Changing Paradigms in Space Theories:Recapturing 20th Century Architectural History

The concept of space entered architectural history as late as 1893. Studies in art opened up the discussion, and it has been studied in various ways in architecture ever since. This article aims to instigate an additional reading to architectural history, one that is not supported by "isms" but based on space theories in the 20th century. Objectives of the article are to bring the concept of space and its changing paradigms to the attention of architectural researchers, to introduce a conceptual framework to classify and clarify theories of space, and to enrich the discussions on the 20th century architecture through theories that are beyond styles. The introduction of space in architecture will revolve around subject-object relationships, three-dimensionality and senses. Modern space will be discussed through concepts such as empathy, perception, abstraction, and geometry. A scientific approach will follow to study the concept of place through environment, event, behavior, and design methods. Finally, the research will look at contemporary approaches related to digitally supported space via concepts like reality-virtuality, mediated experience, and relationship with machines.

Meta-Theoretical Paradigms Underpinning Risk in Child Welfare: Towards a Position of Methodological Pragmatism

The aim of this paper is to explore the ‘natural attitude’ underpinning risk practices in child welfare. This refers to various taken-for-granted approaches to risk that social workers and other human service professionals draw upon in their everyday practice. The approach proceeds by identifying and critically examining three key, meta-theoretical paradigms on risk which typically shape the natural attitude. They are labelled ‘objectivist’, ‘subjectivist’ and ‘critical’. The ontological, epistemological, axiological and methodological premises supporting each paradigm, and how they shape risk practices, are then reviewed leading to a composite, meta-theoretical position on risk termed ‘methodological pragmatism’. This position draws on the strengths of each paradigm and is formulated into ten propositions which consider how risk should be approached in child welfare. Within this corpus of thought salient themes are endorsed such as the need for method triangulation, an examination of ‘deep causality’, and the promotion of emancipatory perspectives. By critically reflecting on meta-theory, the paper contributes to the development of substantive theories of risk assessment and management in child welfare.

State retrenchment and administrative reform in Ireland: Probing comparative policy paradigms

Policy choices in response to crisis may carry consequences both for distributive outcomes and for the future policy capacity of the state itself. In this paper, we use conceptual heuristics to interpret policy practice. We examine the underlying policy paradigms shaping Irish government decisions in the aftermath of the European financial and economic crisis. We distinguish between two such paradigms- market-conforming and social equity - and apply them to three reform themes: reconfiguration of public budgets, the public service pay bargain, and the organizational profile of state competences. Our findings entail lessons for understanding the malleability of policy choice, and how state policy choices in response to crisis are framed and implemented.

Institutional Hybridity in Public Sector Reform: Replacement, Blending, or Layering of Administrative Paradigms

Despite an abundance of studies on hybridization and hybrid forms of organizing, scholarly work has failed to distinguish consistently between specific types of hybridity. As a consequence, the analytical category has become blurred and lacks conceptual clarity. Our paper discusses hybridity as the simultaneous appearance of institutional logics in organizational contexts, and differentiates the parallel co-existence of logics from transitional combinations (eventually leading to the replacement of a logic) and more robust combinations in the form of layering and blending. While blending refers to hybridity as an ‘amalgamate’ with original components that are no longer discernible, the notion of layering conceptualizes hybridity in a way that the various elements, or clusters thereof, are added on top of, or alongside, each other, similar to sediment layers in geology. We illustrate and substantiate such conceptual differentiation with an empirical study of the dynamics of public sector reform. In more detail, we examine the parliamentary discourse around two major reforms of the Austrian Federal Budget Law in 1986 and in 2007/2009 in order to trace administrative (reform) paradigms. Each of the three identified paradigms manifests a specific field-level logic with implications for the state and its administration: bureaucracy in Weberian-style Public Administration, market-capitalism in New Public Management, and democracy in New Public Governance. We find no indication of a parallel co-existence or transitional combination of logics, but hybridity in the form of robust combinations. We explore how new ideas fundamentally build on – and are made resonant with – the central bureaucratic logic in a way that suggests layering rather than blending. The conceptual findings presented in our article have implications for the literature on institutional analysis and institutional hybridity.