Search

This article presents a historiographical approach to the work of Carles Rahola (1881- 1939), a historian from Girona who is especially known for his contributions on the Napoleonic domination in Catalonia. Although his work has been partially studied and republished in recent decades, it has not been analysed in an explicit methodological way. This study examines Rahola’s engagement with local history, the effects of his non-professional context, his relationships with Catalan, Spanish and European intellectuals, and the meaning of the use of a narrative style in his work., Este artículo presenta una aproximación historiográfica a la obra de Carles Rahola (1881-1939), historiador gerundense conocido especialmente por sus aportaciones sobre la dominación napoleónica en Cataluña. Pese a que su obra ha sido parcialmente estudiada y reeditada en las últimas décadas, no se ha abordado hasta la fecha de una forma explícitamente metodológica. Este estudio analiza las relaciones de Rahola con la historia local, los efectos de su contexto no profesional, las relaciones con la intelectualidad catalana, española y europea de la época, y el significado del uso de un estilo narrativo en su obra.

This article presents a historiographical approach to the work of Carles Rahola (1881- 1939), a historian from Girona who is especially known for his contributions on the Napoleonic domination in Catalonia. Although his work has been partially studied and republished in recent decades, it has not been analysed in an explicit methodological way. This study examines Rahola’s engagement with local history, the effects of his non-professional context, his relationships with Catalan, Spanish and European intellectuals, and the meaning of the use of a narrative style in his work., Este artículo presenta una aproximación historiográfica a la obra de Carles Rahola (1881-1939), historiador gerundense conocido especialmente por sus aportaciones sobre la dominación napoleónica en Cataluña. Pese a que su obra ha sido parcialmente estudiada y reeditada en las últimas décadas, no se ha abordado hasta la fecha de una forma explícitamente metodológica. Este estudio analiza las relaciones de Rahola con la historia local, los efectos de su contexto no profesional, las relaciones con la intelectualidad catalana, española y europea de la época, y el significado del uso de un estilo narrativo en su obra.

Social scientific history in its various forms developed rapidly and enjoyed great influence in the 1960s and 70s. Around 1980 it was quickly and, in the United States decisively, eclipsed. An influential article predicting and announcing this shift was Lawrence Stone's, "The return of narrative", of 1979. This lecture takes Stone's criticisms of social scientific history as its starting point, discusses the nature of the estrangement between history and the social sciences, and offers evidence that new questions are bringing history and the social sciences closer together again.

This chapter reports on a narrative project recording the experiences of LGBT former and current police officers in the Queensland Police Service (QPS), Australia. It begins by examining the historical and research contexts of LGBT police officers, followed by a discussion of the methodology employed for the project. The chapter then examines and analyzes key themes emerging from the data about coming out, macho police culture, and the double life syndrome often experienced by LGBT police officers. Finally, it suggests that further research might uncover a more widespread application of these findings.

Tailored historiography in rising Hispano-American countries of the XIX century had the commitment to contribute to the «imagination» of nation, reason why it could not exactly fulfill the model of total absence of subjectivity, if some type of history can do it, although in general it repudiated philosophical speculation. This work focuses on the debate carried out in Chile in 1844 and 1848 about the suitable method to investigate the past. Andres Bello defended narrative history or ad narrandum, while the young Jose V. Lastarria and Jacinto Chacon advocated ad probandum or philosophical history as the suitable system to find historical truth. Towards the end, we offer a reflection on the influence of Bello’s lessons, through the analysis on the historical discipline notions used by Diego Barros Arana and Valentin Letelier., La historiografía confeccionada en los nacientes países hispanoamericanos del siglo XIX tuvo el compromiso de contribuir a la «imaginación» del Estado-nación, por lo que no pudo cumplir cabalmente el modelo de ausencia total de la subjetividad, si es que algún tipo de historia puede hacerlo, aunque —en general— repudió la especulación filosófica. Este trabajo centra su atención en el debate llevado a cabo en Chile en 1844 y 1848, en torno a cuál debería ser el método adecuado para investigar el pasado. Andrés Bello defendió la historia narrativa o ad narrandum en contra de los jóvenes José Victorino Lastarria y Jacinto Chacón, que propugnaron la historia ad probandum o historia filosófica como el sistema adecuado para encontrar la verdad. Hacia el final, ofrecemos una reflexión sobre la influencia de las enseñanzas de Bello, a través del análisis respecto de las nociones que sobre la disciplina histórica manejaron Diego Barros Arana y Valentín Letelier.

