A universal theory of social groups: the actor-system-dynamics approach to agents, rule regimes, and interaction processes

Drawing on multi-level, dynamic systems theory in sociology which has been developed and applied in institutional, organizational, and societal analyses, we formulate a general theory of social groups. This social systems approach has not been previously applied in the group area. We claim that this particular systems approach can be systematically and fruitfully applied to small as well as large groups to understand and analyze their functioning and dynamics. In this article, we refer to a group as an aggregation of persons/social agents that is characterized by (1) shared group identity, (2) a shared rule regime (collective culture) shaping and regulating their roles and role relationships and group behavioral outputs (3) its bases of membership and adherence or commitment to the group, its identity and rule regime, (4) its technologies and material resources used in group interactions, 2 performances, and productions (5) it shared places (situations for interaction), and (6) its times for gathering and interacting. The theory identifies three universal bases on which any human group or social organization, including small groups, depends and which motivate, shape and regulate group activities and productions (Section II). The bases are group requisites – necessary for group “functioning” and interacting in more or less orderly or coherent ways, realizing group as well as possibly members’ goals and maintaining and reproducing the group. The group bases consist of, first, a rule regime or social structural base; second, an agential base of group members socialized or partially socialized carriers of and adherents to the group’s rule regime; of importance here are involvement/participation factors motivating member to adhere to, accept, and implement the rule regime; third, there is a resource base, technologies and resources self-produced and/or obtained from the environment, which are essential to key group activities. In the theory presented here in Section II, a social group is not only characterized by its three universal bases but by its universal functions, group actions and outputs -- its interactions and productions/performances and their outcomes and developments including the impact of their productions on the group itself (reflexivity) and on its environment (see Figure 1). These outputs, among other things, maintain/adapt/develop core group Bases (or possibly unintentionally undermine/destroy them). Thus, groups can be understood as action/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, legitimation, etc. The theory identifies the six (6) universal system functions of groups. A major distinctive feature in our systems approach is the theory of rule regimes, specifying the finite universal rule categories (ten distinct categories) that 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, adapt, and transform. We emphasize not only the systemic character of all functioning groups – universally their three bases and their six output functions together with feedback dynamics -- but also the differentiating character of any given group’s particular rule configuration. The article ends with a discussion of two major theoretical implications: (1) the identification and analyses of any given group’s particular rule configuration which characterize that group and is sustained under relatively stable internal and external conditions (Section III); for illustrative purposes we present in Section IV a selection of few simple rule configurations that characterize several diverse types of groups. (2) the transformation of group bases and their interaction/production functions. The theory enables from a single framework the systematic description and comparative analysis of a wide diversity of groups, as illustrated in Sections III and IV

Report of the Stanford Linked Data Workshop

The Stanford University Libraries and Academic Information Resources (SULAIR) with the Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR) conducted at week-long workshop on the prospects for a large scale, multi-national, multi-institutional prototype of a Linked Data environment for discovery of and navigation among the rapidly, chaotically expanding array of academic information resources. As preparation for the workshop, CLIR sponsored a survey by Jerry Persons, Chief Information Architect emeritus of SULAIR that was published originally for workshop participants as background to the workshop and is now publicly available. The original intention of the workshop was to devise a plan for such a prototype. However, such was the diversity of knowledge, experience, and views of the potential of Linked Data approaches that the workshop participants turned to two more fundamental goals: building common understanding and enthusiasm on the one hand and identifying opportunities and challenges to be confronted in the preparation of the intended prototype and its operation on the other. In pursuit of those objectives, the workshop participants produced:1. a value statement addressing the question of why a Linked Data approach is worth prototyping;2. a manifesto for Linked Libraries (and Museums and Archives and …);3. an outline of the phases in a life cycle of Linked Data approaches;4. a prioritized list of known issues in generating, harvesting & using Linked Data;5. a workflow with notes for converting library bibliographic records and other academic metadata to URIs;6. examples of potential “killer apps” using Linked Data: and7. a list of next steps and potential projects.This report includes a summary of the workshop agenda, a chart showing the use of Linked Data in cultural heritage venues, and short biographies and statements from each of the participants

Toward a universal theory of the human group: sociological systems framework applied to the comparative analysis of groups and organizations

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

Eye quietness and quiet eye in expert and novice golf performance: an electrooculographic analysis

Quiet eye (QE) is the final ocular fixation on the target of an action (e.g., the ball in golf putting). Camerabased eye-tracking studies have consistently found longer QE durations in experts than novices; however, mechanisms underlying QE are not known. To offer a new perspective we examined the feasibility of measuring the QE using electrooculography (EOG) and developed an index to assess ocular activity across time: eye quietness (EQ). Ten expert and ten novice golfers putted 60 balls to a 2.4 m distant hole. Horizontal EOG (2ms resolution) was recorded from two electrodes placed on the outer sides of the eyes. QE duration was measured using a EOG voltage threshold and comprised the sum of the pre-movement and post-movement initiation components. EQ was computed as the standard deviation of the EOG in 0.5 s bins from –4 to +2 s, relative to backswing initiation: lower values indicate less movement of the eyes, hence greater quietness. Finally, we measured club-ball address and swing durations. T-tests showed that total QE did not differ between groups (p = .31); however, experts had marginally shorter pre-movement QE (p = .08) and longer post-movement QE (p < .001) than novices. A group × time ANOVA revealed that experts had less EQ before backswing initiation and greater EQ after backswing initiation (p = .002). QE durations were inversely correlated with EQ from –1.5 to 1 s (rs = –.48 - –.90, ps = .03 - .001). Experts had longer swing durations than novices (p = .01) and, importantly, swing durations correlated positively with post-movement QE (r = .52, p = .02) and negatively with EQ from 0.5 to 1s (r = –.63, p = .003). This study demonstrates the feasibility of measuring ocular activity using EOG and validates EQ as an index of ocular activity. Its findings challenge the dominant perspective on QE and provide new evidence that expert-novice differences in ocular activity may reflect differences in the kinematics of how experts and novices execute skills

