1 INTRODUCTION

The interdisciplinary relationship between history and administration, particularly in the area of Organizational Studies (OS), was built by oscillations and tensions when problematizing traditional approaches (Üsdiken & Kipping, 2014; Vizeu, 2010; Pieranti, 2008; Barros, 2016; Costa, Barros & Martins, 2010; Faria & Cunha, 2022). In this sense, different questions were problematized related to the notions of historical fact and the writing of this fact no longer as something given/ static but as a social construction. In addition, the notion of document was also expanded by questioning the unsaid, reflecting on the relations and asymmetries of power, as well as the fabrication of history from the product of a certain society (Costa, Barros & Martins, 2010; Barros, 2016; Barros, Alcadipani & Bertero, 2015; Barros & Carrieri, 2015; Faria & Cunha, 2022).

In the international area of administration and organizational studies, the methodological discussions involving historical research were driven by a theoretical framework, called the “historic turn”, which involves the articulation between history and administration/ management (Clark & Rowlinson, 2004; Booth & Rowlinson, 2006; Carneiro & Barros, 2017; Mills, Weatherbee & Durepos, 2014). In Brazil, different researchers recognized the contribution of the historical approach to the practice of research in organizational studies by indicating paths, challenges and trajectories of history in administration (Pieranti, 2008; Vasconcelos et al., 2008; Vizeu, 2010; Barros, 2016; Carneiro, 2016; Costa & Silva, 2019). These proposals illuminated the potential of the historical method by presenting different contributions to understanding and problematizing organizational phenomena, highlighting the experience of people, society and organizations in delineating time and space (Curado, 2001; Pieranti, 2008; Vasconcelos et al., 2008; Fontoura, Alfaia & Fernandes, 2013; Vale, Bertero & Alcadipani, 2013; Cooke & Alcadipani, 2015; Appio et al., 2017; Barros, Alcadipani & Bertero, 2015; Faria & Cunha, 2022).

However, and despite the growth of studies that articulate history and administration, there are still challenges to be overcome the studies that address issues related to the methodological paths operationalized for the development of historical research in the field of administration (Vizeu, 2010; Costa & Silva, 2019; Barros, 2016; Carneiro, 2016; Decker, 2013; Schwartz & Cook, 2004). On the other hand, it is argued that the lack of consensus on the development of methods does not make them distant or scarce (Yates, 2014), but above all, relevant with regard to data access and documentary analysis. In this sense, it is recognized that historical research is immersed with different challenges in its execution (Rowlinson, Hassard & Decker, 2014; Vizeu, 2010; Appio et al., 2017; Bowden, 2020; Costa & Wanderley, 2021; Faria & Cunha, 2022). Discussing and reflecting on different ways of accessing, analyzing and interpreting the past represents an opportunity to expand the methodological possibilities of historical research in organizational studies.

Observing these issues, we perceive in Michel de Certeau (1925-1986) a possibility of methodological articulation for historical research in organizational studies based on the interweaving of his works, among others, “The Writing of History” (2011) and “The Practice of Everyday Life:1- Fine Art of Dwelling" (2012), originally published respectively in the years 1975 and 1990. The proposition of Certeau's approach in OS is already a recognized practice in the academic community (Barros & Carrieri, 2015). However, when carrying out different searches in the databases of national and international articles included in the “Journal Citation Reports” (JCR), such as SPELL (Scientific Periodicals Electronic Library) and Web of Science, it became clear that the majority of studies are of a theoretical and conceptual (Conley, 2001; Ward, 2001; Abdallah & Langley, 2014; Dey & Teasdale, 2015; Barros & Carrieri, 2015; Ipiranga & Lopes, 2017; Thanem, 2011; Humle & Perdersen, 2015; Machado, Chropacz & Bulgacov, 2020; Faria & Silva, 2017; Machado, Fernandes & Silva, 2017; Bernardo, Shimada & Ichikawa, 2015; Guarnieri & Vieira, 2020).

In these studies mentioned above, discussions were observed where concepts proposed by Certeau were problematized, among them, “resistance”, “tactics”, “everyday life”, “place”, “space”, “strategy”, “invention”, “practice”, “cunning”, “bricolage”, “culture”, “frontier” and “history”. Among the works cited by the author in these studies, discussions based on: i) uncovering everyday practices based on operations carried out by the subject in their social interaction process (Certeau, 2012); ii) scrutinize an innovative perspective on social interaction based on the inclusion of the concept of tactics (Certeau, 2009); iii) problematize the history of psychoanalysis to criticize the reduction of history to something universal (Certeau, 1986); iv) defend the understanding of culture in the plural (cultures) by problematizing a unifying effect of power for an effect of struggle (Certeau, 1974).

In the international field, for example, a set of studies that used Certeau’s approaches stands out. (2012) in different contexts, among them, Driscoll (2001) who problematized the place from which we deal with culture, illuminating the “non-producers of culture” in the context of everyday practices; Terdiman's (2001) discussions on the power of borders for historical and interpretative sensitivity and also the proposals of Munro and Jordan (2013), as well as Bavinton (2011) which included theorizations about power, resistance and the organization of space public.

In Brazil, there is also a reasonable production of studies focusing, specifically, on methodological paths in historical research in administration through different approaches, such as: Barros (2016); Carneiro & Barros (2017); Coraiola (2012); Costa, Barros & Martins (2010); Costa & Silva (2019); Lopes & Ipiranga (2021); Luna & Barros (2021); Pieranti (2008); Quelha-de-Sá & Costa (2018); Vizeu (2010); Wanderley et al. (2017). Specifically in relation to Certeau’s historical approaches, we cite, among others, works that focused on discussions about strategies and tactics in organizations by Murta et al. (2010); Silva, Carrieri & Junquilho (2011); Carrieri, et al. (2012); including in everyday school life (Oliveira & Sgarbi, 2007; Duran, 2007); the studies that worked on organization of practices in different spaces of the city that problematizes the issue of “living” memory through tacit dimension (Ipiranga, 2010; Marins & Ipiranga, 2015; Ipiranga & Lopes, 2017); the research that illuminated the questions about ordinary management in family businesses (Carrieri, Perdigão & Aguiar, 2014); and the study that problematized the history and daily life of Barros and Carrieri (2015). However, no historical studies were found methodologies for working with documentary collections and historical archives developed based on “The Writing of History” (Certeau, 2011) and “The Practice of Everyday Life:1- Fine Art of Dwelling" (Certeau, 2012), in the context of studies organizational histories.

Particularly, “The Writing of History” according to Michel de Certeau (2011) can present itself as a methodological possibility in historical studies by revealing the “lessons of history” from an “operation historiographical” (Certeau, 2011, p. 89), crossing times and spaces through the constitution of a documentary collection.In addition, and as discussed in the work “The Practice of Everyday Life:1- Fine Art of Dwelling" (Certeau, 2012), the methodological itineraries based on the “documents produced” by the city’s walkers that reveal the “reports of space” of a living memory (Certeau, 2012).

