Autobiography as unconventional history: Constructing the author

The experience of historians as autobiographers has led them to reconsider the nature of historical knowledge and the function of the historian as an intermediary between the past and present. In the new theoretical context of the social sciences and historiography, we can take this proposal further and consider autobiography as a valid form of history—or, at least, as ‘unconventional history’, understood as negotiations with history that transcend or subvert traditional chronological monographs, posit the ‘subjective’ as a useful form of knowledge, and engage the constructed nature of the text. Taking this hypothesis as a starting point, this article reads historians' autobiographical texts to explore if we can/should continue to defend the classic distinction between subject and object, historian scientist and historian author. In this article I compare the work of several historian autobiographers that permit us to identify different methodologies in approaching the story of the self that also reflects different theoretical conceptions of history. I argue that historians that may be considered ‘constructionist’, such as Fernand Braudel, Annie Kriegel, George Duby, and Eric Hobsbawm, design their autobiographies in the same way they articulate their historical texts: by foregrounding objectivity and establishing critical distance between the subject—the historian who narrates the story—and the object—one's own life. Unconventional or experimental approaches, such as those espoused by Robert Rosenstone, Dominick LaCapra, or Clifford Geertz, result in more self-conscious autobiographies, which are, paradoxically, often more realistic and more revealing of the epistemological nature of life writing. ----------------- La experiencia de los historiadores como autobiógrafos les ha llevado a reconsiderar la naturaleza del conocimiento histórico y la función del historiador como un intermediario entre el pasado y el presente. En el nuevo contexto teórico de las ciencias sociales y la historiografía podemos tomar esta propuesta más allá y considerar la autobiografía como una forma válida de historia-o, al menos, de historia ‘poco convencional’-, entendida como negociaciones con la historia que trascienden o subvierten las tradicionales monografías cronológicas, plantean lo "subjetivo" como una forma útil de conocimiento y participan de la naturaleza construida del texto. Tomando esta hipótesis como punto de partida, este artículo lee los textos autobiográficos de los historiadores para explorar si se puede / debe seguir defendiendo la clásica distinción entre sujeto y objeto, historiador científico e historiador escritor. En este artículo comparo el trabajo de varios historiadores autobiógrafos que nos permiten identificar las diferentes metodologías para acercarse a la historia del yo y que también reflejan las diferentes concepciones teóricas de la historia. Sostengo que los historiadores que pueden considerarse "constructivistas", como Fernand Braudel, Annie Kriegel, George Duby y Eric Hobsbawm, diseñan sus autobiografías de la misma forma que articulan sus textos históricos: poniendo en primer plano la objetividad y estableciendo una distancia crítica entre el sujeto -el historiador que narra la historia-y el objeto- la vida de cada uno. Enfoques no convencionales o experimentales, como los expuestos por Robert Rosenstone, Dominick LaCapra, o Clifford Geertz, resultan autobiografías más autoconscientes, que son, paradójicamente, a menudo más realistas y más reveladoras de la naturaleza epistemológica de la escritura de la vida

Identifying priority healthcare trainings in frozen conflict situations: The case of Nagorno Karabagh

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Health care in post-war situations, where the system's human and fixed capital are depleted, is challenging. The addition of a frozen conflict situation, where international recognition of boundaries and authorities are lacking, introduces further complexities.</p> <p>Case description</p> <p>Nagorno Karabagh (NK) is an ethnically Armenian territory locked within post-Soviet Azerbaijan and one such frozen conflict situation. This article highlights the use of evidence-based practice and community engagement to determine priority areas for health care training in NK. Drawing on the precepts of APEXPH (Assessment Protocol for Excellence in Public Health) and MAPP (Mobilizing for Action through Planning and Partnerships), this first-of-its-kind assessment in NK relied on in-depth interviews and focus group discussions supplemented with expert assessments and field observations. Training options were evaluated against a series of ethical and pragmatic principles.</p> <p>Discussion and Evaluation</p> <p>A unique factor among the ethical and pragmatic considerations when prioritizing among alternatives was NK's ambiguous political status and consequent sponsor constraints. Training priorities differed across the region and by type of provider, but consensus prioritization emerged for first aid, clinical Integrated Management of Childhood Illnesses, and Adult Disease Management. These priorities were then incorporated into the training programs funded by the sponsor.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Programming responsive to both the evidence-base and stakeholder priorities is always desirable and provides a foundation for long-term planning and response. In frozen conflict, low resource settings, such an approach is critical to balancing the community's immediate humanitarian needs with sponsor concerns and constraints.</p

