'Presenting' the past: perspectives on time for accounting and management history

Concepts of time in accounting and management historiography have only previously been considered as partial subsets of other methodological issues. This paper investigates our concepts of historical time with a view to offering alternative foundations to the unidirectional linear concept of chronological time employed in historical research project design and execution. Its analytical approach is pluralist in that it draws upon the historiographic writings of historians and historical theorists of traditional and post-modern persuasions, both within and beyond the accounting and management history fields. It addresses teleological, historicist and narrativist temporal underpinnings and considers historical practice in relation to assumptions about and interpretations of continuity and discontinuity. Time is extended beyond its conventional accounting and management chronology to include consideration of co-present, cyclical, relativist, structuralist and spatial time. Intrinsic and reflexive relationships between past, present and future are explored. The paper argues for a postmodern pluralisation of our historiographic approaches to time and their informing revisitations of historical accounting and management subjects with a view to better understanding that which we thought we already knew.time, historiography, past, present, future, continuity, discontinuity,

Times, theories and practices in social psychology.

This paper begins by problematizing the `taken for granted' status of Newtonian linear time at the heart of (social) psychology. Borrowing from Adam, the paper makes a distinction between an `events in time' and `time in events' approach to social psychology. It argues that a `time in events' approach helps to reveal the importance of multiple times for social psychological theories and practices. To demonstrate this approach, it considers some of the multiple times that are relevant for analysing the concept of `identity'. It also explores the multiple times of the research encounter. In doing so, it suggests that traditional dichotomies in social psychology between synchronic and diachronic methods, and between experimental and qualitative methods, can be dissolved by this focus on the temporal. The paper concludes with some observations about the importance of time for thinking about social psychology as a knowledge-producing practice