Therefore, in order to fill these gaps, our objective in this work was to present some methodological itineraries according to Michel de Certeau present in the works “The Writing of History” (2011) and “The Practice of Everyday Life:1- Fine Art of Dwelling" (Certeau, 2012). With this initial reflection we hope to enrich, stimulate and expand the discussions about these methodological possibilities for the practice of historical research in administration.

To carry out this discussion, after this introduction, this work is structured below with a brief reflection about different perspectives of the historical approach in management research and organizational studies. Then, we present some possibilities for the development of historical research in studies organizational structures based on the works “The Writing of History” (Certeau, 2011) and “The Practice of Everyday Life:1- Fine Art of Dwelling" (Certeau, 2012). Following are the final considerations and references used in the work.

2 DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES OF THE HISTORICAL APPROACH IN MANAGEMENT RESEARCH AND IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL STUDIES

The so-called “historic turn” boosted different discussions about the use of history in organizational studies. It was from this critical theoretical framework for more history in management by synthesizing the discussions of “new history” that Clark and Rowlinson (2004) discussed the treatment of history, establishing an approximation between history, historiography and social sciences. The “historical turn” is an invitation to go beyond the hegemonic approaches that involve theories, methods and models based on linear and longitudinal perspectives, but which consider diverse dimensions as historical sources in the context of organizations (Clark & Rowlinson, 2004; Carneiro & Barros, 2017). That movement is configured as an appeal for more history in management by problematizing the space-time relationship, historicizing work in applied social sciences, showing that management practices must also be situated culturally and historically (Booth & Rowlinson, 2006; Clark & Rowlinson, 2004). Especially from the definition of the field of historical organizational studies (Maclean et al., 2016), the “historical turn” boosted different studies that challenged an ahistorical perspective that the science of administration has constructed over time (Mills, Weatherbee & Durepos, 2014).

We start from the understanding of Le Goff (1992) when considering a type of “historical duality”, through a understanding of history as: i) a fact that happened in a given reality and, ii) the narration or study of that reality happened. These questions corroborate the articulations of Veyne (1971) who understands history as being the event itself, that is, the facts, but also the narration of that event, the “history of history”. Or even as approached by Certeau (2011) through the “discourse of separation: writing”, of a “writing of history” (p. 13).

In addition to the theoretical-conceptual discussions of the approach to history in administration, theoretical-methodological issues related to the historical method were also included in these discussions, indicating different paths of history in administration (Barros, 2016; Carneiro, 2016; Decker, 2013; Schwartz & Cook, 2004; Vasconcelos et al., 2008; Durepos & Mills, 2011, Costa, Barros & Martins, 2010; Quelha-de-Sá & Costa, 2018; Costa & Silva, 2019; Lopes & Ipiranga, 2021; Lacerda, Ipiranga & Thoene, 2023).

The work, for example, by Costa e Silva (2019) presented a proposal for the practice of historical research by through three guiding concepts: (a) “the historical fact, understood as events that gave rise to thedifferent historical interpretations of what happened; (b) the document and the historical source, that is, any trace of the past that has been preserved and serves to understand its time; and (c) the historical analysis or operation, that is, the processcritical by which a source is submitted so that it can support the researcher in answering his concerns” (p.101). For the authors, these concepts are interconnected and provide directions to historically position the object of study, reflecting that documents and historical sources are not just repositories of facts that occurred in the past, suggesting a relationship with the researcher's own profession (Costa & Silva, 2019).

Caraiola (2012) corroborates these issues, discussing in his study the importance of business files for historical research in administration, arguing that access to the past needs to be connected simultaneously with other pasts as a kind of connected network that demands the availability and preservation of historical remains. Jacques (2006) also adds substantial content to these discussions presenting how organizational studies relate to historiography.

In the same sense, Rowlinson, Hassard and Decker (2014) developed a discussion about strategies for research for organizational history, weaving dialogues between historical and organizational theory. Pieranti's study (2008) also presents a discussion involving historiographical methodology in administration research by through its principles and applicability. Vizeu (2010), in turn, discussed a work that addressed the potentialof historical analysis in Brazilian organizational studies, proposing themes of reflection for a research agenda. In a similar way, Barros (2016) brought questions about the construction of archives to the heart of the discussions research documents, problematizing the stages of this methodology in the area of administration, in addition to the concept of archive as a space in transition, expanding the notion of object, as well as relationships and asymmetries of power inherent to historical archives.

In this area, the work of Decker (2013; 2014) also stands out, discussing how the archive can be capable of silencing or giving voice to certain events and realities, at the same time, revealing the experience of a network that is made up of voices, silences, absences and deviations. More specifically, the author works with the proposal of a methodology based on archival ethnography that presents itself as an expansion and alternative to ethnographymulti-situated to understand practices, experiences and historical experiences through a network of relationships evidenced in historical archives, triggering reflections on the past (Decker, 2014). The work of Lopes and Ipiranga (2021), also moves in this direction when discussing the contributions of archival ethnography as a method in historical research in administration by retracing historical paths and practices, having “access to the voices and silences that underlie it” (p. 48).

Also cited are the works of Durepos and Mills (2011), Luna and Barros (2021) and Bezerra and Ipiranga (2021) are also cited, as well as such as Quelha-de-Sá e Costa (2018) and Ipiranga, Chaym and Gerhard (2016) who discuss their research based on critical perspective of ANTi-History, also being a very specific approach in the management of historical archives and documentary collections through their articulations with the Actor-Network theory (ANT), producing a historiography critical organizational.

Furthermore, we cite the study by Wanderley and Barros (2016), which discusses the relationships between decoloniality, the historical and organizational studies, proposing a research agenda that seeks to scrutinize these methodological articulations in the area of historical organizational studies. We also mention the work of Hodge, Freitas and Costa (2021) who use critical discourse analysis (CDA) based on large documentary collections to historically analyze the media's discursive representation of the privatization of telecommunications in Brazil. Others works also move towards this discussion by using methods that emphasize life history in the study of organizations (Lopes & Costa, 2021; Maccali et al., 2014; Godoy, 2018; Capaverde et al., 2021; Teixeira, Lemos & Lopes, 2021; Granato, Lopes & Costa, 2020), as well as the perspective of oral history as a methodological possibility to administration studies, emphasizing issues surrounding organizational memory (Hodge & Costa, 2020). Others More recent studies place greater emphasis on a particular critique of the historical turn in the context of Latin America, defending the decolonial project (Wanderley & Barros, 2019; Sauerbronn, Lima & Faria, 2022) and greater possibilities proposed by the subfield of critical organizational history (Durepos et al., 2021). We particularly cite the study of Lacerda, Ipiranga & Thoene (2023), which moves in this direction by looking at the historical organization of banks of a city in the Global South, problematizing the idea of “historical ruins” proposed by the historical philosopher Walter Benjamin as a viable way to understand the organization of the modern-day city of Fortaleza/CE and which can being “denaturalized” (Fournier & Gray, 2000) by the past when telling us histories of resistance.

