Explore the vast range of titles available.

This study explores the degree of globalization within the Information Systems (IS) discipline. Global scientific collaboration plays a pivotal role in crafting solutions that can address the increasingly prevalent global challenges. Conversely, we are witnessing a period where political priorities are increasingly centered on reinforcing the nation-state and resolving local problems. As the calls for localized research and a reevaluation of theoretical foundations gain momentum, the IS discipline grapples with a complex balancing act, navigating between its global aspirations and the imperative to address local realities. Employing historical and geospatial network analysis spanning the years 1979 to 2021, this research assesses the geographical patterns of research collaborations within the IS discipline. It provides an updated appraisal of Galliers and Meadows’ study from two decades ago, in the face of increased geopolitical tensions and the politicization of research.

Este artículo introductorio al número monográfico insiste (una vez más) en la necesidad de continuar abriendo surcos críticos en torno a la naturaleza política de la práctica psicológica como dispositivo de análisis y de acción social. Las contribuciones reunidas en el monográfico giran en torno a varios focos de reflexión para proseguir con la tarea de politizar la psicología. Estos focos incluyen: la articulación de las lógicas de reproducción y cambio social en el plano de la subjetividad; la micropolítica de la dominación y el privilegio; la politización de la experiencia social y corporal del territorio; la subalternización institucional de colectivos minoritarios; las aperturas politizadoras de las metodologías móviles; el impacto de las dimensiones psicosociales en la eficacia transformadora de las políticas públicas de participación; y el desmantelamiento del verificacionismo como pensamiento único en psicología. El monográfico pretende dar a conocer líneas histórica y geográficamente situadas de reflexión teórica y de praxis psicosocial orientadas a tantear el alcance, los límites y las contradicciones de las disciplinas “psi” en su labor de crítica social y de apoyo a procesos de transformación sociopolítica.

Growing efforts to shrink civil societies’ scope of action are evident around the globe. Germany’s civil society has not been fully immune from this, but analysing whether there is a shrinking civic space requires a twofold perspective. While having a high democratic state standard and a rather supportive environment, there is also a discourse of whether it is legitimate for civil society organisations (CSO) to be politically active, following controversial recent lawsuits against CSOs on that ground. Additionally, there is an increasing atmosphere of hate and demonization from some social groups against civil society activists that impede their work and scope of action. Accordingly, there is an ongoing discussion whether Germany’s civil society is affected by the shrinking space phenomenon or not. To capture and theoretically comprehend these processes in Germany, I argue that these signs of “shrinking spaces” should rather be understood as a contestation that is the outcome of a growing re-politicization of civil society in the last 15 years. It is rooted in a new wave of politicization in which democracy is no longer an undisputed paradigm. Against this background, over the last decade, civil society has become again a terrain of contestation where different views and options are expressed and collide, but that is also attacked from the outside. Two main changes, I argue, have driven forward the politicization of civil society: first, a new social cleavage that is exploited by (right-wing) populism and, second, the claim for more direct participation in the democratic systems by the citizens which produced new political opportunity structures of good governance that allow more CSOs to advocate. While this process emancipated many CSOs, it also brought forth different contestations about legitimate participation. In this way, one can simultaneously observe a shrinking and a growing space for civil society in Germany.

The approaches to the middle classes that have been dominant in Latin American thought and that structure current academic debate form the analytical nucleus of this article. In particular, this article focuses on stratification and social and political mobility, as topics of contemporary reflection, and the need to overcome myths that result from the unrestrained use of this concept. Following the optimism characteristic of the first two decades of the 21st century, questions emerge regarding the vulnerability of these middle segments of the population in the region. To synthesize these debates, this article offers a revision of the existing literature on the Latin American middle classes. The relationship between such classes and the state in the historical development of both in Latin America has been of central concern. In addition, certain myths are problematized that guide the public debate regarding the politicization of these sectors: neither “florindos” (self-centered) nor “ciudadanos de bien” (good citizens). Finally, the article reflects on how to study the middle layers of society in troubled times, placing labor uncertainty at the forefront of academic discussion.

Are the leaders of independent agencies independent in practice? Are the independence requirements set out in legislation a guarantee of de facto independence? This paper reveals the relationship between de iure independence and de facto independence of independent agencies through two dimensions: political affinity and political vulnerability of their leaders. Our analysis reveals how the de iure independence of an agency affects the probability that agency heads will have connections to political parties and whether their mandates will end prematurely in a period of political transition, i.e., when a new government takes office. It also determines whether the biographical profile of agency heads (PhD degree, bureaucratic background, and political affiliation) can influence their security of tenure when governments change, and hence their independence. This is supported by an empirical evaluation of independent authorities in the Czech Republic between 1993 and 2021.

