The Practical Significance of History: When and How History Can Be Used for Institutional Change

Institutional change is widely acknowledged as critical to tackling grand challenges. However, deeply rooted historical patterns of action often constrain transformative efforts. While recent research emphasizes that actors can mobilize history as a resource, less attention has been paid to how their interpretations of history are shaped – and constrained – by their sociomaterial contexts. In this paper, we introduce two subjective orientations toward history: history as an anchor, in which actors treat history as fixed and draw on dominant narratives to legitimize incremental change, and history as a project, in which actors view history as malleable and actively reassemble historical elements to support transformative change. These orientations, shaped by actors’ relational positions, influence the kinds of change actors pursue and how they attempt to legitimize those efforts. By centering actors’ interpretations of history and their relational embeddedness, we advance knowledge of how actors’ interpretations of history influence the pace, scope, and nature of change efforts. Furthermore, we provide guidance for practitioners navigating institutional change, emphasizing the importance of reflexivity in historical engagements and suggesting that the attention to diversity of historical perspectives among stakeholders is required to manage historical dissonance and foster inclusive and sustainable change.