Search results

What is the future of work going to look like? The aim of this paper is to show how the sociology of expectations (SE) – which deals with the power of visions – can make important contributions in terms of thinking about this issue by critically evaluating the dominant expert positions related to the future-of-employment- and artificial intelligence (AI) debate.

After providing a literature review regarding SE, an approach based on the latter is applied to interpret the dominant ideal-type expert positions in the future of work debate to illustrate the value of this perspective.

Dominant future scripts can be characterized by a focus on the effects of AI technology that give agency to technology and to the future, involve the hype of expectations with polarized frames, and obscure uncertainty. It is argued that these expectations can have significant consequences. They contribute to the closing off of alternative pathways to the future by making some conversations possible, while hindering others. In order to advance understanding, more sophisticated theorizing is needed which goes beyond these positions and which takes uncertainty and the mutual shaping of technology and society into account – including the role expectations play.

The study asserts that the dominant positions contain problematic assumptions. It makes suggestions for helping move beyond these current framings of the debate theoretically. It also argues that scenario building and backcasting are two tools that could help move forward thinking about the future of work – especially if this is done in a way so as to build strongly on SE.

The arguments presented herein enhance sense-making in relation to the future-of-work debate, and can contribute to policy development.

There is a lack of adequate exploration of the role of visions related to AI and their consequences. This paper attempts to address this gap by applying an SE approach and emphasizing the performative force of visions.

This chapter explores the emergence, growth, and current status of the sociology of sport in Canada. Such an endeavour includes acknowledging the work and efforts of Canadian scholars – whether Canadian by birth or naturalization or just as a result of their geographic location – who have contributed to the vibrant and robust academic discipline that is the sociology of sport in Canadian institutions coast-to-coast, and who have advanced the socio-cultural study of sport globally in substantial ways. This chapter does not provide an exhaustive description and analysis of the past and present states of the sociology of sport in Canada; in fact, it is important to note that an in-depth, critical and comprehensive analysis of our field in Canada is sorely lacking. Rather, this chapter aims to highlight the major historical drivers (both in terms of people and trends) of the field in Canada; provide a snapshot of the sociology of sport in Canada currently; and put forth some ideas as to future opportunities and challenges for the field in Canada.

This article addresses the way in which perceptions about the globalized nature of the world in which we live are beginning to have an impact within sociology such that sociology has to engage not just with the changing conceptual architecture of globalization, but also with recognition of the epistemological value and agency of the world beyond the West. I address three main developments within sociology that focus on these concerns: first, the shift to a multiple modernities paradigm; second, a call for a multicultural global sociology; and third, an argument in favor of a global cosmopolitan approach. While the three approaches under discussion are based on a consideration of the “rest of the world,” their terms, I suggest, are not adequate to the avowed intentions. None of these responses is sufficient in their address of earlier omissions and each falls back into the problems of the mainstream position that is otherwise being criticized. In contrast, I argue that it is only by acknowledging the significance of the “colonial global” in the constitution of sociology that it is possible to understand and address the necessarily postcolonial (and decolonial) present of “global sociology.”

In this chapter, I aim to present a review on the constitution of the sociology of sport as a subfield in Brazil. To do so, I start with the debate over its history, the current status of this academic area and the factors that led to its development. Additionally, I present the main organizations, funding institutions, and the events that support this field. I briefly identify the main postgraduate programs in the country that enable sociological research in sport, mapping their distribution geographically. Next, I present some introductory works of reference on the sociology of sport in Brazil, as well as discussing some authors that were and are key to the field. I highlight the main topics of interest in Brazilian sociology of sport as well as their methodological models and the main theoretical bases of analysis used by late and early career researchers. In conclusion, I evaluate the comprehension and the representation of sport in society and in the academy, pointing to some future perspectives of development and consolidation of the sociology of sport in Brazil.

