首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 46 毫秒
1.
Although a central construct for sociologists, the concept of institution continues to elude clear and full specification. One reason for this lack of clarity is that about 50 years ago empirical researchers in the field of sociology turned their gaze downward, away from macro-sociological constructs in order to focus their attention on middle-range empirical projects. It took almost 20 years for the concept of the institution to work its back onto the empirical research agenda of mainstream sociologists. The new institutional project in organizational sociology led the way. Since then, scholars in this tradition have achieved a great deal but there is still much more to accomplish. Here, future directions for research are considered by reviewing how the concept of the institution has come to be treated by mainstream philosophers, sociologists of science and technology studies, and social network theorists.
John W. Mohr (Corresponding author)Email:
Roger Friedland (Corresponding author)Email:

John W. Mohr   is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He received his Ph.D. in sociology at Yale University. He has a longstanding interest in using formal network methods to analyze cultural meaning systems. Along with Roger Friedland, he is the organizer of the Cultural Turn Conference series at UCSB and the co-editor of Matters of Culture (Cambridge University Press 2004). He has published a number of articles on the formal analysis of meaning structures. His current research projects include a study of faculty change agents in higher education and the rise of nano-technology as a scientific project. This material is based [in part] upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Cooperative Agreement No. 0531184. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Roger Friedland   is Professor of Religious Studies and Sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He co-authored with Harold Zelmann The Fellowship: Frank Lloyd Wright and the Taliesin Fellowship (2006), with John Mohr Matters of Culture (2004), and authored “Money, Sex and God: The Erotic Logic of Religious Nationalism” (2002). He is currently working on politicized religion as a case of institutional politics and on the relations among religion, sexuality, and love. His latest essay is “Institution, Practice and Ontology: Towards a Religious Sociology” to appear in Ideology and Organizational Institutionalism, Research in the Sociology of Organizations.  相似文献   

2.
Using ethnographic data collected in the downtown nightlife of Athens, Georgia, we explore black males’ responses to being rejected from nightclubs via dress code enforcement in predominately white settings. We contrast these responses to the general experiences of other black males who gained access. Although race is a factor in the enforcement of dress codes, we find a fluid relationship between race, class, and taste that influences black males’ responses and experiences. We illustrate how the nuanced reality of lived racial and class experiences for many young black males problematize the narrow interpretation of a black cultural essence.
Kenneth Sean ChaplinEmail:

Reuben A. Buford May   is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Texas A&M University. His research areas include race and culture, urban ethnography, and the sociology of sport. He is the author of Living Through the Hoop: High School Basketball, Race and the American Dream (New York University Press, 2007) and Talking at Trena’s: Everyday Conversation at an African American Tavern (New York University Press, 2001). Kenneth Sean Chaplin   is a graduate student in the department of Sociology at Texas A&M University. His research interests include racial and ethnic relations and the sociology of sport.  相似文献   

3.
By virtually dominating French intellectual life (literature, philosophy, culture) during the early post-World War II period, Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980) embodied what Pierre Bourdieu calls a “total intellectual” – one who responds to and helps frame public debate on all the intellectual and political issues of the day. During his lifetime and even after his death in 1980, Sartre’s thinking and political engagements provoked sharp reactions, both positive and negative, in France and abroad. Marxism, decolonization struggles, and violence are three key themes on which Sartre’s public positions continue to generate considerable debate – a debate that remains relevant today.
David L. Swartz (Corresponding author)Email:
Vera L. ZolbergEmail:

David L. Swartz   is Assistant Professor of Sociology and teaches in the Core Curriculum at Boston University. He is the author of Culture & Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu (University of Chicago Press, 1997) and co-editor (with Vera L. Zolberg) of After Bourdieu: Influence, Critique, Elaboration (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004). His research interests include the study of elites and stratification, education, culture, religion, and social theory and he is currently writing a book on the political sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Swartz is a Senior Editor of Theory and Society. Vera L. Zolberg   is Professor of Sociology at the New School for Social Research, New York City, where she has taught for over 20 years. In addition, she has taught at Purdue University, was visiting lecturer at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris, held the Chair in Sociology of Art, University of Amsterdam, as Boekmanstichting Professor, and was visiting Research Associate at the CNRS in Paris. Zolberg has served as President of the Research Committee in the Sociology of the Arts of the International Sociological Association, and Chair of the Culture Section of the American Sociological Association. Among her publications are Outsider Art: Contesting Boundaries in Contemporary Culture, with J.M. Cherbo (Cambridge University Press, 1997); and Constructing a Sociology of the Arts (Cambridge University Press, 1990). She is co-editor, with David Swartz, of After Bourdieu: Influence, Critique, Elaboration (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2004), and author of many articles. Her research interests include: contemporary and historical cultural policy and politics, urbanism and culture, museums, African art, and the sociology of collective memory. Zolberg is a Senior Editor of Theory and Society.  相似文献   

