- First, this sub-theme will explore the dynamic practices of ‘devising’. What forms of reasoning, reflexivity and responsibility are at play and how are they distributed across markets and other sites?
- Second, it considers how things become objects of quantification, judgement and valuation. What gets quantified, calculated, judged and valued as part of this ‘devising work’, by whom and for what purposes.
*apologies for cross-posting*
Nordic Environmental Social Science (NESS), Trondheim, Norway june 9-11, 2015. More info: http://ness2015.rural.no/
The world faces an increasingly complex mix of environmental challenges. Some are anchored in local contexts; others are highly global in character. Climate changes, resource depletion and de-forestation and three obvious examples, but many others are equally relevant. Many of these challenges are closely related to consumption. In some cases, the consumption of specific products and general consumption patterns add to the challenges. In other cases, new modes of consumption or the consumption of specific goods or services are seen as a pathway towards a solution. Is sustainable consumption possible? If it is, how do we achieve it? How do we define sustainable consumption? How can we explain patterns of non-sustainable consumption and conceptualize some sort of transition pathway towards sustainability?
Consumption is intimately linked to the notion of practice. Almost all everyday and household practices are associated with the consumption of energy and material resources. For instance, showering takes water, soap and shampoo. Many practices are tightly associated with environmental problems. Certain hunting practices are associated with biodiversity loss, while practices associated with CO2 intensive modes of travel are associated with climate change.
This working group is also interested in the role of technologies in transforming or sustaining practices. As an example, there is currently much hope that new technological gadgets can help establish more sustainable consumption and change practices. An example is found in the hype surrounding “smart” energy technologies. Through providing information and control to users, these should both lower the consumption rates of electricity and change a number of practices that in part depends on electricity consumption.
This working group welcomes empirical and theoretical contributions that stimulate a broad discussion on the relationship between sustainability, consumption, practices and technologies. This includes, but is not limited to the following topics:
· Discussions on consumption, practices or the relationship between them in a sustainability perspective, including studies on the possibilities for promoting sustainable consumption.
· Contributions theorizing on sustainability. What is/should this concept be?
· Practices, consumption and sustainability transitions.
· Empirical discussions on specific technological devices and their role in questions of practice change, sustainability and consumption.
Abstracts of no more than 250 words are to be submitted to the organizers by November 1st.
Tomas Moe Skjølsvold: firstname.lastname@example.org
Toke Haunstrup Christensen: email@example.com
Tomas Moe Skjølsvold,
Post doc. dept. of interdisciplinary studies of culture
& H2020 Process leader NTNU/CenSES
EASST’s Eurograd mailing list
Eurograd (at) lists.easst.net
Unsubscribe or edit subscription options: http://lists.easst.net/listinfo.cgi/eurograd-easst.net
Report abuses of this list to Eurogradfirstname.lastname@example.org
Call for Proposals: Interdisciplinary Nineteenth-Century Studies (INCS) 2015
Hosted by the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA April 16-19, 2015
Keynote Speakers: Philippa Levine (UT-Austin) and Priscilla Wald (Duke)
The nineteenth century has long been understood as an era of industrial growth, scientific discovery, technological innovation, and imperial expansion. Such sweeping global transformations relied on a complex web of relations between humans and machines, individuals and systems, ideas and practices, as well as more efficient and frequent movement across increasingly connected networks of space. From railroad travel to advances in shipping, from the movement of immigrants, enslaved laborers, scientists and colonial settlers, to the circulation of ideas, bodies, and/as commodities, nineteenth-century mobilities challenged and reconfigured the very constitution of subjects, nations, and cultures across the globe. We seek papers that investigate the various mobilities and exchanges of the nineteenth century. What did it mean to be mobile (or immobile) in this period? How were political, scientific, and cultural ideas exchanged in new ways? How did people maintain and create new affiliations? How might notions of a more mobile sense of nature, the world, and the self influence our understanding of this era?
Specific topics are listed on the attached call for papers.
Deadline: November 15, 2014. For individual papers, send 250-word proposals; for panels, send individual proposals plus a 250-word panel description. Please include a one-page cv with your name, affiliation, and email address. Proposals that are interdisciplinary in method or panels that involve multiple disciplines are especially welcome. Send questions and proposals to email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org
Originally posted on Estudios de la Economía:
Devising Markets and Other Valuation Sites. Convened by Liz McFall, Claes-Frederik Helgesson and Pascale Trompette. Invites papers exploring how markets and other valuation sites are ‘devised’ through the interaction of practices, processes and technologies. The aim is to further develop understanding of the role of knowledge and devices in shaping economies and markets in two ways.
