Suchergebnisse

Farrell's (2001) theory of collaborative circles provides a useful frame for analyzing the interpersonal dynamics that enable creative collaboration in small groups, but it leaves contextual factors of collaboration undertheorized. Using ethnographic data on freestyle BMXers in Greenville, North Carolina, this article demonstrates how resource mobilization theory's conception of resources can specify the enabling and constraining aspects of a circle's environment in a theoretically satisfying way. Specifically, I find that the enabling interpersonal dynamics found by Farrell rely on distinct arrangements of material, moral, and what I term locational resources. During the formation stage, a welcoming skatepark and moral support from the local community afforded the group the space and time it needed to unite, articulate a common vision, and produce dramatic innovations in their sport. During the separation stage, increased resources from the commercialization of freestyle BMX influenced both the separation of the circle and the production of the scene that followed.

This dissertation uses social movement theory to analyze the emergence, activities and development of subcultures and small groups. The manuscript is comprised of an Introduction followed by three journal articles and one book chapter. The introduction discusses: 1) the concept of theoretical extension whereby a theory developed for one purpose is adapted to another; 2) it identifies the social movement theories used to analyze subcultures and small groups; 3) it describes the data used in the analyses included here. The data for this work derives from two distinct research projects conducted by the author between 2002 and 2012 and relies on multiple sources of qualitative data. Data collection techniques used include fieldwork, archival research, and secondary data. Paper I uses resource mobilization (RM) theory to analyze the origin, development, and function of White Power music in relation to the broader White Power Movement (WPM). The research identifies three roles played by White Power music: (1) recruit new adherents, (2) frame issues and ideology for the construction of collective identity, (3) obtain financial resources. Paper II gives an overview of the subculture of Freestyle BMX, discussing its origins and developments—both internationally as a wider subcultural phenomenon, and locally, through a three-year ethnographic case study of a subcultural BMX scene known as "Pro Town USA." Paper III conceptualizes BMX as a social movement using RM theory to identify and explain three different forms of commercialization within this lifestyle sport in "Pro Town." The work sheds light on the complex process of commercialization within lifestyle sports by identifying three distinct forms of commercialization: paraphernalia, movement, and mass market, and analyses different impacts that each had on the on the development of the local scene. Findings reveal that lifestyle-sport insiders actively collaborate in each form of commercialization, especially movement commercialization which has the potential to build alternative lifestyle-sport institutions and resist adverse commercial influences. Paper IV refines the small group theory of collaborative circles by: (1) further clarifying its concepts and relationships, (2) integrating the concepts of flow and idioculture, and (3) introducing a more nuanced concept of resources from RM. The paper concludes by demonstrating that circle development was aided by specific locational, human, moral, and material resources as well as by complementary social-psychological characteristics of its members.

AbstractIn this text we respond and elaborate on the four comments addressing our original article. In that piece we define qualitative research as an "iterative process in which improved understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied." In light of the comments, we identify three positions in relation to our contribution: (1) to not define qualitative research; (2) to work with one definition for each study or approach of "qualitative research" which is predominantly left implicit; (3) to systematically define qualitative research. This article elaborates on these positions and argues that a definition is a point of departure for researchers, including those reflecting on, or researching, the fields of qualitative and quantitative research. The proposed definition can be used both as a standard of evaluation as well as a catalyst for discussions on how to evaluate and innovate different styles of work.

A glance across ethnographic methods terrain reveals multiple controversies and divisive critiques. When training graduate students, these debates and controversies can be consequential. We offer suggestions for teaching graduate ethnographic methods courses that, first, help students understand some of the common epistemological debates in the field and, second, provide them with hands-on activities to practice working within different knowledge traditions. Our ultimate goal is to offer graduate students a way to think productively about some common differences and controversies in the field. We formulate a metaphor that we call "form and flow," and we see the first (or "tough-minded," normal, and traditional approaches) and the latter (or tender-minded and disruptive styles) as patterns or movements within and across ethnographic traditions. Once students can grasp the different claims in these approaches and practice working within these traditions, we argue that they can become better prepared for their place in a diverse discipline.

