Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

Introduction to the Special Issue: Science, Knowledge and Society

Author(s): Thorolfur Thorlindsson and Runar Vilhjalmsson


Source: Acta Sociologica, Vol. 46, No. 2, The Knowledge Society (Jun., 2003), pp. 99-105
Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4194970
Accessed: 18/06/2010 22:12
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Acta
Sociologica.

http://www.jstor.org

ACTASOCIOLOGICA
2003

Introductionto the SpecialIssue:


Science, Knowledgeand Society
Thorolfur Thorlindsson and Runar Vilhjalmsson
University of Iceland

ABSTRACT
Our changing times provide numerous opportunities for interesting research into different aspect of
the knowledge-based society. Science is becoming a powerful institution influencing people's daily
lives in various ways. But it is also increasingly influenced by social, economic and political forces
shaping its direction and controlling its applications. The boundaries between private and public,
nature and society, are increasingly challenged by scientific and technical advances. Technological
products or tools embody knowledge and mediate it at the same time. Creating and disseminating
knowledge by means of such tools is problematic in many ways, although the tools tend to be taken
for granted as objective and neutral. The status and authority of experts in the knowledge-based
society is neither automatic nor self-evident.The maintenance of expert status and control requires
legitimation and validation displays to fight off public disinterest and scepticism, or legal challenge.
Despite the importance of science and technology, mundane and tacit forms of knowledge are still
crucial. The implications of recent scientific and technological developments for public welfare seem
to indicate that the knowledge society and the welfare state can coexist in a mutually supportive
relationship.
KEYWORDS:
expert knowledge, knowledge society, science, tacit knowledge, welfare state

These are times of vast social change. Processes


of globalization, far-reaching economic interconnections, the transformation of information
and biotechnology, and large-scale cultural
influences, have given rise to a society that is not
easily captured by a single sociological theory,
nor identified by one sociological label. It has
been referred to variously as post-industrial
society, post-modern society, information
society, knowledge society, network society and
risk society. The label 'knowledge society' is
rooted in the belief that science, innovation and
expertise are the moving forces of economic and
social development. It is backed up by increasingly popular buzzwords such as 'knowledge organizations', 'knowledge management',
'knowledge workers' and 'intellectual capital'.
Knowledge work and knowledge management
within the new knowledge organizations imply
continuous knowledge production and revision
of existing knowledge, emphasizing the skills

and expertise of workers. The production of


knowledge is not limited to higher education
and academic research settings. Furthermore,
the notion of the autonomy of science is under
increasing attack, as science becomes an
important part of political debate and economic
policy. Societal forces outside academia attempt
to gain control over science, shape its nature,
channel its course, and control the social and
economic consequences of its findings
(Nowotny et al., 2001).
The concept of knowledge society rejects a
linear view of science from basic to applied.
Instead, it portrays science as a complex nonlinear process where social forces intervene at
any stage. However, it is safe to say that the
concept is not well developed. A central source
of ambiguity is 'knowledge' itself. Although its
importance is stressed in every definition, there
is neither consensus nor clarity about its
meaning. Contemporary society contains all

Acta SociologicaCopyright? 2003 Scandinavian Sociological Association and SAGEPublications (London,Thousand Oaks, CA and
99-105; 034821
New Delhi: www.sagepublications.com) Vol 46(2): 99-105[0001-6993](200306)46:2;

100

ACTASOCIOLOGICA46(2)

