They believe that if only a hypothesis-testing approach that focuses on the hypothesis 34 is supported as a methodology, the dynamism of the development of business history research will be hindered, and they emphasize the benefits of a pluralistic approach (Decker et al. 2015). Even if business history is considered a science, as Do Yong et al. mentioned above, its purpose is not just to verify a certain claim. In historical research, historical events themselves are considered important, and rather than proving a certain claim, the aim is often to clarify the continuity and process of the phenomena under study, or to integrate the complex developments in relation to them. In this case, the intention is not to describe and analyze a certain historical event as a case to support a theory, but to fully explain the phenomenon in question through detailed and abundant reproduction. In this way, much of historical research is by its nature interpretive rather than descriptive or analytical, and therefore its methodologies are diverse. Based on this idea, Decker et al. emphasize that while the new business history of de Yong et al., which takes a hypothesis-testing approach, was called "new business history," their approach is expressed in the plural as "new business histories," and they point out the importance of diverse approaches, such as the history of capitalism that has expanded from labor history and cultural history, and historical research in business administration and organizational theory, in addition to the method based on the mainstream of social sciences used by de Yong et al. (Decker et al. 2015: 30-32). In particular, the trend in historical research seen in business administration and organizational theory is expected to become a new bridge connecting history and business administration since Chandler, even from the perspective of its relationship with business administration, which is the main focus of this paper. The spread of historical research in management and organization studies arose from dissatisfaction with the natural science paradigm that had dominated management studies since the 1960s, and progressed as organizational researchers who had become increasingly interested in evolutionary economics, institutional theories, path dependence, and long-term processes advocated the combination of social sciences and humanities, and systematic engagement with philosophy, history, literature, and narrative theory. This movement has been called the "historical turn" in management and organization studies, and involves questioning the scientific rhetoric of management and organization studies, an approach that sees the past not as a mere variable but as a process or context, and a commitment to historical writing regarding the epistemological positioning of narrative (Decker et al. 2015: 33; Kurosawa and Kuno 2018: 30). Regarding this “historical turn” in management and organizational theory, Sakai and Izawa (2022) divided the trend into two broad categories: “research on the historical background” of management and organizational phenomena and “research on historical narratives,” and showed that the latter has become more prevalent in recent years. First, “research on historical background” seeks to elucidate how management and organizational phenomena have been constructed, maintained, and changed by looking back at the past. This is organizational research that makes extensive use of historical data, methods, and knowledge, embeds organizing and organizations in their socio-historical contexts, and produces historically informed theoretical narratives that take into account both history and organizational studies (Maclean et al. 2016: 609). On the other hand, “research on historical narratives” emphasizes that organizational history itself is intentionally told and constructed by actors. This research is often referred to as “uses of the past,” and in particular, it assumes a causal relationship between the “narrated history” of organizations and competitive advantage and organizational identity. This "research on historical narrative" has given rise to two research fields: "rhetorical history," which shows that history and the ability to tell history are themselves rare resources and can be a source of competitive advantage, and "organizational memory studies," which view history as a socially constructed memory resource that is told to various external stakeholders and brings advantages to the organization, and focus on memory that plays a major role in maintaining organizational identity (Sakai and Izawa 2022: 6-8). As described above, the "historical turn" in business administration and organization theory has two main streams: research that explores the historical background of business and organization phenomena, and research that focuses on the past itself as intentionally told by the actors, and in this field collaboration and intellectual exchange between business history and business administration and organization theory is progressing. As we have seen so far, the historical analysis of business phenomena24The "historical turn" in business administration and organization theory Conclusion
元のページ ../index.html#26