Schlagwort-Archiv: Call for Papers

Call for Abstracts – „Entgrenzung von Markt und Staat? Wirtschaftssoziologische Untersuchungen zur Krise der Ordnungsbildung“, 26.-27. Oktober 2017 an der Universität Hamburg

Hier der interessante Call for Abstracts  für die Jahrestagung der DGS-Sektion Wirtschaftssoziologie: WirtSoz_Sektionstagung_EntgrenzungMarktStaat_CallForAbstracts

Beiträge können in Form von Abstracts bis zum 24. Juli eingereicht werden.

CfP Tagung „Von der Künstlerkritik zur Kritik an der Kreativität“

Im Rahmen des Promotionskollegs „Die Arbeit und ihre Subjekte. Mediale Diskursivierungen seit 1960“ an der Universität Duisburg-Essen findet vom 12.-14.10 die Tagung „Von der Künstlerkritik zur Kritik an der Kreativität“ statt. Aus der Ankündigung:

„Die interdisziplinäre Konferenz möchte Subjektivierungsprozesse im Bereich kreativer Arbeit als einen Ausgangspunkt nehmen, um aktuelle Forschungsfragen und Positionen zur Debatte um Projekthaftigkeit und Kreativität als scheinbare Paradigmen aller Arbeits- und Lebensformen im ‚neuen Kapitalismus‘ zu diskutieren. Dabei sollen neben kritischen wissenschaftlichen Positionen verschiedener Disziplinen (von Literatur- und Medienwissenschaften bis zu empirischer Sozialforschung) auch Ansätze praxisorientierter Kritik an Subjektivierungweisen und dem Kreativitätsdispositiv in den Blick genommen werden.“

Weitere Informationen und der vollständige Call finden sich hier:

https://www.uni-due.de/promotionskolleg_arbeit/konferenz_kreativitaet

 

Call for Papers – 5. Workshop ‚Kritische Organisationsforschung‘: „Ästhetik und Organisation – Inszenierung und Ästhetisierung von Organisation, Arbeit und Management“

Ich freue mich, heute den fünften Workshop des Forums „Kritische Organisationsforschung“ ankündigen zu können, welcher am 5.-6. Oktober 2017 an der Universität Duisburg-Essen stattfinden wird. Unsere diesjährige Tagung widmet sich dem Thema „Ästhetik und Organisation“. Hier ein Auszug aus dem Call (CfP Ästhetik und Organisation_KOF_2017):

„Obwohl die Auseinandersetzung mit der Ästhetik und der Ästhetisierung, Inszenierung und auch Theatralisierung von Produktion, Konsum, Freizeit, Arbeit und Organisation kein neues Phänomen im sozialwissenschaftlichen Diskurs ist, hat die Diskussion in den letzten Jahrzehnten und Jahren an erheblicher Dynamik gewonnen. Dabei ist eine Ausweitung des Begriffs des Ästhetischen über die Sphäre der Kunst hinaus festzuhalten, welche ästhetische Praktiken im Sinne der Hervorbringung spezifischer sinnlicher Wahrnehmungen zum Gegenstand der Analyse macht (Reckwitz 2015: 21f.). In den Diagnosen einer Kulturalisierung der Ökonomie, des Aufstiegs kreativer, immaterieller und ästhetischer Arbeit, der ästhetischen Inszenierung von Personen, Ereignissen, Dingen und Organisationen wird der Stellenwert ästhetischer Praktiken und Prozesse für die Analyse der Gegenwartsgesellschaft und von Organisationen neu verhandelt (Reckwitz 2015).

