Why is Werner Sombart not part of the core of classical sociologists? From fame to (near) oblivion:From Fame to (Near) Oblivion

The life and work of Werner Sombart poses an intellectual puzzle in the genealogy of modern social theorists. During his lifetime, Sombart was probably the most influential and prominent social scientist in Germany as well as in many other countries. Today he is among the least known social scientists. Why did he lose his status as one of the most brilliant and influential scholars and intellectuals of the 20th century? Why is his work almost forgotten today? While Weber's thesis about the influence of Protestantism on the development of capitalism is widely known, even beyond sociological circles, few sociologists today know that Sombart had an alternative explanation. An obvious explanation for Sombart's fall from grace is his embrace of Nazism. As Heidegger provides a counter-example, Sombart's fate requires a more complex explanation. In addition, we explore the different reception of his work in economic and sociological circles as compared to cultural theory and history. © 2001, SAGE Publications. All rights reserved.

The political discourse and material practice of technology enhanced learning

Technology discloses man’s mode of dealing with Nature, the process of production by which he sustains his life, and thereby also lays bare the mode of formation of his social relations, and of the mental conceptions that flow from them (Marx, 1990: 372) My thesis is a Sociological analysis of UK policy discourse for educational technology during the last 15 years. My framework is a dialogue between the Marxist-based critical social theory of Lieras and a corpus-based Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of UK policy for Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) in higher education. Embedded in TEL is a presupposition: a deterministic assumption that technology has enhanced learning. This conceals a necessary debate that reminds us it is humans that design learning, not technology. By omitting people, TEL provides a vehicle for strong hierarchical or neoliberal, agendas to make simplified claims politically, in the name of technology. My research has two main aims: firstly, I share a replicable, mixed methodological approach for linguistic analysis of the political discourse of TEL. Quantitatively, I examine patterns in my corpus to question forms of ‘use’ around technology that structure a rigid basic argument which ‘enframes’ educational technology (Heidegger, 1977: 38). In a qualitative analysis of findings, I ask to what extent policy discourse evaluates technology in one way, to support a Knowledge Based Economy (KBE) in a political economy of neoliberalism (Jessop 2004, Fairclough 2006). If technology is commodified as an external enhancement, it is expected to provide an ‘exchange value’ for learners (Marx, 1867). I therefore examine more closely what is prioritised and devalued in these texts. Secondly, I disclose a form of austerity in the discourse where technology, as an abstract force, undertakes tasks usually ascribed to humans (Lieras, 1996, Brey, 2003:2). This risks desubjectivisation, loss of power and limits people’s relationships with technology and with each other. A view of technology in political discourse as complete without people closes possibilities for broader dialectical (Fairclough, 2001, 2007) and ‘convivial’ (Illich, 1973) understandings of the intimate, material practice of engaging with technology in education. In opening the ‘black box’ of TEL via CDA I reveal talking points that are otherwise concealed. This allows me as to be reflexive and self-critical through praxis, to confront my own assumptions about what the discourse conceals and what forms of resistance might be required. In so doing, I contribute to ongoing debates about networked learning, providing a context to explore educational technology as a technology, language and learning nexus.

Learning from a deceptively spacious policy discourse

In this chapter, the way in which varied terms such as Networked learning, e-learning and Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) have each become colonised to support a dominant, economically-based world view of educational technology is discussed. Critical social theory about technology, language and learning is brought into dialogue with examples from a corpus-based Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of UK policy texts for educational technology between1997 and 2012. Though these policy documents offer much promise for enhancement of people’s performance via technology, the human presence to enact such innovation is missing. Given that ‘academic workload’ is a ‘silent barrier’ to the implementation of TEL strategies (Gregory and Lodge, 2015), analysis further exposes, through empirical examples, that the academic labour of both staff and students appears to be unacknowledged. Global neoliberal capitalist values have strongly territorialised the contemporary university (Hayes & Jandric, 2014), utilising existing naïve, utopian arguments about what technology alone achieves. Whilst the chapter reveals how humans are easily ‘evicted’, even from discourse about their own learning (Hayes, 2015), it also challenges staff and students to seek to re-occupy the important territory of policy to subvert the established order. We can use the very political discourse that has disguised our networked learning practices, in new explicit ways, to restore our human visibility.

