In 2008 Professor Eric Godelier published a provocative essay in which he concluded that a positive dialogue between business historians and both management scientists and business management practitioners was possible. While the divide between these camps was not trivial, he nevertheless wrote that current events and scholarship was bringing them together, at least as he could observe these trends in the context of emerging French scholarship. In this current review, my own conclusion is the opposite. Management scholarship, in fact, continues to move away from the “soft” approach of the historian and more towards the “rigorous” and quantitatively biased methodology of the management sciences. My essay reviews the background of this development in terms of American business practice and scholarship, as it seeks to demonstrate how the evolution of management training in the United States brought us to the current state of affairs where “hard” drives out soft in almost every encounter. However, while I conclude that this is indeed the current reality, I do not imply any endorsement of this outcome. Rather, I end with a hope that some forms of rapprochement might be possible-yet with an acknowledgement that we will have no definitive answers to this question anytime soon.

In response to Eric Godelier's call for a partnership between business history and the management sciences I argue for a vision of business history as history. Whilst acknowledging the institutional and intellectual pressures to which the discipline is subject I argue such a turn is important for the continued health of the field. Such a turn will, however, also require engaging with fundamental questions of epsitemology.

If my initial essay at a minimum had the objective of generating a debate and fruitful exchanges, it has succeeded. Of course, probably because of the inevitable ambiguities of translation, some of Chris Kobrak's, Andrew Popp's, and Paul Tiffany's comments suggest that a few further remarks are in order to clarify a set of ideas and allow further developments or discussions.