So many lovely items this month! I have split the digest into calls for papers and events, followed by advertised job positions.
In calls for papers and events we have:
Item 1 : C&O CfP The Animal, (deadline 20 March 2017)
Item 2 : Reminder of SCOS 2017 ‘Carne’ CfP, (deadline 2 December 2016)
Item 3 : GWO CfP Gender, work, organisations and nonhuman animals, (deadline 28th February 2017)
Item 4: Critical MANagement studies? VIDA CMS fringe event on 2nd July 2017 (free!)
Item 5: Ephemera CfP ‘Repair matters’ (deadline 30th April 2017)
Item 6: Art of Management 2018 CfS, (deadline: 27th May 2017)
Item 7: GWO Sydney 2018 CfS, (deadline: 1st June 2017)
In Jobs and vacancies we have:
Item 8: Multiple Vacancies in Bristol
Item 9: Lecturer/Senior Lecturer post at the Open University
Whew! What a message. My cut-and-paste muscles are definitely feeling the strain now. Special thanks to everyone who sends in news and items! If you have something you want to share with the SCOS crowd, and no-one-else can help you…I’m much easier to find than the A-team! Drop me an email on email@example.com
Best, Laura 🚁
Item 1 Culture & Organization CfP The Animal
The call for papers for the fab special issue following our animalistic conference is not to be forgotten! Deadline for submissions is 20th March 2017 and if you have forgotten the details of the call you can find it here: http://explore.tandfonline.com/cfp/bes/gsco-the-animal
Item 2 SCOS Conference 2017
CARNE – Flesh and Organization
Call for papers for the 35th
Standing Conference on Organizational Symbolism
Universita’ degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza,
10th-13th July 2017
“Flesh, we believe – more than bodies – is at stake in our posthuman times, in the sense that it is flesh that is subject to increased control either in the laboratory or the marketplace and is caught up in processes of modification that seek to master and profit from it.” (Diamanti et al., 2009: 4)
The XXXV SCOS Roma conference theme of ‘Carne – Flesh and organization’ is inspired in no small part by our 2017 venue. One historical narrative of the culture of Ancient Rome tells us that its gladiatorial contests and damnatio ad bestias (being thrown to wild animals, usually lions) and the sacrifice of beasts themselves served a variety of different purposes. These included honouring the dead and making sacrifices to the gods; reminding those not involved in the warrior state’s military expansion of the violence, bloodshed and killing (carnage) carried out and experienced by Rome’s frontier armies; a confirmation of the power of the state and its ability to mete out justice; and the sheer entertainment of the spectacle. Whatever their function, however, these events seem to us to circuit very profoundly around the flesh and its vulnerabilities, with the horrific murder of thousands of men and animals taking place in what Hopkins (1983: #13) vividly describes as “a welter of blood”. But Rome is a triumph of the arts which celebrate the flesh as well; a culture of sensuous indulgence, carnal desires and bodily experiences.
Our theme also takes off from the longstanding use of the notion of flesh in academic investigations of the more or less porous boundaries between the self, others and the world around us. Flesh, these works suggest, is ontologically slippery and definitionally elusive. For Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1964), flesh reconnects the viewing and the visible, the touching and the touched, the body and the world. Perception itself is a fleshly – auditory, visual, gustatory, haptic, olfactory – activity. Moreover, as Antonio Strati (2007) points out in his discussion of the connections between practice-based learning and ‘sensible knowledge’ in organizations, when we perceive others, we always perceive them as fundamentally corporeal. Equally, the world acts upon our flesh, so that what or whom we touch, see, smell, taste and hear may touch, see, smell, taste and hear us. Elsewhere, Michel Foucault locates modern western scientia sexualis as having its origins in the earliest years of Christianity and its confessional regime which seeks to unearth “the important secrets of the flesh” (1977: 154) as the deepest truths of the human subject. In this reading, flesh is the natural body, always and irrevocably bound to sin and to death.
Cherríe Moraga (2015: 19), on the other hand, identifies a theory in the flesh as “one where the physical realities of our lives – our skin color, the land or concrete we grew up on, our sexual longings – all fuse to create a politic born out of necessity”. In a very different feminist analysis, Judith Butler (1990: 96, 33) defines gender as the “styles of the flesh” which “congeal over time”; whereas Vicki Kirby (1997) takes her and other feminist poststructuralists to task in Telling Flesh for their overstatement of the cultural inscription of the body, and argues that “once you are seriously displacing the nature/language opposition, you have to be arguing that nature, far from being written on, and insofar as it cannot be said to ‘lack language’, ‘must be articulate’ (page 90).
Elspeth Probyn (2001), on the other hand, provides a dazzling array of ways to understand skin both materially, metonymically and metaphorically – it protects and is vulnerable, it can be bruised and breached, it is porous, it expands and retracts, it devours and is devoured, it has colour, texture and sensation.