To reveal is to critique:actor-network theory and critical information systems research

It has been suggested that, in order to maintain its relevance, critical research must develop a strong emphasis on empirical work rather than the conceptual emphasis that has typically characterized critical scholarship in management. A critical project of this nature is applicable in the information systems (IS) arena, which has a growing tradition of qualitative inquiry. Despite its relativist ontology, actor–network theory places a strong emphasis on empirical inquiry and this paper argues that actor–network theory, with its careful tracing and recording of heterogeneous networks, is well suited to the generation of detailed and contextual empirical knowledge about IS. The intention in this paper is to explore the relevance of IS research informed by actor–network theory in the pursuit of a broader critical research project as de? ned in earlier work.

A linguistic and semantic approach to the theory and practice of literary translation

This work explores the relevance of semantic and linguistic description to translation, theory and practice. It is aimed towards a practical model of approach to texts to translate. As literary texts [poetry mainly] are the focus of attention, so are stylistic matters. Note, however, that 'style', and, to some extent, the conclusions of the work, are not limited to so-called literary texts. The study of semantic description reveals that most translation problems do not stem from the cognitive (langue-related), but rather from the contextual (parole-related) aspects of meaning. Thus, any linguistic model that fails to account for the latter is bound to fall short. T.G.G. does, whereas Systemics, concerned with both the 'Iangue' and 'parole' (stylistic and sociolinguistic mainly) aspects of meaning, provides a useful framework of approach to texts to translate. Two essential semantic principles for translation are: that meaning is the property of a language (Firth); and the 'relativity of meaning assignments' (Tymoczko). Both imply that meaning can only be assessed, correctly, in the relevant socio-cultural background. Translation is seen as a restricted creation, and the translator's encroach as a three-dimensional critical one. To encompass the most technical to the most literary text, and account for variations in emphasis in any text, translation theory must be based on typology of function Halliday's ideational, interpersonal and textual, or, Buhler's symbol, signal, symptom, Functions3. Function Coverall and specific] will dictate aims and method, and also provide the critic with criteria to assess translation Faithfulness. Translation can never be reduced to purely objective methods, however. Intuitive procedures intervene, in textual interpretation and analysis, in the choice of equivalents, and in the reception of a translation. Ultimately, translation, theory and practice, may perhaps constitute the touchstone as regards the validity of linguistic and semantic theories.

Analysing organisational culture : a critical ethnography of public relations and personnel specialists in a state bureaucracy

Following an introductory chapter, I examine (i) typologies which have differentiated the literature on organisational culture and symbolism (Chapter 2), (ii) the contribution of organisation theory to organisation culture (Chapter 3), and (iii) recent literature on organisational culture and symbolism (Chapter 4). Within these chapters, I adopt Habermas' (1972) notion of knowledge-constitutive interests, assessing the contrubutions to understanding organisational culture made by literature guided by technical, practical and emancipatory cognitive interests. In doing so, I suggest that more critical studies on organisational culture and symbolism have been comparatively neglected. Lamenting this neglect, I suggest that Giddens' theory of structuration can be employed to advance the development of a critical, emancipatory conceptualisation of organisational culture. In particular, I argue that this Giddensian analysis, by penetrating the existential, poltical and material processes of cultural reproduction (Chapter 5), is able to disclose some of the more contradictory features of organisation culture. The remainder of the thesis comprises of a critical ethnography of the work cultures of public relations and personnel specialists located in a state bureaucracy. I begin the ethnography with a dicussion of my research methods (Chapter 6) and an overview of the departments studied (Chapter 7): I then examine (i) the work cultures of the specialists (Chapter 8), (ii) the specialists' management of the relationships with the hosts bureaucracy (Chapter 9); and, (iii) opportunities the specialists had for developing an emancipatory praxis (Chapter 10). Finally, in a concluding section, I offer some critical reflections on the contributions of the thesis and suggest areas for future research.