Call for Papers: The socio-economic realities of post-industrial capitalism

We invite articles, research notes, essays and book reviews that discuss how social realities are structured, constructed and experienced under the logic of post-industrial capitalism. We welcome texts from multiple disciplines and genres.

Deadline for manuscript submissions: August 17th, 2020

Send manuscripts at compaso@compaso.eu.

Business models are not culturally neutral; instead, they significantly shape various aspects of economic and social life. In light of the current transformations that are taking place in many industries, we invite contributions on how to understand the intricate connection between economic regimes, social institutions, cultural practices, political ideologies, and moral values.

Papers may address broader questions such as:

  1. How do entrepreneurial discourses contribute to the persistence and legitimation of economic relations? What kind of vocabularies and metrics are used to foster a culture of innovation in research and business?
  2. What are the social, cultural, economic and political consequences of digital capitalism? How are power relations shaped in the context of surveillance capitalism? How does peer-to-peer capitalism redefine property rights, supply and demand chains, opportunity costs, etc.?
  3. What is the relation between politics and economic outcomes in contemporary society? What challenges do governments face in implementing public policies to address the innovation-driven economic growth? How do the current political and social institutions respond to the acceleration of change through disruptive technological advancements?
  4. How are the value creation circles affected by the new corporate relations established in remote working environments? How are the new business models changing the nature of labor and the circuits of capital? What is the social meaning of economic tokens and how do they participate in the distribution of profits?
  5. How does the performativity of economic concepts play a role in the production and reproduction of culture? How could current economic theories explain the formation and the further consolidation of newly emerged markets?
  6. What is the moral order of economic life in post-industrial capitalism? How do the digital economies shape moral subjectivities? In what sense could we discuss about an ethics of digital markets? What are the ethical dilemmas and challenges of doing business in a global society?

We invite long papers (6000-9000 words) or short papers (3000-6000 words), in accordance with Guidelines for authors.

Call for Papers: The Puzzle of Literature Reviews

How do we navigate the increasingly interdisciplinary and multivocal literature on any given topic of interest, when examining reality through the lens of social theory? How do we collect, identify and assemble the body of knowledge produced across both past and present, representing voices that are unequally represented?

We invite literature reviews that highlight a sociological or anthropological perspective in dialogue with other disciplines, or in dialogue with other fields of knowledge-making, such as journalism or collaborative lay expertise.

We also invite authors to reflect, in a Discussion section, on their experience of writing a literature review from a sociological perspective, tackling topics such as:

  • Accessing published literature beyond pay walls, in the era of academic social networks and search engines;
  • Finding one’s disciplinary position and voice among voices in the wide disciplinary spectrum of social sciences, humanities, and natural sciences;
  • Integrating voices from other knowledge fields into a literature review.

_________________________________________________

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 20 December 2018

Send manuscripts at compaso@compaso.eu

_________________________________________________

We invite long papers (6000-9000 words) or short papers (3000-6000 words), in accordance with Guidelines for authors.

Call for Papers: Our data, their data. Personal experiences and social practices of privacy and surveillance

Extended deadline for manuscript submission: June 7th, 2018

We invite research notes, articles, essays and book reviews that explore make visible and intelligible emerging practices of surveillance, their impact on privacy, and the roles of algorithms in social life. We welcome texts from multiple disciplines and genres.

Send manuscripts at compaso@compaso.eu

In light of persistent debates and recent revelations on the life of personal data beyond common intuitions and knowledge, we invite reflections on how to understand new ways of generating, harvesting, protecting and using personal data in the online and physical environments.

Papers may address broader questions such as:

  1. How can we notice and understand the circuits of our personal data?
  2. What have we learned from specific, personal incidents involving our digital traces, and from our experiences of dealing with settings and policies?
  3. What tools and approaches can we use to gain control or, if we so choose, deliberately relinquish control over our data?
  4. What concepts highlight and model emerging practices of surveillance and users’ resistance?
  5. How do digital technologies and online media shape our understanding of privacy? What role do designers play in developing an ethics of privacy or surveillance?
  6. How is privacy socially stratified on various lines of inequality – including gender, age, race and social class?
  7. From China to the US and Europe, how do various governments, corporations and social actors enforce different regimes of surveillance & privacy for their citizens, consumers and users?

We also invite reviews and critical discussions of books dedicated to digital selves, surveillance and privacy, and algorithmic regulation – including, but not limited to the following:

  1. Brunton, F. and Nissenbaum, H., 2015. Obfuscation: A user’s guide for privacy and protest. MIT Press.
  2. Cheney-Lippold, J., 2017. We are data: Algorithms and the making of our digital selves. NYU Press.
  3. Eubanks, V., 2018. Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police and Punish the Poor. St. Martin’s Press.
  4. O’Neil, C., 2017. Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Broadway Books.
  5. Schneier, B., 2015. Data and Goliath: The hidden battles to collect your data and control your world. WW Norton & Company.
  6. Turow, J., 2017. The aisles have eyes: How retailers track your shopping, strip your privacy, and define your power. Yale University Press.

Call for Papers: Aging from beyond the skin

Extended deadline for manuscript submission: October 30, 2017

Send manuscripts at compaso@compaso.eu

For our Winter 2017 issue, we invite research articles and notes that explore how we are being aged from outside the contours of our bodies, through the presence and absence of interaction with others, in materially and technologically organized activities, by living in mediated worlds and incorporating mediated voices into ourselves.

We invite authors to reflect on the significance of media, discourses, material shapes and technologies for the form, intensity and diversity of ageing, addressing questions such as the following:

  • What forms of ageing are portrayed in children stories, films, textbooks, commercials, comics, and the thick environment of images and narratives in which we are immersed [1], [2]?
  • How do people age through gameplay? How are elderly characters included and animated in gameworlds, and how are elderly players imagined through game design [3], [4]?
  • How can one do age through clothing and body work [5]–[7]?
  • How do people learn to age as women and men? What are the old and new forms of the double standard of ageing across different media [8], [9]?
  • How do people age through scientific representations, models and methods? How does social and psychological sciences re-create age categories, influence and strength and how is it re-produced through public communication (Bodily 1994; Rughiniș and Humă 2015; Vincent 2008; Vincent, Tulle, and Bond 2008)?
  • How do new technologies shape old age and ageing – through inequalities of access and use, dis/empowerment in relations with the environment, new communities and self-images [14]–[17]?

 

 

 

References

[1]         D. G. Bazzini, W. D. McIntosh, S. M. Smith, S. Cook, and C. Harris, “The aging woman in popular film: Underrepresented, unattractive, unfriendly, and unintelligent,” Sex Roles, vol. 36, no. 7–8, pp. 531–543, Apr. 1997.

[2]         T. Robinson, M. Callister, and D. Magoffin, “Older Characters in Teen Movies from 1980–2006,” http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03601270802708426, 2009.

[3]         S. M. Iversen, “Play and Productivity: The Constitution of Ageing Adults in Research on Digital Games,” Games Cult., vol. 11, no. 1–2, pp. 7–27, Jan. 2016.

[4]        C. Rughiniș, E. Toma, and R. Rughiniș, “Time to Reminisce and Die: Representing Old Age in Art Games,” in Conference of the Digital Games Research Associagion – DiGRA 2015, 2015, pp. 1–12.

[5]         C. Laz, “Act Your Age,” Sociol. Forum, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 85–113, 1998.

[6]        J. Twigg, “Clothing, age and the body: a critical review,” Ageing Soc., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 285–305, Mar. 2007.

[7]         J. Twigg, “The body, gender, and age: Feminist insights in social gerontology,” J. Aging Stud., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 59–73, 2004.

[8]        S. Sontag, “The Double Standard of Ageing,” The Saturday Review, pp. 29–38, 23-Sep-1972.

[9]        M. M. Lauzen and D. M. Dozier, “Maintaining the Double Standard: Portrayals of Age and Gender in Popular Films,” Sex Roles, vol. 52, no. 7–8, pp. 437–446, Apr. 2005.

[10]       C. Bodily, “Ageism and the deployments of ‘age’. A constructionist view,” in Constructing the Social, T. R. Sarbin and J. I. Kitsuse, Eds. Sage Publications, 1994, pp. 174–194.

[11]        C. Rughiniș and B. Humă, “Who theorizes age? The ‘socio-demographic variables’ device and age–period–cohort analysis in the rhetoric of survey research,” J. Aging Stud., vol. 35, pp. 144–159, Dec. 2015.