Tailored historiography in rising Hispano-American countries of the XIX century had the commitment to contribute to the «imagination» of nation, reason why it could not exactly fulfill the model of total absence of subjectivity, if some type of history can do it, although in general it repudiated philosophical speculation. This work focuses on the debate carried out in Chile in 1844 and 1848 about the suitable method to investigate the past. Andres Bello defended narrative history or ad narrandum, while the young Jose V. Lastarria and Jacinto Chacon advocated ad probandum or philosophical history as the suitable system to find historical truth. Towards the end, we offer a reflection on the influence of Bello’s lessons, through the analysis on the historical discipline notions used by Diego Barros Arana and Valentin Letelier., La historiografía confeccionada en los nacientes países hispanoamericanos del siglo XIX tuvo el compromiso de contribuir a la «imaginación» del Estado-nación, por lo que no pudo cumplir cabalmente el modelo de ausencia total de la subjetividad, si es que algún tipo de historia puede hacerlo, aunque —en general— repudió la especulación filosófica. Este trabajo centra su atención en el debate llevado a cabo en Chile en 1844 y 1848, en torno a cuál debería ser el método adecuado para investigar el pasado. Andrés Bello defendió la historia narrativa o ad narrandum en contra de los jóvenes José Victorino Lastarria y Jacinto Chacón, que propugnaron la historia ad probandum o historia filosófica como el sistema adecuado para encontrar la verdad. Hacia el final, ofrecemos una reflexión sobre la influencia de las enseñanzas de Bello, a través del análisis respecto de las nociones que sobre la disciplina histórica manejaron Diego Barros Arana y Valentín Letelier.

Organizational scholars increasingly recognize the value of employing historical research. Yet the fields of history and organization studies struggle to reconcile. In this article, we contend that a closer connection between these two fields is possible if organizational historians bring their role in the construction of historical narratives to the fore and open their research decisions up for discussion. We provide guidelines to support this endeavor, drawing on four criteria that are prevalent within interpretive organization studies for developing the trustworthiness of research: credibility, confirmability, dependability and transferability. In contrast to the traditional use of trustworthiness criteria to evaluate the quality of research, we advance the criteria to encourage historians to generate more transparent narratives. Such transparency allows others to comprehend and comment on the construction of narratives thereby building trust and understanding. We convert each criterion into a set of guiding principles to enhance the trustworthiness of historical research, pairing each principle with a practical technique gleaned from a range of disciplines within the social sciences to provide practical guidance.

Organizational scholars increasingly recognize the value of employing historical research. Yet the fields of history and organization studies struggle to reconcile. In this article, we contend that a closer connection between these two fields is possible if organizational historians bring their role in the construction of historical narratives to the fore and open their research decisions up for discussion. We provide guidelines to support this endeavor, drawing on four criteria that are prevalent within interpretive organization studies for developing the trustworthiness of research: credibility, confirmability, dependability and transferability. In contrast to the traditional use of trustworthiness criteria to evaluate the quality of research, we advance the criteria to encourage historians to generate more transparent narratives. Such transparency allows others to comprehend and comment on the construction of narratives thereby building trust and understanding. We convert each criterion into a set of guiding principles to enhance the trustworthiness of historical research, pairing each principle with a practical technique gleaned from a range of disciplines within the social sciences to provide practical guidance.

Organizational scholars increasingly recognize the value of employing historical research. Yet the fields of history and organization studies struggle to reconcile. In this article, we contend that a closer connection between these two fields is possible if organizational historians bring their role in the construction of historical narratives to the fore and open their research decisions up for discussion. We provide guidelines to support this endeavor, drawing on four criteria that are prevalent within interpretive organization studies for developing the trustworthiness of research: credibility, confirmability, dependability and transferability. In contrast to the traditional use of trustworthiness criteria to evaluate the quality of research, we advance the criteria to encourage historians to generate more transparent narratives. Such transparency allows others to comprehend and comment on the construction of narratives thereby building trust and understanding. We convert each criterion into a set of guiding principles to enhance the trustworthiness of historical research, pairing each principle with a practical technique gleaned from a range of disciplines within the social sciences to provide practical guidance.