4.
American organizational theorists have not taken up the call to apply Bourdieu’s approach in all of its richness in part because, for better or worse, evidentiary traditions render untenable the kind of sweeping analysis that makes Bourdieu’s classics compelling. Yet many of the insights found in Bourdieu are being pursued piecemeal, in distinct paradigmatic projects that explore the character of fields, the emergence of organizational habitus, and the changing forms of capital that are key to the control of modern organizations. A number of these programs build on the same sociological classics that Bourdieu built his own theory on. These share the same lineage, even if they were not directly influenced by Bourdieu.
Frank DobbinEmail:

Frank Dobbin   is Professor of Sociology at Harvard University. His The New Economic Sociology: A Reader (Princeton University Press 2004) traces modern paradigms in economic sociology to their origins in sociological classics. His Inventing Equal Opportunity, chronicling the construction of corporate anti-discrimination strategies by human resources professionals, will be published by Princeton University Press in 2008.  相似文献   

5.
In the late twentieth century, many social scientists and other social commentators came to characterize the world as evolving into an “information society.” Central to these claims was the notion that new social uses of information, and particularly application of scientific knowledge, are transforming social life in fundamental ways. Among the supposed transformations are the rise of intellectuals in social importance, growing productivity and prosperity stemming from increasingly knowledge-based economic activity, and replacement of political conflict by authoritative, knowledge-based decision-making. We trace these ideas to their origins in the Enlightenment doctrines of Saint Simon and Comte, show that empirical support for them has never been strong, and consider the durability of their social appeal.
James B. Rule (Corresponding author)Email:
Yasemin BesenEmail:

James B. Rule   is Distinguished Affiliated Scholar at the Center for the Study of Law and Society, University of California, Berkeley. He has researched and published widely on matters relating to sociological theory and the role of information in social life. His most recent books are Theory and Progress in Social Science (Cambridge University Press, 1997), Computing in Organizations; Myth and Experience (co-authored with Debra Gimlin and Sylvia Sievers, Transaction, 2002) and Privacy in Peril (Oxford University Press, 2007). Yasemin Besen   focuses on young people in the United States in her work, which combines qualitative and quantitative methods. Her research interests include teenage labor, gender, and inequality. Her work has been published in Contexts, Berkeley Journal of Sociology, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, NWSAJ, and Equal Opportunities International. She received her Ph.D. in Sociology from the State University of New York at Stony Brook. She is currently Assistant Professor of Sociology at Montclair State University.  相似文献   

6.
A new version of the age-old controversy between religion and science has been launched by today’s intelligent design movement. Although ostensibly concerned simply with combating Darwinism, this new creationism seeks to drive a “wedge” into the materialist view of the world, originating with the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus and manifested in modern times by Darwin, Marx, and Freud. Intelligent design proponents thus can be seen as challenging not only natural and physical science but social science as well. In this article, we attempt to explain the long history of this controversy, stretching over millennia, and to defend science (especially social science) against the criticisms of intelligent design proponents – by defending science’s materialist roots.
Brett Clark (Corresponding author)Email:
John Bellamy FosterEmail:
Richard YorkEmail:

