Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-pkshj Total loading time: 0.421 Render date: 2021-12-02T14:17:34.147Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Institutional Memory as Storytelling

How Networked Government Remembers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 December 2020

Jack Corbett
Affiliation:
University of Southampton
Dennis Christian Grube
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Heather Caroline Lovell
Affiliation:
University of Tasmania
Rodney James Scott
Affiliation:
University of New South Wales, Sydney

Summary

How do bureaucracies remember? The conventional view is that institutional memory is static and singular, the sum of recorded files and learned procedures. There is a growing body of scholarship that suggests contemporary bureaucracies are failing at this core task. This Element argues that this diagnosis misses that memories are essentially dynamic stories. They reside with people and are thus dispersed across the array of actors that make up the differentiated polity. Drawing on four policy examples from four sectors (housing, energy, family violence and justice) in three countries (the UK, Australia and New Zealand), this Element argues that treating the way institutions remember as storytelling is both empirically salient and normatively desirable. It is concluded that the current conceptualisation of institutional memory needs to be recalibrated to fit the types of policy learning practices required by modern collaborative governance.
Get access
Type
Element
Information
Online ISBN: 9781108780001
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 24 December 2020
Copyright
© Jack Corbett, Dennis C. Grube, Heather Caroline Lovell and Rodney James Scott 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alford, J. and O’Flynn, J.. 2012. Rethinking Public Service Delivery: Managing with External Providers. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC). 2012. Power of Choice Review – Giving Consumers Options in the Way They Use Electricity. Final Report. Sydney: Australian Energy Market Commission.Google Scholar
Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC). 2015. Rule Determination – Expanding Competition in Metering and Related Services. Sydney: Australian Energy Market Commission.Google Scholar
Baehler, K. 2003. Managing for outcomes: Accountability and thrust. Australian Journal of Public Administration 62 (4): 2334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartenberger, M. and Sześciło, D.. 2016. The benefits and risks of experimental co-production: The case of urban re-design in Vienna. Public Administration 94 (2): 509525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, S. 2011. Do we really need a new ‘constructivist institutionalism’ to explain institutional change? British Journal of Political Science 41: 883906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, C. J. and Howlett, M.. 1992. The lessons of learning: reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change. Policy Sciences 25 (3): 275–94.Google Scholar
Bennister, M., Worthy, P. and ’t Hart, P. (eds.). 2017. The Leadership Capital Index: A New Perspective on Political Leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevir, M. and Rhodes, R. A. W.. 2010. The State as Cultural Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boje, D. M. 1991a. Consulting and change in the storytelling organisation. Journal of Organizational Change Management 4 (3): 717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boje, D. M. 1991b. The storytelling organization: A story of story performance in an office-supply form. Administrative Science Quarterly 36 (1): 106–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosson, J. K., Johnson, A. B., Niederhoffer, K. and Swann, W. B.. 2006. Interpersonal chemistry through negativity: Bonding by sharing negative attitudes about others. Personal Relationships 13: 135150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boston, J., Martin, J., Pallot, J. and Walsh, P.. 1996. Public Management: The New Zealand Model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boswell, John, Corbett, Jack and Rhodes, R. A. W.. 2019. The Art and Craft of Comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouckaert, G. 2017. Taking stock of ‘governance’: A predominantly European perspective. Governance 30 (1): 4552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovens, M. and ’t Hart, P. 1996. Understanding Policy Fiascos. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
Bovens, M., Schillemans, T. and ’t Hart, P. 2008. Does public accountability work? An assessment tool. Public Administration 86: 225–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brändström, A., Bynander, F. and ’t Hart, P. 2004. Governing by looking back: Historical analogies and crisis management. Public Administration 82 (1): 191210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruner, J. 1990. Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cairney, P. 2009. The role of ideas in policy transfer: The case of UK smoking bans since devolution. Journal of European Public Policy 16 (3): 471–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairney, P. 2016. The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Carey, G. and Crammond, B.. 2015. What works in joined-up government? An evidence synthesis. International Journal of Public Administration 38: 10201029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, T. and Lægreid, P.. 2007. The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Administration Review 67 (6): 10591066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Compton, M. and ’t Hart, P (eds.). 2019. Great Policy Successes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Jack and Howard, Cosmo. 2017. Why perceived size matters for agency termination. Public Administration 95 (1): 196213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Jack, Veenendaal, Wouter and Connell, John. 2020. The core executive and small states: Is coordination the primary challenge? Public Administration. Ahead-of-print DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czarniawska, B. 1997. Narrating the Organization: Dramas of Institutional Identity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Czarniawska, B. 2004. Narratives in Social Science Research. New York: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czarniawska, B. 2017. The Fate of Counter-Narratives: In Fiction and in Actual Organizations. In Frandsen, S., Kuhn, T. and Lundholt, M. W. (eds.) Counter-Narratives and Organization. London: Routledge, 208226.Google Scholar
