Figure 5 - uploaded by Tom R. Burns
Content may be subject to copyright.
Similar publications
Este artículo se direccionó a analizar el nivel de aceptación de la propuesta de la implementación del sistema ABP en el área de Emprendimiento, identificando cómo esta afecta el interés de los alumnos de grados 10° y 11° de la media técnica. El diseño del estudio se elaboró con un enfoque cualitativo, de tipo descriptivo centrado en conocer la opi...
O artigo discute a relação entre arte e game. Mapeia a posição de autores que problematizam o uso do termo “estética” para nomear o conteúdo artístico de um game, e distinguem game arte (games criados com motivação artística) da arte de games (conteúdo artístico dos games). Os autores apresentam outro ponto de vista da relação, não mais centrado no...
Plata, González y Ruiz a rman que, hasta 2015, la enseñanza de idiomas en el sistema educativo venezolano se basó en su mayoría en una metodología predominantemente tradicional, en la que los estudiantes asumían un papel pasivo y terminaban desmotivados a la larga. Los estudios realizados antes de que se diseñara un programa de intervención relacio...
Citations
... We can distinguish two forms of reference or target points: aspiration points -considered as desirable levels of achievement, and reservation points, which represent levels of achievement that should be attained (if at all possible). Note that according to Simon, these references do not need to be extreme, i.e., while setting them, decision-maker may find a particular alternative either to exceed the aspiration limits or, on the contrary, not to fulfil the minima fixed by reservation reference [6]. In this study, we focus our attention on aspiration points only. ...
When evaluating or ordering alternatives in given multiple criteria, decision makers often use aspiration and reservation levels for criteria, which allows them to define some reference alternatives that build a common framework for the evaluation. In this paper, a new multiple criteria approach called DARP ( Distances to Aspiration Reference Points ) is presented, which can be implemented in a specific evaluation or ranking problem when many different aspiration levels should be taken into consideration. One example of such problem is measuring sustainable development of countries or states within the Union. In DARP , in order to measure the performance of alternative (state), the notion of distances between alternative and individual or common aspiration reference points is used. To handle the problem of different reference points, a modified max-min normalisation technique is proposed. DARP application for measuring Smart Growth of the EU countries is conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.
... The sociological approaches cover many types of games (in some cases games not ever envisioned or envisionable in classical theory and, arguably, in its many direct descendants). For instance, Goffman conducts studies and analyses of gambling casinos, community life, and everyday life interactions: expression-of-self games, games of opposition, games of coordi- nation, negotiation, and contingency, observer-subject games, and interrogation games, as well as a variety of games of deception and fabrication [Burns, Roszkowska, 2008;Goffman, 1969]. Researchers have conducted studies of manufacturing conflict, varieties of exchange interactions, organizational re- lationships such as supervisor-supervisee, and policy games in diverse fields or sectors [Baumgartner et al., 1975;Buckley et al., 1974b;Burns, Gomolińska, 2010;Burns, Roszkowska, 2006, 2005. ...
... Thus, Simon relaxed assumptions of rational choice theory (in particular utility theory). He also stressed that typically decision-makers operate with multiple values, a vector of values, where one could not assume commensurability of values, and the reduction of values and the reduction of multiple values to a common metric ( [40]). He also stressed the role of decision procedures/ algorithms to deal with complexity and dilemmas as well as uncertainty, thus, challenging the maximization principles. ...
... Burns et al. [17], Burns and Roszkowska [40], Elster [34] [35] [41], Harre [42], Granovetter [36], and Hodgson [43] [44], among others, in their critiques of the basic concept of the abstract, super-rational anomic individual of rational choice, point toward a perspective where human actors are genuinely social and human. The social situation and constraints and possibilities-within which actors make decisions or play out games are defined by a prior, given culture, social structure, social relations and norms. ...
