Sociology of Organizations - Science topic

@ Agnieszka Kolodziej-Durnas

I can't answer your question.

I only know that today the symptoms of my illness have subsided, breathing is better, the temperature has dropped and the pain has eased. And - time is accelerating :)

Generally:

I had in mind the connection between experiencing the flow of time and the feeling of satisfaction - both short-term (saturation of current needs) and long-term (well-being).

I think the direction of your study drawing from your research questions and objectives are critical in determining your theoretical frame. For instance, if your study intend to probe the status quo of the family institution vis-a-vis the changes it effect or trigger, conflict theory, political economy theory or critical theory would be more appropraite for your study. But on the contrary, functionalist or system theory can be adopted for your study.

The rise of 'environmentalism' can, I think, present both positives and negatives to dominant economic practices.

For instance, the idea of dominant economic practices making---realistically--least negative environmental impact, is to be welcomed.

And this is where social research can help; for when it comes to accommodating a really big issue into our dominant economic practices---e. g. Global Warming--we really need to explore how this  issue is evidenced, and how this evidence is interpreted and presented to the world.

Essentially, are we presented with critical environmentalism with realistic options tied to realistic, sustainable economics?

Or, are we presented with naïve environmentalism, with unrealistic options tied to unrealistic, unsustainable economics?

This, to me, is, 'in a nutshell', one of the great---perhaps the greatest---environmental-economic debates engaging us today.

OK, Daniel, I'll bite on this one. It would be difficult for me to estimate the number of times I was told, or asked, "What do you mean?" and "Narrow your question(s)!" So, this is just a suggestion. Why not do some work defining and illustrating precisely what you mean by "private truth" as opposed to "public truth"? Notwithstanding that you put your terms in quotation marks, I'd be doing no more than guessing at what you actually mean. That puts me in the uncomfortable position of being told, "No, wrong answer. Guess again." What if you started with 10 or 20 organizations, and using their mission statements, press releases and whatever else you consider their communications, define organizational public truth. Do you find any evidence that what the groups say differs from what they do? Is it possible that some, even most, actually do what they say? Is it possible that your public and private truths are not all that different? As far as personal interviews go, my experience is the best you can do is promise (and keep the promise) confidentiality. If confidentiality is not enough you might promise anonymity, which is very different. Interviews give you data. If many interviews give you consistent data you might begin to conclude the data are reliable. Finally, if you've got a hypothesis that there are inherent differences in organizations' public and private faces, don't be afraid to be wrong. And if you're wrong be happy to publicize the heck out of your wrongness.

sorry I do not have the expertise to answer this question.

Regards

Thank you very much Olivier. 

Gustavo Concari

Interesting topic. Why don't you start a research yourself and generate your own data? It would be a great research project. Good luck with it!