<i>Ratio via Machina</i>: Three Standards of Mechanistic Explanation in Sociology

Aviles, Natalie B.; Reed, Isaac Ariail

doi:10.1177/0049124115610350

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Adopting this model of racial structure helps explain mechanisms that reproduce racial inequality in the absence of conscious discriminatory intent. Recent work focuses on the role of human agency in generating novel social mechanisms (Aviles and Reed 2017; Gross 2009). Arguing that schemas are basically a type of “habit,” Gross (2009:375) claims that social mechanisms are “aggregations of actors, problem situations, and habitual responses” allowing for the machinelike or nearly automatic reproduction of social relations.…”

Section: Organizations Are Racial Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Theory of Racialized Organizations

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organizational theory scholars typically see organizations as race-neutral bureaucratic structures, while race and ethnicity scholars have largely neglected the role of organizations in the social construction of race. The theory developed in this article bridges these subfields, arguing that organizations are racial structures—cognitive schemas connecting organizational rules to social and material resources. I begin with the proposition that race is constitutive of organizational foundations, hierarchies, and processes. Next, I develop four tenets: (1) racialized organizations enhance or diminish the agency of racial groups; (2) racialized organizations legitimate the unequal distribution of resources; (3) Whiteness is a credential; and (4) the decoupling of formal rules from organizational practice is often racialized. I argue that racialization theory must account for how both state policy and individual attitudes are filtered through—and changed by—organizations. Seeing race as constitutive of organizations helps us better understand the formation and everyday functioning of organizations. Incorporating organizations into a structural theory of racial inequality can help us better understand stability, change, and the institutionalization of racial inequality. I conclude with an overview of internal and external sources of organizational change and a discussion of how the theory of racialized organizations may set the agenda for future research.

show abstract

Section: Organizations Are Racial Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Theory of Racialized Organizations

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The denotations and connotations of the term mechanism in the context of cultural analysis in sociology are such that it provides a useful way to describe certain social processes. Understood in this sense, "mechanism" is primarily a sensitizing concept that admits some degree of generalization and points to causal processes that unfold in a regular manner (Aviles and Reed 2017). Precisely because its utility is metaphorical rather than definitional, the term "mechanism" then enables a very different approach to the epistemology of social causation.…”

Section: The Uncomfortable Implications For the Sociology Of Culturementioning

confidence: 99%

Meaning and Modularity: The Multivalence of “Mechanism” in Sociological Explanation

Knight

Reed

2019

Sociological Theory

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mechanisms are ubiquitous in sociological explanation. Recent theoretical work has sought to extend mechanistic explanation further still: into cultural and interpretative analysis. Yet it is not clear that the concept of mechanism can coherently unify interpretation and causal explanation within a single explanatory framework. We note that sociological mechanistic explanation is marked by a crucial disjuncture. Specifically, we identify two conflicting mechanistic approaches: Modular mechanism models depict counterfactual dependence among independent causal chains, whereas meaningful mechanism models depict relational interdependence among semiotic assemblages. This disjuncture, we argue, is grounded in incompatible causal foundations and entails mechanistic models with distinct and conflicting evidentiary standards. We conclude by proposing a way forward: a sociological pluralism that is attentive to the productive incongruity of our distinct explanatory models.

show abstract

“…In realist research, knowledge accrual is never final, but instead results in refinements and improvements upon existing knowledge. Thus, "empirical observation is the imperfect vehicle of sociological inquiry that attempts to access real causes and mechanisms by hypothesizing actual processes based on observed outcomes" (Aviles & Reed, 2017).…”

Section: Epistemologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-location of health and leisure to promote physical activity: a realist synthesis

Grinvalds¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To address the burden of non-communicable chronic disease (NCDs), many initiatives focus on increasing physical activity (PA) through healthcare. In Sheffield, as part of a London 2012 Olympic Legacy programme, the National Centre for Sport and Exercise Medicine - National Health Service (NHS) clinics were co-located within leisure centres. The aim was to promote PA as prevention and treatment option in healthcare and to bring care out of hospitals and into the community. Although policy calls for co-location of healthcare in alternate settings, there is little evidence that leisure centres might represent a suitable environment. It is unknown what impact delivering healthcare in leisure centres might have on promotion of PA within those services. This research seeks to understand how, why, for whom and under what circumstances co-location of healthcare with leisure works (or does not work). This research was grounded in realist methodology in two phases. In Phase 1, initial programme theories were developed through a realist review of academic, grey and policy literature on co-location. Initial rough programme theories from the realist review were subsequently ‘tested’ and ‘refined’ using data from semi-structured realist interviews with stakeholders involved in development of the co-location model in Sheffield. Phase 1 ended with nine theories regarding how, why, for whom and in what circumstances co-locating health and leisure services might work (or not). In Phase 2, theories were tested through semi-structured interviews with ten healthcare professionals and ten patients across four clinical services based in the co-located sites. Subsequently, five refined programme theories emerged. These theories suggest that colocation works best for patients with NCDs who are motivated but need support. Colocation of health and leisure works best for HCPs that are active, knowledgeable about PA and make time to discuss PA with patients. Co-location of health and leisure creates a salutogenic environment which enables patients and HCPs to become active. Enabling contexts include aligned business models, shared clinical and PA scheduling and teamwork between HCPs and exercise professionals. Logistical challenges and individual motivations serve as barriers to co-location working to promote PA. Co-location, under the right conditions has the potential to result in promotion of PA through healthcare and more individuals with NCDs becoming physically active.

show abstract

Ratio via Machina: Three Standards of Mechanistic Explanation in Sociology

Cited by 10 publications

References 24 publications

A Theory of Racialized Organizations

A Theory of Racialized Organizations

Meaning and Modularity: The Multivalence of “Mechanism” in Sociological Explanation

Co-location of health and leisure to promote physical activity: a realist synthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About