Search results

This case study examines whether an academic listserv functions primarily as a medium for progressive discourse in which enacted power relations are collaborative or primarily as a medium for discourse in which norms are unilaterally established and off‐line hierarchical power relations are re‐enacted. A few instances of progressive norm setting and other indicators of collaborative power relations were found. However, findings overall suggest that the hierarchical power relations of the college context were re‐enacted in the listserv as revealed by the manner in which the discourse was patterned by gender, rank, and role.

The relevance of the work is determined by the fact that administrative law appears as one of the significant factors influencing the development of both the public administration system as a whole and the processes of its reform that the Russian Federation has faced today. The authors show that if the relations of state administration are the subject of the administrative law’s influence (after all, it is they who are influenced by administrative and legal norms), then we are faced with an extremely important question regarding the character and specificity of the relationship between administrative and legal relations and relations of state management, on the one hand, and analysis of the concept of administrative and legal regulation of public administration relations on the other. This goal is important, given that the authors substantiate the relationship between administrative law and public administration through identifying the possibilities of regulatory influence on the part of administrative law on public administration relations.

Prospects for the further development of the study are the formation of an understanding that government is not limited to administrative law, but it cannot be denied that the regulatory impact of law in public administration is decisive, and therefore public administration is largely a state-legal category, although it is not limited to this.

So, having analyzed the above approaches and positions of scientists regarding the subject of administrative law, the authors believe that it can include any managerial activity of the state authority and local government bodies that does not directly concern the subject matter of another branch of law; is realized with the help of the executive-administrative mechanism (in this case the author does not consider the executive-administrative mechanism as an exclusive prerogative or a unique feature of the executive authorities, although, of course, he agrees that it is the most typical and characteristic feature for them); is realized within the framework of a certain state authority, local government or non-governmental organization (in case of delegating state powers to it) to ensure its proper functioning (internal management relations); is implemented outside the framework of a certain state authority, local government or non-governmental organization (in case of delegating state powers to it) and is directed to other (external) with respect to the relevant body or organization of entities (external organizational management relations); and is largely characterized by relative constancy and immediacy of implementation relative to the management object.

Prospects for the further development of the study are the formation of an understanding that government is not limited to administrative law, but it cannot be denied that the regulatory impact of law in public administration is decisive, and therefore public administration is largely a state-legal category, although it is not limited to this. At the same time, indistinctness and uncertainty about different ways of understanding public administration often generate negative effects both at the general scientific level and at a purely practical level (when it comes to the exercise of administrative powers by certain state authorities).

I. INTRODUCTION In this monograph we point out and analyse various dimensions of bargaining structure, which we define broadly as the institutional configuration within which bargaining takes place, and attempt to provide some guidelines for management action. We look at the development, theory, and present framework of bargaining structure in Britain and then examine it in terms of choices: multi‐employer versus single employer, company versus plant level bargaining, and the various public policy issues involved.

This article will attempt to argue and demonstrate that the existing and extensive literature on bargaining power in industrial relations focuses almost exclusively on two central aspects of power. Whilst both these approaches throw valuable light on some aspects of power, we shall seek to argue that the predominance of these constrained perspectives has resulted in the relative neglect of other important aspects. Thus we shall identify several lacunae in the literature and seek to raise some hitherto unexamined questions. We shall also argue that, because of the partial nature of the existing literature, there is a need to develop a more coherent and comprehensive model of power which is capable of integrating the multiple facets and incorporating the existing insights.

To defend the thesis that critical theory has become unable to call into question and challenge the main impulses of modern capitalist societies. The reason for this is that the capacities of language on the one hand and the hermeneutic processes that underlie the process of “recognition” are insufficient to counter the power of socialization to shape subjectivity and the cognitive and evaluative capacities of subjects.

I provide a critical reading of the methodology of linguistic and recognitive theories of intersubjectivity by means of a theory of domination derived from Rousseau which shapes the cognitive and epistemic powers of subjects thereby weakening their capacity to be socialized via the media of language and social recognition.

By divorcing our cognitive ideas about the social world from the social-ontological processes that shape and deform it under capitalism, this brand of critical theory succeeds in sealing off the mechanisms of social domination and power relations that were at the heart of the enterprise from its inception.

Critical theory must move toward a more comprehensive theory of the social totality in order for it to retain its critical character.

The paper questions the main ideas held by the mainstream of critical theory such as its reliance on hermeneutic and linguistic forms of consciousness and social praxis as well as a theoretical reliance on pragmatic theories of mind and Mead’s conception of socialization.

This chapter explores dominant ideologies theoretically in an organizational setting. A framework is developed to advance our understanding of how ‘dominant ideological modes of rationality’ reflect predictability through the reproduction of accepted truths, hence social order in organization. Dominant ideological modes of rationality constitute professional identity, power relations, and rationality and frame prevailing mentalities and social practices in organization. It is suggested that members’ categorization devices structure and constrain social practices. Supplementing the existent power literature, the chapter concludes that professional identity produces rationality, power and truth – truth being the overarching concept assembled through the rationalities assembled in professional members’ categorization devices. Research and managerial implications are discussed.

This exposition explains how Elementary Theory works and how it has been developed over the last two-and-a-half decades. Both increased scope and heightened precision are covered.

Theoretic methodology is explained. Using that method formal models are constructed analogous to empirical events. Those models predict events, design experiments, and guide applications in the field.

There is a widely held belief in sociology that theory becomes more vague and imprecise as its scope broadens. Whereas broader generalizations are more vague than narrower ones, this exposition shows that abstract theory becomes more precise as its scope broadens.

Here implications and limitations are closely connected. Regarding implications, this exposition shows that scientific explanations and predictions are viable today in sociology but only when exact theory is employed. Regarding limitations, the theory and research included in this exposition make clear why the empiricist search for regularities that dominates sociological research is so very limited in its results.

This exposition demonstrates that theory is the method of all the sciences and in particular the science of sociology.

This chapter develops a sketch of a critical social ontology and contrasts it to a theory of sociality as presented in the work of Michael Brown. I argue that the ontology of our social forms requires categories for understanding them descriptively, functionally as well as in evaluative terms. I contend that a theory of power is needed for an understanding of the ontology of our social forms and that this can contribute to the construction of a more critical social ontology. I argue that a critical social ontology is a more attractive and satisfying paradigm for critical theory than current post-metaphysical approaches that emphasize discourse, recognition or other neo-Idealistic aspects of human sociality.

The comparison processes introduced by Thibaut and Kelly (1959) are fundamental to social exchange theories of power. However, research has focused almost exclusively on only one type of comparison – the comparison between alternative sources of valued rewards (CLalt) – which affects relationship commitment. Thibaut and Kelley also articulated a more general comparison level (CL) that determines relationship satisfaction. We propose that in exchange settings where relationships are not interdependent, the network structure can affect an actor's CL, with subsequent effects on power use. Results of a laboratory experiment offer initial support for this hypothesis and call for greater research on comparison processes within exchange networks.