Sociology of sport in the United Kingdom is as old as the subdiscipline itself but was uniquely shaped by the prominence of football hooliganism as a major social issue in the 1970s and 1980s. While it remains a somewhat niche activity, the field has been stimulated by the growing cultural centrality of sport in UK society. This quantitative and qualitative development has been recognized in recent governmental evaluations of research expertise. Current research reflects this expanded range of social stratification and social issues in sport both domestically and on a global level, while the legacy of hooligan research is evident in the continuing concentration on studies of association football. Historically, this empirical research has largely been underpinned by figurational, Marxist/neo-Marxist, or feminist sociological theories, but there is now a greater emphasis on theoretical synthesis and exploration. As a consequence of the expansion of the field, allied to its empirical and theoretical diversity, there is a burgeoning literature produced by UK sociologists of sport that spans entry-level textbooks, research monographs, and the editorship of a significant number of specialist journals. The chapter concludes by noting the future prospects of the sociology of sport in the United Kingdom in relation to teaching, research, and relations with other sport-related subdisciplines and the sociological mainstream.

Sociology of sport in China has evolved from being an “exotic” subject to a localized subject over the past 35 years. It is closely associated with social changes, sports policy and athletic achievement of China. As a discipline of humanitarian and social sciences of sport, it is taught in virtually all universities with sports majors. There are about 500 scholars specializing in sport sociology in the country. Textbooks written by Chinese and foreign scholars are published. Academic papers on sport sociology are often published in the 15 accredited core sports journals. The most productive authors are from universities and the developed provinces and municipalities. The established research areas of sport sociology are extensive. These include national identity, athlete mobility, Olympic legacy, sport for all, sports industry issues, feminist studies, community sport, sport for the aged and disabled, etc. However, there are few studies with critical analysis and only a few in the areas of sport and religion, sport and race, and deviance in sport in China. Various kinds of financial support at different levels are available in the country. Empirical research is common with literature review, questionnaire, case study, and interview being the most frequently used methods. However, sport sociology is not considered as a major topic but as a research direction and it is not accepted widely by mainstream sociology. The future of sport sociology is promising, but not without challenges.

Three questions are explored regarding ethnozoology’s place in sociology. First, why has sociology been slow to explore this subject or to give it much credibility? Resistance by sociologists to ethnozoology is strikingly ironic, given the discipline’s willingness in recent years to consider the plight of virtually every human minority. Although androcentric and conservative biases no doubt are part of this resistance, it is suggested that significant resistance comes from sociologists involved in the study of various oppressed groups. Second, what has sociology done to study ethnozoology so far? Acritique is made of prior attempts to categorize research in this area along topical lines. Instead, the value of theoretically organizing this literature is advocated. Finally, how should sociology proceed with ethnozoological research? An argument is made for increasing applied research. Two exemplars are provided, including the trend by police to racially profile urban pit‐bull owners and the growth of uneasiness among veterinary students who resist the traditional use of animals as educational tools.

This chapter offers a comparative description of the separatist development of mainstream sociology focusing on sport-related phenomena versus the sociology of sport located within Human Movement or Sport Science departments at public universities in South Africa. Key findings relate to the production of fragmented bodies of knowledge, individual research agendas, and national funding in alignment with national development priorities that guide current neo-colonial knowledge production practices. There is a domination of political themes (pre- and post-apartheid) with more recent foci on nation building and Sport for Development and Peace which only partly respond to the call for indigenous knowledge production and critical scholarly work. The increased publications and mainstream sociological inquiry of the 2010 FIFA World Cup were not maintained as scholars continue to work in isolation. Other main sociological themes for both sectors include gender, with only a few established scholars producing critical work in response to a national call for an ‘Africanization’, anti-colonial stance in knowledge production. There seems to be an increasing trend to bridge the theory–practice divide and serve the public sphere which further pushes critical sociological work to the margins of both fields. The chapter provides a comparative analysis and critical overview of the development and current sociology of sport practices at public South African universities. It articulates the most significant discourses with global and local manifestations, and as such communicates key critical findings to guide strategic synergies and future sociological research.