Item 1:

GENDER, WORK & ORGANIZATION – 8th Biennial International Interdisciplinary conference, 24th – 26th June, 2014, Keele University, UK

Call for abstracts – Gender and Globalisation: What do Intersectionality and Transnational Feminism contribute?

Stream Convenors:
Diane C. Farmer, Business School, Kingston University, ENGLAND
Evangelina Holvino, Simmons School of Management, USA
Jenny K. Rodriguez, Newcastle University Business School, ENGLAND

“The [intersectionality] framework remains important, but we have to pay attention to and elucidate the complexities of using this framework beyond Euro-American societies. Understanding and attending to the complexities of transnationalism—composed of structures within, between, and across nation-states, and virtual spaces—alerts us to look for other axes of domination and the limits of using “women of color” concepts, as we use them now, to look across and within nation-states to understand the impact of transnationalism” (Purkayastha, 2012, p. 62).

This stream aims to explore the relationship between intersectionality and transnational feminism in the context of globalisation by exploring the following key questions: what are the similarities between these two approaches to the study of gender and power relations? What are the differences between intersectionality and transnational feminist approaches? What can we learn from sustained generative conversations that explore these two approaches to gender as it is applied to work and organisations in a global(ised) world?
Globalisation and its associated dynamics have generated increased transnational dynamics that have transformed relations in workplaces where a combination of new patterns of migration and the feminisation of globalisation have (re)shaped the construction, enactment, deployment and regulation of social dimensions. In the last decades, intersectionality has been recognised as one of the most important theoretical and practical contributions to understanding gender and the situation of women whose experience and structural position are different because of their differences across race, sexuality, ethnicity, class, nationality and other social dimensions. In a parallel development, transnational feminist theories or approaches have gained ground, especially shedding insights on the situation of women given the transnational flow of labour, culture, bodies, and capital, which are now characteristic of globalisation and its ‘new world order’. However, present discussions of intersectionality have not fully incorporated social life in transnational spaces so there is much scope to incorporate the global hierarchy of nations as part of the intersectional nexus of analysis to help us not only to articulate and explore complex positionalities and contradictory subjectivities but also to broaden, challenge or change our understanding of intersectionality (Holvino, 2010; Choo, 2012; Purkayastha, 2012).
Davis (2010) has argued for the relevance of intersectionality to transnational analyses in its “….capacity to function as a method for analysing an array of transnational relations linking gender to a network of disciplinary regimes, normativities, sexual ethics, class apartheids, and racialised effects…locat[ing] transnational gender contexts within and across intersecting circuits of race, class, and sexuality moving in multiple and simultaneous political economies, histories, and culture formations (p. 143). Similarly, Calás & Smircich (2012) have noted that “research in transnational social fields would provide ways to articulate clearly and consistently in organisation theory the centrality of gender/sexuality/race/ethnicity/class relations invisibly sustaining modalities of neoliberal globalisation” (p. 424). The previous ideas raise important questions about the implications of the expansion of individuals, groups, corporations, and nation-states across transnational spaces and how institutional and structural power that creates dominant groups and relegates people to one category or another keeps shifting and changing over time and across geographies. Similarly, we should reflect on the role of nation/states on the intersection of axes of power; the temporality and scope of methods of inquiry used to explore intersectionality in transnational spaces, and the potential (re)formulation of the intersectionality discussion as a result of using a transnational feminist lens. Ultimately, we need to explore the interplay between intersectionality and transnational feminism in order to understand better how the simultaneity of processes that take place disrupts the bounded nation and which new transnational social spaces are created as a result (Calás & Smircich, 2012). In doing so, we need to look at what research methods and approaches seem more promising or are been used to explore these questions, in particular to address the ongoing challenge of the practical applications of intersectionality with an added complexity of transnational feminist approaches.
This stream invites conceptual, empirical, methodological and practice contributions that address the relationship between intersectionality and transnational feminist studies, globalisation, gender and work. Themes and questions of interest for this stream include, but are not limited to:
- Theorising the interplay between intersectionality and transnational feminism
- How do dynamics of transnationalism shape structures as part of economic activities, social networks, social and political life and gender systems and what is the impact on gender relations?
- Transnational feminist studies and their impact on work, organisation and organising
- Understanding the (re)construction of intersectional inequalities from a transnational feminist perspective
- Identity/ies work and identities and work as a result of processes of transnationalism
- Using a transnational feminist lens to explore national policies of identity regulation
- Transnational feminist analyses of trajectories of marginalisation
- Transnational feminist understandings of systems of stratification in different geographical spaces
- Transnational feminism and the exploration of the meanings of intersectionality within nations (global/macro-country levels)
- Transnational feminist analyses of institutionalisation of intersectional inequality (e.g., how processes of racialisation take place across geographies and how are they institutionalized)
- Transnational feminist analyses of organisations, work and management practices
- What research approaches and methods help study the complexity of shifting power relations and identities using intersectional and transnational feminist approaches?

As part of the proposed structure of the stream, we are seeking to finalise with a general session to reflect on what has been learned about the possibilities and challenges of bringing intersectionality and transnational feminist approaches to inform theory, research and practice on gender, work and organisations in the age of globalisation. The aim of this final session is to identify key learnings from the stream and new directions to continue (or not) bringing together these two important theoretical, research and practical advances in the study of gender and organisations. This final session will be chaired by the stream convenors and will consist of a conversation following a roundtable format with presenters from the stream as well as others in attendance to the conference who may wish to join us. If you would like to take part in this final session, please indicate so in a cover message with your abstract submission. Convenors also welcome contact from potential contributions ahead of abstract submission. You can get in touch with convenors at d.cfarmer@btinternet.com, holvino@chaosmanagement.com, and jenny.rodriguez@ncl.ac.uk.
Abstracts of approximately 500 words (ONE page, Word document NOT PDF, single spaced, excluding any references, no header, footers or track changes) are invited by 1st November 2013 with decisions on acceptance to be made by stream leaders by the 1st of December 2013. Prospective contributions will be independently refereed. New and early career scholars with ‘work in progress’ papers are welcomed. In the case of co-authored papers, ONE person should be identified as the corresponding author. In the first instance, abstracts should be emailed to jenny.rodriguez@ncl.ac.uk. Abstracts should include FULL contact details, including your name, department, institutional affiliation, mailing address, and e-mail address. Please state the title of the stream to which you are submitting your abstract.

