A proposal for theoretical and empirical extension of the sociology of anti-doping
TL;DR: In this paper, a model developed by pragmatic sociologists for describing social issues in society that could assist researchers in describing the complex reality of the anti-doping issue is presented.
Abstract: The purpose of the paper is to highlight the interest of using diverse sociological approaches and models for studying anti-doping (developed outside the epistemic community of researchers working on doping) and to point out the sociological interest of the doping issue for social sciences. First, we will present a model developed by pragmatic sociologists for describing social issues in society that could assist researchers in describing the complex reality of the anti-doping issue. The model proposes to examine the ways in which axiology, devices and realities are articulated in anti-doping related criticism and the existing circulation between the six social logics described in it. Its use could allow researchers to apprehend local and global transformations in the system and the articulations between these two levels. Second, we will resume the most relevant results of a research that analysed the prevention activity using an approach of work sociologists. A part of this research sought to identify the meaning that people working in prevention gave to their activity. The received answers were manifold; five ways of “doing prevention” were identified, to which institutions were committed differently. The described panorama showed a dispute where the debate as such was not tabled and nobody seemed able to definitively close the dispute, not even the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Finally, an ongoing research will be presented. It focuses on the procedures-based management implemented by WADA and aims to compare its development with the implementation of similar management systems by other institutions. The research could allow us identifying possible related risks, for example, the loss of the pleasure of working, the emergence of fear or the increasing work pressure. We hope the paper will encourage other social researchers to renew the usual theoretical approaches.
Citations
More filters
01 Jan 2008
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them, and describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative.
Abstract: What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.
2,134 citations
•
TL;DR: A brief summary of the key themes, issues, and controversies covered in each of the following chapters is provided in this paper, along with a discussion of the main issues and controversies.
Abstract: This Introduction contains a brief summary of the key themes, issues, and controversies covered in each of the following chapters.
2 citations
••
TL;DR: A pesquisa social sobre doping and a luta contra ele cresceu nos ultimos anos, porem sua distribuicao e desigual as mentioned in this paper.
References
More filters
••
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them, and describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative.
Abstract: What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.
32,981 citations
•
TL;DR: In this article, the authors discuss points of convergence and disagreement with institutionally oriented research in economics and political science, and locate the "institutional" approach in relation to major developments in contemporary sociological theory.
Abstract: Long a fruitful area of scrutiny for students of organizations, the study of institutions is undergoing a renaissance in contemporary social science. This volume offers, for the first time, both often-cited foundation works and the latest writings of scholars associated with the "institutional" approach to organization analysis. In their introduction, the editors discuss points of convergence and disagreement with institutionally oriented research in economics and political science, and locate the "institutional" approach in relation to major developments in contemporary sociological theory. Several chapters consolidate the theoretical advances of the past decade, identify and clarify the paradigm's key ambiguities, and push the theoretical agenda in novel ways by developing sophisticated arguments about the linkage between institutional patterns and forms of social structure. The empirical studies that follow—involving such diverse topics as mental health clinics, art museums, large corporations, civil-service systems, and national polities—illustrate the explanatory power of institutional theory in the analysis of organizational change. Required reading for anyone interested in the sociology of organizations, the volume should appeal to scholars concerned with culture, political institutions, and social change.
8,449 citations
•
01 Jan 1991
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss points of convergence and disagreement with institutionally oriented research in economics and political science, and locate the "institutional" approach in relation to major developments in contemporary sociological theory.
Abstract: Long a fruitful area of scrutiny for students of organizations, the study of institutions is undergoing a renaissance in contemporary social science This volume offers, for the first time, both often-cited foundation works and the latest writings of scholars associated with the "institutional" approach to organization analysis In their introduction, the editors discuss points of convergence and disagreement with institutionally oriented research in economics and political science, and locate the "institutional" approach in relation to major developments in contemporary sociological theory Several chapters consolidate the theoretical advances of the past decade, identify and clarify the paradigm's key ambiguities, and push the theoretical agenda in novel ways by developing sophisticated arguments about the linkage between institutional patterns and forms of social structure The empirical studies that follow--involving such diverse topics as mental health clinics, art museums, large corporations, civil-service systems, and national polities--illustrate the explanatory power of institutional theory in the analysis of organizational change Required reading for anyone interested in the sociology of organizations, the volume should appeal to scholars concerned with culture, political institutions, and social change
7,925 citations