The main purpose of this paper is to provide a brief overview of the rational choice approach, fol-lowed by an identification of several of the major criticisms of RCT and its conceptual and empiri-cal limitations. It goes on to present a few key initiatives to develop alternative, more realistic ap-proaches which transcend some of the limitations of Rational Choice Theory (RCT). Finally, the ar-ticle presents a few concluding reflections and a table comparing similarities and differences be-tween the mainstream RCT and some of the initial components of an emerging choice theory. Our method has been to conduct a brief selective review of rational choice theoretical formulations and applications as well as a review of diverse critical literature in the social sciences where ra-tional choice has been systematically criticized. We have focused on a number of leading contri-butors (among others, several Nobel Prize Recipients in economics, who have addressed rational choice issues). So this article makes no claim for completeness. The review maps a few key con-cepts and assumptions underpinning the conceptual model and empirical applications of RCT. It reviews also a range of critical arguments and evidence of limitations. It identifies selected emerg- ing concepts and theoretical revisions and adaptations to choice theory and what they entail. The results obtained, based on our literature reviews and analyses, are the identification of several major limitations of RCT as well as selected modifications and adaptations of choice theory which overcome or promise to overcome some of the RCT limitations. Thus, the article with Table 1 in hand provides a point of departure for follow-up systematic reviews and more precise questions for future theory development. The criticisms and adaptations of RCT have contributed to greater realism, empirical relevance, and increased moral considerations. The developments entail, among other things: the now well-known cognitive limitations (“bounded rationality”) and, for in-stance, the role of satisficing rather than maximizing in decision-making to deal with cognitive
Rational Choice Theory: Toward a Psychological, Social, and Material Contextualization of Human Choice Behavior. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301314336_Rational_Choice_Theory_Toward_a_Psychological_Social_and_Material_Contextualization_of_Human_Choice_Behavior [accessed Dec 25, 2016].
... 3a and 3B). 21 The rule regime identifies and governs to a greater or lesser extent -depending in part on external agents and conditions -agent(s) identity and participation in field F, norms, roles, and role relations and provides rules as the basis of values, beliefs, passions and production functions. The shared knowledge of the rule regime defines relevant concepts, designs, potentialities in the Field F (as well as possibly other fields) and the commitments and goals some of which drive creative activity. ...
... The rules of the regime govern to a greater or lesser extentthe material resource base; materials, technologies, space/places, and time. 22 Organized-routinized complexes for key collective and production processes are found in earlier work: models of administrative arrangements are found in [11,15,20]; models of negotiation procedures are found in [15,22,60]; collective deliberation and decision-making/conflict resolution are considered in [21]. Table 3 Key components of ASD input-output model Contexts: Social and ecological contexts including interaction situation(s) in F. ...
Creativity is a universal activity, essential in an evolutionary perspective, to adaptation and sustainability. This first part of a three part article 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 sociological 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; and (3) to illustrate a sociological systems theory's conceptualization of multiple interrelated institutional, cultural, and interaction factors and their role in creativity and innovative development in diverse empirical instances. The article introduces and applies a model stressing the social embeddedness of innovative agents and entrepreneurs, either as individuals or groups, as they manipulate symbols, rules, technologies, and materials that are socially derived and developed. Their motivation for doing what they do derives in part from their social roles and positions, in part in response to the incentives and opportunities - many socially constructed - shaping their interaction situations and domains. Their capabilities including their social powers derive from the culturally and institutional frameworks in which they are embedded. In carrying out their actions, agents mobilize resources including technologies through the institutions and networks in which they participate. Following this theoretical part, Parts II and III focus on the concrete conditions and mechanisms characteristic of the "context of innovation" and the "context of receptivity and institutionalization", respectively.
... This characterization of socialized agents performing social actions applies to all of the phases of any innovation/creation process (as specified in our phase model introduced later). The theory specifies key contextual factors, agents, activities/phases, and technologies in creative/innovative processes; it draws on one variant of sociological system theory (Burns, 2006a(Burns, , 2006b(Burns, , 2008Burns et al, 1985;Burns and Flam, 1987) and its extension to socio-cultural evolutionary theory (Burns & Dietz, 1990;2001;Burns, 2005). 3 It focuses on issues such as the following: ...
