The "projectness" of teams, organizations, sectors and societies should be a core issue in the field of organization studies. Project management researchers have advocated the increased significance of projects using concepts such as project society and projectification, and rightly so. See for example: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/emre.12568. However, this development is not linear or uniform. Surely there are also processes of deprojectification? A few examples:

1. Conventional wisdom in agile software development has changed from agile projects to 'permament' cross-functional product teams, that overcome the rigidities of the project logic. See LinkedIn page.
2. The diffusion of agile approaches outside the software sphere supports the same development. Here, project units and logics may be under pressure.
3. Teams that works well together, may take on a long term character and be used for several projects over time.
4. Projects are also management ideas and "recipes" that may be "overused", and not aligned with tasks and contingencies.
5. The uniqueness of specific projects may be overstated, and more (parts of) projects may be standardized and performed in specialized departments.
6. While the rate of change and uncertainty have accelerated, it does not follow that a project (f.ex. a change project) is the best answer. Continuous change may be a better approach. More change: Yes. More projects: Well, maybe not...? There are (as we know!) no "one-best-way" of organization, and projects have their own pros and cons.

In this session we invite ordinary papers (Norwegian or English) and opinion pieces (10 minutes, Norwegian or English) on the issues of: - Organizational aspects of project management: Tensions and dilemmas - Projectification - Deprojectification - Agile structures, processes, logics and tensions We welcome empirical or theoretical contributions, as well as practitioners’ voices. There are no restrictions as regards sectors of study, methods or perspectives.

References:

Locatelli, G. 2023 A manifesto for project management research, European Management Review, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/emre.12568 Nesheim, T. 2023 Deprojectification of agile, Irish Journal of Management, https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/ijm-2023-0010.

The list of relevant topics includes, but are not limited to:

Organizational aspects of project management: Tensions and dilemmas - Projectification - Deprojectification - Agile structures, processes, logics and tensions

Paper submission required?

Papers are welcome, but not required

Language

English & Scandinavian

Format

Paper session

Publishing

No

Track organizer

Torstein Nesheim. Torstein.Nesheim@snf.no

Organizational theory can often appear dry, formulaic and overall rather lifeless. As academics we tend to approach organizations with our theoretical tools and preconceptions gathering data that can help us aim for the next publication – which will introduce yet another concept or mid-level model into the ever-expanding body of “jargon monoxide” (Kautz & Blegind Jensen, 2012) of organizational theory. This is all well and good, and it is, partly, what drives the field forwards. However, a conference like NEON is also an opportunity to go one step back and discuss both data, stories and experiences from the field as well as the more imaginative and creative aspects of both the research process and of theorizing and writing. As Tourish (2020: 108) puts it, “[p]erhaps it is time to write about management and organizations with less obscure theorizing, with more variety, and with a little more humor, curiosity, and passion”. Theory, in one form or another, is necessary for our research ventures, and this track is not an anti-theory-track. Rather it is intended to provide an opening to come to a conference with not-yet-finished analyses and approach theoretization in a playful and open-ended manner. Like Alvesson and Sandberg (2021) suggests, we want to facilitate creative ways of re-imagining the research process to make organization studies more interesting, worthwhile and less conventional. This track is for you who wants to share and discuss empirical data, experiences and insights in our search for new patterns, processes and anomalies whose essence is not yet crystallized into a robust theoretical argument. We welcome papers and presentations that invite the audience to play with, discuss and analyze emerging empirically founded ideas, be it from quantitative surveys, interview studies or observations etc. We also invite presenters who just want to tell stories from the field, what they have learned, glimpses of insights or experiences that they believe can be interesting for other researchers to learn about. As Swedberg (2016) argues we often pay too much attention to finished theories instead of the, in our view most interesting, processes that precede the final formulation of a theory. References Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2021). Re-imagining the Research Process. Sage. Kautz, K., & Jensen, T. (2012). Sociomateriality-more than jargon monoxide? Questions from the jester to the sovereigns. In Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2012) (pp. 1-12). Tourish, D. (2020). The triumph of nonsense in management studies. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 19(1), 99-109. Swedberg, R. (2016). Before theory comes theorizing or how to make social science more interesting. The British Journal of Sociology, 67: 5-22.

Paper submission required?

Papers are welcome, but not required

Language

English

Format

Paper session

Publishing

No

Track organizers

Petter Almklov, ISS, NTNU; petter.almklov@ntnu.no

Heidrun Åm, ISS, NTNU; heidrun.aam@ntnu.no

Emil Røyrvik, ISS, NTNU; emil.royrvik@ntnu.no

In the last decade, the world community has experienced a global pandemic, devastating wars, increasing numbers of refugees, and the reality of climate change with deadly floods, mudslides, and extreme heat in Europe. Political polarization fueled by fear and social media solidifies the division between groups and contributes to growth in nationalism, discrimination, and xenophobia. In these chaotic, frightening, and uncertain times, values and institutions of cooperation, equality, compassion, and trust are under threat. To mitigate these threats and find solutions, opportunities, and hope in these times, it is imperative to maintain and build inclusive organizations. By inclusive organizations we mean organizations that value diversity, work towards justice and equality, and contribute to the wider society with values of sustainability and compassion. Inclusion is manifest in organizations across levels such as work climate, leadership, and daily work practices of their members (cf Mor Barak, 2014 and Shore e tal., 2018) ), as well as in interactions with or use of technology. Previous research has identified factors within organization that are central to building inclusion such as top leadership beliefs and values, peers, and policies (cf. Li et al., 2022; Mor Barak et al., 2021). Studies have also highlighted crucial platforms for building more equality and inclusion and for preventing discrimination, such as institutional actors pushing for equality and inclusion which greatly influence the strategies available to organizations (Konrau et al., 2022). In Norway, the tradition of worker involvement and democracy, and specific laws for inclusion (cf. Kap.4 §24-26, and arbeidsmiljøloven, § 3-1, Lovdata, n.d) also supports equality and inclusion. Still, progressing diversity and inclusion work cannot be measured as a success or failure, but is rather an ongoing process of trying (Risberg and Corvellec, 2022).

The question in this track is: how within a Nordic/Norwegian context can we maintain and build inclusive organizations? In this track we seek research papers, both conceptual and empirical, that attempt to answer this question. This may involve highlighting barriers and facilitators to inclusivity (cooperation, equality, compassion, and trust) within organizations; identifying organizations that have succeeded with efforts to promote equality and inclusion; or elaborating on how organizations foster openness and build trust with their employees, customers, and other stakeholders. We encourage contributions that draw on novel methods or data.

We welcome papers on the following topics:

• How do HR policies and practices reduce or compound inequalities in organizations?
• How can one organize for more inclusion so that organizations and individuals can ontribute to combatting current trends of polarization and erosion of fundamental values?
• How can organizations organize for equality and inclusion, while the organizational members can continue to be different?
• How do organizations increase their culture of inclusion by having policies and practices for marginalized groups?
• How do ideas of similarity and difference shape the work of building inclusive organizations?
• To what extent are Norwegian companies built on existing institutional structures to maintain and build inclusion?
• How can Nordic organizations maintain and build values of compassion over greed? • How does the increased use of AI affect inclusion and trust in organizations?
• What is the role of digital technology in creating cooperation with diverse employees?
• Is in-group favoritism within organizations increasing in times of uncertainty and crisis? How might this affect building inclusive organizations?
• How to create an inclusive organization both within and beyond the organizational boundaries?
• How can organizations contribute to sustaining and promoting individual rights of all employees?
• What is the role of norms, normal and normalcy in the construction of the other, the deviant, the abnormal and the stranger?
• What are differences in inclusion work across private, public and non-profit organizations?

Paper submission required?

Papers are welcome, but not required

Language

English & Scandinavian

Format

Paper session

Publishing

No

Track organizers

Cathrine Seierstad - Cathrine.Seierstad@usn.no

Laura Traavik Laura - Traavik@kristiania.no

Annette Risberg – Annette.risberg@inn.no

Eric Breit – eric.breit@bi.no

Tone Lindheim - tone.lindheim@vid.no

Rapid technological advancements, in combination with societal developments, means practitioners face new requirements. This includes new skills and tasks, as well as changing intra–and interprofessional roles and relationships within various fields. This has an impact on how future professionals learn their trade both as students and after they have entered the work life. How does the changing landscape of organizations challenge our established ways for learning and maintaining professional know-how?

This track calls for papers that shed light on a variety of methods for competence development. We are particularly interested various forms of simulation-based training are used to prepare and assess professionals from various field. We are open for presentation of papers at different levels of maturity, but the contributions need to actively engage with the introduced topic from a research perspective. If you wish to contribute with a full paper we will appoint a dedicated discussant. The session would be held in English or Norwegian depending on the papers to be presented.

Paper submissions required?

No

Language

English & Scandinavian

Format

Paper session

Publishing

No

Track organizers

Marte Fanneløb Giskeødegård, Institutt for havromsoperasjoner og byggteknikk, NTNU marte.giskeodegard@ntnu.no

Aud M Wahl, Institutt for industriell økonomi og teknologiledelse, NTNU aud.wahl@ntnu.no

The aim of this track is to bring together perspectives from different disciplines and fields to shed light on the role of voluntary work and nonprofit organizations/civic sector organizations in meeting societal challenges. The track is open to both empirical studies with different methodological approaches as well as theoretical work. One of the sessions in this track is going to be a roundtable session where researchers, practitioners and volunteers meet to discuss and reflect together. After short introductions from both research and practice, we explore the track topic together round the tables. The rest of the track sessions are paper presentations. Liberal societies rely on what is called “the civil society”, which essentially refers to the sum of civic sector organisations and the individual volunteers that make them (Enjolras & Eimhjellen, 2018). This track invites participants to explore, discuss and reflect upon what role civic sector organizations (CSOs) and voluntary work may play in our society. This could be explored by a) investigating how CSOs contribute independently, or b) how they in cooperation with public and commercial organizations could cooperate in meeting societal challenges (co-creation). Further, c) leadership in CSOs have gained increased attention and is of relevance for meeting societal challenges. Leadership ideals have previously been imported into the civic sector from business schools, or through consultants and literature based on the for-profit sector (Riggio and Orr, 2004). Going against the established wisdom, Løvaas et al. (2019) analyze how leadership in CSOs can be relevant to managers in public and commercial knowledge organizations, in line with Drucker’s (1989) question of “What Business can learn from Nonprofits” (p. 88). The notion of values and meaningful work plays a crucial role here. Also, the management should be close, through relationships at personal level, rather than exclusively from office level (Sirris, 2023). Lastly, d) voluntary work is of special interest for policy makers since volunteering is expected to deliver desirable outcomes such as welfare services. There is a vital interest in civic engagement (Henriksen, Strømsnes, & Svedberg, 2018) and motives for people to engage in voluntary work (Clary et al., 1998). Volunteering concerns an unpaid effort for the benefit of others, and can be understood as a form of giving (von Essen, 2015). Volunteering as a phenomenon has been studied from several different perspectives. Today’s volunteering is more complex than before and tailoring for individual needs and wishes has by a long way replaced previous uniforms. This is described as a transition from old or collectivist volunteering to a new, reflexive volunteering (Hustinx & Lammertyn, 2003). Therefore, ‘catch me if you can’ as a volunteer, by giving attention to what’s in it for me, seems plausible.

