Search results

For sociological perspectives on globalization to do justice to its many facets, they must be informed by an understanding of modern societies as simultaneously complex, contingent, and contradictory – as modern capitalist societies. As is becoming ever more apparent, such an understanding of modern societies is the necessary precondition for identifying the defining features of globalization. Yet, for the most part, the history of the social sciences did not produce research agendas, theories, and methods designed to grasp complexity, contingency, and contradiction as core dimensions of modern social life that continually reinforce each other. The social sciences did not evolve as ongoing efforts to grasp the gravity each dimension exerts on concrete forms of political, economic and cultural life, and how the force of each depends on the constant exchange of energy with the other two. To the extent that scrutinizing the impact of globalization on the future – and possible futures – of human civilization is the primary challenge for social scientists to confront today, the current condition presents a unique, and perhaps most unusual opportunity to conceive anew the promise of each and all the social sciences, as elucidating how the complex, contingent, and contradictory nature of modern societies, in the name of advancing social justice, has engendered a regime of managing “social problems.”

For perspectives on globalization to do justice to its many facets, they must be informed by an understanding of modern societies as simultaneously complex, contingent, and contradictory – as modern capitalist societies. As is becoming ever more apparent, such an understanding of modern societies is the necessary precondition for identifying the defining features of globalization. Yet, for the most part, the history of the social sciences did not produce research agendas, theories, and methods designed to grasp complexity, contingency, and contradiction as core dimensions of modern social life that continually reinforce each other. The social sciences did not evolve as ongoing efforts to grasp the gravity each dimension exerts on concrete forms of political, economic, and cultural life, and how the force of each depends on the constant exchange of energy with the other two. To the extent that scrutinizing the impact of globalization on the future – find possible futures – of human civilization is the primary challenge for social scientists to confront today, the current condition presents a unique, and perhaps most unusual opportunity to conceive anew the promise of each and all the social sciences, as elucidating how the complex, contingent, and contradictory nature of modern societies, in the name of advancing social justice, has engendered a regime of managing “social problems.”

This chapter describes gender differences in Montevideo through the study of daily mobility. Generally, mobility studies do not account for gender differences more than in a superficial way, distinguishing basic travel patterns by sex. However, different patterns and mobility behaviours can obscure situations of deeply entrenched gender inequality that have direct consequences on the opportunities that men and women are able to reach. To disentangle these inequalities, this work addresses some mainstream mobility indicators classified by gender but also some specific indicators, with special attention to care mobility as a factor that can restrain women’s ability to move. Moreover, a tour-based analysis is performed to shed light on gendered schedules and mobility patterns. Results show that women’s mode share comprises a larger proportion of transit trips, they travel shorter distances – investing more time – and they contribute in a greater proportion than men to care mobility, especially among the lower quintiles of income. While men’s commuting patterns have a defined ‘home-based work’ profile, women have a higher level of heterogeneity in their daily itineraries. Access to private motorised means of transport is a key variable in explaining the configuration of mobility patterns, and there is a persistent gender gap in this matter. The chapter concludes that, as several authors have reported, gender is a marker in terms of mobility. It sets specific conditions for urban life in general and mobility in particular that, in turn, may be the cause of further inequality.

Purpose – This paper examines Hayek's view of the mind to see if it provides a useful and unifying foundation for understanding both deliberative choices that involve conscious information processing (the ‘economic imagination’) and choices that are not determined by conscious processes such as those involving ‘gut feelings’ or knowledge that the chooser is unable to articulate (the ‘tacit dimension’).

Methodology/approach – The paper analyses Hayek's view of the mind from the standpoint of evolutionary economics and biology. Because of the significance of pattern detection in Hayek's analysis, the paper examines parallels with key ideas in personal construct psychology and artificial intelligence. As well as exploring the evolutionary advantages of behavior based on programmed responses to the detection of particular patterns, it also explores possible evolutionary and neural origins of dysfunctional heuristics and biases.

Findings – Hayek's theory of the mind provides useful foundations for analyzing choice in a evolving, pluralistic and context-based manner rather than seeing all choices as made in much the same way on the basis of ‘given preferences’ that obey the axioms of rational choice theory. His theory complements work in psychological economics based on Kelly's personal construct psychology, cognitive dissonance theory and Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The analysis leads to questions being raised about the conventional faith in the notion of a diminishing marginal rate of substitution.

Originality/value of paper – The paper shows how very different ways of choosing can be understood in terms of Hayek's analysis of the mind.

Technological innovation in context has been studied by economists and sociologists of technical change and innovation. I shall present the insights and perspectives from this body of literature (including some of my own work), in order to highlight the dynamics of technological innovation processes and the possibilities to influence them — by managers, as well as governmental and societal actors. These actors often work with a limited view of the complexities of technological change and innovation, and they might do better if they were to use recent insights, as I have argued previously (Rip, 1995). Thus, a further topic, visible between the lines of my main exposé, is the relation between the “theory” — i.e., insights from social scientific studies — and the “practice” of policy or action.

Rather than organize as traditional firms, many of today’s companies organize as platforms that sit at the nexus of multiple exchange and production relationships. This chapter considers a most basic question of organization in platform contexts: the choice of boundaries. Herein, I investigate how classical economic theories of firm boundaries apply to platform-based organization and empirically study how executives made boundary choices in response to changing market and technical challenges in the early mobile computing industry (the predecessor to today’s smartphones). Rather than a strict or unavoidable tradeoff between “openness-versus-control,” most successful platform owners chose their boundaries in a way to simultaneously open-up to outside developers while maintaining coordination across the entire system.

Early on, public libraries in America tended toward grand appearances befitting seriousness of purpose. Library design changed gradually through the 20th century and more dramatically with automation and new technology. Today's libraries are becoming lively community cultural centers that may include art galleries, flexible auditoriums, meeting and conference rooms, media lounges, and cafés.

This chapter discusses changes in public library design. It focuses on four recent examples – two traditional libraries and two innovative libraries. The changing requirements present significant challenges for library administrators and for the architects who must design the libraries to be organized and used appropriately, now and in the future.