In view of the above, it is clear that historical studies that focused on indicating possible paths methodological approaches emphasized different interfaces of analysis and perspective, illuminating different positions and epistemological and ontological assumptions. In recent years and as observed in the research by Godfrey et al. (2016) this process has been constituting a broad approximation between the areas involved, unveiling, according to Wanderley etal. (2017), a new organizational approach that is more critical to the historical-temporal-spatial dimension in the context of administration and organizational studies. However, it was observed that alternative methodologies that bring the discussions arising from the historical method when reflecting on procedures for analyzing documents proposed by Michelde Certeau from his “The Writing of History” (2011) and “The Practice of Everyday Life:1- Fine Art of Dwelling" (Certeau, 2012) are still scarce. An effort that signals this initial reflection is presented in the next item.

3 METHODOLOGICAL ITINERARIES IN THE LIGHT OF MICHEL DE CERTEAU: “THE WRITING OF HISTORY” (2011) AND “THE PRACTICE OF EVERYDAY LIFE:1- FINE ART OF DWELLING" (2012)

Michel de Certeau (1925-1986) was a French historian, philosopher and critical thinker who marked a generation of studies focused on areas such as anthropology, theology, psychoanalysis, philosophy, social sciences and the theory of history, through an interdisciplinary practice, which allowed the construction of different dialogues between these knowledges, in the light of the his work, as a historical researcher and the critique of historiographical making as a practice (Miranda Júnior, 2019; Orellana, 2015).

His classic work “The Writing of History” (2011), originally published in 1975, articulates different questions of reflective content when asking “how is history produced? or rather, how to make history?”, problematizing the craft of historian and his ways of doing, researching and producing history. For Certeau (2011, p. 64) “making history is a practice” as a (historiographic) operation in which research unfolds into other research, or into the writing of a text about another text based on a practice (Vilhagra, 2017), impacting the training of researchers through the way of reporting methodological procedures and reporting research data (Bispo & Gherardi, 2019).

In 1990 Michel de Certeau published the work “The Practice of Everyday Life:1- Fine Art of Dwelling" (2012). After 4 years, in1994, Michel de Certeau, co-authored with Luce Giard and Pierre Mayol, published "The Practice of Everyday Life: 2 - Living and Cooking" (2009). As will be discussed later, in his work, a"The Practice of Everyday Life:1- Fine Art of Dwelling" constant attention was devoted to one of the central aspects of the author's work related to the "modes of" or "arts of", whether "doing", "saying", "thinking" or "believing". This attention is directed, among other issues, to issues of everyday life, related to the “memories”, almost always “tactics” that ordinary people who walk through city produce to assert an identity in the organization of spaces. "Culture", for Certeau (1974), includes habits, such as the walker's habits in urban spaces, and these were investigated from a historical point of view (Driscoll, 2001; Carrard, 2001).

The work “The Writing of History” by Certeau (2011) is composed of four complementary parts, including: i) The Productions of Place, where the discussion of “Making History” and “Historiographic Operation” is emphasized, this part of which the this study comes closest; ii) The Production of Time and History from a Religious Archeology, where it is presented a discussion on the religious history of the 17th century and the “ethics of the lights”; iii) Sense Systems,where the author discusses ethnological orality and the “space of the other”; iv) The Freudian Writings, where Certeau focuses on reflections on psychoanalysis, seeking a point of scientific articulation with history (Certeau, 2011).

In this context, we chose a discussion itinerary that was based on some of its main concepts highlighted, above all, in this first part of the work on “The Productions of Place - Making History and the Operation Historiographical, with the aim of suggesting methodological paths in the context of research developed in the area of organizational studies. Certeau (2011, p. 3) begins the chapter “Making History”, articulating three central concepts: “the history, a practice and a discourse”.

For the author, the word “history” suggests a proximity between the scientific operation and the reality it proposes to analyze. In this context, “discourses” are historical because they are connected to operations and defined by functioning, and these cannot be understood independently of the “practice” of what resulted. This perspective characterizes the methodological procedures for explaining preferences and/or documents in terms of “models” or their “regularities”, illuminating production paths and transformation possibilities: “(...) understand as history the practice (a “discipline”), its result (the speech) or the relationship of both in the form of a “production”. In this sense, the treatment given by historiography implies “the movement that connects an interpretative practice to a social practice”. The history, therefore, oscillates between two poles: on the one hand “it refers to a practice, therefore, to a reality”. On the other hand, “history is a closed discourse”, as “a text that organizes and encloses a mode of intelligibility” (Certeau, 2011, p. 5-6)

Certeau (2011) continues this discussion in the item “Historical practices and social praxis”, problematizing the practice of historiographical considering ideological and epistemological points of view. For the author, the term ideology no longer designates the form in which meaning emerged from the historian’s perspective, replacing historiographic “doing” with “given” historic. This discussion introduces and signals that the historical fact results from a praxis, it is a sign of an act and of the affirmation of a meaning, enabling the articulation of a way of understanding in a discourse. In this regard, when the History takes “doing” into consideration, and at the same time finds its roots in the action that “makes history” (p. 18). Thus, explaining from an epistemological point of view that it does not allow searching for meaning under the appearance of a ideology, the organization of each historiography in “function of particular and diverse perspectives refers to historical acts, founders of meanings and establishers of science”. For the author, discourse “cannot be disconnected from its production, nor can it be political, economic or religious praxis, which changes societies and, at a given moment, makes possible this or that type of scientific understanding” (Certeau, 2011, p. 19-20).

In the item “History, discourse and reality”, Certeau (2011) continues this discussion problematizing the intermediary between the situation of history and the problem of reality, where the author discusses the epistemological issue of 'understanding', the difference between events, periods, data and series that are based between a present and a past that returns in historiographic practice in the task of “making history”. For Certeau (2011), “making history is a practice” (p. 36) and in this sense, the procedures of the historiographic operation begin with the establishment of sources and the redistribution of space, where interpretation becomes a function of the material produced, the evidence of “deviations” in relation to the models.