We invite approaches focusing on, but not limited to the following issues related to CSOs (Civic sector organizations):

• Leadership and management
• Cooperation between CSOs and public or private sector (co-creation)
• Innovative processes
• Values and meaningful work
• Interpersonal relationships and emotions
• Voluntary work and volunteering

References:

Clary, E. G., M. Snyder, R. D. Ridge, J. Copeland, A. A. Stukas, J. Haugen, and P. Miene. 1998. "Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: a functional approach." Journal of personality and social psychology 74 (6):1516 - 1530.

Enjolras, B., & Eimhjellen, I. (2018). Nye former for samfunnsengasjement og kollektiv handling. In B. Enjolras & I. Eimhjellen (Eds.), Fra kollektiv til konnektiv handling? Nye former for samfunnsengasjement og kollektiv handling i Norge (pp. 7-30). Cappelen Damm Akademisk.

Drucker, P. (1989). What Business can learn from Nonprofits. Harward Busuness Review, July – August issue.

Henriksen, Lars Skov, Kristin Strømsnes, and Lars Svedberg. 2018. Civic Engagement in Scandinavia: Volunteering, Informal Help and Giving in Denmark, Norway and Sweden, Nonprofit and Civil Society Studies. Cham: Springer International Publishing AG.

Hustinx, L., & Lammertyn, F. (2003). Collective and reflexive styles of volunteering: A sociological modernization perspective. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 14(2), 167-187.

Løvaas, B. J., Sirris, S. og Kaasa, A. (2019). Har ledelse av frivillige noe å tilføre ledere i kunnskapsorganisasjoner? Beta. Scandinavian Journal of Business Research. Nr. 1, s. 22 – 42.

Riggio, Ronald E., and Sarah Smith Orr. 2004. Improving Leaderhip in Nonprofit Organizations. Haboken: John Wiley and Sons.

Sirris, S. (2023). Frivillighet og ledelse av frivillige. Cappelen Damm Akademisk.

von Essen, J. 2015. "Lost and found in secularization. A religious perspective on the meaning of volunteering." In Religion and Volunteering : Complex, contested and ambiguous

Paper submission required?

Papers are welcome, but not required

Language

English & Scandinavian

Format

Paper session

Publishing

No

Track organizers

Beate Jelstad Løvaas (beate.lovaas@vid.no) is professor at VID Specialized University. She holds a PhD in management from NHH Norwegian School of Economics. Her research interests and publications include meaningful work, voluntary work, leadership, innovation, motivation, relations and values in third sector organizations and in the public and private sector.

Ola Edvin Vie (ola.edvin.vie@ntnu.no) is associate professor in Leadership at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Norway. He holds a PhD in Managerial Work from the same university, focusing on the emotional sides of everyday relations between managers and employees. Vie’s research area is within leadership, knowledge management and voluntary work in student organizations.

Human behavior is at the heart of many of the biggest challenges with which we grapple. Within the work domain this includes questions related to the future of work and the adaptation of employees and organizations to the challenges and opportunities that exist. The boundaries between work and home have become blurry due to a shift towards more knowledge work, rapid advancements in technology and, consequently, flexible working arrangements. This has been intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic leading to a shift toward extensive use of remote working arrangements, with little knowledge about their consequences for employees’ work functioning. Moreover, with constant developments in technology and the entry of AI, work life is constantly changing, creating uncertainty and a need for employees to increasingly adapt to their work circumstances proactively. And the list goes on. These profound changes bring various challenges and opportunities for work life, and it is crucial that organizations can adapt to secure and promote employee functioning and well-being both today and in the future of work. In this track, we aim to gather contributions towards a better understanding of employee level processes in relation to how employees and organizations can adapt and lay the basis for a sustainable and health promoting work life.

The list of relevant topics includes, but are not limited to:

• Work motivation
• Recovery from work-related stress
• Remote work
• Job design
• Job and off-job crafting
• Leadership

Paper submission required?

Yes

Language

English

Format Paper session

Publishing

No

Track organizers

Anja H. Olafsen, School of Business, University of South-Eastern Norway. Anja.Olafsen@usn.no

Miika Kujanpää, School of Business, University of South-Eastern Norway

Baptiste P. C. Marescaux, School of Business, University of South-Eastern Norway

Co-creation and associated models of New Public Governance (NPG) have gained significant momentum in recent years. National and local authorities are increasingly adopting these models to involve citizens as active participants in collaboration with public service-organizations. The primary objective of co-creation is to facilitate public innovation, improve the effectiveness of public services, and enhance their quality (Henson, 2019; Osborne, 2018; Sorrentino et al., 2018; Voorberg et al., 2015). Such NPG-models are also assumed to involve a paradigmatic change which requires a revised ‘modus operandi’ of public service production (Ansell & Torfing, 2021, p. 9). Hence, NPG-models may challenge professional identities, autonomy, accountability structures, and power relations within public service organizations (Mik-Meyer, 2017). An emerging research literature emphasize organizational and institutional tensions in public innovation projects adapting co-creation strategies, sometimes interpreted as tensions between institutional logics (Thornton et al. 2012 ). Institutional logics can play an important role in shaping co-creation processes, as different logics may entail different goals, norms and expectations. Thus, tension may arise when new governance ideals of co-creation collide with logics of professional identities; the market; ideals of justice and democracy; and bureaucratic values of public administration and regulation (Heimburg & Ness, 2020; Mik-Meyer, 2017; Røhnebæk, 2021). Hybridity is often employed as a common denominator to describe characteristics of professional practice in relation to the outcomes of this development (Breit, Andreassen et al., 2022; Noordegraaf, 2015). Co-creation is often view either in a one-sided positive and normative manner, as a model of governance that should be implemented to address various problems (Ansell & Torfing 2021), or in a one-sided critical manner, through concepts such as ‘the dark side of co-creation’ or ‘co-destruction’ (Steen et al. 2018).

We are particularly interested in perspectives that critically discuss co-creation, but also seek to develop and constructively engage with the concept, either through empirical or conceptual papers. Topics of interest are:

- Co-creation as model for governance: critique and developments

- To what extent, and how, is (the concept of) co-creation used in organizations?

- Managing co-creation: challenges for managers in public organizations

- Professional identities and co-creation

- Co-creation and power: how do power differentials affect (the possibilities of) co-creation

- Marginalized groups: possibilities and constraints for co-creation

- Organizational fields as enabling and constraining structures for co-creation

- Co-creation and innovation in the public sector

References

Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (2021). Public Governance as Co-creation: A Strategy for Revitalizing the Public Sector and Rejuvenating Democracy. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108765381

Breit, E., Andreassen, T. A., & Fossestøl, K. (2022). Development of hybrid professionalism: Street-level managers' work and the enabling conditions of public reform. Public Management Review, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2095004

Heimburg, D., & Ness, O. (2020). Relational Welfare: A socially just response to co-creating health and well-being for all. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494820970815

Henson, C. R. (2019). Public value co-creation: A pedagogical approach to preparing future public administrators for collaboration. Teaching Public Administration, 37(3), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0144739419851154

Mik-Meyer, N. (2017). The power of citizens and professionals in welfare encounters: The influence of bureaucracy, market and psychology (1st ed.). University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv18b5fh1

Noordegraaf, M. (2015). Hybrid professionalism and beyond: (New) Forms of public professionalism in changing organizational and societal contexts. Journal of Professions and Organization, 2(2), 187-206. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/jov002 Osborne, S. P. (2018). From public service-dominant logic to public service logic: Are public service organizations capable of co-production and value co-creation? Public Management Review, 20(2), 225–231. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1350461

Røhnebæk, M. T. (2021). Competing institutional logics in collaborative innovation: A case study. Nordisk välfärdsforskning | Nordic Welfare Research, 6(02), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2464-4161-2021-02-03 Sorrentino,

M., Sicilia, M., & Howlett, M. (2018). Understanding co-production as a new public governance tool. Policy and Society, 37(3), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1521676

Steen, T., Brandsen, T., & Verschuere, B. (2018). The Dark Side of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Seven Evils. In Co-Production and Co-Creation. Routledge.

Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505

Paper submission required?

Papers are welcome, but not required

Language

English & Scandinavian

Format

Paper session

Publishing

No

Track organizers

Trond Løyning (trond.loyning@usn.no)

Ole Jacob Thomassen (Ole.J.Thomassen@usn.no)

Annett Arntzen (Annett.Arntzen@usn.no)

Karianne Nyheim Stray (Karianne.N.Stray@usn.no)

In the International Energy Agency (IEA) latest annual report, World Energy Outlook 2021, it is estimated that it is necessary to triple the annual investments in renewable energy (RE) facilities immediately to reach the 1.5-degree goal of the Paris Agreement.

Regardless of which renewable energy sources are chosen for this green transition, it will implicate major influences on landscapes (biological, geological, and marine), people, and culture. Landscape concerns, civil rights and justice linked to renewable energy are already leading to controversies in local communities, not least due to market-based, large investor-driven approaches to project management in many areas (2). In some areas, the development of RE-facilities has been brought to a stop, in others local people feel that their concerns are ignored or run over and that their influence on decisions is almost non-existent (3). The question is why some renewable energy projects run smoothly, while others lead to unexpected outcomes due to local resistance (4).

This track will discuss new perspectives on the conditions for the multiple dimensions of concerns including regulatory frameworks, governance, civic rights and just green transition and discuss methods to increase responsible research in transitions studies.

Topics of interest but not limited to:

• New perspectives on democratic energy transitions
• Critical perspectives on energy transitions
• Indigenous perspectives
• International obligations 
• Property and civic rights, institutions
• Responsible research, perspectives and tools

References:

1. IEA. World Energy Outlook 2021. International Energy Agency; 2021.
2. Kirch Kirkegaard, J. et al. (2021) Paradigm shift in Danish wind power: the (un)sustainable transformation of a sector. Journal of environmental policy & planning. [Online] 23 (1), 97–113.
3. Fjellheim, E.M. “You Can Kill Us with Dialogue:” Critical Perspectives on Wind Energy Development in a Nordic-Saami Green Colonial Context. Hum Rights Rev 24, 25–51 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-023-00678-4
4. Borch, K.; Kirkegaard, J.; Nyborg, S. Three Wind Farm Developments, Three Different Planning Difficulties: Cases from Denmark. Energies 2023, 16(12), 4662

Paper submission required?

Papers are welcome, but not required

Language

English

Format

Paper session

Publishing

Depending on the composition and outcome of the track

Track organizers

Kristian Borch, Department of Planning, Aalborg University &  Ruralis, Norway (kristian.borch@ruralis.no)

Hilde Bjørkhaug, Department of Sociology and Political Science, NTNU; Norway (hilde.bjorkhaug@ntnu.no)

Alle norske virksomheter har i dag et lovpålagt ansvar for å jobbe aktivt for å fremme likestilling og inkludering, samt å forebygge diskriminering på grunnlag av kjønn, kjønnsidentitet, kjønnsuttrykk, alder, seksuell orientering, etnisitet, religion, eller funksjonsnedsettelse. I denne tracken vil vi samle både forskere og praktikere som jobber med implementering av likestillings- og inkluderingstiltak i organisasjoner. Vi vil sette søkelyset på forskjellige måter å organisere og lede arbeidet med likestilling og inkludering: Hvordan virker gitte strategier og handlinger i forskjellige, lokale kontekster? Hvilke perspektiver og lærdommer kan vi trekke på tvers av arbeidet rettet mot forskjellige målgrupper? Vi er særlig opptatt av motstand mot likestillings- og mangfoldsarbeid. Hvordan kommer motstand til uttrykk? Hvordan kan mostand håndteres - hvordan kan endring jobbes frem i de situasjonene hvor motstand oppstår?