sorts of knowledge. Some is developed in scientific settings and published in scientific journals
scrutinized by scientific peers. Some is developed
by various communities of workers in their
worlds of everyday work. There is the auto
mechanic's knowledge of car engines and brake
systems. the fisherman's knowledge of sea
currents and behaviours of different species of
fish, the drug dealer'sknowledge of markets and
means of buying and selling drugs, and the
parent's knowledge about children and how to
raise them. There is common-sense knowledge,
tacit knowledge, codified knowledge, local and
universal knowledge.
Although the definition of 'knowledge
society' can include all these different kinds of
knowledge, there is a strong tendency to focus
on the most prestigious or credible kinds,
namely scientific knowledge, produced and
certified by scientists, as well as professional
knowledge, acquired by formal credentials of
university-educated professionals, such as engineers, psychologists, medical doctors, lawyers
and similar experts. In this narrower sense,
knowledge is supposed to be reliable and even
true, practical and powerful, and give competitive edge in individual and economic strife, war
and politics. Its relationship to science and technology is meant to set it apart from other, more
ordinary forms of knowledge.
Science in the knowledge society
Modern science arose as a social institution in
Western Europe in the 17th century. Science
was incorporated into academia in the 19th
century when it became intertwined with other
aspects of advanced scholarship and teaching.
Science, from the beginning of its institutionalization, has been characterized by its
international way of organizing things.
Research findings are published in international
outlets where they are evaluated, criticized and
built upon by peers of different nationalities.
These scientific, collegial organizational
arrangements have evolved over a long time,
enjoying continuous expansion and almost
unmatched success.
Through most of its history, science has
been considered an esoteric activity,following its
own logic and rules, carried out by individuals
belonging to an elite, more or less isolated from
the rest of society. This view of science has
changed dramaticallyin the past decades in two

important ways. First, demands for innovation,


the prestige of science, and the view that it is the
best means to produce reliable knowledge, have
contributed to making it a powerful social institution. Today,science and its products influence
people's daily lives to the extent that some
scholars have come to view science as the main
defining characteristic of contemporary
societies (Nowotny et al., 2001). Second, science
is increasingly contextualized, i.e. influenced by
social, economic and political forces that shape
the direction of scientific activity and grasp
control over its applications. In the process,
science becomes less of a demarcated subsystem
of society, and more of a transgressive system
with fluid and porous boundaries (Gibbons et
al., 1994; Nowotny et al., 2001).
The discipline of sociology has long considered science and technology to be important
to social structure and change. It has, however,
tended to view science as a special domain, differentiated and somewhat removed from other
social institutions and ideally free from outside
social influences. Initially,this view reflectedthe
separation of the scientific subsystem from the
rest of society. The classical sociologists,
especially Durkheim and Weber, believed that
science was an objective system of knowledge
that could have its own societal effects. Daniel
Bell's (19 73) classic discussion of the coming of
post-industrial society clearly foreshadows the
wider discussion of the knowledge society. Bell
emphasized the role of theoretical knowledge
and innovation for post-industrial society.
According to Bell, science and technology had
reshaped industrial processes and workplaces,
as well as social patterns. A number of scholars
have followed in Bell's footsteps, putting an even
stronger emphasis on the production and application of scientific knowledge as a central
feature of social organization and economic
success (Nowotny et al., 2001).
Interestingly, scientific knowledge was not
included in the early development of sociology
of knowledge, where the focus was on religion,
magic, and even language. This early historical
development had several important consequences for the treatment of knowledge, science
and technology within sociology. It set the stage
for a division of labour that not only allocated
the treatment of knowledge, science and
technology to different realms of study within
sociology, but encouraged a division between
sociologists that studied these phenomena as
characteristics of social structure and those that

Thorlindssonand Vilhjalmsson:Introductionto the SpecialIssue 101

considered them to be subject matters in their


own right. This is not an unfamiliar development within sociology. Several authors have
argued that the differentiation of sociology into
subfields,without the necessary integration into
general sociology, is a serious drawback in the
development of the discipline (Collins, 1986;
Hage, 1994; Vilhjalmsson and Thorlindsson,
2002). As knowledge and science play a crucial
role in the organization of contemporary
society, it is appropriateto consider how the subfields of sociology that deal with knowledge and
science can contribute to enhanced understanding of the emerging social organization of a
knowledge-based society. In this thematic issue
of Acta Sociologica,we have asked distinguished
sociologists of knowledge and science to contribute to the sociology of the knowledge society
from the different vantage points of culture,
welfare state, knowledge dissemination and
expertise.
Bio-science and the nature-society
demarcation
Rapid scientific and technological developments
in recent years pose serious challenges to traditional boundaries between the private and the
public, nature and society. Current information
technology (IT) enables mass assembly and processing of information about individuals to
serve the interests and goals of firms, organizations and states. The possibilities and realities
of encroachment by outside agents into private
lives have resulted in public debates in the West
about the proper governmental and business
applications of IT. Another major example of
boundary challenges involves biomedical
science and technology. Thora Margareta
Bertilsson (2003) explores some of these challenges in her article in this issue. As she points
out, the possibilities offered involve choices that
cross traditional demarcation lines between
nature and society, whether involving surrogate
motherhood, the genetic selection of offspring,
sex or race change operations, or cloning. In
these instances, and others, culture invades
nature in new areas with unforeseen consequences. But, as Bertilsson describes, the
invasion of culture into nature also means that
culture is increasingly occupied by nature, its
restrictions and possibilities. This is vividly
exemplified by 'biocommunities' - individuals
bound together in interest groups by a common
biological fate or some biomedical opportunities
(e.g. AIDS patients, diabetics).