Understanding the rift, the (still) uneasy bedfellows of History and Organization Studies

Although the use of History has become increasingly discussed and more widely applied within Organization Studies (OS), its relevance for OS still remains far from centrally accepted. This article historicizes the relationship between Sociology and History as a means of better understanding the tensions, perceived and real, that exist between History and Organization Studies. In particular we analyse three differences of epistemological standpoint (method, objectivity and usefulness) that are commonly seen as the foundation stones to incompatibility. Perhaps surprisingly for an analysis of apparent disciplinary differences, we find that these distinctions in terms of approach, once closely examined, are rarely clear-cut and historians and OS scholars are frequently closer in intention and method than they are distant. However, despite their large intersection of interests, we argue that important distinctions between the two fields should be acknowledged. Our contribution to the debates over the need for more historical approaches within OS therefore centrally rests on abandoning aspirations for fully integrative models of working together, in favour of cooperative modes that concede the fields’ differences. This subtle shift of emphasis will, we believe, greatly benefit OS scholars who hope to include historical perspectives in their work

Research strategies for organizational history:a dialogue between historical theory and organization theory

If history matters for organization theory, then we need greater reflexivity regarding the epistemological problem of representing the past; otherwise, history might be seen as merely a repository of ready-made data. To facilitate this reflexivity, we set out three epistemological dualisms derived from historical theory to explain the relationship between history and organization theory: (1) in the dualism of explanation, historians are preoccupied with narrative construction, whereas organization theorists subordinate narrative to analysis; (2) in the dualism of evidence, historians use verifiable documentary sources, whereas organization theorists prefer constructed data; and (3) in the dualism of temporality, historians construct their own periodization, whereas organization theorists treat time as constant for chronology. These three dualisms underpin our explication of four alternative research strategies for organizational history: corporate history, consisting of a holistic, objectivist narrative of a corporate entity; analytically structured history, narrating theoretically conceptualized structures and events; serial history, using replicable techniques to analyze repeatable facts; and ethnographic history, reading documentary sources "against the grain." Ultimately, we argue that our epistemological dualisms will enable organization theorists to justify their theoretical stance in relation to a range of strategies in organizational history, including narratives constructed from documentary sources found in organizational archives. Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved

What is (accounting) history?

I am grateful for the invitation to present this paper to you today. I have had a long association with Victoria University and as an undergraduate here I was introduced to the fathers of history - Herodotus and Thucydides. Unfortunately, although I had to read their main works, at the time I remained oblivious to their full significance, namely, that they represent two extremes of historiography that have remained throughout the history of history - two approaches to how history is created and written. These themes are the background for this paper. However, before I go any further I want to make a clarification - Philip was keen that my presentation remain consistent with the theme of the conference - history and the state. This is not difficult as the great majority of written history has been about the state . Both Herodotus and Thucydides were, of course, writing histories of the state , namely Athens. And, of course, if we are considering theories of history we can recall that Plato pointed out, any theory of man (sic), implicit or explicit, will be reflected in a theory of the state (cf Rist, 2002, pp 228 - 229)

Rewriting history: the information age and the knowable past

Does history any longer have meaning in the information age? Baudrillard has described history as ‘our lost referential, that is to say our myth’. History seems to slip away in the precession of simulacra accompanying mass media and digital computing: ever-present if inauthentic versions of the past overwhelm any sense of historical continuity. Arguably we live in an era of timeless time, or time without chronology in which the very patterns of our daily lives are disrupted. Some theorists suggest we have reached the end of history; others that real historical research is no longer either possible or desirable. In the ephemeral spaces of the information society history apparently lacks purchase. As an emerging discipline, information history must take seriously the proposition that information itself possesses historical agency. It must develop ways of understanding the past that address both ‘information as a central theme’ and its ‘impact upon existing historical theses’. This chapter argues that structural transformations in the production and consumption of information accompanying the transition to the information society require us to rethink both the nature of history and our relationship with the past. They do so because of the tendency of mass media and digital computing to undermine the ontological stability that writing was assumed to possess in the modern age. A subtle complicity exists between writing and history. In unpicking that complicity we might uncover new kinds of previously marginalized historicity