Sentrale bidrag i organisasjonssosiologien har bidratt med viktige innsikter i hvorfor likestillingsarbeid er utfordrende. For eksempel Joan Ackers konseptualisering av organisasjoner som ulikhetsregimer – som viser hvordan kjønn, rase og klasse virker sammen og reproduserer forskjellige muligheter for folk i en organisasjon, eller Sarah Ahmeds (2012) analyse av problemer i inklusjonsarbeid. Som grunnlag for arbeidet for likestilling og inkludering er det også viktig å utvikle innsikt i hvordan maktdynamikker, praksiser og interaksjonsmønstre kan omskapes for bedre å forstå hvordan endring foregår. Ved å tenke på organisasjoner som dynamiske prosesser - som noe vi gjør - blir det mulig å se arbeidet for å fremme inkludering og motvirke diskriminering på forskjellige grunnlag i sammenheng,

og det blir mulig å forstå mostand som produktivt.

Det er viktig å lære på tvers av arbeidet som pågår på forskjellige arenaer og rettet mot forskjellige grupper. Innsatsen for å øke kvinneandelen i toppstillinger ved norske universiteter har for eksempel foregått gjennom en rekke forskningsrådsfinansierte prosjekter ved utdanningsinstitusjonene de siste ti årene. Samtidig driver Likestillingssentrene kunnskapsbasert utviklingsarbeid for inkludering i samarbeid med nærings- og organisasjonsliv. I arbeidslivsforskningen utvikles

stadig ny kunnskap om inkludering og integrering av minoritetsgrupper.

Vi inviterer til en track hvor vi lærer av og med hverandre gjennom paperpresentasjoner og/eller i rundebordsformat. 

Referanser

Acker, J. (2006). Inequality Regimes: Gender, Class, and Race in Organizations. Gender & Society, 20(4), 441–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243206289499

 Ahmed, S (2012). On being included. Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Duke University Press

Krav til papers

Nei

Språk

Norsk/Skandinavisk

Format

Paper sesjon

Publisering

Nei

Track ansvarlige

Siri Øyslebø Sørensen, professor, Senter for kjønnsforskning, Institutt for tverrfaglige kulturstudier, NTNU og professor II ved GenderAct, Universitetet i Bergen, e-post: siri.sorensen@ntnu.no

Eva Amundsdotter, universitetslektor, Stockholms Universitet og førsteamanuensis II ved GenderAct, Universitetet i Bergen, e-post: eva.amundsdotter@edu.su.se

Svenja Hammer, Institutt for sosialt arbeid, NTNU, e-post: svenja.hammer@ntnu.no

Evolusjonsteori har som forskningsfelt hatt stor betydning også innen sosialvitenskap og humanistiske fag (Stichweh 2007). Et fasinerende trekk ved evolusjon er at den ikke foregår entydig nomologisk, men snarere fylogenetisk – som både kontinuitet og mangfoldiggjøring av strukturer. Evolusjon innbefatter en kombinasjon av variasjon, seleksjon og stabilisering. Innen en slik ramme kan man studere hvordan mangfoldiggjøring og nye kombinasjoner skaper innovasjoner, men samtidig hvordan tap av mangfoldiggjøring kan føre til involusjon, dvs. at ting stivner til. Evolusjonsteori åpner også opp for hva man kaller paradoksale fenomener (March 2017; Braathen 2016), der konservativ treghet og hurtige forandringer kan utvikles på en og samme tid, men som ikke kan settes ut i livet samtidig.

Kompleksitetsteori kan fremstilles like ubeskjedent som evolusjonsteori. Vi våger den påstand at kompleksitet bestemmer vitenskapene i det 21. århundret. Kompleksitetsforskningen er drevet frem av en evolusjonær tankegang (Luhmann, 2013). Biologisk mutasjon kan for eksempel være en viktig faktor for å forstå mangfold ikke bare i biologiske, men også i sosiale systemer. Slik bringer kompleksitetsforskning forskjellige tenkemåter sammen som har opphav i ulike vitenskapelige disipliner – som komplekse atomare, molekylære og cellulære systemer i naturen til komplekse sosiale og økonomiske systemer i samfunnet. Mange av dagens nøkkelproblemer kan knyttes til kompleksitetsproblematikken: Globale klimautfordringer, jordskjelv og tsunamier blir undersøkt i avanserte computermodeller. Nanoteknologien utvikler nye materialer av komplekse molekylære strukturer. Genteknologien analyserer DNA-informasjon som lar komplekse cellulære organismer vokse (Law et al 2002). «Life sciences» beskjeftiger seg med livets kompleksitet, «artificial life» simulerer komplekse selvorganiseringer av liv i egnete computermodeller og «social sciences» er opptatt av beslutninger som kan løse problemer systemisk, og til fellesskapets beste (Bakken & Wiik 2013; Christie 2014).

Organisering i denne konteksten blir å håndtere denne ikke-lineære dynamikken (Simon 1990; Weick 2017). Endringsprosesser må ta hensyn til gjensidig og forsterkende avhengigheter som fører til uønskede, og noen ganger, paradoksale effekter (Braathen 2016). Kompleksitet i omverdenen vil gjenspeiles i organiseringen. Organisasjoner blir beslutningsmaskinerier som vi forventer skal stille de riktige spørsmål (problemer) og angi riktige svar (løsninger). Ikke en gang for alle, men prosessuelt, som midlertidige løsninger som etter hvert krever nye problemformuleringer og problemløsninger, på samme måte som når stabilisering krever ny endring.

Noen mulige problemstillinger knyttet til 2023 konferansens hovedtema «Organisering i skiftende landskap: trusler, utfordringer og nye muligheter?»

Sesjonen ønsker å utforske mer spesifikt problemstillinger knyttet til forskningsfeltet «evolusjon, kompleksitet og organisasjon». Dette kan være problemstillinger med et vidt omfang som spenner fra teoretiske til mer empiriske artikler som presenterer pågående forskning. Det kan være:

• Teoretiske bidrag knyttet til tematikken rundt evolusjon, kompleksitet og organisasjon.
• Empiriske bidrag som presenterer pågående eller avsluttet forskning innen feltet.
• Utvikling av undervisningsprogrammer innen feltet.
• Krisefenomener belyst ut fra et kompleksitets- og system perspektiv. Det gjelder både teoretiske og empiriske bidrag.
• Endringer og nye muligheter innen helsevesenet, så som omsorg, eller mer makro, det vi forbinder med ‘caring society’ (gjerne knyttet til fenomenologiske aspekter som solidaritet, autentisitet etc.).
• Byutvikling – attraktive nabolag sett som komplekse økosystemer.
• Nye transformative verdiskapningsmodeller i kontraktstunge bransjer, som for eksempel byggebransjen, offshore olje og gass m.fl.

Referanser

Bakken, T. & Wiik, E.L (2013) «Some thoughts on the ‘application’ of systems theory», I T. Tzaneva (red.) Nachtflug der Eule: Gedenkbuch zum 15. Todestag von Niklas Luhmann. LIDI EuropEdition. 486-499.

Braathen, P. (2016) “Paradox in organizations seen as social complex systems”, i Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 18 (2), 1-14.

Christie, W. (2014) “Politikk og fag, - på same lag? Helseledelse fra teknokrati til velferdsdannelse, i: Helsetjenestens nye logikk, Akademika.

Law, J. & Mol A. (red.) (2002) Complexities. Social studies of knowledge practices. Duke University Press

Luhmann, N. (2013) “Kompleksitet uten holdepunkt”, I Niklas Luhmann, Sosiologisk teori, Akademika, 237-255.

March, J. (2017) “Reflections on the paradoxes of modernity”, I The Oxford handbook of Organizational Paradox. Oxford University Press.

Simon, H. (1990) The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Stichweh, R. (2007) “Evolutionary theory and the theory of world society”, I Soziale Systeme 13. Jg. 528-542.

Weick K. E. (2017) “Evolving reactions: 60 years with March and Simon’s ‘Organizations’”. Journal of Management Studies, 1-12.

Krav til papers

Sesjonen legger vekt på at det leveres inn enten godt bearbeidede skisser til artikler, eller ferdige artikler eller abstracts, og at vi går i dybden på dem og forsøker å anvise muligheter for videreutvikling.

Språk

Engelsk og Skandinavisk

Format

Papersesjon

Publisering

Nei

Track ansvarlige

Tore Bakken (tore.bakken@bi.no), Handelshøyskolen BI og Høgskolen Innlandet

Petter Braathen, Høgskolen Innlandet og University of Brussels

Werner Christie, Handelshøyskolen BI og NTNU.

Twin transition has become popular as a concept, both among policymakers and academia, and refers to how digitalisation and sustainability are intertwined in industrial transformation and change. Sustainability transitions and digital transformation are separate megatrends with high potential of interaction, although the synergistic effects are highly uncertain. From an organisational or industry point of view, twin transition is often seen as “data problems”, promising large emission reduction through digital solutions. However, it is necessary to further explore and develop the potential of digital solutions for tackling sustainable action and contributing to the UNs SDGs. There are emerging research streams studying the intersection between the digital and sustainability, such as digital sustainability (George, Merrill, & Schillebeeckx, 2021) or research exposing that digitalization can have positive effects at the organisational level, but lead to unintended consequences for individuals or society (Bohnsack et.al., 2022). Hence, a deeper understanding of how organisations can contribute to twin transition is needed. Digitalisation may facilitate transitions to more sustainable business practices and models, including circular economy practices, using digital platforms for reducing, reusing, and recycling of materials and products across actors and industries (Blackburn et al., 2022). But digitalisation may also be a barrier to more radical transformations to sustainability, for instance by prolonging unsustainable business practices or even whole industries, such as the oil and gas industry. Digital industries have significant climate and environment impacts, among other things through producing digital “waste” (Mäkitie et al., 2023). In this track, we wish to reflect on and examine twin transition and positive and negative impacts of digitalisation on sustainability.

We welcome conceptual, empirical and critical contributions, addressing questions, such as:

• How do digital and sustainable transitions interact and what are the implications at the firm level and the system level?
• How is value created and captured for twin transitions, including new market formation?
• What is the impact of digital technologies on sustainable business models and value chains?
• What are potential negative impacts of digitalisation on sustainability transitions?
• How is data used at operational, processual, and strategic levels in organizations for twin transition?
• How do organisations manage simultaneous adoption of new technologies while minimising environmental impact?
• How can organisations balance different needs and interests of stakeholders undergoing twin transitions?
• How can organisations navigate the challenges and opportunities of transitioning both to environmentally friendly practices and more sustainable use of digital technologies?

References

Blackburn, O., Ritala, P., & Keränen, J. (2022). Digital Platforms for the Circular Economy: Exploring Meta-Organizational Orchestration Mechanisms. Organization & Environment

Bohnsack, R., Bidmon, C. M., & Pinkse, J. (Eds.). (2022). Sustainability in the digital age: Intended and unintended consequences of digital technologies for sustainable development (pp. 599-602). Wiley.

George, G., Merrill, R. K., & Schillebeeckx, S. J. (2021). Digital sustainability and entrepreneurship: How digital innovations are helping tackle climate change and sustainable development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(5)

Mäkitie, Tuukka, et al. "Digital innovation's contribution to sustainability transitions." Technology in Society 73 (2023)

Paper submission required?

