Mark Gould

Bio: Mark Gould is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Nuts and bolts. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 435 citations.

Manifesto for a relational sociology

Abstract: Sociologists today are faced with a fundamental dilemma: whether to conceive of the social world as consisting primarily in substances or processes, in static "things" or in dynamic, unfolding rela...

“Let's Argue!”: Communicative Action in World Politics

Abstract: This article introduces a mode of social action and interaction that has so far been largely overlooked in the U.S.-dominated international relations debate between rational choice and social constructivism that focuses mainly on the differences between instrumental rationality and norm-guided behavior. Drawing on insights from a theoretical debate within the Germanspeaking international relations community, I suggest that actors have a third mode of social action at their disposal: arguing and deliberating about the validity claims inherent in any communicative statement about identities, interests, and the state of the world. Arguing and truth-seeking behavior presuppose that actors no longer hold fixed interests during their communicative interaction but are open to persuasion, challenges, and counterchallenges geared toward reaching a reasoned consensus. The preconditions for argumentative rationality, particularly a “common lifeworld” and the mutual recognition of speakers as equals in a nonhierarchical relationship, are more common in international relations than is usually assumed. Arguing processes are more likely to occur the more actors are uncertain about their interests and even identities, the less they know about the situation in which they find themselves and the underlying “rules of the game,” and the more apparently irreconcilable differences prevent them from reaching an optimal rather than a merely satisfactory solution for a widely perceived problem (“problem solving”). Moreover, arguing is likely to increase the influence of the materially less powerful, be it small states or nonstate actors such as INGOs. I illustrate these claims empirically with two plausibility probes. The first concerns the East–West talks leading to a negotiated settlement of the Cold War in Europe and German unification within NATO. The second case focuses on the implementation of international human rights norms into domestic practices of Third World states.

Rankings and Reactivity: How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds

Abstract: Recently, there has been a proliferation of measures responding to demands for accountability and transparency. Using the example of media rankings of law schools, this article argues that the methodological concept of reactivity—the idea that people change their behavior in reaction to being evaluated, observed, or measured—offers a useful lens for disclosing how these measures effect change. A framework is proposed for investigating the consequences, both intended and unintended, of public measures. The article first identifies two mechanisms, self‐fulfilling prophecy and commensuration, that induce reactivity and then distinguishes patterns of effects produced by reactivity. This approach demonstrates how these increasingly fateful public measures change expectations and permeate institutions, suggesting why it is important for scholars to investigate the impact of these measures more systematically.

Strategic organization: a field in search of micro-foundations:

Abstract: Organizations are made up of individuals, and there is no organization without individuals. There is nothing quite as elementary; yet this elementary truth seems to have been lost in the increasing focus on structure, routines, capabilities, culture, institutions and various other collective conceptualizations in much of recent strategic organization research. It is not overstating the matter too much to say that ‘organization’ has generally entered the field of strategy in the form of various aggregate concepts. This editorial essay is born out of a frustration on our part for the present lack of focus on individuals in much of strategic organization and the taken-forgranted status of ‘organization’. Specifically, the underlying argument of this essay is that individuals matter and that micro-foundations are needed for explanation in strategic organization. In fact, to fully explicate organizational anything – whether identity, learning, knowledge or capabilities – one must fundamentally begin with and understand the individuals that compose the whole, specifically their underlying nature, choices, abilities, propensities, heterogeneity, purposes, expectations and motivations. While using the term ‘organizational’ may serve as helpful shorthand for discussion purposes and for reduced-form empirical analysis, truly explaining (beyond correlations) the organization (e.g. existence, decline, capability or performance), or any collective for that matter, requires starting with the individual as the central actor. Our particular focus in this essay is on the organizational capabilities-based literature in strategic management. This focus serves as a specific example of a more general problem of lack of attention to individuals in strategic organization. (Wider implications could be explicated given more space.) As brief support for the fact that our discussion does have wider ramifications, we note that Selznick has also quite poignantly raised the need for micro-foundations on the part of institutional scholars (1996: 274). Whetten (2004) also highlights the fact that scholars are rarely explicit about what they mean by ‘organizational’. STRATEGIC ORGANIZATION Vol 3(4): 441–455 DOI: 10.1177/1476127005055796 Copyright ©2005 Sage Publications (London,Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) http://soq.sagepub.com

Unpacking Black Boxes: Mechanisms and Theory Building in Evaluation:

Abstract: There is growing interest in the concept of ‘‘mechanism’’ across many areas of the social sciences. In the field of program and policy evaluation, a number of scholars have also emphasized the importance of causal mechanisms for explaining how and why programs work. However, there appears to be some ambiguity about the meaning and uses of mechanism-based thinking in both the social science and evaluation literature. In this article we attempt to clarify what is meant by mechanisms in the context of program evaluation by identifying three main characteristics of mechanisms and outlining a possible typology of mechanisms. A number of theoretical and practical implications for evaluators are also discussed, along with some precautions to consider when investigating mechanisms that might plausibly account for program outcomes.