Institutions and Organizations

Author(s):  
Gordon L. Clark ◽  
Ashby H. B. Monk

In Chapter 2, the authors set out to explore the status of institutional investors in the global economy. They look at different types of such investors. For instance, these include endowments, family offices, and pension funds on the one hand, while on the other hand they also include the conventional roles and responsibilities of asset owners, asset holders, managers working in banks, and standalone asset companies. In this chapter, they pick up the thread that continues throughout the remainder of the book of the current debate in the social sciences concerning institutions and organizations, as well as the legal status of many institutional investors, which organizations themselves must govern and manage.

2019 ◽  
Vol 67 (5) ◽  
pp. 705-722
Author(s):  
Leandro Rodriguez Medina

The study of the internationalization of science seems to be focused on the natural and formal sciences and on networks of the Global North. A shift towards the social sciences and a peripheral region (Mexico) is proposed here and shows that two different types of networks are enacted to face the challenges of internationalized research. On the one hand, there are strategic networks which internalize the pressure of incentives brought to bear on academics and tend to reproduce an over-professionalized idea of the academia. On the other, there are engaged networks that try to strengthen international bonds according to certain politico-ethical imperatives. In this article, relying on current research on internationalization of the Mexican social sciences, the author explores the usefulness of these ideal-types of networks and discusses their implications.


1981 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 4-8

One of the fields of sociology which is experiencing a dramatic explosion is that catch‐all area of Women's Studies. Books and articles touching on women's experiences in the labour market or in the home, the education of girls or images of femininity, the impact of the law on women or sexism in the social sciences have been proliferating in the last decade. Much of the impetus has been provided by the renascent Women's Movement, and the various academic concerns echo the diverse attacks on the status quo being made by politically active women. The one thing which holds all this material together is an explicit concern to bring women to the centre of the stage in the social sciences, instead of leaving them (as they so often have been) in the wings or with mere walk‐on parts. Taking the woman's point of view is seen as a legitimate corrective to the tendency to ignore women altogether. But is this sufficient to constitute the nucleus of a new speciality within sociology, which is what seems to be happening to ‘Women's Studies’ and ‘feminist’ social science? More seriously, should sociological discussions of women be ghettoised into special courses on women in society? As a preliminary attempt to redress the balance maybe such separate development can be justified, but if that is all that happens, the enriching potential of feminist social science may well be lost to mainstream sociology. It is not just that feminist social scientists want women to be brought in to complete the picture. It is not just that they claim that half the picture is being left unexposed. The claims are often much more ambitious than that: what much feminist writing is attempting is a demonstration of the distortion in the half image which is exposed. An injection of feminist thinking into practically any sociological speciality could lead to a profound re‐orientation of that field. More than this, a feminist approach can indicate the ways in which traditional boundaries between sociological specialities can obscure women and their special position in society. Feminist social scientists throw down the gauntlet on the way in which the field of sociology has traditionally been carved up. But if women's studies are kept in their ghetto, this challenge will be lost: to me, the explicitly critical stance which feminist research takes with respect to mainstream sociology is one of its most exciting qualities, and such research has important insights to contribute to the development of the discipline.


Dreyfus argues that there is a basic methodological difference between the natural sciences and the social sciences, a difference that derives from the different goals and practices of each. He goes on to argue that being a realist about natural entities is compatible with pluralism or, as he calls it, “plural realism.” If intelligibility is always grounded in our practices, Dreyfus points out, then there is no point of view from which one can ask about or provide an answer to the one true nature of ultimate reality. But that is consistent with believing that the natural sciences can still reveal the way the world is independent of our theories and practices.


1979 ◽  
Vol 3 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 242-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce Kuklick

Despite differences in coloration Miller and Benson are birds of a feather. Although he is no Pollyanna, Miller believes that there has been a modest and decent series of advances in the social sciences and that the most conscientious, diligent, and intelligent researchers will continue to add to this stock of knowledge. Benson is much more pessimistic about the achievements of yesterday and today but, in turn, offers us the hope of a far brighter tomorrow. Miller explains Benson’s hyperbolic views about the past and future by distinguishing between pure and applied science and by pointing out Benson’s naivete about politics: the itch to understand the world is different from the one to make it better; and, Miller says, because Benson sees that we have not made things better, he should not assume we do not know more about them; Benson ought to realize, Miller adds, that the way politicians translate basic social knowledge into social policy need not bring about rational or desirable results. On the other side, Benson sees more clearly than Miller that the development of science has always been intimately intertwined with the control of the environment and the amelioration of the human estate.