Brett Clark   received his Ph.D. from the University of Oregon and is the Editorial Director of Monthly Review Press. His research interests are ecology, political economy, and science. He has published articles and review essays in Theory and Society, The Sociological Quarterly, Organization & Environment, and Critical Sociology. He received the 2007 Outstanding Publication Award from the Environment and Technology Section of the American Sociological Association for a series of articles (one of which was the article “Carbon Metabolism: Global Capitalism, Climate Change, and the Biospheric Rift,” published in Theory and Society in 2005) with Richard York. John Bellamy Foster   is Professor of Sociology at the University of Oregon and editor of Monthly Review (New York). He is the author of The Theory of Monopoly Capitalism (1986); The Vulnerable Planet (1994); “Marx’s Theory of Metabolic Rift,” American Journal of Sociology (1999); Marx’s Ecology (2000); Ecology Against Capitalism (2002); Naked Imperialism (2006); and (with Paul Burkett) “Metabolism, Energy, and Entropy in Marx’s Critique of Political Economy,” Theory and Society (2006). Richard York   is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Oregon and co-editor of the Sage journal Organization & Environment. His research focuses on human interaction with the natural environment and the philosophy, history, and sociology of science. He has published articles in American Sociological Review, Gender & Society, Rural Sociology, Social Problems, Social Science Research, Sociological Forum, The Sociological Quarterly, Theory and Society, and other scholarly journals. He has twice (2004 and 2007) received the Outstanding Publication Award from the Environment and Technology Section of the American Sociological Association.  相似文献   

7.
This article argues that while elements of Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology are increasingly employed in American sociology, it is rare to find all three of Bourdieu’s master concepts—habitus, capital, and field—incorporated into a single study. Moreover, these concepts are seldom deployed within a relational perspective that was fundamental to Bourdieu’s thinking. The article “Bourdieu and Organizational Analysis” by Mustafa Emirbayer and Victoria Johnson is a welcomed exception, for it draws on all three of Bourdieu’s pillar concepts to propose a relational approach to the study of organizations. It both reframes existing thinking about organizations, particularly from the neo-institutional and resource dependence schools, and indicates new directions for research in organizations to move. This paper evaluates their contribution calling attention to its many strengths and suggesting a few points that need future clarification and elaboration.
David L. SwartzEmail:

David L. Swartz   is Assistant Professor of Sociology at Boston University. He is the author of Culture & Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu (University of Chicago Press 1997) and co-editor (with Vera L. Zolberg) of After Bourdieu: Influence, Critique, Elaboration (Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004). He is a Senior Editor and Book Review Editor for Theory and Society. His research interests include the study of elites and stratification, education, culture, religion, and social theory, and he is currently writing a book on the political sociology of Pierre Bourdieu.  相似文献   

8.
Technology and institutions: living in a material world   总被引:1,自引:1,他引:0  
This article addresses the relationship between technology and institutions and asks whether technology itself is an institution. The argument is that social theorists need to attend better to materiality: the world of things and objects of which technical things form an important class. It criticizes the new institutionalism in sociology for its failure to sufficiently open up the black box of technology. Recent work in science and technology studies (S&TS) and in particular the sociology of technology is reviewed as another route into dealing with technology and materiality. The recent ideas in sociology of technology are exemplified with the author’s study of the development of the electronic music synthesizer.
Trevor PinchEmail:

Trevor Pinch   is professor of Sociology and professor of Science and Technology Studies at Cornell University. He holds degrees in physics and sociology. He has published fourteen books and numerous articles on aspects of the sociology of science and technology. His studies have included quantum physics, solar neutrinos, parapsychology, health economics, the bicycle, the car, and the electronic music synthesizer. His most recent books are How Users Matter (edited with Nelly Oudshoorn, MIT Press, 2003), Analog Days: The Invention and Impact of the Moog Synthesizer (with Frank Trocco, Harvard University Press, 2002) and Dr Golem: How To Think About Medicine (with Harry Collins, Chicago University Press, 2005). His latest book is Living in a Material World: Economic Sociology Meets Science and Tehcnology Studies, (edited with Richard Swedberg, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (in press)) Analog Days was the winner of the 2003 silver award for popular culture “Book of the Year” of Foreword Magazine. The Golem: What You Should Know About Science (with Harry Collins, Cambridge: Canto 1998 2nd edition) was winner of the Robert Merton prize of the American Sociological Association. He is currently researching the online music community ACIDplanet.com.  相似文献   

