Scales of Observation

One of the particularities of applied anthropology is working on demand, and performing research on demand requires changing fields constantly. This diversity of fields has led to an awareness in applied anthropology that the focal point of observation varies from study to study, and that depending on the particular scope or decoupage, researchers do not see the same thing. This scales-of-observation method has four empirical principles: (a) What one observes at one scale vanishes at another scale. (b) The causes explaining actors’ behavior vary based on the scale of observation; they can stem from situational effects or meaning effects, or suggest statistical correlation. (c) Knowledge acquired at one scale is complementary and cumulative with that of other scales of observation. However, they cannot be fused into a single, global description. Indeed, although reality is continuous, observation between the “macro” and the “micro” is discontinuous. Discontinuity stems from the importance of the situational effects in anthropology and organizational sociology. These two approaches are most often centered on the interactions among actors operating under situational constraints. All generalizations are thus limited to scales pertaining to the same type of causality. (d) Part of the conflict among schools, disciplines, or professions regarding explanations for human behavior and changes within a community, an organization, a society, or an individual can most often be explained by different choices in the scale of observation. The scales-of-observation method is a mobile tool of knowledge founded on the anthropological practice of the cultural detour, in this case scientific cultures. It is an inductive epistemological theory on the variability of the explanatory causes of human behavior and falls under methodological relativism. Consequently, the scales-of-observation method is also a tool of negotiation among actors who are involved collectively in a project of social change, but with contradictory interests or objectives.

Students’ Differences, Societal Expectations, and the Discursive Construction of (De)Legitimate Students in Germany

At higher education institutions (HEI), which for centuries served only to educate the elite, the composition of the student body is increasingly changing towards greater social and cultural diversity. Students’ differences are also the focus of this article, but not with a specific emphasis on preselected categories. Instead, the article asks how students in teaching in higher education (HE) are represented in the print media and professional discourse in Germany, i.e., which categories of difference are constructed as relevant in HE teaching contexts, which are normalized and (de)legitimized, and what is expected of HEI concerning these differences. Second, to what extent does this change over time, particularly concerning the new circumstances of Corona‐based digital teaching in 2020? The contribution is based on a combination of discourse theory and neo‐institutional organizational sociology. Discourses are a place where social expectations towards organizations are negotiated and constructed. Simultaneously, the discourses construct a specific understanding of HE, making visible openings and closures concerning different groups of students. Which students are constructed as legitimate, desirable, at risk of dropping out, or a risk for HE quality? Based on qualitative content analysis, the article shows that it is less the traditional socio‐structural categories such as gender, social or ethnic origin, or impairments, that are discussed to be relevant in HE teaching contexts. The reproduction of inequality and the associated discrimination is hardly discussed. The focus is instead on the students’ differences concerning individualizable characteristics, competencies, or study practices. Even though many of these individualized differences are conveyed via socio‐structural categories, this connection is often not considered in the discourses.

The Relevance and Presumed Innocence of Learning: A Reply to Soeters and Talbot and Fischer

Responding to Soeters and Talbot and Fischer, we clarify our position that learning in military organizations is highly contingent on established organizational frameworks, vocabularies, and understandings and constrained by existing power relations. The danger present in military operations increases the importance of minimizing internal frictions and constrains local experimentation and the application of different solutions. Thus, while there is learning in military organizations, the latter are less prone than large, civilian organizations to venture into the use of new and unproven solutions. The present debate about learning in military organization reflects the different basic assumptions about formal organizations in management studies as opposed to the field of organizational sociology.

Crowd Work und Plattformökonomie

This paper addresses the question of whether crowd workers on microtask platforms should be classified as employees. For years, this has been disputed from the perspective of labor law, but with a certain tendency to deny it. However, the BAG ruled in December 2020 that a crowd worker can be an employee by and large. So how are the circumstances to be assessed that make a crowd worker an employee (or non-employee)? That is what this paper investigates. In the first part of the paper, we review various empirical studies on crowd work and analyze the functioning of platforms. Economic and organizational sociology are also considered. In the second part, concrete case analyses from a self-experiment are presented in order to be able to evaluate them in terms of labor law. In the third part, two aspects are opened up, firstly, how the divergence between the national and the European legal concept of employee is again revealed in crowd work. On the other hand, new forms of regulation are suggested: For example, does Regulation P2B Regulation (2019/1150) not fit many of the problems of platform work? What about its applicability to platform work? What about "regulation by design"? Finally, it must be considered, how labor law can cope with new forms of work and, above all, forms of new organizational methods.

Networks, Organizations, Institutions: An Interview with Walter W. Powell, Stanford University

In this interview, Walter W. Powell and Helmut K. Anheier review the evolution of organizational sociology and institutionalism over the last thirty years, including the formation of new organizational forms such as network organizations. They also touch upon nonprofit and civil society research, and discuss the state of sociology and the social sciences more generally.

Kirken som organisme og organisasjon. Ekklesiologiske og organisasjonsteoretiske perspektiver på kirken som felleskap

Due to the complexity of its functions, the church can be understood in various disciplines which offer different perspectives, concepts and metaphors. This chapter explores how theology and organizational sociology conceptualize the church as a collective. We aim at establishing a dialogue on the collective notion of the church as a religious organization using the concepts organism and organization as applied in the theological discipline of ecclesiology and utilizing insights from organization theory. Both hold that the church is a gathering of people coming together for religious purposes. Starting with a shared understanding of the collective, we present relevant insights from both domains. We analyze selected contributions in each tradition that enable an ongoing dialogue between them. The chapter argues that cross-disciplinary perspectives are beneficial to developing church organization.

ANALYSIS OF RITA WIDYASARI’S GRATIFICATION CASE IN THE STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIOLOGY AND POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY

Kutai Kartanegara Regency is one of regencies in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. The capital city is located in Tenggarong Sub-district. Kutai Kartanegara Regency has an area of 27,263.10 km², with sea area of approximately 4,097 km², which is divided into 18 sub-districts and 225 villages with a population of 626,286 (2010 census). Geographically, Kutai Kartanegara Regency is located between 115° 26'28" East Longitude - 117 ° 36'43" East Longitude and 1° 28'21" North Latitude - 1° 08'06" South Latitude.

Who Are the Technocrats? From the Technostructure to Technocratic Government

The chapter deals with the issue of how to identify technocrats outside and within the political system and determine the nature and extent of political influence. Drawing on organizational sociology, elite research and comparative politics, the chapter maps the available answers, from the most general idea of the ‘technostructure’ to the specific (and rare) occurrence of a fully technocratic government.

The decline of organizational sociology? An empirical analysis of research trends in leading journals across half a century

Recent works see organizational sociology at the brink of irrelevance. Against this backdrop, in this article the authors want to explore the current state of organizational sociology empirically. They employ a variety of manual, automated and semi-automated content analyses to examine research articles published in generalist sociology journals since the 1950s. Contrary to contemporary pessimistic assessments, the results indicate that organizational sociology has not significantly declined over time. However, the study finds an increasing concentration on quantitative research designs, business-related topics, and only two dominant theory perspectives – neo-institutionalism and the network approach. A multifaceted decrease in variety rather than an absolute decline could be the right diagnosis.