Contextual Knowledge

The contemporary economy is characterized by design and marketing as means to create brands and market niches. An aesthetic economy is made up of many aesthetic markets that are distinguished by changing products and lack of an entrenched quality order to evaluate them. Aesthetic creative work plays a central role in this type of economy. This work includes design of the products sold in markets. The purpose of this article is to study what is here called contextual knowledge. The suggested approach enables us to better understand and research creative aesthetic work and aesthetic workers' knowledge. Three qualitatively different dimensions of contextuality are discussed. First, contextuality is related to the network of actors who contribute to the production of the items or the activities. Second, contextuality is related to various arenas of aesthetic expressions, such as visual art, which can be used as a source of inspiration by aesthetic creative workers. The third dimension of contextuality refers to the final consumer markets. Contextual knowledge must be seen against a backdrop of a shared lifeworld and it involves interpretation. This article draws on material from two empirical studies, one on the garment industry, and one on fashion photographers

Designing for the other : using knowledge to upgrade manufacturing in the garment industry

The first purpose of this paper is to theorize on the kind of knowledge that firms need in order to upgrade. The second purpose is to discuss some specific ways to upgrade, especially given the problem of contextual knowledge that manufactures face. To understand upgrading among garment manufacturers in developing countries, we must analyze the meaning of fashion garments. The paper introduces the theoretical notion of contextual knowledge, which furthers the two main findings of the paper. The first finding is empirical: it is a different situation to have a garment-producing firm in a developing country design for final consumer markets in developed countries than it is to have garments designed by someone close to these markets. This is due to a knowledge-gap in the global market. As a result of this first finding, the second and more theoretical one deals with the knowledge context by examining its two dimensions – the lifeworld and the province of meaning.In diesem Discussion Paper wird das Bestreben der Bekleidungshersteller in Entwicklungsländern, ihre Wettbewerbsfähigkeit auf globalen Modemärkten zu erhöhen, in zweierlei Hinsicht analysiert. Erstens wird theoretisch erfasst, mit welcher Art von Wissen Hersteller ihren Produkten ein hohes Ansehen im Markt verschaffen können. Zweitens werden verschiedene Möglichkeiten des Upgradings verglichen, vor allem in Bezug auf das Problem des kontextbezogenen Wissens der Hersteller. Damit verständlich wird, was eine solche "Wertsteigerung" für die Modeindustrie in Entwicklungsländern bedeutet, werden zunächst die Bedeutungs- und Sinnzuschreibungen von Markenmode analysiert. Die Darlegung der theoretischen Auffassung kontextbezogenen Wissens fördert zwei Erkenntnisse zutage, wobei die erste empirischer Natur ist: Es ist ein Unterscheid, ob man einen Bekleidungshersteller in einem Entwicklungsland für den Endverbrauchermarkt eines Industrielandes produzieren lässt oder jemanden, der zu diesen Märkten die räumliche und kulturelle Nähe hat. Der Grund dafür ist eine Wissenslücke im globalen Markt. Folgerichtig bezieht sich die zweite, theoretischere Erkenntnis auf die beiden Dimensionen des Wissenskontextes: die Lebenswelt und die Bedeutungswelt

How are markets made?