In this context, Certeau (2011) cites the poles of the real where “the productive activity and the known period change reciprocally” (p. 28), as a place for scientific operations. The history is not related to the object, as the history would be a production or fabrication of discourse about reality based on a historiographic reconstruction and not the fact in its essence (Miranda Júnior, 2019). In this way, the history is part of a game within these borders, articulating a social context with its past and the act of distinguishing itself from it, tracing the image of a current situation, demarcating it of its “other”, attenuating and/or modifying the return of the past (Certeau, 2011, p. 29). The question of interpretation inserts itself in this middle of history, since the interpretative method with this “other” is “in the act of highlighting the relationship that connects a way of understanding with the incomprehensible that it causes to emerge” (p. 30). Finally, the issues of “limit” and “difference” in the relationship with the “other” that act, at the same time, as an instrument and object of research, as operational concepts of historiographical practice, this being the working instrument and the place of analysis methodological in research (Certeau, 2011, p. 33).

In these different aspects, the author interconnects the meanings and historical explanations and illuminates a set of interpretations of the past by selecting, observing, interrogating, describing, interpreting, intertwining and producing meanings through a documentary reading oriented towards understanding the silences, absences and deviations of the past historical (Certeau, 2011). The interpretation becomes a function of the material produced in relation to the disclosure of a “deflection tactic” (p. 76). This issue of diversion tactics is emphasized by the author and presents itself as a strategy of interpretation, considering the “significant deviations” (p. 84-85) to understand the silences of history from the perspective said and unsaid (Campos, 2010), or equally reflecting on the (mis)paths signaled by these processes of reconstruction (Roiz, 2012), which allows us to reflect on the tensions historically constructed from disputes between official histories and silenced memories, that is, the voice that is placed on the margins, as well as the places/spaces of forgetfulness, disconnections and/or deletion.

When referring to silences and absences, Certeau (2011) considers that the absent is also the present form of origin. In this way, a writing of history takes place by understanding history "as a text that organizes" units of comprehension" and in it operates transformations (...) to the extent that it constitutes a report or a discourse of its own" (Certeau, 2011, p. 50). For the author, historical facts function as clues, and in each story there is a process of signification referring to its different developments (Certeau, 2011), when considering "waste" and "discarded" contents of history that tend to receive new meanings from a historiographical narrative (Sousa, 2011), making it possible to above all, to problematize the construction of the past from memories and silences (Barros, Carneiro & Wanderley, 2019).

Following this process, Certeau (2011) considers that history traces possible narratives from a “historiographical operation” (p. 56), thinking of history as a process that understands the articulation between the place of speech and the construction of a plot, considering the combination of: i) a social place in the past, understanding that all historiographical research is linked to a place of production. This social place that the author talks about refers to the place production of political and cultural knowledge. Thus, Certeau (2011) questions the forms of production, raising reflections on power relations (what can be said and what remains unsaid) in archives. And It is in function of this place that the methods that delineate a topography of interests in documents and inquestions that will be proposed to them; ii) practice, comprising the transformation of an object into history from the historicization of an element; and iii) writing when constructing a speech about different historical facts that are correlated based on the action of “content” on “form” (p. 104).

These questions can be useful in historical research to problematize sources, aware of the impossibility of neutrality of documents, where some questions can be formulated to understand this social place as exposed by Certeau (2011): i) what are the origins of the sources? ii) who formulated them? iii) with what objectives and intentions? iv) to whom and how were they published? Thus, in a process that aims to understand what is represented in light of the context of its time (Costa & Silva, 2019), in an attempt to go beyond the internal aspects of content, through an external reflection that also situates the document: describing where it comes from; what is the context of creation; the year; who was behind; editorial lines; the main interests of that collection, newspaper, etc. Among other issues that signal the power relations existing in the archives based on the main political, economic and cultural interests of the time in the production of documentary excerpts, at the same time, problematizing the methodological perspectives that based the research, selection, collection and analysis of documents. Particularly, in this process it is important to consider clarifications on the criteria adopted for selecting documents, as well as the possible difficulties faced and challenges throughout the process. Furthermore, it is important to reflect that when collecting any type of documentary material, the researcher equally moves this file in time and space, as the task of transporting the sources in a function of separating, cutting, isolating, transcribing, fragmenting and photographing, through of a technical operation, it is necessary to consider the researcher’s impressions based on their occupation and social place (Sousa, 2011).

When relating these different aspects in historical organizational research, it is observed that the interpretation of a documentary collection produced in relation to the organization of archival sources can be articulated based on a “social place of scientific operation and when institutionally and technically linked to a practice of deviation, in relation to contemporary cultural or theoretical models” (Certeau, 2011, p. 91). In this way, an “operation historiographical” according to Certeau (2011) reveals itself as a double effect:

i) on the one hand, it historicizes the current. Speaking more properly, it presents a lived situation. It forces us to explain the relationship between the reigning reason and a specific place that, in opposition to a “past”, becomes the present [...] ii) on the other hand, the image of the past maintains its primary value of representing what lack, referring to an absence [...] the place it assigns to the past is also a way of making room for a future (Certeau, 2011, p. 88-89).

In historical research, this fluidity of the historical process can show that the “place it assigns to the past can be the same place destined for the future”, in this way, reproducing the same discourse of the past and now alsoi n the present. The writing of history can take place in these interstices of ambivalence, organizing a coherent setof “units of understanding” that operate transformations by revealing the “lessons of history” (Certeau, 2011, p. 93). On the other hand, “all historiography places a time of things as a counterpoint and the condition of discursive time” (Certeau, 2011, p. 95) based on a chronology that recognizes that the place of production is what authorizes historiographyby indicating “the service that time provides to history” by maintaining the relationship with “what happens outside of it” (Certeau, 2011, p. 96) in different aspects of everyday practices.

It is from this point that some itineraries proposed in Certeau's methodological discussions are presented below, contained in the items VII “Walking in the City” and IX “Space Reports” of Part III “Practice of Space” from the work “The Practice of Everyday Life:1- Fine Art of Dwelling" (Certeau, 2012).

Certeau (2012) argues that the daily order of an ordinary culture “is exercised by an art”, in the double sense to be exercised and circumvented. In this way, “a style of social exchanges, a style of technical inventions and astyle of moral resistance” in favor of the valorization of ordinary culture, involving an “economy of the gift”, an “aesthetics of bidding” and an “ethics of tenacity” (Giard, 2012, p. 19). The author also emphasizes that these questions are related to a"tactical science" (a “logic”) of everyday ways of doing things (Certeau, 1974) and questions itself: as a force combination between competition and conflict develop tactical practices that organize spaces?

In this context, Certeau (2012) considered that some ways of thinking about space practices would have to assume that these are of a tactical nature, resulting in a politicization of everyday practices. The author explains that the tactics, these logical forms of operation are “clever tricks” that the Greeks called “métis”. “Taking a trick” is an ability to maneuver in a context in which different conditions are presented. This production it is also an "invention" of memory or a product of silent histories. Tactics is the art of maneuvering, there is a sense of continuity and permanence in these tactical operations, depends on time and on playing with events to appropriate these, transforming them into occasions, allowing the weak to take advantage of forces that are foreign to them (Certeau, 2012).