Papers are welcome, but not required

Language

English

Format

Paper session

Publishing

No

Track organizers

Professor Taran Thune, Universitetet i Oslo, Senter for teknologi, innovasjon og kultur; taranmt@tik.uio.no

Associate Professor Katja Hydle, Universitetet i Oslo, Institutt for informatikk; katjahy@ifi.uio.no

Research scientists Eli Fyhn Ullern, Sintef Digital and PhD student, Department of Industrial Economics, NTNU; eli.fyhn.ullern@sintef.no

Fremtid, representasjon og beredskap: Tverrfaglige undersøkelser om hvordan vi opplever og ser på fremtiden, og konsekvensene for organisasjoner, identitet og kreativitet. Vi lever i en tid der mange opplever fremtiden som mindre håpefull enn tidligere. Vi ser at frykten for tapt fremtid kan være en kilde til panikk og resignasjon, og en trussel mot kreativitet og livskvalitet. Sesjonen inviterer til bidrag fra både organisasjonsfag, design, utdanning, ledelse og kunst om opplevelsen av fremtiden, bort fra modernismens popkulturelle idé om fremtiden som ubegrenset mulighet. Vi legger opp til et vidt spekter av mulige måter å bidra og dele, men bidragene skal holde høy kvalitet innenfor sin disiplin, enten vitenskapelig, humanistisk eller kunstnerisk. Sesjonen ledes av H & J Honerud, som i Regarding the pain of the future utforsker rekalibreringen av selvet, kreativitet og representasjon i en tid preget av følelser av tapt fremtid, både gjennom kunst og akademiske publikasjoner. Etter en tidsepoke med modernitet og individualisme, er ikke lenger ideen om fremtiden bare fylt av muligheter. Kampen for å redde planeten virker ikke håpefull, verken med tanke på klimautviklingen eller sannsynligheten for radikale endringer i verken atferd eller politikk. Populistisk politikk og ikke-demokratiske bevegelser vinner stadig terreng, samfunnsveven viser brister, AI bærer sporen av mulig undergang, og kriger truer. I kjernen av modernistisk popkultur finnes ideen om at fremtiden alltid skal bli bedre enn nå. Selvrealisering og hvem du ønsker å være, har dermed på mange måter vært adskilt fra presset, kreftene og tilfeldighetene til verden rundt. Tapet av den modernistiske fremtiden påvirker dermed på en grunnleggende måte forholdet mellom selvet, tiden og omverden. Det kan også påvirke hvordan vi planlegger for individuell framtid, slik som pensjonssparing, eller hvordan man tenker om risiko og beredskap. Vi inviterer til empiriske undersøkelser og teoretisering over hvordan en endring i opplevelsen av framtid kan påvirke organisasjoner, samhandlingsformer, kreativitet, beredskap og medbestemmelse.

Aktuelle teamer er:

• Betydningen av fremtid i organisasjoner.
• Organisasjoner uten fremtid Individuell tilpasning til nye opplevelser av fremtid
• Representasjon og selvforståelse i tid med frykt for fremtiden ...med mer.



Krav til papers

Papers er ønskelig, men ikke et absolutt krav

Språk

Norsk/Skandinavisk. Engelskspråklige tekstbidrag er velkommen, arbeidsspråk gjennom sesjonen kommer likevel til å være skandinavisk.

Format

Papersesjon

Publisering

Ja. Vi er i dialog med Philosophy of Photography om special issue, der gode bidrag på engelsk som berører representasjon og visualitet vil kunne være aktuelle. Vi kommer også til å se sesjonen i sammenheng med planlagt seminar 19 oktober i samarbeid med Buskerud Kunstsenter der vi ser på mulighet for andre former for publisering av arbeid.

Track ansvarlige

Jon Hovland Honerud, Universitetet i Sørøst-Norge (jho@usn.no)

Hilde Hovland Honerud, Universitetet i Sørøst-Norge (honerud@usn.no)

«Kunnskapen er der, men hvorfor tas den ikke i bruk?» var tittelen på en debatt mellom toppledelsen i NAV og UH-sektoren på Arendalsuka i 2022. Debatten reiste videre problemstillinger som hvorfor det tar så lang tid å omsette forskningsresultater til forbedret praksis, og hvordan kan vi endre offentlig praksis? Fra ulike teoretiske ståsteder kan vi gjenkjenne dette som spørsmål om generalisering, funksjonsdeling, organisasjonslæring, om transfer-problematikk, om utvikling versus utnytting eller gode metoder for samskapning, kunnskapsdeling og nye metoder og måter å drive læring og utvikling på i NAV. Samfunnsoppdraget til NAV utrykkes gjennom den nye virksomhetsstrategien (2023-2030) hvor det blant annet står at «Vi er en lærende organisasjon som skaper mestring». NAV har de senere årene forsterket sin forskningsaktivitet gjennom en rekke initiativer og inngått flere strategiske samarbeidsavtaler med ulike aktører i UH-sektoren. NAVs strategiske dokumenter understreker viktigheten av at funn og resultater fra forskning med og på NAV gjøres tilgjengelige for de som skal bruke dem og at den nye kunnskapen får en påvirkningskraft på en kunnskapsbasert praksisutøvelse, tjenesteutvikling og innovasjon i NAV. Hvordan blir slike strategier i store offentlige organisasjoner omsatt i tjenesteutøvelse? Det gjennomføres mange gode eksperimenter på ulike enheter i NAV, både med og uten forskere til stede. Gjentatt kan det virke som om løsninger møter kulturelle og strukturelle utfordringer når prosjektene avsluttes og ny kunnskap skal anvendes (eksempelvis Kane og Spjelkavik (red.), 2021). Hvorfor er det slik, og hvordan kan man hindre at læring stopper opp og at kunnskap forblir «lokale» hemmeligheter? Hvordan kan man tilrettelegge for systematisk læring, deling og kunnskapsutvikling i NAV? Har vi funnet gode former og metoder for å forske PÅ og MED NAV? Ikke-uttømmende forslag til tematikk kan være rundt spørsmål som ansatte i NAV og UH-sektoren med interesse for satsningsområdet «organisasjon og læring» har stilt seg (7. juni 2023) er: - Hvordan kan ny kunnskap bli mer tilgjengelig? - Hvordan skaper veilederteam tid og rom til læring og utvikling? - Hva slags betydning har balansen mellom faglig autonomi og felles standarder for læring? - Hvilken rolle har ledere i læringsprosessene i NAV? - Hvordan påvirker digitalisering og ny teknologi kunnskap og læringsprosesser? - Hvordan oversettes sentrale politikker og strategier til praktisk utøvelse av tjenester? - Hvilken effekt har videreutdanning og kompetanseutvikling på oppgaveløsning i NAV? - Hva er fylkenes rolle som oversettere mellom kunnskap og praktisk iverksettelse? NAV sine utfordringer er komplekse. Derfor ønsker vi å invitere inn en bredde av perspektiver, forskningstradisjoner og metoder for å kunne får frem kunnskap om hvordan løse dem.

Vi inviterer forskningsarbeider i ulike faser fra planlegging til ferdige publikasjoner, og håper deltakere vil både dele, gi og ta tilbakemeldinger og delta i diskusjonen om hvordan NAV kan generere, spre og anvende ny kunnskap og gode erfaringer for å utvikle tjenestene. Det vil bli lagt opp til både presentasjoner av vitenskapelige bidrag med opponenter, men også rom for diskusjon og problemløsning, basert på innsendte bidrag.

Krav til papers

Papers er ønskelig, men ikke et absolutt krav

Språk

Skandinavisk og engelsk

Format

Paper sesjon

Publisering

Nei

Track ansvarlige

(likeverdige partnere)

Ingjerd Thon Hagaseth, NAV/ Høgskolen i Innlandet, ingjerd.thon.hagaseth@inn.no

Marte Daae-Qvale Holmemo, NTNU, marte.holmemo@ntnu.no

The geopolitical changes and the security and threat situation resulting from the war in Ukraine not only affect the traditional actors in "high politics", such as states, international organisations and alliances. The situation also has ripple effects downwards through all administrative and organisational levels, and down to company level. Norwegian organisations and companies are today considered to be more exposed to both computer attacks and physical sabotage than in many years. There is also extensive intelligence activity on Norwegian soil and in Norwegian waters. An increasing number of actors are affected by “hybrid threats”, and risk governance challenges related to these. Many are also subject to processes of "securitisation", as when Norwegian petroleum companies became subject to the Security Act in 2022, and thus had to deal with other types of security issues than they have traditionally done. This development was a direct function of hybrid threats against companies operating strategic petroleum infrastructure. The distinction between state security and social security, and between politics and business, has thus become more blurred.

This session focuses on how the security and threat situation in Norway and Europe affects and challenges organisations. The focus is on "security" rather than "safety". The session is particularly open to contributions that shed light on how organisations, administrations and businesses adapt to and handle the new security situation, for instance in the shape of new routines, new policy, intra-organisational work on security culture, and inter-organisational cooperation. The session is interdisciplinary, and we welcome participants from a broad range of disciplines.

Topics of interest but not limited to: 

• Organisational adaptation to new security policy regulation (e.g., The Security Act).
• How companies operating strategic infrastructures tackle hybrid threats.
• How organisations work on security culture.
• Inter-sectoral and inter-organisational cooperation to tackle security related risks.
• Multilevel analysis (e.g., international, state, company) into security risk governance.
• Private companies as security policy actors.
• Geopolitical tension and the strategy of weaponization of strategic infrastructures and commodities.
• Security risk regulation.
• Risk and security in a historical perspective.
• Political governance of risk and security.

Paper submission required?

Papers are welcome, but full papers are not required.

Language

English & Scandinavian

Format

Paper session

Publishing

We may aim for a special issue in a relevant journal if we have a sufficiently coherent set of papers in the session. In order for us to make a decision on this, participants need to submit an actual paper or at minimum an extensive abstract.

Track organisers

 Susanne Therese Hansen – susanne.hansen@samforsk.no

 Ole Andreas Hegland Engen – ole.a.engen@uis.no

Economic growth – driven partly by increasing needs and expectations for products and services and largely unquestioned as a principle of governance – places increasing strain on the environment. The post-growth movement challenges this dynamic through approaches such as degrowth, sufficiency, diverse and community economies, strong sustainability, and others.

Broadly speaking critiques of growth in this movement include questioning what is really needed to live well, together with calls for radical shifts in economic life such as measures for redistribution and curtailing of wealth accumulation, and critical questioning of the notion that the economy can be decoupled from global

environmental effects (Hickel and Kallis 2019). Efforts to make a difference include recognizing and mapping diverse economic and anticapitalistic practices to

support intentional degrowing of consumptive practices (Gibson-Graham 2013), seeking alternatives for decreased consumption and increased sharing in and by the global North (Pedersen 2022), and acknowledging the growth imperative’s pervasiveness across, institutional, socio-cultural, and geopolitical domains, to reimagine social and economic relations (Banerjee et al. 2021).

Critiques of growth and capitalism are not new, but signs points to increased interest and receptivity in policy and beyond. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen recently stated that "we are leaving the fossil-fuel growth model behind us." The 2023 Holberg prize was awarded to Joan Martinez-Alier, in part for his contributions to degrowth. Several new centres, projects, and networks also focus on de- and post-growth.