Calás, M. & Smircich, L. 2012. In the back and forth of transmigration: Rethinking OS in a Transnational Key. In E. Jeanes, D. Knights & P.Y. Martin (Eds), Handbook of Gender, Work and Organisation, London: Wiley, pp. 411-428.
Choo, H.Y. 2012. The Transnational Journey of Intersectionality. Gender & Society (Patricia Hills Collins Symposium), 26(1), pp. 40-45.
Davis, D. R. 2010. Unmirroring Pedagogies: Teaching with Intersectional and Transnational Methods in the Women and Gender Studies Classroom. Feminist Formations, 22(1), pp. 136-162.
Holvino, E. 2010. Intersections: the simultaneity of race, gender and class in organisation studies. Gender, Work & Organisation, 17(3), pp. 248-277.
Purkayastha, B. 2012. Intersectionality in a transnational world. Gender & Society (Patricia Hills Collins Symposium), 26(1), pp. 55-66.


Item 2:

GENDER, WORK & ORGANIZATION – 8th Biennial International Interdisciplinary conference, 24th - 26th June, 2014 Keele University, UK

Call for abstracts – Reframing gender (in)equality in (post)modern times

Stream convenors:
Nathalie Amstutz, Business School, University of Applied Sciences of Northern Switzerland, SWITZERLAND Ortrun Brand, Philipps-Universität Marburg, GERMANY Helga Eberherr, WU Vienna, AUSTRIA Ralf Wetzel, Vlerick Business School, BELGIUM

The phenomena of vertical or horizontal gender segregation and the distribution of power and authority in organizations have become an object of a multitude of research projects and high-profile programmes in the area of gendered relations in organization. They have been discussed in relation to the problem of gender time and wage gaps, and to the perennial fraught attempts at reconciling professional and private lives, as well as to questions of sexuality. In view of the visible transformations of gender relations in society with their many contradictions and paradoxes, the number of blind spots has not, however, decreased. The opposite is true: the recent debate about the persistence or erosion of male-female inequality has created new questions of considerable urgency for current gender policy and emergent organizational gender cultures.
Two poles can be pointed out in current discourse. On the one side, there is the belief that gender discrimination will soon be consigned to history, since gender relations of Western industrialized societies are currently experiencing a subliminal, but nonetheless radical process of change. The former asymmetries will - as proposed by Alber (2010) - disappear alongside the transformation of the "old"patriarchal industrial society into a post-industrial service / post-patriarchal knowledge economy. Gender has already - as he emphasizes - lost much of its momentum as a structural category, with a person's social or migratory origins taking its place as a determinant of social inequality. Hence the conclusion:
Gender differences and inequalities will become irrelevant in postmodern society. On the other side, gender differences and inequalities are not perceived as "mere relics" that will "disappear automatically over the process of history" (Maruani 2010: 636), nor is a "natural tendency towards equality" (ibid.:637) assumed to be likely. This vantage point assumes that the "preponderance of accumulated disadvantages on the female side" - as Maruani and others assert with a look at Verret - "is reconstructed and re-composed every day" (Maruani 2010: 637). This is supported by the recognition that, while numerous examples of a narrowing of the gender gap or indeed a reshuffling of circumstances in favour of women, as is the case in educational attainment, can be pointed to, many women are still not encountering equal opportunities in the labour markets or in specific selection processes despite greater educational achievements and qualifications (see Acker 2012; Bendl 2008; Brown/Ainsworth/Grant 2012; Zanoni et al. 2010). This position does not recognize a loss of relevance of the gender category in the relative rise of the categories of class or origin, as it addresses its research to the close interconnections of gender, class, and ethnicity that had already been visible forces in the rise of old hegemonies of bourgeois society.
This stream focuses on the gap between on the one hand, these promising scenarios of gender equality and, one the other hand, a series of contradictory re-configurations which are an outcome of persistent organizationally enacted inequalities. For example, so-called `knowledge economy' is still far from becoming a pioneer of new gender relations. Alongside the organisational mechanisms `inserting'inequalities coterminous with the adoption of anti-discrimination policy and diversity policies (such as gender mainstreaming, diversity management), researchers have identified a `myth of egalitarianism' that has developed via a discursive neglect of gender differences and which deserves further attention (cf.Dörhöfer 2011; Funder/Dörhöfer/Rauch 2006). The hierarchical motif of gender classification remains hidden under the gloss of a modernized code of equality (see also Nentwich 2006). Indeed, a `taboo of inequality' prohibits - irrespective of some visible narrowing of the gender gap - a critical engagement with the still prevalent gender asymmetries (in terms of hierarchy, remuneration, and labour allocation), let alone any process of "undoing gender" (Butler 2004) or "not doing gender" (Wetterer 1999).
Organisational theory offers explanation models for this concomitance within organisational function like Brunsson's concept (1989) reflecting the obvious disconnection between "talk" and "action" which only serves to camouflage this survival of gender differences to the undiscerning observer. A type of "illusio" (Bourdieu 1997) has developed, encompassing the claim that it is predominantly performance which matters. Questions of wage equality, standing, or respect are, under this premise, no more subject to gender, but only a final product of meritocratic mechanisms or the reflection of a person's subjective capacity to live up to the premises of the modern performance paradigm. Organizations not only play a major role in producing the 'rational myths' of hierarchy, rather they also participate in the 'dethematization'of gender hierarchies. Every reconfiguration of gender relations promises the erosion of old inequalities and the end of traditional roles; it also brings the risk of new, more subtle forms of gender differences gaining hold, or even - following Deleuze (2010) - the risk of a purposeful conservation of old asymmetries, such as the gendered distribution of labour based on the heterosexual model (see the problem of re-traditionalization).
An inspiration for our stream is the classic publication The Iron Cage Revisited (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Building on their metaphor, we specifically seek for papers that engage critically with the function and role of organizations, their discursive practices concerned with (re)production, persistence and change or 'fading' of gender differences. The stream asks for an organizational perspective on organziation's mechanisms in dividing labour, defining functions according to the heterosexual model or (de)gendering their own structures. Papers submitted to this sub-theme may include, but are not limited to, the following topics:
- the development of theoretical frameworks: Which new and innovative approaches in organizational theory facilitate analysis of the wide range of structural and cultural change and/or persistence of gender differences in organizations? How does neo-institutionalism and neo-institutionalist modernization theory contribute to the analysis of gender and organizations and how do these approaches help to dismantle not only obvious, but also latent processes of dealing with gender (in)equalities? How, do current approaches in organizational theory in general and in neo-institutionalism-theory in particular need to be 'gendered' and extended in order to serve for proper analyses of processes in organizations?
- empirical studies illuminating how organizations deal with the rise of social expectations about gender equality
- do organizations form new, intelligent facades (Brunsson 1989) of equality that maintain the illusion of gender parity? Are there signs of equality in the working world, its cultures, structures, and decisions-making processes (e.g. with an explicit commitment to social sustainability, meaningful internal guidelines, and changes to processes and structures)?
- are there different types of (post)modern organizations showing different gender subtexts? What is the role of heterosexuality in the division of labour within organizations and what organizational theoretical framework offers useful analytical models here? Is there evidence of a 'gender cage' or are gender differences narrowing in discourses and power relations?
- has the recent introduction of EU-wide anti-discrimination regulations improved the likelihood of equality and, if so, to what extent? Or have organizations managed to 'batten down the hatches' against the introduction of such equality? Which current transformations are affecting gender relations in organizations? What mechanisms of change are to be discovered at work?
- What indicates the persistence or the change of gender relations? What organizational constellations contribute to creating and maintaining, or to removing, the equality myth? Which mechanisms and/or processes of change are necessary to introduce a process of "undoing gender" in an organization?