‘Carne – Flesh and organization’ also resonates with themes of SCOS conferences past, like organizational wellness (Cambridge, 2003), excess and organization (Stockholm, 2005) and the animal (Uppsala, 2016). But organization studies scholars have perhaps been somewhat neglectful of flesh in our various endeavours; whilst for the last three decades or so we have paid a great deal of attention to the body, we have largely overlooked flesh. Yet, as our opening epigraph implies, flesh can be connected to organization/s and organizing in manifold different ways. Possible contributions to SCOS XXXV could therefore include but are certainly not limited to:
The pleasures of the flesh: carnality, sensuality, excess and indulgence in, of and as provided by organizations (and their opposites).
‘Fleshworkers’ – cosmetic surgeons, masseuses, cosmetic surgeons, tattooists, make-up artists, slaughterhouse workers, morticians, laboratory scientists etc. – and the markets for their services.
The resurging significance of the provenance of meat and fish in western eating habits and its cultural, symbolic and economic implications.
Vegetarianism, veganism, ‘clean’ and raw food diets, the markets around and commodification of these practices.
Researching the flesh, bodily, sensory, fleshly, aesthetic or sensible knowing and/ or methods, the ethics of fleshly research. Organizing (and researching) in meatspace and virtual space, ‘in the flesh’ and online.
Bodily changes, wounding, scarring and dysmorphia in organizations.
Flesh-eaters and the undead: cannibals, vampires and zombies as organizational metaphors.
The organization of organ donation and the global black market in body parts.
The global meat industry and its manifold discontents: eg, the certification and marketing of halal meat, the UK horse meat scandal.
(Re)incarnation and incorporation in and of organizations.
Pro-ana, pro-mia and fat acceptance organizations.
Psychoanalytical and psychological perspectives on the organized, the organization and processes of organizing.
Organizational metaphors of the flesh: eg, the ‘lean organization’, a ‘meaty question’, ‘fleshing out an argument’, a ‘meat market’, ‘dead meat’ etc.
The use of animal skin for clothing and furnishings and the complex global differences of necessity versus excess.
The ethics and politics of organizing as understood through Agamben’s zoë (bare life) and bios (qualified life) … and so on.
Open stream and workshops
SCOS 2017 will also have an open stream allowing for the presentation of papers of more general interest to the SCOS community; and we are open to suggestions for workshops or similar events in line with the proposed theme. Outlines of workshops should be the same length as a paper abstract and should indicate resources needed, number of participants,time required, approach to be taken and objectives. Please identify ‘Open stream’ or ‘Workshop’ on your abstract as appropriate.
Conference organizing team
Ilaria Boncori (University of Essex), Jo Brewis (University of Leicester), Mauro Gatti (Universita’ degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza), Edoardo Mollona (Universita’ di Bologna), Luigi Maria Sicca (University of Naples) and Charlie Smith (University of Leicester).
Abstracts of no more than 500 words should be submitted as e-mail attachments (all common formats accepted) by Friday 2nd December 2016 to the organizers at firstname.lastname@example.org. Informal enquiries can be submitted to the same address.
Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall.
Foucault, M. (1977) ‘Power and sex’, Telos, 32: 152-161.
Hart, L. (1998) Between the Body and the Flesh: Performing Sadomasochism, Columbia University Press: New York.
Hopkins, K. (1983) ‘Murderous games: gladiatorial contests in Ancient Rome’, History Today, 33 (6). Online. Available here.
Kirby, V. (1997) Telling Flesh: The Substance of the Corporeal, New York and London: Routledge.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962) Phenomenology of Perception, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Moraga, C. (2015) ‘Introduction. Entering the lives of others: theory in the flesh’. In C. Moraga and G. Anzaldúa (eds) This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color, fourth edition, Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, p. 19.
Probyn, E. (2001) ‘Eating skin’, in S. Ahmed and J. Stacey (eds) Thinking Through the Skin, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 87-103.
Strati, A. (2007) ‘Sensible knowledge and practice-based learning’, Management Learning, 38 (1): 61-77.
Item 3 GWO CfP Gender and nonhuman animals
GWO have also got into the animal vibe, with their very own special issue on gender and nonhuman animals! Deadline for submissions is 28th February 2017
Special Issue Editors: Kate Sang, Heriot Watt University, Scotland
Lindsay Hamilton, Keele University, England email@example.com
Janet Sayers, Massey University, New Zealand firstname.lastname@example.org
Organizational studies have traditionally focused solely on humans within organizations, neglecting and marginalizing other species as objects, food, symbols and resources. While such humanist hegemony is understandable from a pragmatic perspective, the absence of other species from organizational studies is problematic particularly as recent empirical research has shown the significance of other creatures to the meaningful experience of human work and as organizers in their own right.
Ants, for example, organize traffic in bottleneck situations (Dussutour et al, 2004), exhibit managerial behaviours in arranging their living accommodation and interacting within their community (Sanders and Gordon, 2003). Similarly, the large and variegated literature on canines has pointed to their significant roles in military and law-enforcement as well as in therapeutic and affective roles within schools, hospitals and other care settings (see for example, Knight 2005; Sanders 2006; Taylor, 2007 and 2010). There are promising signs the work of animals is starting to get the critical attention it deserves with, for example, a new book on the work of animals by Kendra Coulter (2015) recently being published. The
acting capacities of animals and their different forms of organizational agency provide the mandate for their inclusion in research and while interest in this is undoubtedly growing within organization studies, (see, for example, the recent special issue of Organization edited by Labatut et al, 2016 and the 2016 Standing Conference on Organizational Symbolism entitled ŒThe Animal¹) significantly more attention needs to be paid to this important subject. This is the aim of this special issue of Gender
Work and Organisation.
