Tiffany Demiris, Chad Seifried

Abstract: The present critical commentary explains how epistemological orientations and modes of archival research can impact theory development. Archival research is positioned as a distinct but also a complementary research approach to more popular methodologies such as qualitative and quantitative research. Within, descriptions are provided and differentiation is established about modernist, postmodernist, and a modernist epistemologies to highlight they are concurrently theory and method to archival researchers. Next, research modes such as historiographic, ecological, and new archivalist are presented to acknowledge their importance as a methodological approach that can interact with modernist, postmodernist, and a modernist epistemologies in theory construction. The overall goal of the present critical commentary is to improve understanding about the potential contribution archival research can make to studying various topics of interest in sport management and to reduce anxiety about the method in the eyes of the unfamiliar.

Citation: Demiris, T., & Seifried, C. (2022). What to know about building theory with archival research: Modes and epistemological orientations. International Journal of Sport Management, 23(3), 191-200.

References:

• Andrew, D.P., Pedersen, P.M., & McEvoy, C.D. (2019). Research methods and design in sport management. Human Kinetics.
• Bucheli, M., & Wadhwani, R.D. (Eds.) (2014). Organizations in time: History, theory, methods. Oxford University Press.
• Cuneen, J., & Tobar, D. (2017). Sport industry research and analysis: An approach to informed decision-making. Routledge.
• Decker, S. (2013). The silence of the archives: Business history, post-colonialism and archival ethnography. Management & Organizational History, 8(2), 155-173.
• Decker, S., Hassard, J., & Rowlinson, M. (2021). Rethinking history and memory in organizational studies: The case for historiographic reflexivity. Human Relations, 74(8), 1123-1155.
• de Wilde, A., & Seifried, C.S. (2012). An analysis of research methods in leading sport management journals: The absence of historical methods in sport management. International Journal of Sport Management, 13, 186-202.
• de Wilde, A., & Seifried, C.S. (2018). Sport history and sport management in the United States: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Sport History, 45, 66-86.
• Downs, B.J., & Seifried, C.S. (2021). Modernization and multipurpose arenas: Providing context for tomorrow. Sport Business & Management, 11, 384-404.
• Fear, J.R. (2001). Thinking historically about organizational learning. In M. Dierkes, A. Berthoin Antal, J. Child, & I. Nonaka (Eds.), The handbook of organizational learning and knowledge (pp. 162–191). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 191–215). Sage. 
• Hendricks, K., Deal, N., Mills, A.J., & Mills, J. H. (2020). Intersectionality as a matter of time. Management Decision, 59, 2567-2582.
• Heng, Y.T., Wagner, D.T., Barnes, C. M., & Guarana, C L. (2018). Archival research: Expanding the methodological toolkit in social psychology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 78, 14-22.
• Jones, I. (2015). Research methods for sport management. Taylor & Francis.
• Jones, I. (2022). Research methods for sports studies. (4th ed.). Routledge.
• Kipping, M., Wadhwani, R.D., & Bucheli, M. (2014). Analyzing and interpreting historical sources: A basic methodology. In M. Bucheli & R.D. Wadhwani (Eds.), Organizations in time: History, theory, methods (pp. 305–329). Oxford University Press.
• Leblebici, H., & Shah, N. (2004). The birth, transformation and regeneration of business incubators as new organizational forms: Understanding the interplay between organizational history and organizational theory. Business History, 46(3), 353-380.
• Lipartito, K. (2014). Historical sources and data. In M. Bucheli & R.D. Wadhwani (Eds.), Organizations in time: History, theory, methods (pp. 284–304). Oxford University Press.
• MacNeil, H. (2017). Deciphering and interpreting an archival fonds and its parts. In A.J. Gilland, S. McKemmish, & A.J. Lau (Eds.). Research in the archival multiverse (pp. 161-197). Monash University Publishing.
• Mills, A.J. & Helm Mills, J. (Ed.). (2019). Archival research. In C. Cassell, A. L. Cunliff, and G. Grandy (Eds.). The Sage handbook of qualitative business and management research methods (pp. 32-45). Sage.
• Mills, A., & Novicevic, M.M. (2020). Management and organizational history. Routledge.
• Mohr, J.W. (2005). Implicit terrains: Meaning, measurement, and spatial metaphors in organizational theory.In J. Porac & M. Ventresca (Eds.), Constructing industries and markets (pp. 1-38). Elsevier.
• Moore, N., Salter, A., Stanley, L., & Tamboukou, M. (Eds.). (2017). The archive project: Archival research in the social sciences. Routledge.
• Munslow, A. (2010). The future of history. Palgrave MacMillan.
• Nite, C., & Washington, M. (2017). Institutional adaptation to technological innovation: Lessons from the NCAA’s regulation of football television broadcasts (1938-1984). Journal of Sport Management, 31(6), 575-590.
• Pitts, B.G., Li, M., & Kim, A. (2018). Research methods in sport management. FiT Publishing.
• Queiros, A., Faria, D., & Almeida, F. (2017). Strengths and limitations of qualitative and quantitative research methods. European Journal of Education Studies, 3(9), 369-387.
• Rowlinson, M. (2004). Historical analysis of company documents. In C. Cassell and G. Symon (Eds.). Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 301-312). Sage.
• Seifried, C.S. (2010). A review of historical methods for sport management: How studying history benefits sport management. International Journal of Sport Management, 11, 581-601.
• Seifried, C.S. (2017). Peer reviewing historical research for sport management: It’s not qualitative research! International Journal of Sport Management, 18, 461-487.
• Seifried, C.S., Katz, M., & Tutka, P. (2017). A conceptual model on the process of innovation diffusion through a historical review of the United States Armed Forces and their bowl games. Sport Management Review, 20(4), 379-394.
• Skinner, J., & Edwards, A. (2005). Inventive pathways: Fresh visions of sport management research. Journal of Sport Management, 19(4), 404-421.
• Skinner, J., Edwards, A., & Corbett, B. (2014). Research methods for sport management. Routledge.
• Snelgrove, R. (2017). Advancing paradigmatic consistency and distinction in leisure studies: From epistemology to method. Annals of Leisure Research, 20, 131-136.
• Tyson, T.N., & Oldroyd, D. (2017). The debate between postmodernism and historiography. Accounting History, 22(1), 29-43.
• Veal, A.J., & Darcy, S. (2014). Research methods in sport studies and sport management: A practical guide. Routledge.
• Ventresca, M., & Mohr, J.W. (2017). Archival research methods. In J.A.C. Baum (Ed.), Companion to organizations (pp. 805-828). Blackwell.
• Walker, K.B., Seifried, C.S., & Soebbing, B.P. (2018). The National Collegiate Athletic Association as a social control agent: Addressing misconduct through organizational layering. Journal of Sport Management, 32, 53-71.
• Williams, D.P., Seifried, C.S., & Soebbing, B.P. (2019). The five-stage process of legitimacy building within a sport interest association. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 12, 262-286.
• Yates, J. (2014). Understanding historical methods in organizational studies. In M. Bucheli & R.D. Wadwhani (Eds.), Organizations in time (pp. 264-283). Oxford University Press.