We welcome broad-ranging theoretical and theoretically informed empirical studies as well as critical literatures reviews which are inspired by the areas of interest expressed above.
Abstracts of approximately 500 words (ONE page, Word document NOT PDF, single spaced, excluding references, no header, footers or track changes) are invited by 1st November 2013 with decisions on acceptance to be made by stream leaders within one month. All abstracts will be peer reviewed. New and young scholars with 'work in progress' papers are welcomed. Papers can be theoretical or theoretically informed empirical work. In the case of co-authored papers, ONE person should be identified as the corresponding author. Note that due to restrictions of space, multiple submissions by the same author will not be timetabled. Abstracts should be emailed to:
helga.eberherr@wu.ac.at Abstracts should include FULL contact details, including your name, institutional affiliation, mailing address, and e-mail address. State the title of the stream to which you are submitting your abstract. Note that no funding, fee waiver, travel or other bursaries are offered for attendance at GWO2014.


Item 3:

GENDER, WORK & ORGANIZATION – 8th Biennial International Interdisciplinary conference, 24th – 26th June, 2014, Keele University, UK

Call for abstracts – Gendering the creative: creative work, creative industries, creative identities

Deborah Jones, Victoria University of Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
Kate Sang, Heriot Watt University, SCOTLAND
Naomi Stead, The University of Queensland, AUSTRALIA
Dimi Stoyanova, University of Warwick, ENGLAND
Rebecca Finkel, Queen Margaret University, SCOTLAND

‘Creativity’ is the engine of post-industrial ‘creative economies’. This rhetoric encompasses not only specifically designated ‘creative industries’ and ‘creatives’, but also a much wider idea of the ‘creative’ at work in all kinds of organisations and occupations. Contemporary policies – national, regional, industry-driven – have set out to extend, evaluate and monetise the creative. While some of these government initiatives also attempt to address social diversity – including gender - in terms of equal access to work, and of cultural inclusion and exclusion, others do not. Ways of conceptualising creativity may take a wide range of forms, in which both traditional and newer are spliced together. For instance, a romantic framing of ‘arts’ and ‘artists’, based on a distinction between the creative and the industrial, is linked with ideas of art as a vocation, and of the artist as a distinctive kind of individualised genius. A more recent, 21st century vision is linked with the idea of innovation as the key to economic success, and so to workplaces specifically designed to attract and affirm creative talent. Here the ideal ‘creative’ may be imagined as a smoothly-functioning team of passionate and diverse talents.
The construction of gender takes varying forms in relation to the creative. In this stream call, we are approaching both as forms of identity intertwined in specific settings and historical contexts. The ‘creative’ is typically constructed so that women do not become the creative stars or geniuses, do not have equal access to creative work, are not equally rewarded, and are subject to various forms of occupational segregation that reinforce these inequalities in both recognition and reward. Processes of gendering the creative are inherent in theories and representations of creativity itself and its relation to the masculine and feminine, and in the industrial, occupation and creative community practices whereby gender influences who has access to which work, and to recognition as creatively successful. Intersecting with gender are constructions of class, race, age and sexuality that complicate and extend privilege and inequality.
In response to the emergence of policy-driven frameworks for mapping the ‘creative economy’, creative work has increasingly been recognised as ‘work’, collapsing creative subjects – artists, technicians, entrepreneurs – into data sets where earnings and occupations can be surveyed. In oppositional mode, critical scholars have increasingly paid attention to forms of creative work, or ‘cultural labour’ as aspects of the labour process, and raised questions about the forms of exploitation with which it is associated. Debates about creative work seek to frame it in relation to other kinds of exploitative or precarious work, while maintaining a focus on distinctive features of the ‘creative’. In particular, such research recognises that creative work is not only a type of work of developing economic and political importance, but that struggles over the creative are also struggles over the control of cultural production. However people working in many creative fields often refuse or ignore such analyses, rejecting the notion of creativity as a job. Identifying in various ways as artists with a vocation, they often work in what they see as non-creative jobs, perhaps part-time or intermittent, to fund their creative practice. The distinctions between paid and unpaid work is blurred, and unpaid positions such as ‘internships’ may be institutionalised as a way to get a foot in the door of a creative industry. Or, even if in paid creative work, they may accept low pay, extremely demanding working conditions, and precarious employment. Such patterns are also seen within established professions such as architecture where members often reflect on architecture as a ‘lifestyle’ rather than as a job or career. The language of workplace rights is frequently marginalised or silenced altogether, and forms of collective organising such as unionisation are often unavailable or rejected. In such a context, it is very difficult for women to find a forum or space to raise issues of creative work and gender equality, such as pay, status, recognition, or acknowledgment of family responsibilities.
For this stream, we invite empirical, theoretical or methodological papers that explore the ways that creative work is gendered. The gendered construction of ‘creativity’ can be seen in analyses of women’s employment within creative industries, and of ways that creativity is imagined or represented in a range of occupations and practices. Although the stream is open to any discussion of gender and creativity or creative work, we particularly welcome explorations of specific employment settings or contexts, for example, architecture, film and television, comedy, literature (including poetry) and design. We also call for speculative papers which propose innovative theoretical or methodological perspectives that can further open up studies of how the creative is gendered. We encourage writers to specify their own local contexts in which various versions of gender and creativity play out. We also encourage an interdisciplinary approach, acknowledging that the literatures of work in the creative industries, like the sector itself, have developed in and across a range of disciplines, including cultural studies, sociology and geography, as well as organisational studies. The following list is indicative, although not exhaustive, of likely topics in the stream:
- Distinctive forms of gendering the creative in different creative sectors: How is gender distinctively constructed in different creative sectors? What are the traditions and organising processes that enable or constrain women in different ways? How are roles within a given sector gendered in terms of status and specific skills? Are there government policies that set goals for gender participation and measure the workforce accordingly?
- Exceptionalist discourses: How do some creative professions frame themselves as unlike any other profession, as entirely unique and incomparable? What are the gendered consequences of this framing? How does this exceptionalism deflect critique?
- Embodying the creative: How is creativity is embodied as gendered? How is creativity performed through dress and demeanour, bodily comportment, and body art such as tattoos, as markers of belonging to a ‘creative’ sub-culture, of creativity and hipsterism. This question could be addressed by visual methodologies, and other interdisciplinary approaches such s fashion studies and the sociology of clothing.
- Theorising creativity as gendered: How is the subject of the artist/ creative gendered? How does the (female) muse relate to the (male) genius? How are inspiration, aspiration and the sources of creative ideas gendered?
- Methodologies for studying gendered creativity: How can we explore innovative methods for studying and understanding the creative industries and creative labour? What methods are most appropriate, for example, visual, aesthetic, ethnographic?
- Claiming the creative: How are ‘creative’ identities allocated and recognised? How is the ‘super-creative core’ constituted in relation to the ‘below the line’ people, i.e. the ‘crew’, support workers, and administrators? What systems are there of awards, grants, training, and networks and how are they gendered? Who are the gatekeepers to these resources and who receives them? Who in a profession or occupation actually gets to be creative at all, and why?
- Authorship, attribution and credit in collaborative work: What are the gendered implications and effects of these practices? What is the effect of publications, awards and organisations insisting on a single creative figurehead?
- Intersectionality: How does gender intersect with class, ethnicity, disability, and sexual orientation for those working in the sector? When and how does ‘diversity’ signal ‘creative difference’ as opposed to marginalisation?
- Against management: What are the gendered effects of tendencies in creative professions to actually and actively resist management and perceived managerialism, including any kind of equity initiatives? How is the rhetoric of egalitarian sociality exploited to foreclose questions of personal patronage and uneven access to resources?
- The creative profession as cult: What are the gendered effects of some creative industries scenarios of intensive work where your colleagues become your only friends, your romantic and business partners, and your family?
- Creativity and vocation: What are the effects of the ‘calling’ to the creative professions? How does gender intersect with vocation to intensify sacrifice on the part of women in terms of pay, conditions, status?
- Imagining and organising gender equality in creative work: What would decent work in the creative sector look like for women? How do women organise in guilds, professional groups, unions or lobby groups to raise issues of gender equality in this sector? How do women organise creative projects with men or other women that open up new opportunities for women to lead, collaborate and develop skills in spaces of great equality?

