Abstract
We propose a distinction between historical neo-institutionalism – the use of historical research to advance neo-institutionalist theory, and neo-institutionalist history – the use of neo-institutionalist theory to illuminate historiography. In the first part of the article we compare recognized exemplars for historical neo-institutionalism with the few examples that we could find of research resembling neo-institutionalist history. We demonstrate that the subordination of research to formal methods in historical neo-institutionalism means that it is limited to analyzing particular types of sources, such as published periodicals. By contrast, neo-institutionalist history uses primary sources that are more familiar to business historians, such as internal organizational reports and minutes of meetings. In the second part of the article we present a survey of 55 historical research articles published in Academy of Management Journal, Administrative Science Quarterly, and Organization Science, between 1991 and 2010. The articles are coded for quantitative or qualitative methods, sources used, and periodization. From the survey we demonstrate the prevalence of quantitative historical research, the rarity of archival research, and the preference for recent history.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