[…]

Der fünfte Workshop des Forums „Kritische Organisationsforschung“ widmet sich der Ästhetisierung des Ökonomischen und der Ökonomisierung des Ästhetischen, möchte dabei jedoch einen besonderen Fokus auf die Ästhetisierung und Inszenierung von Organisation, Arbeit und Management legen. […] Die folgenden Felder lassen sich als erste Orientierung für mögliche Einreichungen von Beitragsvorschlägen verstehen, andere Perspektiven sind dabei selbstverständlich willkommen:

  • Ästhetischer Kapitalismus“? Denkbar sind Arbeiten, welche nach dem Stellenwert und der Reichweite der Diagnose eines „ästhetischen Kapitalismus“ fragen. Welche Phänomene geraten in den Blick, was wird, etwa bezogen auf organisationale Praktiken im globalen Maßstab, ausgeblendet? Wie ist das Verhältnis von Rationalisierung und Ästhetisierung in historischer Perspektive zu denken?
  • Ästhetisierung und Inszenierung von Organisation: Wie werden Organisationen im Sinne einer ‚ästhetischen Kohärenz‘ hervorgebracht? Welche Rolle spielen Artefakte, Achitektur, Raum, Sprache, Events etc. bei der Inszenierung von Organisationen? Wo zeigen sich Brüche oder auch das Scheitern von ‚Kohärenz‘? In welchem Verhältnis steht dabei die Inszenierung von Organisation zum Bereich des Nicht-Sichtbaren oder -Sagbaren, etwa im Sinne einer machtvollen ‚Aufteilung des Sinnlichen‘ (Rancière 2006)?
  • Ästhetische Arbeit und Ästhetisierung von Arbeit: Unter anderem im Anschluss an die Arbeiten zur ‚aesthetic labour‘ (Tyler und Taylor 1998, Hancock und Tyler 2000, Warhurst et al. 2000, Witz et al. 2003) rücken hierbei Phänomene wie äußeres Erscheinungsbild, körperliches Auftreten und Sprache bis hin zur Diskriminierung i.S. eines „lookism“ in den Fokus. Beschäftigte werden zu ästhetischen Stellvertretern des Unternehmens. Zugleich stellen sich Fragen nach dem Verhältnis von ‚Frontstage‘ und ‚Backstage‘, Gender und Organisation sowie der Kontrolle und Subsumtion von Arbeit.
  • Gibt es eine ‚ästhetische Theorie der Organisation‘ und was wären deren Implikationen? Anschlüsse sind hier sowohl in rein konzeptioneller Hinsicht (z.B. die Organisation als performativer Akt) als auch in (organisations)analytischer Perspektive (bspw. aus den Methoden der Theaterwissenschaft) denkbar. Als weitere Perspektive wären hier ebenso die phänomenologischen Folgen eines entsprechenden Zugriffs auf Organisationen, ihre Umwelt und die Individuen in ihnen von Interesse.
  • Ästhetik und Ästhetisierung von Kritik, Widerstand und Subversion: In historischer Perspektive erweist sich der Rekurs auf Ästhetik, etwa in Form der ‚Künstlerkritik‘ (Boltanski/Chiapello 2006) auch immer als eine Perspektive des Widerstands gegenüber den Anrufungen des Marktes und der Rationalisierung, etwa als Anspruch auf Kreativität und Authentizität und als Hinweisen auf gesellschaftliche Kontingenz. Insofern eine zunehmende „Verzahnung und strukturelle Stützung von Ästhetisierungs- und Rationalisierungsprozessen“ (Reckwitz 2015: 49) diagnostiziert wird, stellt sich die Frage nach dem Stellenwert und den Möglichkeiten ästhetischer Kritik und der Ästhetisierung von Widerstand neu, so etwa auch in den Bereichen alternativer Ökonomien und sozialer Bewegungen.

Einreichungen

Die Einreichung von Short Papers im Umfang von 2000-3000 Wörtern ist bis zum 31. Mai 2017 möglich (per E-Mail an: ronaldhartz@gmx.de). Eine Rückmeldung zu den Einreichungen erfolgt bis Mitte Juni durch die Organisatoren des Workshops.

Organisationsteam

PD Dr. Ronald Hartz, E-Mail: ronaldhartz@gmx.de

Prof. Dr. Werner Nienhüser, Universität Duisburg-Essen, E-Mail: werner.nienhueser@uni-due.de

Jun.-Prof. Dr. Matthias Rätzer, Technische Universität Chemnitz, E-Mail: matthias.raetzer@wirtschaft.tu-chemnitz.de

Für Rückfragen stehen wir gerne zur Verfügung!