9.
The current crisis of neoliberalism is calling into question the relevance of key international institutions. We analyze the origins, nature, and possible impacts of the crisis through comparing two such institutions: the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Both originated in the post-World War II U.S.-led hegemonic order and were transformed as part of the transition to global neoliberalism. We show that while the IMF and the WTO have been part of the same hegemonic project, their distinct institutional features have put them on significantly different trajectories. Historical differences in the two institutions’ systems of rules have placed the IMF in a more vulnerable position than the WTO, which provides clues to the future contours of global economic governance.
Nitsan Chorev (Corresponding author)Email:
Sarah BabbEmail:

Nitsan Chorev   is Assistant Professor of Sociology at Brown University. She is the author of Remaking U.S. Trade Policy: from Protectionism to Globalization (Cornell University Press, 2007), and is now working on a book on the global politics of health. Sarah Babb   is Associate Professor of Sociology at Boston College. She is the author of Behind the Development Banks: Washington Politics, World Poverty, and the Wealth of Nations (University of Chicago Press, 2009), which explores the impact of American politics on the World Bank and regional development institutions.  相似文献   

10.
Overcoming path dependency: path generation in open systems   总被引:2,自引:1,他引:1  
Studies on societal path dependencies tend to focus on mechanisms that anchor and stabilize national trajectories while paying less attention to transnational interactions and multilevel governance. This paper explores processes of path transformation in societies that are presumed to have the characteristics of open systems. Two pairs of case studies are presented and compared. The first illustrates institutional change through collision, when a national path meets with another. The second describes the emergence of transnational institutional paths and the impact of that process on national institutions and their (potential) transformation. The results indicate that path transformation often stems from a gradual succession and combination of incremental steps and junctures – change is gradual but consequential. They also point to increasing co-evolutionary interaction between national path transformation and transnational path creation. This implies a need for analytical tools that are adapted to the analysis of multi-level, nested processes of institutionalization and de-institutionalization. The paper suggests that the concept of path generation allows for a better specification of the conditions for change in existing societal paths and for the emergence of new paths in the case of open systems than the concept of path dependency.
Marie-Laure Djelic (Corresponding author)Email:
Sigrid QuackEmail:

Marie-Laure Djelic   is Professor at ESSEC Business School, Paris, in the Management Department. She holds a PhD in Sociology from Harvard University. She is the author of Exporting the American Model (Oxford University Press, 1998), which obtained the 2000 Max Weber Award for the Best Book in Organizational Sociology from the American Sociological Association. She has edited, together with Sigrid Quack, Globalization and Institutions (Edward Elgar, 2003). With Kerstin Sahlin-Andersson, she has recently produced a collaborative volume, Transnational Governance: Institutional Dynamics of Regulation (Cambridge University Press, 2006). Her current research interests range from the role of professions and social networks in the transnational diffusion and construction of rules and practices to the historical transformation of national institutions. Sigrid Quack   is Senior Research Fellow at the Social Science Research Center Berlin (Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung). She holds a PhD in sociology from the Free University Berlin. Her books include Dynamik der Teilzeitarbeit (Edition Sigma, 1993), National Capitalisms, Global Competition and Economic Performance (Benjamins, 2000), which she edited together with Glenn Morgan and Richard Whitley, Globalization and Institutions (Edward Elgar, 2003), edited with Marie-Laure Djelic and Grenzüberschreitungen-Grenzziehungen (Edition Sigma, 2006), edited with Ariane Berthoin-Antal. She is currently conducting research on forms of gradual institutional change, the internationalization of professions as well as their role in transnational rule setting.  相似文献   

11.
The social order of markets   总被引:2,自引:0,他引:2  
In this article I develop a proposal for the theoretical vantage point of the sociology of markets, focusing on the problem of the social order of markets. The initial premise is that markets are highly demanding arenas of social interaction, which can only operate if three inevitable coordination problems are resolved. I define these coordination problems as the value problem, the problem of competition and the cooperation problem. I argue that these problems can only be resolved based on stable reciprocal expectations on the part of market actors, which have their basis in the socio-structural, institutional and cultural embedding of markets. The sociology of markets aims to investigate how market action is structured by these macrostructures and to examine their dynamic processes of change. While the focus of economic sociology has been primarily on the stability of markets and the reproduction of firms, the conceptualization developed here brings change and profit motives more forcefully into the analysis. It also differs from the focus of the new economic sociology on the supply side of markets, by emphasizing the role of demand for the order of markets, especially in the discussion of the problems of valuation and cooperation.
Jens BeckertEmail:

