Search results

Hechter's (1987) theory of group solidarity points to the need for clarification of the meaning of social solidarity and the related concept of social exchange. In order to clarify these conceptual issues, a distinction between social exchange and instrumental exchange is developed. Social exchange is motivated by a desire to promote or maintain a positive attitude from other group members, while instrumental exchange is a means of obtaining behaviour from others which promotes the self-interest of the actor. Social solidarity, in contrast, is characterised by the motive of promoting group goals in their own right, provided the actor perceives positive attitudes from others towards himself. A related distinction is then made between instrumental exchange and co-ordination. This yields a fourfold typology which shows an interesting correspondence with Parsons's AGIL scheme and sheds light on Habermas's distinction between social integration and system integration.

Priorat Workshop in Theoretical Political Science (Falset, Spain ‐ June 6‐8, 2013) ; "Todas las ponencias disponibles en el canal de YouTube de la Fundación BBVA http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLP2felHI9JfzQcOg975FCcimQ8oR4Ylx5 ; Priorat Workshop in Theoretical Political Science is a record of the talks given at an international workshop organized by the Institute for Economic Analysis (IAE) of the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) in collaboration with the BBVA Foundation. This workshop, celebrated in June 2012, linked together international experts from the fields of Economics and Theoretical Political Sciences, focusing on agency problems and constitutional issues, topics related to information aggregation and distributional concerns and dynamic models and voter turnout. Therefore this multimedia website offers insights into the active current developments within state-of-the-art theoretical, experimental and empirical analyses from each of the underlying disciplines. ; Peer reviewed

ABSTRACTDespite some stakeholders' concerns about the practical value of an undergraduate degree in political science, our graduates actually do quite well in the labor market. Based on analysis of a sample of 3.4 million college graduates (including 86,000 in political science) from the 2009–2014 American Community Surveys, our majors earn two-thirds more than demographically similar high school graduates if they stop with bachelor's degrees, but they are among the most likely to obtain graduate degrees, especially in law. Only engineering, economics, computer science, and health science majors make at least 10% more than our graduates, who make nearly as much as those who major in business and 10% to 25% more than those who major in most other social sciences and humanities. Political science majors have relatively high unemployment rates in their 20s, however, and may end up in very different occupations than they imagined when they chose political science.

This is the presentation slide deck for the keynote at OpenCon Cascadia, Feb. 1-2 2019 In this talk, I argue that scholarly communication and scientific knowledge production should be seen as a complex system of power that favours privileged institutions and individuals, and marginalize and even oppress those who do not conform to the norms and "standards" established by the powerful. The result is a deeply entrenched epistemological hierarchy. Openness alone cannot "transform" this complex as this interlocking system of institutions and technology are deeply rooted in past political and ideological structures. They have become invisible infrastructure and seldom questioned. To begin to disrupt this system, we need to go beyond challenging the visible barriers of the system, notably paywall and licensing issues, to question the hidden and invisible power that sustains and replicate power and privilege. To this end, we need to rethink what constitutes infrastructure, who has the power to build and govern them, what informs its design, who are subjected to its "governance", and the consequences for the powerless. In particular, I wish to focus on infrastructure as forms of invisible power. I will provide examples to demonstrate that simply imposing "open" on closed infrastructures serve to replicate existing power inequality and epistemic injustice. Openness, when decontextualized from its historical and political roots, could become as exploitative and oppressive as the legacy system it seeks to displace.

Over the last two decades, the Caribbean, in common with the rest of the world, has become increasingly aware of environmental issues. These have surfaced not only in the professional conscience, but in the political consciousness as the small island nations of the region struggle to throw off the label "developing", and improve the quality of life for their peoples. Small tropical island ecosystems tend to be extremely fragile, with limited resources. The effects of short-sighted unplanned development, some of them irreversible, do not require a very long time to become obvious. Awareness of issues and the problems accompanying them is, however, not enough. If nations are to be successful in arriving at the delicate balance between using and preserving the environment which is necessary for sustainable development, the population must be committed to this approach. Such commitment can only come with some knowledge and understanding of the processes and forces at work in the total environment, and a willingness to recognize man's responsibility to plan "in tune with nature".

International audience ; La pollution de l'air est une préoccupation croissante du public, qui est à l'origine d'une recherche à visée sociétale et donc non fondamentale, même si elle se nourrit de recherche fondamentale. Cette recherche est classiquement construite sur un schéma d'autonomie disciplinaire. L'exemple du mesurage de la pollution est assez instructif. Basées sur un découpage selon les trois dimensions du temps, de l'espace et des polluants, les résultats de la mesure ne prennent sens qu'une fois agrégés. La problématique de cette agrégation rejoint celle des indicateurs. Elle demande de faire des choix qui ne sont pas scientifiques mais d'essence politique, auxquels le schéma d'autonomie de la recherche ne permet légitimement pas de répondre. Y répondre demande sans doute une culture pluridisciplinaire, environnementale, mais surtout une ouverture vis-à-vis de la société qui n'est guère habituelle au milieu scientifique. C'est la condition pour que cette recherche à visée sociétale réponde aux questions qui lui sont posées et enrichisse par-là même les débats d'une société démocratique.

Philosophy that makes reason as a rejection is contrary to religion that comes from revelation. This understanding often leads to ideological resistance. This study aims to determine the relationship between philosophy and Islamic science that uses reason as a role. The purpose of this research is discussed through a literature study that examines problems in Al-Farabi's perspective. From the analysis, it is known that the philosophical theories of Al-Farabi's thoughts such as emanation theory, political theory, and metaphysical theory are able to connect philosophical concepts with religious science. Al-Farabi views science as the result of theorizing on various observations of the five senses and the mind of the many phenomena that are physical in nature. Al-Farabi had also mastered philosophy and believed in Islamic sources, and accepted them with reason and logic. Among the evidence that states the relationship between philosophy and religion according to Al-Farabi is the existence of a reciprocal relationship in terms of truth/haqq, philosophers and priests, or the concept of state and religion.

AbstractThe basis of a methodology determines whether a research method can fit the core characteristics of a particular academic tradition, and thus, it is crucial to explore this foundation. Keeping in mind the controversy and progress of the philosophy of social sciences, this paper aims to elaborate on four aspects including the cognitive model, the view of causality, research methods, and analysis techniques, and to establish a more solid methodological basis for historical political science. With respect to the "upstream knowledge" of methodology, both positivism and critical realism underestimate the tremendous difference between the natural world and the social world. This leads to inherent flaws in controlled comparison and causal mechanism analysis. Given the constructiveness of social categories and the complexity of historical circumstances, the cognitive model of constructivism makes it more suitable for researchers to engage in macro-political and social analysis. From the perspective of constructivism, the causality in "storytelling," i.e., the traditional narrative analysis, is placed as the basis of the regularity theory of causality in this paper, thus forming the historical–causal narrative. The historical–causal narrative focuses on how a research object is shaped and self-shaped in the ontological historical process, and thus ideally suits the disciplinary characteristics of historical political science. Researchers can complete theoretical dialogues, test hypotheses, and further explore the law of causality in logic and evidence, thereby achieving the purpose of "learning from history" in historical political science.

The aim of this essay is to contrast alternative, yet related, theories of historical development: historical materialism, Parsonian modernization theory, Habermasian social evolution. These theoretical alternatives are discussed in connection with the criteria they provide for evaluating social conflict and in relation to contemporary social movements. In this connection, an alternative `action' perspective is discussed. In addition, the role of intellectuals in formulating and periodizing historical development, and the claims they put forward regarding social movements, are related to the alternative theoretical positions outlined.