CfP: What turns the European labour market into a fortress? ESA 2017 conference

*Call for Papers for the Research Stream*: What turns the European labour market into a fortress?

The European Sociological Association’s 2017 conference „(Un)Making Europe: Capitalism, Solidarities, Subjectivities“ will take place from August 29-September 1 in Athens.

Conference website: http://esa13thconference.eu/

Abstracts: 250 words, to be submitted before February 1: https://www.conftool.pro/esa2017/

RS16 – What turns the European labour market into a fortress?

Coordinators: Hans Siebers, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands H.G.Siebers@tilburguniversity.edu

Bridget Anderson, University of Oxford

Alice Bloch, University of Manchester

Patrizia Zanoni, Hasselt University

*Description of the Research Stream*

Ethno-migrant inequality remains a persistent trait of the labour market in Europe. Our knowledge about the mechanisms and factors that produce the obstacles and boundaries that migrants face when trying to equally participate in the labour market is incomplete. To advance our knowledge, we need to explore the impact of institutional and discursive factors that stem from the labour market itself, drawing on a combination of macro-quantitative and meso/micro-qualitative studies and highlighting the articulations of various factors and mechanisms.

*General call for papers*

Inequality between migrants (refugees, labour migrants, family reunification, etc.) and non-migrants remains a very serious problem in the capitalist labour markets of Europe. It challenges solidarities and may be decisive in the further making of Europe to become either an open society or a fortress against others. The main explanations of this ethnomigrant inequality point to differences in human capital and social capital, to the impact of government policies and legislation as well as to the consequences of discrimination and exclusion. However, our knowledge about the mechanisms and factors that produce this ethno-migrant inequality in access to jobs, pay, information, fair assessments, development opportunities, promotion chances and fair outflow procedures still remains limited and incomplete.

Possible session themes include but are not limited to:

– The institutional and discursive factors and mechanisms that are operational in the labour market and society itself in addition to focusing on the characteristics of groups of migrants. For example, societal discourses and policies on ethnicity and migrancy as well as specific management practices and forms of labour control may play a vital role either in opening up or in closing down space for migrants in the labour market. Here also the ethno-migrant consequences of the precarization of labour relations needs further exploration.

– More fruitful interactions between macro and micro/meso studies that so far tend to go separate ways. Micro/meso studies on subjectivity and interactions between migrants and non-migrants, for example in particular organisations, may benefit from a more macro context perspective, whereas macro studies could make more use of micro/meso studies to pose relevant questions and to interpret data. The interplay between empirical studies and drawing of various theoretical sources will enhance our understanding of the place of migrants at work.

– The interactions between the various factors and mechanisms that produce ethnomigrant inequality. For example, is migrants’ less disposal of human capital than nonmigrants due to them having acquired less specific capital in their countries of origin, or is their human capital appreciated and valorised less by employers due to discrimination or have they become the object of ethnicization processes in education in the country their currently live in? There is evidence for all these issues, but we know little about their relative weight and interactions.

– The various subjectivities and experiences of migrants themselves to resist, to cope with exclusion, to look for ways of empowerment and for spaces of upward mobility and the degrees of success resulting from these various efforts and approaches. This far from exclusive list calls for a comparative perspective in which studies in various parts of Europe and on various sectors and levels of the labour market can be compared. Papers are welcome on one of more of these topics, taking an empirical and/or theoretical perspective.

*Timeline *

1st February 2017 Abstract submission deadline

1st April Notification of acceptance (sent to abstract submitters via ConfTool in early April)

1st May Early-bird registration deadline

1st June Paper givers registration deadline

1st August Printing of the programme

29 Aug. to 1 Sep. 13th ESA conference in Athens

Call for papers: Diverse organizing/organizational diversity – Methodological questions and activist practices

Excerpt from the call:

In collaboration with Diversity in Teams and AlterEcos: Exploring Alternatives to Currently Dominant Forms of Economic Organizing, Diversity&Difference @CBS invites contributions to: Diverse organizing/organizational diversity – Methodological questions and activist practices.