Bertilsson further notes that advances in


biomedical science and technology go hand in
hand with increased cultural individualism and
globalization. The connection with individualism is evidenced by the fact that the transgression of the nature-society boundary often takes
the form of individual choice or right (e.g. a 62year-old French woman's wish to become a surrogate mother to her brother's child). In such
cases, the choices individuals make are frequently pitted against communal or societal
interests aiming to uphold traditional demarcations. Scientific and technical advances are also
linked to processes of globalization, as evidenced
by individuals making 'biological' choices by
moving or travelling from a state where a procedure or treatment is banned to one where it is
legal.
Bertilsson's article cogently describes important unresolved social and ethical problems
associated with the rapid scientific and technological developments of recent years. Concerned
about these developments, Bertilsson calls for
nothing less than a renewed, consecrated
demarcation between nature and society.
Although her call is timely, it is unclear where
new lines should be drawn or how consensus
could be reached.
Technology as medium of scientific
knowledge
The article by Thurk and Fine (2003) explores
the production and dissemination/sharing of
new scientific knowledge. As the authors note,
there is a mutually constitutive relationship
between technology and knowledge. In other
words, technology 'embodies' knowledge, but
also mediates it. Scientific statements rest on
'data' generated by tools. Such tools are sometimes the focus of attention and debate among
scientists, especially at the early stages when the
meaning of the data they generate is unclear. If
the tools are accepted and stabilized,they recede
into the background as being irrelevant, and
attention focuses on the 'facts' they produce.
But the tools continue to be fundamental to the
facts. The authors furthermore point out that
the dissemination and sharing of scientific information increasingly takes place through the
medium of various technologies across time and
space, rather than through face-to-face interaction. The use of tools to produce standard
mechanical representations having taken-forgranted meanings facilitates work coordination
and reduces costs in collaboration across

102 ACTASOCIOLOGICA
46(2)

organizations. But such representations are by


no means without problems. Some of these
problems have to do with interpretation and
meaning, others with professional autonomy
and control.
Thurk and Fine go on to present the results
of ethnographic studies of the use of scientific
tools in two organizational settings. The first
study considered the use of AutoCAD, a
computer-aided design program, by architects
in an architectural practice in Chicago. The
second study concerned the use of a new
technological system for producing wreather
forecasts (the IFPSsystem) at three offices of the
US National Weather Service. The architects
were generally happy about creating their
drawings with AutoCAD, especially because it
enabled them to coordinate their work with
engineers in a standardizedform. But AutoCAD
also supports customization, allowing organizational cultures to appropriate the technology
and develop in-house standards and symbols.
This created tension because, while customization fostered professional and organizational
autonomy, it hampered professional and interorganizational exchange and cooperation. The
meteorologists at the Weather Service acknowledged that the new forecasting system facilitated the sharing of weather information both
internally and externally. However, they had
concerns about the meaning of forecasts
(forecast texts were now produced by computers), as well as their own professional
autonomy (they no longer wrote the forecasts in
their own words).
In an interesting way, Thurk and Fine
demonstrate how scientific tools affect the form
of knowledge that is being transmitted, the
amount of knowledge organizationally 'memorized', and the degree to which knowledge is
shared. In so doing, they underscore that communication of knowledge within and across
organizations by means of tools is problematic
even though the tools are frequently taken for
granted.
The expert-lay-person relationship
The article by Maranta, Guggenheim. Gislerand
Pohl (2003) focuses on important aspects of the
relationship between experts and lay persons.
They note that in a knowledge society, experts
are (increasingly) called upon to provide
expertise by gathering scientifically sound
information, making recommendations based
on the information, and providing guidance in a

