Item 1:

Dear colleague
Please, find below the call for papers "Emplacing gender relations in organization: the sociomateriality and spatiality of doing gender" (stream convenors: Michela Cozza, University of Trento, Italy; Lucia Crevani, Malardalen University, Sweden) for the 9th Biennial International Interdisciplinary Conference GWO2016, 29th June-1st July, Keele University (UK) (visit GWO homepage, under “Events”: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1468-0432)
Abstracts of approximately 500 words should be emailed to: michela.cozza@unitn.it by 1st November 2015.
We would really appreciate if you could forward this call to anyone who may be interested in submitting an abstract. 

This stream focuses on gender as sociomaterial practice accomplished in local, specific organizational environments. Attention needs to be paid to the material form of organizational placethat secures the production and reproduction of gender relations (Gieryn, 2000; Massey, 1994). This stream aims therefore at enriching our understanding of gender as practice by mobilizing the concept of sociomateriality (Orlikowski, 2006; 2007; 2009), and by answering the call for “bringing space back in” recently formulated in different fields (e.g., in organization studies see: Clegg, Kornberger, 2006; Vásquez, Cooren, 2013, Yanow, 1998). Promoted primarily by Wanda Orlikowski (Orlikowski, 2006; Orlikowski, Scott, 2008), “sociomateriality” is an umbrella concept which has fostered an entire stream of new research based on the so-called “relational ontology”. According to the relational underpinning of sociomateriality, “the social and the material are inherently inseparable” (Orlikowski, Scott, 2008, p. 456). This line of reasoning is intertwined with the concept of gender as a social practice (Poggio, 2006) through which identities arediscursively (Martin, 2003) and materially (Chia, 2003) negotiated and (re)confirmed. Gendering is situated, carried out in the virtual or real presence of others who are presumed to be oriented to its production (West and Zimmerman, 1987).

Studies on sociomateriality allow to look at the considerable amount of materiality entailed in every aspect of organizing, from the visible forms (e.g., bodies, clothes, rooms, desks, chairs, tables, buildings, computers), to the less visible flows (e.g., data, voice networks) (Cecez-Kecmanovic et al., 2014). Similarly, gender studies emphasize how gendering is performed in context, through materiality of composite assemblages of technology, bodies, practices, and place (Butler, 1990; 1993; Gherardi, Poggio, 2001, Haraway, 1985/1991, Barad, 2012, Suchman, 1985). While studies about gendering in organizing have traditionally privileged time, space and place are now increasingly being focused on. The concept of space, as always under construction (not as stable and “already there”), allows to recognize the provisional nature of spatio-temporal configurations (Beyes, Steyaert, 2012). Such assemblies of humans, artifacts and environments (Latour, 2005; Massey, 2005) are emplaced by situated practices, such as gender ones, and, at the same time, practices are influenced by the materiality of the place where they are situated (e.g., Ropo et al., 2015). Places are thus negotiated and contested in the ongoing articulation of sociomaterial practices, of which gender is of particular interest (Massey, 2005).

This stream aims to foster a discussion about the mutual entanglement of gender, space and place. The call is therefore directed to those who want to explore the sociomateriality of gender and its spatial dimension, going beyond a concept of place as “container” or “stage”. We invite theoretical, empirical and methodological contributions that explore how gendering and organizing, as sociomaterial practices, are intertwined in place/making place. Contributions from different fields are welcomed. We also encourage an interdisciplinary approach, acknowledging that sociomaterial thinking has numerous intellectual roots and allies. The following issues are indicative, but not exhaustive, of our field of focus:

–  Sociomaterial view of gender and other practices producing power relations in organizing processes, as age, ethnicity, sexuality, or their intersections
–  Emplacing gender through artifacts
–  Virtual and/or temporary places and gendering
–  Aesthetics, gender, space and place
–  Symbolic meaning of place
–  Geographies of gender in, between and around organizations
–  Situated and situating gender identities
–  Global and local gender practices in organizations
–  Connection of gender with space, location, positionality
–  Place as orchestrated event and/or as “experience-scape” and gendering
–  Spacing gender, for instance exploring multiple gender enactments throughout an organization or how gender enactments “travel”
–  The construction of gender and place focusing on stability/fluidity, homogeneity/multiplicity of practices
–  The practicing and negotiation of place entangled with multiple gender practices
–  Changing places – emergent and designed negotiations entangled with gender practices
–  Performing the materiality of body in organization
–  Organizing work and gender in/through place
–  Gendering in the “presentification” of the organization as it is performed in different places (inside or outside the physical premises of the organization)
–  Designing places from a feminist/gender perspective
–  Gender, place and politics – possibilities for and challenges in grounding action on a relational, non-essentialist, ontology
–  Methodological issues, challenges and new possibilities for doing research
–  Space as conceptual tool for foregrounding gender as sociomaterial practice 