Abstracts of approximately 500 words (ONE page, Word document NOT PDF, single spaced, excluding references, no header, footers or track changes) are invited by 1st November 2013 with decisions on acceptance to be made by stream leaders within one month. All abstracts will be peer reviewed. New and young scholars with 'work in progress' papers are welcomed. Papers can be theoretical or theoretically informed empirical work. In the case of co-authored papers, ONE person should be identified as the corresponding author. Due to restrictions of space on the conference schedule, multiple submissions by the same author will not be timetabled. Abstracts should be emailed to: Kate Sang k.sang@hw.ac.uk
Abstracts should include FULL contact details, including your name, department, institutional affiliation, mailing address, and e-mail address. State the title of the stream to which you are submitting your abstract. Note that no funding, fee waiver, travel or other bursaries are offered for attendance at GWO2014.
For more information about the conference, including venue, accommodation and registration, see the GWO2014 Call for Abstracts - All Streams on the Gender, Work & Organization site, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1468-0432


Item 4:

GENDER, WORK & ORGANIZATION – 8th Biennial International Interdisciplinary conference, 24th – 26th June, 2014, Keele University, UK

Call for abstracts – Gendering environmental sustainability: the cultural politics of nature

Mary Phillips, University of Bristol, ENGLAND
Alison Pullen, University of Swansea, WALES
Ida Sabelis, VU University, Amsterdam, NETHERLANDS
Christine Katz, University of Luneberg, GERMANY