Jens Beckert   is Professor of Sociology and Director of the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies in Cologne. Book publications include Inherited Wealth, Princeton University Press, 2008; Beyond the Market: The Social Foundations of Economic Efficiency, Princeton University Press 2002; and the International Encyclopedia of Economic Sociology (co-edited with Milan Zafirovski), Routledge 2006. His research focuses on the fields of economic sociology, sociology of inheritance, organization studies, and social theory.  相似文献   

12.
Contemporary US labor solidarity faces new opportunities and challenges in the midst of global economic and governmental restructuring. Indicative of these changes the 1996 welfare reform has created a new brand of contingent government contract workers to implement welfare-to-work while simultaneously fostering contingent work among welfare clients. In this paper I use ethnographic data from a major city in New York State to explore the relative positioning of these labor groups and I ask whether contingent government workers could mediate between organized labor and welfare recipients, thereby facilitating political collaboration. I conclude by identifying considerable structural and interpersonal barriers to solidarity including lack of contingent worker consciousness, difference in “skill” levels, antagonistic relationships with clients and a tendency to interpret client hardships in terms of personal defects. I contrast these findings with instances where labor unions have become involved in welfare issues and propose steps toward a new paradigm for labor solidarity.
Frank RidziEmail:

Frank Ridzi   is Director of Urban and Regional Studies and Assistant Professor of Sociology at Le Moyne College. He has conducted research and written in the areas of social welfare policy, sociology of work, and student affairs. His recent work has appeared in such places as the Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, Research in the Sociology of Work, Review of Policy Research and the NASPA Journal of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.  相似文献   

13.
Bourdieu and organizational analysis   总被引:1,自引:0,他引:1  
Despite some promising steps in the right direction, organizational analysis has yet to exploit fully the theoretical and empirical possibilities inherent in the writings of Pierre Bourdieu. While certain concepts associated with his thought, such as field and capital, are already widely known in the organizational literature, the specific ways in which these terms are being used provide ample evidence that the full significance of his relational mode of thought has yet to be sufficiently apprehended. Moreover, the almost complete inattention to habitus, the third of Bourdieu’s major concepts, without which the concepts of field and capital (at least as he deployed them) make no sense, further attests to the misappropriation of his ideas and to the lack of appreciation of their potential usefulness. It is our aim in this paper, by contrast, to set forth a more informed and comprehensive account of what a relational – and, in particular, a Bourdieu-inspired – agenda for organizational research might look like. Accordingly, we examine the implications of his theoretical framework for interorganizational relations, as well as for organizations themselves analyzed as fields. The primary advantage of such an approach, we argue, is the central place accorded therein to the social conditions under which inter- and intraorganizational power relations are produced, reproduced, and contested. Emirbayer and Johnson are equal co-authors of this article
Mustafa Emirbayer (Corresponding author)Email:
Victoria JohnsonEmail:

Mustafa Emirbayer   is Professor of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. He is the author of numerous articles on pragmatist sociological theory, cultural analysis, and Bourdieusian sociology, including “Pragmatism, Bourdieu, and Collective Emotions in Contentious Politics” (with Chad Goldberg, Theory and Society 2005), “Bourdieu and Social Work” (with Eva Williams, Social Service Review 2005), and “Manifesto for a Relational Sociology” (American Journal of Sociology 1997). He is currently at work on two companion volumes on race (both with Matthew Desmond): an undergraduate textbook entitled The Sociology of Racial Domination (McGraw-Hill, forthcoming) and a theoretical study entitled The Theory of Racial Domination. Victoria Johnson   is Assistant Professor of Organizational Studies at the University of Michigan. She is the author of Backstage at the Revolution: How the Royal Paris Opera Survived the End of the Old Regime, to be published in 2008 by the University of Chicago Press. She also lead-edited the interdisciplinary volume Opera and Society in Italy and France from Monteverdi to Bourdieu (Cambridge University Press 2007). Her current research focuses on mission and identity shifts in U.S. botanical gardens from the nineteenth century to the present.  相似文献   