Against this backdrop, we ask when, and how, critiques of growth are useful, constructive, and impactful, seeking to explore the many forms of and preconditions for “making a difference”, through critique.

We invite contributions that build on, challenge and/or question ideas of growth, its critiques, and alternatives. This includes criticism of capitalistic practices and the growth imperative paired with constructive highlighting of diverse and community economies. We welcome contributions from across genres, including artistic, practice-based, dialogical and otherwise experimental or other contributions.

Topics include but are not limited to:

• Research/activism
• Consumption
• Digital infrastructure and (de)materialization 
• Education initiatives and approaches
• Institution-building and post-growth  
• Diverse economies
• Efficiency/sufficiency

References

Banerjee, Subhabrata Bobby, John M. Jermier, Ana Maria Peredo, Robert Perey, and André Reichel. "Theoretical perspectives on

organizations and organizing in a post-growth era." Organization 28, no. 3 (2021): 337-357.

Gibson-Graham, Julie Katherine, Jenny Cameron, and Stephen Healy. Take back the economy: An ethical guide for transforming our communities. U of

Minnesota Press, (2013).

Hickel, Jason, and Giorgos Kallis. "Is green growth possible?." New political economy 25, no. 4 (2020):

469-486.

Pedersen, Jørgen. "Motvekst: –en introduksjon." Nytt norsk tidsskrift 4 (2022): 305-316.

Paper submission required?  

Papers are welcome, but not required

Language 

English & Scandinavian  

Format 

Paper session

Publishing 

Yes, options for joint communication and/or initiation of a special issue will be explored with contributors.

Track organizers 

Mads Dahl Gjefsen, NTNU Samfunnsforskning (Studio Apertura), mads.gjefsen@samforsk.no

Grand challenges and matters of turbulence, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, natural disasters, wars, and corresponding large-scale migrations (e.g. 2015 refugee crisis) are increasingly recurrent issues that test the resilience and robustness of both public governance systems and society. The complexity and variety of society’s challenges appears to have grown immensely in the past decades, as has the complexity of modern society as such. This increase in complexities has been paralleled by an unsolicited increase in both the number of organizations around the globe and the different forms that organization can take. In the past years, scholars in sociology, public administration, and management studies, have come up with a broad variety of new terms defining particular forms of organization. These include hybrid organizations, network organizations, organizations without actorhood, meta-organizations, temporary organizations, and partial organization. These forms of organization often have in common that they represent or entail interorganizational relations, where existing organizations create new organizations and/or collaborative structures. However, these forms of existing organizations diverge in layers of formalization, specialization, purpose, temporality, and structure. Moreover, concepts such as co-creation and social innovation are buzzwords that aim to describe new forms of participation in political processes with the aim to involve new societal groups in local, central or international level of governance – but also to respond to changing landscapes of society. In this panel we seek to unravel the nexus of new forms of organization and its impact on society in times of uncertainty. The panel features a broad understanding of organization and society. We invite both conceptual papers that discuss the relationship between new forms of organization and empirical contributions (both interpretive, case- and variable-based approaches) that explore real-world cases at different governance or societal settings.

Topics of interest are;

• new forms of organization unconventional forms of organization
• new theories of organization
• interorganizational relations
• networks
• hybrid organization
• network governance
• governance networks
• meta-organization
• partial organization

Selected References

Ahrne, G., & Brunsson, N. (2008). Meta-organizations. Edward Elgar.

Ahrne, G. & N. Brunsson (2019) Organization Outside Organizations: The Abundance of Partial Organization in Social Life. Cambridge University Press.

Ansell, C. & J. Trondal (2018) Governing turbulence: An organizational-institutional agenda. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance. 1(1), p. 43–57. Bakker, R. M., DeFillippi, R. J., Schwab, A. & J. Sydow (2016) Temporary organizing: Promises, processes, problems. Organization Studies. 37(12), p. 1703-1719. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616655982

Barley, S. R. (2016). 60th Anniversary Essay: Ruminations on How We Became a Mystery House and How We Might Get Out. ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY, 61(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839215624886

Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building Sustainable Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Commercial Microfinance Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.57318391

Berkowitz, H., Brunsson, N., Grothe-Hammer, M., Sundberg, M. & B. Valiorgue (2022) Meta-Organizations: A Clarification and a Way Forward. M@n@gement, 25(2), p. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.37725/mgmt.v25.8728

Bres, L., Raufflet, E., & Boghossian, J. (2018). Pluralism in Organizations: Learning from Unconventional Forms of Organizations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), 364–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12136

Bromley, P., & Meyer, J. W. (2015). Hyper-organization: Global organizational expansion. Oxford University Press.

Brunsson, N., Gustafsson Nordin, I., & Tamm Hallström, K. (2022). ‘Un-responsible’ Organization: How More Organization Produces Less Responsibility. Organization Theory, 3(4), 26317877221131584. https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221131582

Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. (2015). Tackling Grand Challenges Pragmatically: Robust Action Revisited. ORGANIZATION STUDIES, 36(3), 363–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614563742

George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., & Tihanyi, L. (2016). Understanding and Tackling Societal Grand Challenges through Management Research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 1880–1895. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.4007

Grothe-Hammer, M. (2019). Organization without actorhood: Exploring a neglected phenomenon. European Management Journal, 37(3), 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2018.07.009

Grothe-Hammer, M., Berkowitz, H., & Berthod, O. (2022). Decisional Organization Theory: Towards an Integrated Framework of Organization. In M. Godwyn (Ed.), Research Handbook on the Sociology of Organizations (pp. 30–53). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839103261.00011

Gümüsay, A. A., Marti, E., Trittin-Ulbrich, H., & Wickert, C. (2022). How Organizing Matters for Societal Grand Challenges. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 79, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20220000079002

Klijn, E-H. & J. Koppenjan (2016) Governance Networks in the Public Sector. Routledge. Luhmann, N. (2012). Theory of society: Volume 1. Stanford University Press. Luhmann, N. (2013). Theory of Society: Volume 2. Stanford University Press.

McMullen, J. S. & B. J. Warnick (2015) Should We Require Every New Venture to Be a Hybrid Organization? Journal of Management Studies, 53(4), p. 630-662. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12150

Paper submission required?

Papers are welcome, but not required

Language

English 

Format

Paper session

Publishing

Yes. We will consider organizing a publication, depending on the interest.

Track organizers

Charlie F. Thompson Organization and Society Research Group Department of Sociology and Political Science Norwegian University of Science and Technology charlie.f.thompson@ntnu.no

Michael Grothe-Hammer Organization and Society Research Group Department of Sociology and Political Science Norwegian University of Science and Technology michael.grothe-hammer@ntnu.no

Ledelse i Norge er mangfoldig. Riktignok har vi den såkalte norske arbeidslivmodellen som ligger til grunn for mye av det som skjer i norsk arbeidsliv, men mangfoldet i organisasjons- og ledelsespraksis går langt utenfor denne modellen. Prosjektet Norsk Ledelse 2025 tar sikte på å samle mest mulig av tilgjengelig kunnskap om hva som er de sentrale linjene i norsk ledelse i dag, sett på bakgrunn av utviklingen de siste 50 – 100 år. Mer informasjon om prosjektet Norsk Ledelse 2025 kan fås ved henvendelse til trackansvarlige. 

Tracket ønsker papers innenfor følgende temaer: 

Vi ønsker papers som kan ta for seg ledelse slik det praktiseres, beskrives og analyseres i Norge i dag. Kunnskapstilfanget kan komme fra forskningen, konsulentbransjen og empiriske studier i offentlig og privat virksomhet. Mye av den ledelse som utøves antas å bære preg av de lange linjene i norsk arbeidslivskultur, men det antas at det er sterke påvirkninger fra internasjonal forskning og internasjonale konsulentvirksomheter. Vi er interessert i papers som både analyserer spesifikk påvirkning fra norsk kultur, men også spesifikk påvirkning fra andre kulturer. Det er naturlig å forvente papers som tar for seg de nye generasjoner og den eksponensielle teknologiutviklingen, herunder kunstig intelligens og konsekvenser for ledelse. Det er også naturlig å se ledelse i et nytt lys, med bakgrunn i bærekraftsutfordringene, og den uro og uforutsigbarhet som preger omgivelsene. 

Krav til papers 

Papers er ønskelig, men ikke et absolutt krav 

Språk 

Skandinavisk og engelsk 

Format 

Paper sesjon 

Publisering 

Ja. Prosjektet Norsk ledelse 2025 planlegger å publisere temaartikler, men også en samling artikler i form av bok/temahefte er relevant. 

Track ansvarlige 

Roald Nomme, tidl BI - rnomme@online.no  

Anne Swanberg, BI - anne.swanberg@bi.no  

Cecilie Asting, BI - cecilie.asting@bi.no 

We are living in turbulent times. Rising inequalities, geopolitical instabilities, fake news, pandemics and nature disasters, and the failures of economic systems to take care of the wellbeing of people and planet represent societal crisis urging for joint action across the whole of society (Heimburg et al., 2022; Prilleltensky et al., 2023; Scognamiglio et al., 2023). Current economic and political systems and the Nordic welfare regime are challenged, much because of an aging population, a steepening of social gradients in population health and wellbeing, and system failures to attending to relational values, such as trust and legitimacy for the common good (Bartels & Turnbull, 2020; Heimburg & Ness, 2021; Hänninen et al., 2019). While securing sustainable societal development needs to attend to the universal value of ‘leaving no one behind’, social inequalities continue to rise, and those in the lower end of the social gradient experiencing are experiencing less trust than others (UCL Institute of Health Equity & Wellfare, 2023). Left behind groups are also underrepresented in democratic processes, with lesser perceived ability to influence politics, and lower expectations of being treated fairly and with respect (UCL Institute of Health Equity & Wellfare, 2023; Voerman-Tam et al., 2023). In turn, this affects levels of trust in government and institutions, and might accelerating anti-social responses, public health problems and a weakening of democratic governance (Prilleltensky, 2020; Wilkinson & Pickett, 2018). Leadership and joint action across the whole of society (e.g. public sector, politics, businesses, and NGO’s) is needed to healing social fractures and restoring trust between people, organizations, institutions, and countries, and to the future (Douglas et al., 2021; Loeffler & Bovaird, 2020). The Nordic countries are high-trust societies. The challenges to tackle and buffer the complexities of societal problems such as those described above has been a key driver for accelerating even more trust-based practices and co-creation across actors and sectors in the whole of society, placing citizens, professionals, leaders, and organizations in new roles (Ansell & Torfing, 2021; Bentzen et al., 2020; Bringselius, 2021; Røiseland & Lo, 2019). At the same time, variants of trust reforms are currently being implemented in the Nordic countries (Bentzen & Bringselius, 2023). Although these trust reforms are played out differently across country contexts, common questions to be addressed are: Who are to be trusted? By whom and with what consequences? How are trust reforms enfolding and what are the mechanisms and impacts of trust reforms and trust-based management? What dilemmas and dark sides needs to be addressed with the introduction of (more) trust as a governing principle?

