“Transformative agency” as an object of sociological analysis: Contemporary discussions and the role of education

Cover Page

Abstract


Negative trends of the global social-economic development enhanced by the covid-19 pandemic explain the theoretical and practical relevance of the study of perspectives for structural transformations and their possible sources. In education, this means the need to improve the existing models of institutional practice and to contribute to the development of ‘agency’ that would support positive transformations in all domains of social life. The scientific attention to ‘agency’ and its transformative potential in relation to ‘structures’ is still limited compared to the issues of structures’ reproduction. The so-called ‘new institutionalists’ in sociology (including primarily J.W. Meyer and his followers) provide a promising basis for new theoretical models and empirical studies of the content, factors and effects of ‘transformative agency’. Meyer’s core idea is that social structures can both suppress and support the initiative formation of new social entities and the corresponding new values and modes of action. Further research in education should refer to the concepts of ‘institutional entrepreneurship’, ‘institutional work’ and ‘expanded actorhood’, when using the proposed theoretical framework to empirically study (1) globally and nationally promoted initiatives in entrepreneurship education in universities, and (2) processes of transformation of institutional contexts in education under the continuing global pandemic with an emphasis on the proactive role of students.


About the authors

P. S. Sorokin

HSE University

Author for correspondence.
Email: psorokin@hse.ru
Potapovsky Per., 16-10, Moscow, 101000, Russia