14.
Like all new research fields, the “new economic sociology” was produced by the redeployment of relatively diverse researchers under a single academic label. Academic entrepreneurs in the second half of the 1980s took up the traditional term of the European “founding fathers” claiming they were renewing the discipline while distinguishing themselves from (1) the old homegrown denomination “economy and society,” (2) anti-disciplinary currents such as neo-Marxism, and (3) interdisciplinary movements like “socioeconomics.” The relative unity of the new economic sociology was due more to this set of demarcations than to a specific intellectual approach. The new economic sociology obtained its scientific legitimacy by bringing together two promising new currents: network analysis and neo-institutionalism, along with a more marginal cultural mode of analysis. While there had been very little exchange among these currents, mutual references became more ecumenical once a common label had emerged and distinct intellectual programs were launched. Institutional legitimacy was quickly obtained thanks to the support of the Russell Sage Foundation, enabling a process of expansion that in Europe developed far more slowly. The case of the “new economic sociology” demonstrates that the creation of new subdisciplines cannot be understood merely through the analysis of direct interactions among persons linked to each other by inter-acquaintanceship. In accordance with a field theoretical approach, academic entrepreneurs function under structural conditions which must also be taken into account. Among these structural conditions were changes in the academic field itself (due to demographical effects, the imperialism of economics, and the surge in Business Schools) as well as in the political sphere (the rise of neo-liberalism).
Bernard Convert (Corresponding author)Email:
Johan HeilbronEmail:

Bernard Convert   is a sociologist at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (France) and at Lille University (CLERSE Laboratory). His current research interests are the sociology of education, economic sociology and the sociology of the Internet. Recent publications are a collective work, Repenser le marché (2003) and Les groupes professionnels et l’internet (with L. Demailly) (2006 in press). Johan Heilbron   is a sociologist at the Centre de sociologie européenne (CSE) in Paris and at Erasmus University in Rotterdam. Among his research interests are the historical sociology of the social sciences, economic sociology, the sociology of culture and transnational exchange. Recent book publications are The Rise of Social Theory (1995), The Rise of the Social Sciences and the Formation of Modernity (with L. Magnusson and B. Wittrock, 1998, paperback 2001), Pour une histoire des sciences sociales. Hommage à Pierre Bourdieu (with R. Lenoir and G. Sapiro, 2004).  相似文献   

15.
Elite college admissions exemplify processes of social closure in which status-group conflict, organizational self-interest, the strategic use of cultural ideals of merit, and broader social trends and contingent historical events interweave to shape institutional power in the United States. The Chosen, Jerome Karabel’s monumental study of the history of college admissions at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton from 1900 to 2005, offers a political sociology of elite recruitment and a cultural and social history of the definition of merit that has guided these three schools and shaped much current thinking about college admissions. As Max Weber reminded us, the very definition of cultural ideals of an epoch bear the stamp of elite group domination: not cultural ideals but cultural interests and their strategic uses guide institutional power. The book provides an impressive empirical demonstration of that proposition: it identifies four different definitions of merit as organizational gatekeeping tools that have guided Harvard, Yale, and Princeton over the last hundred years and shows how these definitions were molded by status-group conflict and organizational interests. This essay outlines the central arguments of Karabel’s book; it identifies key contributions for our understanding of the history, culture, organizational interests, and politics of these three institutions; it highlights the social closure framework guiding the analysis; and it reflects on a fundamental ambiguity in Karabel’s thinking about meritocratic ideals as governing principles for modern stratified societies. A review essay on Jerome Karabel, The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2005,
David L. SwartzEmail:

David L. Swartz   is Assistant Professor of Sociology at Boston University. He is the author of Culture & Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu (University of Chicago Press 1997) and co-editor (with Vera L. Zolberg) of After Bourdieu: Influence, Critique, Elaboration (Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004). He is a Senior Editor and Book Review Editor for Theory and Society. His research interests include the study of elites and stratification, education, culture, religion, and social theory, and he is currently writing a book on the political sociology of Pierre Bourdieu.  相似文献   