The discussions on “practice of space” proposed by Certeau (2012) have as one of their starting points there turn to a history relating to memorable spatial practices. Taking as a basis the histories of the spaces in urban areas, Certeau (2012) characterized ordinary walkers as voyeurs and flaneurs on city streets. With your bodies, ordinary walkers illuminate their ways of doing things by writing urban texts, based on a discourse of memories, shaped by the trajectories that alter, invent and practice the city's spaces with their fragmentary histories (Ipiranga & Lopes, 2017).

Memory is, therefore, understood in the ancient sense of the term that designates a presence to the plurality of times and is not limited only to the past, emphasizing that "memory mediatizes spatial transformations" (Certeau, 2012, p. 149). At a certain point in time (kairós), memory produces an instituting rupture in the foundations. This strangeness makes it possible to transgress the law of the place. This scheme can be found in many histories and is, so to speak, its minimum unit: "the return in time that was ignored by the spatial distribution of the characters” (Certeau, 2012, p. 151). Memory develops aptitude to always be in the place of the “other”. This force is not a power, but “authorizes”, makes possible an inversion, a change of order or place: “a passage to something different, a metaphor of practice or discourse” (Certeau, 2012, p. 151) In this sense, this “practical memory” is regulated by multiple activities of alteration, at the same time as it is touched by circumstances, by a metonymic practice of singularity, to be remembered and played through new occasions: “where space emerges again as a practiced place” (Certeau, 2012, p. 198).

The ways of conducting history offer a very rich field for the analysis of spatiality, since, as stated previously, there is no spatiality that is not organized by the determination of borders (Certeau, 2012). In this context, Certeau (2012, p. 195) asked the question: “who owns the border?”. Munro & Jordan (2013) discussed this issue when investigating spatial tactics as a basis for creating hybrid workspaces in public spaces. For the authors, spatial tactics are linked to the politics of space, making it possible to explore the ambiguities in the spatial boundaries of the existing urban landscape. Terdiman (2001), when discussing the issue of margins in Certeau, emphasizes the importance of borders for historical and interpretative sensitivity. For the author, borders are in constant transformation, metamorphosing topologies and shaping temporalities. It is in the borders where possible meanings materialize, these meanings being an effect of these borders.

In this organization of space, history plays a decisive role by proposing a description as a culturally creative act (Certeau, 1974). The author, when considering the role of history in delimiting borders, recognizes, as previously stated, that the main function is to "authorize” the establishment, displacement and overcoming of limits in a dynamic space. In this sense, the histories make a crossing on a map of routes, based on the description of the spaces, therefore, “establish a walk (guide) and pass through (transgress)” (Certeau, 2012, p. 197).

For the author, historical knowledge is judged more by its ability to focus on “deviations”, not only quantitative, but qualitative in relation to the formal constructions present. The historian installs himself, therefore, on the boders where the law of intelligibility finds its limit as that which he must incessantly surpass, moving, and that which he never ceases to encounter in other forms: “never renounce the relationship that these 'regularities' ' maintain with 'particularities' that escape them” (Certeau, 2011, p. 86-87). The author also points out that the histories of spaces present two essential narrative figures, namely, the "border" and the "bridge", making it possible to: i) create a legitimate theater for practical actions, with functions of “authorization” and “foundation”; ii) in this theater, the histories are animated by a dynamic contradiction between the border and the bridge, that is, between a space (legitimate) and its exteriority (strange). This contradiction is understood from a network of practices through which agents appropriate spaces (Certeau, 2012, p. 191-194).

In methodological terms, Certeau (2011, p. 69) also discussed the redistribution of space when referring to the establishment of sources in historical research. To this end, the author proposes choosing “an observant and engaged practice” in a part of the city that the objective is to study, and from there determine its set (Certeau, 2012). In historical studies based on “practices of space” everything begins with the gesture of separating, putting aside, reuniting, putting together, transforming into “documents” certain objects that are distributed in another way, such as, for example: architectural monuments, city streets and squares, among other spaces and places (Certeau, 2012). In this sense, during the constitution of archives and documentary collections, Certeau (2011) emphasizes issues related to a new cultural distribution that consists of “producing these documents, copying, transcribing and photographing them” (Certeau, 2011, p. 69).

Certeau (2011) emphasized these research itineraries related to the procedures of the historiographical operation based on the establishment of these sources and the redistribution of space, aiming at the formation of collections of “produced” documentary archives (p. 69), as well as their interpretation by through temporalized units of understanding. In this way, it is possible to analyze history based on space-time cuts, considering the passages that act between the transience of dates, periods, places, monuments, architectures, spaces, tactics, practices and facts that articulate with each other, converging periods, memories and tactical sensibilities, aiming to build historiographical itineraries (Carrard, 2001).

The analysis of these operations denotes the use of concepts inspired by Certeau's epistemological reflections that are articulated through a “historiographic network”, originating “units of understanding”, making it possible to reflect on the “lessons of history” of a given context and then establish a writing of history that takes into account the historical plot as a contextualized and codified text to be produced (Certeau, 2011). Therefore, it is relevant to reflect on the fabrication of “making history” by offering contours to the evidence that organizes the text (Oriani, 2017).

By unfolding these discussions, methodological itineraries can enable the delimitation of a historiographical network that interconnects historical meanings and interpretations and that makes it possible to illuminate different possibilities permeated by sets of interpretations of the past and also of the present, and of resistance processes that can outline possible futures (Certeau, 2011; 2012).

4 [IN]CONCLUSIONS: THE DIALOGUE CONTINUES (...)

In this work we share a possible dialogue with some ideas from Michel de Certeau directed to the concepts worked on by the author in the works “The Writing of History” (Certeau, 2011) and "The Practice of Everyday Life:1- Fine Art of Dwelling" (Certeau, 2012), among others, seeking to reflect on their methodological contributions as paths for the development of historical research in the field of organizational studies. To this end, we briefly present an initial discussion on the approach to history in administration research, demonstrating the need to reflect on the challenges in constructing the past beyond the theoretical-conceptual discussions already evidenced in this area of knowledge.

In this sense, we present different aspects related to historical researches in organizational studies from different perspectives, among them, the use of business files, the problematization of historical fact, documents and sources, as well as the availability, access and preservation of historical remains, historiography, archive as a space in transition, ethnography of archives, ANTi-History, decoloniality, historical turn, critical and historical analysis of discourse, history and oral history, tactics and memories of resistance that are outlined during walks in urban spaces, among others. In this itinerary, we then present the methodological contributory potential of a writing of history according to Michel de Certeau (2011; 2012) for research in the context of organizational studies.

