
HackingI.2002. Historical Ontology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
53.
HausmanW.2003. ‘Business History in the United States at the End of the Twentieth Century.’ In Business History and the World, edited by AmatoriF.JonesG. (pp. 83–110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54.
HeymanJ.1930. ‘The Importance of Private Business Histories.’ Harvard Business Review8(3): 354–8.
55.
HidyR.1970. ‘Present Status and Future Needs.’ The Business History Review44(4): 483–97.
56.
HiningsC.GreenwoodR.2002. ‘Disconnects and Consequences in Organization Theory?’ Administrative Science Quarterly47(3): 411–21.
57.
IggersG.1997. Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press.
58.
JackallR.1988. Moral Mazes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
59.
JenkinsK.1995. On ‘What is History?’: From Carr and Elton to Rorty and White. London: Routledge.
60.
JenkinsK.1997. ‘Introduction: On Being Open about our Closures.’ In The Postmodern History Reader, edited by JenkinsK. (pp. 1–25). New York: Routledge.
61.
JenkinsK.1999. Why History? Ethics and Postmodernity. London: Routledge.
62.
KelleyE.MillsA.CookeB.2006. ‘Management as a Cold War Phenomenon?’ Human Relations59(5): 603–10.
63.
KhuranaR.2007. From Higher Aims to Hired Hands: The Social Transformation of American Business Schools and the Unfulfilled Promise of Management as a Profession. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
64.
KieserA.1994. ‘Crossroads: Why Organization Theory Needs Historical Analyses – and How This Should Be Performed.’ Organization Science5(4): 608–20.
65.
KobrakC.SchneiderA.2011. ‘Varieties of Business History: Subject and Methods for the Twenty-First Century.’ Business History53(3): 401–24.
66.
KroosH.1958. ‘History and the New Business History.’ The Journal of Economic History18(4): 467–80.
67.
KuhnT.1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
68.
KuhnT.1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd Edn.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
69.
LatourB.1983. Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise you the World. London: SAGE.
70.
LeslieS.1993. The Cold War and American Science. New York: Columbia University Press.
71.
McKeeM.MillsA.WeatherbeeT.2005. ‘Institutional Field of Dreams: Exploring the AACSB and the New Legitimacy of Canadian Business Schools.’ Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences22(4): 288–301.
72.
MarchJ.2005. ‘Parochialism in the Evolution of a Research Community: The Case of Organization Studies.’ Management and Organization Review1(1): 5–22.
73.
MersethK.1991. ‘The Early History of Case-Based Instruction: Insights for Teacher Education Today.’ Journal of Teacher Education42(4): 243–9.
74.
MillsA.WeatherbeeT.DureposG.2011. ‘Resembling Weber: The Past-as-History in Management and Organization Studies.’ 27th European Group on Organziaitonal Studies Colloquim, Gothenburg, Sweden.
75.
MunslowA.2000. The Routledge Companion to Historical Studies. London: Routledge.
76.
MunslowA.2010. The Future of History. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
77.
ParkerL.2004. ‘“Presenting” the Past: Perspective on Time for Accounting and Management History.’ Accounting, Business & Financial History14(1): 1–27.
78.
PerkinsJ.1940. ‘Management Research.’ Harvard Business Review18(4): 488–95.
79.
PfefferJ.1993. ‘Barriers to the Advance of Organizational Science: Paradigm.’ The Academy of Management Review18(4): 599–620.
80.
PiersonF. C.1959. The Education of American Businessmen: A Study of Unviersity-College Programs in Business Administration. London: McGraw-Hill.
81.
PopperK. R.1979. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, 2nd Edn.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
82.
PorterT.1996. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
83.
RossD.1993. ‘An Historian’s View of American Social Science.’ Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences29(2): 99–112.
84.
ScottW. R.2004. ‘Reflections on a Half-Century of Organizational Sociology.’ Annual Review of Sociology30(August): 1–21.
85.
SheldonO.1928. ‘The Significance of Rationalization.’ Harvard Business Review6(3): 264–9.
86.
SmithG.2007. ‘Management History and Historical Context: Potential Benefits of its Inclusion in the Management Curriculum.’ The Academy of Management Learning and Education6(4): 522–33.
87.
SoloveyM.2001. ‘Introduction: Science and the State during the Cold War: Blurred Boundaries and a Contested Legacy.’ Social Studies of Science31(2): 165–70.
88.
Stager JacquesR.1996. Manufacturing the Employee: Management Knowledge from the 19th to the 21st Centuries. London: SAGE.
89.
Stager JacquesR.2006. ‘History, Historiography and Organization Studies: The Challenge and the Potential.’ Management and Organizational History1(1): 31–49.
90.
TaylorF. W.1911. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper.
91.
TopolskiJ.1996. ‘Historians Look at Historical Truth.’ In Epistemology in History, Vol. 47, edited by Zeidler-JaniszewskaA. (pp. 405–17). Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, B.V.
92.
ToshJ.2002. The Pursuit of History: Aims, Methods and New Directions in the Study of Modern History, 3rd Edn.New York: Pearson Education.
93.
ToulminS.1977. ‘From Form to Function: Philosophy and History of Science in the 1950s and Now.’ Daedalus106(3): 143–62.
94.
UrwickL.1929. ‘The Significance of Rationalization: An Alternative View.’ Harvard Business Review7(2): 170–4.
95.
van BaalenP.BogenriederI.2009. ‘Historical Approaches in Organizational Research.’ Journal of Organizational Change Management22(1): 1–7.
96.
van MaanenJ.SorensenJ.MitchellT.2007. ‘The Interplay between Theory and Method.’ Academy of Management Review32(4): 1145–54.
97.
WagnerP.2001. A History and Theory of the Social Sciences. London: SAGE.
98.
WeatherbeeT.DyeK.MillsA. J.2008. ‘There’s Nothing as Good as a Practical Theory: The Paradox of Management Theory.’ Management History3(2): 147–60.
99.
WeatherbeeT.DureposG.2010. ‘Dar“Wren”ian Evolution in Management: Implications of the Ethics of Epistemology for the Scholar.’ Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Montreal, Quebec.
100.
WhiteH., Ed. 1968. The Uses of History. Detriot, MI: Wayne State University Press.
101.
WhiteH.1973. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe. London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
102.
WhiteH.1978. Tropics of Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism. London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
103.
WickbergD.2001. ‘Intellectual History versus the Social History of Intellectuals.’ Rethinking History5(3): 383–95.
104.
WilliamsonH.1966. ‘Business History and Economic History.’ The Journal of Economic History26(4): 407–17.
105.
WrenD.1972. The Evolution of Management Thought. New York: The Ronald Press Co.
106.
WrenD.1979. The Evolution of Management Thought, 2nd Edn.New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
107.
WrenD.1987a. ‘Management History: Issues and Ideas for Teaching and Research.’ Journal of Management13(2): 339–50.
108.
WrenD.1987b. The Evolution of Management Thought, 3rd Edn.New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
109.
WrenD.1994. The Evolution of Management Thought, 4th Edn.New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
110.
WrenD.2005. The History of Management Thought, 5th Edn.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
111.
WrenD.BedeianA.2010. The Evolution of Management Thought, 6th Edn.New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
112.
ZaldM.1993. ‘Organization Studies as a Scientific and Humanistic Enterprise: Toward a Reconceptualization of the Foundations of the Field.’ Organization Studies4(4): 513–18.
113.
ZaldM.1996. ‘More Fragmentation? Unfinished Business in Linking the Social Sciences and the Humanities.’ Administrative Science Quarterly41(2): 251–61.
