Business History: In Defence Of The Empirical Approach?

The theme of this article is the status of business history, and the methodologies with which it is associated. Business history is often regarded by more mainstream historians and business school economists as a rather narrow area of study, with little intellectual merit. Many critics doubt whether it really deserves classification as a separate subdivision of history. This paper reviews the intellectual and theoretical underpinnings of business history, with particular reference to the American and British experience, and the contributions of Arthur Cole and Al Chandler. The contemporary attack on the case-study is then discussed. The author argues that the search for a new theory of business history based on the concerns of the social sciences and philosophy is a far from easy assignment; that there is room for the case-study, and that the empirical tradition in business history, as in other forms of history, is both respectable and intellectually justified. Central to this thesis is the relationship between historical method and the methodology of the social sciences. There is a need to accept: 1) that the dilemma facing business historians (whether or not to desert the case-study) is by no means unique, and 2) that the proponents of empirically based studies face very real problems with values and agendas. Business history requires systematizing, and it needs theory. But, while all branches of history risk the dangers of excessive compartmentalization, business history should not abandon its eclectic character. And the case-study, written with some specific analytical constructs firmly in mind, deserves retention.