Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods
Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods
复制标题
时间组织：历史、理论、方法
DOI：
10.1017/s0007680516000386
复制
发表时间：
2016
影响因子：
1.2
通讯作者：
Decker S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Decker S
这本编辑卷的标题有点误导性，因为它的各种贡献探索了组织研究中更多历史分析的潜力，而不是解决与时间和组织相关的问题。希望这不会分散人们对本书在进一步扩展商业史并将其整合到管理和组织研究方面的重要成就的注意力——对于商业历史学家来说尤其重要。 R. Daniel Wadhwani 和 Marcelo Bucheli 在其实质性介绍中将各种贡献优雅地结合在一起（顺便说一下，其本身就做出了重大贡献），提出了一系列新的问题，特别是在该领域未来的方法论和理论发展方面。本书还反映了商业历史学家不断变化的机构地位，他们越来越多地在商学院而不是历史系开始职业生涯，尤其是在欧洲，重新开启了历史作为一门社会科学的老问题。人们多次呼吁在商业教育中教授更多的历史，例如卡内基基金会的报告（2011）发现本科商业教育的重点过于狭窄，并强调需要将更多的文科教学融入课程中。然而，在当代商学院和管理学院的研究驱动环境中，如果历史分析不能首先提供重大的理论贡献，历史理解就不可能渗透到课程中。这是这本编辑卷所围绕的中心主题，它标志着这场持续辩论的一个里程碑。 （本着充分披露的精神，我应该补充一点，尽管我没有为本书做出贡献，但我与几位贡献者合着了本书，并将本书视为我当前研究实践的核心。）
The title of this edited volume is slightly misleading, as its various contributions explore the potential for more historical analysis in organization studies rather than addressing issues associated with time and organizing. Hopefully this will not distract from the important achievement of this volume—important especially for business historians—in further expanding and integrating business history into management and organization studies. The various contributions, elegantly tied together by R. Daniel Wadhwani and Marcelo Bucheli in their substantial introduction (which, by the way, presents a significant contribution in its own right), opens up new sets of questions, especially in terms of future methodological and theoretical developments in the field. This book also reflects the changing institutional location of business historians, who increasingly make their careers in business schools rather than history departments, especially in Europe, reopening old questions of history as a social science. There have been several calls to teach more history in business education, such as the Carnegie Foundation report (2011) that found undergraduate business education too narrow in focus and highlighted the need to integrate more liberal arts teaching into the curriculum. However, in the contemporary research-driven environment of business and management schools, historical understanding is unlikely to permeate the curriculum if historical analysis cannot first deliver significant theoretical contributions. This is the central theme around which this edited volume revolves, and it marks a milestone in this ongoing debate. (In the spirit of full disclosure, I should add that even though I did not contribute to this volume, I have coauthored with several of its contributors and view this book as central to my current research practice.)