Emergent Team Formation: Applying Division of Labour Principles to Robot Soccer

Author(s):  
Tony White ◽  
James Helferty
Author(s):  
Tetiana Petrushyna ◽  
Anatolii Arseienko

Globalization remains the most common and quite controversial concept in modern social discourse. Within the theoretical and conceptual sociological dimension, the authors analyzed the essence of economic globalization (EG) as its defining type. They studied globalization as an objective process (first of all, the international division of labour) and the subjective process of forming a global capitalist economy under the auspices of leading Western countries, supranational financial and economic institutions (primarily the World Bank and the IMF), TNCs. As the main drivers of globalization, they determine its forms and directions in the interests of the "core" of global capitalism. Within the empirical sociological dimension of EG (which involves measuring the various manifestations of the EG process itself as well as its social consequences), the authors paid particular attention to the analysis of social changes in Ukrainian society. The capitalization of the Ukrainian economy, which took place in parallel with Ukraine’s entry into the global economic space, led to degradation of the national economy, significant deterioration of living standards of most citizens, creation of anti-social state with the systemic crisis as its main attribute. To prove these conclusions, the authors analyzed the dynamics of the principal macroeconomic and sociological indicators of Ukrainian society’s life for almost 30 years of drift to the roadside of the global capitalist world, based on the study of numerous domestic and foreign sources. The authors focused on the research of eight critical areas of social changes: deindustrialization of the economy, global competitiveness and innovation, GDP dynamics, employment, income and welfare of the population, socioeconomic inequality, debt dependence and degradation of Ukrainian science. The analysis shows the need to abandon the neoliberal paradigm of development and search for the alternative and more fair models of EG.


Author(s):  
Pamela Rogalski ◽  
Eric Mikulin ◽  
Deborah Tihanyi

In 2018, we overheard many CEEA-AGEC members stating that they have "found their people"; this led us to wonder what makes this evolving community unique. Using cultural historical activity theory to view the proceedings of CEEA-ACEG 2004-2018 in comparison with the geographically and intellectually adjacent ASEE, we used both machine-driven (Natural Language Processing, NLP) and human-driven (literature review of the proceedings) methods. Here, we hoped to build on surveys—most recently by Nelson and Brennan (2018)—to understand, beyond what members say about themselves, what makes the CEEA-AGEC community distinct, where it has come from, and where it is going. Engaging in the two methods of data collection quickly diverted our focus from an analysis of the data themselves to the characteristics of the data in terms of cultural historical activity theory. Our preliminary findings point to some unique characteristics of machine- and human-driven results, with the former, as might be expected, focusing on the micro-level (words and language patterns) and the latter on the macro-level (ideas and concepts). NLP generated data within the realms of "community" and "division of labour" while the review of proceedings centred on "subject" and "object"; both found "instruments," although NLP with greater granularity. With this new understanding of the relative strengths of each method, we have a revised framework for addressing our original question.  


Author(s):  
Lisa Herzog

This chapter sets out the normative foundations on which the book is based. It starts by defending the case for the ‘pervasiveness’ of morality: no social sphere is ‘beyond’ morality, even if there is some degree of institutional ‘division of labour’. Next, it states and explains the moral norms this study is based on: the norm to respect all individuals as moral equals, and norms about the avoidance of individual harm, and about avoiding contributing to collective harm. These norms lie within an ‘overlapping consensus’ of different moral theories and worldviews. In pluralist societies, we should focus on such a consensus—even if it may sometimes be hard to delineate—when reflecting on the moral dimensions of organizations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document