Thus, we demonstrate that the main methodological contributions to historical studies in OS, based on the writing of history, rest on the understanding of a historiographical writing that takes into account the author's different concepts to reassemble and reveal a plurality of history and memories, a social place, an engaged practice, writing, speech, walks in urban spaces, absences, limits, silences, deviations, tactics and clues. These guiding concepts of analysis can facilitate the process of constructing “units of understanding”, making it possible to reflect on the “lessons of history” in order to illuminate the different versions of a past, as well as demonstrating alternative mnemonic itineraries for writing a “historical plot” (Certeau, 2011). We also reflected on the (mis)paths and deviations signaled by these historical processes and practices, considering that these deviations, as well as the silences denounce, express, reveal, reassemble and enunciate: “these silences are as much history as history” (Marc Ferro in “Taboos in history”, 2002, p. 7).

As a suggestion for future studies, we emphasize one of the original points of using Certeau's historiographical approach (2012, p. 184), which applies to urban organization processes. These studies emphasize the narrative actions produced by the analysis of space practices, whose histories would make it possible to specify elementary forms of space organizing practices in/of cities (Ipiranga & Lopes, 2017).

Finally, we recognize the different challenges that make up this trajectory and, therefore, far from ending this discussion, we are aware that this work has limitations and is proposed as a preliminary theoretical articulation when reflecting on analysis methodologies in historical research in the context of organizational studies. Considering continuing and illuminating paths for these debates, we signal that the reflections presented here remain open and without pretense of conclusions, but with expectations of conversations, debates and criticisms to compose a research agenda based on future studies. For this reason, the dialogue continues.

REFERENCES

Abdallah, C., & Langley, A. (2014). The double edge of ambiguity in strategic planning: The double edge of ambiguity in strategic planning. The Journal of Management Studies, 51(2), 235-264. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12002

Appio, J., Frizon, N. N., Canopf, L., Marcon, D., & Madruga, B. (2017). Pesquisa Histórica como uma possibilidade à pesquisa em Estudos Organizacionais. CIAIQ 2017, 3. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-75902010000100004

Barros, A. (2016). Archives and the “Archive”: dialogue and an agenda of research in organization studies. O&S - Organizações & Sociedade, 23, 609-623. https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-9230795

Barros, A., & Carrieri, A. D. P. (2015). O cotidiano e a história: construindo novos olhares na Administração. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 55, 151-161. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020150205

Barros, A., Alcadipani, R., & Bertero, C. O. (2018). A criação do curso superior em administração na UFRGS em 1963: uma análise histórica. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 58, 3-15. .https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020180102

Barros, A., Carneiro, A., & Wanderley, S. (2018). Organizational archives and historical narratives: Practicing reflexivity in (re) constructing the past from memories and silences. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 14(3), 280-294. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-01-2018-1604

Bernardo, P., Shimada, N. E., & Ichikawa, E. Y. (2015). O formalismo e o" jeitinho" a partir da visão de estratégias e táticas de Michel de Certeau: apontamentos iniciais. Revista Gestão & Conexões, 4(1), 45-67. https://doi.org/10.13071/regec.2317-5087.2014.4.1.8006.45-67

Bezerra, M. M., & Ipiranga, A. S. R. (2021). Performando a história de uma política pública à luz da ANTi-History. Revista de Administração Pública, 55, 679-696. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-761220200030

Bezerra, Mariana. M., Lopes, Luma. L. S., & Ipiranga, Ana. S. R. (2019). Spatial Practices in the City: The kidnapping of an Arts Organization. BAR - Brazilian Administration Review, 16. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-7692bar2019180163

Bispo, M. S., & Gherardi, S. (2019), "Flesh-and-blood knowing: Interpreting qualitative data through embodied practice-based research". RAUSP Management Journal, 54(4), 371-383. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-04-2019-0066

Booth, C., & Rowlinson, M. (2006). Management and organizational history: prospects. Management & organizational history, 1(1), 5-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744935906060627

Campos, C. E. (2010). Michel de Certeau. A Operação Historiográfica. In: CERTEAU, Michel de. A Escrita da História. Rio de Janeiro: Forense-Universitária, 1982. Revista Aedos, 3(6). https://seer.ufrgs.br/index.php/aedos/article/view/12230/9178

Capaverde, C. B., Lopes, F. T., Gómez, C. M., Oltramari, A. P., & Panitz, L. M. (2021). “A gente nunca pensou que teria que recomeçar”: histórias de vida na extinção das fundações do Rio Grande do Sul. Cadernos de Psicologia Social do Trabalho, 24(1), 119-134. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1981-0490.v24i1p119-134

Carneiro, A. (2016). Pode a área de Estudos Organizacionais ser historiográfica? Farol-Revista de Estudos Organizacionais e Sociedade, 3(8), 1019-1049. https://doi.org/10.25113/farol.v3i8.3814

Carneiro, A., & Barros, A. (2017). Uso de documentos para narrar a história de organizações: reflexões e experiências. Revista de Contabilidade e Organizações, 11(30), 14-23. https://doi.org/10.11606/rco.v11i30.134408

Carrard, P. (2001). History as a Kind of Writing: Michel de Certeau and the Poetics of Historiography. The South Atlantic Quarterly, 100(2), 465-482. https://doi:10.1215/00382876-100-2-465

Carrieri, A. D. P., Murta, I. B. D., Teixeira, J. C., & Souza, M. M. P. D. (2012). Estratégias e táticas empreendidas nas organizações familiares do Mercadão de Madureira (Rio de Janeiro). RAM - Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 13, 196-226. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-69712012000200008

Carrieri, A. D. P., Perdigão, D. A., & Aguiar, A. R. C. (2014). A gestão ordinária dos pequenos negócios: outro olhar sobre a gestão em estudos organizacionais. Revista de Administração (São Paulo), 49, 698-713. .https://doi.org/10.5700/rausp1178

Certeau, M. (1974). A cultura no plural. Campinas, SP: Papirus.

Certeau, M. (1986). Heterologies: discourse on the other. Minneapolis, USA: University of Minnesota Press.

Certeau, M. (2011). A Escrita da História. Rio de Janeiro: Forense.

Certeau, M. (2012). A Invenção do cotidiano. 1. Artes de fazer. Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro: Vozes.

Certeau, M., Giard, L. & Mayol, P. (2009). A Invenção do cotidiano. 2. Morar e cozinhar. Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro: Vozes.