We invite abstracts and papers addressing issues such as:

• Social fractures, erosion of trust and connections to inequity in Nordic welfare states
• Democratic paradoxes, trust, and disengagement: are some groups ‘hard to reach’ or ‘easy to ignore’?
• Young people’s loss of trust in the future and the role of education and the media
• Public value leadership and rediscovering public purpose: the role of trust, kindness, empathy, and well-being
• Public conversations and the need for deepening democracy and co-creation across the whole-of-society
• Trust-based and co-creational public governance and inclusive democratic innovations
• The role of research and education, and the role of (social) media and public broadcasting
• Shifting towards a wellbeing economy
• How can democratic inclusion and participatory parity be achieved?
• How to empower the voices and agency of left behind groups and how can linking social capital be strengthened?
• What are the drivers, barriers, and consequences of a trust-based approach for administrative and political leadership?
• What are the connections between structural and relational coordination, psychological safety, and trust?
• How to build intergenerational trust and reciprocal support?
• Nordic trust reforms: How can governments build trust through reforms?
• What kind of leadership skills are needed to promote trust in organizations and in societies?
• What can be learned from examples of promising approaches to restoring trust between people, institutions, and government?

References

Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (2021). Public Governance as Co-creation: A Strategy for Revitalizing the Public Sector and Rejuvenating Democracy. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/DOI:

Bartels, K., & Turnbull, N. (2020). Relational public administration: a synthesis and heuristic classification of relational approaches. Public Management Review, 22(9), 1324-1346. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1632921

Bentzen, T. Ø., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2020). Strengthening public service production, administrative problem solving, and political leadership through co-creation of innovative public value outcomes? The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 25(1), 1-28.

Bentzen, T. Ø., and L. Bringselius. 2023. “Translating ‘Trust’ Robustly in Public Sector Reforms: A Comparative Study of the Danish and Swedish Trust Reform.” International Public Management Journal. Bringselius, L. (2021). Tillitsbaserat ledarskap: från pinnräknande till samskapande. Komlitt Förlag AB.

Douglas, S., Schillemans, T., ‘t Hart, P., Ansell, C., Bøgh Andersen, L., Flinders, M., Head, B., Moynihan, D., Nabatchi, T., O’Flynn, J., Peters, B. G., Raadschelders, J., Sancino, A., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2021). Rising to Ostrom’s challenge: an invitation to walk on the bright side of public governance and public service. Policy Design and Practice, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1972517

Heimburg, D. v., & Ness, O. (2021). Relational welfare: a socially just response to co-creating health and wellbeing for all. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 49(6), 639-652. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494820970815

Heimburg, D. V., Prilleltensky, I., Ness, O., & Ytterhus, B. (2022). From public health to public good: Toward universal wellbeing. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 50(7), 1062-1070. https://doi.org/10.1177/14034948221124670

Hänninen, S., Lehtelä, K.-M., & Saikkonen, P. (2019). The Relational Nordic Welfare State: Between Utopia and Ideology. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Loeffler, E., & Bovaird, T. (2020). The Palgrave handbook of co-production of public services and outcomes. Springer.

Prilleltensky, I. (2020). Mattering at the Intersection of Psychology, Philosophy, and Politics. American Journal of Community Psychology, 65(1-2), 16-34. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12368

Prilleltensky, I., Scarpa, M. P., Ness, O., & Di Martino, S. (2023). Mattering, wellness, and fairness: Psychosocial goods for the common good. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 93, 198-210. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000668

Røiseland, A., & Lo, C. (2019). Samskaping – nyttig begrep for norske forskere og praktikere? Norsk statsvitenskapelig tidsskrift, 35(1), 51-58. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1504-2936-2019-01-03

E Scognamiglio, F., Sancino, A., Caló, F., Jacklin-Jarvis, C., & Rees, J. (2023). The public sector and co-creation in turbulent times: A systematic literature review on robust governance in the COVID-19 emergency. Public Administration, 101(1), 53-70. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12875 UCL Institute of Health Equity, & Wellfare, N. (2023). Rapid review of inequalities in health and wellbeing in Norway since 2014 (3/2023). U. C. London. https://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/resources-reports/rapid-review-of-inequalities-in-health-and-wellbeing-in-norway-since-2014

Voerman-Tam, D., Grimes, A., & Watson, N. (2023). The economics of free speech: Subjective wellbeing and empowerment of marginalized citizens. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 212, 260-274. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2023.05.047

Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2018). The Inner Level: How More Equal Societies Reduce Stress, Restore Sanity and Improve Everyone’s Well-being. Penguin Books Limited. https://books.google.no/books?id=iBNCDwAAQBAJ

Paper submission required?

Papers are welcome, but not required

Language

English & Scandinavian

Format

Paper session

Publishing

Yes. Submission of papers are desired but not required. Full papers relevant for governance and public administration might be eligible for inclusion in a planned special issue on trust, trust reforms and trust-based management in the Nordic countries in Nordisk Administrativt Tidsskrift (NAT). See call for papers in forthcoming issue, NAT 2023-1.

Track organizers

Track organizers consist of researchers representing networks and research groups who are currently working on projects connected to ongoing trust-reforms in Nordic contexts:

• Dina von Heimburg (NTNU, WellFare), heimburg@ntnu.no

• Ottar Ness (NTNU, WellFare), ottar.ness@ntnu.no

• Helene Berntsen Svensson (NTNU, WellFare), helene.b.svensson@ntnu.no

• Christian Lo (Nord universitet), christian.lo@nord.no

• Åge Johnsen (OsloMet), aage.johnsen@oslomet.no

• Tina Øllgaard Bentzen (Roskilde University), tinaob@ruc.dk

• Louise Bringselius (Lund University and Stockholm School of Economics), louise.bringselius@fek.lu.se

Økonomistyring finner vi i alle organisasjoner i offentlig sektor både på kommunalt og statlig nivå. Organisasjonene utarbeider handlings- og økonomi planer inkludert budsjett og følger opp planene med rapporter om hvordan det har gått i form av resultatrapporter og regnskap som behandles i administrasjonen og av politikerne. Økonomistyring i offentlig sektor er et nyere forskningsområde som har vokst frem etter Lapsley’s artikkel i 1988 hvor han dokumenterte manglende forskning på økonomistyring på organisasjonsnivå i offentlig sektor. Fremveksten av «New Public Management» (NPM) på 1990-tallet som både var basert på og førte til endringer i økonomistyring i offentlig sektor var starten på denne forskningen (Grossi et al 2023). I denne sesjonen ser vi på hvordan økonomistyringen blir påvirket av og påvirker endringer internt i offentlige organisasjoner som kommuner og statlige virksomheter og i omgivelsene til disse organisasjonene. Nedenfor er eksempler på aktuelle tema innenfor offentlig økonomistyring. Denne listen er ikke uttømmende.

Bidrag til sesjonen kan rette søkelyset mot disse forslagene eller andre aspekter ved økonomistyring i offentlig sektor.

• Hvordan endrer FNs bærekraftsmål offentlig økonomistyring?
• Offentlig økonomistyring og tillitsreformen
• Endringer i offentlig økonomistyring under pandemien – bedre forberedt på nye kriser?
• Har vi nøkkeltallene vi trenger i offentlig økonomistyring?
• Er økonomistyringsprosessene i kommune og stat hensiktsmessige gitt endringer i omgivelsene?
• Bidrar revisjon til bedre offentlig økonomistyring?
• Kompetansekrav og tilbud knyttet til offentlig økonomistyring
• Er digital rapportering av offentlig økonomistyring løsningen på å få innbyggerne engasjert?
• Kan offentlig økonomistyring være proaktiv gitt raske og fundamentale endringer i omgivelsene?
• Hvilken organisering av offentlig økonomistyring i stat og kommune finner vi?
• Klima- og miljørapportering og offentlig økonomistyring
• Innovasjon i offentlig sektor og rollen til økonomistyring

Vi ønsker at sesjonen skal være et møtested for akademikere med ulik faglig bakgrunn og praktikere som er interessert i en dialog om utfordringer i økonomistyring i offentlig sektor. Vi inviterer derfor forskere til å sende inn artikler både under arbeid og mer ferdigstilte og praktikere i offentlig sektor og andre til å holde innlegg og event bidra med artikler om økonomistyring i offentlig sektor. Vi er åpne for ulike faglige tilnærminger og perspektiver og bruk av ulike metoder og data. Det er også mulig å delta i sesjonen for faglig interesserte praktikere uten artikkel eller innlegg.

Referanser

Grossi, G., Steccolini, I., Adhikari, P., Brown, J., Christensen, M., Cordery, C., Ferry, L., Lassou, P., McDonald III, B., Raudla, R., Sicilia, M. and Vinnari, E. (2023), "The future of public sector accounting research. A polyphonic debate", Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1-37

Lapsley, I. (1988). Research in public sector accounting: an appraisal. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 1(1), 21-33.

Krav til papers

Papers er ønskelig, men ikke et absolutt krav

Språk

Skandinavisk og engelsk

Format

Paper sesjon

Publisering

Ja. Vi legger opp til at sesjonen kan være et første skritt på veien til et temanummer i et fagtidsskrift som både reflekterer forskning og praksis.

Track ansvarlig

Marie Viken, førstelektor, Handelshøyskolen OsloMet (marie.viken@oslomet.no)

Today more organizations than ever before are operating in a VUCA landscape. VUCA is an acronym for Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, and Ambiguity. There has been academic research that explores leadership and organizing for VUCA, particularly looking into lean and supply chain challenges (e.g., Ahmed et al., 2022; Bawany, 2018; Kuusisto, 2022; Packowski, 2013; Saleh & Watson, 2017). The concept of a VUCA world highlights the need to be innovative, adaptable, agile, and responsive to navigate effectively the challenges and opportunities presented by the rapidly changing and complex environment.

However, times have changed too. According to Cascio, (2020) BANI, which stands for Brittle, Anxious, Nonlinear, and Incomprehensible, refers to “…an age of chaos, an era that intensely, almost violently, rejects structure. It isn’t simple instability,….conditions aren’t simply unstable, they’re chaotic. In which outcomes aren’t simply hard to foresee, they’re completely unpredictable. …where what happens isn’t simply ambiguous, it’s incomprehensible.” Cascio’s BANI framework fits perfectly to the 7-fold crisis we walked into. The final months of the COVID-19 pandemic overlapped with the war in Ukraine. The already disturbed global supply chains are again threatened by the war and its domino effects (see Daniel, 2022).

A most striking term in Cascio’s BANI framework is brittleness. Digitalization has disrupted many industries during the last two decades pushing some fragile businesses to bankruptcy. The emergence of platform economies and uberization tendencies are significantly changing organisations, their business models, and human resource practices. These changes threaten employees’ sense of security and sustainability of organizations (Docherty et al., 2002; Kagermann, 2014; Lee et al., 2018; Schor et al., 2020). For example, gig work is considered one form of casual work that violates central principles of the Norwegian working model (Eldring & Ørjasæter, 2018). The permanent restructuring, new technologies creating new learning needs, information overload, cognitive overload, time-based competition, work surveillance technologies create an organizational climate of pressure, insecurity, and stress in workers. Stress undermines creativity and innovation capabilities of organizations (Amabile, 1996).

In addition, we see new digital threats increasingly making organizations even more vulnerable. Because of the hyper-interconnectedness of people, organisations, and supply chains through technology (e.g. internet of things), organizational complexity has exponentially increased and industries – both manufacturing and service industries, are restructuring themselves. Digital transformation has changed healthcare sector profoundly and adoption of secure digital practices that serve to protect and increase the resilience of the sector is needed (Garcia-Perez et al., 2023).