Department for Communities and Local Government. 2006. Building for a Greener Future.Google Scholar
Department of Industry and Science (Australia). 2015. Energy White Paper. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2015-04/apo-nid54017.pdf, accessed on 24 September 2020.Google Scholar
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). 2003. Our Energy Future – Creating a Low Carbon Economy. Energy White Paper. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090609015453/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file10719.pdf, accessed on 24 September 2020.Google Scholar
Department of State Growth. 2015. Tasmanian Energy Strategy: Restoring Tasmania’s Energy Advantage. www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/100637/Tasmanian_Energy_Strategy_Restoring_Tasmanias_Ene-rgy_Advantage.pdf.pdf, accessed on 24 September 2020.Google Scholar
Duncan, R. B. and Weiss, A.. 1979. Organizational Learning: Implications for Organizational Design. In Staw, B. M. (ed.) Research in Organizational Behaviour (Vol. 1). Greenwich: JAI Press, 75124.Google Scholar
Dunlop, C. A. 2017. Policy learning and policy failure: Definitions, dimensions and intersections. Policy and Politics 45 (1): 318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunlop, C. A. and Radaelli, C. M.. 2013. Systematising policy learning: From monolith to dimensions. Political Studies 61 (3): 599619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elston, T. 2014. Not so ‘arm’s length’: Reinterpreting agencies in UK central government. Public Administration 92 (2): 458–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Essential Service Commision (ESC) 2004. Mandatory Rollout of Interval Meters for Electricity Customers: Final Decison. www.thebackshed.com/forum/uploads/KarlJ/2009-03-08_093433_IMRO_FinalDecisionFinal9July04.pdf, accessed on 24 September 2020.Google Scholar
Fischer, F. 2003. Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frandsen, S., Kuhn, T. and Lundholt, M. W.. 2016. Introduction. In Frandsen, S., Kuhn, T. and Lundholt, M. W. (eds.) Counter-Narratives and Organization. London: Routledge, 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaddefors, J. 2007. Metaphor use in the entrepreneurial process. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research 13 (3): 173–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottschall, J. 2012. The Storytelling Animal: How Stories Make Us Human. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
Hawley, E., Clifford, K. and Konkes, C.. 2018. The ‘Rosie Batty effect’and the framing of family violence in Australian news media. Journalism Studies 19 (15): 23042323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, C. 2011. Interpreting interpretivism interpreting interpretations: The new hermeneutics of public administration. Public Administration 89 (1): 167–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Head, B. and Alford, J.. 2015. Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration and Society 47 (6): 711–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendriks, C. M. 2009. The democratic soup: Mixed meanings of political representation in governance networks. Governance 22 (4): 689715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgman, W. 2015. Family Violence Consultative Group. www.premier.tas.gov.au/releases/family_violence_consultative_group, accessed on 21 December 2019.Google Scholar
Hood, C. 2011. The Blame Game: Spin, Bureaucracy and Self-Preservation in Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hood, C. and Lodge, M.. 2006. The Politics of Public Service Bargains: Reward, Competency, Loyalty – and Blame. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hope, E. 2015. Premier Will Hodgman declares zero tolerance stance on domestic violence. The Mercury, 25 May. www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/premier-will-hodgman-declares-zero-tolerance-stance-on-domestic-violence/news-story/64a4c4444ad3bb561e3958c0c962dfbe, accessed on 21 December 2019.Google Scholar
Jensen, K., Scott, R. J., Slocombe, L., Boyd, R. and Cowey, L.. 2014. The Management and Organisational Challenges of More Joined-Up Government: New Zealand’s Better Public Services Reforms. State Sector Performance Hub, Working Paper 2014–1. Wellington: New Zealand Government.Google Scholar
Kane, J. and Patapan, H.. 2012. The Democratic Leader: How Democracy Defines, Empowers, and Limits Its Leaders. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, A. and Crewe, I.. 2013. The Blunders of Our Governments. London: Oneworld.Google Scholar
Kingdon, J. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar
Kohonen, T. (2012). Self-Organization and Associative Memory (Vol. 8).Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Kovecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. In Nonaka, I. (ed.) Knowledge Management: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management. New York, NY: Routledge, 101112.Google Scholar