"The purpose of this paper is to analyze the making of markets. The paper identifies two ideal-typical processes in which markets are made - organized making and spontaneous making - which are often combined in reality. Organized making is defined as a process in which at least two actors come together and decide on the order of the market. There are two ways of organized making of markets, called 'state-governed market making' and 'self-governed market making.' Spontaneous making is defined as a process in which the market is an unintended result of actors' activities. The attention sociologists have paid to the issue of market making has been directed largely at organized market making. This paper develops a sociological approach that integrates both spontaneous and organized market making, and identifies three phases of market making. This involves a discussion of empirical cases, and seven hypotheses are presented that make predictions for the two types of market making. The paper provides theoretical tools for studying the making of markets in history, as well as in our own time. Finally, a number of conditions are presented that must be in place if there is to be a market." (author's abstract)"Dieses Working Paper analysiert, wie Märkte geschaffen werden. Hierzu werden zwei idealtypische Prozesse identifiziert, die in der Realität oft miteinander gekoppelt sind: die organisierte und die spontane Schaffung von Märkten. Die organisierte Schaffung wird als ein Prozess definiert, in dem mindestens zwei Akteure zusammenkommen und über die Ordnung eines Marktes entscheiden. Hierbei wird zwischen der 'staatlich regulierten' und 'selbstgesteuerten' Schaffung von Märkten unterschieden. Die spontane Schaffung wird als ein Prozess definiert, in dem ein Markt als unbeabsichtigtes Ergebnis aus dem Handeln von Akteuren hervorgeht. Bis zum gegenwärtigen Zeitpunkt wurde vor allem die organisierte Schaffung von Märkten untersucht. Dieses Papier entwickelt einen soziologischen Ansatz, der sowohl die spontane als auch die organisierte Schaffung umfasst und drei Phasen des Schaffungsprozesses identifiziert. Dabei werden empirische Fälle diskutiert und sieben Hypothesen aufgestellt, die Prognosen zu den beiden Arten der Schaffung von Märkten liefern. Darüber hinaus werden theoretische Instrumente vorgestellt, mit denen sich die Schaffung von Märkten im Lauf der Geschichte und in der Gegenwart untersuchen lässt, sowie schließlich die Voraussetzungen, die erfüllt sein müssen, damit ein Markt zustande kommen kann." (Autorenreferat

Markets, evaluations and rankings

"Starting from the problem of economic coordination, this article defines markets as a social structure for the exchange of rights in which offers are evaluated and priced, and compete with one another. It identifies temporality, the roles of buyers and sellers, the voluntary nature of trade, property rights and competition as key features distinguishing markets from trade and other forms of economic coordination. In order to function, markets require a shared understanding of a product, a common culture as rules of behavior and an agreement over the economic value of an offer. Finally, the article distinguishes between 'fixed' and 'switch-role markets' to show that it is necessary to speak of markets in plural." (author's abstract

Theory, Reality, and Performativity in Markets

The purpose of this article is to analyze the relation between scientific knowledge in the form of theories and the world that such theories are about. The focus is on market theories. I argue that everyday knowledge, conceptualized using the notion of “lifeworld,” is the bedrock of scientific knowledge. I also make two distinctions, one between types of markets and one between principles of order in markets. There are two different types of markets, fixed-role markets and switch-role markets, and no existing theory can be used to explain both of them. In fixed-role markets, such as a producer market of garments, actors are identified as either sellers or buyers. In switch-role markets, such as the stock exchange market or currency market, actors are not identified with one role. The other distinction is between standard and status markets. In a status market, order is maintained because the identities of actors on both sides of the market are ranked according to status, which is a more entrenched social construction than the commodity traded in the market. In a market characterized by standards, the situation is reversed: the commodity is a more entrenched social construction than the social status of actors in the market. These distinctions are the backdrop of my analysis of the idea that markets are performed. It is concluded that the performativity approach is useful today for analyzing switch-role markets. A further conclusion is that neoclassical economic theory can be used in understanding switch-role markets, but not fixed-role markets

How Are Markets Made?

