Search results

The diversity of social forms both regionally and historically calls for a paradigmatic reassessment of concepts used to map human societies comparatively. By differentiating “social analytics” from “explanatory narratives,” we can distinguish concept and generic model development from causal analyses of actual empirical phenomena. In so doing, we show how five heuristic models of “modes of social practices” enable such paradigmatic formation in sociology. This reinforces Max Weber’s emphasis on the irreducible historicity of explanations in the social sciences.

Explanatory narrative.

A paradigmatic consolidation of generalizing concepts, modes of social practices, ideal-type concepts, and generic models presents a range of “theoretical tools” capable of facilitating empirical analysis as flexibly as possible, rather than cramping their range with overly narrow conceptual strictures.

To render social theory as flexible for practical field research as possible.

Develops a way of synthesizing diverse theoretical and methodological approaches in a highly pragmatic fashion.

Studies of public policy, particularly the explanation and prediction of policy outcomes, are motivated by a desire to improve policy success. However, most policies fall far short of solving problems. Why is it so difficult for policy to succeed? Biology's answer: because we are human. Many natural tendencies are less than optimal for the policy cognition and behavior necessary to make effective policy popular. The portions of human nature which are most interesting for our purposes include the way humans think, the role of emotion, the power of interpersonal relationships, the power of belonging to a group, and the power of competition for status. These human realities anticipate ineffective policy development. Knowing something about humans might explain why it is difficult for policy to succeed.

Morality is primarily a system of values, meanings, convictions, beliefs, principles, and drivers of good behavior and good outcomes in any organization. Using systems thinking concepts and applications introduced and developed during the last 50 years or so by various scholars from MIT, Stanford, and Wharton, such as Chris Argyris, Russell Ackoff, G. K. Forrester, Peter Senge, Stephen Covey, and Jim Collins, this chapter seeks to explore various past and contemporary market systems and challenges in terms of specific inputs, processes, and outputs. Systems thinking reckons everything in the cosmos (usually classified as subjects, objects, properties, and events) as a system (composed of two or more interactive parts with individual and interactive effects) that is connected to every other system in the universe. Various systems thinking laws and archetypes that have been developed thus far by systems thinkers will be introduced in order to identify basic patterns, structures, and constraints of human thinking and reasoning that create market phenomena. The academic and managerial challenge is to identify, explore, and capitalize such nonobvious connections for creating and developing new markets and corporate growth opportunities in the highly turbulent markets of today. In a globalized, digitized, and networked planet and universe, systems thinking is a very effective tool for analyzing turbulent market systems holistically and in an inclusive and integrated manner, with their specific inputs, processes, and outcomes. Several contemporary market cases will be included to illustrate the contents of this chapter.

What can the applied economist do? In order to explore issues playing out in the “real world” of the past or present, the applied social scientist has to make a series of decisions about what they will accept as the facts of the situation. Particularly for research questions in which the beliefs, plans, and motivations of individuals matter – such as institutional analysis – this task requires the development of some degree of intersubjective understanding, or verstehen. For over 50 years, the Bloomington School of Institutional Analysis has been using fieldwork and deep archival history to conduct meaningful institutional analysis that takes interpretation and the quest for understanding seriously. As such, those who wish to take up the call for economists to take an “interpretive turn” can gain a great deal of insight and practical advice from the study of the Bloomington School’s methods and approach.

This exploratory study, a Ph.D. dissertation completed at the University of Western Ontario in 2013, examines the materially embedded relations of power between library users and staff in public libraries and how building design regulates spatial behavior according to organizational objectives. It considers three public library buildings as organization spaces (Dale & Burrell, 2008) and determines the extent to which their spatial organizations reproduce the relations of power between the library and its public that originated with the modern public library building type ca. 1900. Adopting a multicase study design, I conducted site visits to three, purposefully selected public library buildings of similar size but various ages. Site visits included: blueprint analysis; organizational document analysis; in-depth, semi-structured interviews with library users and library staff; cognitive mapping exercises; observations; and photography.

Despite newer approaches to designing public library buildings, the use of newer information technologies, and the emergence of newer paradigms of library service delivery (e.g., the user-centered model), findings strongly suggest that the library as an organization still relies on many of the same socio-spatial models of control as it did one century ago when public library design first became standardized. The three public libraries examined show spatial organizations that were designed primarily with the librarian, library materials, and library operations in mind far more than the library user or the user’s many needs. This not only calls into question the public library’s progressiveness over the last century but also hints at its ability to survive in the new century.

Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to show that because the evolutionary roots of many kinds of phenotypic social phenomena can be partly traced to genotypic factors, it would be useful for social sciences to adopt a socio-biological research formula, which combines the impacts of genotypic and environmental explanatory factors.

Design/methodology/approach – The exclusion of evolutionary factors from social sciences and some previous studies using evolutionary factors is first reviewed, after which a socio-biological research formula (y=(a+b)+x) is introduced. It is hypothesized that national IQ as an important genotypic factor explains a significant part of the global variation in all kinds of phenotypic social phenomena. The hypothesis is tested and the use of the socio-biological research formula is illustrated by studies of democratization (ID-10) and human development (HDI-11).

Findings – The results of correlation analysis support the hypothesis on the evolutionary variable’s (national IQ) universal explanatory power. National IQ explains 33 percent of the variation in ID-10 and 68 percent of the variation in HDI-11. Environmental variables increase significantly the explained part of variation in a dependent variable in the case of ID-10 but less in the case of HDI-11.

Practical implications – Because it is evident that national IQ as an evolutionary variable explains a significant part of the variation in all kinds of phenotypic social phenomena, it would be sensible for social sciences to adopt the suggested socio-biological research formula based on the idea that intelligence constitutes an important common explanatory factor.

Originality/value – The suggested socio-biological research formula provides for the social sciences a common theoretical starting point to study many kinds of social problems.