Purpose
This study aims to examine the textual performance of the Ocean Ranger Disaster inquiry, thus responding to recent calls to “practice context” in historical writing. This study goes beyond the epistemological assumptions about the grounds for knowing about the past as the authors explore how history is produced in the context of power relations.
Design/methodology/approach
This paper imagines history-making as a storytelling performance. The authors combine critical historiography and critical sensemaking because these qualitative perspectives help us to understand the composition of the Ocean Ranger Royal Commission Report.
Findings
This case study makes a contribution within the genre of disaster inquiry reporting. The study explains how a formal historical record (the public inquiry report) may be created and how the report is related to aspects of power embedded in a writer’s sense of reality.
Social implications
The Ocean Ranger Disaster continues to be of tremendous importance to the people of Newfoundland, Canada. There have been numerous studies of the disaster, but these have been overwhelmingly focused on technical matters. To authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to consider the inquiry from an historical context perspective.
Originality/value
The study site enables reflection on a question not often asked in the management history literature: How can we critically understand the composition of an official disaster inquiry report in the context of its power relations?
The European Association of Psychologists’ Associations (EFPA) was created in 1981 as the European Association of Professional Psychologists’ Associations (EFPPA). We show that Shakespeare’s dictum “What’s in a name?” does not apply here and that the loss of the “first P” (the adjectival “professional”) was resisted for almost two decades and experienced by many as a serious loss. We recount some of the deliberations preceding the change and place these in a broader historical context by drawing parallels with similar developments elsewhere. Much of the argument will refer to an underlying controversy between psychology as a science and the practice of psychology, a controversy that is stronger than in most other sciences, but nevertheless needs to be resolved.
