Who is business history for?The field moved into the business school. What should its association become? Thoughts from the new ABH president.
I have never taught business history in my entire career. Among my business school colleagues, I am often known as “the historian” or “the business historian”. I don’t mind either of those things. A few weeks ago, I took over as president of the Association of Business Historians, the UK's community of business historians and, I would argue, one of the more consequential ones anywhere. This post is partly about what I think the ABH could become. But to explain that, I have to start with a question of identity, mine and the field's. What is business history?On the way to the station after the ABH conference in the UK, we had an interesting conversation about how historians of science and technology now sit in engineering and science faculties. According to a colleague working across both fields, they don’t want to return to a history department. Why should they? Better paid, safer positions and access to larger research grants. Sounds like an all-round swish deal. From where I sit, business historians have done something very similar: moving into business schools has brought better-paid, more secure academic positions and improved citation profiles — though it has not had much impact on grant capture, which remains low in business & management relative to field size.1
I might genuinely not understand what drives discussions of academic identity. When I was in Italy in the spring (I know, I feel very lucky, too), I had the opportunity to teach business history, as it was an ERASMUS programme with one term focused on industrial heritage and business history. But I decided to replace the last session, which was supposed to be on the history of multinationals, with a session on teaching core strategy models to heritage students. Why? Fair question. Because I had gone on many study visits with this cohort (and a previous one) and realised that the bit they were missing in museums and on corporate visits was the answer to why some firms invest in heritage, and others do not. The answer can be developed pretty straightforwardly using a couple of key strategic models. So I gave a lecture on what the models are and how they apply to corporate and industrial heritage questions. Not to mention, they are quite useful when students think about career planning and their professional lives… Honestly, that was the talk I enjoyed most, and some students told me they really liked that session as well. So a fairer description of my professional identity may be that I like crossing borders. National, disciplinary and linguistic. The one thing you learn from doing this is that they will always describe you as the thing they are not. It’s because you sort of stand out. Sometimes it is othering. But often it is the thing by which you add value. So, that’s me. I am now the president of the ABH — sounds grander than it is, but isn’t that just very British? We are one of the bigger national communities of business historians globally. Certainly per capita. I am not pointing to my map project because I know it has had more traction in the UK, and that, in particular, Japan, which has around 700 business historians, is vastly underrepresented. The US likely, too, but some academics there may prefer the term “historians of capitalism” or similar labels. I actually think that we are one of the key communities in the field, and we have set the key trend for the field, together with other European and, to a lesser extent, Japanese business historians. And I am not sure that we have fully grasped the value of what we have built yet. Does historical [insert other field here] mean “history under cover”?To make the obvious statement first: calling something historical organization studies, historical entrepreneurship or management & organizational history, is not “history under cover”. We used that phrase for all synonyms used with the express purpose of avoiding the H-word. Yet, the first use of “history under cover” was by Maielli (2006), who viewed it as a largely positive signal of existing interest in history in business schools, even though it subsequently acquired a far more negative connotation. The keen-eyed among you may have noticed that all of the above use the word “history” or its derivative “historical”. They do not use words like “evolution” or “longitudinal”. We have moved on. But we do not do “history for its own sake” or even history for other historians. Almost nobody actually teaches (business) history courses. Should we, though? At the final plenary session at the Association of Business Historians (UK), this question got another outing. I was surprised. I remember having this discussion fifteen years ago, or so. But not since, until now. So here's what I think. The history of everythingWhether we should teach business history depends on whether students should learn it. You might say “ but of course!” And I don’t disagree. Students who enrol in a history degree should be prepared to learn about the past. Students who enrol in a business school degree can reasonably ask you why they should learn history. I don’t fear the question, because there are many good reasons. If they study finance, it might help them better understand financial crises and bubbles. If they learn about international business, it might help them learn more about both world history and national & international histories, to understand why countries developed differently. If they learn theories, it may help them learn in which context the theories were developed and how they made sense of that context. And why today these theories may fit only imperfectly and not explain things as neatly as they hoped… It’s almost like it makes sense to teach history as a constituent and irreducible part of the world we live in, and of the knowledge that we teach and learn. Having deep expertise in business school subjects, coupled with historical knowledge, provides an ideal basis for teaching and applying business history within the business school curriculum. And this is what many business historians in the UK have done. Everything has a historyWhen we raise awareness that everything has a history, including every business school subject, issue and theory, then every business school should really have a historian (or more). While we may not be there yet (and it may be some time), with more than 120 business schools in the UK, that is a far better professional basis than focusing on larger business history groups at a few business schools. It also avoids the problem inherent in rotating university leadership that new leaders may look askance at the humanities in general and at any semblance of the humanities in the money-making part of the enterprise (also known as the business school). When we accept that everything has a history (and that, as historical scholars, we should see this as an opportunity), then we need to rethink the role of our professional associations and what their service to the community should be. Ironically, this goes back to Maielli’s (2006) original argument, which highlighted the latent interest in historical thinking across business school subjects. Those with historical interests and research might be the only ones in their department or school. Training and professional networks will be more significant and require more effort. As the key professional association for business historians and historical researchers in business schools, ABH should consider how best to serve the interests of current and future members who will rely on the Association for their connection to the field. My ambition for the presidency is to rethink how ABH can become the meeting place for everyone interested in doing business history, the clearinghouse for new ideas, and the place to find training opportunities and community when you are starting out as a historical scholar. If that is you, why don’t you check out the ABH? What would you want from ABH if you were the only historical scholar in your school? What training did you lack when you started? Tell me in an email or the comments! 1 While funding has increased, it remains lower than the funding received by mathematics — see CABS Research Income Report. Maielli, G. (2006). History under Cover: The Problematic Relationship between Business Management and the Past. Competition and Change, 10(4), 341–356.
Continue reading this post for free in the Substack app
|
No comments:
Post a Comment