Suchergebnisse

1. Towards a sociology of the total organization -- 2. Belonging to the Legion -- 3. Formal rank, status, and the strength of many ties -- 4. Blending relational expectations -- 5. Sources of knowledge -- 6. Enforcement and exclusion -- 7. The dynamics of organization, institution, and networks.

How do monks and nuns manage expectations regarding how to 'open their hearts'? What alternatives do they have and what are the consequences? Based on a multi-sited case study of Cistercian monasteries in France, this article compares the different situation of nuns and monks. The analysis shows how monks are free to choose who they will 'open their heart' to, whereas nuns are expected to rely on the abbess. While certain ways that nuns circumvent these expectations are illegitimate, some ways of distancing from the abbess align with, rather than diverge from, other central tenets of monastic life. Compared to monks, nuns face a double-penalty, being less free and facing more ambivalent expectations within this restricted space.

Tensions between different relationship forms exist in every organisational setting. Catholic monasteries – as archetypical examples of voluntary total and greedy institutions – provide strategic cases of inquiry for understanding relational conflicts owing to the significance they assign to exclusively fraternal relations, resulting in explicit tensions regarding personal forms of relationships, such as friendship. Based on a multi-sited, qualitative case study of Cistercian monasteries in France, the present article pushes theorising on fraternal relations forward. Fraternal relations as a social form is membership-based and characterised by collectivism, egalitarianism and an imposed level of intimacy. In the monastic setting, it takes the form of prescribed impersonal love. The ideals of fraternal relations pose normative constraints for establishing friendship, but the ambition to minimise verbal interaction, perceived differences between members and the severe limits on joint, extra-organisational activities constitute additional constraints for friendship to form in monasteries.

This paper explores the social dynamics of so-called intercomparison projects. An intercomparison project is a type of collaborative project that takes place in a number of simulation-based research areas such as astrophysics and climate modelling. Intercomparison projects can be seen as form of metrological practice in which the participants compare the results of numerical simulations of the 'same' scientific problem in order to ensure their reliability and validity. The paper is based on case studies of astrophysics, meteorology and oceanography, and the focus is on the organization and coordination of intercomparison projects. I argue that such projects have the effect of defining which scientists work on a particular problem and that they also serve as organizational vehicles for creating and presenting a dominant view of — and a standard result for — that problem. These types of projects are important for understanding numerical simulation-based research, because they show that expectations about desirable results are generated within the group.

Numerical simulations have come to be widely used in scientific work. Like experiments, simulations generate large quantities of numbers (output data) that require analysis and constant concern with uncertainty and error. How do simulationists convince themselves, and others, about the credibility of output? The present analysis reconstructs the perspectives related to performing numerical simulations, in general, and the situations in which simulationists deal with uncertain output, in particular. Starting from a distinction between idealized and realistic simulations, the paper presents the principal methods of evaluation in relation to these practices and how different audiences expect different methods. One major challenge in interpreting output data is to distinguish between "real" and "numerical" effects. Within the practice of idealized simulations, simulationists hold the underlying model accountable for results that manifest "real" effects, but because "numerical" and "real" effects cannot be distinguished on the basis of what they derive from, attempted causal explanations are rather justifications for their conclusions. At the same time, simulationists' explanations are part and parcel of their contradictory perspectives, according to which they believe in simulations largely due to the underlying model, while painfully recognizing everything they have to add to make computations doable on the basis of this model.

This article explores the practice of simulation modeling by investigating how parameterizations are constructed and integrated into existing frameworks. Parameterizations are simplified process descriptions adapted for simulation models. On the basis of a study of meteorological research, the article presents predictive and representative construction as two different ways of developing parameterizations and the trade-offs involved in this work. Because the overall aim in predictive construction is to improve weather forecasts, the most practical solutions are chosen over the best theoretical solutions. In representative construction, the situation is reversed, but while discourse focuses on theory and models, the everyday work is often tied to computer programs. These different ways of construction work are closely related to the role of the simulation models as epistemic or technical objects, and this characterization is also used to compare the results with previous research.

Collaboration is an important part of scientific practice and work. This analysis of how field experimental collaborations within atmospheric science are organized focuses on how relations between researchers are established and how this is related to the mobilization of resources. It is argued that these relationships can be understood by being considered from the point of view of the different researcher roles that researchers play in relation to each other. The article outlines three different roles: the entrepreneur, the integrated experimentalist and the instrument expert. These roles differ in terms of their position in the organization of projects and in the role measurement instruments play for researchers in their work as well as in relation to other roles. The article also discusses how the different roles of measurement instruments affect how and when researchers become involved in collaborative projects.

This paper analyses the relationship between field experimentalists and simulation modellers in meteorological research on the one hand, and how this is related to climate change as a common arena of concern on the other. Climate has become the central topic in meteorological research and it is imperative to link specific research problems to climate change in order to receive funding and attract talent. In addition, climate models have become gatekeepers for claims about climate change. Hence, active participation in climate modelling processes is valuable for all parties. Observational data are used in order to develop new components — so-called parameterizations — for the climate models and these novel components therefore emerge as important boundary objects. While they serve different purposes for experimentalists and modellers in terms of translation processes, they also serve to connect these groups and reinforce their mutual dependence.