Locating the 17th Book of Giddens@@@The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration.
TL;DR: Giddens as mentioned in this paper has been in the forefront of developments in social theory for the past decade and outlines the distinctive position he has evolved during that period and offers a full statement of a major new perspective in social thought, a synthesis and elaboration of ideas touched on in previous works but described here for the first time in an integrated and comprehensive form.
Abstract: Anthony Giddens has been in the forefront of developments in social theory for the past decade. In "The Constitution of Society" he outlines the distinctive position he has evolved during that period and offers a full statement of a major new perspective in social thought, a synthesis and elaboration of ideas touched on in previous works but described here for the first time in an integrated and comprehensive form. A particular feature is Giddens' concern to connect abstract problems of theory to an interpretation of the nature of empirical method in the social sciences. In presenting his own ideas, Giddens mounts a critical attack on some of the more orthodox sociological views. "The Constitution of Society" is an invaluable reference book for all those concerned with the basic issues in contemporary social theory.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper, a case study examines whether individuals do in fact take more responsibility for their career development during times of organizational change, and whether this does indeed mean that the organization takes less responsibility for career management.
Abstract: New forms of careers have received increased attention in contemporary organizational research. A prominent focus in this research has been whether and how, in an increasingly unpredictable career environment, individuals are taking responsibility for their own career development. The implication is that career is becoming less central to organizational management practices. At the same time there is evidence that organizational changes typically described in this literature (such as delayering the organization in a quest for flexibility) have had a negative impact on career progress, resulting in resistance to change. The implication here is that career concerns are more central to organizational management practices. This in-depth qualitative case study examines whether individuals do in fact take more responsibility for their career development during times of organizational change. We also examine whether this does indeed mean that the organization takes less responsibility for career management. Our data indicate that individuals are, in fact, taking more responsibility for their own careers. At the same time we found that the organization in our case study also became more actively involved in career development and management. However, this active approach did not resemble traditional top-down career management and development. To us, the pattern of organizational and individual career development actions appear to constitute a kind of ‘organizational dance,’ a highly interactive mutual influence process, in which both parties are at once the agent and the target of career influence. Strengths and limitations of the study are discussed, as are directions for future research. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
189 citations
TL;DR: A theory to explain why the implementation of new technologies often disrupts occupational roles in ways that delay the expected benefits is developed and a balance of expertise across occupational boundaries in operating the technology creates a pattern in which the benefits of the new technology are likely to be realized most rapidly.
Abstract: In this paper, we develop a theory to explain why the implementation of new technologies often disrupts occupational roles in ways that delay the expected benefits. To explore these disruptions, we...
189 citations
TL;DR: The authors employed citation analysis, document co-citation analysis, and social network analysis to identify nine distinct clusters of social entrepreneurship research that depict the intellectual structure of the field and provide an overall perspective of the social entrepreneurship field, identifying influential works and analyzing scholarly communication between these works.
Abstract: In this paper, we employ bibliometric analysis to empirically analyse the research on social entrepreneurship published between 1996 and 2017. By employing methods of citation analysis, document co-citation analysis, and social network analysis, we analyse 1296 papers containing 74,237 cited references and uncover the structure, or intellectual base, of research on social entrepreneurship. We identify nine distinct clusters of social entrepreneurship research that depict the intellectual structure of the field. The results provide an overall perspective of the social entrepreneurship field, identifying its influential works and analysing scholarly communication between these works. The results further aid in clarifying the overall centrality features of the social entrepreneurship research network. We also examine the integration of ethics into social entrepreneurship literature. We conclude with a discussion on the structure and evolution of the social entrepreneurship field.
189 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors compare three main schools of CCO thinking: the Montreal School of Organizational Communication, the Four-Flows Model (based on Giddens’s Structuration Theory), and Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems.
Abstract: The idea of the communicative constitution of organizations (CCO) has gained considerable attention in organizational communication studies. This rather heterogeneous theoretical endeavor is driven by three main schools of thought: the Montreal School of Organizational Communication, the Four-Flows Model (based on Giddens’s Structuration Theory), and Luhmann’s Theory of Social Systems. In this article, we let proponents of all three schools directly speak to each other in form of an interactive dialogue that is structured around guiding questions addressing the epistemological, ontological, and methodological dimension of CCO as a theoretical paradigm. Based on this dialogue, we systematically compare the three schools of CCO thinking and identify common grounds as well as key differences.
189 citations
Cites background from "Locating the 17th Book of Giddens@@..."
...Again, ST comes closer to Luhmann’s social systems theory in this regard, in that it ascribes explanatory importance to the agency of established structures, practices, and institutions that enable and constrain the agency of humans (Giddens, 1984)....
[...]
...However, it leans rather toward the social constructivism of Luhmann’s social systems theory, grasping social reality in a similar way as produced and reproduced in discourse (Giddens, 1984)....
[...]
TL;DR: A generic framework for models of socio-hydrology applicable to agricultural catchments, made up of six key components that combine to form the coupled system dynamics, to allow hydrologists to improve social–ecological systems modelling through better representation of human feedbacks on hydrological processes.
Abstract: . It is increasingly acknowledged that, in order to sustainably manage global freshwater resources, it is critical that we better understand the nature of human–hydrology interactions at the broader catchment system scale. Yet to date, a generic conceptual framework for building models of catchment systems that include adequate representation of socioeconomic systems – and the dynamic feedbacks between human and natural systems – has remained elusive. In an attempt to work towards such a model, this paper outlines a generic framework for models of socio-hydrology applicable to agricultural catchments, made up of six key components that combine to form the coupled system dynamics: namely, catchment hydrology, population, economics, environment, socioeconomic sensitivity and collective response. The conceptual framework posits two novel constructs: (i) a composite socioeconomic driving variable, termed the Community Sensitivity state variable, which seeks to capture the perceived level of threat to a community's quality of life, and acts as a key link tying together one of the fundamental feedback loops of the coupled system, and (ii) a Behavioural Response variable as the observable feedback mechanism, which reflects land and water management decisions relevant to the hydrological context. The framework makes a further contribution through the introduction of three macro-scale parameters that enable it to normalise for differences in climate, socioeconomic and political gradients across study sites. In this way, the framework provides for both macro-scale contextual parameters, which allow for comparative studies to be undertaken, and catchment-specific conditions, by way of tailored "closure relationships", in order to ensure that site-specific and application-specific contexts of socio-hydrologic problems can be accommodated. To demonstrate how such a framework would be applied, two socio-hydrological case studies, taken from the Australian experience, are presented and the parameterisation approach that would be taken in each case is discussed. Preliminary findings in the case studies lend support to the conceptual theories outlined in the framework. It is envisioned that the application of this framework across study sites and gradients will aid in developing our understanding of the fundamental interactions and feedbacks in such complex human–hydrology systems, and allow hydrologists to improve social–ecological systems modelling through better representation of human feedbacks on hydrological processes.
189 citations
Cites result from "Locating the 17th Book of Giddens@@..."
...This is in line with Giddens’ (1984) early work on structuration theory, which posits that social phenomena are the result of both agency and social structure....
[...]
References
More filters