In continuation of previous years’ successful workshops on leadership, diversity and inclusion, we now turn to the question of how to study organizational diversity. How do we study different organizations/organizational differences and why do we do it? This issue is both one of methodology and activism. In terms of methodology, the study of organizational diversity and diverse organizing challenges academic orthodoxies of specialization, standardization and incrementalism (Alvesson & Gabriel, 2013). The search for different organizations/difference in organizations demands that we unsettle our ways and reconsider the ins and outs of what we have been, are and will be doing. In terms of activism, a commitment to diversity and difference challenges social and organizational norms of meritocracy, inclusion, recognition, etc. (Fraser, 2000; Castilla & Benard, 2010; Zanoni et al., 2010). Encounters with difference require that we not only consider new sites of investigation, but also new means of intervention; above all, it implores reconsideration of the very purpose of inquiry: How may studies of diverse organizing and diversity in organizations move beyond either passive description or mere critique and, instead, provide practicable redefinitions of organizational realities?

Find the full call at the website.

Submission details 

·         Abstracts are invited to be submitted by 15th February 2017.

·         Abstracts of approximately 1500 words

·         The abstracts will be peer reviewed and decisions on acceptance will be made by the workshop organizers within a month from submission date.

·         Contributors may choose to draw on material from a wide range of empirical spheres, theoretical perspectives and methodological orientations.

·         Papers should include methodological considerations

·         Papers can be theoretically or empirically driven.

·         We welcome papers from all national and cross-national contexts.

·         New and young scholars with ‚work in progress‘ are particularly welcome.

·         In terms of co-authored papers, one person should be identified as the corresponding author.

Abstracts should be emailed to: Sine N. Just  and Lotte Holck.

The document must include contact information (author names, institutional affiliation and e-mail address).

This workshop is exploratory in nature, but we acknowledge the importance of publication. We, therefore, encourage authors to submit a full(er) version of their paper by 15th April 2017. This is, however, not a prerequisite for taking part in the workshop.

In line with the theme of the workshop, we welcome alternatives to power point presentations. You will be able to indicate your preferred form of presentation at the time of submitting your developed manuscript and are welcome to contact the workshop organizers for any questions.

Information  on programme, keynote speakers, and registration will follow.   

Dato 2nd – 3rd May, 2017
Location Copenhagen Business School  (room will follow)

Call for Chapter Proposals – Organizing (for) the Future. How Organizations Manage Things to Come

Please check out this interesting call for chapters for the book ‚Organizing (for) the Future.
How Organizations Manage Things to Come‘, edited by Hannes Krämer and Matthias Wenzel (European University Viadrina, Frankfurt/Oder):

call-for-chapters_organizing-for-the-future

Call for Papers: 6. Internationaler INAS-Fachkongress 2018 „Führen in der Sozial- und Gesundheitswirtschaft: Neue Organisations- und Denkmodelle“

An der Evangelischen Hochschule Dresden findet vom 28.Februar bis 2.März 2018 der 6. Internationale Kongress der internationalen Arbeitsgemeinschaft Sozialmanagement / Sozialwirtschaft (INAS e.V.) statt. Abstracts zu möglichen Beiträgen können bis zum 15. Februar 2017 unter anderem zu den Panels und Themen Mythos ‚Führung‘, Dramaturgie von Führung als auch zu neuen Organisations- und Führungsmodellen eingereicht werden.

Hier der vollständige Call: 2018_call-for-papersinas2018_original_def-2

Vielen Dank an Marlies Froese (Evangelische Hochschule Dresden) für den Hinweis auf den Tagung!

Interesting Call for Papers – „Organizing Outsiders and their Spaces“ on 17th Annual Ethnography Symposium in Manchester

The stream „Organizing Outsiders and their Spaces“  is part of the 12th Annual Ethnography Symposium at the University of Manchester next year (30th August – 1st September 2017). Keynote speakers will be: Professor Emma Crewe (SOAS, University of London); Professor Bruno Latour (Sciences Po); Professor Bill Maurer (University of California, Irvine) and Professor Hugh Willmott (CASS Business School, London).

Convenors of Stream 20: „Organizing Outsiders and their Spaces“ are Mona Florian, Jana Costas (European University Viadrina) and Gideon Kunda (Tel Aviv University).