world entangled with technologies. As the


authors note, there exists an 'epistemic divide'
between experts and lay persons. This divide and
asymmetry contributes to the authority of
experts. But experts are faced with a dilemma:
while preserving the asymmetry, they have to
connect with the public, by formulating their
advice so that lay persons can apprehend and
use it. In lieu of direct face-to-face exchange, the
experts construct conceptions of imagined lay
persons that in turn influence the ways in which
socially robust knowledge is presented for application. Maranta et al. note that there are two
kinds of imagined lay persons - those addressed
by experts to produce loyalty, and those of
whom loyalty is presupposed. The first kind is
addressed in science centres using 'information
objects' to provide one-way information from
expert to lay person concerning how scientists
do research and what they have found. The
second kind of imagined lay person is addressed
in social settings where individuals are
approached as aggregates, and the experts use
'classifying objects' to frame a structured
environment for the lay person. As Maranta et
al. note, expertise can be successful or it can fail
in its bridge-building.It succeeds when it elicits
curiosity and gains loyalty. It fails when lay
persons 'exit', 'voices' are raised, or legal powers
are mustered against the expertise.
Of course, Maranta et al.'s account is not
the only story on the expert-lay-person relationship, as it focuses primarilyon the expert. Nevertheless, it shows how expertise is staged and
expert status maintained through interest and
loyalty of (imagined) lay persons.
The welfare state and the knowledge-based
economy
An interesting avenue of research concerns the
implications of an increasingly global, knowledge-based economy for the welfare state. Does
national competitiveness of industries and
services require the dismantling of the Scandinavian-style welfare state model, or can such a
model survive? In his article in this issue, Mats
Benner (2003) presents an analysis of Scandinavian responses to the recent economic challenges. He points out that a Scandinavian model
is founded on open, largely raw materials-based
economies. with highly coordinated labour
markets and economies, and universal access to
tax-financed social services and insurance.
In Finland, following an economic crisis in
the 1990s, a new strategy was implemented

Thorlindssonand Vilhjalmsson:Introductionto the SpecialIssue 103

based on three pillars: a political consensus to


upgrade scientific and technological capabilities;
a commitment from labour market parties to
wage restraint through centralized bargaining;
and the maintenance of a relatively generous
social insurance system to absorb the consequences of the economic crisis. In Benner's estimation, the Finnish welfare system became less
generous, but it did not radically retrench.
In contrast to Finland, Norway has
followed a traditional industrial growth
paradigm with strongholds in shipbuilding,
transport/shipping and, most important, oil.
Wage negotiations are now conducted at the
industry level, and wage increases kept at levels
similar to Norway's trading partners. To further
stabilize the future economic base, political
emphasis has shifted towards developing
broader technological and scientific capabilities
and reinforcing the Norwegian innovation
system. However, the country still remains an
'innovation laggard' with small hi-tech sectors,
and limited investment in research and development, particularly from the corporate side. Due
to industrial (especially oil industry) stability,
Norway has managed to keep the welfare model
intact, and even strengthen it in certain areas.
Sweden has the most highly innovative and
knowledge-intensive economy of the Scandinavian countries, with a strong emphasis on
middle-high technology sectors. The country
has many knowledge-intensive multinational
firms and a highly productive research system,
although it does not have a coherent science and
technology policy. Following an economic crisis
in the early 1990s, a semi-centralizedwage bargaining system was introduced, and policies
enacted to reduce unemployment through
training programmes, reduce social insurance,
and cut social and health service expenditures.
Despite reduced welfare commitments, Benner
argues that Sweden has retained the fundamentals of the welfare state in terms of tax-financed
social insurance and services, alongside
growing middle- and high-technology sectors
and R&Dinvestments.
Finally,Denmark'seconomy has been characterizedby a large number of small- and mediumsized enterprises, that are largely raw
materials-basedand export oriented.These enterprises are integrated into various industrial
networks. According to Benner, the Danish
economy has developedfromdepressionto a 'flourishing model' thanks to a non-accommodating
financial policy, semi-centralized wage bargain-