Best Regards

Michela Cozza, PhD, Dr.
Senior Research Fellow at the Department of Information Engineering and Computer Science
Lab. Social Informatics - interAction Research Group
University of Trento-Italy
 
Lucia Crevani. PhD / Tekn Dr Senior lecturer in Business Administration with focus on Organisation Theory Mälardalen university School of Business Society and Engineering
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Item 2: 

GWO2016 Call for Abstracts – Developing feminist ecologics: Politics, ethics, organization and nature

Stream Convenors
Agnes Bolsø, Norwegian University of Science & Technology, NORWAY
Christine Katz, University of Luneburg, GERMANY 
Mary Phillips, University of Bristol, ENGLAND
Uta Von Winterfeld, Wuppertal Institute, GERMANY

The world faces a multiple crisis that is becoming increasingly manifest in economies, societies and ecologies. Current institutional and organizational policy and practice privilege economic growth while social and ecological imperatives and impacts are backgrounded. Hyper-rationality, relations of domination, and systems and structures that result in the externalizing of costs onto nature and feminized work are destroying natural and societal resources to the point where they can no longer regenerate (Biesecker & Von Winterfeld, 2015 forthcoming). Some feminist scholars argue that the fundamental causes of this multiple crisis originate in binary logic which conceptually links ‘woman’ (and other subordinate groups) with ‘nature’ in mutually reinforcing processes of inferiorization (eg Gaard, 1997; Plumwood, 2002) while others focus on an intersectional approach to the present challenges.  Eco/feminist agendas have set out to critique these ‘unhealthy, life-denying systems and relationships’ but also to move to alternatives which are ‘healthy and life-affirming’ and thus to ‘reimagine, rethink and reshape’ relations to human and non-human nature (Warren, 2000, 200). This has the potential to mount a radical challenge to current organizational and academic discourses and practices surrounding sustainability, social responsibility and justice (Plumwood, 1993). The stream therefore provides an arena through which multiple forms of feminist ecologics can be further discussed and developed in studies of organization within the context of uncertainty and crisis. 

This builds on themes that emerged through similar streams at the 2012 and 2014 GWO conferences which articulated how developing generative approaches to sustainability require perspectives that recognise how relations between human and non-human nature and society are gendered. Feminist engagements with current conditions of environmental failure and decay and critiques of the gendered ways in which organizations, and organization studies, represent, construct and appropriate nature have gathered momentum (eg Katz, 2015 forthcoming; Niamanis & Walker, 2014; Phillips, 2014; Sabelis 2015 forthcoming). However, we acknowledge the gaps within current ecological feminist philosophy in areas such as engaging with post-colonial thought, the representation/appropriation of indigenous voices and practices, corporeality and embodiment and approaches to an ethics of care and we wish to move these debates forward.

We therefore invite philosophical, theoretical and empirical papers that explore an ecological and feminist 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. Our focus is thus on feminist ecologics which can provide a critical analysis of gendered relations with nature, and how that might be subverted and re-imagined to interrogate relations of power, resistance and politics. 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.
• Intersectional approaches to gender and sustainability. 
• Post-colonial theories and ecofeminism.
• Feminist 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.
• Eco/feminist spirituality as a means of enacting a critique of hyper-rationality.
• Queering eco/feminism.
• Gendered methodologies for sustainability research.
• Eco/feminist deconstructions of organizational environmental strategy and practice.
• Eco/feminism, organizations and complex systems.
• Global inequalities, social justice 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 2015 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 GWO2016*.