In this introductory essay for the special issue on contested spaces in liberal democracies, we review how and to what extent the closing or shrinking space debate that has influenced the civil society discourse in authoritarian contexts presents an appropriate mode of analysis for similar, disconcerting developments that have been observed in liberal democracies. In particular, recent changes in Germany, Austria, Israel, and Greece are covered in this issue. We suggest that while shrinking space mechanisms are observable, civil society is nevertheless experiencing new activism and growth. In contrast to authoritarian regimes, spaces in liberal democracies are increasingly contested reflecting both a politization of issues that nonprofits, NGOs or CSOs are working on, such as migration and climate change, but also a new civic agency that expands the political dimensions of civil society, embracing its more political functions beyond traditional service delivery.

In 2000, a controversial article about hormones and gender roles was published to stimulate debate about whether and how biological knowledge should be integrated in sociological research. Two decades later, this so-called biosociology debate is more relevant than ever, as biological knowledge has become widespread across societies and scientific disciplines. Hence, we as sociologists are regularly confronted with biological explanations that challenge our own explanations. Whether this happens in the scientific arena, the classroom, media, or even at social events, these situations often force us, individually, to take a stance on whether to meet such explanations with dialogue or opposition. One could therefore expect that sociologists have an interest in discussing these issues with their peers, but their lack of participation in the biosociology debate suggests otherwise. This paper explores possible reasons for this absence and how sociologists’ views on biosociology are influenced by key agents – sociological associations and journals. Smith’s “A Sacred project of American Sociology”, and Scott’s “A Sociology of Nothing” served as theoretical tools in the paper. A qualitative content analysis of presidential addresses of four sociological associations was conducted. The analyses suggest that sociologist avoid biosociology for widely different reasons, including fear that biosociology legitimizes oppression. This avoidance is probably reinforced by the leftish politization of the sociological discipline and the rightish politization of society. Overcoming obstacles to engagement in biosociology is required to safeguard the scientific integrity of sociology and enable sociologists to provide relevant contributions to research on the Covid-19 pandemic and climate change.

With the COVID-19 pandemic dominating the agenda, it seems almost natural that it be associated with another buzzword: populism. As the pandemic advances, it seems that the prediction of populism surviving the pandemic due to its own diversity has been proved right, given the variation in responses by populists around the world. One common denominator stands out though: populists across the political spectrum understood the benefits of performing the COVID-19 crisis as a tool to strengthen their political positions. They tried to politicize the pandemic to increase the antagonism between the people and the elites. In this article, I introduce the notion of crisis as both a construct and a performance, and as a useful concept to analyze populist reactions to the pandemic. I argue that notwithstanding the attempts to politicize the pandemic, the COVID-19 crisis ended up imposing its own reality. In other words: the crisis could not be owned by politics.

Populism has been at the center of recent debates in political science and international relations scholarship. Recognized as a contested concept and framed as a new global phenomenon, populism emerged in the context of liberal democracies, where political actors inflate social antagonisms by putting the people against the elite. Facing a global health crisis where a sense of threat, uncertainty, and emergency has pushed normal politics into the realm of politics of crisis, populists have actively engaged in creating a spectacularization of failure—of science, institutions, experts, governments—vis-à-vis the new Coronavirus, and in creating doubts about and devaluing scientists, experts and governments. Issues such as mask mandates, lockdown measures, compulsory vaccination, medicine effectiveness, and vaccine certificates became politicized. That is, they have been taken from normal politics and made contingent and controversial in order to deepen already existing political divisions and polarization. Exploring the case of Germany and Brazil, we will show how populists tried to use the pandemic to forge divisions between the people and the elite (represented by scientists, health experts, and the press). This conceptual-empirical paper wishes to make a contribution to the debate on how populists brought scientific public health issues into their black-and-white, antagonistic vision of society and hence instrumentalized COVID-19 for their own political gain.

En el artículo presentamos dos espacios organizativos estudiantiles que se desarrollaron en escuelas ubicadas en la Ciudad de Córdoba, Argentina. Analizamos cómo se reproducen, disputan, resignifican y negocian los marcos de interpretación y los repertorios de acción socialmente disponibles sobre la relación entre género, sexualidad y educación sexual en las experiencias de participación juvenil. Nos interesa profundizar sobre la escuela como ámbito de politización feminista como fenómeno contemporáneo.