... Organized-routinized complexes for key collective and production processes are found in earlier work: models of administrative arrangements are found inBurns et al, 1985;Burns and Flam (1987),Burns and Hall (2012); models of negotiation procedures are found inBurns et al (1985),Carson et al, 2009, Roszkowska andBurns (2010); collective deliberation and decision-making/conflict resolution are considered inBurns and Roszkowska (2008). ...
Preliminary Draft (February 5, 2014); Revised (December 1, 2014) We are grateful to Ugo Corte for his many suggestions and inputs into this manuscript. Also, earlier related collaboration with has played a significant role in the development of the sociology of creativity.
... Such a conception, however, decontextualizes many key social as well as physical factors (and shares a good deal of the weaknesses of rational choice theory [12]. Social contextualization, as suggest below, implies at least a variety of different risk conceptions and models ranging from qualitative ones to quantitative ones. ...
... Then, the similarity matrix can be generated by (4) The NIBS has the form {1, 0, 0, 0} and PIBS {0, 0, 0, 1}. The separation measures D + and D − an be calculated using (11) and (12). Finally, one calculates the relative closeness R to the ideal solution for each alternative A using (13), and ranks the preference order in terms of the values of R i . ...
Abstract
Empirical research shows that humans face many kinds of uncertainties, responding in different ways to the variations in situational knowledge. The standard approach to risk, based largely on rational choice conceptualization, fails to sufficiently take into account the diverse social and psychological contexts of uncertainty and risk. The article addresses this challenge, drawing on sociological game theory (SGT) in describing and analyzing risk and uncertainty and relating the theory’s conceptualization of judgment and choice to a particular procedure of multi-criteria decision-making uncertainty, namely the TOPSIS approach. Part I of the article addresses complex risk decision-making, considering the universal features of an actor’s or decision-maker’s perspective: a model or belief structure, value complex, action repertoire, and judgment complex (with its algorithms for making judgments and choices). Although these features are universal, they are particularized in any given institutional or sociocultural context. This part of the article utilizes SGT to consider decision-making under conditions of risk and uncertainty, taking into account social and psychological contextual factors. Part II of the article takes up an established method, TOPSIS with Belief Structure (BS), for dealing with multi-criteria decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. One aim of this exercise is to identify correspondences between the SGT universal architecture and the operative components of the TOPSIS method. We expose, for instance, the different value components or diverse judgment algorithms in the TOPSIS procedure. One of the benefits of such an exercise is to suggest ways to link different decision methods and procedures in a comparative light. It deepens our empirical base and understanding of values, models, action repertoires, and judgment structures (and their algorithms). The effort here is, of course, a limited one.
... Humans are also moral beings, motivated and constrained by moral principles and norms but again ready to deviate under some conditions. 5 Rule, rule complex, and rule regime, among others, are technical-mathematical concepts developed by Gomolinkska (1998, 2000), Burns and Roszkowska (2008, 2009), Gomolinska (2002); these concepts have been elaborated and applied in a range of sociological and social science studies (for an overview, see Burns (2006b) and for applications and elaborations see Burns et al (1985); Burns and Flam (1987); Hall (2012), Carson et al, 2009). The rule regime specifies key group norms, relationships, procedures, rituals, discourses, and other practices characteristic of the group. ...
EXTENDED ABSTRACT
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, 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 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 applicataon in the field of groups is a promising step toward achieving greater synthesis in sociology and social science.
... They concern the finite and universal rule base of group social action and interaction, its material, social structural, and agential conditions. 5 The determination of the universal rule categories for groups, diverse social organizations, and institutions was based on: (1) language categories that are reflected in "questions" and definitions/descriptions of socially regulated interaction situations: who, what, for what, how, where, when (Burns et al, 1985;Burns and Flam (1987); (2) interaction descriptions and analysis (and contextualized games, C-games) (Burns and Gomolinska, 2000;Burns and Roszkowska, 2005, 2007, 2008 (3) comparative institutional analysis (Burns and Flam, 1987). 6 The focus here is on relational and organizational grammars. ...