References
Biesecker, A. & Von Winterfeld, U. (2015, forthcoming). Regeneration in limbo: Ecofeminist perspectives on the multiple crisis and social contract, in M. Phillips & N. Rumens (eds), Contemporary Perspectives on Ecofeminism, Abingdon: Routledge.
Gaard, G. (1997). Toward a queer ecofeminism, Hypatia, 12(1), 114-137.
Katz, C. (2015, forthcoming). Using gender theories to analyse nature resource management, in M. Phillips & N. Rumens (eds), Contemporary Perspectives on Ecofeminism, Abingdon: Routledge.
Neimanis, A. and Walker, R.L. (2014). Weathering: Climate change and the ‘thick time’ of transcorporeality. Hypatia, 29(3), 558-575.
Phillips, M. (2014).  Re-writing organizational environmentalism: Ecofeminism, corporeality and the language of feeling, Gender, Work & Organization, 21(5), 443-458.
Plumwood, V. (2002). The Ecological Crisis of Reason, Abingdon: Routledge.
Sabelis, I., Van Vliet, T. & Wels, H. (2015, forthcoming). Hidden Lives, Invisible Vocation?
Giving Voice to Game Rangers’ Wives in Kwazulu–Natal, South Africa, in M. Phillips & N. Rumens (eds), Contemporary Perspectives on Ecofeminism, Abingdon: Routledge.
Warren, K.J. (2000). Ecofeminist Philosophy: A Western Perspective on what it is and why it Matters. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Item 3: 

GWO2016 Call for Abstracts – Human and nonhuman actors within organisations: Feminist analyses

Stream convenors:
Kate Sang, Heriot Watt University, Scotland  
Charles Knight, Edgehill University, England 
Lindsay Hamilton, Keele University, England
Janet Sayers, Massey University, New Zealand

This stream encourages authors to consider the role of feminist theory in destabilising one of the key tenets of organizational theory – namely a speciesist preoccupation with the (male) human as key to understanding organizations. Submissions may address questions such as:

– How can feminist theory be used to reveal and understand the gendered labour of nonhuman animals within organizations?
– In what ways can feminist posthumanism revision understandings of the organizations which are considered worthy of study?
– How are the relations between human and nonhuman workers gendered, and what are the implications for the (re)production of gender inequalities?
– What are the implications of using feminist posthumanist theory for the ontology of the human worker, or who/what can constitute and organizational actor?
– What is the potential for feminist theory to advance organizational concerns with nature, for example, locating contemporary organizational studies with current debates on the anthropocene and climate change?
– How can we overcome the inherent difficulties associated with researching nonhuman actors, including nonhuman animals within organizations?

Abstracts of approximately 500 words (ONE page, WORD NOT PDF, single spaced, excluding any references, no headers, footers or track changes) are invited by 1st November 2015 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 space restrictions, multiple submissions by the same author will not be timetabled.

In the first instance, abstracts should be emailed to: k.sang@hw.ac.uk Abstracts should include full contact information, 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 GWO2016.

For further details please see this website: https://migrantacademics.wordpress.com/2015/09/04/cfp-gwo-2016-human-and-nonhuman-actors-within-organisations-feminist-analyses/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Item 4:

GWO2016 Call for Abstracts – Writing: That which touches
 
Sarah Gilmore, University of Portsmouth, England
Nancy Harding, Bradford University, England
Martin Parker, University of Leicester, England
Mary Phillips, University of Bristol, England
Alison Pullen, Macquarie University, Australia
 
Writing communicates the immaterial and the material. Over two decades, management and organization studies scholars have playfully engaged with forms of writing that are alternative to the scientific norm (Czarniawska-Joerges, 1995), and some have called for writing differently as a way to communicate less abstractly (Grey and Sinclair, 2006). Academics have written experimentally encompassing mediums of representation that reach beyond the often stultifying norms inculcated by social science and reinforced by the requirements of (many) academic journals (Parker, 2014). These include poetry (Kostera, 1997), textiles (Rippin, 2013) and biography (Rhodes, 2001). These advancements could also be read as challenging masculine writing, some being explicit in offering feminine/feminist writing.

Issues surrounding the voice and material presence of the author have been discussed, especially by those writing autobiographically (Höpfl, 2007). Writing self or as a social practice representative of subjectivity becomes important (Pullen, 2006). The presence of the writer’s physical body remains speculative, yet there are writers who write of their bodies and the body has the potential to become a site of power and change, albeit a contested space. Other writings speak of writing from the body (e.g. Pullen and Rhodes, 2008). Some writers equate embodied writing as a feminine alternative to the disembodied masculine (Höpfl, 2000; Fotaki et al., 2015; Phillips et al., 2014; see also special issue on Feminine Writing in Gender, Work and Organization, 2015). And, the extent to which embodied writing reveals or conceals self fluctuates. Writing, like dancing, allows the body ‘to articulate itself as a complex site of passionate objection’ (Sweeney, 2015, p. 30) enabling the presence of materiality and naming its absences (Irigaray, 1985). Critiquing of Western hierarchization of the senses, for Irigaray (1985) without touch there is no seeing. That is, the sensory body becomes recast as the primary location of the political (Sweeney, 2015) and ethical (Bray and Colebrook, 1998). These are writings that recognize the importance of historical and embodied contexts. Management and organization studies scholars’, often guided by feminist writing from other disciplines, are exploring how sensory writing captures and conveys affect; and it touches through the flesh. This writing is incomplete. It is vulnerable. Often grammar fails us. Experimental writing carries passion and desire through replacing authorial primacy with relationships between writer and reader that are fluid, dynamic and unconstrained. Writing has the potential to develop relationships between bodies.