Therefore, in this conference track, we would like show-case high quality research that emphasizes the importance of organizational resilience, agility, ambidexterity, systems thinking, innovation ecosystems, surveillance technologies, cyber security, and the ability to learn and innovate in the face of VUCA as well as highlighting how leadership addresses the need for flexibility, slack, empathy, transparency, diversity needed in BANI times. We would appreciate if submissions, even if broadly, generated debates and reflections on how organisations and leaders can respond to Cascio’s (2020) assertion above.

We are inviting scholars and practitioners to explore together ways of organizing and leadership skills for successful navigation in a VUCA landscape during BANI times.

Topics of interest are:

According to Cascio (2020) brittleness could be met by resilience and slack; anxiety can be eased by empathy and mindfulness; nonlinearity would need context and flexibility; incomprehensibility asks for transparency and intuition. Hence, we are asking questions below that we hope to explore together:

1. How can we achieve organizational agility and resilience to survive and thrive in turbulent times? Are Lean, Ambidexterity, Ecosystems, Exponential organizations answers to challenges from VUCA & BANI?
2. What kind of leadership skills are needed in turbulent times? Is “Future-ready leadership” an answer to challenges from VUCA & BANI? How can we develop future-ready leaders?
3. How can we ensure a human-centered and ethical development of sustainable and secure health care services? The role of digital transformation, seamless collaboration, information security and ethics in responding to challenges from VUCA & BANI in the healthcare sector.
4. How can we ensure an internal environment that foster creativity and innovation? What are the roles of psychological capital and psychological safety in responding to challenges from VUCA & BANI?
5. What are the specific strengths of female leadership for surviving and thriving in the VUCA landscape in BANI times?
6. How can we ensure a transparency culture that support internal stability and corporate reputation in the VUCA landscape in BANI times?
7. How can systems thinking help organizations’ innovation capacity and navigate successfully in VUCA landscape in BANI times? "Innovating the Innovation System thinking"
8. How can we ensure that performance measurement systems and practices fuel empowerment and not end up being control and coercion instruments when navigating in the VUCA & BANI world?

Paper submission required?

Papers are welcome, but not required

Language

English & Scandinavian

Format

Paper session

Publishing

Yes. The track proposal represents a comprehensive research agenda. Given that there are sufficient number of papers, we wish to proceed with a book proposal. Also, we have a broad network in the publishing community to guide and advise on journals to publish to presenters.

Track organizers

Solveig Beyza Evenstad, Department of Industrial Economics and Technology Management in, Gjøvik (IØT-G), solveig.b.evenstad@ntnu.no

Gry Cecilie Lunder Høiland, Department of Industrial Economics and Technology Management in, Gjøvik (IØT-G), gry.c.l.hoiland@ntnu.no

Godfrey Mugurusi, Department of Industrial Economics and Technology Management in, Gjøvik (IØT-G), godfrey.mugurusi@ntnu.no

Organizations have been found to be both the main cause and the main solution for social inequities (Acker, 2006; Amis et al., 2020; Luhmann, 2013; Powell & Brandtner, 2016; Tomaskovic-Devey & Avent-Holt, 2019). That organizations produce inequalities, can be seen as one of their main functions for modern society: schools produce graduates with differing bodies of knowledge and grades, employers pay different employees differently, political organizations nominate certain people in elections for political positions but not others, sports associations conduct competitions and produce rankings of winners and losers, mass media organizations report on the fate of some people but not others, and so on. Organizations produce these inequalities by regulating inclusion and exclusion into themselves, into other organizations, and into relevant communications. Inclusion into and exclusion from organizations thereby often means inclusion into and exclusion from modern society and its different areas (Schirmer & Michailakis, 2015). For instance, without inclusion into a sports association, no inclusion into (competitive) sports; without inclusion into a university, no scientific career; and without labor paid by organizations, no income. And even if one is self-employed or otherwise financially “independent”, one still needs inclusion into markets or platforms – access to which is usually, again, regulated through organizations (Ahrne et al., 2015; Kirchner & Schüßler, 2019; Rachlitz, 2023). This is why some have argued that “exclusion” is the default setting of organizations (Luhmann, 2013).  

Obviously, this produces social problems. While organizations are indeed supposed to produce inequalities, they regularly produce and reproduce also the undesirable inequalities, and, hence, inequity (Luhmann, 2022). Organizations function as racist, sexist, ageist, and ableist. (Acker, 2006; Chiu et al., 2001; Jammaers et al., 2016; Ray, 2019), and many individuals and groups end up being excluded from organizations or through them. Correspondingly, approaches of counter-organizing have gained increasing popularity, especially in feminist organizational studies (Calás & Smircich, 2014; Wickström et al., 2021). This is also where a secondary line of organizations comes into play, i.e., organizations of social help or social services and interest organizations. A myriad of organizations exist that have as their main purpose to tend to the excluded (Schirmer & Michailakis, 2015). They include those who have been excluded, in order to reinclude them into society or at least to include them in alternative social formats. 

Therefore, tackling inequities in society usually means dealing somehow with organizations, i.e., on the one hand those organizations that regulate inclusion and exclusion of individuals like employers, schools, universities, hospitals, insurers, juridical courts, law enforcement, art galleries, news media, banks, sharing platforms, political parties, churches, sports associations, and many more, and on the other hand organizations of social help or service that “manage” those who end up being excluded (Schirmer & Michailakis, 2015). 

In this thematic track, we want to further investigate how organizations exclude and include, how they manage exclusion and inclusion, how they produce inequalities, and how these processes effect inequities. We thereby also welcome discussions of how to counteract undesirable forms of exclusion and inequalities. Contributions can be conceptual, empirical, or methodological in nature. We welcome submissions from all social sciences including but not limited to sociology, social work, organization and management studies, disability studies, cultural studies, educational science, and gender studies.  

References 

Acker, J. (2006). Inequality Regimes: Gender, Class, and Race in Organizations. Gender & Society, 20(4), 441–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243206289499 

Ahrne, G., Aspers, P., & Brunsson, N. (2015). The Organization of Markets. Organization Studies, 36(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614544557 

Amis, J. M., Mair, J., & Munir, K. A. (2020). The Organizational Reproduction of Inequality. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 195–230. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0033 

Calás, M. B., & Smircich, L. (2014). Engendering the Organizational. In P. Adler, P. Du Gay, G. Morgan, & M. Reed (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Sociology, Social Theory, and Organization Studies (pp. 605–659). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199671083.013.0026 

Chiu, W., Chan, A., Snape, E., & Redman, T. (2001). Age stereotypes and discriminatory attitudes towards older workers: An East-West comparison. HUMAN RELATIONS, 54(5), 629–661. 

Jammaers, E., Zanoni, P., & Hardonk, S. (2016). Constructing positive identities in ableist workplaces: Disabled employees’ discursive practices engaging with the discourse of lower productivity. HUMAN RELATIONS, 69(6), 1365–1386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715612901 

Kirchner, S., & Schüßler, E. (2019). The Organization of Digital Marketplaces: Unmasking the Role of Internet Platforms in the Sharing Economy. In G. Ahrne & N. Brunsson (Eds.), Organization outside Organizations (1st ed., pp. 131–154). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108604994.006 

Luhmann, N. (2013). Theory of Society: Volume 2. Stanford University Press. 

Luhmann, N. (2022). On the Concept of Social Class. In C. Morgner (Ed.), The Making of Meaning: From the Individual to Social Order: Selections from Niklas Luhmann’s Works on Semantics and Social Structure (p. 0). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190945992.003.0004 

Powell, W. W., & Brandtner, C. (2016). Organizations as Sites and Drivers of Social Action. In S. Abrutyn (Ed.), Handbook of Contemporary Sociological Theory (pp. 269–291). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32250-6_14 

Rachlitz, K. (2023). Platform Organising and Platform Organisations. PuntOorg International Journal, 8(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.19245/25.05.pij.8.1.2 

Ray, V. (2019). A Theory of Racialized Organizations. American Sociological Review, 84(1), 26–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418822335 

Schirmer, W., & Michailakis, D. (2015). The Luhmannian approach to exclusion/inclusion and its relevance to Social Work. Journal of Social Work, 15(1), 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017313504607 

Tomaskovic-Devey, D., & Avent-Holt, D. (2019). Relational Inequalities: An Organizational Approach (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190624422.001.0001 

Wickström, A., Lund, R. W. B., Meriläinen, S., Øyslebø Sørensen, S., Vachhani, S. J., & Pullen, A. (2021). Feminist solidarity: Practices, politics, and possibilities. Gender, Work & Organization, 28(3), 857–863. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12689 

Paper submission required?  

No 

Language 

English & Scandinavian  

Format 

Paper session 

Publishing 

No 

Track organizers 

Svenja Hammer, Disability and Society Research Group, Department of Social Work, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (svenja.hammer@ntnu.no)

Michael Grothe-Hammer, Organization and Society Research Group, Department of Sociology and Political Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (michael.grothe-hammer@ntnu.no)

Håkon Leiulfsrud, Welfare and Inequality Research Group, Department of Sociology and Political Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (hakon.leiulfsrud@ntnu.no)

Siri Øyslebø Sørensen, Center for Gender Research, Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (siri.sorensen@ntnu.no)

Organizations today are facing not only increased levels of uncertainty, but multifaceted and radical uncertainty (Kay & King, 2020). The causes of this radical uncertainty are not only pandemics and war, but global supply chain uncertainty, changing regulation, shifting consumer preferences, pressures towards increased sustainability both from downstream users and buyers as well as from regulators, rapid technological developments, including AI, competitors continuously launching new solutions. Industry boundaries are also getting blurred in this process. Companies are coping with transient advantages (McGrath, 2013) and disruption (Christensen & Raynor, 2003). This track seeks research that addresses how organizations can not only cope, but thrive, in environments characterized by radical uncertainty. How can companies rapidly learn from failures and turn them into success (Morais-Storz, Nguyen & Sætre, 2020)? How can companies increase the pace of innovation and create new advantages? How can companies augment their absorptive capacity (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990) and detect weak signals earlier (Day & Schoemaker, 2004)? Papers should be sufficiently developed such that all the key components of what constitutes a research paper are included. Namely, Introduction, problem statement, literature review, analysis/discussion, and some preliminary conclusion. Papers should be between 15 and 30 pages (double spaced). Papers should follow the APA style manual. Papers can be either conceptual or empirical. Presentations should be 10 minutes. Ensuing discussions will be up to 20 minutes. Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2003). The innovator's solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152. Day, G. S., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (2004). Peripheral Vision: Sensing and Acting on Weak Signals. Long Range Planning, 37(2), 117-121. Kay, J. A., & King, M. A. (2020). Radical uncertainty: Decision-making for an unknowable future. London, UK: Bridge Street Press. McGrath, R. G. (2013). The end of competitive advantage: how to keep your strategy moving as fast as your business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press. Morais-Storz, M., Nguyen, N., & Sætre, A. S. (2020). Post-failure success: Sensemaking in problem representation reformulation. Journal of product innovation management, 37(6), 483-505.

This track invites innovation research that addresses topics such as:

• Organizational Resilience
• Creating New Solutions
• Business Model Innovation
• New ways of Organizing
• Sensemaking
• Problem Formulation
• Learning from failure

Paper submission required?

