Institutional memory is central to the task of governing. But existing understandings of how institutional memory works are too limiting and rooted in an ontological falsehood, argue Jack Corbett, Dennis C. Grube, Heather Lovell, and Rodney Scott. They explain why a more dynamic approach is needed

Corbett, Jack

Grube, Dennis

Lovell, Heather

Scott, Rodney

LSE Research Online

Institutional	Memory:	we	need	a	more	dynamicunderstanding	of	the	way	institutions	rememberInstitutional	memory	is	central	to	the	task	of	governing.	But	existing	understandings	of	how	institutional	memoryworks	are	too	limiting	and	rooted	in	an	ontological	falsehood,	argue	Jack	Corbett,	Dennis	C.	Grube,	HeatherLovell,	and	Rodney	Scott.	They	explain	why	a	more	dynamic	approach	is	needed.‘It’s	a	poor	sort	of	memory	that	only	works	backwards,’	the	Queen	remarked.When	Lewis	Carroll	wrote	those	words	in	1872,	he	was	describing	an	encounter	between	Alice	and	the	WhiteQueen.	The	Queen	claimed	the	extraordinary	ability	to	remember	things	before	they	happen,	because	her	memory‘works	both	ways.’	It’s	the	kind	of	skill	that	our	modern	politicians	and	civil	servants	might	dream	of	possessing.	Butwhat	if	they	are	actually	already	better	at	it	than	commonly	presumed?For	the	last	decade	or	so,	scholars	and	practitioners	alike	have	decried	the	steady	diminution	of	institutional	memory.They	have	observed	that	records	systems	are	failing	as	technology	sweeps	aside	existing	recording	keepingstructures	without	systematically	replacing	what	is	being	lost.	The	fast	pace	of	a	24/7	governance	environmentmeans	governments	are	becoming	more	reactive;	more	demanding	of	immediate	action	and	advice.	It	leaves	littletime	for	valuing	the	careful	capture	and	protection	of	the	documents	that	make	government	tick.In	our	new	article	in	Governance,	we	argue	that	these	observations	are	undoubtedly	true,	but	that	they	lead	us	tothink	of	memory	as	a	static	force	trapped	in	a	moment	in	time.	We	suggest	that	corridors	of	paper	files	were	actuallylittle	better	at	driving	the	effective	use	of	institutional	memory	than	the	palpitating	collection	of	electronic	files	that	clogthe	arteries	of	government	communication	today.The	reason	is	that	existing	conceptions	of	institutional	memory	are	too	limiting.	They	are	rooted	in	an	ontologicalfalsehood.	Memory	is	not	simply	something	that	is	written	down	and	stored	away,	but	rather	it	is	a	living	form	ofcommunicating	with	the	past	that	is	continually	re-shaped	and	re-imagined	by	those	who	are	recollecting	it.	In	otherwords,	memory	is	a	dynamic	force	in	which	future	action	is	governed	by	the	stories	of	what	worked	well	in	the	pastand	why.	Like	the	White	Queen,	in	drawing	on	institutional	memory	politicians	and	civil	servants	are	effectivelyremembering	forwards,	because	they	are	framing	future	action	based	on	past	success	or	failure.None	of	this	is	to	say	that	written	documentary	evidence	should	be	discarded	or	discounted	in	discussions	ofinstitutional	memory.	Far	from	it.	Our	assertion	is	simply	that	such	documents	are	able	to	tell	stories	–	to	retrievememories	–	only	when	interpreted	by	actors.	Institutional	memory	becomes	a	living	story	that	requires	both	adocumentary	record	and	the	active	recollections	of	those	who	were	there.One	of	the	key	reasons	why	institutional	memory	has	become	problematic	is	that	it	has	been	conceptualised	in	a‘static’	manner	more	in	keeping	with	an	older	way	of	doing	government.	This	practice	has	assumed	that	knowledgeon	a	given	topic	is	held	centrally	(by	government	departments)	and	can	be	made	explicit	for	the	purpose	of	archiving.But,	if	government	doesn’t	actually	work	this	way	then	we	shouldn’t	expect	it	to	remember	this	way	either.	Instead	ofstatic	repositories	of	summative	documents	holding	a	singular	‘objective’	memory,	we	propose	a	more	‘dynamic’people-centred	conceptualisation	that	sees	institutional	memory	as	a	composite	of	intersubjective	memories	open	tochange.	This	draws	to	the	fore	the	role	of	actors	as	crucial	interpreters	of	memory,	combining	the	documentaryrecord	with	their	own	perspectives	to	create	a	story	about	the	past,	rooted	in	the	present,	to	shape	the	future.We	follow	scholars	like	Barbara	Czarniawska	and	Charlotte	Linde,	who	have	analysed	organisations	as	humanconstructs,	shaped	and	held	together	by	the	stories	they	tell	about	who	they	are	and	what	they	do.	In	other	words,whilst	we	acknowledge	that	the	forces	shaping	modern	governance	–	speed,	24/7	news	media,	technologicaladvances,	the	influence	of	public	and	private	networks	–	are	having	a	profound	impact	on	the	institutional	behavior	ofgovernment	agencies,	they	are	not	changing	the	fundamental	truism	that	memory	is	an	active	construct.British Politics and Policy at LSE: Institutional Memory: we need a more dynamic understanding of the way institutions remember Page 1 of 3		Date originally posted: 2018-02-22Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/institutional-memory-dynamic-approach/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/What	the	modern	governance	environment	has	done	is	force	us	to	confront	this	fact.	Memories	that	were	once	heldclose	in	government	departments	have	instead	become	shared,	iteratively	dispersed	through	both	public	and	privatesector	networks	of	actors.	The	consequence	is	that	if	modern	governments	actually	want	to	protect	institutionalmemory,	looking	backwards	to	static	forms	of	archival	storage	alone	will	not	deliver	that	goal.	Even	if	returning	to	thepast	were	desirable,	we	argue	that	it	is	no	longer	feasible	because	of	the	dispersed	nature	of	modern	governance.So	not	only	does	a	dynamic,	‘living’	form	of	memory	better	capture	the	realities	of	how	government	actuallyremembers,	it	also	offers	the	most	effective	hope	for	operating	within	the	realities	of	how	government	works	today.It	is	of	course	all	very	well	to	offer	a	new	theoretical	perspective,	but	the	challenge	is	also	to	give	it	a	shape	thatmakes	it	useable	for	government	practitioners.	We	suggest	in	our	article	that	the	way	to	operationalise	a	dynamicform	of	institutional	memory	is	to	provide	forums	for	the	exchange	of	ideas	and	memories,	and	systems	capable	ofcapturing	it.	So,	when	starting	a	new	project,	we	argue	for	building	diverse	teams	of	people	with	different	experiencelevels,	from	right	across	government	and	the	private	sector.	This	allows	actors	to	disperse	memory	more	effectivelythan	a	siloed	mentality	that	clings	to	one	view	of	the	success	or	failure	of	past	initiatives.	Our	research	interviewssuggest	looking	at	options	like	co-locating	teams	of	people	together	in	meaningful	ways	–	not	as	an	added-on	one-hour	meeting	a	month,	but	as	a	deeply	entrenched	method	of	daily	interaction	–	either	physically	or	through	virtualconnections.	Conceptually,	the	end	point	is	a	Wikipedia	model	of	memory	–	a	bank	of	documents	that	is	constantlyupdated,	changed	and	reinterpreted	in	real	time	through	the	minds	of	those	working	on	a	problem.Alice	in	wonderland	was	adamant	that	she	couldn’t	‘remember	things	before	they	happen.’	The	White	Queen	mightretort	that	she	had	actually	been	remembering	forward	all	along.______Note:	the	above	draws	on	the	authors’	published	work	in	Governance.About	the	Authors	Jack	Corbett	is	Associate	Professor	in	Politics	at	the	University	of	Southampton.			Dennis	C.	Grube	is	Lecturer	in	Public	Policy	at	the	University	of	Cambridge.			Heather	Lovell	is	Associate	Professor	at	the	University	of	Tasmania.		Rodney	Scott	is	currently	a	visiting	fellow	at	the	Ash	Center	For	Democratic	Governance	andInnovation	at	Harvard	University.			All	articles	posted	on	this	blog	give	the	views	of	the	author(s),	and	not	the	position	of	LSE	British	Politics	and	Policy,nor	of	the	London	School	of	Economics	and	Political	Science.	Featured	image	credit:	Pixabay/Public	Domain.British Politics and Policy at LSE: Institutional Memory: we need a more dynamic understanding of the way institutions remember Page 2 of 3		Date originally posted: 2018-02-22Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/institutional-memory-dynamic-approach/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/British Politics and Policy at LSE: Institutional Memory: we need a more dynamic understanding of the way institutions remember Page 3 of 3		Date originally posted: 2018-02-22Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/institutional-memory-dynamic-approach/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/

Institutional memory: we need a more dynamic understanding of the way institutions remember

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/88788/1/politicsandpolicy-institutional-memory-dynamic.pdf

Institutional memory: we need a more dynamic understanding of the way institutions remember

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online