Suchergebnisse

In the author's opinion, the `big question' now facing sociologists derives from the evident contrast between, on the one hand, work situations and the problems found there (e.g. poor working conditions), and on the other, the way in which research programmes focus on very similar issues in countries with very different social, economic and cultural situations. Researchers appear to be obsessed with what are mistakenly seen as cosmopolitan issues. The author identifies a number of different perspectives from which one can explore the possible future of the sociology of work: the organization of the profession, its academic-scientific structure, and trends in work and in social demand for the discipline. The author argues that to ensure a positive future for both the sociology of work and the societies in which it is practised, sociology must regain its role in the definition of sociological problems and so prevent the conscious ideological trivialization of the discipline. He also argues the case for continual theoretical reconstruction and epistemological vigilance so that sociology can define its theoretical field and identify possible paths towards a greater social role for the discipline.

The advent of transnational economic production and market integration compels sociologists of work to look beyond traditional national boundaries and build an international sociology of work in order to effectively address the human, scientific, and practical challenges posed by global economic transnationalism. The purpose of this volume is to promote transnational dialogue about the sociology of work and help build a truly international discipline in this field

Resistance, struggle and effort bargaining are important components of everyday life at the workplace. Yet the topic of worker resistance has been given a very limited role in our theoretical models of the workplace. As a result, the study of worker resistance has remained conceptually underdeveloped. In this paper, I develop a model of worker resistance which conceptualizes four basic agendas of resistance: deflecting abuse, regulating the amount and intensity of work, defending autonomy and expanding worker control through worker participation schemes. I argue that these four agendas of worker resistance parallel forms of the organization of the labor process as characterized by Edwards (1979) and others, with deflecting abuse being most typical of direct control, regulating the amount and intensity of work being most typical of technical control, defending autonomy being most typical of bureaucratic control, and manipulating participation opportunities being most typical of worker resistance under modern participative organizations of work. Agendas of worker resistance, however, are not reducible to forms of the organization of control at the workplace and each agenda may emerge, to differing degrees, under any given form of labor control. The proposed parallelism between agendas of resistance and forms of labor control allow the development of hypotheses about both current and future developments in labor control and worker resistance.

This essay is a response to the call for a discussion about future trends in sociology by focusing broadly on the sub-discipline of work and employment. In doing so the piece directly engages with earlier interventions made by John Scott (2005) and Gayle Letherby (2005) in Sociological Research Online. It examines the current state of the sociology of work by charting its foundation and subsequent development. It suggests that there is currently a problem in the area caused in part by intellectual trends and fragmentation. It argues that those sociologists working in the field need to engage collectively in a reflective process to refocus the subject combining elements from its 'golden age' as well as from more contemporary sources.

This article explores the experiences of the institutionalization and crisis of the sociology of work in Poland by analyzing the narratives of the doyens of the sociology of work in the country. It is argued that the institutionalization of sociology of work in the 1960s and 1970s reflected the requirements of the socialist industrialization of the country and its crisis (lasting from the end of 1980s) has political and economic roots related to systemic transformation. Simultaneously, some parallels between the situation of the sociology of work before and after 1989 are noted, including the challenges of cooperation between sociologists and industry. The empirical data in the article come from the research project carried out the Sociology of Work Section of the Polish Sociological Association based on the narrative interviews with the academic sociologists of work and plant sociologists who began their careers in the period of state socialism in Poland.

"Flexibilität bedeutet die Fähigkeit, auf unvorhersehbare Ereignisse angemessen zu reagieren. Flexibilisierung ist die Erhöhung der Fähigkeit zu Anpassung. Offensichtlich geht es dabei also um die Gestaltung eines spezifischen Verhältnisses zwischen Akteuren und ihrer institutionellen Umwelt. Im Kontext des Flexibilisierungsdiskurses stellen sich somit zwei Fragen zum Verhältnis von Akteuren und Institutionen: 1. Wodurch wird Flexibilität erforderlich? Hier geht es um Zusammenhänge zwischen unterschiedlichen Arten von Veränderungen im Verhältnis von Akteuren und Institutionen und unterschiedlichen Flexibilitätsformen. 2. Wodurch wird Flexibilität ermöglicht? Hier geht es darum, welche unterschiedlichen Rahmenbedingungen welche unterschiedlichen Arten von Flexibilisierung ermöglichen. Anhand dieser Fragen wird der Verfasser versuchen, mittels einer Durchsicht neuerer Untersuchungen und Systematisierungen der Flexibilitätsforschung ein handlungs- und institutionentheoretisches Verständnis von Flexibilität zu skizzieren." (Autorenreferat)