¿Existen muchos tipos de racionalidad?

Este artículo tiene tres objetivos principales. En primer lugar, ofrecer una panorámica de las teorías de la racionalidad actualmente disponibles en ciencias sociales. En segundo lugar, discutir la especificidad de la aproximación de Boudon en contraste con las anteriores. Finalmente, sugerir algunas vías a través de las cuales la aproximación puede ser mejorada y completada con la finalidad de alcanzar una teoría sólida de la interpretación de las acciones humanas en el mundo social.Aquest article té tres objectius principals. En primer lloc, oferir una panoràmica de les teories de la racionalitat actualment disponibles en ciències socials. En segon lloc, discutir l'especificitat de l'aproximació de Boudon en contrast amb les anteriors. Finalment, suggerir algunes vies a través de les quals l'aproximació pot ser millorada i completada amb la finalitat d'assolir una teoria sòlida de la interpretació de les accions humanes en el món social.This paper has three basic objectives. First, it summarizes the general theories of rationality that are currently available in the social sciences. Secondly, it describes the specificity of Boudon's approach to rationality in contrast to the previous ones. Finally, it suggests a few ways in which this approach can be enhanced and complemented in order to achieve a solid theory on the interpretation of human actions in a social world

Raymond Boudon : An analytical social theorist

Introduction to the special issue of Raymond Boudon.Introducción al número monográfico sobre Raymond Boudon.Introducció al número monogràfic sobre Raymond Boudon

Mechanistic explanations and components of social mechanisms

The past two decades have witnessed an increase in interest in social mechanisms and mechanistic explanations of social macro-phenomena. This paper addresses the question of what the components of social mechanisms in mechanistic explanations of social macro-phenomena must be. Analytical sociology’s initial position and the main new proposals by analytical sociologists are discussed. It is argued that all of them are faced with outstanding difficulties. Subsequently, a minimal requirement regarding the components of social mechanisms is introduced. It is held that a component of a social mechanism in a mechanistic explanation of a social macro-phenomenon must not have the explanandum phenomenon as a part of it

Pragmatism, Ontology, and Philosophy of the Social Sciences in Practice

In this article, I will discuss two prominent views on the relevance and irrelevance of ontological investigations for the social sciences, namely, ontological foundationalism and anti-ontological pragmatism. I will argue that both views are unsatisfactory. The subsequent part of the article will introduce an alternative role for ontological projects in the philosophy of the social sciences that fares better in this respect by paying attention to the ontological assumptions of actual social scientific theories, models, and related explanatory practices. I will illustrate and support this alternative through discussion of three concrete cases

The (hopefully) last stand of the covering-law theory: A reply to Opp

In his paper Karl-Dieter Opp heroically sets out to defend both the adequacy and socio- logical fruitfulness of the covering-law account of explanation (the HO scheme). The attempt is bold, as he is not only defending the HO scheme as a theory of explanation but also as a scheme for finding and establishing causal relationships. In this reply I argue that the defense is not successful; quite the contrary, it clearly demonstrates why mecha- nism-based reasoning is important in the social sciences. I also argue that this change in metatheoretical perspective has implications for thinking about the role of rational choice theory in sociology, which should not be seen as a foundational theory but rather as a version of commonsense psychology that can be used for modeling purposes.Peer reviewe

“Analytical sociology” and the explanation of beliefs

Many sociological works appear as being particularly illuminating, i.e. as able to explain puzzling social phenomena, because they follow three basic rules common to all scientific disciplines. These rules are at the root of the sociological paradigm becoming popular today in Europe under the label “analytical sociology”. But they identify a stream of sociological research that appeared notably with Weber’s and Durkheim’s work. These three rules are to a great extent responsible for the scientific strength of their respective work. They are crucial notably as far as the sociological explanation of collective beliefs, both representational and normative, is concerned, as examples drawn from the work of classical and modern social scientists illustrate. A special attention will be given to the beliefs that give a strong feeling of strangeness and for this reason were explored by many sociologists and anthropologists, as the beliefs in the efficiency of magical rituals.Nombre de travaux sociologiques sont d’autant plus éclairants qu’ils se montrent capables d’expliquer des phénomènes sociaux énigmatiques en s’attachant à suivre trois règles communes à toutes les disciplines scientifiques. Ces règles sont à la racine du paradigme popularisé aujourd’hui en Europe sous l’étiquette de la « sociologie analytique ». Cependant, elles identifient un courant de recherche illustré en particulier par les œuvres de Weber et de Durkheim. Ces trois règles sont en effet largement responsables de la puissance scientifique de leur œuvre respective. Elles s’avèrent cruciales dès lors qu’il s’agit d’expliquer des croyances collectives, tant représentationnelles que normatives, ainsi que l’illustrent des exemples tirés de l’œuvre de sociologues classiques et modernes. On accordera une attention particulière aux croyances provoquant un fort sentiment d’étrangeté, comme celles relatives à l’efficacité des rituels magiques, qui furent pour cette raison explorées par de nombreux sociologues et anthropologues

Análisis institucional multiagente: el problema de estructuración y agencia en la explicación de la emergencia de estructuras de gobernanza

En este artículo se investiga cuál es el efecto de introducir una perspectiva actualizada de estructuración en los modelos de gobernanza derivados del marco de análisis del neoinstitucionalismo. Mi argumento central es que, en general, la forma como se ha introducido la dimensión estructural en estos modelos no tiene suficientemente en cuenta los desarrollos actuales del debate sobre estructuración y agencia en el pensamiento sociológico. Tener en cuenta estos desarrollos puede generar una perspectiva de análisis institucional multiagente que permite indagar de forma más adecuada los procesos de emergencia de estructuras de gobernanza orientadas a la regulación intersectorial de riesgos sociales (problemáticas públicas) en las que participan agentes tanto estatales como no estatales. Esto aportaría a la capacidad explicativa del modelo neoinstitucional al integrar explícitamente el problema de agencia social en el análisis de los procesos de emergencia de estructuras de gobernanza.In this article, I undertake a theoretical study of the effects of introducing an updated perspective of structuration in governance models derived from the analytical framework of neo-institutionalism. My argument is that the way different authors have introduced the structural dimension in governance models derived from this framework, generally fails to take sufficient account of recent developments in the sociological debate on structuration and agency. To do so may lead to a multi-agent institutional analysis perspective, which permits us to question the development of governance structures aimed at the inter-sectorial regulation of social risks with the participation of state and non-state agents in a more suitable manner. This could improve the explanatory power of the neo-institutional framework by explicitly taking into account the problem of social agency in analyzing the emergence of said governance structures.Neste artigo, pesquisa-se qual é o efeito de introduzir uma perspectiva atualizada de estruturação nos modelos de governança derivados do marco de análise do neoinstitucionalismo. Meu argumento central é que, em geral, a forma como se tem introduzido a dimensão estrutural nesses modelos não leva suficientemente em conta o desenvolvimento atual do debate sobre estruturação e agência no pensamento sociológico. Considerar esse desenvolvimento pode gerar uma perspectiva de análise institucional multiagente que permite indagar de forma mais adequada os processos de emergência de estruturas de governança orientadas à regulação intersetorial de riscos sociais (problemáticas públicas) das quais participam agentes tanto estatais quanto não estatais. Isso contribuiria à capacidade explicativa do modelo neoinstitucional ao integrar explicitamente o problema de agência social na análise dos processos de emergência de estruturas de governança