This stream will build on emergent work in management and organization studies to develop new ways of writing that oppose masculine scientific writing, opening the discipline to ways of better understanding ways of being and doing in/of organizations. That is, it will explore alternative forms of gendered writing. There are rich precedents in feminist studies for ways of writing differently from which we could draw inspiration. Philosopher-poet Denise Riley (2005) uses language that drips with metaphor and draws in its readers so we feel the meaning of what she is saying viscerally, so that our bodies understand it even though our minds may not. Annette Kuhn (2002) uses her family photograph album to develop a history of the second half of the 20th century, analyzing the writing ‘I’ reflecting on the ‘I’ in the photographs. The writing ‘I’ is caught in its immanence, debating with a younger ‘I’ and weaving together affect, embodiment, memory and poetry. Kathleen Stewart’s (2007) ‘Ordinary Affects’ breaks with anthropological tradition to write in short, seemingly disconnected passages of pure, rich description in which the academic self disappears into the quotidian it studies, allowing a rich analysis of contemporary American life to emerge.  In Katherine Angel’s ‘Unmastered: A Book on Desire, Most Difficult to Tell’ (2014), the pornographic novel meets the philosophical text and offers an intensely personal, embodied theory of women’s unthought subordination. These writings name the sensuous.

Writing that touches shifts the centrality of the ocular to the skin. We ask what value is there in writing that doesn’t touch? We suggest that embodied writing creates the space for affirmative politics (Braidotti, 2011), and ethical encounters on the basis of difference. This is a gendered writing that challenges binary dualisms through radical identity politics. Perhaps it enables us to move from asking ‘who is speaking’ to ‘what affect can writing that touches achieve?’ This stream therefore welcomes contributions that question: how do we write from/about the sensory body?  What form of writing could transform academia? How can minority voices surface through embodied or sensory writing? Stylistically, in what ways can our writing be inventive, creative and passionate? How can writing effect ethical and political change? Can writing be activism? What can we develop by working across disciplines, such as writing differently from feminist, queer and gender theorists working outside of management and organization studies? We also very much encourage stream participants to submit their own experiments with writing that touches.

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 2015 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 and queries should be emailed to Nancy Harding: n.h.harding@bradford.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 GWO2016.
 
In addition, we are organising a two-day writing retreat on the theme of writing differently from the 27th-29th June 2016 just prior to the GWO conference. It will be held at The Upper House Hotel in Barlaston, Stoke on Trent (https://www.theupperhouse.com/). It is a short distance from the GWO venue at Keele and we will attempt to provide transport for those who would like to attend the GWO conference on the 29th. The retreat will cost £250 per person for the event and this sum includes full board. Expressions of interest should be sent to Sarah Gilmore: sarah.gilmore@port.ac.uk but a fuller call with more information will be circulated soon.

