Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explain why finding a theory for futures studies is such a demanding task. In particular, the paper paves the way towards a theoretical framework that goes beyond both positivism and anti‐positivism.

The paper discusses a network of mutually interlinked concepts, including: levels of reality; parts and wholes; causation; the multiplicity of times; anticipation; the thick present; and latents.

The paper presents the two main obstructions blocking the way towards a theory for futures studies (namely, the belief that the opposition between positivists and anti‐positivists is exhaustive, and the need for better connections with other sciences such as biology, cognitive science and the social sciences.

The paper discusses only one of the different threads in the elaboration of a theoretical basis for futures studies, namely the components closer to science.

A proper theory for futures studies will contribute to making them more robust and efficient.

The general framework presented by the paper extends well beyond the somewhat restricted field of futures studies and includes social and psychological sciences, together with biology.

This paper sketches an alliance between Roger Friedland’s institutional theory and the author’s own account of social practices. In addition to taking up such general issues as what theory alliances and institutions are, this paper draws the two theories together by conceptualizing institutional orders as components of the practice plenum and exploring convergences between institutional logics and practice organizations. This paper also neutralizes apparent divergences between the two theories concerning levels of society and affirms Friedland’s thesis that institutional change is tied to politics in a particular French, post-Heideggerian sense of politics.

A synthesis of the various strands of macro-sociology that is commensurate with a more robust theory of evolutionary institutionalism.

Drawing from what may be conceived of as classical institutionalism and from neo-evolutionary sociology and other related traditions, this chapter endeavors to provide a general theory of evolutionary institutionalism as an overview of institutions and institutional autonomy (along with the underlying forces driving the process of autonomy), to present a theory of institutional evolution that delineates the relevant units of selection and evolution, the types of mechanisms that facilitate institutional evolution, and a typology of the sources of variation.

The chapter constitutes the attempt to provide a theoretical framework intended to engender an improved historical-comparative institutionalism inspired by the works of Max Weber and Herbert Spencer.

The purpose of the theoretical framework presented should not be misconstrued as a general, “grand” theory for the discipline of the sociology as a whole, but rather understood as the model of a common vocabulary for sociologists interested in macro-sociology, institutions, and socio-cultural evolution designed to complement other available models.

As a synthesis, the originality of the theoretical framework presented lies in (1) elucidation of the idea that institutional autonomy as the “master” process of institutional evolution, (2) more precise delineation of the link between meso-level institutional entrepreneurs and institutional evolution, and (3) combination of a body of complementary – yet often loosely linked – bodies of scholarship.

The purpose of this paper is to clarify issues concerning the implications and usefulness of the concept of supervenience in social analysis and research.

Supervenience refers to the notion that interaction in complex systems gives rise to superordinate phenomena, possessing qualities that differ from those of the interacting entities “below”. In order to discuss the application of the concept in sociology, the article draws upon the distinction between “weak” and “strong” supervenience. “Weak” supervenience characterizes the superordinate as being independent of any particular patterning at subordinate levels, while “strong” supervenience refers to the existence of tighter, more knowable, relationships between the super‐ and sub‐ordinate.

The paper finds that analyses of the social have long been preoccupied with supervenient properties. Indeed, sociological disciplines can be usefully characterized and distinguished in terms of whether they assume “weak” or “strong” supervenience in their analysis of human affairs.

The research needs further critical investigation of the use of supervenience in current sociological discourse and analysis.

Through discussing its already important place in social analysis, the article argues for the refinement and critical application of supervenience in future social studies.

The paper reviews and refines issues concerning the importance and implications of supervenience for sociological analysis and social research.