Intersubjective meaning and collective action in'fragile'societies : theory, evidence and policy implications

The capacity to act collectively is not just a matter of groups sharing interests, incentives and values (or being sufficiently small), as standard economic theory predicts, but a prior and shared understanding of the constituent elements of problem(s) and possible solutions. From this standpoint, the failure to act collectively can stem at least in part from relevant groups failing to ascribe a common intersubjective meaning to situations, processes and events. Though this is a general phenomenon, it is particularly salient in countries characterized by societal fragility and endemic conflict. We develop a conceptual account of intersubjective meanings, explain its relevance to development practice and research, and examine its implications for development work related to building the rule of law and managing common pool resources.Corporate Law,Public Sector Corruption&Anticorruption Measures,Cultural Policy,Labor Policies,Population Policies

Negotiating Relationally: The Dynamics of the Relational Self In Negotiations

Although negotiation research is thriving, it has been criticized as having an arelational bias—emphasizing autonomy, competition, and rationality over interdependence, cooperation, and relationality. In this article, we advance a new model of relationality in negotiation. Drawing on research in social psychology, we describe the construct of relational self-construals (RSC) and present a temporal model of RSC and negotiation. After delineating the conditions through which RSC becomes accessible in negotiation and conditions that inhibit its use, we discuss how RSC affects negotiators\u27 pre-negotiation psychological states, early and later tactics, and negotiation outcomes. We illustrate a number of distinct relational dynamics that can occur based on the dyadic composition of RSC, each of which brings distinct benefits and costs to the negotiation table. Implications for the science and practice of negotiation are discussed

Epistemic Practices In Adults And Adolescents

Being epistemically responsible requires an appreciation for both the power and the limitations of human knowledge, forming and adjusting one’s beliefs in a way that is responsive to the right criteria. Epistemic responsibility is needed among the populace as well as the elite for a functional democracy. It is also crucial for the understanding of science. However, without clear, shared norms of how best to form, adjust, and justify beliefs, we cannot hold each other epistemically accountable. In this dissertation, I explore how adolescents and adults conceive of the best practices for forming beliefs. Chapter 1 asks what criteria for belief people take as legitimate, and how that affects their scientific beliefs. Chapter 2 examines epistemological reasoning in adolescence, focusing on appreciation for objective epistemic strategies and epistemic limitations. Chapter 3 explores adolescents’ cognitive norms and capacity to engage in epistemically responsible thinking, conceived here as thinking that is actively open-minded. These questions are explored using a mixed method approach, utilizing both surveys and interviews in each chapter. Surveys allow data collection from large and diverse samples. Qualitative interviews allow us to observe reasoning and justification more directly, adding nuance and illustrating thought processes. The results reveal serious disagreement concerning what constitutes epistemic responsibility, especially with respect to what counts as a legitimate reason for belief (Chapter 1). However, there is room for optimism; the majority of adolescents demonstrated the crucial building blocks for a sophisticated epistemology (Chapter 2) and norms of actively open-minded thinking (Chapter 3). We need to leverage these existing good epistemic norms and elements of understanding, especially in the young. It is my hope that this dissertation will further this goal

Changing Attitudes Toward Lesbian Women and Gay Men Through Self-Confrontation

Prejudice against lesbian women and gay men is widespread. Intolerance ranges from negative beliefs to exclusion from mainstream society, denial of civil rights and legal protection, as well as harassment and physical violence. Furthermore, it is socially acceptable to hold negative attitudes toward this group. There is no condemnation for doing so, unlike the case with racism. Given the extent of oppression faced by lesbians and gay men, research on attitude change is critical. This study explored the characteristics of college students that contribute to negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men, and investigated whether Rokeach’s method of self-confrontation is a useful intervention for attitude change. Students (N = 293) from introductory sociology classes comprised norm, experimental, and control groups. The following instruments were used in pretest and posttest conditions: the Rokeach Value Survey (RVS), the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men (ATLG) Scale, three questions to assess the amount and type (positive or negative) of contact with lesbians and gay men, and a demographic questionnaire. The experimental group intervention consisted of a modified version of the method of self-confrontation. Multiple regression analysis showed that the following factors contributed to attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: size of home town, positive contact, negative contact, and the RVS value Equality. Results of LISREL path analysis showed statistically significant treatment effects. Attitudes changed in the desired direction; however, the method of self-confrontation was not supported, as attitude change did not coincide with value change. The positive change in attitudes toward lesbian women and gay men was interpreted in terms of the effects of analyzing reasons for attitude change and the moderating role of attitude accessibility