Historical neo-institutionalism or neo-institutionalist history? Historical research in management and organization studies
Historical neo-institutionalism or neo-institutionalist history? Historical research in management and organization studies
复制标题
历史新制度主义还是新制度主义历史？
DOI：
10.1080/17449359.2013.780518
复制
发表时间：
2013
影响因子：
0.6
通讯作者：
J. Hassard
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Rowlinson;J. Hassard
我们提出了历史新制度主义和新制度主义历史之间的区别，前者是利用历史研究来推进新制度主义理论，后者是利用新制度主义理论来阐明历史学。在文章的第一部分中，我们比较了历史新制度主义的公认范例与我们可以找到的类似于新制度主义历史的研究的少数例子。我们表明，在历史新制度主义的研究隶属于正式的方法，这意味着它仅限于分析特定类型的来源，如出版的期刊。相比之下，新制度主义历史学使用的是商业历史学家更熟悉的第一手资料，比如内部组织报告和会议记录。在文章的第二部分，我们提出了一个调查的55个历史研究论文发表在管理学院杂志，行政科学季刊，组织科学，1991年至2010年。文章按定量或定性方法、使用的来源和分期进行编码。从调查中，我们证明了定量历史研究的流行，档案研究的稀有性，以及对近代史的偏好。
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.