Following countless warnings about the effects of climate change and environmental degradation, 2012 witnessed a record loss of sea ice, concentrations of greenhouse gasses above the Arctic at their highest point for some 800,000 years, droughts in the grainbaskets of the US and Europe and disastrous flooding elsewhere. Yet, politicians and the business community seem paralysed and efforts to address ecological crises have been described as a dismal failure (Wittneben, Okereke, Banerjee & Levy 2012). Organizational responses are characterized by a business case approach based on obtaining competitive advantage (Bansal & Roth 2000), finding a technical fix (Boiral, Cayer, & Baron 2009) and greenwashing (Walker & Wan 2012). Banerjee notes that: ‘Rather than reshaping markets and production processes to fit the logic of nature, sustainable development uses the logic of markets and capitalist accumulation to determine the future of nature’ (Banerjee 2003:153). The primacy of market forces, economic progress and technology remains largely unquestioned such that current discursive formations and material practices of organizational sustainability limit possibilities for transformative change.
The environment/nature is thus presented as a risk that should be ameliorated through mastery and domination or a market opportunity to be appropriated, commodified and consumed (Banerjee, 2003). Conceptualising the natural world in this way is grounded in what Connell (1995) has referred to as hegemonic masculinity. Masculinity is aligned with reason, rationality and the human mind which devalues the feminine, emotion, the body and the natural world (Lloyd 1993). This is a long-established argument made by feminist philosophies, but its treatment has tended to focus on the implications for gender, instead of what it might mean for gender and nature. Feminist approaches to environmental sustainability (ecofeminism) have developed in response to the ways in which ‘woman’ and ‘nature’ are conceptually linked in Western thought, wherein the processes of inferiorization have been mutually reinforcing. In so doing, ecofeminism has the potential to mount a radical challenge to current organizational and academic discourses and practices surrounding sustainability, social responsibility and justice (Plumwood, 1993). This stream will explore the relation between the gendered nature of the environment and current debates surrounding sustainability in studies of work and organization.
The stream therefore provides an arena through which ecofeminism and its themes – in particular justice and an ethics of care – can be further developed in studies of organization especially within the context of environmental uncertainty and crisis. The ecofeminist agenda has always included not only critique, but has set out to find means to move from ‘unhealthy, life-denying systems and relationships to healthy, life-affirming ones’ (Warren, 2000, 200) and thus to ‘reimagine, rethink and reshape’ relations to the natural environment. The result of not attending to the terminal conditions of myopic organizations and their members will be environmental failure and decay. Moreover, there has been a lack of gendered analysis, including feminist and philosophical analysis, in the field of sustainability and organizational sustainability and we wish to address this. We invite philosophical, theoretical and empirical papers that explore an ecofeminist commitment, practice and politics to the study of gender and nature in the field of work and organization relating to the environment, sustainability and social justice. We argue following Phillips (in progress) that ecofeminism provides a critical analysis of the gendered ways in which organizations, and organization studies, represent, construct and appropriate nature, and how that might be subverted and re-imagined to interrogate relations of power, resistance and politics. Indeed does feminism and ecofeminism enable a radical challenge to the field of gender and organization broadly, and sustainability specifically? Areas of interest to this stream include but are not limited to:
· Gendering organizational sustainability and environmental change.
· Masculinity, rationality, femininity, nature.
· Enhancing feminist approaches to the environment - resistance, politics, ethics.
· Cross-cultural perspectives on eco-feminism.
· Ecofeminist approaches to green economics.
· Gendered critiques of globalization.
· Envisioning embodied, emotional or creative responses to ecological crisis and challenges.
· Critiques of the en-gendering of sustainability discourses and practices.
· Political and community environmental activism and gender.
· Ecofeminist spirituality as a means of enacting a critique of hyper-rationality.
· Queering ecofeminism.
· Gendered methodologies for sustainability research and ecofeminist methodologies.
· Ecofeminist deconstructions of organizational environmental strategy and practice.
· Ecofeminist pedagogy, research practice, reflexivity, research ethics, and an ethics of care.
· Eco/feminism, organizations and complex systems
· Global inequalities, social justice, difference, ethics, the ethics of care, work, organization and the environment.

Abstracts of approximately 500 words (ONE page, Word document NOT PDF, single spaced, excluding references, no header, footers or track changes) are invited by 1st November 2013 with decisions on acceptance to be made by stream leaders within one month. All abstracts will be peer reviewed. New and young scholars with 'work in progress' papers are welcomed. In the case of co-authored papers, ONE person should be identified as the corresponding author. Note that due to restrictions of space, multiple submissions by the same author will not be timetabled. In the first instance, abstracts should be emailed to: Mary.Phillips@Bristol.ac.uk Abstracts should include FULL contact details, including your name, department, institutional affiliation, mailing address, and e-mail address. State the title of the stream to which you are submitting your abstract. Note that no funding, fee waiver, travel or other bursaries are offered for attendance at GWO2014.

References
Banerjee, S.B. (2003). Who sustains whose development? Sustainable development and the reinvention of nature. Organization Studies, 24(1), 143-180.
Bansal, P. & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4) 717-736.
Boiral, O., Cayer, M. & Baron, C.M. (2009). The action logics of environmental leadership: A developmental perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 479-499.
Connell, R.W. (2001) The Social Organization of Masculinity. In S.M. Whitehead and F.J. Barrett (Eds.) The Masculinities Reader, pp. 30-50, Cambridge: Polity.
Lloyd, G. (1993) The Man of Reason: ‘Male’ and ‘Female’ in Western Philosophy. 2nd Ed., London: Routledge.
Phillips, M. (in progress). Re-writing organizational environmentalism: Ecofeminism, corporeality and the language of feeling
Plumwood, V. (1993). Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, London: Routledge
Warren, K.J. (2000). Ecofeminist Philosophy: A Western Perspective on what it is and why it Matters. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Wittneben, B.F., Okereke, C., Banerjee, S.B. & Levy, D.L. (2012). Climate change and the emergence of new organizational landscapes, Organization Studies, 33(11), 1431-1450.


Item 5:

GENDER, WORK & ORGANIZATION – 8th Biennial International Interdisciplinary conference, 24th – 26th June, 2014, Keele University, UK

Call for abstracts – Women and Austerity: Vulnerabilities and Resilience

Stream Convenors:
Hazel Conley (Queen Mary University of London, UK), Sue Durbin (University of the West of England, UK), Jan Kainer (York University, Canada), Sian Moore (University of the West of England, UK), Margaret Page (University of the West of England, UK), Tessa Wright (Queen Mary University of London, UK)

There is growing evidence to suggest that the current economic crisis has had a particularly uneven impact with already vulnerable demographic groups, vulnerable geographies and vulnerable organizations bearing the brunt of national and international austerity measures. Evidence is beginning to mount which identifies that women, particularly those with intersecting disadvantage such as poverty, disability ethnicity and age (young and old), are likely to feel the effects of austerity to a greater extent. However these intersections are also likely to be compounded by the geographic and organizational unevenness of austerity. Some European countries such as Portugal, Greece, Ireland and Spain have proven to be more vulnerable to the effects of economic crisis and fiscal austerity than others and the outlook for women in these countries is likely to be of particular concern. Outside of Europe, aid budgets to the ‘third world’ are also coming under increasing scrutiny with the threat that chronically disadvantaged geographies and the women who inhabit them will lose financial support. At the same time, many of the public and voluntary sector organisations whose role it is to support women in crisis are also finding themselves casualties of austerity. The political rhetoric is that the private sector (market) will compensate for jobs lost in the public and voluntary sectors, but the evidence suggests that the jobs that have so far been created are likely to be short-hours, low paid and insecure. Furthermore many of the public and voluntary services that benefited women as service users, such as refuges and rape crisis centres, are unlikely to attract profit seeking private sector interest. In conjunction with these events there is a global resurfacing of violence (physical and electronic), discrimination and harassment, both historical and current, against women and girls. One result is that feminism and feminist activity is beginning to witness resurgence in popularity in a variety of traditional and non-traditional forms. As such the conditions that make for ‘the perfect storm’ in the global fight for women’s equality are likely to be coalescing. Whilst there have already been a growing number of seminars, workshops and conference streams examining the impact of austerity on women, this stream seeks to bring together intersectional, geographical and organisational factors that might compound the impact and hinder aid and support, but which may also lead to the sparks of a renewed resistance As such papers on the following indicative topics would be welcome:
• International case studies of the impact of austerity on women
• Intersectional analyses of the impact of austerity on women
• The impact of austerity on public and voluntary sector services that support women
• Women, vulnerability and the ‘precariat’
• Can the private sector step in to the breach?
• Feminist analyses of austerity
• Gendered State responses to austerity
• Trade union and other social movement responses to gendered austerity
• Social Media – part of the solution or part of the problem?
• Fighting back and resilience - past and present