2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 267-278
Author(s):  
Torjus Midtgarden

Charles Peirce’s classification of the sciences was designed shortly after the turn of the twentieth century. The classification has two main sources of inspiration: Comte’s science classification and Kant’s theoretical philosophy. Peirce’s classification, like that of Comte, is hierarchically organised in that the more general and abstract sciences provide principles for the less general and more concrete sciences. However, Peirce includes and assigns a superordinate role to philosophical disciplines which analyse and provide logical, methodological and ontological principles for the specialised sciences, and which are based on everyday life experience. Moreover, Peirce recognises two main branches of specialised empirical science: the natural sciences, on the one hand, and the social sciences, the humanities and psychology on the other. While both branches share logical and methodological principles, they are based on different ontological principles in studying physical nature and the human mind and its products, respectively. Peirce’s most basic philosophical discipline, phenomenology, transforms his early engagement with Kant. Peirce’s classification of aesthetics, ethics and logic as normative sub-disciplines of philosophy relate to his philosophical pragmatism. Yet his more overarching division between theoretical (philosophical and specialised) sciences and practical sciences may be seen as problematic. Taking Peirce’s historical account of scientific developments into consideration, however, I argue that his science classification and its emphasis on the interdependencies between the sciences could be seen as sustaining and supporting interdisciplinarity and interaction across fields of research, even across the divide between theoretical and practical sciences.


2011 ◽  
pp. 97-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Marchak

Summary This paper presents the main approaches and issues of Anglo-canadian sociology of the last forty years, showing their limits and their theoretical inadequacies. It discusses the current practices of sociologists and asks the question: which social dimensions should be taken into account to strenghten sociological theory. It emphasizes the necessity to go beyond the framework of the social sciences to build a proper understanding of humanity and social activity.


Author(s):  
Antje Gimmler

Practices are of central relevance both to philosophical pragmatism and to the recent ‘Practice Turn’ in social sciences and philosophy. However, what counts as practices and how practices and knowledge are combined or intertwine varies in the different approaches of pragmatism and those theories that are covered by the umbrella term ‘Practice Turn’. The paper tries to show that the pragmatism of John Dewey is able to offer both a more precise and a more radical understanding of practices than the recent ‘Practice Turn’ allows for. The paper on the one hand highlights what pragmatism has to offer to the practice turn in order to clarify the notion of practice. On the other hand the paper claims that a pragmatism inspired by Dewey actually interprets ‘practices’ more radically than most of the other approaches and furthermore promotes an understanding of science that combines nonrepresentationalism and anti-foundationalism with an involvement of the philosopher or the social scientist in the production of knowledge, things and technologies.


2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 71-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sune Qvotrup Jensen ◽  
Ann-Dorte Christensen

Intersektionalitetsbegrebet indebærer, at sociale differentieringsformer som køn, klasse, etnicitet og ”race” er gensidigt konstituerende både på et identitetsmæssigt og strukturelt niveau. Begrebet har haft stor gennemslagskraft og bidraget positivt til fornyelse af dansk og international kønsforskning. Da begrebet rummer potentialer til analyser af komplekse sociale differentieringer, er det imidlertid også relevant for en bredere sociologi. Nutidige højt differentierede samfund fordrer således begreber og metodologier, som er egnede til at gribe kompleksitet. Intersektionalitetstænkningen har teorihistoriske rødder i amerikansk sort standpunktsfeminisme. I Danmark blev begrebet først anvendt af poststrukturalistiske socialpsykologer, som gentænkte det og gjorde det velegnet til at analysere, hvordan komplekse identiteter skabes i hverdagslivet. Senere er begrebet blevet anvendt af kønsforskere med andre faglige og videnskabsteoretiske udgangspunkter. I artiklen fremhæves det, at intersektionalitetsbegrebet kan anvendes til at producere forskellige typer sociologisk viden. I den forbindelse præsenteres en typologi over forskellige tilgange til intersektionalitetsanalyser, som bruges som afsæt til at skitsere tre eksempler på analyser af social ulighed og eksklusion. ENGELSK ABSTRACT: Sune Qvotrup Jensen and Ann-Dorte Christensen: Inter-sectionality as a Sociological Concept Contemporary highly differentiated societies require concepts and methodologies which are suited for grasping complexity. Intersectionality is a fruitful approach to analyze this complexity because social forms of differentiation such as gender, class, ethnicity and “race” are understood as mutually co-constructing at the level of individual identities and at the level of social structures. Intersectionality is a travelling concept which is theoretically rooted in black American feminism. In Denmark, the concept was first used by post-structuralist social psychologists, who adapted it to analyzing how complex identities were created in everyday life. Later on the concept was later taken up by gender researchers within the social sciences. This article analyses how the concept of intersectionality can be used to produce different types of sociological knowledge. It introduces a typology of approaches to intersectionality analyses, which serves as the backdrop for three examples of analyses of social inequality and exclusion. Key words: Intersectionality, complexity, social differentiation, gender, class, ethnicity.


Author(s):  
Manfredi Valeriani ◽  
Vicki L. Plano Clark

This chapter examines mixed-methods research, which is an approach that involves the integration of quantitative and qualitative methods at one or more stages of a research study. The central idea behind mixed-methods research is that the intentional combination of numeric-based methods with narrative-based methods can best provide answers to some research questions. The ongoing attempts to construct a simple and common conceptualization of mixed-methods provide a good indicator of the status of mixed-methods itself. mixed-methods research has emerged as a formalized methodology well suited to addressing complex problems, and is currently applied throughout the social sciences and beyond. Nowadays, researchers interested in combining quantitative and qualitative methods can benefit from the growing knowledge about the epistemological foundations, essential considerations, and rigorous designs that have been advanced for mixed-methods research.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document