You can submit an abstract or proposal (not more that 500 words) by Tuesday 28th February 2017 to florian@europa-uni.de. Decisions on acceptance will be made by 30th March 2017.

More information about the conference:

http://www.confercare.manchester.ac.uk/events/ethnography/

The Call for Paper: stream-20_organizing-outsiders-and-their-spaces-1

Call for Papers – 10th International Critical Management Studies Conference (CMS) in Liverpool, 3-5 July 2017

The call for papers of the 10th International Critical Management Studies is now open. Overall there are 50 streams, including a number of streams adressing alternative forms of organization and organizing. The deadline for submission of abstracts is 31st January 2017:

Conference Streams – Call for Papers

 

Reminder – CfP on ‚Post-Growth Organizations‘

This is a reminder for our call for a special issue in Management Revue on Post-Growth Organizations (mrev-cfp-post-growth-organizations_PDF). Deadline for abstracts is September 30, 2016. Full papers must be submitted by 31 March 2017.

*Special Issue* Post-Growth Organization

Guest Editors:

Matthias Rätzer, Technical University Chemnitz, Germany

Ronald Hartz, Technical University Chemnitz, Germany

Ingo Winkler, University of Southern Denmark

 

Overview

For a couple of years now growth-driven societies have been in a permanent state of crisis. Since 2007 the global financial crisis and its aftermath are challenging our ideas of growth, well-being, consumption and work within global capitalism. Consequently, critical scholars in management and organization studies have begun to advocate alternative forms of organization and to problematize the collective imagination that ‘there is no alternative to growth’ (Parker et al. 2014; Atzeni 2012).

One important analytical dimension within the search for alternatives relates to the limits of growth in its economic, ecological and social dimension. For example, Meadows et al. (2004) explicate that a finite (world) system cannot handle an everlasting orientation toward growth without running into a collapse. Hirsch (1976) argues that social rise in a stratified society smolders, leading to social imbalances in the long term. Several authors discuss economic restrictions under the name of de-growth (Georgescu-Roegen 1977; Latouche 2009; Martínez Alier et al. 2010; Schneider et al. 2010; Kallis 2013). Schneider et al. (2010) point towards unfulfilled expectations in the context of creating win-win-situations and question the possibility of sustainable growth through technological and efficiency improvements. Relative to the social context, others discuss the label steady-state-economy, which challenges the relationship between growth and labor, solvency and consolidated public finances (Daly 1972, 1973; Lawn 2011; Blauwhof 2012).

However, there exist only few contributions discussing organizational alternatives to an orientation toward growth (Cheney et al. 2014). Some authors address growth neutral enterprises (Bakker et al. 1999; White/White 2012). Others note that neither governments nor private sector executives have any incentives supporting the development of a post-growth environment (e.g. Latouche, 2006; Ayres, 2008; Martínez Alier 2009). Therefore, the specific aim of this special issue is to substantiate the debate on post-growth, steady-state and de-growth from an organizational perspective. How can organizations respond to the limits of economic growth? How can organizations, from a post-growth perspective, promote their social worth as opposed to their monetary worth? How can organizations implement the elements of a post-growth economy, such as cutting-down and slowing down, a balance between sufficiency and dependency on consumption, institutional innovations for the society, the environment and regional economy (Paech, 2016)?

In addressing post-growth organizations (PGOs), we assume alternative organizations, featuring individual autonomy and respect, an orientation towards solidarity and cooperation, and responsibility to the future (Parker et al., 2014) to constitute a fertile ground for PGOs. Furthermore, we could imagine PGOs to develop from associations, growth neutral enterprises, co-operations, solidarity organizations, grass-root movements or even ‘traditional’ enterprises. Eventually, we do not restrict our focus on PGOs to the economic domain, but also take social and ecologic concerns, such as social entrepreneurs, into account. We call for contributions discussing different perspectives on PGOs, investigating their characteristics and limits. Furthermore, we embrace contributions investigating the range and coverage of PGOs as an organizational possibility in a future, post-growth society.

The contributions to this special issue should address one or more of the following questions:

– What characterizes the organization and the management of ‘post-growth organizations’ (PGOs)?

