What is it about?
Whilst supportive of calls for business schools to learn the lessons of history in order to address contemporary challenges about their legitimacy and impact, this article argues that our ability to learn is limited by the histories we have created. Through contrasting the contested development of the case method of teaching at Harvard Business School, and the conventional history of its rise, we argue that this history, which promotes a smooth linear evolution, works against reconceptualizing the role of the business school. To illustrate this, we develop a ‘counter-history’ of the case method: one which reveals a contested and circuitous path of development and discuss how recognizing this would encourage us to think differently.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
This counter-history provides a means of stimulating debate and innovative thinking about how business schools can address their legitimacy challenges, and, in doing so, have a more positive impact on society.
Perspectives
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Restating the Case: How Revisiting the Development of the Case Method Can Help Us Think Differently About the Future of the Business School, Academy of Management Learning and Education, September 2016, The Academy of Management,
DOI: 10.5465/amle.2015.0291.
You can read the full text:
Resources
Animated video introduction to the paper
An animated video summarising our article 'Restating the Case: How Revisiting the Development of the Case Method Can Help Us Think Differently About the Future of the Business School.'
Re-stating the case
A feature on our paper in Case Connect, the newsletter of The Case Centre.
It's all in the theory
A blog by Richard McCracken, Director of The Case Centre, on re-examining the history of the case method at Harvard Business School.
Conextualising the use of cases
A feature by The Case Centre, which includes an interview with Todd Bridgman, on the issue of context in case writing.
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page