Search

Proponents of the ‘practice turn’ in the social sciences rarely mention American pragmatism as a source of inspiration or refer to pragmatist philosophy. This strikes us as not only odd, but also a disadvantage since the pragmatist legacy has much to offer practice theory in the study of organizations. In this paper we want to spell out the theoretical similarities and divergences between practice theory and pragmatism to consider whether the two traditions can find common ground when gazing upon organization studies. We suggest that pragmatism should be included in the ‘tool-kit’ of practice-based studies of organizations. Proponents of the ‘practice turn’ in the social sciences rarely mention American pragmatism as a source of inspiration or refer to pragmatist philosophy. This strikes us as not only odd, but also a disadvantage since the pragmatist legacy has much to offer practice theory in the study of organizations. In this paper we want to spell out the theoretical similarities and divergences between practice theory and pragmatism to consider whether the two traditions can find common ground when gazing upon organization studies. We suggest that pragmatism should be included in the ‘tool-kit’ of practice-based studies of organizations.

We present a learning-based method for 6 DoF pose estimation of rigid objects in point cloud data. Many recent learning-based approaches use primarily RGB information for detecting objects, in some cases with an added refinement step using depth data. Our method consumes unordered point sets with/without RGB information, from initial detection to the final transformation estimation stage. This allows us to achieve accurate pose estimates, in some cases surpassing state of the art methods trained on the same data., 5 pages

This issue of Nordic Working Life Studies is composed of four articles that continue and advance the ambition to get to grips with work life quality. From different angles, and based on different research material from three Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, and Finland), the articles investigate aspects and dimensions of working life that are paramount for quality of work.

Humanistic theory for more than the past 100 years is marked by extensive attention to practice and practices. Two prominent streams of thought sharing this focus are pragmatism and theories of practice. This volume brings together internationally prominent theorists to explore key dimensions of practice and practices on the background of parallels and points of contact between these two traditions. The contributors all are steeped in one or both of these streams and well-known for their work on practice. The collected essays explore three important themes: what practice and practices are, normativity, and transformation. The volume deepens understanding of these three practice themes while strengthening appreciation of the parallels between and complementariness of pragmatism and practice theory.

How can we understand the relationship between on the one hand engineers, technicians, designers, users of technology and on the other hand technological devises, products, and artifacts? In the philosophy of technology this relationship has been discussed extensively. Historically, philosophers have opted for explanatory strategies that span the spectrum from technological determinism to voluntarism. Contemporary theorizing of the problem has tried to avoid the extremes of the spectrum, and opted for a middle ground that leaves room for human agency while still recognizing the impact of technology on human activity. In Science and Technology Studies (STS) the question has been discussed as the ‘social shaping of technology’ and various theoretical frameworks have been put forward that stress the interwoven character of the social and the material, e.g. Social Construction of Technology (SCOT), Actor-Network Theory (ANT), and Agential Realism. Whereas there is general agreement in STS that the social and the material is related there is no general agreement about how the socio-material relationship should be understood. Ontological, epistemological and methodological issues tend to be interwoven in complex ways as STS researches have construed the relationship in different ways. How we understand the relationship has implications for extant notions of materiality, technology, society, agency, morality, ethics, and our ability to come to know the world we live in. This paper discusses the character of the socio-material relationship. The discussion will be guided by John Dewey’s and Arthur F. Bentley’s reflections on Knowing and the Known (1989/1948), as they distinguish between different levels of describing inquiry into the world we inhabit. At some levels of inquiry, we tend to construe the relationship between subject and object, ego and alter, in substantialist terms that render the relationship as one derived from preexisting separate entities, whereas on another more profound level of inquiry, the relationship itself is seen as the producer of difference, individuation, and substantiation. Whereas some scholars have seen the approaches of substantialism and relationalism as contrasting on (post-epistemological) ontological grounds, this paper will argue with Dewey and Bentley that substantialism and relationism are modes of inquiry that aims for description and “…representation of the world itself as men report it.” (Dewey & Bentley 1989/1948, p. 101). Following Dewey’s pragmatist lead, it is important that we avoid dichotomies – also when we discuss modes of inquiry. Ontologizing the discussion about methods of inquiry might in fact prove to be unproductive as a traditional move towards ‘first things’. Instead the discussion should look V-D3 towards ‘last things’, i.e. the experiential consequences of the activities involved in the process of inquiry. The paper will argue that substantialism and relationalism are modes of inquiry that serve different purposes, and that choosing one mode of inquiry over another can only be justified relative to the problem of the inquiry. Understanding the relationship between the social and the material thus presuppose a specification of the problem that trigger the process of inquiry.

En forståelse af arkitektur, krop og læring – og samspillet mellem disse begreber og fænomener – bliver i et praksisteoretisk perspektiv et spørgsmål om at forstå handlinger og social aktivitet. I dette kapitel fremskrives det praksisteoretiske perspektiv, og det undersøges, hvordan det begrebssætter arkitektur, krop og læring, samt hvordan et praksisteoretisk perspektiv kan anvendes til at forstå social aktivitet på denne baggrund. Fremstillingen tager udgangspunkt i et konkret og hverdagsligt eksempel fra forfatterens egen praksis som underviser og vejleder for universitetsstuderende. Først gives der en generel karakteristik af det praksisteoretiske udgangspunkt, og praksisbegrebet bestemmes konceptuelt. Herefter diskuterer kapitlet, hvordan læreprocesser må forstås i lyset af vores kropslige handlen iblandt materielle arrangementer, og i lyset af de sociale praksisser, vi indgår i. Afslutningsvis diskuteres metodiske spørgsmål i forhold til det praksisteoretiske perspektiv.