– Which role do the principles of autonomy, solidarity and responsibility play in PGOs? What kind of problems, contradictions and conjoint amplification are observable regarding these principles?

– Do PGOs enable us to cure some of the organizational ills created by a narrow focus on economic growth?

– What are the limits and prospects of PGOs in the transformation of capitalism?

– What organizational practices, tools and instruments are important in PGOs (e.g. accounting practices, compensation practices, decision making, regulations of working time, work-life balance, forms of participation etc.)?

– Is it possible to turn traditional organizations into PGOs?

– Which strategies (e.g. overcoming of externally defined difficulties, internal processes of storytelling, micro politics, adjustment of power) can be identified in the constitution and management of PGOs and which practices in PGOs are working well and which are not?

This is not an exhaustive list.

*Deadline* Potential contributors to the *Special Issue of Management Revue* are encouraged to submit an abstract of 1-2 pages before *30 September 2016* electronically via the online submission system at http://www.management-revue.org/submission/ using ‘Post-Growth Organization’ as article section.

Contributors will receive feedback and an invitation to submit a full paper by the end of October 2016. Full papers must be submitted by *31 March 2017*. All contributions will be subject to a double-blind review. Papers invited to a ‘revise and resubmit’ are due *31 August 2017*.

*Looking forward to hearing from you!*

Matthias Rätzer (matthias.raetzer@wirtschaft.tu-chemnitz.de) Ronald Hartz (ronald.hartz@wirtschaft.tu-chemnitz.de) Ingo Winkler (inw@sam.sdu.dk)

References

Atzeni, Maurizio (Ed.) (2012): Alternative Work Organizations. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Ayres, Robert U. (2008): Sustainability Economics: Where do we stand?. In: Ecological Economics, 67 (2), 281-310.

Blauwhof, Frederik B. (2012): Overcoming accumulation: Is a capitalist steady-state economy possible?. In: Ecological Economics, 84, 254-261.

Cheney, George/ Santa Cruz, Iñaki/ Peredo, Ana Maria/ Nazareno, Elías (2014): Worker cooperatives as an organizational alternative: Challenges, achievements and promise in business governance and ownership. In: Organization, 21 (5), 591-603.

Daly, Herman E. (1972): In Defense of a Steady-State Economy. American Journal ofAgricultural Economics, 54(5), 945-954.

Daly, Herman E. (1973):Toward a Steady-State Economy. San Francisco: Freeman. Daly, Herman E. (1991): Steady-State Economics. 2. Edition. Washington [u.a.]: Island.

Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas (1977): The steady state and ecological salvation: a thermo-dynamic analysis. Bioscience, 27(4), 266­70.

Kallis, Giorgos (2011): In defense of degrowth. In: Ecological Economics, 70, 873-880. Lawn, Philip (2011): Is Steady-State Capitalism Viable? A Review oftheIssuesand an Answer in the Affirmative. In: Costanza, Robert/ Limburg, Karin/ Kubiszewski, Ida (Ed.): Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1219, 1­25.

Martínez Alier, Joan (2009): Socially Sustainable Economic De-growth. In: Development and Change, 40 (6), 1099-1119.

Martínez Alier, Joan/ Pascaul, Unai/ Vivien, Franck-Dominique/ Zaccai, Edwin (2010): Sustainable de-growth: Mapping the context, criticism and future prospects of an emergent paradigm. In: Ecological Economics, 69, 1741-1747.

Parker, Martin/ Cheney, George/ Fournier, Valérie/ Land, Chris (Ed.) (2014): The Routledge Companion to Alternative Organization. London [u.a.]: Routledge.

Schneider, François/ Kallis, Giorgos/ Martínez Alier, Joan (2010): Crisis or opportunity? Economic degrowth for social equity and ecological sustainability. Introduction to this specialissue. In: Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 511-518.

White, Doug/White, Polly (2012): Why Some Entrepreneurs Choose Not to Grow Their Businesses. In: Business Review USA, 9th March, http://www.businessreviewusa.com/finance/4048/Why-Some-Entrepreneurs-Choos e-Not-to-Grow-Their-Businesses.