Reflections on the integration of history and organization studies

One of the perks of being a journal editor are the occasional invitations to travel to interesting locations to meet with informed and insightful colleagues to discuss current trends in our academic discipline. One such event, recently hosted by Copenhagen Business School, provided an opportunity for scholars from a range of disciplinary (and national) backgrounds to share their perspectives on the way in which history is being integrated with other business school disciplines – most notably organization studies. This is clearly a topic of particular interest for our journal, positioned as it is at the intersection on management history and organizational theory. Contributors to Management and Organizational History (MOH) have, of course, helped to lead the way in promoting a ‘historical turn’ in organization studies (Clark and Rowlinson 2004; Booth and Rowlinson 2006; Mills et al. 2016), and the last decade has witnessed an increasingly productive dialogue between researchers working in these two disciplinary areas. This is reflected in the publication of historically themed special issues of mainstream management (Godfrey et al. 2016; Wadhwani et al. 2018; Argyres et al. 2017; Wadhwani et al. 2016), as well as the variety of papers that have sought to map out the different ways in which history and management theory are being combined (Kipping and Usdiken 2014; Rowlinson, Hassard, and Decker 2014; Maclean, Harvey, and Clegg 2016; Zundel, Holt, and Popp 2016; Decker 2016; Foster et al. 2017). In the light of this emerging literature, and the discussion it has generated at various recent business history workshops and conferences, this would seem to be an opportune moment to proffer some editorial comments on the way in which historical and theoretical approaches can be accommodated within the pages of MOH. As Decker (2016) points out, a distinct trend in the literature on this topic has been to move beyond ‘supplementarist’ approaches, which tend to place history in a subordinate role – essentially supplying data in order to test or refine theory. Rather, emphasis has tilted toward what Üsdiken and Kieser (2004) referred to as ‘integrationist’ approaches, in which history and theory meet on equal terms, each informing and supporting the other. If the goal of mutually beneficial integration is widely shared, there is rather less consensus about what this actually looks like in practice. Kipping and Üsdiken (2014) differentiate between what they call ‘history-in-theory’ (in which a temporal dimension is built into theoretical modeling) and ‘historical cognizance’ (in which theorizing takes account not just of time, but of historical context.) Maclean, Harvey, and Clegg (2016), in a similar vein, call for integrative studies that meet the threshold of ‘dual integrity’ by achieving legitimacy in the eyes of both theorists and historians. But is such a standard of ‘dual integrity’ realistically achievable? Maclean et al. highlight some important differences in the way in which historians and management theorists typically work (and in the type of work they value). Rowlinson, Hassard, and MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY 2018, VOL. 13, NO. 3, 213–219 https://doi.org/10.1080/17449359.2018.1550286