Memory, ecological validity and a barking dog

Abstract

The study of memory, like our journal Memory Studies, crosses many discipline boundaries, aiming broadly to examine the ‘social, cultural, cognitive, political and technological shifts affecting how, what and why individuals, groups and societies remember’ (http://mss.sagepub.com/). In editing this journal, my co-editors and I have considered contributions from memory researchers and scholars across a range of fields. For instance, in our first issue in January 2008, we published articles by Campbell (philosophy), Connerton (sociology), Fivush (developmental psychology), Olick (sociology and history), Radstone (cultural studies), Rigney (comparative literature), Roediger and Wertsch (cognitive and developmental psychology), Sturken (media and communication), Till (geography), Yeo (history) and Zelizer (communication and journalism). Looking back over nearly 5 years and 17 issues of the journal so far, the successes of different disciplines and approaches, my own and others, are obvious as we share the task of understanding human memory. But my period as co-editor of Memory Studies has helped me to realise that no one has sovereignty over memory. Each of us approach memory from our own perspective, perspectives that bring with them great value as well as, at times, significant challenges.