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the making of markets. The paper identifies two ideal-typical processes in which markets are made – organized making and spontaneous making – which are often combined in reality. Organized making is defined as a process in which at least two actors come together and decide on the order of the market. There are two ways of organized making of markets, called “state-governed market making” and “self-governed market making.” Spontaneous making is defined as a process in which the market is an unintended result of actors’ activities. The attention sociologists have paid to the issue of market making has been directed largely at rganized market making. This paper develops a sociological approach that integrates both spontaneous and organized market making, and identifies three phases of market making. This involves a discussion of empirical cases, and seven hypotheses are presented that make predictions for the two types of market making. The paper provides theoretical tools for studying the making of markets in history, as well as in our own time. Finally, a number of conditions are presented that must be in place if there is to be a market.Dieses Working Paper analysiert, wie Märkte geschaffen werden. Hierzu werden zwei idealtypische Prozesse identifiziert, die in der Realität oft miteinander gekoppelt sind: die organisierte und die spontane Schaffung von Märkten. Die organisierte Schaffung wird als ein Prozess definiert, in dem mindestens zwei Akteure zusammenkommen und über die Ordnung eines Marktes entscheiden. Hierbei wird zwischen der „staatlich regulierten“ und „selbstgesteuerten“ Schaffung von Märkten unterschieden. Die spontane Schaffung wird als ein Prozess definiert, in dem ein Markt als unbeabsichtigtes Ergebnis aus dem Handeln von Akteuren hervorgeht. Bis zum gegenwärtigen Zeitpunkt wurde vor allem die organisierte Schaffung von Märkten untersucht. Dieses Papier entwickelt einen soziologischen Ansatz, der sowohl die spontane als auch die organisierte Schaffung umfasst und drei Phasen des Schaffungsprozesses identifiziert. Dabei werden empirische Fälle diskutiert und sieben Hypothesen aufgestellt, die Prognosen zu den beiden Arten der Schaffung von Märkten liefern. Darüber hinaus werden theoretische Instrumente vorgestellt, mit denen sich die Schaffung von Märkten im Lauf der Geschichte und in der Gegenwart untersuchen lässt, sowie schließlich die Voraussetzungen, die erfüllt sein müssen, damit ein Markt zustande kommen kann.Introduction Conditions of markets Prerequisites of order Making of markets in history Spontaneous market making The sociological turn Phases of spontaneous market making Organized making State-governed market making Self-governed market making Towards the integration of market making types Conditions and consequences of market making Conclusion Reference

Designing for the Other: Using Knowledge to Upgrade Manufacturing in the Garment Industry

The first purpose of this paper is to theorize on the kind of knowledge that firms need in order to upgrade. The second purpose is to discuss some specific ways to upgrade, especially given the problem of contextual knowledge that manufactures face. To understand upgrading among garment manufacturers in developing countries, we must analyze the meaning of fashion garments. The paper introduces the theoretical notion of contextual knowledge, which furthers the two main findings of the paper. The first finding is empirical: it is a different situation to have a garment-producing firm in a developing country design for final consumer markets in developed countries than it is to have garments designed by someone close to these markets. This is due to a knowledge-gap in the global market. As a result of this first finding, the second and more theoretical one deals with the knowledge context by examining its two dimensions – the lifeworld and the province of meaning.In diesem Discussion Paper wird das Bestreben der Bekleidungshersteller in Entwicklungsländern, ihre Wettbewerbsfähigkeit auf globalen Modemärkten zu erhöhen, in zweierlei Hinsicht analysiert. Erstens wird theoretisch erfasst, mit welcher Art von Wissen Hersteller ihren Produkten ein hohes Ansehen im Markt verschaffen können. Zweitens werden verschiedene Möglichkeiten des Upgradings verglichen, vor allem in Bezug auf das Problem des kontextbezogenen Wissens der Hersteller. Damit verständlich wird, was eine solche "Wertsteigerung" für die Modeindustrie in Entwicklungsländern bedeutet, werden zunächst die Bedeutungs- und Sinnzuschreibungen von Markenmode analysiert. Die Darlegung der theoretischen Auffassung kontextbezogenen Wissens fördert zwei Erkenntnisse zutage, wobei die erste empirischer Natur ist: Es ist ein Unterscheid, ob man einen Bekleidungshersteller in einem Entwicklungsland für den Endverbrauchermarkt eines Industrielandes produzieren lässt oder jemanden, der zu diesen Märkten die räumliche und kulturelle Nähe hat. Der Grund dafür ist eine Wissenslücke im globalen Markt. Folgerichtig bezieht sich die zweite, theoretischere Erkenntnis auf die beiden Dimensionen des Wissenskontextes: die Lebenswelt und die Bedeutungswelt.1 Introduction 5 2 Field and methods 6 3 The garment industry 7 4 Producing clothes 8 5 Information and knowledge 9 6 Contextual knowledge 11 7 Contextual knowledge in the fashion industry 12 8 Upgrading strategies 14 9 Discussion 16 Reference

What is Qualitative in Research

In 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.publishedVersio