Clark, P., & Rowlinson, M. (2004). The treatment of history in organisation studies: towards an ‘historic turn’? Business history, 46(3), 331-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/0007679042000219175

Conley, V. A. (2001). Processual practices. The South Atlantic Quarterly, 100(2), 483-500. https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-100-2-483

Cooke, B., & Alcadipani, R. (2015). Toward a global history of management education: The case of the Ford Foundation and the São Paulo School of Business Administration, Brazil. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(4), 482-499. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2013.0147

Coraiola, D. M. (2012). Importância dos arquivos empresariais para a pesquisa histórica em administração no Brasil. Cadernos Ebape. BR, 10, 254-269. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-39512012000200002

Costa, A. D. S. M. D., Barros, D. F., & Martins, P. E. M. (2010). Perspectiva histórica em administração: novos objetos, novos problemas, novas abordagens. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 50, 288-299. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-75902010000300005

Costa, A. S. M., & Silva, M. A. (2019). A pesquisa histórica em administração: uma proposta para práticas de pesquisa. Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa, 20(1), 90-121. https://doi.org/10.13058/raep.2019.v20n1.1104

Curado, I. B. (2001). Pesquisa historiográfica em Administração: uma proposta metodológica. In: XXV Encontro da ANPAD - EnANPAD 2001, Campinas-SP. Anais do XXV Encontro da ANPAD - EnANPAD 2001, 1, 1-16.

Decker, S. (2013). The silence of the archives: Business history, post-colonialism and archival ethnography. Management & Organizational History, 8(2), 155-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449359.2012.761491

Decker, S. (2014). Solid intentions: An archival ethnography of corporate architecture and organizational remembering. Organization, 21(4), 514-542. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508414527252

Dey, P., & Teasdale, S. (2016). The tactical mimicry of social enterprise strategies: Acting ‘as if’in the everyday life of third sector organizations. Organization, 23(4), 485-504. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508415570689

Driscoll, C. (2001). The moving ground: Locating everyday life. The South Atlantic Quarterly, 100(2), 381-398. https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-100-2-381

Durepos, G., & Mills, A. J. (2012). Actor-network theory, ANTi-history and critical organizational historiography. Organization, 19(6), 703-721. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508411420196

Durepos, G., Shaffner, E. C., & Taylor, S. (2021). Developing critical organizational history: Context, practice and implications. Organization, 28(3), 449-467. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508419883381

Faria, A. M., & da Silva, A. R. L. (2017). Estudos organizacionais baseados em Michel de Certeau: A produção internacional entre 2006 e 2015. Revista Alcance, 24(2), 209-226. https://doi.org/alcance.v24n2.p209-226

Faria, A., & Cunha, J. F. (2022). Decolonizando Business History: O Caso da Historiografia da Unilever. Cadernos EBAPE.BR (FGV), 1, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395120210001

Ferro, M. (2002). LesTabous de l´Histoire. França: Editora Nil.

Fontoura, Y. S. D. R., Alfaia, L., & Fernandes, A. (2013). A pesquisa histórica em estudos organizacionais no Brasil: uma análise paradigmática e novas perspectivas. Gestão. org, 11(1), 83-103.

Fournier, V. & Grey, C. (2000), “At the critical moment: conditions and prospects for critical management studies”, Human Relations, 53(1), 7-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700531002

Giard, L. (2012). Momentos e lugares. In Certeau, M. de. A invenção do cotidiano. 2. Morar e cozinhar. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes.

Godfrey, P. C., Hassard, J., O’Connor, E. S., Rowlinson, M., & Ruef, M. (2016). What is organizational history? Toward a creative synthesis of history and organization studies. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 590-608. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0040

Godoy, A. S. (2018). Reflexão a respeito das contribuições e limites da história de vida na pesquisa em Administração. Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa, 19(1), 161-175. https://doi.org/10.13058/raep.2018.v19n1.954

Granato, L., Lopes, F. T., & Costa, A. D. S. M. D. (2020). História e investigación social cualitativa: reflexiones en torno de la historia comparada y la historia de vida. Organizações & Sociedade, 27, 508-531. https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-9270946

Guarnieri, F., & Vieira, F. G. D. (2020). Reinventando o cotidiano: análise de práticas de consumo sob a ótica de Certeau. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 60, 311-321. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020200502

Hodge, P. A., & Costa, A. D. S. M. (2020). Do particular para o geral: Memória, história oral e estudos organizacionais. RECADM - Revista Eletrônica de Ciência Administrativa, 19(3), 303-336. https://doi.org/10.21529/RECADM.2020013

Hodge, P. A., Freitas, C., & Costa, A. D. S. M. (2021). Representações discursivas da mídia sobre a privatização das telecomunicações. Revista de Administração Pública, 55, 559-593. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-761220200011

Humle, D. M., & Pedersen, A. R. (2015). Fragmented work stories: Developing an antenarrative approach by discontinuity, tensions and editing. Management Learning, 46(5), 582-597. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507614553547

Ipiranga, A. S. R. & Lopes, Luma. L. S. (2017). O Organizar da Estética Espacial: Uma História Táctil da Praça dos Leões. Sociedade, Contabilidade e Gestão (UFRJ), 12. https://doi.org/10.21446/scg_ufrj.v12i1.13402

Ipiranga, A. S. R., Chaym, C. D., & Gerhard, F. (2016). Relatos sobre o organizar do sócio-passado em uma patente brasileira de biotecnologia. RECADM - Revista Eletrônica de Ciência Administrativa, 15(2), 133-147. https://doi.org/10.21529/RECADM.2016010

Jacques, R. S. (2006). History, historiography and organization studies: the challenge and the potential. Management & organizational history, 1(1), 31-49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744935906060628

Kipping, M., & Üsdiken, B. (2014). History in organization and management theory: More than meets the eye. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 535-588. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2014.911579

Lacerda., C. C. O.; Ipiranga, A. S. R. & Thoene, U. (2023). A Critical Organizational History of City Margins in the Global South. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 18, 22-45. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-05-2022-2335

Le Goff, J. (1992). História e memória. Campinas: Unicamp.

Lopes, F. T., & Costa, A. S. M. (2021). Political exile in the post-2019 Brazilian context: history of exile and work-existence/resistance of a Brazilian intellectual. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 19, 307-324. https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395120200038

Lopes, L. L. S., & Ipiranga, A. S. R. (2021). Etnografando Arquivos Históricos: Caminhos Possíveis para Pesquisas em Estudos Organizacionais. Organizações & Sociedade, 28, 35-53. https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-92302021v28n9602PT

Luna, C. P., & Barros, D. F. (2021). Uma ANTi-história sobre o processo da primeira cirurgia de redesignação sexual no Brasil: atores e suas relações sócio-políticas na ditadura civil-militar. RECADM - Revista Eletrônica de Ciência Administrativa, 20(3), 463-482. https://doi.org/10.21529/RECADM.2021016

Maccali, N., Minghini, L., Walger, C. D. S., & Aroglio, K. D. (2014). O método história de vida: desvendando a subjetividade do indivíduo no estudo das organizações. Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa, 15(3), 439-468. https://doi.org/10.13058/raep.2014.v15n3.11

Machado, F. C. L., Fernandes, T. A., & Silva, A. R. L. (2017). Michel de Certeau e estudos organizacionais: Uma leitura do cenário brasileiro. Caderno de Administração, 25(2), 24-43.