References
Angel, K. (2014). Unmastered: A Book on Desire, Most Difficult to Tell. London: Penguin/Allen Lane.
Bray, A., and Colebrook, C. (1998) The haunted flesh: Corporeal feminism and the politics of (dis) embodiment. Signs, 24:1, 35-67.
Braidotti, R. (2011). Nomadic Theory: The Portable Rosi Braidotti. New York: Columbia University Press.
Czarniawska-Joerges, B. (1995). Narration or science? Collapsing the division in organization studies. Organization, 2:1, 11-33.
Fotaki, M., Metcalfe, B. and Harding, N. (2014). Writing materiality into management and organization studies through and with Luce Irigaray. Human Relations, 67:10, 1239-1263.
Grey, C. and Sinclair, A. (2006). Writing differently. Organization, 13:3, 443-453.
Höpfl, H. (2000). The suffering mother and the miserable son: Organizing women and organizing women’s writing. Gender, Work and Organization, 7:2, 98-105.
Höpfl, H. (2007). The codex, the codicil and the codpiece: Some thoughts on diminution and elaboration in identity formation. Gender, Work and Organization, 14:6, 619-632.
Irigaray, L. (1985). Speculum of the Other Woman, trans. Gillian C. Gill, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Kuhn, A. (2002). Family Secrets: Acts of Memory and Imagination. London: Verso.
Kostera, M. (1997). Personal performatives: Collecting poetical definitions of management. Organization, 4:3, 345-353.
Parker, M (2014). Writing: What can be said, by who, and where? In Jeanes, E and Huzzard, T (eds) Critical Management Research: Reflections from the Field. London: Sage, 211-226.
Phillips, M., Pullen, A., and Rhodes, C. (2014). Writing organization as gendered practice: Interrupting the libidinal economy. Organization Studies, 35:3, 313-333.
Pullen, A. (2006). Gendering the research self: social practice and corporeal multiplicity in the writing of organizational research. Gender, Work and Organization, 13:3, 277-298.
Pullen, A. and Rhodes, C. (2008). Dirty writing. Culture and Organization, 14:3, 241-259.
Rhodes, C. (2001). Writing organization: (Re) presentation and control in narratives at work (Vol. 7). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing.
Riley, D. (2005). Impersonal Passion: Language as Affect. London: Duke University Press.
Rippin, A. (2013). Putting The Body Shop in its place: A studio-based investigation into the new sites and sights of organisation as experience. Organization Studies, 34:10, 1551-1562.
Stewart, K. (2007). Ordinary Affects. London: Duke University Press.
Sweeney, F. (2015) ‘Beautiful, radiant things’: Aesthetics, experience and feminist practice. A response to Kathy Davis. Feminist Theory, 16:1, 27-30. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Item 5:

Programme of events on craft, cloth and making at the Department of Management, University of Bristol, September-October 2015

US scholar Marybeth Stalp, well-known for her work on women and 'serious leisure' and making, is visiting the University of Bristol later this month and into October.  Four events looking at cloth and identity, life stages, intimate space, women and craft are planned.  There is also a dedicated PhD workshop.  Full details of the events can be found at www.annjrippin.wordpress.com 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Item 6:

Subverting Corruption – Subtheme 10 of Latin American and European Meeting on Organization Studies, LAEMOS 2016, Viña del Mar, Chile, 6-9 April 2016
 
Corruption has been defined by Transparency International (2009, p. 14) as ‘the abuse of entrusted power for private gain’. It can take many forms – petty or grand, covert or open, limited or extensive, black, grey, or white, individual or systemic. Scholars in organization studies have increasingly paid attention to the phenomenon of corruption (for example, Ashforth and Anand 2003, Fleming & Zyglidopoulos 2008, Lennerfors 2010, Breit 2010). They have eschewed the oversimplification in principal-agent understandings of the topic demonstrated in the Transparency International definition quoted above. Critical scholars unmask veiled interests such as neocolonialism and class, but in addition aim to construct alternative conceptualizations of corruption to promote creative engagement (Breit et al. 2015). In critical studies, theoretical inspiration has been drawn from psychoanalytic theories, for example by Roberts (2015), who explored the psychoanalysis of corruption and argued that corruption makes a person as a subject feel omnipotent. Also inspired by psychoanalysis, Lennerfors (2010) argued that jouissance, or stolen enjoyment, is a central component in accusations of corruption. One should stress, in contrast to the principal-agent model, the very social nature of processes of corruption (Ashforth and Anand 2003, Ashforth et al. 2008). Corruption can be acceptable, harmful or simply routine (Graycar and Prenzler, 2013). Corruption is imbricated in social relations of association and obligation – and while some practices are labelled as corrupt, condemned and fought, very similar activities in the forming of strong social relations are actively encouraged by organization leaders amongst their employees to build communities and share ideas. The ‘minga’, or informal organization is an interesting Latin American concept which can be used as an alternative to the contemporary economic organization form, but it also could be adapted to describe both the mafia and FIFA in its way of supporting reciprocal obligatory relations, often associated with practices of corruption.

The boundary between what is corrupt and what is not is difficult to draw, yet there are many studies of corruption which are based on clear cut measures. Do these measures have any real meaning in organizations? Many organization practices contain localized euphemisms for corruption, which questionnaires and indices will never capture – or can they?

In this subtheme, we aim to continue to destabilize, critique, and subvert the predominant knowledge about corruption, by stimulating a debate between participants with different theoretical and empirical perspectives. Corruption is in itself “in the interstices” and we hereby encourage theoretical engagement between different fields of thought. We also encourage a wide range of empirical and geographical loci for studying corruption, especially empirical studies from Latin America, to subvert the Western-centric dominance of the subject.
 