... The theoretical and empirical research clearly demonstrated that there was no scale problem. 8 In the sociological game theory work of Burns and Gomolinska (2000), Burns, Gomolinksa, and Meeker (2001), and Burns and Roszkowska (2005, 2007, 2008, games and established interaction settings are characterized and distinguished in terms of their particular grammarsgrammars which allow one to predict the interaction patterns and equilibria of interaction settings and games. ...
... Group norms define roughly the appropriate level of commitment to or involvement in the group that membership should have or exhibit in general as well as in particular activities. 12 Those belonging to the group or organization are expected (should) involve themselves to an appropriate degree and in expected ways -Of course, may be discriminatory based on religion, class, gender, age, education and Gomolinska, 2000; Burns, Gomolinksa, and Meeker (2001), and Burns and Roszkowska (2005, 2007, 2008, among other articles). 11 Talcott Parsons (1951) proposed universal "pattern variables" (for instance, univeralism vs particularism, affective neutrality vs affectivity; achievement versus ascription, collectivity vs self, specificity vs diffuseness). ...
Preliminary 1. Background Most human social activity – in all of its extraordinary variety – is organized and regulated by socially produced and reproduced rules and systems of rules (Burns and Flam, 1987; Giddens, 1984; Harré, 1979). 1 Such rules are not transcendental abstractions. They are embodied in groups and collectivities of people – in their language, customs and codes of conduct, norms, and laws and in the social institutions of the modern world, including family, community, market, business enterprises and government agencies. The making, interpretation, and implementation of social rules are universal in human societies, as are their reformulation and transformation. Human agents (individuals, groups, organizations, communities, and other collectivities) produce, carry, and reform these systems of social rules, but this frequently takes place in ways they neither intend nor expect. Social rule systems play a key role on all levels of human interaction (Burns et al, 1985; Burns and Flam, 1987; Burns and Hall, 2012; Giddens, 1984; Goffman, 1974; Harré, 1979; Lotman, 1975; Posner, 1989, among others), producing potential constraints on action possibilities but also generating opportunities for social actors to behave in ways that would otherwise be impossible, for instance, to coordinate with others, to mobilize and to gain systematic access to strategic resources, to command and allocate substantial human and physical resources, and to solve complex social problems by organizing collective actions. In guiding and regulating interaction, the rules give behavior recognizable, characteristic patterns 2 – making the patterns understandable and meaningful for those sharing in the rule knowledge. Shared rules are the major basis for knowledgeable actors to derive, or to generate, similar situational expectations. They also provide a frame of reference and categories, enabling participants to readily communicate about and to analyze social activities and events. In such ways, uncertainty is reduced, predictability is increased. This is so even in complex situations with multiple actors playing different roles and engaging in a variety of interaction patterns. As Harré and Secord (1972:12) pointed out, "It is the self-monitoring following of rules and plans that we believe to be the social scientific analogue of the working of generative causal mechanisms in the processes which produce the non-random patterns studied by natural scientists." 1 Social rule system theory (Burns et al, 1985, Burns and Flam, 1987) was formulated and developed in the 1980s making a modest contribution to the new institutionalism (Powell and DiMaggio,1991). 2 To varying degrees actors collectively produce and reproduce patterns of appropriate or acceptable possibilities. This can be conceptualized and mathematically developed as an ideal point or collection of "approximations". Thus, a community of actors sharing a rule complex recognize a wide variety of varying performances of a given rule as a family of resemblances, or "the same thing." (Burns and Gomolinska, 2000). Both in this sense – and in the sense that social rules are never learned identically and undergo different rates of adaptation and change over time – our concept of rule, and of culture generally, is distributive.
... Such a conception, however, decontextualizes many key social as well as physical factors (and shares a good deal of the weaknesses of rational choice theory [12]. Social contextualization, as suggest below, implies at least a variety of different risk conceptions and models ranging from qualitative ones to quantitative ones. ...