View original 508 more words
Originally posted on orgtheory.net:
When I teach my sociology of organizations courses, I always include an underrecognized org theorist, Mary Parker Follett,* who advocated for “power-with” instead of “power over.” Follett argued that voting and other more conventional decision-making approaches generate dissatisfactory outcomes, in which one or more parties lose. She suggested that groups engage in a consensus-oriented decision-making process to identify what parties really want and thus generate novel solutions. However, providing real-life examples of this process is not easy, particularly since many decisions are made hierarchically or when one party tires of the decision-making process.
But, thanks to the Internet, here is one light-hearted example, starring an improbable combination of lasers, Mr. Bigglesworth the cat, and a Chihuahua:
Party A: High school student Draven Rodriguez wanted a memorable photo for the school yearbook. His desired portrait is definitely awesome:
Party B: However, the…
View original 138 more words
Originally posted on orgtheory.net:
This is not a post about Ello. Because Ello is so last Friday. But the rapid rise of and backlash against upstart social media network Ello (if you haven’t been paying attention, see here, here, here) reminded me of something I was wondering a while back.
Lots of people are dissatisfied with Facebook — ad-heavy, curated in a way the user has little control over, privacy-poor. And it looks like Twitter, which really needs bring in more revenue, is taking steps to move in the same direction: algorithmic display of tweets, with the ultimate goal of making users more valuable to advertisers.
The question is, what’s the alternative? There have been a lot of social network flavors of the month, built on a variety of business models. Some of them, like Google Plus, are owned by already-large companies that would be subject to similar business pressures as Facebook and…
View original 242 more words
This call for papers might be of interest to the social study of entrepreneurship, insofar as the relationship between routines and the breaking of routines is a core feature of the Schumpeterian definition of entrepreneurship as innovation, and routines can be thought of as the effects of collective, heterogeneous mechanisms.
Call for Papers: Special Issue on Routine Dynamics: Exploring Sources of Stability and Change in Organizations, Organization Science
- Luciana D’Adderio, University of Edinburgh
- Martha S. Feldman, University of California, Irvine
- Nathalie Lazaric, University of Nice, Sophia Antipolis
- Brian T. Pentland, Michigan State University
Submission Deadline: September 1, 2013
Also, the organisational routines literature has been developing an increasing interest in recent years in the role of artefacts in routines and the performativity of routines. See some relevant snippets below:
Actants and artifacts. What is the role of artifacts (material and immaterial), such as standard operating procedures, classifications, computer systems, and so on in the production and reproduction of routines? What is the role of artifacts as intermediaries and mediators (D’Adderio 2008, 2011) in the performance of routines? And how do they interact with the ostensive and the performative aspects? More generally, how are networks of action related to networks of actants (human and non-human, material and non-material)? How do different configurations—or sociomaterial entanglements—of actors and actants influence and shape routines?
Recombinations and mashups. Some argue that routines evolve through variation, selection and retention, but what is the role of recombination (e.g., recombining chunks of routines to create a new routine) and mashups (e.g., combining in ways not defined by predetermined chunks) in routine dynamics? When are recombination and mashups possible? Is there any evidence that they actually occur? What factors facilitate or limit recombination and/or mashups?
Performation. Routines are becoming increasingly distributed across projects and organizations. How do routines spread over time and space? How do the ostensive aspects and/or the formal or informal descriptions of a practice become instantiated at different points in time and across different locales? How are different spatial or temporal instantiations/enactments of the routine coordinated? What is the role of artifacts in this coordination?
Generativity and novelty. Some routinized processes (e.g., project management routines) are capable of producing significantly different substantive results each time they are performed. For example, an architectural firm may use a recognizable, repetitive process for designing buildings, yet each design is different. Other routines are focused on producing exactly the same result every time. What governs this difference? Are there limits to the generative power of routines? Can routines generate other routines in this manner? What is the role of formal descriptions of routines (such as standards or “best” practices) and templates (actual examples) in guiding and shaping actions in routines? At what point, and in which circumstances, does innovation/adaptation erase the value of the template or model? And what implications should we expect for innovation and adaptation when formal routines and models become embedded into artifacts?