The rise of posthumanism, ecofeminist critique and advocacy/activist scholarship has challenged the way in which scholars of many disciplines approach the animal question (Pedersen, 2011) and may provide a useful base for enquiry. Posthumanist theory, for example, provides a frame for
understanding the complex entanglements that enmesh humans and other creatures in social settings (Taylor and Twine, 2014; Pedersen 2011).
While an emergent and by no means clear-cut theoretical position, its broad emphasis upon the continuities between human and other animal life and its desire to make visible the false dualism between species (Peterson, 2011) offers useful structure for those seeking to challenge the dominance of anthropocentrism in research on organization. In seeking to realize the potential of posthumanist aims, organization studies can learn from a range of disciplines which have traditionally been pre-occupied with the human: geography, sociology, ethnography and anthropology, for instance, but which are now turning towards multi-species settings (see, for example, Buller, 2015) just as they may find empirical food for thought in the natural sciences (DiFiore and Rendall, 1994).
Those within gender/queer studies, feminism and women¹s studies, for example, have made good progress in crossing disciplinary boundaries in part due to the Œpermission¹ granted by posthumanism, to study a subject traditionally off-limits to those outside the discipline. Connell, for example, (2001) considers the concept of the natural world in tandem with that of hegemonic masculinity: masculinity being traditionally aligned with reason, rationality and the human mind which devalues the feminine,
emotion, the body and the natural world. Likewise, feminist approaches to environmental matters such as sustainability have developed in response to the ways in which Œwoman¹ and Œnature¹ are conceptually linked in Western thought and the processes of inferiorization have reinforced each other.
Turning such a lens to questions of species has potential to mount a
serious challenge to humanist academic discourses and practises
surrounding sustainability, social responsibility and justice (Plumwood, 1993).
Contributors to this issue will find a wealth of theoretical resources to offer inspiration. Donna Haraway, for example, (2003) has been formative in criticising the nature of dualisms and re-formulating how we might think about intertwined lives – her thesis of naturecultures remains an influential way to think about species entanglements. Noting the continuities between human and animal forms of culture, Haraway highlights the dangers of sanitized species categories, suggesting that how we constitute others is the basis for our behavior towards them. By extension, then, deconstructing the binary purisms that situate Œus¹ as better than Œthem¹ is central in her thinking (Haraway, 2008; Taylor and
Twine 2014). Rosi Braidotti, emphasizing the significance of gender/sex differences in such debates argues that the contemporary era of advanced postmodernity is one in which ³the very notion of Œthe human¹ is not only de-stabilized by technologically mediated social relations in a globally
connected world, but it is also thrown open to contradictory
re-definitions of what exactly counts as human² (2006: 197).
The decentring of humanity within posthumanism makes the theoretical and empirical space for Œothers¹ of various sorts, be they cyborgs, robots, Œmonsters¹, Œfood-producing¹ animals, working animals or Œpets¹. Haraway¹s (1991) discussion on cyborgs, for example, has proved pivotal to feminist
contributions to both science and posthumanist agendas. Responsibility for nature, women¹s participation in the advanced techno-sciences as well as moral questions over agency are themes which continue to be developed from her writing. Activist and advocacy perspectives may follow this trajectory further by aiming to include those excluded and written out as Œothers¹ by
earlier practices of pure binary thinking. Likewise, indigenous
scholarship provides a further space where critical debates are
identifying and undermining the ethnocentrism which underpins much knowledge production. Tallbear (2014) offers hope for research which draws on indigenous, feminist and western scientific approaches, for example, while recognizing the policitised contexts of such knowledge production.
Similarly, Critical Theory and the social criticism of science (STS)
provide insightful lenses to analyse organizational settings particularly where there is a connection to materiality and bio-technical science such as the meat, farming and veterinary industries (Novek, 2005).
It is likely that any efforts to understand the nonhuman animal members of organizations will need to adopt an innovative and creative lens, all the while remaining attendant to the colonial politics which underpins understandings of human and non-human oppressions (Armstrong, 2002; Belcourt, 2014). Researchers will need to locate their research within broader debates, outside of organizational studies, in order to consider the vast array of perspectives. The nonhuman animal is a focus of
empirical and theoretical consideration within disciplines including
eco-feminist theory, indigenous studies, zoology, biology, psychology, sociology, legal studies, and criminology (links between abuse of nonhuman animals and domestic violence, for example) (Deckha, 2012 and 2013). They will also need to attend to the discussions about culture which question its inherent humanism (such as in discussions about higher apes and cetacea, see McGrew, 2004 for example and discussions of agency or subjectivity such as those provided by Schnabel, 2014). Importantly, this call for papers encourages authors to consider the role of feminist theory
in destabilising one of the key tenets of organizational theory namely aspecie-ist preoccupation with the (male) human as key to understanding work and organizations.
Submissions may address questions such as:
·How can feminist theory be used to reveal and understand the gendered labour of human and nonhuman animals within organizations?
·In what ways can the feminist critical post-humanist and
post-anthropomorphist approaches of thinkers like Rosi Braidotti, Karen Barad and Donna Haraway have for revising understandings of organization?
·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 an organizational actor? How can such work advance posthumanist theorising?
· 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?
·Discussions of the scope for Œde-colonising¹ feminist organisational studies, through the embedding of indigenous perspectives.
·Approaches that include how masculinity and non-human animal lives are intertwined and dependent on each other and sometimes in competition with each other, like for example in meat works and other predominantly masculine occupations.
·Studies that examine how nonhuman and human animals work together in contexts like therapy, and management and leadership development, and how gender might intersect in these contexts.
·Studies or theoretical papers that engage with scientific and technical innovations that are blurring the lines between human and non-human in socio-biological contexts.
Articles should be no more than 9,000 words long and follow the Gender, Work & Organization guidelines for authors.
Full Papers (not under review elsewhere) should be submitted through the journals online system,(http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gwo), and clearly marked under manuscript type as Œspecial issue¹.
The deadline for submissions is 28 February, 2017.
All papers will be reviewed as per journal guidelines.
Queries relating to the special issue should be directed to Kate Sang
(email@example.com), Lindsay Hamilton (firstname.lastname@example.org) or Janet Sayers (email@example.com)
Papers of approximately 8-9000 words are invited. Papers based on
empirical studies are welcomed that theorise human-nonhuman relations through human-animal studies scholarship. Theoretical and conceptual papers are welcomed, as are papers that use novel theoretical and
Armstrong, P. (2002). The postcolonial animal. Society and Animals, 10(4), 413-420.
Belcourt, B. R. (2014). Animal Bodies, Colonial Subjects:(Re) Locating Animality in Decolonial Thought. Societies, 5(1), 1-11.
Braidotti, R. (2006). Posthuman, all too human: Towards a new process ontology. Theory, Culture & Society, 23(7-8), 197-208.
Buller, H. (2015) Animal geographies II: Methods. Progress in Human Geography 39(3): 374-384
Connell, R.W. (2001) The Social Organization of Masculinity, pp. 30-50 in The Masculinities Reader, (Eds.) S.M. Whitehead and F.J. Barrett. Cambridge: Polity.
Coulter, K. (2015). Animals, work and the promise of interspecies
solidarity. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Deckha, M. (2013). Initiating a non-anthropocentric jurisprudence: The rule of law and animal vulnerability under a property paradigm. Alberta Law Review, 50(4).
Deckha, M. (2012). Toward a postcolonial, posthumanist feminist theory: Centralizing race and culture in feminist work on nonhuman animals. Hypatia, 27(3), 527-545.
Dussutour, A., Fourcassié, V., Helbing, D., & Deneubourg, J. L. (2004).
Optimal traffic organization in ants under crowded conditions. Nature, 428(6978), 70-73.
Di Fiore, A., & Rendall, D. (1994). Evolution of social organization: A
reappraisal for primates by using phylogenetic methods. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 91(21), 9941-9945.
Haraway, D. (1991) A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and
Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century, pp. 149 181 in
Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. London: Routledge.
Haraway, D. (2003) The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People and Significant Otherness. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.
Haraway, D. (2008) When Species Meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Knight, J. (ed.) (2005) Animals in Person: Cultural Perspectives on
Human-Animal Intimacies. Oxford: Berg.
Labatut, J. Munro, I and Desmond, J (2016) Animals and Organizations Special Issue Organization 23(3), 315-329.
McGrew, W. C. (2004). The cultured chimpanzee: Reflections on cultural primatology. Cambridge University Press.
Novek, J. (2005). Pigs and people: Sociological perspectives on the
discipline of nonhuman animals in intensive confinement. Society &
Animals, 13(3), 221-244.
Pedersen H (2011) Release the moths: Critical animal studies and the posthumanist impulse. Culture, Theory and Critique, 52(1): 65-81.
Peterson, C. (2011). The posthumanism to come. Angelaki, 16(2), 127-141.
Plumwood, V. (1993) Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, London: Routledge
Sanders, C. (2006). The Dog You Deserve: Ambivalence in the K-9
Officer/Patrol Dog Relationship, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(2), 148-172.
Sanders, N. J., & Gordon, D. M. (2003). Resource-dependent interactions and the organization of desert ant communities. Ecology, 84(4), 1024-1031.
Schnabel, L. (2014). The question of subjectivity in three emerging
feminist science studies frameworks: Feminist postcolonial science
studies, new feminist materialisms, and queer ecologies. In Women¹s Studies International Forum (Vol. 44, pp. 10-16). Pergamon.
TallBear, K (2014). “Standing With and Speaking as Faith: A
Feminist-Indigenous Approach to Inquiry [Research note].” Journal of Research Practice, 10(2), 2014.
Taylor, N., & Twine, R. (2014). The rise of critical animal studies: From
the margins to the centre (Vol. 125). Routledge.
Taylor, N. (2007) ‘Never an it’: Intersubjectivity and the creation of
animal personhood in animal shelters. Qualitative Sociological Review, 3(1), 59-73.
Taylor, N. (2010). Animal shelter emotion management: a case of in situ hegemonic resistance? Sociology, 44(1) pp. 85-101.
Item 4 CMS VIDA Event
Critical discriminations, critical oppressions … Critical MANagement Studies?
An event organized by VIDA, the Critical Management Studies Women’s Association
FACT, 88 Wood Street, Liverpool L1 4DQ, UK
Sunday 2nd July 2017, 3–6 pm
“[U]niversities are particularly hard institutions to do diversity and equality work [in] because academics tend to think of themselves as “critical subjects,” and thus tend not to see themselves as part of a problem” (Ahmed, 2013).
This event is being organized at a time when we know that many CMS academics from all over the world will be in Liverpool, but it is not a CMS2017 conference event and you do not need to be a CMS2017 delegate to attend. It is inspired by our experiences as a group of CMS academics – VIDA – who identify as women, non-binary or gender non-conforming.
On our Facebook page we have been discussing many of these experiences. One collection of issues that keeps recurring includes:
· how cismen who consider themselves CMS researchers all too often treat colleagues who are not cismen;
· the kinds of academic labour that are valued within CMS – and, more significantly, those that are not;
· manels at CMS conferences and workshops; and
· gender-exclusive curricula, reading lists and citation practices in critical management pedagogy and research.
These behaviours, practices and processes take many guises and happen in many places and spaces. They are enacted and reproduced by CMS academics (including ciswomen) whose writing – even activism – critiques precisely such behaviours, practices and processes. For us, Sara Ahmed’s term ‘critical sexism’ captures this collection of things perfectly. She defines it as follows: “the sexism reproduced by those who think of themselves as too critical to reproduce sexism. Critical sexism is not that different to uncritical sexism, then.” (Ahmed, 2015: 11). An alternative, used elsewhere,is the notion of ‘brocialism’, which refers to men who are “so in love with [their] own progressiveness or radicalness [they are] convinced [they] can do no wrong. This extends to being a sexist jerk”.
Importantly, Ahmed (2012: 212) has also written on critical racism, which she describes as the “racism produced by critical subjects who do not see the reproduction because of their self-assumed criticality”. Similar sorts of oppressive and discriminatory reproductions seem to us to be at work in CMS around ageism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism and colonialism, at minimum. And these discriminations and oppressions of course also intersect with and exacerbate each other.
We want to use the event as a space in which we can discuss experiences of these critical discriminations and oppressions in CMS. The format will be confirmed as we draw nearer to the event itself, but the preliminary format is as follows:
1. A short welcome and introduction to the event, including contributions from VIDA members about their own experiences of critical discriminations and oppressions in CMS.
2. Break-out discussions in small groups for more consideration.
3. No one will be asked to share the names of the people they are talking about (or indeed to share their experiences at all if they feel uncomfortable in doing so).
4. In the last part of the event we will come back together to discuss how we can tackle critical discriminations and oppressions in CMS as a collective.
5. We will offer everyone the opportunity to contribute an anonymized record of their experiences afterwards, but this is entirely voluntary. As Sara Ahmed suggests,
“To name something as sexist is already to begin building an archive: we are gathering different events, situations, incidents together through using this word. We are picking things up. What are we gathering? An archive of sexism might be an ‘archive of feelings’ to borrow Ann Cvetkovich’s expression, we are building an archive from how we are affected by something.” (2015: 10)
6. The discussion element of the event will take a maximum of two hours, followed by a social. Refreshments will be provided.
The event is free to attend, but you will need to pre-register as we have an upper limit of 40 people and we need to book refreshments in advance. Please contact Jo Brewis (firstname.lastname@example.org) and Sarah Gilmore (S.Gilmore2@exeter.ac.uk) to register or with any queries. Attendance is limited to those who identify as women and non-binary or gender non-conforming. The venue is a short walk from the Adelphi Hotel where CMS2017 is being held, and is easily accessible on foot from both Liverpool Central and Liverpool Lime Street train stations.
“Because after all to name something as sexist is not only to name something that happens as part of a wider system (to refuse to give what happens the status of an exceptional event), but it is also to give an account of that something as being wrong and unjustifiable. To name something as sexist is not only to modify a relation by modifying our understanding of that relation; it is also to insist that further modification is required. When we say ‘that’s sexist,’ we are saying ‘no’ to that, as well as ‘no’ to the world that renders such speech or behaviour permissible …” (Ahmed, 2015: 9)
Sponsored by the University of Leicester School of Business
Item 5 Ephemera CfP Deadline 30th April 2017
Issue editors: Valeria Graziano and Kim Trogal
This special issue of ephemera aims to investigate contemporary practices of repair as an emergent focus of recent organizing at the intersection of politics, ecology and economy (e.g. Bialski et al., 2015; Perey and Benn 2015; Wiens, 2013). We wish to explore notions of repair and maintenance as crucial components for redefining socio-political imaginaries (Castoriadis, 1987), away from the neoliberal capitalism dogma of throw-away culture and planned obsolescence.
While the political aspects of repair have recently become an issue of interest in the realms of design (Rosner and Ames, 2014), new media (Jackson, 2014), urban geography (Graham and Thrift, 2007) and, in a broader sense, legal studies (Verdeja, 2008), their implications for critical organization studies are still under-explored. Pinning down the significance of repair processes within organization and organizing therefore remains an open task.
Under conditions of austerity, the depression of wages, the escalation of material exploitation and climate collapse, repair is an activity that is growing in significance among local initiatives that seek alternative forms of ‘economizing’ on production and consumption. Within conventional enterprises, the complexities of repair and maintenance operations are impacting choices around workflows, logistics and product design as well as asset management and overhaul across different sectors (cf. EFNMS, the European Federation of National Maintenance Societies).
As ethnographic studies in urban geography show, repair and maintenance are also crucial elements of contention in the persistent struggle between private actors, public authorities and citizens over the establishment of rights of access and duties of care across the ‘city fabric’ and its infrastructures (Chelcea and Pulay, 2015). On a broader scale of global relations, the spatialization of repair is configured alongside habitual disparities between North and South or so-called developed and under-developed areas. This is demonstrated, for instance, by the dumping of broken, used products in specific parts of the world, whose locations are host to industries such as ship stripping, second-hand clothes or second-hand motor and electronics goods (Brooks, 2013; Demaria 2010; Simone, 2014).
In response to such inequalities, the last ten years have seen a rapid proliferation of collective mobilizations around repair and maintenance, aimed at challenging the patterns of production and consumption within neoliberal capitalism (Chertkovskaya and Loacker, 2016). In the global North, recent initiatives such as Repair Cafés and Restarter Parties, among many others, draw together local constituencies and volunteers to share mending and fixing skills. Online communities for the exchange of tutorials like iFixit.com and tool libraries are rapidly multiplying, to the point where all these initiatives taken together begin to form a new ‘Do it together’ lifestyle-movement (Haenfler et al., 2012; Ratto and Boler, 2014). These initiatives tend to share some of the concerns first collectivized by hackerspaces and bike-repair workshops within squatting movements, and also echo feminist arguments regarding the widespread undervaluing of reproductive labour, even within alternative cultures (Ukeles, 1969).
Following feminist works on care and reproduction, Jackson (2014) argues that predominant neoliberal values consistently draw attention to the moments of birth and triumph of human creations, whereas the care at the end of life ‘drops out’ of the imagination. An examination of repair and maintenance then can help us expose these tensions and contradictions and the ways they shape the realms of alternative consumption (Littler, 2008; Podkalicka and Potkańska, 2015) and production (Gibson-Graham, 2008). As Huws (2015) explains, products are key moments in capitalist processes and the emergence of new products for repair points to the growing commercial interest in an expanding market. There are now products that are ‘designed for repairability’, i.e., designed to be easily taken apart or cared for with the assistance of manufacturers. Other new products are designed to help people repair their own belongings. Such items signal the transition of repair from vernacular, informal and independent practices towards more industrialised, yet ‘user-oriented’, practices.
Design’s interest in product repairability is paralleled by manufacturers’ recent expansions into the ‘aftermarket’, which is seen as a new site of profitability. In the context of the so-called fourth industrial revolution, corporations are developing a variety of strategies that make it no longer possible to repair goods independently (cf. the Repair Association). Against this encroachment of property, we witness the articulation of a new ‘right to repair’, not only as a consumer right, but also the right of autonomous repair workers to access an independent livelihood. Practices of repair and maintenance become interesting sites from which to study claims of different regimes of ownership and the common (see also Beverungen et al., 2013).
Finally, as an intersectional preoccupation, repair and maintenance articulate responses to environmental collapse and environmental justice, supply chains and the distribution of wealth alongside them, the division of labour and particularly its gendered dimensions, and to pedagogical questions around expertise and power. If repair brings its own (heterogeneous) ethos and logic, it could also do more than simply shift the focus of specific areas of expertise, such as design. It could become a significant component of alternative processes of organizing for socially and ecologically just cycles of production and consumption (Graham and Thrift, 2007; Spelman, 2002; Wright et al., 2013). In this context, this issue aims to surface questions around specific reproductive activities and collective undertakings: Can repair and maintenance become effective means for examining and challenging the productivist bias that still dominates both mainstream and ‘alternative’ approaches to social and ecological organization, and how do we make sense of the contested narrative of empowerment and mobilization that accompanies repair and maintenance?
We would like to invite a wide range of contributions to embrace this multi-disciplinary concern and phenomenon. Possible topics include, but are by no means limited to the following:
• Traditions of repair
• Geographies of repair and possible transnational solidarities
• Repair pedagogies
• Divisions and hierarchies of labour within maintenance and repair sectors
• Repair as domestic activity
• The role of maintenance and care in commoning
• Design, planned obsolescence and repairability
• Property, copyright and the right to repair
• Neighbourhood organizing and urban practices of repair and maintenance
• Struggles over power and control in repair/maintenance and its organization
Deadline for submissions: 30 April 2017
All contributions should be submitted to the issue editors: Valeria Graziano (email@example.com) and Kim Trogal (KTrogal@ucreative.ac.uk). ephemeraencourages contributions in a variety of formats including articles, notes, interviews, book reviews, photo essays and other experimental modes of representation. Information about some of these types of contributions can be found at: http://www.ephemerajournal.org/how-submit. The submissions will undergo a double-blind review process. All submissions should followephemera’s submission guidelines, which are available at: http://www.ephemerajournal.org/how-submit (see the ‘Abc of formatting’ guide in particular). For further information, please contact one of the special issue editors.