ing system, an activist labour market policy, a


network-orientedindustrial policy, and a science
and technology policy to create scientificconcentration and knowledge flows in the economy.
Again, a tax-based welfare model of social insurance and services has been preserved.
In short, Benner concludes that the Scandinavian employment and welfare model,
characterized by tax-financed social services,
generous social insurance, organized labour
markets, and commitment to employment, has
survived the challenges posed by scientific and
technological developments and globalization
trends. Thus, in a period marked by stagnant
growth in Europe, the Scandinavian countries
have managed to adapt to the demands of a new
economy. 'Social democratic corporatism' has
succeeded in an increasingly global, knowledgebased economy, because it has implemented
wage restraint programmes, delivered social
stability in volatile markets, and provided the
economy with collective goods. Benner's arguments and conclusions thus rather forcefully
refute the notion that in order to survive in a
'global economy', welfare states need to
abandon prior commitments to full employment, social insurance, and universal health
and social services.
By reviewing the literature, evaluating the
arguments, and presenting new data, the four
articles published in this issue of Acta Sociologica
demonstrate how understanding of the nature
and implications of the knowledge society can
be advanced in different directions. But there is
obviously more to be said about the knowledge
society. A review of the sociological literature
indicates that several important issues are still
insufficiently tackled. One concerns stratification. Where do knowledge producers and
knowledge users come from, what are their
interests, and how do they appropriate knowledge to further their cause, position and
resources? How do the specialized knowledge
haves and have-nots fare in an increasingly
knowledge-based society, and how do knowledge-systems produce and reproduce inequalities between social strata? Research already
shows that contemporary educational systems
reproduce socioeconomic inequalities, in large
part through credential barriers (Collins,
1979). Furthermore, scientific and expert
knowledge is differentiallyreceived and utilized,
depending on people's income and education
(Linket al., 199 8). Another issue pertains to the
overemphasis on scientific knowledge at the

104

ACTASOCIOLOGICA46(2)

expense of other continually (and perhaps


increasingly) important forms of knowledge.
The concept of 'knowledge society' should not
limit the production and application of knowledge to formal science. Innovations occur in
different areas, organizations and places. As
demands for cutting costs and developing new
products and services grow, economic stakes
increase for experts and lay workers alike. A
growing body of sociological research attempts
to highlight the creative and innovative skillbased aspects of work. Thus Harper's (1987)
portrait of Willie, the all-around craftsman,
Fine's (1992) analysis of culinary work, and
Thorlindsson's (1994) analysis of the skipper,
all emphasize the role which skill and workmanship play in the creative work process. It can
be argued that the production and application of
work-based knowledge has always been a
moving force in the economy. One of the questions that need to be asked is whether recent
economic developments de-emphasize this type
of knowledge-work in favour of professional
work based on formal training in science, engineering and computer technology. One of the
leading theorists to promote the concept of the
knowledge society argues against such a conclusion (Stehr, 1994). He reminds us that
formally trained scientists, engineers and
computer specialists comprise only a small
fraction of the total labour force in contemporary society, and that limiting the contribution of education to professionals and
scientific experts is simply too narrow a view.
Finally, on a related note, there is need for
serious analysis of stabilitiesas well as change in
contemporary Western society. Much of the
literature on the knowledge society - and postmodernity more generally - is undermined by a
novelty bias. What is new is tirelessly sought,
found and, all too often, stretched to the point of
overemphasis and exaggeration. Here, notice
should be tak-enof the fact that the industrial
and service sectors of the modern era are still
the backbone of most Western economies.
Furthermore, the 'globalization stories' often
told by economic and post-modern sociologists
are challenged by the fact that world trade only
accounts for 17 per cent of world economic
activity, that Western European trade constitutes the lion's share of global foreign trade, and
that increase in foreign trade in recent years
mostly concerns Europeanization, i.e. Western
European firms trading with each other within
the EuropeanUnion (EU)(Fligstein and Merand,