Machado, R. C., Chropacz, F., & Bulgacov, Y. L. M. (2020). Epistemologia de Certeau e sua contribuição para os estudos baseados em prática em organizações. Revista Ciências Administrativas, 26(2), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.5020/2318-0722.2020.26.2.10091

Maclean, M., Harvey, C., & Clegg, S. R. (2016). Conceptualizing historical organization studies. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 609-632. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0133

Mills, A. J., Weatherbee, T. G., & Durepos, G. (2014). Reassembling Weber to reveal the-past-as-history in management and organization studies. Organization, 21(2), 225-243. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508413475495

Miranda Junior, R. F. (2019). A história como “logos do outro”: Michel de Certeau e a operação historiográfica. Temporalidades, 11(1), 100-126.

Munro, I.; Jordan, S. (2013). Living Space at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe: Spatial Tactics and the Politics of Smooth Space. Human Relations, 21(2), 27-49. .https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713480411

Oliveira, I. B.; Sgarbi, P. (2007). A invenção cotidiana da pesquisa e de seus métodos. Educ. Soc., 28(98), 15-22. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0101-73302007000100002

Orellana, R. C. (2012). Michel de Certeau: história e ficção. Princípios: Revista de Filosofia (UFRN), 19(31), 5-27.

Oriani, A. P. (2017). Primeiros rascunhos: aproximações entre Michel de Certeau e a História do Tempo Presente. Revista Tempo e Argumento, 9(22), 316-338. https://doi.org/10.5965/2175180309222017316

Pieranti, O. P. (2008). A metodologia historiográfica na pesquisa em administração: Uma discussão acerca de princípios e de sua aplicabilidade no Brasil contemporâneo. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 6, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-39512008000100010

Quelha-de-Sá, R. G., & Costa, A. S. M. (2018). ANTi-History e a pesquisa em administração: Reflexões iniciais. Cadernos de Gestão e Empreendedorismo, 6(1), 46-58. https://doi.org/10.32888/cge.v6i1.12726

Ribeiro, R. C. L., Ipiranga, Ana. S. R., Oliveira, Fabíola T. & Dias, Allan. D. (2019). Uma “estética de lances” de uma “heroína ordinária”: O reorganizar de práticas de resistências de uma artesã”. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 17(3). https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395173562

Roiz, D. (2012). Os caminhos (da escrita) da história e os descaminhos de seu ensino. Curitiba: Appris.

Rowlinson, M., Hassard, J., & Decker, S. (2014). Research strategies for organizational history: A dialogue between historical theory and organization theory. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 250-274. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43699244

Sauerbronn, F. F., Lima, J. P., & Faria, A. (2022). Decolonizing-recolonizing curriculum in Management and Accounting with Southern Praxis. Academy of Management, 2022, 1-40. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2023230050.en

Schwartz, J. M., & Cook, T. (2004). Arquivos, documentos e poder: A construção da memória moderna. Revista do Arquivo Público Municipal de Indaiatuba, 3(3).

Silva, A. R. L., de Pádua Carrieri, A., & Junquilho, G. S. (2011). A estratégia como prática social nas organizações: Articulações entre representações sociais, estratégias e táticas cotidianas. Revista de Administração, 46(2), 122-134. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0080-21072011000200003

Sousa, F. C. L. (2011). Diálogos com Michel de Certeau sobre pesquisa nas ciências humanas. Revista Crítica Histórica, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.28998/rchvl2n03.2011.0010

Teixeira, R., Costa Lemos, A. H., & Lopes, F. T. (2021). A história de vida na pesquisa em Administração. Revista Pensamento Contemporâneo em Administração, 15(4), 101-118. https://doi.org/10.12712/rpca.v15i4.51662

Terdiman, R. (2001). The marginality of Michel de Certeau. The South Atlantic Quaterly, 100(2), 399-421. https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-100-2-399

Thanem, T. (2012). All talk and no movement? Homeless coping and resistance to urban planning. Organization, 19(4), 441-460. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508411414228

Vale, M. P. E. M., Bertero, C. O., & Alcadipani, R. S. (2013). Caminhos diferentes da americanização na educação em Administração no Brasil: A EAESP/FGV e a FEA/USP. Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa, 14(4), 837-872. https://doi.org/10.13058/raep.2013.v14n4.49

Vasconcelos, A. L. F. S., Santos, J., Bezerra, D. S. S., & Silva, D. F. (2008). Uma abordagem histórica acerca dos avanços contábeis decorrentes das reformas implementadas pelo marquês de pombal na administração fazendária do Brasil Colônia de 1777 a 1808. Contextus- Revista Contemporânea de Economia e Gestão, 6(2), 7-14. https://doi.org/10.19094/contextus.v6i2.32095

Veyne, P. (1971). Como se escreve a história. Lisboa: Edições 70.

Vidal, D. G. (2005). Michel de Certeau e a difícil arte de fazer história das práticas. In L. M. Faria Filho (Org.), Pensadores sociais e história da educação (pp. 257-284). Belo Horizonte: Autêntica.

Vilhagra, L. T. F. R. (2017). A escrita da história, o (s) sentido (s) e o esquecimento. Revista Virtual Lingu@ Nostr@, 5(1), 112-127.

Vizeu, F. (2010). Potencialidades da análise histórica nos estudos organizacionais brasileiros. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 50, 37-47. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-75902010000100004

Wanderley, S. E. P. V., & Barros, A. (2016). Decolonialidade, Virada Histórica e Estudos Organizacionais: uma Proposta de Agenda de Pesquisa. In: XL Encontro da ANPAD - EnANPAD 2016, Costa do Sauípe-BA. Anais do XL Encontro da ANPAD - EnANPAD 2016.

Wanderley, S., & Barros, A. (2019). Decoloniality, geopolitics of knowledge and historic turn: Towards a Latin American agenda. Management & Organizational History, 14(1), 79-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449359.2018.1431551

Wanderley, S., Barros, A., Costa, A. S. M., & Carrieri, A. P. (2016). Caminhos e percursos da História em Administração: um chamado à reflexão sobre o tempo e a construção do presente. Farol-Revista de Estudos Organizacionais e Sociedade, 3(8), 832-851. https://doi.org/10.25113/farol.v3i8.3937

Ward, G. (2001). Michel de Certeau's" Spiritual Spaces". The South Atlantic Quarterly, 100(2), 501-517. https://doi:10.1111/j.1741-2005.1998.tb01628.x

Yates, J. (2014). Understanding historical methods in organization studies. In M. Bucheli & D. R. Wadhwani (Orgs.), Organizations in time: History, theory, methods (pp. 265-283). UK: Oxford University Press.

IR