We would welcome papers which:
– Theorize the meanings of corruption as a way of corroding organisation practices and viability
– Discuss the power relations corrupt practices are located within- the interplay of global and local social shaping of corruption
– Explore the subjectivities of participating in corruption
– Analyse the private/ public boundaries
– Explore the use of euphemisms in corruption
– Describe the joy and elation of corruption
– Identify spaces of corruption, the liminality of corrupt practices
– See multiple perspectives on collaborating for corruption
– Discuss corruption as a misrecognition of colonialism
– Above all, develop perspectives on corruption as seen from Latin America

Deadlines
Abstract submission: November 10, 2015
Notification of acceptance: December 10, 2015
Submission of full paper (6.000 words): March 10, 2016
Abstracts of about 1000 words should be submitted through the website form at www.laemos.com
The abstracts should be in English, including the name and email address of the author(s)
 
References
Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. (2003). THE NORMALIZATION OF CORRUPTION IN ORGANIZATIONS. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 1–52.
Ashforth, B. E., Gioia, D. A., Robinson, S. L., & Trevino, L. K. (2008). Re-viewing organizational corruption. Academy of Management Review. Academy of Management, 33(3), 670–684.
Breit, E. (2010) ‘On the (re)construction of corruption in the media: A critical discursive approach’, Journal of Business Ethics, 92(4): 619-635.
Breit, E., Lennerfors, T.T., & Olaison, L. (2015). Critiquing Corruption - a turn to theory, ephemera, vol 15, iss. 2, pp. 319-336.
Fleming, P., & Zyglidopoulos, S. C. (2008). The Escalation of Deception in Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(4), 837–850.
Graycar, A and Prenzler, T. (2013) Understanding and Preventing Corruption, London: Palgrave.
Lennerfors, T.T. (2010) ‘The sublime object of corruption: Exploring the relevance of a psychoanalytical two bodies doctrine for understanding corruption’, in S.L. Muhr, B.M. Sørensen and S. Vallentin (eds.) Ethics and organizational practice: Questioning the moral foundations of management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Roberts, J. (2015). The “subject” of corruption. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 28(0), 82–88.
Transparency International (2009) The Anti-Corruption Plain Language Guide, Berlin: Transparency International.
 
Convenors
David Arellano-Gault / CIDE - Mexico / david.arellano@cide.edu
Lynne Baxter / University of York - UK / lynne.baxter@york.ac.uk
Thomas Taro Lennerfors / Uppsala University - Sweden / lennerfors@gmail.com
Toru Kiyomiya / Seinan Gakuin University - Japan / kiyomiya@seinan-gu.ac.jp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Item 7:

A special invitation from David Boje to SCOS members to consider submitting work to the bigSTORY conference Dec 17-19 2015 in Los Angeles. Abstracts by 15th October!

Due dates for “practice-oriented Scholarly Sessions”: abstracts greater than 100 words, and less than 500 are due to David Boje:david@davidboje.com by 15 October 2015; You will get some feedback and once accepted, be invited to prepare a Proceedings Paper, that is single spaced, less than 25 pages, with references, tables, figures, and sent to Daphne Deporres daphne_udem@yahoo.com

Registration for the conference is now open:http://bigstoryconference.com/registration/ and there is an Early Bird discount until September 30, 2015:

COSTS:
$ 400 Early Bird INDUSTRY ATTENDEE · Until September 30, 2015

Purchase Pass or this link http://bigstoryconference.com/product/industry-attendee/

OR
$ 215 Early Bird MEMBER OF THE ACADEMY (A SCHOLAR-PRACTITIONER) – Until September 30, 2015

Purchase Pass or this link http://bigstoryconference.com/product/academic-attendee/

Recommended Accomodations:

The Westin Bonaventure Hotel & Suites, Los Angeles 3.9 4-star hotel. This striking conference hotel is a 14-minute walk from Walt Disney Concert Hall and 1 mile from the Los Angeles Convention Center. … More

Address: 404 S Figueroa St, Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone:(213) 624-1000

For more information regarding the Abstracts, Proceeding, etc. , please contact

David M. Boje Ph.D.
‘Wells Fargo’ Chaired Professor
Department of Management, College of Business
New Mexico State University

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Item 8:

Scossy attempts poetry

No one snort
Along this dragon but I,
This fall autumn.

(thanks to www.languageisavirus.com)