2016
DOI: 10.1080/13642529.2016.1208951
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The distinction of history: on valuing the insularity of the historical past

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The research of the historical past is focused on (re)constructing the assumed factual representation of events, situations and processes in the organization's past, whereas the research of the practical past is focused on unpacking the organizational stakeholders' interpretations and experiences of the past (e.g. memory, heritage, legacy and nostalgia) that are meaningful and useful in the organization's present (Pihlainen, 2016).…”
Section: Historic Turn and Its Positioningmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The research of the historical past is focused on (re)constructing the assumed factual representation of events, situations and processes in the organization's past, whereas the research of the practical past is focused on unpacking the organizational stakeholders' interpretations and experiences of the past (e.g. memory, heritage, legacy and nostalgia) that are meaningful and useful in the organization's present (Pihlainen, 2016).…”
Section: Historic Turn and Its Positioningmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This serves as a reminder that multimediality (the simultaneous use of different media) and intermediality (the cross‐fertilisation between media) are not recent phenomena, but powerfully characterised the nineteenth‐century cultural memory (Rigney, , 50). Thus, the present paper questions the belief in (professional) history's superiority and insularity as a form of ‘past talk’ (Pihlainen, ), and seeks to demonstrate that a more transgressive—multi‐ and intermedial—approach to historical cultures can reveal significant factors that explain the persistence of certain pasts.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…attempts by empiricist guardians to identify a form of adjudication that is somehow elevated beyond the historian's 'discursive networks' (Pihlainen, 2016a, pp150-152). Whether labelled as 'mediating levels of reason' (Fulbrook, 2002), 'rational warrant' (Kuukkanen, 2015), 'determined inference' (Ahlskog, 2018), or simply 'common sense' and experience, the aim is to distinguish (and privilege) academic scholarship as less subjective, and therefore, more 'truth-full', than other forms of historying (Pihlainen, 2016b). However, although the desire for realist foundations is understandable, Alun Munslow (2014, p571) is correct to claim that historians are being deceptive and irresponsible when continuing to insist that they can be perspectival and yet somehow, through mechanisms of adjudicatory reasoning, remain nonpartisan.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%