At the end of the 1970s a racist rock music movement known as White Power music emerged in Great Britain in connection with political parties of the extreme right and remains a vibrant force in racist social movements today. Throughout the 1990s, White Power music expanded significantly from its origins in a clandestine network of punk-inspired live shows and record promotions into a multi-million dollar, international enterprise of web-pages, radio stations and independent record labels promoting White Power musicians performing a wider range of musical genres. In this article, we view White Power music as a cultural resource created and produced by racist movements and used as a tool to further key movement goals. Specifically, we examine White Power music's role when used to 1) recruit new adherents, especially youth, 2) frame issues and ideology to cultivate a White Power collective identity, and 3) obtain financial resources. In doing so we rely upon in-depth interviews with White Power musicians and promoters as well as representatives of watchdog and monitoring organizations. Interviews were conducted by the lead author from 2002-2004 or accessed through transcripts of similar interviews made available by another researcher. This research also relies upon an extensive examination of White Power music, lyrics, newsletters and websites. We conclude that White Power music continues to play a significant role in the mobilization of racist political and social movements by drawing in new youth, cultivating a racist collective identity, and generating substantial sums of money to finance a range of racist endeavours. ; Dissertation Project

How does profanity contribute to community at work? While obscene talk might be viewed as contrary to the establishment of collegial ties, such discourse can, under the right circumstances, reinforce group sociality as well as challenge hierarchical control. In some sites of labor, participants are permitted—even expected—to use "bad language." Rather than undermining local culture, this form of communication supports it by revealing the intensity of salient moments. We situate profanity as a means of deepening group membership (affiliation), defining a status hierarchy (division), and delineating boundaries (distinction). Not all workplaces are characterized by profanity, but those that are we label "obscenity factories," emphasizing the production of community through conversational deviance. To examine this process, we utilize descriptive ethnographies of trauma doctors in war zones, restaurant cooks, wildland firefighters, and correction officers.

Collaborative circles theory explains how innovative small groups develop and win acceptance of their creative work but assumes a single type of circle and would benefit from considering how circles are affected by the strategic action fields in which they operate. We do so by synthesizing research on art, science, philosophy, and social movements to identify five field characteristics that influence circles and their creative potentials (i.e., attention space, consensus, social control, resources, and organizational and geographical contexts). We then use primary and secondary data on science circles (the Resilience Alliance and Phage Group), combined with previous research on circles and group creativity, to show how field-level differences explain systematic variations in the structure and dynamics of art and science circles. We close by arguing that there exists of a family of circles operating in different fields, formulating a refined definition of circles, and postulating four propositions informing future research.

As a consequence of their size and fragility, small groups depend on cohesion. Central to group continuation are occasions of collective hedonic satisfaction that encourage attachment. These times are popularly labeled fun. While groupness can be the cause of fun, we emphasize the effects of fun, as understood by participants. Shared enjoyment, located in temporal and spatial affordances, creates conditions for communal identification. Such moments serve as commitment devices, building affiliation, modeling positive relations, and moderating interpersonal tension. Further, they encourage retrospective narration, providing an appealing past, an assumed future, and a sense of groupness. The rhetoric of fun supports interactional smoothness in the face of potential ruptures. Building on the authors' field observations and other ethnographies, we argue that both the experience and recall of fun bolster group stability. We conclude by suggesting that additional research must address the role of power and boundary building in the fun moment.

This is Part II of a three-part article. The article is predicated on the principle that creativity is a universal activity, essential in an evolutionary perspective, to adaptation and sustainability. This manuscript on the sociology of creativity has three purposes: (1) to develop the argument that key factors in creative activity are socially based and developed; hence, sociology can contribute significantly to understanding and explaining human creativity; (2) to present a systems approach which enables us to link in a systematic and coherent way the disparate social factors and mechanisms that are involved in creative activity and to describe and explain creativity; (3) to illustrate sociological systems theory's (Actor-Systems-Dynamics) conceptualization of multiple interrelated institutional, cultural, and interaction factors and mechanisms and their role in creativity and innovative developments in diverse empirical instances. The preceding segment of this article, Part I, introduced a general model of innovation and creative development stressing the socio-cultural and political embeddedness of agents, either as individuals or groups, in their creative activities and innovative productions. This second part, Part II, investigates the "context of innovation and discovery" considering applications and illustrations ranging from, for instance: (i) "the independent innovator or entrepreneur" who exercises creativity based on absorbing a field of knowledge, concepts, challenges, problems, solution strategies, creativity production functions or programs (and who is likely to be in contact with libraries, relevant journals and may be directly or indirectly in contact with a network of others); (ii) groups in their particular fields operating greenhouse types of organization driving problem-solving and creative activities – both self-organizing groups as well as groups established by external powers (whether a private company, a government, or a non-government organization or movement); (iii) entire societies undergoing transformations and radical development as in the industrial and later revolutions. Part III of this article investigates and analyzes "the context of receptivity, selection, and institutionalization" of novelty.

