Search results

This article takes a critical view of the application of marketing theory and concepts, particularly exchange and the marketing mix, to social marketing situations. It draws upon my experience of using traditional concepts and models in the training of health professionals, in addition to the literature. Conceptually and practically there are problems in understanding and applying concepts such as exchange, value, and the 4Ps. The use of behavioral change models adds complexity to the setting and measurement of goals and it can be difficult to identify and sell the benefits of these changes in a similar way to commercial product marketing. Commercial marketing itself is changing with the growth of relationship marketing, interactive communications, and the critical impact of branding. It is argued that social marketing theory and practice needs reconsidering in the light of these developments. There are also important ethical considerations when attempting to introduce marketing concepts and language to health professionals. Following a detailed analysis of the nature of exchange in social marketing, my article considers each of the 4Ps in turn before drawing conclusions and raising questions and issues for further discussion.

Intro -- Bringing Back the Social into the Sociology of Religion: Critical Approaches -- Copyright -- Dedication -- Contents -- Series Editor Preface -- List of Illustrations -- Notes on Contributors -- Introduction: An Epistemology for the Sociology of Religion -- 1 Protestant Churches and Same-Sex Marriage in France: "Theological" Criteria and Sociological Approaches -- 2 Deconstructing Archer's (Un)Critical Realism -- 3 Spirituality and Discipline: Not a Contradiction in Terms -- 4 Congregational Studies, Worship and Region Behaviour -- 5 Unmasking the Relations of Power within the Religious Field -- 6 An Affective (U-)Turn in the Sociology of Religion? Religious Emotions and Native Narratives -- 7 "Reverse Mission": A Critical Approach for a Problematic Subject -- 8 "We are Peace-Loving People." Sufism, Orientalist Constructions of Islam and Radicalization -- Index

AbstractThis article examines how modes of governance are reconfigured as a result of using algorithms in the governance process. We argue that deploying algorithmic systems creates a shift toward a special form of design‐based governance, with power exercisedex antevia choice architectures defined through protocols, requiring lower levels of commitment from governing actors. We use governance of three policy problems – speeding, disinformation, and social sharing – to illustrate what happens when algorithms are deployed to enable coordination in modes of hierarchical governance, self‐governance, and co‐governance. Our analysis shows that algorithms increase efficiency while decreasing the space for governing actors' discretion. Furthermore, we compare the effects of algorithms in each of these cases and explore sources of convergence and divergence between the governance modes. We suggest design‐based governance modes that rely on algorithmic systems might be re‐conceptualized as algorithmic governance to account for the prevalence of algorithms and the significance of their effects.

AbstractThis symposium demonstrates the potential for throughput legitimacy as a concept for shedding empirical light on the strengths and weaknesses of multi‐level governance, as well as challenging the concept theoretically. This article introduces the symposium by conceptualizing throughput legitimacy as an 'umbrella concept', encompassing a constellation of normative criteria not necessarily empirically interrelated. It argues that in order to interrogate multi‐level governance processes in all their complexity, it makes sense for us to develop normative standards that are not naïve about the empirical realities of how power is exercised within multi‐level governance, or how it may interact with legitimacy. We argue that while throughput legitimacy has its normative limits, it can be substantively useful for these purposes. While being no replacement for input and output legitimacy, throughput legitimacy offers distinctive normative criteria—accountability, transparency, inclusiveness and openness—and points towards substantive institutional reforms.

AbstractThe aim of this article is to explore the link between different notions of co‐production. It seeks to emphasise the underlying politics of co‐production in the sense of who defines co‐production, especially in relation to initial decisions concerning which specific policy areas are deemed suitable for codesigning, cocreating, or codelivering with services users or local communities. We argue that the rejection of co‐production by government may inflame political resentment and reconfirm negative pre‐existing attitudes about "the establishment." This is particularly problematic when politicians have promoted the rhetoric of "inclusive governance," "sharing power," or "delegating power" but then reject the co‐productive claims emerging from such statements. The study contributes to existing work by analysing what happens when co‐productive structures are terminated or when public protests demand the reinstitutionalisation of those relationships. We make this contribution by presenting findings from an ethnographic case study involving street trees in a large English city. We suggest these specific findings have a broader relevance.

This symposium demonstrates the potential for throughput legitimacy as a concept for shedding empirical light on the strengths and weaknesses of multi-level governance, as well as challenging the concept theoretically. This article introduces the symposium by conceptualizing throughput legitimacy as an 'umbrella concept', encompassing a constellation of normative criteria not necessarily empirically interrelated. It argues that in order to interrogate multi-level governance processes in all their complexity, it makes sense for us to develop normative standards that are not naïve about the empirical realities of how power is exercised within multilevel governance, or how it may interact with legitimacy. We argue that while throughput legitimacy has its normative limits, it can be substantively useful for these purposes. While being no replacement for input and output legitimacy, throughput legitimacy offers distinctive normative criteria— accountability, transparency, inclusiveness and openness— and points towards substantive institutional reforms. ; Published version

Existing research on alternative forms of political participation
does not adequately account for why those forms of participation at
an "everyday" level should be defined as political. In this article we aim to
contribute new conceptual and theoretical depth to this research agenda
by drawing on sociological theory to posit a framework for determining
whether nontraditional forms of political engagement can be defined as genuinely
distinctive from traditional participation. Existing "everyday politics"
frameworks are analytically underdeveloped, and the article argues instead
for drawing upon Michel Maffesoli's theory of "neo-tribal" politics. Applying
Maffesoli's insights, we provide two questions for operationally defining
"everyday" political participation, as expressing autonomy from formal political
institutions, and building new political organizations from the bottom
up. This creates a substantive research agenda of not only operationally defining
political participation, but examining how traditional governmental
institutions and social movements respond to a growth in everyday political
participation: nexus politics.