Structure and agency

About: Structure and agency is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 1265 publications have been published within this topic receiving 63660 citations.

Rethinking comparative studies: an agent–centred perspective

Abstract: Broadly speaking, three rival approaches to comparative research can be identified. One suggests that the study of different countries and their regions is unproblematic, and is best exemplified by scholarship in mainstream (particularly neoclassical) economics. Stress is placed on an integrated theoretical perspective emphasizing apparent similarities while explaining differences by reference to the heritage of nations and places. By way of contrast a second approach, which owes much to anthropology, relies on case studies and presumes the existence of profound differences between countries and regions. Stress is placed upon the local cultural, social and political factors that sustain persistent difference. A third approach is rooted in new institutional economics and argues for the significance of national institutional frameworks, supposing that those frameworks shape and structure the actions of agents. Whatever their differences and origins, idealism drives each method of comparative study. In this article, we consider these rival theories of comparative study, and suggest an alternative model based upon a set of fundamental assumptions about the nature of human cognition. These assumptions are the building blocks for our analysis, which has global applicability. We focus in particular upon consciousness and reflexivity, the interplay between agency and structure, and the connection between intention and rationality. Implications are then drawn for the practice of comparative studies. In the penultimate section of the article we comment on the limits of comparative studies emphasizing the problems that lie behind the translation of complex concepts within and between languages.

National Minorities between Protection and Empowerment: Towards a Theory of Empowerment

Abstract: It is widely assumed that national minorities can experience a transition from protection to empowerment. This is also the assumption of most normative instruments aimed at protecting national minorities. Theoretically, however, there is no coherent notion of empowerment of minorities let alone a description of the processes that lead to empowerment on the basis of minority protection schemes. Thus, there is a gap in our knowledge of both the concept and its implementation with regard to national minorities. This article seeks to begin unpacking the notion of empowerment and its relation to protection. It provides first a brief overview of the literature on national minority issues arguing that the overwhelming use of the institutional approach has prevented a subjectivist view of national minorities as actors. Next, it examines the existing definitions of empowerment to explore the actor-oriented nature of the concept. In the main section the article begins the journey towards a theory of empowerment, drawing on the work of Elisheva Sadan and a number of other scholars. It focuses on the empowerment of communities, as the aim is to examine minority group empowerment. The second half of the article seeks to connect the theory of empowerment with the notion of rights; the capability to claim rights is of vital importance here. This brings in Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum's capability theory. Finally, the article connects the theories with reality, seeking to operationalize empowerment through an analysis of the social structure of protection (European minority rights regime) and collective agency (human and social capital). In the concluding section, it is argued that the structure and agency approach provides a good tool for analysing the transition of minority actors from protection to empowerment. This article is based on a discussion paper circulated to the participants of the workshop on "National Minorities between protection and empowerment: Contemporary minority politics in Europe" held at the European Consortium for Political Research ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops in Mainz, Germany, 2013.1Keywords: empowerment; protection; action-oriented; capability theoryThe space between protection and empowerment of national minorities has not been defined adequately in the academic literature. This may be due to the fact that the protection paradigm holds a hegemonic position in policy-making. Legal instruments and social programmes are written in the mode of protection. Thus, agents of the protection of minorities are governments acting on behalf of the majority, and because governments have the agency to hold control of state power, protection becomes a top-down process. If empowerment is mentioned, it is often perceived as one side of the same coin, and at times the two concepts are used interchangeably. This would indicate that agents of empowerment are also governments acting top-down on behalf of the majority and holding the power to empower someone. How may we then perceive nuances in the relationship between the two concepts, if any? Since both concepts indicate top-down action initiated at the macro level, does this mean that the process does not involve micro-level action? Assuming that minorities are the beneficiaries of empowerment, and that empowerment and protection are provided by the same agents, how may we conceptualize a transition from protection to empowerment? Could one assume that protection is the means, while empowerment is the end? This would confirm the general assumption that a transition process from protection to empowerment takes place.However, if governments are the agents of both protection and empowerment, how are we to know that minorities actually become empowered, that the end of empowerment is achieved? How do we know whether the end of empowerment differs from the end of protection? The end of protection is usually measured quantitatively and qualitatively in the degrees of improvement of enjoyment of rights, i. …

How Not to Structure a Social Theory: A Reply to a Critical Response

Abstract: In his recent review of my book, The Structure of Social Theory, Karsten Stueber rejected my criticisms of contemporary social theory. Against my “hermeneutic” sociology which prioritizes human social relations, he advocates a return to a dualistic ontology of structure and agency. This reply addresses Stueber’s criticisms to re-affirm the ontology of social relations against ontological dualism.

Business incubator managers’ perceptions of their role and performance success: role demands, constraints and choices

Abstract: Using Stewart’s (1976) role framework as an analytical lens, this paper examines how business incubator managers perceive their role and performance, and the choices they make in dealing with constraints and competing demands. Given that the literature in this domain has not considered how these types of managers experience agency and structure in their role, this study is important in theory and practice terms. Drawing on 40 qualitative interviews in different UK regions, the findings demonstrate the ways in which business incubator managers see their role as pivotal in supporting the incubatee entrepreneurs and how they endeavour to address competing role demands against constraints. Notably, while funding is commonly viewed as an enabler, the findings suggest that the funding structure could act as a constraint on the incubator managers, due to the weight of perceived bureaucracy preventing the latter from operating effectively within the full remit of their role.