Real social analytics: A contribution towards a phenomenology of a digital world

This article argues against the assumption that agency and reflexivity disappear in an age of ‘algorithmic power’ (Lash 2007). Following the suggestions of Beer (2009), it proposes that, far from disappearing, new forms of agency and reflexivity around the embedding in everyday practice of not only algorithms but also analytics more broadly are emerging, as social actors continue to pursue their social ends but mediated through digital interfaces: this is the consequence of many social actors now needing their digital presence, regardless of whether they want this, to be measured and counted. The article proposes ‘social analytics’ as a new topic for sociology: the sociological study of social actors’ uses of analytics not for the sake of measurement itself (or to make profit from measurement) but in order to fulfil better their social ends through an enhancement of their digital presence. The article places social analytics in the context of earlier debates about categorization, algorithmic power, and self‐presentation online, and describes in detail a case study with a UK community organization which generated the social analytics approach. The article concludes with reflections on the implications of this approach for further sociological fieldwork in a digital world.     

Exploring normativity in disability studies

Normativity is a concept that is often misapplied in disability studies, especially in ‘postconventional’ accounts, where the concept is conflated with ‘normal’, ‘normate’, or ‘standard’. This article addresses this confusion, explores the meaning and use of ‘normativity’, and presents some analytic tools to discuss normative issues of right and wrong. The article finishes by discussing examples where conceptual confusions result in confused normative judgments focusing in particular on agency, responsibility and moral status. The article argues that disability research should carefully consider the use of theories and empirical knowledge in the light of their ethical implications as well as the lived experiences of disability.     

Dangerous Climate Change: The Role for Risk Research

The notion of "dangerous climate change" constitutes an important development of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It persists, however, as an ambiguous expression, sustained by multiple definitions of danger. It also implicitly contains the question of how to respond to the complex and multi-disciplinary risk issues that climate change poses. The invaluable role of the climate science community, which relies on risk assessments to characterize system uncertainties and to identify limits beyond which changes may become dangerous, is acknowledged. But this alone will not suffice to develop long-term policy. Decisions need to include other considerations, such as value judgments about potential risks, and societal and individual perceptions of "danger," which are often contested. This article explores links and cross-overs between the climate science and risk communication and perception approaches to defining danger. Drawing upon nine articles in this Special Issue of Risk Analysis, we examine a set of themes: limits of current scientific understanding; differentiated public perceptions of danger from climate change; social and cultural processes amplifying and attenuating perceptions of, and responses to, climate change; risk communication design; and new approaches to climate change decision making. The article reflects upon some of the difficulties inherent in responding to the issue in a coherent, interdisciplinary fashion, concluding nevertheless that action should be taken, while acknowledging the context-specificity of "danger." The need for new policy tools is emphasised, while research on nested solutions should be aimed at overcoming the disjunctures apparent in interpretations of climate change risks.     

Gay and lesbian perceptions of discrimination in retirement care facilities

Much research on older gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) adults has focused on refuting the widely held misconceptions people have about GLBT lifestyles. To date, however, few studies on older GLBTs have examined their social and health care needs. Further, most studies have collected survey samples of older GLBT adults in large metropolitan areas and have not specifically addressed discrimination or bias in retirement care facilities. In the current exploratory study on perceptions of discrimination and bias in retirement care facilities, we surveyed a wide age range GLBT adults in a smaller metropolitan area of fewer than 400,000 people to discover the perceptions of both younger and older GLBTs. We surveyed perceptions of discrimination in retirement care facilities, sources of perceived discrimination, and suggestions for how discrimination might be reduced or eliminated in those settings. Respondents indicated that administration, care staff, and residents of retirement care facilities themselves were all potential sources of discrimination, and that education addressing awareness and acceptance of GLBTs is one potential remedy for discrimination against GLBTs in retirement care facilities. Respondents also indicated a strong desire for the development of GLBT-exclusive or GLBT-friendly retirement care facilities. Chi-square analyses of responses to the discrimination questions and respondents' demographic characteristics revealed significant differences with regard to age, income, gender, community size, and education level of the respondents.     

Safety culture: Key theoretical issues

The organizational preconditions to major systems failures are seen as increasingly important for risk management. However, existing empirical attempts to study safety culture and its relationship to organizational outcomes have remained fragmented and underspecified in theoretical terms. This is despite the existence of a number of well-developed theories of organizationally induced accidents and disasters. Reasons for this disfunction of theory and practice are first considered. The paper then outlines four key theoretical questions for safety culture researchers: the fact that culture acts simultaneously as a precondition both for safe operations and for the oversight of incubating hazards (the paradox of 'safety' culture); the challenge of dealing with complex and ill-structured hazardous situations where decision makers are faced with deep forms of uncertainty represented by incompleteness of knowledge or ignorance; the need to consider the construction of risk perceptions in workgroups, and to view risk acceptability as the outcome of a process of social negotiation; and the fact that institutional politics and power are critical for determining the achievement of safety culture goals, and in particular that of organizational learning.