Drawing on a sociological multi-level, dynamic systems approach – actor-system-dynamics (ASD) -- which has been developed and applied in institutional, organizational, and societal analyses, we formulate a general model for the comparative analysis of social groups and organizations. This social systems approach has not been previously applied in the group area. We claim that the approach can be systematically and fruitfully applied to small as well as large groups and organizations as a methodology to understand and analyze their structure, functioning and dynamics. A group is considered a system with three universal subsystems on which any human social organization, including small groups, depends and which motivate, shape and regulate group activities and productions. The subsystems are bases or group requisites – necessary for group "functioning" and performance in more or less orderly or coherent ways; on this basis a group may be able to realize its purposes or goals(as well as possibly some members' personal goals) and maintain and reproduce the group. The group bases consist of: first, a rule regime (collective culture)defining group identity and purpose, shaping and regulating roles and role relationships, normative patterns and behavioral outputs; second, an agential base of group members who are socialized or partially socialized carriers of and adherents to the group's identity and rule regime; of relevance here are involvement/participation factors motivating member to adhere to, accept, and implement key components of the rule regime; third, there is a resource base, 2 technologies and materials, self-produced and/or obtained from the environment, which are essential to group functioning and key group performances. Section I briefly presents the framework and outlines the group systems model, characterized by its three universal bases or subsystems and its finite universal production functions and their outputs as well as the particular context(s) in which groups function. For illustrative purposes, the section identifies three major ideal-type modalities of group formation: informal self-organization by agents, group construction by external agents, and group formation through more or less formal multi-agent negotiation. The general systems model presented in Section II characterizes a social group not only by its three universal bases but by its finite universal production functions (elaborated in Section IV) and its outputs as well as by its shared places (situations for interaction) and times for gathering and interacting. Group productions impact on the group itself (reflexivity) and on its environment. These outputs, among other things, maintain/adapt/develop the group bases (or possibly unintentionally undermine/destroy them) Thus, groups can be understood as action and interaction systems producing goods, services, incidents and events, experiences, developments, etc. for themselves and possibly for the larger environment on which they depend for resources, recruits, goods and services, and legitimation. The model provides a single perspective for the systematic description and comparative analysis of a wide diversity of groups (Sections III and IV). A major distinctive feature in our systems approach is the conceptualization of rules and rule regimes (Sections II, III, IV, and V). Finite universal rule categories (ten distinct categories) are specified; they characterize every functioning social group or organization. A rule regime, while an abstraction is carried, applied, adapted, and transformed by concrete human agents, who interact, exchange, exercise power, and struggle within the group, in large part based on the rule regime which they maintain and adapt as well as transform. The paper emphasizes not only the systemic character of all functioning groups – universally their three bases and their output functions together with feedback dynamics -- but also the differentiating character of any given group's distinct rule configuration (Section IV). For illustrative purposes Section IV presents a selection of rule configurations characterizing several ideal types of groups, a military unit, a terrorist group, a recreational or social group, a research group, a corporate entity Section V considers the dynamics of groups in terms of modification and transformation of group bases and their production functions. The group system model enables us to systematically identify and explicate the internal and external factors that drive group change and transformation, exposing the complex interdependencies and dynamic potentialities of group systems. Section VI sums up the work and points out its scope and limitations. The group systems model offers a number of promising contributions: (1) a universal systems model identifies the key subsystems and their interrelationships as well as their role in group production functions/outputs and performances; (2) the work conceptualizes and applies rules and rule complexes and their derivatives in roles, role relationships, norms, group procedures and production functions; (3) it identifies the universal categories of rules making up a rule regime, a major subsystem for any functioning group; (4) the model conceptualizes particular "group rule configurations" – rule regimes with specified rules in the universal rule categories—for any given group; groups are identifiable and differentiable by their rule configurations (as well as by their resource and agency bases); (5) it conceptualizes the notion of the degree of coherence (alternatively, degree of incoherence) of rule configurations characteristic of any given group and offers an explanation of why group attention is focused on the coherence of rules in certain group areas; (6) the systems model suggests an interpretation of Erving Goffman's "frontstage backstage" distinction in terms of alternative, differentiated rule regimes which are to a greater or lesser extent incoherent with respect to one another; moreover, the participants who are privy to the differentiation navigate using a shared rule complex to translate coherently and consistently 3 from one regime to the other, using appropriate discourses; (7) incoherence, contradiction, conflict and struggle relating to rule regimes are considered part and parcel of group functioning and development; (8)group stability and change are explicated in terms of internal mechanisms (e.g., governance, innovation, and conflict) as well as external mechanisms (resource availability, legal and other institutional developments, population conditions), pointing up the complex systemic interdependencies and dynamic potentialities of group systems; (9) given the multi-level dynamic systems framework (i.e., ASD) that has been applied in a range of special areas (economic, political, technological, environmental, bio-medical, among others) its applicataion in the field of groups is a promising step toward achieving greater synthesis in sociology and social science. This 2nd edition of the paper has been substantially rewritten and extended: the current text is twice the number of pages of the original – and there has been much restructuring of the manuscript as a whole. Tables and figures have been added. Substantively, we developed the following features of the work in the 2nd edition: (1) more attention has been given to tension, conflict, and conflict resolution in groups; (2) we also stressed group requisites for sustainability and group production functions; (3) a section on group formation with illustrations has been added; (4) we have expanded our attention to group rule configurations which differentiate groups from one another but also enable systematic comparisons; (5) we have much expanded consideration of the dynamics of group change and transformation.

