Inviting submissions to the Special Issue on trust and vulnerability (Deadline 31 August 2024)

IF 1.9 Q3 MANAGEMENT
Simon Schafheitle, Antoinette Weibel, Guido Möllering
{"title":"Inviting submissions to the Special Issue on trust and vulnerability (Deadline 31 August 2024)","authors":"Simon Schafheitle, Antoinette Weibel, Guido Möllering","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2023.2246837","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Trust implies vulnerability, as stated by various scholars across disciplines (Baier, 1986; Bigley & Pearce, 1998; Lewis & Weigert, 1985). Some of the most cited definitions (e.g. Mayer et al. (1995) and Rousseau et al., 1998) contain the crucial idea that the essence of trust is an acceptance of vulnerability based on positive expectations. As Bigley and Pearce (1998, p. 407), reviewing earlier work, observe: ‘When the terms “trust” and “distrust” have been evoked in the social sciences, they almost always have been associated with the idea of actor vulnerability.’ Scholars in other disciplines such as philosophy (e.g. Baghramian et al., 2020), economics (e.g. James, 2002), education (e.g. Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998), medicine (Barnard, 2016), and theology (Bruni, 2021) also define trust in the light of vulnerability. Finally, behavioural conceptualizations of trust imply risk-taking and thereby incurring vulnerability, as trusting might not be reciprocated or even allows the other party to do harm (Dasgupta, 1988; Luhmann, 1979). While vulnerability is recognised as a conceptual cornerstone in trust research, few authors delve into detailed explanations of how they specifically utilise and qualify the concept. To further complicate, fundamental controversies concerning vulnerability in trust research remain unresolved. Some researchers, for instance, view vulnerability as a deliberate decision influenced by factors like perceived trustworthiness (e.g. Mayer et al., 1995), while others, following Deutsch (1958), see vulnerability as an existential awareness of the inherent risks in relationships, which is essential for the subsequent development of trust. In this vein, the acknowledgment of ‘being at somebody’s mercy’ is a prerequisite for trust to emerge. Hence, whether we perceive vulnerability as an existential condition or as a deliberate state, its relationship with trust—whether it precedes or follows trust—should significantly influence the way we advocate for trust, model it, and measure it. However, this matter has received limited attention. With our fundamental criticism, we of course acknowledge the few notable exceptions. For instance, Misztal (2011) examines vulnerability as both a condition and outcome for trust proposing three types of vulnerability. Nienaber et al. (2015) distinguish between active vulnerability and passive vulnerability, and Weibel et al. (2023) explore vulnerability as a condition for trust and differentiate various types of active trusting based on the specific vulnerability involved. While these studies offer valuable insights, much of the existing trust research tends to be superficial in qualifying vulnerability, and at worst, it opens itself to fundamental critique. It begs the question: What is the value of trust research if it fails to address the core underlying issue of vulnerability with greater precision and depth? In addition to lacking more sophisticated conceptualizations, mainstream trust research has poorly addressed the empirical experience of vulnerability and how individuals succeed or fail to accept it within the context of trust. Only a few studies have specifically examined the perception and management of vulnerability and relational risk in practical settings (Searle et al., 2016; Siegrist, 2021; Tsui-Auch & Möllering, 2010). Incorporating insights from fields that are often overlooked in trust research would provide much-needed additional understanding. For example, psychodynamics offers a comprehensive exploration of vulnerability, development, and trust through rich phenomenological studies (e.g. Corlett et al., 2021). Furthermore,","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":"13 1","pages":"252 - 254"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Trust Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2023.2246837","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Trust implies vulnerability, as stated by various scholars across disciplines (Baier, 1986; Bigley & Pearce, 1998; Lewis & Weigert, 1985). Some of the most cited definitions (e.g. Mayer et al. (1995) and Rousseau et al., 1998) contain the crucial idea that the essence of trust is an acceptance of vulnerability based on positive expectations. As Bigley and Pearce (1998, p. 407), reviewing earlier work, observe: ‘When the terms “trust” and “distrust” have been evoked in the social sciences, they almost always have been associated with the idea of actor vulnerability.’ Scholars in other disciplines such as philosophy (e.g. Baghramian et al., 2020), economics (e.g. James, 2002), education (e.g. Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998), medicine (Barnard, 2016), and theology (Bruni, 2021) also define trust in the light of vulnerability. Finally, behavioural conceptualizations of trust imply risk-taking and thereby incurring vulnerability, as trusting might not be reciprocated or even allows the other party to do harm (Dasgupta, 1988; Luhmann, 1979). While vulnerability is recognised as a conceptual cornerstone in trust research, few authors delve into detailed explanations of how they specifically utilise and qualify the concept. To further complicate, fundamental controversies concerning vulnerability in trust research remain unresolved. Some researchers, for instance, view vulnerability as a deliberate decision influenced by factors like perceived trustworthiness (e.g. Mayer et al., 1995), while others, following Deutsch (1958), see vulnerability as an existential awareness of the inherent risks in relationships, which is essential for the subsequent development of trust. In this vein, the acknowledgment of ‘being at somebody’s mercy’ is a prerequisite for trust to emerge. Hence, whether we perceive vulnerability as an existential condition or as a deliberate state, its relationship with trust—whether it precedes or follows trust—should significantly influence the way we advocate for trust, model it, and measure it. However, this matter has received limited attention. With our fundamental criticism, we of course acknowledge the few notable exceptions. For instance, Misztal (2011) examines vulnerability as both a condition and outcome for trust proposing three types of vulnerability. Nienaber et al. (2015) distinguish between active vulnerability and passive vulnerability, and Weibel et al. (2023) explore vulnerability as a condition for trust and differentiate various types of active trusting based on the specific vulnerability involved. While these studies offer valuable insights, much of the existing trust research tends to be superficial in qualifying vulnerability, and at worst, it opens itself to fundamental critique. It begs the question: What is the value of trust research if it fails to address the core underlying issue of vulnerability with greater precision and depth? In addition to lacking more sophisticated conceptualizations, mainstream trust research has poorly addressed the empirical experience of vulnerability and how individuals succeed or fail to accept it within the context of trust. Only a few studies have specifically examined the perception and management of vulnerability and relational risk in practical settings (Searle et al., 2016; Siegrist, 2021; Tsui-Auch & Möllering, 2010). Incorporating insights from fields that are often overlooked in trust research would provide much-needed additional understanding. For example, psychodynamics offers a comprehensive exploration of vulnerability, development, and trust through rich phenomenological studies (e.g. Corlett et al., 2021). Furthermore,
邀请提交关于信任和脆弱性的特刊(截止日期2024年8月31日)
正如不同学科的学者所说,信任意味着脆弱性(Baier,1986;Bigley和Pearce,1998;Lewis和Weigert,1985)。一些被引用最多的定义(例如Mayer等人(1995)和Rousseau等人,1998)包含了一个关键的观点,即信任的本质是基于积极期望接受脆弱性。正如Bigley和Pearce(1998,第407页)在回顾早期工作时所观察到的那样:“当“信任”和“不信任”这两个术语在社会科学中被提及时,它们几乎总是与行为者脆弱性的概念联系在一起。”哲学(例如Baghramian等人,2020)、经济学(例如James,2002)、教育(例如Tschannen-Moran&Hoy,1998)、医学(Barnard,2016)和神学(Bruni,2021)等其他学科的学者也根据脆弱性来定义信任。最后,信任的行为概念意味着冒险,从而导致脆弱性,因为信任可能不会得到回报,甚至会让另一方造成伤害(Dasgupta,1988;卢曼,1979年)。虽然脆弱性被公认为信任研究的概念基石,但很少有作者深入研究如何具体利用和限定这一概念的详细解释。更为复杂的是,关于信任研究中脆弱性的根本争议仍未解决。例如,一些研究人员将脆弱性视为一种受感知可信度等因素影响的深思熟虑的决定(例如Mayer等人,1995),而另一些研究人员则在Deutsch(1958)之后,将脆弱性看作是对关系中固有风险的存在意识,这对随后的信任发展至关重要。在这种情况下,承认“任由他人摆布”是信任产生的先决条件。因此,无论我们将脆弱性视为一种生存状态还是一种蓄意状态,它与信任的关系——无论是在信任之前还是之后——都应该对我们倡导信任、建模和衡量信任的方式产生重大影响。然而,这件事受到的关注有限。对于我们的基本批评,我们当然承认少数几个明显的例外。例如,Misztal(2011)将脆弱性视为信任的条件和结果,提出了三种类型的脆弱性。Nienaber等人(2015)区分了主动脆弱性和被动脆弱性,Weibel等人(2023)探讨了脆弱性作为信任的条件,并根据所涉及的特定脆弱性区分了各种类型的主动信任。虽然这些研究提供了有价值的见解,但现有的许多信任研究在限定脆弱性方面往往是肤浅的,最坏的情况是,它会受到根本性的批评。这引出了一个问题:如果信任研究不能更准确、更深入地解决脆弱性这一核心根本问题,那么它的价值是什么?除了缺乏更复杂的概念外,主流信任研究还没有很好地解决脆弱性的经验经验,以及个人如何在信任的背景下成功或失败接受脆弱性。只有少数研究专门研究了在实际环境中对脆弱性和关系风险的感知和管理(Searle等人,2016;Siegrist,2021;Tsui Auch和Möllering,2010年)。整合信托研究中经常被忽视的领域的见解将提供急需的额外理解。例如,心理动力学通过丰富的现象学研究提供了对脆弱性、发展和信任的全面探索(例如,Corlett等人,2021)。此外
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
42.90%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: As an inter-disciplinary and cross-cultural journal dedicated to advancing a cross-level, context-rich, process-oriented, and practice-relevant journal, JTR provides a focal point for an open dialogue and debate between diverse researchers, thus enhancing the understanding of trust in general and trust-related management in particular, especially in its organizational and social context in the broadest sense. Through both theoretical development and empirical investigation, JTR seeks to open the "black-box" of trust in various contexts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信