Beverungen, A., A.M. Murtola and G. Schwartz (eds.) (2013) ‘The communism of capital?’, ephemera, 13(3): 483-495.
Bialski, P., H. Derwanz, B. Otto and H. Vollmer (eds.) (2015) ‘“Saving” the city: Collective low-budget organizing and urban practice,’ ephemera, 15(1).
Brooks, A. (2013) ‘Stretching global production networks: The international second-hand clothing trade’, Geoforum, 44: 10-22.
Castoriadis, C. (1987) The imaginary institution of society. Cambridge: Polity.
Chelcea, L. and G. Pulay (2015) ‘Networked infrastructures and the “local”: Flows and connectivity in a postsocialist city’, CITY, 9(2-3): 344-355.
Chertkovskaya, E. and B. Loacker, B. (2016) ‘Work and consumption: Entangled,’ ephemera, 16(3): 1-20.
Demaria, F. (2010) ‘Shipbreaking at Alang-Sosiya (India): An ecological distribution conflict’, Ecological economics, 70(2): 250-260.
Gibson-Graham, J.K. (2008) ‘Diverse economies: Performative practices for other worlds’, Progress in Human Geography, 32(5): 613-632.
Graham, S. and N. Thrift (2007) ‘Out of order: Understanding maintenance and repair’, Theory, Culture and Society, 24(3): 1-25.
Haenfler, R., B. Johnson and E. Jones (2012) ‘Lifestyle movements: Exploring the intersection of lifestyle and social movements’, Social Movement Studies, 11(1): 1-20.
Huws, U. (2015) ‘iCapitalism and the cybertariat. Contradictions of the digital economy’, The Monthly Review, 66(8). [http://monthlyreview.org/…/01/icapitalism-and-the-cybertar…/]
Jackson, S.J. (2014) ‘Rethinking repair’, in T. Gillespie, P. Boczkowski and K. Foot (eds.) Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality and society. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Littler, J. (2008) Radical consumption: Shopping for change in contemporary culture. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Perey, R. and S. Benn (2015) ‘Organising for ecological repair: Reconstructing land management practice’, Organization & Environment, 28 (4): 1-20.
Potkańska, D. and A. Podkalicka (2015) ‘On the meaning of popular representations of low-budget urban practices in Poland: The case of cultural translation’, ephemera, 15(1): 95-119.
Ratto, M. and M. Boler (2014) DIY citizenship: Critical making and social media. Cambridge, MA and London, UK: MIT Press.
Repair Association, nd. ‘About the Association’. [https://repair.org/association/]
Rosner, D.K. and M.G. Ames (2014) ‘Designing for repair? Infrastructures and materialities of breakdown’, CSCW14. [http://www.danielarosner.com]
Simone, A.M. (2014) ‘Infrastructure, real economies, and social transformation: Assembling the components for regional urban development in Africa’, in S. Parnell and E. Pieterse (eds.) Africa’s urban revolution. London: Zed.
Spelman, E. (2002) Repair: The impulse to restore in a fragile world. Boston: Beacon Press.
Ukeles, M.L. (1969) ‘Maintenance art manifesto’, in K. Stiles and P.H. Selz, (eds.)Theories and documents of contemporary art: A source book of artists’ writings. Oakland: University of California Press.
Verdeja, E. (2008) ‘A critical theory of reparative justice’, Constellations, 15(2): 208-222.
Wiens, K. (2013) ‘The repair revolution’, in T. McLellan (ed.) Things come apart: A teardown manual for modern living. London: Thames and Hudson.
Wright, C., D. Nyberg, C. De Cock and G. Whiteman (2013) ‘Future imaginings: Organizing in response to climate change’, Organization, 20(5): 647-658.
Item 6 Art of Management Deadline 27th May 2017
After a fantastic 2016 conference in Lake Bled, Slovenia we are pleased to share with you the Call for Streams (Performances, Exhibitions and Events) for the 2018 conference.https://artofmanagement.org/…/aomo-2018-call-for-streams-i…/
Dr Jenny Knight and Chris Matthews at the University of Brighton are poised to receive your fabulously creative ideas and events exploring the theme of ‘Performance’. You can contact them using firstname.lastname@example.org
The conference will be held on the 30th August-2nd September 2018. We have plenty of unusual and innovative spaces to utilise in Brighton, including the beach! So please take some time to look at some of the images of available spaces we have collated on the AoMO webpages to inspire you!
Call for Streams will close on the 27th May 2017
Remember to follow us on Facebook and Twitter @Ao_Management to be kept up to date with news and progress.
