ABSTRACT

The vibrant exchange between history and organization studies has triggered major debates on engaging historiography and theorizing with history. By comparison, studies of historical methods have received less attention. We argue that one missing debate concerns different typologies of sources, which facilitate systematic comparative analysis and interpretation. Specifically, we introduce the category ‘ego-documents’, which we define as ‘sources that reveal the historical self as a thinking and feeling being in the world (agency in structure) or unveil the impact of social norms and relationships on the historical self (structure in agency).’ We review the history of the term ego-documents and debate the virtues and challenges of using it in management and organizational history. We then distinguish four uses of ego-documents and explicate their sources and purposes based on articles published in Management and Organizational History.

摘要

历史和组织研究之间充满活力的交流引发了关于历史编纂和历史理论化的重大辩论。相比之下，历史方法的研究受到的关注较少。我们认为，一个遗漏的辩论涉及不同类型的来源，这有助于系统的比较分析和解释。具体来说，我们引入了“自我文件”这一类别，我们将其定义为“揭示历史自我作为世界上的一种思想和感受的来源（结构中的代理）或揭示社会规范和关系对历史自我的影响” （机构中的结构）。我们回顾了自我文档一词的历史，并讨论了在管理和组织历史中使用它的优点和挑战。管理和组织历史。