Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to answer the question of where the course of the collective efforts in historical research on business and organizations has taken this discipline. By raising two key contributions that have sought to reshape the contours of management and organizational history, the authors trace the work of their field since their inception and, in doing so, critique the utility of these typologies as representative of diverse historical knowledge in management and organization studies (MOS).

Design/methodology/approach

Drawing on elements of an integrative review that seeks to critically appraise the foundation of knowledge built in a scholarly field, the authors interrogate the historical knowledge that has been (and is being) produced in three leading management and organizational history journals by synthesizing the posture history takes as an object and subject of study in MOS. Over 400 articles were closely examined and categorized using Rowlinson et al.’s (2014) research strategies in organizational history and Maclean et al.’s (2016) four conceptions of history. Then, this research was used to examine the integrity of these two typologies and their practice by management historians.

Findings

The bulk of the work our field has produced mirrors an analytically structured history feel – where “doing history” straddles careful divide between data analysis and narrative construction. Narrating as a conception of history used in organization studies research remains the most subscribed representation of the past. It was found that while some work may fit within these typologies, others especially those considered peripheral of mainstream history are difficult to confine to any one strategy or conception. The authors’ examination also found some potential for a creative synthesis between the two typologies.

Research limitations/implications

Because only three management history journals are used in this analysis, bracketed by the choice of the periodization (between 2016 and 2019 inclusive), this study must not be viewed as being wholly representative of all historical research on business and organizations writ-large.

Practical implications

This research attempts to demonstrate the recent direction management and organizational historians have taken in crafting history. The authors embrace the opportunity to allow for this paper to act as a tool to familiarize a much broader audience to understand what has been constituted as historical research in MOS to-date and is especially useful to those who are already contributing to the field (e.g. doctoral students and junior scholars who have demonstrable interest in taking up historically inspired dissertations, articles, chapters and conference activities).

Originality/value

The research conducted in this article contributes to the debates that have sought to define the scholastic character of management and organizational history. The authors build on recent calls to take part in creating dialogue between and among each other, building on the collective efforts that advance history in both theory and practice.

中文翻译：

---

管理和组织历史的会计：战略和概念

目的

本文的目的是回答关于企业和组织的历史研究的集体努力过程将这门学科带到哪里的问题。通过提出试图重塑管理和组织历史轮廓的两个关键贡献，作者追溯了他们领域自成立以来的工作，并在此过程中批判了这些类型学作为管理和组织历史知识的代表的效用。组织研究（MOS）。

设计/方法/方法

利用旨在批判性地评估学术领域知识基础的综合评论的要素，作者通过综合姿势历史来询问已经（和正在）在三个领先的管理和组织历史期刊中产生的历史知识在MOS中作为研究对象和课题。使用 Rowlinson等人对 400 多篇文章进行了仔细检查和分类。's (2014) 组织历史研究策略和 Maclean等人。's (2016) 历史的四个概念。然后，这项研究被用来检查这两种类型学的完整性，以及管理历史学家对它们的实践。

发现

我们领域产生的大部分工作反映了一种分析结构的历史感觉——“做历史”跨越了数据分析和叙事构建之间的仔细划分。叙述作为组织研究研究中使用的历史概念仍然是过去最受关注的表现形式。人们发现，虽然有些作品可能适合这些类型，但其他作品，尤其是那些被认为是主流历史外围的作品，很难局限于任何一种策略或概念。作者的检查还发现了在两种类型之间进行创造性综合的一些潜力。

研究限制/影响

由于在此分析中仅使用了三本管理历史期刊，并附有分期的选择（包括2016年至2019年），因此本研究不能被视为完全代表所有有关企业和组织的历史研究。

实际影响

这项研究试图证明管理和组织历史学家最近在制作历史时所采取的方向。作者们拥抱了机会，使本文能够作为工具来使更广泛的读者熟悉，以了解迄今为止构成MOS的历史研究的内容，并且对于已经为该领域做出贡献的人们尤其有用（例如对从事受历史启发的论文、文章、章节和会议活动有明显兴趣的博士生和初级学者）。

原创性/价值

本文中进行的研究有助于试图定义管理和组织历史的学术特征的辩论。作者建立在最近呼吁参与创造彼此之间的对话的基础上，建立在理论和实践推动历史发展的集体努力的基础上。