Team Strengths
The team consists of 6 researchers who are international experts in the field of gender equality ensuring a wide network of contacts in North America and Europe. The stream follows on from a successful and well attended 1 day workshop co-ordinated by Sue Durbin at UWE on the 8th May 2013 “Gender and Austerity: The Impact of Recession on Women”. This workshop laid the foundations for a network of researchers interested and active in women’s equality during economic crisis, which the proposed stream would facilitate and extend to international participants. In addition, the proposed stream continues to develop intersectional analyses following on from the stream at GWO2012 co-ordinated by the same team. All of the team members are experienced conference/stream organisers, paper reviewers and special issue editors. The number of team members means it is likely that the review of abstracts, chairing of sessions etc. will be speedily and effectively conducted within the team, whilst ensuring a coherent and discursive stream.
Abstracts of approximately 500 words should be submitted direct to the stream leader, Margaret Page. Abstracts should be on ONE page, WORD NOT PDF, single spaced, excluding any references, no headers, footers or track changes) by 1st November 2013. Decisions on acceptance will be made by stream leaders within one month. Abstracts can be submitted independently of streams but may be assigned to them where appropriate. Prospective contributions will be independently refereed. Abstracts should include FULL contact details, including name, institutional affiliation, mailing address, and e-mail address.
Abstracts should be send to Margaret.Page@uwe.ac.uk, stream leader.


Item 6:

EGOS Colloquium in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 3-5 July, 2014

Dear all,

We’d kindly like to draw your attention to the track at next year’s EGOS Colloquium in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 3-5 July, 2014, titled “The modern crisis of change and intervention”. We invite contributions that not only delight the ‘messy state’ organizational change is in inside of organizations. Additionally, we warmly welcome contributions that explore the tremendous problems that organizations cause by provoking change in other systems, like political, military, scientific, educational or other kinds of social interventions. We want to bring together researchers experienced in organizational change and development as much as experienced in interorganizational intervention studies, since we assume fundamental core problems of a present western style of intervening, rooted in both fields. Please find the full description of the cfp here http://www.egosnet.org/jart/prj3/egos/main.jart?rel=de&reserve-mode=active&content-id=1368705858152&subtheme_id=1334581237779.

The stream convenors Chris Rees, Manchester University, (Chris.Rees@manchester.ac.uk), Ruth Alas, Estonian Business School (Ruth.Alas@ebs.ee) and myself are very much looking forward to your proposals and ideas! Don’t hesitate to get in contact with us!

Best wishes,
Ralf


Item 7:

Call for Papers – Sub-theme 46: Organizing the Uncanny: Rethinking the Uncomfortably Familiar in Organization Studies

30th EGOS Colloquium Rotterdam, The Netherlands July 3–5, 2014

Convenors:
Martin Parker, University of Leicester, UK (mp431@leicester.ac.uk)
Simon Kelly, University of Bradford, UK (s.kelly5@bradford.ac.uk)
Kathleen Riach, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia (kathleen.riach@monash.edu)

'The strangeness of the uncanny, a flickering moment of embroilment in the experience of something at once strange and familiar. Uncanniness entails a sense of uncertainty and suspense, however momentary and unstable.'
Nicholas Royle: The Uncanny. Manchester: Manchester University Press 2003, p. vii

This call is an invitation to consider the incidence, role or negotiation of the uncanny in the production of contemporary forms of organizing. While the 21st century organizational landscape can be characterised by destabilisation, uncertainty, and disturbance, the existence of organization seeks to protect us from the unfamiliar, the strange and the potentially harmful. This is often through strategies which serve to defer or repress mortality, madness, sexuality and similar forces thought to threaten our 'ontological security'. Yet it is this need to sequester, edit, marginalise, and negate that should draw our attention to the presence of the other in organizational life; to those aspects of organization that are abject, out of place, abnormal, monstrous and supernatural.
What makes the uncanny worthy of special attention is its ability to do more than simply frighten us. Traditional organization theory is built upon an eradication of such superstitious and subjective phenomenon by providing an understanding of organization as made up of rational systems, structures, and mindful human actors. Yet there is much in the world to fear and organizational life is no different. However, to experience the uncanny is not simply to experience fear, terror, or anxiety brought about by the unknown other. For the uncanny, or the unheimlich (meaning 'unhomely'), is an experience of that which is horribly familiar; something once intimate now strange, hostile, and eerie. Following these potent themes introduced by Freud, this sub-theme asks whether organization as process, act, place, space, or academic discipline can also be thought of as a potential site of uncanniness. Indeed, far from being spaces of rational behaviour, the lived experience of organizational life may be characterised by superstition, stories, urban myths, ambiguity, metamorphosis, inanimate objects that appear to come to life, and the ever present possibility of disorganization. Such accounts might not only provide us with an insight into the complexities of modern day organizing, but also how organization may play an important role in repressing and containing the uncanny so the façade of normality, the ordinary and everyday might be managed and maintained.
We welcome theoretical and empirical investigations attending to issues surrounding, but not limited to, the following uncanny organizational themes:
- The relationship between the uncanny and formally articulated processes and practices surrounding organizational life.
- Tensions in reimagining the uncomfortably familiar and how organizations might be mediated or supported through a relationship with the uncanny.
- Unsettling experiences of the organizational double or doppelganger, déjà vu, and the return of what is repressed in organization theory and organizational practices.
- Organizational manifestations of the uncanny such as experiences, stories and myths surrounding hauntings, the ghostly, and the place of the paranormal in working life.
- Working with the uncanny: psychics, modern day spiritualism and paranormal tourism.
- The emotional, psychological or psychosocial dynamics surrounding the uncanny as an experience of organizational life.
- The relevance of multidisciplinary approaches to the uncanny for organizational analysis, including literature, robotics or cybernetics, the visual arts and performance, and cultural studies.
- The uncanny as a theme or motif in popular cultural representations of organizations and organizational life.

