Do particular para o geral: memória, história oral e estudos organizacionais

Organizational memory studies have been criticized for their instrumental, ahistorical view of memory. Alternatively, Rowlinson, Booth, Clark, Delahaye and Procter (2010) proposed the structural approach of memory studies from sociology and history, in which the memory considered is supra-individual, accessed through the study of celebrations and monuments. Consequently, individual memory and Oral History as epistemological options for understanding a collectivity in time and space ended up in the background. The article aims to propose Oral History as a theoretical and methodological possibility for memory studies in organizations, bringing the discussion (1) about the different historiographies of memory studies and Oral History, as well as their respective links with organizational research, and (2) two possible ways to move from individual to social memory, presenting classic examples from the Oral History literature.Os estudos de memória organizacional vêm sendo criticados por sua visão instrumental, a-histórica, da memória. Como alternativa, Rowlinson, Booth, Clark, Delahaye e Procter (2010) propuseram a abordagem dos estudos de memória da sociologia e da história em sua vertente estrutural, na qual a memória priorizada é a supraindividual, acessada pelas comemorações e monumentos. Consequentemente, a memória individual e a História Oral como opções epistemológicas para se entender uma coletividade no tempo e no espaço acabaram em segundo plano. Sendo assim, o artigo tem como objetivo propor a História Oral como mais uma possibilidade teórico-metodológica aos estudos de memória nas organizações, por meio da discussão (1) sobre as distintas historiografias dos estudos de memória e da História Oral, assim como seus respectivos entrelaces com a pesquisa organizacional, e (2) sobre dois possíveis caminhos para se partir da memória individual para a social, apresentando exemplos clássicos da literatura de História Oral

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Caracteristicas das familias com mulheres na PEA na região metropolitana de São Paulo, na decada de 80

Não informadoNot informe

História Oral e Pesquisa Organizacional: Desafios da Construção de Conhecimento sobre o Passado

Oral history has been increasingly used in management research in recent years, bringing to the forefront the view of individuals about past organizational phenomena. However, this use has not yet fully explored the construction of knowledge about the past. Instead, it has focused on studying the present and, therefore, hardly distinguishes oral history from qualitative methods such as case studies and in-depth interviews. How then should we use oral history and its historiography that has made it quite distinctive in history? How should we use individuals’ views to construct new knowledge of the past? This paper addresses these two questions, advocating for the use of oral history both as a theoretical-methodological approach and subfield of history, as well as firmly engaged with historical organizational studies. To that end, we review the trajectory of oral history, then we analyze 16 Brazilian papers on oral history, highlighting the distinctive characteristics of the approach, and, finally, we present research possibilities in historical organizational studies.A história oral vem sendo cada vez mais utilizada em pesquisas na administração, trazendo, para primeiro plano, a visão de indivíduos sobre fenômenos organizacionais do passado. Esse uso, todavia, ainda não explorou, em toda a sua potencialidade, a construção de conhecimento acerca do passado. Ao contrário, o foco tem sido predominantemente voltado para o estudo do presente e, como consequência, pouco distingue a história oral de métodos qualitativos como o estudo de caso e a entrevista em profundidade. Como então usar a história oral de modo a aproveitar toda sua historiografia que a tornou distintiva na história? Como usar relatos sobre o passado para a construção de novos conhecimentos sobre o passado? O presente artigo discute essas duas questões, tendo como objetivo advogar por um uso da história oral tanto como abordagem teórico-metodológica e subcampo da história, quanto engajada aos estudos organizacionais históricos. Para isso, revisamos a trajetória da história oral com ênfase na sua construção como subcampo da história; em seguida analisamos 16 artigos nacionais de história oral destacando as características distintivas da abordagem para, enfim, apresentarmos possibilidades de pesquisa nos estudos organizacionais históricos