Search results

Our study explores the use of historical cases in assisting students to understand some of the managerial issues faced by entrepreneurial multinational organisations. We argue that historical cases can be an effective tool to acquire management skills, with its main advantage being its ability to induce critical thinking which allows strategic decisions to be made in a variety of contexts. Of course there is the question of relevancy of using past behaviour to guide the future.

To answer this main criticism, we review the use of history in the study of business and management disciplines, before examining the way in which a historical case related to the entrepreneurial history of colonial Hong Kong can be constructed for the teaching of an international management subject. We then examine the impact of the use of such a historical case in the understanding and satisfaction of teaching.

We discuss the ways in which a historical case can be constructed. We found that overall students enjoy learning through a historical case.

This is the first paper examining how a historical case of multinational enterprises can be constructed for the teaching of international management.

To reexamine the Weber Thesis pertaining to the relationship between ascetic Protestantism – especially Calvinism – and modern capitalism, as between an economic “spirit” and an economic “structure,” in which the first is assumed to be the explanatory factor and the second the dependent variable.

The chapter provides an attempt to combine theoretical-empirical and comparative-historical approaches to integrate theory with evidence supplied by societal comparisons and historically specific cases.

The chapter identifies the general sociological core of the Weber Thesis as a classic endeavor in economic sociology (and thus substantive sociological theory) and separates it from its particular historical dimension in the form of an empirical generalization from history. I argue that such a distinction helps to better understand the puzzling double “fate” of the Weber Thesis in social science, its status of a model in economic sociology and substantive sociological theory, on the one hand, and its frequent rejection in history and historical economics, on the other. The sociological core of the Thesis, postulating that religion, ideology, and culture generally deeply impact economy, has proved to be more valid, enduring, and even paradigmatic, as in economic sociology, than its historical component establishing a special causal linkage between Calvinism and other types of ascetic Protestantism and the “spirit” and “structure” of modern capitalism in Western society at a specific point in history.

In addition to the two cases deviating from the Weber Thesis considered here, it is necessary to investigate and identify the validity of the Thesis with regard to concrete historical and empirical instances.

The chapter provides the first effort to systematically analyze and distinguish between the sociological core and the historical components of the Weber Thesis as distinct yet intertwined components.

Development of legitimate teaching cases demands cases be factual, that is that they use “real people, real companies, real situations,” and, usually, present time. Rarely, do cases deal with historical happenings in which lives, as well as fortunes, could be lost to achieve desired ends. History provides rich material on which to build teaching cases with the added advantage of acquainting students with the past and the influence the past has in shaping the future. Answers to the question of “Why use historical teaching cases” are related to the more general question of “Why study history.” Both questions are addressed.

Organizational wrongdoing researchers often look to past cases to empirically develop and support theoretical understanding. Their research is therefore conducted at a temporal distance to focal events and frequently relies on retrospective accounts and surviving documentary evidence. These methodological circumstances define historical research practice, and we demonstrate in this paper the valuable insights that historical approaches can provide organizational wrongdoing research. Specifically, we draw on a range of practices from history and the social sciences to introduce four historically informed approaches: narrative history, analytically structured history, historical process study, short-term process study. We differentiate these based on their particular affordances and treatment of two key methodological considerations: historical evidence and temporality. We demonstrate the specific value these approaches represent to organizational wrongdoing research with several exemplars showing how they have been used in related fields of research.

The paper aims to study the relevance of the German historical school and American Institutionalism for contemporary research in social sciences. The subject scope of the paper is to trace how concepts, ideas, and frameworks trickle from the historical school into later research programs.

The methodology of the paper is a textual analysis of articles and books that either relates the relationship between the historical school and the institutionalism or make explicit or implicit references to the most important concepts and methodologies in these schools.

The paper has two main findings. The first is that Commons was heavily influenced by Weber's ideal‐types when he wrote his most important book Institutional Economics. The second is that concepts and methodologies used by the historical school and American institutionalism are used in nearly all areas of the social sciences. But the researchers seldom make explicit references to these schools.

A limitation of the present paper is that it draws too a very limited extent directly on the publications of the German historical school. Future research could try and reconstruct how the American instutionalists came to the conclusions they did on the historical school. It is possible that differences in political opinions and competition between two schools with partly similar messages prompted writers like Veblen and Commons to exaggerate differences of opinion.