The three-part article of which this one is Part III is predicated on the principle that creativity is a universal activity, essential in an evolutionary perspective to adaptation and sustainability. This work on the sociology of creativity has three purposes: (1) to develop the argument that key factors in creative activity are socially based and developed; hence, sociology can contribute significantly to understanding and explaining human creativity; (2) to present a systems approach which enables us to link in a systematic and coherent way the disparate social factors and mechanisms that are involved in creative activity and to describe and explain creativity; (3) to illustrate a sociological systems theory's (Actor-Systems-Dynamics) conceptualization of multiple interrelated institutional, cultural, and interaction factors and mechanisms - and their role in creativity and innovative developments in diverse empirical cases. Part I of this article introduced and applied a general model of innovation and creative development stressing the sociocultural and political embeddedness of agents, either as individuals or groups, in their creative activities and innovative productions. Part II investigated the ldquocontext of innovation and discoveryrdquo considering a wide range of applications and illustrations. This 3rd segment, Part III, specifies and analyzes the ldquocontext of receptivity and institutionalizationrdquo where innovations and creative developments are socially accepted, legitimized, and institutionalized or rejected and suppressed. A number of cases and illustrations are considered. Power considerations are part and parcel of these analyses, for instance the role of the state as well as powerful private interests and social movements in facilitating and/or constraining innovations and creative developments in society. In the perspective presented here, generally speaking, creativity can be consistently and systematically considered to a great extent as social, cultural, institutional and material as much as psychological or biological.

This article aims to present some of the initial work of developing a social science grounded game theory—as a clear alternative to classical game theory. Two distinct independent initiatives in Sociology are presented: One, a systems approach, social systems game theory (SGT), and the other, Erving Goffman's interactionist approach (IGT). These approaches are presented and contrasted with classical theory. They focus on the social rules, norms, roles, role relationships, and institutional arrangements, which structure and regulate human behavior. While strategic judgment and instrumental rationality play an important part in the sociological approaches, they are not a universal or dominant modality of social action determination. Rule following is considered, generally speaking, more characteristic and more general. Sociological approaches, such as those outlined in this article provide a language and conceptual tools to more adequately and effectively than the classical theory describe, model, and analyze the diversity and complexity of human interaction conditions and processes: (1) complex cognitive rule based models of the interaction situation with which actors understand and analyze their situations; (2) value complex(es) with which actors operate, often with multiple values and norms applying in interaction situations; (3) action repertoires (rule complexes) with simple and complex action alternatives—plans, programs, established (sometimes highly elaborated) algorithms, and rituals; (4) a rule complex of action determination modalities for actors to generate and/or select actions in game situations; three action modalities are considered here; each modality consists of one or more procedures or algorithms for action determination: (I) following or implementing a rule or rule complex, norm, role, ritual, or social relation; (II) selecting or choosing among given or institutionalized alternatives according to a rule or principle; and (III) constructing or adopting one or more alternatives according to a value, guideline, or set of criteria. Such determinations are often carried out collectively. The paper identifies and illustrates in a concluding table several of the key differences between classical theory and the sociological approaches on a number of dimensions relating to human agency; social structure, norms, institutions, and cultural forms; patterns of game interaction and outcomes, the conditions of cooperation and conflict, game restructuring and transformation, and empirical relevance. Sociologically based game theory, such as the contributions outlined in this article suggest a language and conceptual tools to more adequately and effectively than the classical theory describe, model, and analyze the diversity, complexity, and dynamics of human interaction conditions and processes and, therefore, promises greater empirical relevance and scientific power. An Appendix provides an elaboration of SGT, concluding that one of SGT's major contributions is the rule based conceptualization of games as socially embedded with agents in social roles and role relationships and subject to cognitive-normative and agential regulation. SGT rules and rule complexes are based on contemporary developments relating to granular computing and Artificial Intelligence in general.