Historical Dialogue and Memory in Organisational Transition: the case of the Police in Northern Ireland

During Northern Ireland’s transition towards peace the role of the police as an actor in the conflict has been a key point of contention. As such, the reform of policing has been central to conflict transformation. Within this process, the role of dialogue about what policing had been and could be in the future has been vital. Such institutional post violence change processes have been hugely significant in illustrating both organisational resistance to change and the need for transitions to be powerfully manoeuvred through complex, political, organisational and cultural processes (Buchanan and Badham 1999; Pettigrew 2012). The radical and reforming nature of policing transition (Murphy 2013) has been both organisationally challenging (requiring significant transformational leadership, resourcing and external engagement from wider civic society) and politically unusual. Indeed, in a society emerging from violence the NI police are the only public sector organisation to have engaged structurally and culturally in understanding the point at which their core roles intersected with the ‘management’ of the conflict in NI generally. This paper presents an analysis of the role of historical dialogue in organisational change process, using the RUC / PSNI case. It proposes that historical dialogue is not just an external, societal process but also an internal organisational process and as such, has implications for managing institutional change in societies emerging from conflict. In doing so, it builds theoretical links between literature on conflict transformation and that on organisational memory and empirically explores messaging internal to the RUC before and during the four main periods of organisational change (Murphy 2013), with dialogue aimed at an external audience. It offers an analysis of how historical dialogue itself impacts on and is impacted by the organisational realities of change itself.

Historical Dialogue and Memory in Policing Change: the Case of the Police in Northern Ireland

This paper explores the complex relationship between organisational change and historical dialogue in transitional societies. Using the policing reform process in Northern Ireland as an example, the paper does three things: the first is to explore the ways in which policing changes were understood within the policing organisation and ‘community’ itself. The second is to make use of a processual approach, privileging the interactions of context, process and time within the analysis. Thirdly, it considers this perspective through the relatively new lens of ‘historical dialogue’: understood here as a conversation and an oscillation between the past, present and future through reflections on individual and collective memory. Through this analysis, we consider how members’ understandings of a difficult past (and their roles in it) facilitated and/or impeded the organisations change process. Drawing on a range of interviews with previous and current members of the organisation, this paper sheds new light on how institutions deal with and understand the past as they experience organisational change within the a wider societal transition from conflict to non-violence.

Truth at 24 frames a second? A working dialogue between a film-maker and a historical consultant about the making of The Enigma of Frank Ryan

We employ a practice-based methodology based on a ‘live’ film project to explore the different ways that film-makers and historians narrate the past. Through a case-study of the production and exhibition of a drama-documentary feature-film, The Enigma of Frank Ryan, on which both authors (film-maker Bell and historian McGarry) worked respectively as director and historical consultant, we explore a range of critical issues arising from our collaboration. Through a dialogue between a director and a historian, a model of good practice between historians and film-makers emerges.

Parallel Time Series Analysis and Income Inequality: A New Approach to Comparative Case Studies

This case study deals with the role of time series analysis in sociology, and its relationship with the wider literature and methodology of comparative case study research. Time series analysis is now well-represented in top-ranked sociology journals, often in the form of ‘pooled time series’ research designs. These studies typically pool multiple countries together into a pooled time series cross-section panel, in order to provide a larger sample for more robust and comprehensive analysis. This approach is well suited to exploring trans-national phenomena, and for elaborating useful macro-level theories specific to social structures, national policies, and long-term historical processes. It is less suited however, to understanding how these global social processes work in different countries. As such, the complexities of individual countries - which often display very different or contradictory dynamics than those suggested in pooled studies – are subsumed. Meanwhile, a robust literature on comparative case-based methods exists in the social sciences, where researchers focus on differences between cases, and the complex ways in which they co-evolve or diverge over time. A good example of this is the inequality literature, where although panel studies suggest a general trend of rising inequality driven by the weakening power of labour, marketisation of welfare, and the rising power of capital, some countries have still managed to remain resilient. This case study takes a closer look at what can be learned by applying the insights of case-based comparative research to the method of time series analysis. Taking international income inequality as its point of departure, it argues that we have much to learn about the viability of different combinations of policy options by examining how they work in different countries over time. By taking representative cases from different welfare systems (liberal, social democratic, corporatist, or antipodean), we can better sharpen our theories of how policies can be more specifically engineered to offset rising inequality. This involves a fundamental realignment of the strategy of time series analysis, grounding it instead in a qualitative appreciation of the historical context of cases, as a basis for comparing effects between different countries.

State History, Historical Legitimacy and Modern Ethnic Diversity

How much does the antiquity of states, and the sometimes arbitrary nature of colonial boundaries, explain the modern degree of ethnic diversity? It is shown that states with greater historical legitimacy (more continuity between the pre-colonial and post-colonial state) have less ethnic diversity. Historical legitimacy is more strongly correlated with ethnic diversity than are the antiquity of states, genetic diversity or the duration of human settlement. Although historical legitimacy is particularly pertinent to Africa, the correlation also holds outside Africa.

Waiting for International Political Sociology: A Field Guide to Living In-Between

This paper explores the in-between positionality of International Political Sociology (IPS) and offers a field guide to help scholars, students and thinkers embrace this disposition more energetically. It makes the case for a more balanced transdisciplinarity that attends to the international, the political and the social at the same time and in equal measure. The power of this in-between approach is that it forces thinkers in IPS to constantly look at the horrors of our contemporary world without turning away. Through the ambivalent position of the ‘happy wreck’, the paper explores the need to do something about these horrors (e.g. diagnose, act, intervene) while fully acknowledging that such actions always produce new forms of violence and exclusion. To help thinkers in IPS inhabit this challenging space of inquiry more confidently, the paper makes four suggestions: (i) broadening our emotional responses to the horrors of the world; (ii) resisting resolution through non-cathartic dispositions; (iii) pursuing slow research to contest dominant rhetorics of crisis and emergency; and (iv) re-imagining shared conditions of vulnerability.