16.
The purpose of this theoretical article is to contribute to the analysis of knowledge and valuation in markets. In every market actors must know how to value its products. The analytical point of departure is the distinction between two ideal types of markets that are mutually exclusive, status and standard. In a status market, valuation is a function of the status rank orders or identities of the actors on both sides of the market, which is more entrenched than the value of what is traded in the market. In a market characterized by a standard, the situation is reversed; the scale of value is more entrenched than the rankings of actors in the market. In a status market actors need to know about the other actors involved as there is no scale of value for evaluating the items traded in the market independently of its buyers and sellers. In a standard market it is more important to know how to meet the standard in relation to which all items traded are valued. The article includes empirical examples and four testable hypotheses.
Patrik AspersEmail:

Patrik Aspers   is Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies in Cologne, Germany, and Associate Professor of Sociology at the Department of Sociology, Stockholm University. His research is focused on economic sociology and sociological theory.  相似文献   

17.
This article examines how former prisoners of color conceptualize their political, social, and economic futures and how these conceptualizations relate to the racialized social structural obstacles encountered upon reentry and decisions to re-engage criminal labor. I find that, presented with similar post-prison challenges, excarcerated men take several approaches when reentering society. I argue that the differences among their approaches lie in their varying interpretations of how they can act as individuals against and within their social structural limitations. Their decisions to rejoin or forfeit participation in criminal economies are thus shaped by experiences confronting the limitations of material conditions but also emerge from their critiques of racialized structures.
Lucia TrimburEmail:

Lucia Trimbur   is Assistant Professor of Sociology at John Jay College/ CUNY. Her research and teaching interests include race and racisms, ethnographic field methods, sociology of crime and punishment, urban inequality, and gender.  相似文献   

18.
Approaching adulthood: the maturing of institutional theory   总被引:3,自引:0,他引:3  
I summarize seven general trends in the institutional analysis of organizations which I view as constructive and provide evidence of progress in the development of this perspective. I emphasize corrections in early theoretical limitations as well as improvements in the use of empirical indicators and an expansion of the types of organizations included and issues addressed by institutional theorists.
W. Richard ScottEmail:

W. Richard (Dick) Scott   is currently Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Stanford University. He has remained at Stanford for his entire professional career with courtesy appointments in the Graduate School of Business, School of Education and School of Medicine. He directed an interdisciplinary research training program on organizations research supported by NIMH from 1972 to 1987, and served as the founding director of the Stanford Center for Organizations Research (SCOR) from 1988–1995. His major publications include three monographs, Evaluation and the Exercise of Authority (1975, with Sanford M. Dornbusch), Hospital Structure and Performance (1987, with Ann Barry Flood), and Institutional Change and Healthcare Organizations (2000, with Martin Ruef, Peter J. Mendel, and Carol A. Caronna); and three texts, Formal Organizations (1961, with Peter M. Blau), Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural and Open System Perspectives (2007, with Gerald F. Davis), and Institutions and Organizations (2008). He is currently collaborating with colleagues in the education to study the role of advocacy groups in inducing institutional change, and with colleagues in engineering to study institutional factors affecting the success of global projects.  相似文献   

19.
This is a discussion of a book by Kathryn Linn Geurts, Culture and the Senses. Bodily Ways of Knowing in an African Community, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2002; and a book by Judith Farquhar, Appetites. Food and Sex in Post-Socialist China, Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press, 2002.
Larissa BuchholzEmail:
  相似文献   

20.
Modeling firms in the global economy   总被引:1,自引:0,他引:1  
I examine the apparent deverticalization of firms in the world economy and their adoption of relational contracting and modularization, necessitated by rapid product change, cheap and rapid transport, and new technologies. I argue that relational contracting is superseded by modularization when possible in the interest of more control over suppliers, and modularization in turn leads to consolidation, when possible, through buying up suppliers or making them captives. The result is increased concentration of economic power in the world economy, and examples of this are presented.
Charles PerrowEmail:

Charles Perrow   is Emeritus Professor of Sociology, Yale University. His most recent book is The Next Catastrophe: Reducing Our Vulnerabilities to Natural, Industrial, and Terrorist Disasters, Princeton University Press, 2007. In 2001, he published Organizing America: Wealth, Power, and the Origins of Corporate Capitalism, Princeton University Press. His current research concerns internet security and operating systems architecture, the organization of large technical systems, and the organizational aspects of climate change.  相似文献   

设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号