Martin Parker is Professor of Organization and Culture at the University of Leicester School of Management, UK. He has authored more than 100 articles, books and edited collections on a variety of topics ranging from alternative organizations to popular culture. He was joint Editor-in-Chief of the journal 'Organization: The Critical Journal of Organization, Theory and Society' (SAGE Publications) from 2008–2012.

Simon Kelly is Lecturer in Human Resource Management and Organizational Behaviour at the Bradford University School of Management, UK. His research interests include the critical analysis of leadership and the application of post-structuralism and interpretive sociology for the study of everyday organization and management practice. Simon is a member of the editorial board for the journal 'Human Relations' and his work has been published in journals including 'Journal of Management Education' and 'Leadership'.

Kathleen Riach is Associate Professor in the Department of Management, Monash University, Australia. Her research, which has been published in journals including 'Human Relations', 'Sociology' and 'Urban Studies', focuses on exploring the unspoken and affective dimensions of organizational life, such as ageing, and the role of the senses (specifically, smell and sound).


Item 8:

Gender, Work and Organization – Call for Papers – Special Issue: "Interrogating Queer Theory and Politics"

Extended submission deadline 31st January 2014

Following several requests from potential contributors, we have decided to extend the submission deadline for this special issue to 31st January 2014. If you are interested in contributing a paper, please contact the guest editors below.

Guest Editors
Alison Pullen, Swansea University
Torkild Thanem, Stockholm University
Melissa Tyler, University of Essex
Louise Wallenberg, Stockholm University

Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. (Halperin, 1997: 62) When queer theory arrived on the academic scene some twenty years ago, it had scholarly and political ambitions, to scrutinize normativity and heteronormativity in particular, and to disturb, transform and indeed queer academia itself (de Lauretis, 1991; Doty, 1993; Warner, 1993, 1999; Sullivan, 1999). Since then, it has continued to challenge essentialist constructions and categories of gender and sexuality by interrogating how subjectivity is constructed and deconstructed through everyday and extraordinary discursive practices (Halberstam, 2005; see also Wallenberg, 2004). Moreover, queer theory has had a significant impact on LGBT politics and activism (see e.g. Gamson, 1995; Hennessy, 1995; Highleyman, 2002; Warner, 2002), and in some countries so much so that it has affected policy-making in the areas of health care and sex education (see e.g. Swedish National Institute of Public Health, 2011).
Notwithstanding its appeal across the humanities and social sciences and its impact on sexual politics (Bad Objects Choice, 1991), queer theory has enjoyed an ambivalent position in the study of gender, work and organization. While Butler’s (1990, 1993, 2000, 2005) work on gender performativity has been pivotal in rethinking gender and sexuality beyond dualistic and stereotypical conceptions of masculinity and femininity (see e.g. Linstead and Pullen, 2006; Schilt and Connell, 2007; Thanem, 2011), queer theory and explicit queer subject positions have (notwithstanding a few exceptions such as Parker [2002], Tyler and Cohen [2008],) attracted less attention. The queer project has been criticized for reducing sexuality to discourse (Edwards, 1999), trivializing sexual difference (Jagose, 1996), reproducing white hegemony (Barnard, 1999), being disinterested in the everyday lives of people who identify as queer (Namaste, 1996), replacing a collective identity politics of LGBT rights with a commercialized and depoliticized individualism (Clark, 1991; Hennessy, 1995), and ignoring the material, economic, social and institutional conditions of sexuality (Field, 1995; Edwards, 1998; Green, 2007).
A prominent feature of the queer project, which this special issue highlights, is that it has never been static, and queer scholars are increasingly directing their attention beyond discursive constructions of sexuality and gender towards multiple materialities and lived experiences of queer embodiment and sexuality (Halberstam, 1998, 2005; Probyn, 1996; Dahl and Volcano, 2009). Relatedly, there have been attempts to connect the queer agenda to the politics of class, race and ethnicity (e.g. Warner, 2000; Binnie and Skeggs, 2004; Ahmed, 2006). Moreover, queer theory and politics has actively (been) incorporated (by) subject positions previously excluded from lesbian and gay studies (Highleyman, 2002; Davidson, 2007). Along with the widespread borrowing and interrogation of queer theory concepts in contemporary organizational scholarship and the fact that people continue to identify as queer, these developments suggest that queer theory and politics demand more attention in studies of gender, work and organization.
This special issue actively engages with, challenges and extends contemporary debate surrounding queer theory and politics in work and organization. Contributors may wish to reengage with some of the early writers on queer such as de Lauretis (who coined the term in 1990 but distanced herself from it three years later); Kosofsky Sedgwick (who broke the silence on oppressive discursive regimes and presented performative taxonomic frameworks for thinking, living and theorising queer); Butler (who has traced and challenged hegemonic heteronormative practices); through to Halberstam (whose theorising of queer time and space through popular culture, art and the media has inspired political activism). At the same time, we recognize that this might require contributors to critically interrogate and go beyond queer theory and politics to ask what comes next in opening up new areas of theory and praxis which seek to liberate individuals from institutional constraints, work settings and organizational processes.
The aim of this special issue is therefore to engage critically with queer theory and politics in order to interrogate how gender and sexual politics is played out through organizational practices. More specifically, we aim to create a politically transgressive space, which makes it possible to challenge heteronormative forms of thinking, working and organizing in our scholarly field as well as in everyday work organizations. We encourage contributions that bring forth accounts of how queer identities and non-identities, bodies and sexualities, are lived and expressed in settings of work and organization. Partly a phenomenological task, this may involve embodied and emotional accounts of how people experience and challenge sexual discrimination and stereotyping in social and organizational life. Finally, we anticipate that this will spur debate about the future of queer theory and politics in the study of gender, work and organization. For instance, in what ways may such a future involve re-membering the advancements already made, which have challenged the relationship between gender and sexuality, identity and non-identity, materiality and corporeality, gender and post-gendering? And in what ways may this involve exceeding the limitations of queer theory and politics to create ways of thinking, living, working and managing that are more politically transgressive?