2002). Furthermore, at the individual level, the


averageJohn and Mary in any Western country
still derive their identity of self and outlook on
life first from their family and close kin, then
from other network ties and work, then their
local community, but much less from larger and
more remote entities, such as a nation state, or,
more drastically,a whole region (e.g. EU),or the
entire world. Forthe subsection of businessmen,
bureaucrats, or academics, who travel frequently between states or continents, and regularly expose themselves to the international
media, self-definitions and outlooks may be
more globalized. Yet, individuals leaving the
cultural setting they are accustomed to, can in
important ways 'remain' within this setting,
despite geographic distances, precisely because
of technological developments. In addition to
making phone calls to their relatives and friends,
they can send and receive emails with text,
pictures and video clips, but they can also
instantly read the local or national papers of
their community or country over the internet,
and listen to the local/national radio and TV via
an internet media player or a personal satellite
disc. Not everyone of course would have the
interest, means, or resourcefulness to do so. The
challenge facing the serious analyst of the
'knowledge society' is to consider both stability
and change in a balanced account of how and
why some societal and cultural aspects are
changing, while others remain much the same.

References
Bell, D. (1973) The Coming of Post-industrial Society. New York:
Basic Books.
Benner, M. (2003) 'The Scandinavian Challenge: The Future of
Advanced Welfare States in the Knowledge Economy', Acta
Sociologica 46(2): 132-49.
Bertilsson, T. M. (2003) 'The Social as Trans-genic: On Biopower and its Implications for the Social', Acta Sociologica
46(2): 118-31.
Collins, R. ( 19 79) TheCredentialSociety: An Historical Sociology of
Education and Stratification. New York: Academic Press.
Collins, R. (1986) 'Is 1980s Sociology in the Doldrums?',
AmericanJournal of Sociology 91: 13 36-5 5.
Fine, G. A. (1992) 'The Culture of Production: Aesthetic Choices
and Constraints in Culinary Work', American Journal of Sociology 97: 1268-94.
Fligstein, N. and Merand, F. (2002) 'Globalization or Europeanization? Evidence on the European Economy Since
1980', Acta Sociologica 45(1): 7-22.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott,
P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge:T1e
Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies.
London: Sage.
Hage, J. (1994) 'Sociological Theory: Complex, Fragmented, and
Politicized', in J. Hage (ed.) Formal Thleory in Sociology:

Thorlindssonand Vilhjalmsson:Introductionto the SpecialIssue 105


Opportunity
or Pitfall?,pp. 52-65. New York:State University
of New YorkPress.
Skilland Communityin a
Harper,D. (1987) WorkingKnowledge:
SmallShop.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.
Link,B., Northridge,M. E., Phelan, J. C. and Ganz,M. L. (1998)
'Social Epidemiologyand the FundamentalCause Concept:
On the Structuring of EffectiveCancer Screens by Socioeconomic Status',TheMilbankQuarterly76: 375-402.
Maranta,A., Guggenheim,M.,Gisler,P.and Pohl,C.(2003) 'The
Realityof Expertsand the ImaginedLayPerson',ActaSociologica46(2): 150-65.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001) Re-thinking

Science:Knowledgeand the Publicin an Age of Uncertainty.


Cambridge:PolityPress.
Stehr,N. (1994) TheKnowledge
Society.London:Sage.
Thurk,J. and Fine, G. A. (2003) 'The Problemof Tools:Technology and the Sharingof Knowledge',ActaSociologica
46(2):
107-1 7.
Thorlindsson,T. (1994) 'SkipperScience: A Note on the Epistemologyof Practiceand the Nature of Expertise',TheSociologicalQuarterly3 5: 329-45.
Vilhjalmsson,R. and Thorlindsson,T. (2002) 'CentralIssues in
Sociology: Globalization, Stratification, and Gender and
Deviance',ActaSociologica
45(1): 3-6.

Thorolfur Thorlindsson is Professorof Sociologyin the Facultyof SocialSciences,


Universityof Iceland.
Runar Vilhjalmsson is Professorof Sociologyin the Facultyof Nursing,Universityof
Iceland.

Potrebbero piacerti anche