References

  1. Abramova M.O. et al. Analitichesky doklad “Vysshee obrazovanie: uroki pandemii”: operativnye i strategicheskie mery po razvitiyu sistemy [Analytical report “Higher Education: Lessons from the Pandemic”: Operational and Strategic Measures to Develop the System. 2020. URL: http://www.tsu.ru/upload/iblock/аналитический доклад_для_МОН_итог2020_.pdf. (In Russ.).
  2. Bourdieu P. Sotsialnoe prostranstvo: polya i praktiki [Social Space: Fields and Practices]. Saint Petersburg; 2005. (In Russ.).
  3. Weber M. Protestantskaya etika i dukh kapitalizma [The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism]. Weber M. Izbrannye proizvedeniya. Moscow; 1990. (In Russ.).
  4. Giddens A. Ustroenie obshchestva: Ocherk teorii strukturatsii [The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration]. Moscow; 2005. (In Russ.).
  5. Zobnina M., Korotkov A., Rozhkov A. Struktura, vyzovy i vozmozhnosti razvitiya predprinimatelskogo obrazovaniya v rossiyskikh universitetakh [Structure, challenges and opportunities for the development of entrepreneurial education at Russian universities]. Foresight. 2019; 13 (4). (In Russ.).
  6. Kravchenko SA. Metamorfizatsiya obshchestva: faktor “pobochnykh effektov” i globalizatsiya nichto [Metamorphization of society: The factor of ‘side effects’ and globalization of nothing]. RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2020; 20 (2). (In Russ.).
  7. Kurakin D.Yu. Tragedija neravenstva: raschelovechivaja “totalnogo cheloveka” [Tragedy of inequality: Dehumanizing “l’homme total”]. Sociological Review. 2020; 19 (3). (In Russ.).
  8. Mozgovaya A.V. Sotsialnaya sfera: vektor izmeneniy, riski i adaptatsionnye resursy (po materialam obshcherossiyskikh monitoringovykh issledovaniy) [Social sphere: Vectors of change, risks, and adaptation resources (the results of all-Russian monitoring surveys). RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2018; 18 (4). (In Russ.).
  9. Sorokin P.S., Froumin I.D. Problema “struktura/deystvie” v XXI v.: izmeneniya v sotsialnoy realnosti i vyvody dlya issledovatelskoy povestki [“Structure/agency” problem in the 21st century: Changing social reality and research implications]. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya. 2020; 7. (In Russ.).
  10. Sorokin P.S., Chernenko S.E., Povalko A.B. Obuchenie predprinimatelstvu v vuzakh Rossii i mira: zachem, kak i s kakimi rezultatami? [Entrepreneurship Education in the Universities of Russia and the World: What for, How and with What Results?]. Moscow; 2020. (In Russ.).
  11. Sztompka P. Ponyatie sotsialnoy struktury: popytka obobshcheniya [The concept of social structure: An attempt of generalization]. Sociologicheskie Issledovanija. 2001; 9. (In Russ.).
  12. Alemán J., Woods D. Value orientations from the world values survey: How comparable are they cross-nationally? Comparative Political Studies. 2016; 49 (8).
  13. Baeva L.V. Comparative analysis of values of Russia and Europe in the context of the issues of existential safety. RUDN Journal of Philosophy. 2018; 22 (2).
  14. Bromley P., Meyer J.W., Ramirez F.O. Student-centeredness in social science textbooks, 1970-2008: A cross-national study. Social Forces. 2011; 90 (2).
  15. Deguchi A., Hirai C., Matsuoka H., Nakano T., Oshima K., Tai M., Tani S. What is society 5.0? Society 5.0. Singapore; 2020.
  16. Deguchi A., Kajitani S., Nakajima T., Ohashi H., Watanabe T. From monetary to nonmonetary society. Society 5.0. Singapore; 2020.
  17. DiMaggio P. Interest and agency in institutional theory. L. Zucker (Ed.). Institutional Patterns and Culture. Cambridge; 1988.
  18. DiMaggio P.J., Powell W.W. (Eds.). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (Vol. 17). Chicago; 1991.
  19. Emirbayer M., Mische A. What is agency? American Journal of Sociology. 1998; 103 (4).
  20. Farrell H. The shared challenges of institutional theories: Rational choice, historical institutionalism, and sociological institutionalism. Knowledge and Space. Springer; 2018.
  21. Fligstein N., McAdam D. Toward a general theory of strategic action fields. Sociological Theory. 2011; 29 (1).
  22. Goldstone J.A., Useem B. Putting values and institutions back into the theory of strategic action fields. Sociological Theory. 2012; 30 (1).
  23. Hampel C.E., Lawrence T.B., Tracey P. Institutional Work: Taking Stock and Making It Matter. Sage; 2017.
  24. Hardy C., Maguire S. Institutional entrepreneurship and change in fields. Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. Sage; 2017.
  25. Illich I. Deschooling Society. New York; 1983.
  26. King A. Emotion, interaction and the structure-agency problem: Building on the sociology of Randall Collins. Thesis Eleven. 2019; 154 (1).
  27. Kuzminov Y., Sorokin P., Froumin I. Generic and specific skills as components of human capital: New challenges for education theory and practice. Foresight. 2019; 13 (2).
  28. Lawrence T.B., Suddaby R. Institutions and institutional work. S.R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T.B. Lawrence, W.R. Nord (Eds.). Handbook of Organization Studies. London; 2006.
  29. Lerch J., Bromley P., Ramirez F.O., Meyer J.W. The rise of individual agency in conceptions of society: Textbooks worldwide, 1950-2011. International Sociology, 2017; 32 (1).
  30. Meyer J.W. Reflections on rationalization, actors, and others. Research in the Sociology of Organizations. Emerald Publishing; 2019.
  31. Meyer J.W., Jepperson R.L. The “actors” of modern society: The cultural construction of social agency. Sociological Theory. 2000; 18 (1).
  32. Meyer J.W. World society, institutional theories, and the actor. Annual Review of Sociology. 2010; 36 (1).
  33. Nabi G., Liñán F., Fayolle A., Krueger N., Walmsley A. The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education. 2017; 16 (2).
  34. Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook. 2016. URL: https://www.oecd.org/sti/Megatrends%20affecting%20science,%20technology%20and%20innovation.pdf.
  35. Schofer E., Ramirez F.O., Meyer J.W. The societal consequences of higher education. Sociology of Education. 2020. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0038040720942912.
  36. Sorokin P. Vision and mission of sociology: Learning from the Russian historical experience. American Sociologist. 2017; 48 (2).
  37. Sorokin P. Making global sociology in the context of neoliberal domination: Challenges, ideology and possible strategies. Sociological Research Online. 2018; 23 (1).
  38. Sorokin P.S. The promise of John W. Meyer’s world society theory: “Otherhood” through the prism of Pitirim A. Sorokin’s integralism. American Sociologist. 2020; 51 (4).
  39. Streib J. The unbalanced theoretical toolkit: Problems and partial solutions to studying culture and reproduction but not culture and mobility. American Journal of Cultural Sociology. 2016; 10 (5).

Statistics

Views

Abstract - 535

PDF (Russian) - 300

Cited-By


PlumX

Dimensions


Copyright (c) 2021 Sorokin P.S.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies