Search

The current study presents the longitudinal overview of 40 years of Luhmannian research in the Anglophone academic community by employing a quantitative content analysis. As the first study of this kind, this paper aims to explore the current topography of Luhmannian research. For the purpose, a total of 1,231 journal articles published in English were analyzed in terms of the number of articles in relation to several variables such as publication year, region, discipline, methodology, and the purpose of utilizing Luhmann. In summary, the key findings include: first, decreasing Anglo-American authors' contributions to the Luhmannian research in the English-language academic publications, as opposed to growing outputs of authors from continental Europe and other regions; second, the difference in the maturity of Luhmannian scholarship by region; third, the demonstration of the breadth and versatility of Luhmann's theory of systems; fourth, the capability of Luhmann's theory accommodating empirical research and its potential as a framework to lead fruitful research streams. This study is expected to provide a useful reference for Luhmannian researchers, as well as for authors from other research strands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I present and summarize the theoretical proposals of four leading scholars of the so-called ‘relational sociology’. First of all I try to contextualize its emergence and developments in the increasingly globalized scientific system. From this particular (and international) point of view, relational sociology seems to develop through a peculiar scientific path opened and charted by well-identified actors and competitors, their invisible colleges, their global connections, cleavages, and coalitions. Whatever the structuring of this field, it accomplishes the criticism of classical individualistic and collectivistic sociological theories, a task strongly facilitated by the development of new methods and techniques of empirical research, and by the increasingly powerful computing capabilities. After this brief historical reconstruction, and following very strictly the contributions of the four scholars, I try to synthetize their theoretical designs, focusing the analysis on two scientific issues of great significance for the future of relational sociology: the specific ontology of ‘social relations’ and the methodologies used to observe it adequately. Finally, I wonder if we are facing a new sociological paradigm, already well structured and internationally established, or rather a ‘relational turn’ that probably will develop into a new ‘sociological field’ internally very differentiated and articulated. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper offers an overview of relational sociology as developed by and around Harrison White. Relational sociology provides a substantial account of social networks, conceptualizing them as real social structures interwoven with meaning. Forms of meaning connected to network configurations (as part of their ‘domains’) include stories, identities, social categories (including role categories), and institutions. Recent advances lead to a network perspective on culture, and to an emphasis on communicative events in networks. In contrast to other strands of relational sociology, the approach aims at a close connection between empirical research and theoretical reflection. Theoretical concepts and arguments are geared at empirical applicability in network research, rather than mainly providing a theoretical description of the social world. Finally, the author's own version of relational sociology is sketched: social networks are seen as dynamic constructions of relational expectations. These emerge and develop over the course of communication (in the sense of Niklas Luhmann), in turn effectively channeling communicative sequence. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Almost all empirical research reveals that social capital is a factor that enhances public goods, but scholars are divided into two strands of thought. According to the first strand, the enhancement of public goods does not need any network of social relations, while, according to the second, enhancement depends on the existence and good functioning of relational networks, to the point that it consists in the creation of social networks. Which one is right? In order to clarify the issue, one should ask: can a social relation have any added social value? If so, how can we conceive of the added social value of social relations, and how can we measure it? The author claims that the added social value of social relations can be observed in those processes through which social capital and public (relational) goods (re)generate or elide each other. These processes can be analyzed as morphogenetic cycles that work in temporal sequences and are not circular or recursive. By adopting this perspective, we can see and measure the added social value of social relations in primary and secondary networks, leading to the emergence of public goods. The relational approach can give abundant evidence as to how and why different public goods are produced and/or enhanced depending on the different added social value of the social relations that constitute them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The methodological debate which began some years ago concerning the relationship between quantitative and qualitative research does not appear to be over yet. The attempt to draw distinctions between the so-called qualitative and qualitative methods still sees the most famous of Italian methodologists invariably taking up contrasting positions. Apart from the most radical stances that tend to eliminate any possibility of' real discussion it has to be said that the task of drawing a clear, definitive methodological distinction between qualitative and quantitative research is not only a difficult one, but one perhaps bordering on the impossible. In fact, the procedures and levels of comparison to be employed by the researcher will vary depending on the level of generalization aimed at. Many complex data-elaboration and coding methods that have been developed over the years constitute the methodological basis of current grounded theory. The conceptual units emerge at the first encounter with the reality being studied, and are labels indicating empirical evidence.