One important contribution of the paper is the discussion of the influences the historical school had on leading institutionalists. Another important contribution is the exploration of present and future research projects that could benefit from revisiting the theories and methodologies of the historical school and institutionalism. By making more explicit the references to these schools, new insights can be gained on how to develop research methodologies and understanding the limits and potentials of pursuing a research approach.

This paper aims to counter the view that Marshall was an opponent of the historical school. This false account has survived and prospered because it has fitted into more general conceptions of intellectual history, held by both orthodox and heterodox economists.

Marshall's affinity with the historical school is established by examining his writings and his relationship with historical school sympathisers in the UK.

It is established that Marshall regarded his work as building on historical school insights, and he repeatedly referred positively to the ideas of the German historical school. It is argued in this paper that Marshall's opposition to the historical school was confined to its anti‐theoretical wing, principally Cunningham. In other important respects Marshall's position was compatible with German and British historicism.

In preceding literature, Marshall's affinities with the historical school have been denied, unacknowledged, or unexplored.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

The attempt to recover the international origins of social and political thought is motivated by the unsatisfactory fragmentation of modern knowledge – by its failure to account for the intimate connections between theory and history in general and its international dimension in particular – and seeks to overcome these divides. This article provides an analysis of the theory/history divide and its role for the fragmentation of modern knowledge. Theoretically, it shows, this divide is rooted in, and reproduced by, the epistemic foundations of modern knowledge. Historically, the modern episteme arises from a crisis of imperial politics in the 18th century. This analysis suggests that theory, history, and the international are products rather than origins of modern social and political thought. These historical origins thus do not provide the basis for more integrated forms of knowledge. They do, however, reveal how the fragmentation of knowledge itself simultaneously serves and obscures the imperialist dimension of modern politics.

The purpose is to show the results of research on sociocultural impact – as one of the pillars of sustainable local development which can be stimulated among others by immovable cultural heritage. The research concerned two groups of respondents: the local community, which does not directly use heritage re-adopted to commercial functions and the community using the heritage in a direct way.

Surveys and in-depth interviews were used for the study. Two groups of respondents were surveyed: direct users of immovable re-adopted heritage who have the possibility to use it directly by buying services offered in the studied heritage and the local community representatives for which access to the re-adopted heritage is limited.

In the case of heritage re-adopted to commercial functions, there are differences in sociocultural impact. The very presence of heritage and only awareness of its existence in a given area is not enough for creating a sociocultural function by it in some aspects. Such heritage does not use its potential fully.

Results of the study may be taken into account by some stakeholders in the case of giving heritage resources contemporary functions especially commercial ones (owners of re-used cultural heritage resources, representatives of local authorities as well as entities responsible for the protection, appropriate use of cultural heritage resources and decision-making processes) to eliminate negative or insufficient effects in creating the sociocultural function of heritage in sustainable local development.

Suggested actions undertaken on the basis of this research can increase the impact of immovable cultural heritage adapted for commercial purposes on a larger range of beneficiaries especially the local community. Hence, the extent of such heritage's impact on the sociocultural pillar of sustainable development would increase.

So far, studies on the differences in the sociocultural impact of immovable cultural heritage adapted to commercial, contemporary functions on direct users and no-direct users have not been conducted. Results obtained by this study supplement a certain gap regarding the sociocultural impact of heritage resources on this two groups of stakeholders: groups that have direct access to the heritage resource and groups that have no access to them or this access is limited.

The authors use two historical case studies (UK and Costa Rica) to explore the antecedents and legitimisation of sustainable development in hospitality and tourism, demonstrating the value of historical analysis through careful consideration of motivations, context and development type under different circumstances.

Using government and private archival materials, oral history testimonies, industry reports and secondary literature, the authors deploy careful historical analysis of developing and developed country approaches to two cases of hospitality and tourism development and how this impacts on notions of sustainability.

Issues surrounding sustainability in hospitality and tourism are longstanding and impacted by their situated context. In considering “bottom-up” and “top-down” approaches, this study finds that the private-sector is critical in legitimising tourism and hospitality development through addressing sustainability aims.

Issues faced in developing hospitality and tourism markets should not be taken in isolation, and, by drawing upon historical cases, scholars can better-understand how developed tourism markets shape the sustainability of developing contexts.

This study demonstrates how sustainability can be legitimised over time and in different contexts, in both government-led and business-led approaches, providing lessons for understanding the mechanisms by which to address these issues in future.

Historical analyses in hospitality and tourism remain relatively few. This study illustrates the theoretical and practical value of historical analysis of the pathway to legitimacy for sustainable tourism development.