Item 7 Gender Work and Organization 2018: Sydney CfS Deadline 1st June 2017
CALL FOR STREAM PROPOSALS/ STREAM LEADERS
Gender, Work and Organization
10th Biennial International Interdisciplinary Conference
14-16 June, 2018, Darling Harbour, Sydney, Australia
The conference email address is: FBE-GWO@MQ.EDU.AU
Launched in 1994, Gender, Work and Organization was the first journal to provide an arena dedicated to debate and analysis of gender relations, the organisation of gender and the gendering of organisations. The Gender, Work and Organization conference provides an international forum for debate and analysis of contemporary debates affecting gender studies. The 2016 conference at Keele University attracted in excess 400 international scholars from over 30 nations.
Details on papers and streams
The conference is organised primarily as a series of streams. Expressions of interest for the role of stream convenors at the conference/ proposals for stream topics are invited. Authors whose abstract is accepted but does not fit into one of the agreed streams will be able to present their work in a separate open stream. GWO2018 is an international conference and priority in selecting streams for inclusion will be given to multinational stream leader teams of established scholars. Subject to full peer review, stream papers often make up a special issue of the journal and these are given priority in the publication queue.
Stream convenors are responsible for:
• drafting a call for papers for their stream
• generating publicity for their call by using their own as well as the GWO networks
• refereeing and then selecting papers for inclusion within their stream
• attending GWO2018 and co-ordinating the stream during the conference itself
• editing a special issue of the journal if such is agreed by the editorial team
Please email your stream proposal and call for papers (no more than 1,500 words length total, as MS Word attachment – NOT PDF) to: email@example.com by June 1st 2017. Informal enquiries regarding streams, including guidance notes for prospective stream convenors, or enquiries regarding the conference organisation can be made to the organisers Alison Pullen on firstname.lastname@example.org and Anne Ross-Smith Anne.Ross-Smith@mq.edu.au. For all other enquiries please contact the conference at FBE-GWO@MQ.EDU.AU
Streams for the 2018 event would be particularly welcome in the following areas:
Indigenous Australians, gender and employment; gender, class and race; work and organisation theory, production/reproduction of organising, knowledge in organisations; critical studies of diversity; feminist ecology and organisation; alternative modes of working; gendered organisation/disorganization; embodiment/disembodiment; identity and consumption; spirituality and religion in organisations; gender, ethics and corporate organising; feminism at work/feminist organizations; gender and entrepreneurship; gender and globalization; post-colonialism and gender; careers; sexualities and organisation; global organisational politics; men and masculinities; sexuality at work; methodology; gender and technologies; leadership and gender; work/life balance; unequal pay; social exclusion; gender and disability; service work; public management and organisations; professionalism; intimacy at work; migration, gender and organizing; affect, aesthetics and gendering; feminist politics; gendered cultures, discrimination and inequality in organizations.
This list of topics is suggestive rather than exhaustive. Contributors may choose to draw on material from a wide range of empirical contexts and multidisciplinary approaches. Papers can be theoretical or discussions of theoretically informed empirical work.
• Stream proposals/call for papers (1,500 words max. total) submitted to email@example.com by 1st June, 2017.
• Decision on acceptance of stream proposal on or before 1st July, 2017.
• Stream convenors circulate their stream call for abstracts. Deadline for submission of abstracts to stream convenor, 1st November, 2017.
• Stream convenor decision on acceptance of abstract communicated to author by 1st December, 2017.
Submission of papers:
Abstracts of approximately 500 words (submitted direct to stream leaders, ONE page, WORD NOT PDF, single spaced, excluding any references, no headers, footers or track changes) are invited by 1st November 2017 with decisions on acceptance to 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.
The Conference will be hosted by Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. The conference will be held at Darling Harbour, Sydney.
Conference Organisers: Alison Pullen (Macquarie University, AUSTRALIA)
Anne Ross-Smith (Macquarie University, AUSTRALIA)
Research and teaching vacancies at University of Bristol Department of Management
The Department of Management at the University of Bristol is embarking on a significant expansion of staff and programmes. We are keen to attract high quality research and teaching colleagues at all levels, as well as a small number in teaching-only posts. There is flexibility in research/teaching areas, and levels and fractional appointments. We are particularly interested in developing a broad social-science approach to management, organisations and society (including in the areas of innovation, global supply chain management, marketing, and healthcare), and are keen to recruit individuals pursuing interdisciplinary work that addresses the priorities and vision of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Law and the University. The Department may be able to appoint small groups of scholars pursuing joint or related work.
Links to the Department of Management vacancies are listed on the University of Bristol jobs page: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/jobs/find/list.html…
ACAD102264 – Lecturer in Management
ACAD102265 – Senior Lecturer/Reader in Management
ACAD102266 – Teaching Fellow/Senior Teaching Fellow in Management
ACAD102268 – Chair in Healthcare Management
ACAD102269 – Chair in Innovation Management
ACAD102268 – Chair in Marketing
ACAD102270 – Chair in Operations Management/Supply Chain and Logistics
If you are interested, you are welcome to contact the Head of Department, Professor Andrew Sturdy, for an informal conversation on +44 (0)11792 88606 or email Andrew.Sturdy@bristol.ac.uk.
Item 9 Lecturer/Senior Lecturer post at the Open University
Lecturer/Senior Lecturer vacancies at the Open University Business School, Department for people and organisation.
More information available here: http://www.open.ac.uk/…/senior-lecturerlecturer-people-mana…