Possible topics include, but are not restricted to:
· Heteronormativity and homonormativity in organizations
· Queer performance and performativity at work
· Queer workplaces, spaces and temporalities
· Queer theory, methodology and representation in the study of gender, work and organization
· Queer identities, non-identities, sexualities and corporealities in settings of work and organization
· Queer politics, activism and social movements
· Queer identity politics, class politics and sexual politics
· The post-gender debate and the management of diversity in organizational life

Deadline for submission of full papers: 31st January 2014

Manuscripts should be no longer than 7,000 words. Manuscripts considered for publication will be peer-reviewed following the journal’s double-blind review process. Submissions should be made via the journal’s ScholarOne Manuscript Central at: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gwo. Author guidelines can be found at the journal’s website at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1468-0432/homepage/ForAuthors.html
Further enquiries about the special issue can be directed to Alison Pullen (a.pullen@swansea.ac.uk), Torkild Thanem (tt@fek.su.se), Melissa Tyler (tyler@essex.ac.uk) and Louise Wallenberg (louise@fashion.su.se).

References
Ahmed, S. (2006) Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Bad Object-Choices (ed.) (1991) How Do I Look? Queer Film and Video. San Francisco: Bay Press.
Barnard, I. (1999) ‘Queer race’, Social Semiotics 9(2): 199-211.
Binnie, J. and Skeggs, B. (2004) ‘Cosmopolitan knowledge and the production and consumption of sexualized space: Manchester's gay village’, Sociological Review 52(1): 39–61.
Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble. London and New York: Routledge.
Butler, J. (1993) Bodies that Matter. London and New York: Routledge.
Butler, J. (2000) Antigone’s Claim. London and New York: Routledge.
Butler, J. (2005) Undoing Gender. London and New York: Routledge.
Clark, D. (1991) ‘Commodity lesbianism’, Camera Obscura 9(1-2): 181-201.
Dahl, U. and Volcano, D.L. (2009) Femmes of Power. London: Serpent’s Tail.
de Lauretis, T. (ed.) (1990) ‘Queer Theory’, special issue of Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies.
Davidson, M. (2007) ‘Seeking refuge under the umbrella: Inclusion, exclusion, and organizing within the category transgender’, Sexuality Research and Social Policy 4(4): 60-80.
Doty, A. (1993) Making Things Perfectly Queer: Interpreting Mass Culture. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.
Edwards, T. (1998) ‘Queer fears: Against the cultural turn’, Sexualities 1(3): 471-484.
Field, N. (1995) Over the Rainbow: Money, Class, and Homophobia. London: Pluto.
Gamson, J. (1995) ‘Must identity movements self-destruct? A queer dilemma’, Social Problems 42(3): 390-407.
Green, A.I. (2007) ‘Queer theory and sociology: Locating the subject and the self in sexuality studies’, Sociological Theory 25(1): 26-45.
Halberstam, J. (1998) Female Masculinity. Durham NC. Duke University Press.
Halberstam, J. (2005) In a Queer Time and Place. New York: New York University Press.
Halperin, D. (1997) Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hennessy, R. (1995) ‘Queer visibility in commodity culture’, Cultural Critique 29(1): 31-76.
Highleyman, L. (2002) ‘Radical queers or queer radicals? Queer activism and the global justice movement’, in B. Shepard and R. Hayduk (eds) ACT-UP to the WTO: Urban Protest and Community Building in the Era of Globalization, pp. 106–119. New York: Verso.
Jagose, A. (1996) Queer Theory: An Introduction. New York: New York University.
Kosofsky Sedgwick, E. (1990) Epistemology of the Closet. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Kosofsky Sedgwick, E. (1993) Tendencies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Kosofsky Sedgwick, E. (1999) A Dialogue on Love. Boston: Beacon Press.
Linstead, S. and Pullen, A. (2006) ‘Gender as multiplicity: Desire, displacement, difference and dispersion’, Human Relations 5(9): 1287-1310.
Namaste, K. (1996) ‘Queer theory’s erasure of transgender’, in B. Beemyn and M. Elianon (eds) Queer Studies: A Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, & Transgender Anthology, pp. 183-203. New York: NYU Press.
Parker, M. (2002) ‘Queering management and organization’, Gender, Work & Organization 9: 146–166.
Probyn, E. (1996) Outside Belonging. London and New York: Routledge.
Schilt, K. and Connell, C. (2007) ‘Do workplace gender transitions make gender trouble?’, Gender, Work and Organization 14(6): 597-618.
Sullivan, N. (1999) ‘Queer pleasures: Some thoughts’, Social Semiotics 9(2): 30-51.
Swedish National Institute of Public Health (2011) Mäns sexualitet och reproduktiv hälsa [Men’s Sexuality and Reproductive Health]. Stockholm.
Thanem, T. (2011) ‘Embodying transgender in studies of gender, work and organization’, in E. Jeanes, D. Knights and P. Yancey Martin (eds) Gender, Work and Organization Handbook, pp. 191-204. Oxford: Wiley.
Tyler, M. and Cohen, L. (2008) ‘Management in/as Comic Relief: Queer theory and gender performativity in The Office’, Gender, Work & Organization 15: 113–132.
Wallenberg, L. (2004) ‘New black queer cinema’, in M. Aaron (ed.) New Queer Cinema: A Critical Reader, pp. 128-143. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.
Warner, M. (1993) Fear of A Queer Planet. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.
Warner, M. (1999) The Trouble with Normal. New York: The Free Press.
Warner, T. (2002) Never Going Back: A History of Queer Activism in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.


Item 9:

The theme of the 2014 SHOC, 9th International OBHC conference will be on “When health policy meets every day practices” and the conference will be hosted at Copenhagen Business School by CBS Public-Private Platform. We expect about 120 participants coming from Continental Europe, Nordic and Baltic countries, the UK and Ireland, North America and Australia/New Zealand.
The overall theme is dealing with the challenges and dilemmas arising from the efforts to implement health care policies within day-to-day organisational practices.
Please follow the link below for more details: http://www.cbs.dk/en/cbs-fokus/business-in-society-bis-platforms/public-private/events/when-health-policy-meets-every-day-practices