[12]       J. A. Vincent, “The cultural construction old age as a biological phenomenon: Science and anti-ageing technologies,” J. Aging Stud., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 331–339, Dec. 2008.

[13]       J. A. Vincent, E. Tulle, and J. Bond, “The anti-ageing enterprise: Science, knowledge, expertise, rhetoric and values,” J. Aging Stud., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 291–294, Dec. 2008.

[14]       R. P. Yu, N. B. Ellison, R. J. McCammon, and K. M. Langa, “Mapping the two levels of digital divide: Internet access and social network site adoption among older adults in the USA,” Information, Commun. Soc., vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 1445–1464, Oct. 2016.

[15]       T. N. Friemel, “The digital divide has grown old: Determinants of a digital divide among seniors,” New Media Soc., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 313–331, Feb. 2016.

[16]       Y.-R. R. Chen and P. J. Schulz, “The Effect of Information Communication Technology Interventions on Reducing Social Isolation in the Elderly: A Systematic Review.,” J. Med. Internet Res., vol. 18, no. 1, p. e18, Jan. 2016.

[17]       S. Yusif, J. Soar, and A. Hafeez-Baig, “Older people, assistive technologies, and the barriers to adoption: A systematic review,” Int. J. Med. Inform., vol. 94, pp. 112–116, 2016.

Call for Papers: Science – Something Old, Something New, Something Blue

Guest Editor: Emanuel Socaciu, University of Bucharest

Extended deadline for manuscript submission: June 15th, 2017

Send manuscripts at compaso@compaso.eu

***

We invite research articles and notes that explore the interplay of science and daily life, the role of new technologies in scientific knowledge, the just-emerging and the strongly-persistent practice of science making and reporting, as well as other topics in the social organization and consequences of scientific knowledge.

Contributions may address questions such as (but not limited to) the following:

  • How is scientific research formulated, invoked and challenged in public debates about vaccination, homeopathy, GMOs, evolution, contraception, abortion, climate change and other deeply controversial issues of health, life and death?
  • How do various scientific methods and discourses shape our public knowledge of gender, age, race and other social classifications – from neurosexism (Fine 2010) to social research ageism (Bodily 1994; Rughiniș and Humă 2015) and new forms of racism in heritability studies or IQ research (Block 1995), among others?
  • How are we to understand and account for the replication crisis in science (Ioannidis 2012; Open Science Collaboration 2015)? How is scientific fraud and fabricated research socially organized and sanctioned (Fanelli 2009)?
  • How is Big Data transforming, challenging, or reproducing practices of scientific research across disciplines? How are representations of the world derived from Big Data re-shaping what we know and don’t know about patterns of behavior, inequalities, what is significant and what is negligible (boyd and Crawford 2012; Lazer et al. 2014)?
  • How are new search and communication platforms changing scientific methods, peer review or science communication – from dedicated platforms such as Google Scholar, Academia.edu and ResearchGate.org to Facebook, Twitter or other digitally-mediated forms of shaping and sharing data and knowledge?

References

Block, Ned. 1995. “How Heritability Misleads about Race.” Cognition 56: 99–128. http://www.lscp.net/persons/ramus/fr/GDP1/papers/block95.pdf.

Bodily, Christopher. 1994. “Ageism and the Deployments of ‘age’. A Constructionist View.” In Constructing the Social, eds. Theodore R. Sarbin and John I. Kitsuse. Sage Publications, 174–94.

boyd, danah, and Kate Crawford. 2012. “Critical Questions for Big Data.” Information, Communication & Society 15(5): 662–79.

Fanelli, Daniele. 2009. “How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data.” PLoS ONE 4(5): e5738.

Fine, Cordelia. 2010. Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference. WW Norton & Company.

Ioannidis, John P. A. 2012. “Why Science Is Not Necessarily Self-Correcting.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(6): 645–54.

Lazer, David, Ryan Kennedy, Gary King, and Alessandro Vespignani. 2014. “The Parable of Google Flu: Traps in Big Data Analysis.” Science 343(6176).

Open Science Collaboration. 2015. “Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science.” Science 349(6251).

Rughiniș, Cosima, and Bogdana Humă. 2015. “Who Theorizes Age? The ‘socio-Demographic Variables’ Device and Age–period–cohort Analysis in the Rhetoric of Survey Research.” Journal of Aging Studies 35: 144–59.