ANTi-History: toward amodern histories
To a large extent, the modern-postmodern debate in the discipline of history has also shaped the contours of the recent call for more history in management and organization studies (henceforth, M&OS). This is apparent in the oft-quoted and highly infl uential three positions for doing history developed by Ü sdiken and Kieser. These “may be labeled as supplementarist, integrationist and reorientationist ” ( Ü sdiken & Kieser, 2004 : 322). Though the authors caution that the three positions are not fi xed, preferring instead to highlight each as subject to variation, the supplementarist (and perhaps even the integrationist) position(s) are arguably still informed by modernist assumptions of realism off ering promise of objective knowledge. The reorientationalist position, however, is dedicated to inherently challenging the “social scientistic framing of organisation studies” ( Ü sdiken & Kieser, 2004 : 324; Zald, 1993 ) and shares many similarities with a postmodern orientation to history.