No abstract

No abstract

This article considers the concepts of sustainability and sustainable development in relation to disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. We conceptualize sustainability from a social systemic perspective, that is, from a perspective that encompasses the multiple functionalities of a social system and their interrelationships in particular environmental contexts. The systems perspective is applied in our consideration and analysis of disaster risk reduction (DRR), climate change adaptation (CCA), and sustainable development (SD). Section "Sustainability and Sustainable Development" introduces briefly sustainability and sustainable development, followed by a brief presentation of the theory of complex social systems (Section "Social System Model"). The theory conceptualizes interdependent subsystems, their multiple functionalities, and the agential and systemic responses to internal and external stressors on a social system. Section "Case Studies of Response to Stressors" considers disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA), emerging in response to one or more systemic stressors. It illustrates these with disaster risk reduction in the cases of food and chemical security regulation in the EU. CCA is illustrated by initiatives and developments on the island of Gotland, Sweden and in the Gothenburg Metropolitan area, which go beyond a limited CCA perspective, taking into account long-term sustainability issues. Section "Sustainable Development as a Societal Development System" discusses the limitations of DRR and CCA, not only their technical limitations but economic, socio-cultural, and political limitations, as informed from a sustainability perspective. It is argued that DRRs are only partial subsystems and must be considered and assessed in the context of a more encompassing systemic perspective. Part of the discussion is focused on the distinction between sustainable and non-sustainable DRRs and CCAs. Section "Concluding Remarks" presents a few concluding remarks about the importance of a systemic perspective in analyzing DRR and CCA as well as other similar subsystems in terms of sustainable development.

This article draws on earlier work in social system theorizing and analysis-in particular, the theory of social rule systems. On the basis of this foundational work, its aim is to systematically link theories of social groups and organizations, on the one hand, and social science game and interaction theory, on the other hand. Rule system theory has contributed to significant features of group theory and social science game theory. It is a cultural-institutional approach to conceptualizing group systems and games. We explore how groups and their particular games can be effectively described, analyzed, and compared-and their similarities and differences identified on a systematic basis. For illustrative purposes, we present a selection of several ideal types of groups: a military unit, a terrorist group, a recreational or social group, a research group, and a business entity, each of whom has a distinct rule configuration making for particular "rules of the game" and game patterns of interaction and outcome.

Abstract. This article presents a relatively straightforward theoretical framework about distributive justice with applications. It draws on a few key concepts of Sociological Game Theory (SGT). SGT is presented briefly in section 2. Section 3 provides a spectrum of distributive cases concerning principles of equality, differentiation among recipients according to performance or contribution, status or authority, or need. Two general types of social organization of distributive judgment are distinguished and judgment procedures or algorithms are modeled in each type of social organization. Section 4 discusses briefly the larger moral landscapes of human judgment -how distribution may typically be combined with other value into consideration. The article suggests that Rawls, Elster, and Machado point in this direction. Finally, it is suggested that the SGT framework presented provides a useful point of departure to systematically link it and compare the Warsaw School of Fair Division, Rawls, and Elster, among others.

Abstract:This article aims to present some of the initial work of developing a social science grounded game theory-as a clear alternative to classical game theory. Two distinct independent initiatives in Sociology are presented: One, a systems approach, social systems game theory (SGT), and the other, Erving Goffman's interactionist approach (IGT). These approaches are presented and contrasted with classical theory. They focus on the social rules, norms, roles, role relationships, and institutional arrangements, which structure and regulate human behavior. While strategic judgment and instrumental rationality play an important part in the sociological approaches, they are not a universal or dominant modality of social action determination. Rule following is considered, generally speaking, more characteristic and more general. Sociological approaches, such as those outlined in this article provide a language and conceptual tools to more adequately and effectively than the classical theory describe, model, and analyze the diversity and complexity of human interaction conditions and processes: (1) complex cognitive rule based models of the interaction situation with which actors understand and analyze their situations; (2) value complex(es) with which actors operate, often with multiple values and norms applying in interaction situations; (3) action repertoires (rule complexes) with simple and complex action alternatives-plans, programs, established (sometimes highly elaborated) algorithms, and rituals; (4) a rule complex of action determination modalities for actors to generate and/or select actions in game situations; three action modalities are considered here; each modality consists of one or more procedures or algorithms for action determination: (I) following or implementing a rule or rule complex, norm, role, ritual, or social relation; (II) selecting or choosing among given or institutionalized alternatives according to a rule or principle; and (III) constructing or adopting one or more alternatives according to a value, guideline, or set of criteria. Such determinations are often carried out collectively. The paper identifies and illustrates in a concluding table several of the key differences between classical theory and the sociological approaches on a number of dimensions relating to human agency; social structure, norms, institutions, and cultural forms; patterns of game interaction and outcomes, the conditions of cooperation and conflict, game restructuring and transformation, and empirical relevance. Sociologically based game theory, such as the contributions outlined in this article suggest a language and conceptual tools to more adequately and effectively than the classical theory describe, model, and analyze the diversity, complexity, and dynamics of human interaction conditions and processes and, therefore, promises greater empirical relevance and scientific power. An Appendix provides an elaboration of SGT, concluding that one of SGT's major contributions is the rule based conceptualization of g...

The paper presents a methodology for modelling complex organizational processes, enabling one to specify and to examine the complex linkages between multiple social actors, different action settings, phases and types of activity, and social rules that structure and regulate the activities. The paper applies the methodology to organ transplantation in a modern high-tech medical system. It identifies several key social rules including medical norms and public laws that are applied in concrete decision and activity settings. Important details of the organ transplantation process are represented in a flowchart model, showing key actors, action settings, choices and operations in the process.

Background Public involvement in research is increasingly utilised, but has been problematised for lack of diversity. Involving representatives from seldom-heard groups, such as the migrant population, has the potential to transform health research for some of Europe's most disadvantaged groups. Methods We have explored involvement of migrants in health research projects in Sweden, through a three-year longitudinal qualitative study with migrant contributors involved in a child mental health trial, and a series of behavioural observations of research meetings in several projects with migrant contributors. Results The migrant contributors were initially hesitant to trust the researchers. However, through relationship-building and time, mutual trust was established. The contributors gained a social network in each other and the researchers, and their motivation for involvement changed over time, from focussing on individual benefits to societal change. They viewed their role as sharing their experiences, but saw researchers as in control of the final research decisions. Behavioural observations identified barriers to contributors’ access to information in the meetings, such as academic terminology and difficulties in language interpretation. Enabling factors included balancing the presence of experts in the meeting as well as flexibility towards contributors’ needs and initiatives. Additionally, transparency around the research process and providing feedback to the contributors functioned as enablers for involvement. Conclusions This longitudinal qualitative inquiry paired with behavioural observations, revealed that when involving migrants as public contributors in research, time and resources should be focused on relationship building, to increase mutual trust and understanding, and careful planning undertaken to make the research process transparent and accessible for the contributors. Key messages • Involving migrants in research has great potential – but requires careful planning and consideration. • Awareness of barriers and enablers can assist researchers in attaining meaningful involvement.