Rethinking history and memory in organization studies: The case for historiographical reflexivity

Abstract

The historic turn in organization studies has led to greater appreciation of the potential contribution from historical research. However, there is increasing emphasis on integrating history into organization studies, rather than on recognizing how accommodating history might require a reorientation. As a result, key conceptual and methodological insights from historiography have been overlooked or at times misrepresented. We identify four modes of enquiry that highlight distinctions from history about ‘how to conceptualize’ and ‘how to research’ the past. First, historical organization studies research the past primarily through reference to archival sources. Second, retrospective organizational history reconstructs the past principally from retrospective accounts, such as those generated in oral history. Third, retrospective organizational memory uses ethnography and interviews to explore the role of memory in the present. Fourth, historical organizational memory traces the institutionalization of organizational memory through archival research. From the analysis, we argue that historical organization studies are increasingly established, and interest in ‘uses of the past’ has contributed to the rise of retrospective organizational memory. However, historiographical reflexivity – a new concept for organization studies – focuses attention on engaging with both history and collective memory, and on the distinct methodological choices between archival and retrospective methods.

Organizational Memory Studies

“…There have been fewer efforts to distinguish between the associated constructs of history, memory and knowledge (i.e. Coraiola & Murcia, 2019; Decker et al, 2020). In particular, we believe that it will be crucial for further theorizing for scholars to delineate and distinguish between these constructs.…”

“…The interest in understanding how organizations muster the past for purposes in the present brought significant attention to discussions of organizational memory. In contrast to historical organizational studies, however, this perspective blurs the distinction between history and memory (Decker et al, 2020). The core interest is in the past seen as ‘a source of social symbolic resources available for a wide variety of creative uses’ (Wadhwani et al, 2018, p. 1664) and the sources about the past become less important than the ability to skilfully re-present the past in convincing ways (Suddaby, Foster, & Quinn-Trank, 2010).…”

“…Such an understanding is grounded on the distinction between history and memory (Nora, 1989). As Decker et al (2020, p. 306) elaborate, the past can be understood as either ‘“finished” and gone (history) or temporally prolonged into the present (memory)’. History and memory thus imply different assumptions about the past that may be irreconcilable.…”

“…The growing interest in organizational memory has been fuelled by the development of two predominant streams of thought in OMS: functional and constructionist approaches to memory (Rowlinson et al, 2010). While these diverse perspectives have contributed to a rapid progression of the field, they have also led to increasing ambiguity about the boundaries of the field and obfuscation of the field’s core constructs (Decker, Hassard, & Rowlinson, 2020).…”

Leadership lessons untold: A new history of Robert McNamara’s World Bank

“…Mainstream texts often rely on simplistic and ill-informed 'leadership lessons' (Spector, 2016;Tourish, 2017;Wilson, 2016). The complexities of history are often given especially superficial treatment (Cummings et al, 2017;Decker et al, 2020;Gutmann, 2018).…”