Lindblom, C. 1959. The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review 19 (2): 7988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linde, C. 2009. Working the Past: Narrative and Institutional Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, E. A. and Eichbaum, C.. 2016. Remaking government in Canada: Dares, resilience and civility in Westminster systems. Governance 29 (4): 553571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovell, H. 2004. Framing sustainable housing as a solution to climate change. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 6: 3555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovell, H. 2005. Supply and demand for low energy housing in the UK: Insights from a science and technology studies approach. Housing Studies 20 (5): 815829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovell, H. 2007. Exploring the role of materials in policy change: Innovation in low energy housing in the UK. Environment and Planning A 39: 25002517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovell, H. 2009. The role of individuals in policy change: The case of UK low energy housing. Environment and Planning C 27: 491511.Google Scholar
Lovell, H. 2017. Are policy failures mobile? An investigation of the Advanced Metering Infrastructure Program in the State of Victoria, Australia. Environment and Planning A, 49 (2): 314331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovell, H. and Corbett, J.. 2018. What Makes a Zero Carbon Home Zero Carbon? In Rhodes, R.A.W. (ed.) Narrative Policy Analysis: Cases in Decentred Policy. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 4770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowndes, V. and Roberts, M.. 2013. Why Institutions Matter: The New Institutionalism in Political Science. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, A. 2010. Policy success, policy failure and grey areas in-between. Journal of Public Policy 30 (3): 345362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, A. 2015. What is policy failure? A primer to help navigate the maze. Public Policy and Administration 30 (3–4): 221242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. 1972. Model bias in social action. Review of Educational Research 44: 413429.Google Scholar
March, J. G. 2010. The Ambiguities of Experience. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchment Hill Consulting. 2009. Victorian AMI Program – Presentation to the National Smart Metering Program, 21st January 2009. Australian National Smart Metering Program [refd 30th October 2015]. https://link.aemo.com.au/sites/wcl/smartmetering/Document%20library/Smart%20meter%20background%20info/Background%20-%20Vic%20AMI%20presentation%20to%20NSSC%20-%2021%20Jan%202009.pdf, accessed on 24 September 2020.Google Scholar
Marsh, D. 2011. The new orthodoxy: The differentiated polity model. Public Administration 89 (1): 3248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, D. and Rhodes, R. A. W.. 1992. Policy Networks in British Government. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, N. T. and Umemoto, K.. 2012. Leading with metaphoric intelligence. Journal of Leadership Studies 5 (4): 4151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Smart Metering Program (NSMP). 2008. National Smart Metering Program Pilots and Trials 2008 Status Report to the Ministerial Council on Energy. Canberra: NSMP.Google Scholar
NSW Minister for Resources and Energy. 2014. NSW gets smart about meters. Media Release, 28 October. Accessed 24 September 2020. www.anthonyrobertsmp.com.au/media/media-releases/nsw-gets-smart-about-meters, accessed 24 September 2020.Google Scholar
Nystrom, P. C. and Starbuck, W. H.. 1984. To avoid organizational crisis, unlearn. Organizational Dynamics 12: 5365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, M. 2011. Smart meters here to stay despite cost blow-out. www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-14/smart-meter-roll-out-continues-despite-cost-blow-out/3730522, accessed on 9 November 2015.Google Scholar
Osborne, S. (ed.). 2009. The New Public Governance? London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Peeters, G. and Starbuck, J. 1990. Positive-negative asymmetry in evaluations: The distinction between affective and informational negativity effects. European Review of Social Psychology 1: 3360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, B. G. 2015. Advanced Introduction to Public Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. 2000. Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review 94 (2): 251267.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. 2004. Politics in Time. History, Institutions and Social Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollitt, C. 2000. Institutional amnesia: A paradox of the ‘information age’? Prometheus 18 (1): 516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollitt, C. 2007. Time Out? In Schedler, K. and Proeller, I. (eds.) Cultural Aspects of Public Management Reform (Research in Public Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 16). Oxford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 231245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollitt, C. 2008. Time, Policy, Management: Governing With The Past. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pollitt, C. 2009. Bureaucracies remember, post‐bureaucratic organizations forget? Public Administration 87 (2): 198218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Queensland Department of Energy and Water Supply. 2013. Powering Queensland’s Future: The 30-Year Electricity Strategy. Discussion paper. Brisbane: Queensland Government Department of Energy and Water Supply.Google Scholar
Rhodes, R.A.W. (1996) The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies 44 (4): 652667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, R. A. W. 1997. Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Rhodes, R. A. W. 2011. Everyday Life in British Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rhodes, R. A. W. and Tiernan, A.. 2014. Lessons in Governing. A Profile of Prime Ministers’ Chiefs of Staff. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