... Then, the similarity matrix can be generated by (4) The NIBS has the form {1, 0, 0, 0} and PIBS {0, 0, 0, 1}. The separation measures D + and D − an be calculated using (11) and (12). Finally, one calculates the relative closeness R to the ideal solution for each alternative A using (13), and ranks the preference order in terms of the values of R i . ...
Empirical research shows that humans face many kinds of uncertainties, responding in different ways to the variations in situational knowledge. The standard approach to risk, based largely on rational choice conceptualization, fails to sufficiently take into account the diverse social and psychological contexts of uncertainty and risk. The article addresses this challenge, drawing on sociological game theory (SGT) in describing and analyzing risk and uncertainty and relating the theory's conceptualization of judgment and choice to a particular procedure of multi-criteria decision-making uncertainty, namely the TOPSIS approach. Part I of the article addresses complex risk decision-making, considering the universal features of an actor's or decision-maker's perspective: a model or belief structure, value complex, action repertoire, and judgment complex (with its algorithms for making judgments and choices). Although these features are universal, they are particularized in any given institutional or sociocultural context. This part of the article utilizes SGT to consider decision-making under conditions of risk and uncertainty, taking into account social and psychological contextual factors. Part II of the article takes up an established method, TOPSIS with Belief Structure (BS), for dealing with multi-criteria decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. One aim of this exercise is to identify correspondences between the SGT universal architecture and the operative components of the TOPSIS method. We expose, for instance, the different value components or diverse judgment algorithms in the TOPSIS procedure. One of the benefits of such an exercise is to suggest ways to link different decision methods and procedures in a comparative light. It deepens our empirical base and understanding of values, models, action repertoires, and judgment structures (and their algorithms). The effort here is, of course, a limited one.
... Risk is the likelihood of it doing so (Fox, 1998: 665;The British Medical Association, 1987) Risk then is a compound measure of the magnitude of some future harmful event or effect and the probability of its occurrence. Standard models of risk can be employed, for instance, where risk is conceptualized as (see also footnote11): Risk = (Probability of a hazard, loss, undesirable outcome) x (impact or assessment of a hazard, loss, or undesirable outcome) But we must bear in mind that such an approach decontextualizes many key physical as well as social factors (and shares a good deal of the weaknesses of rational choice theory (Burns and Roszkowska, 2008). Social contextualization implies the possibility of a variety of different risk assumptions, conceptions and models. ...
This is the second part of a two part article. In Part I, a social systems theory was applied to the analysis of hazardous technology and socio-technical systems, their complex dynamics, and risky dimensions and likelihood of accidents. It identified many of the diverse human risk factors associated with complex technologies and socio-technical systems, thus contributing knowledge toward preventing - or minimizing the likelihood of - accidents or catastrophes. This second part of the article will systematically address the broader issues of risk conceptions, analysis, and management in contemporary society including policy and other practical aspects. The social systems perspective and its derivations are contrasted to such impressionistic conceptions as those of Ulrich Beck. Section 1 of the paper introduces the topic of risk as a discursive concept in contemporary society. Our point of departure is the social system approach introduced in Part I, which is contrasted to that of Ulrich Beck, who eschews systematic theorizing at the same time that he denigrates empirical sociology. The section stresses that contemporary society is not so much threatened by high risks all around (as in Ulrich Beck's "risk society") but is more characterized by its developed risk discourses (a great deal owing to Beck himself), risk consciousness, risk theorizing, and risk management. What is truly characteristic of modern society are discretionary powers to determine dimensions, levels, and regulation of risk, that is, choices can be made whether or not to develop a technology, whether or not to not to tightly regulate it, for instance limiting or banning its use or whether or not to allow its widespread application, and under what conditions. Section 2 provides a brief review of our social systems framework, actor-system-dialectics (ASD) theory. Section 3 treats risk and risk analysis in a systems perspective, emphasizing the limitations of risk assessment and the risk management of complex, hazardous systems. Section 4 considers several principles which may serve to guide policy-making and regulation with respect to the hazards and risks of complex technologies and socio-technical systems.
