Search results

The popularity of research into categories has grown in recent decades and shows no sign of abating. This introductory article takes stock of the research into two facets of categorization, addressing it both as a cognitive and a social process. We advocate a rebalance toward the social process of categorization, paying more heed to the entity to be categorized, the actors involved, their acts, and the context and timing, which informs these activities. We summarize the contributions to the volume in relation to these dimensions and briefly discuss avenues for future research.

Bitcoin is difficult to categorize and indeed has been associated with 112 different labels in the British media (e.g., “private money,” “commodity”) – most of which poorly describe bitcoin. Specifically, our analyses of 674 media articles, focusing on the relationship between labeling and categorization, identify classification inconsistencies at three levels: within clusters of labels, between labels and categories, and between category attributes. These inconsistencies hamper categorization based on attribute similarity, audience goals, and causal models, respectively. We identify four factors that nurture this categorical anarchy and conclude with a call for research on the socioeconomic revolution heralded by blockchain technology.

The “categorization as a theoretical tool” framework is delineated to clarify how innovation is possible even though candidates for exchange face a “categorical imperative” – pressure from their audience to adopt the conventional practices associated with existing categories. The key insight is that categorization is generally a useful tool for sorting and screening exchange opportunities. This insight is developed to suggest how the nature of the imperative varies with the audience’s objectives and the theory of value it espouses and how the strength of the imperative varies with the social challenges and opportunities for engaging in, and learning from, experiments with unconventionality.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute knowledge on ethical issues and reasoning in expert reports concerning healthcare governance, commissioned by the Swedish healthcare system.

An in-depth analysis of ethical issues and reasoning in 36 commissioned expert reports was performed. Twenty-seven interviews with commissioners and producers of the reports were also carried out and analysed.

Some ethical issues were identified in the reports. But ethical reasoning was rarely evident. The meaning of ethical concepts could be devalued and changed over time and thereby deviate from statutory ethical goals and values. Several ethical issues of great concern for the Swedish public healthcare were also absent.

The commissioner of expert reports needs to ensure that comprehensive ethical considerations and ethical analysis are integrated in the expert reports.

Based on an extensive data material this paper reveals an ethical void in expert reports on healthcare governance. By avoiding ethical issues there is a risk that the expert reports could bring about reforms and control models that have ethically undesirable consequences for people and society.