Philip Scranton and Patrick Fridenson—two senior scholars from Rutgers University and École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris, respectively—have brought together their decades of experience as practitioners and editors to explore new directions in research and writing in business history. But this is a different kind of historiographical book. In fact, it is “the inverse of a historiographical analysis”; it seeks to provide a “prospective” “collection of ordered, grouped assertions” (9). It is a “book of perspectives” that “has purposes not an argument” and is intended to be browsed, not read cover to cover. Yet, the authors clearly take aim at “traditional business history” and encourage business historians to step “away from o...
Purpose: To promote a multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary approach to the themes of management and b...
IN THIS ESSAY, we offer a new synthesis of American business history that aims to replace, but also ...
We agree with de Jong et al.'s argument that business historians should make their methods more expl...
This article traces back the origins and nature of business history to stress its potential to dialo...
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 2017. A common lament is that business hist...
On the back of recent and significant new contributions to debates over the use of history within bu...
This article calls for a discussion about business history research. We advocate that the current ty...
�� 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. On the back of recent and significa...
Business history as a subject is now host to a range of competing research agendas in terms of which...
In addressing the urgent need for business historians to think about enhancing their relationships w...
This editorial introduces eight articles for on ‘New business history?’. Following a workshop on thi...
Authors' draftIn this article we explore the implications of the epistemological position taken by w...
Philip Scranton et de Patrick Fridenson, Reimagining Business History, Baltimore, John Hopkins Unive...
This contribution discusses the intellectual and institutional development of the discipline of busi...
Business history, while not clearly established or widely recognized, is an open framework that can ...
Purpose: To promote a multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary approach to the themes of management and b...
IN THIS ESSAY, we offer a new synthesis of American business history that aims to replace, but also ...
We agree with de Jong et al.'s argument that business historians should make their methods more expl...
This article traces back the origins and nature of business history to stress its potential to dialo...
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 2017. A common lament is that business hist...
On the back of recent and significant new contributions to debates over the use of history within bu...
This article calls for a discussion about business history research. We advocate that the current ty...
�� 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. On the back of recent and significa...
Business history as a subject is now host to a range of competing research agendas in terms of which...
In addressing the urgent need for business historians to think about enhancing their relationships w...
This editorial introduces eight articles for on ‘New business history?’. Following a workshop on thi...
Authors' draftIn this article we explore the implications of the epistemological position taken by w...
Philip Scranton et de Patrick Fridenson, Reimagining Business History, Baltimore, John Hopkins Unive...
This contribution discusses the intellectual and institutional development of the discipline of busi...
Business history, while not clearly established or widely recognized, is an open framework that can ...
Purpose: To promote a multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary approach to the themes of management and b...
IN THIS ESSAY, we offer a new synthesis of American business history that aims to replace, but also ...
We agree with de Jong et al.'s argument that business historians should make their methods more expl...