Rhodes, R. A. W., Wanna, J. and Weller, P.. 2009. Comparing Westminster. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, D. and Smith, M.. 2016. The Westminster model and the ‘indivisibility of the political and administrative elite’: A convenient myth whose time is up? Governance 29 (4): 499516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rittel, H. W. J. and Webber, M. M.. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4 (2): 155169.Google Scholar
Schick, A. 1996. The Spirit of Reform. Wellington: State Services Commission, Government of New Zealand.Google Scholar
Schmidt, V. A. 2008. Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science 11: 303326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, V. A. 2010. Taking ideas and discourse seriously: Explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism’. European Political Science Review 2: 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schon, D. A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Scott, R. J. 2019. Explaining how group model building supports enduring agreement. Journal of Management and Organization 25 (6): 783806.Google Scholar
Scott, R. J. and Bardach, E.. 2019. A comparison of management adaptations for joined‐up government: Lessons from New Zealand. Australian Journal of Public Administration 78 (2): 191212.Google Scholar
Scott, R. J. and Boyd, R.. 2015. The New Zealand Better Public Service Results: A Comparative Analysis Linking Inter-agency Collaboration with Outcome Performance. In Proceedings of the 2015 Australia and New Zealand Academy of Management Conference. Brisbane: Australia and New Zealand Academy of Management. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4884.8401.Google Scholar
Scott, R. J. and Boyd, R.. 2016a. Joined‐up for what? Response to Carey and Harris on adaptive collaboration. Australian Journal of Public Administration 76 (1): 138144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, R. J. and Boyd, R.. 2016b. Results, Targets and Measures to Drive Collaboration: Lessons from the New Zealand Better Public Services reforms. In Butcher, J. R. and Gilchrist, D. J. (eds.) The Three Sector Solution: Delivering Public Policy in Collaboration with Not-for-Profits and Business. Canberra: ANU Press, 235258.Google Scholar
Scott, R. J. and Boyd, R.. 2017. Interagency Performance Targets: A Case Study of New Zealand’s Results Programme. Washington, DC: IBM Business of Government.Google Scholar
Scott, R. J. and Boyd, R.. 2020. Determined to succeed: Can goal commitment sustain interagency collaboration. Public Policy and Administration. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076720905002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, R. J., Cavana, R. Y. and Cameron, D.. 2016. Mechanisms for understanding mental model change in group model building. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 33 (1): 100118.Google Scholar
Scott, R. J. and Macaulay, M.. 2020. Making sense of New Zealand’s ‘spirit of service’: Social identity and the civil service. Public Money and Management. DOI: 10.1080/09540962.2020.1735109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seyfang, G. and Smith, A.. 2007. Grassroots innovation for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics 16 (4): 584603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smullen, A. 2010. Translating agency reform through durable rhetorical styles: Comparing official agency talk across consensus and adversarial contexts. Public Administration 88 (4): 943959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
St Vincent de Paul Society and Alviss Consulting. 2016. Households in the Dark: Mapping Electricity Disconnections in South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and South East Queensland. Melbourne: St Vincent de Paul Society and Alviss Consulting.Google Scholar
Star, S. L. and Griesemer, J. R.. 1989. Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science 19 (3): 387420.Google Scholar
Stark, A. 2019. Explaining institutional amnesia in government. Governance 32 (1): 143158.Google Scholar
Stark, A. and Head, B.. 2019. Institutional amnesia and public policy. Journal of European Public Policy 26 (10): 15211539.Google Scholar
Stone, D. 2012. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. London and New York: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
Sullivan, H. 2015. Democracy and hybrid governance in Australia. Meanjin 74 (3): 120122.Google Scholar
TasNetworks. 2015. Expanding competition in metering and related services (ERC0169). TasNetworks submission to AEMC Consultation on Draft Rule.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H. 1991. The missing link: A transformational view of metaphor in organizational science. Academy of Management Review 16 (3): 566585.Google Scholar
Toke, D. 2000. Policy network creation: The case of energy efficiency. Public Administration 78 (4): 835854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
’t Hart, P. 2014. Understanding Public Leadership. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO). 2015. Realising the Benefits of Smart Meters. Melbourne: Victorian Auditor-General’s Office.Google Scholar
Victorian State Government. 2015. Smart meters. www.smartmeters.vic.gov.au/about-smart-meters/government-review, accessed 30 October 2015.Google Scholar
Walsh, J. P. and Ungson, G. R.. 1991. Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review 16 (1): 5791.Google Scholar
Wettenhall, R. 2011. Organisational amnesia: A serious public sector reform issue. International Journal of Public Sector Management 24 (1): 8096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, H. 1973. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar

Send element to Kindle

To send this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Institutional Memory as Storytelling
Available formats
×

Send element to Dropbox

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Institutional Memory as Storytelling
Available formats
×

Send element to Google Drive

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Institutional Memory as Storytelling
Available formats
×