Yes

Language

English

Format

Paper session

Publishing

No



Track organizers

Alf Steinar Sætre, NTNU, alf.steinar@ntnu.no

Marta Morais-Storz, NTNU, marta.morais-storz@ntnu.no

Standard textbooks in the field of organization and management tells us more or less the same overall message: that all the wonders of modern societies, with its progress, growth and prosperity is due to the capacities of organizing, managing and coordinating social forms on ever more complex scales – largely enabled through business organizations and state bureaucracies. This has enabled humanity to come together in unprecedented ways and have the created extraordinary results and achievements of the modern world. From the scientific and industrial revolutions, the managerial capacities to organize complexity has produced for example globalized mass production, logistics and trade, modern democratic governance, and professional health care systems, culminating in magical stuff like the internet and AI, real-time financial markets, and biotechnological medicine like the covid-19 vaccine. A foundational premise of this story is arguably based on ideas that people must be organized by formalized, hierarchical institutions and a management system that coordinates them if the modern world should work. This story is not completely untrue, although the successes of the modern world is due to much more than formalized organization and management. A major problem with this story is of course that in escaping from “traditional” societies, the modern world and its ways of organizing have given way to new forms of domination and exploitation of people and nature that, according to some commentators, now is reaching a level of crises that sooner rather than later might drive humanity and a huge part of nature of the apocalyptic cliff. Levels of inequality are staggering, suffering, and forced migration due to war, poverty, and famine rampant, and climate change and the nature crisis looms to destroy the future of our children. There seems thus to be an urgent need to organize the economy, our societies, and the world in very different ways. Subsequently, in organization and management studies/theory there is also a need for developing theories and perspectives that advances our understanding of organization on the premise of small scale, bottom-up interactions. This track invites submissions that address these needs. With perspectives from various strands of critical theory, process theory, pragmatist perspectives, and Marxist or anarchist orientations, to name a few possibilities, we invite both critical and constructive papers on the topic of “organizing otherwise”.

We welcome papers that discuss and deconstruct the seemingly inevitability and naturalness of the current dominant forms of organization and management, as well as papers that explore alternative ways of organizing. The latter includes, but are not limited to, topics, fields and issues such as: Self-organization, co-ops, various types and forms of commons organizing. Organizing from below, direct action movements, open source software, voluntary organizing, grassroots networks, local community and communal forms of organizing, mutual aid networks. The sharing economy, feminist and eco-inspired organizing, degrowth movements and initiatives. Citizen panels and participatory democratic organizing (e.g. participatory budgeting, etc), sortition for public and political positions. Challenging the underlying premises, values and concepts of modern, dominant forms of organization and management, such as notions of hierarchy, control, growth, efficiency, profit, “value creation”, etc.

Paper submission required?

Papers are welcome, but not required

Language

English & Scandinavian

Format

Paper session

Publishing

Yes. The plan is to develop the papers into an edited collection.

Track organizers

Prof. Emil A. Røyrvik, Department of Sociology and Political Science, NTNU. emil.royrvik@ntnu.no

Prof. Lars Klemsdal, Department of Sociology and Human Geography, UiO. lars.klemsdal@sosgeo.uio.no

Forskningsgruppen innen offentlig politikk og administrasjon (https://www.ntnu.no/iss/opa) ved Institutt for sosiologi og statsvitenskap (NTNU) inviterer til panelet «Politisk organisering og forvaltning av politikk i møte med nye styringsutfordringer» ved NEON-konferansen i Trondheim, 2023. Panelet søker bidrag som (1) studerer politiske vedtaksprosesser i møte med nye trusler, (2) styring og implementering av politikk som byr på nye utfordringer for det politiske-administrative styringsverket eller (3) hvordan nye oppskrifter for organisering og samarbeid gjør seg gjeldende på et statlig eller lokalt styringsnivå. Panelet er særlig interessert i bidrag som studerer hvordan globale og overnasjonale prosesser påvirker nasjonale forhold, hvordan sentralforvaltningen bygger styringskapasitet i møte med kriser, men også hvordan dette slår seg ut lokalt gjennom variasjon i velferds- og tjenestetilbud. Dette kan være bidrag som søker å analysere generelle trekk på tvers av forvaltningen eller spesifikke trekk av en sektor. Bidrag som tar utgangspunkt i et organisasjonsteoretisk eller institusjonelt perspektiv på politikk og offentlige organisasjoner er særlig ønsket, men også alternative forklaringsmodeller som utfordrer tradisjonelle perspektiver innen norsk statsvitenskap. Panelet tar en bred tilnærming til ønsket bidrag, der både empiriske og konseptuelle, kvantitative som kvalitative er velkomne. Aksepterte bidrag forventes å sende inn et utkast syv dager før konferansen. Formatet for sesjonen er 10 minutter presentasjon, fem minutter opponering og 15 minutter diskusjon. Panelet vil være på norsk.  

Spørsmål dette tracket er interessert i, men ikke begrenset av, er:  

• Hvilken betydning har politisk organisering for politiske beslutninger i møte med kriser?  
• Hvordan fører nye oppskrifter til variasjon i organiseringsmodeller for velferdstjenester på et lokalt nivå, og har dette noe å si på tjenestekvaliteten?  
• Hvilke flernivåspenninger kan oppstå (f.eks. mellom EU organ og statlig forvaltning) som følge av endrede forutsetninger for styring? 

Krav til papers 

Papers er ønskelig, men ikke et absolutt krav 

Språk 

Norsk/Skandinavisk 

Format 

Paper sesjon 

Publisering 

Nei 

Track ansvarlige 

Charlie F. Thompson, NTNU, charlie.f.thompson@ntnu.no  

Pål Erling Martinussen, NTNU, pal.e.martinussen@ntnu.no  

Barbara Zyzak, NTNU, barbara.k.zyzak@ntnu.no 

Jostein Vik, NTNU, jostein.vik@ntnu.no 

Denne sesjonen ønsker velkommen bidrag som tematiserer og diskuterer «samforskning» på ulike måter. Med samforskning så henviser vi her til de ulike forskningsdesign og -metoder som innebærer at forskere utvikler kunnskap sammen med andre aktører, særlig aktører som på ulike måter berøres av forskningen og forskningens resultater. Folkeforskning, citizens science, samproduksjon av forskning, aksjonsforskning og samarbeidsforskning er eksempler på betegnelser som ofte blir brukt (Inayatullah 2006, Askheim, Lid et al. 2019, Støkken 2019, Vohland, Land-Zandstra et al. 2021, Richter 2022). Samforskning i ulike varianter har fått økt aktualitet i en tid hvor forskning og praksis arbeider tettere for å finne løsninger på sammensatte samfunnsutfordringer. Stadig flere forskningsprosjekter legger opp til en slik tilnærming. Det betyr også at kunnskapen om samforskningens muligheter og begrensninger øker, og det har konsekvenser for vår forståelse av epistemologi, forskningsdesign, metoder, roller og resultater av forskning. Det er lange tradisjoner og røtter for samforskning (Frideres 1992, Greenhalgh, Jackson et al. 2016), men som i dag suppleres med mange spennende og nye tilnærminger hvor forskning møter praksis for å finne frem til ny viten – sammen. Dette gjør seg gjeldende både gjennom kvalitative og kvantitative tilnærminger. Selv om forskning sammen med andre aktører ikke er noe nytt, har vi forskere et ansvar for å reflektere over egen praksis og dette blir enda viktigere i en situasjon hvor de institusjonelle rammene for forskningen endrer seg (Schön 1987).

Vi inviterer derfor i denne sesjonen til refleksjon og diskusjon om samforskningens konsekvenser for «samforskningens» implikasjoner og konsekvenser for kunnskapsproduksjon. Denne sesjonen tar initiativ til en slik diskusjon og ønsker papers som både presenterer empiriske studier hvor slike metoder er anvendt, så vel som metodiske papers som diskuterer for eksempel etiske, praktiske og vitenkapsteoretiske aspekter ved samforskningsmetoder.

Litteratur

Askheim, O. P., I. M. Lid and S. Østensjø (2019). Samproduksjon i forskning, Scandinavian University Press (Universitetsforlaget).

Frideres, J. (1992). "Participatory Research: An Illusionary Perspective IN Frideres, J.(Ed) A World of Communities: Participatory Research Perspectives." Ontario: Captus Press Search in.

Greenhalgh, T., C. Jackson, S. Shaw and T. Janamian (2016). "Achieving research impact through co‐creation in community‐based health services: literature review and case study." The Milbank Quarterly 94(2): 392-429.

Inayatullah, S. (2006). "Anticipatory action learning: Theory and practice." Futures 38(6): 656-666.

Richter, L. M. L. (2022). En studie om hvordan folkeforskning kan brukes i lokal vannforvaltning, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås.

Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions, Jossey-Bass.

Støkken, A. (2019). Fra oppdrag til samarbeidsforskning. Tjenesteutvikling ved ulike former for samarbeid. A. Støkken. Bergen, Fagbokforlaget.

Vohland, K., A. Land-Zandstra, L. Ceccaroni, R. Lemmens, J. Perelló, M. Ponti, R. Samson and K. Wagenknecht (2021). The science of citizen science, Springer Nature.

Krav til papers

Papers er ønskelig, men ikke et absolutt krav

Språk

Norsk/Skandinavisk

Format

Paper sesjon

Publisering

Nei

Track ansvarlige

INNOFF ved/ Ann Karin Tennås Holmen, Universitetet i Stavanger, annkarin.holmen@uis.no

Jill Loga, Høyskolen på Vestlandet, jill.loga@hvl.no

Sustainable health care services through task shifting, technology and knowledge transfer. The present attention paid to the healthcare sector leaves no doubt that the sector faces vast and serious challenges. The reasons are well known, and the challenges have long been forecast. Suggested measures to relieve the situation involve full-time culture and skill-mix innovations, including task re-allocation (task shifting and task sharing), task supplementation and shared care (Maier et al 2022), increased use of technology, and service innovation. Access to and the quality of healthcare services are closely linked to the density and skill-mix of the health workforce (OECD (2016), World Health Organization (2006), World Health Organization (2016). The goal of task shifting is to make the health organization more efficient. On the other hand, the need for interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary cooperation and co-creation of services steadily increases due to the complexity of diseases, the service, and the use of technology/digitalization. Digitalization of the sector proceeds very slowly, and OECD claimed that the sector is a decade or two behind other sectors. OECD (Health in the 21st Century 2019). This inertia has several causes that are useful to investigate, these are often seen as connected to the nature of the sector, the presence of the patient, and the complexity of the field. Knowledge transfer, such as sharing best practices, research findings, and guidelines, is also vital for sustainable healthcare. Collaboration among healthcare professionals, institutions, and countries facilitates the dissemination of knowledge, fostering continuous improvement and innovation. Many European countries are changing the primary care workforce to meet the health and social care needs of an ageing population. Traditional practice replaced by new primary care practice models based on collaborative, multi-professional teams, health centers or larger multi-professional practices rather than smaller primary care practices. The practice and responsibilities of different professions often vary between practices and settings, even within the same country (Maier et al 2022). Therefore, the roles and tasks undertaken by health professionals have expanded in scope and complexity, and a broader skill-mix in primary care has allowed clinical and non-clinical tasks to be delegated from physicians to other professions. Task shifting involves the redistribution of healthcare tasks among various healthcare providers to maximize efficiency and effectiveness. This approach is particularly valuable in resource-constrained settings with shortages of specialized healthcare professionals. By training and empowering other healthcare workers, such as nurses, midwives, and community health workers, to take on tasks traditionally performed by doctors, the burden on the healthcare system can be alleviated. This allows for improved access to healthcare services and better utilization of available resources, making the system more sustainable in terms of equity, quality, and efficiency. 

We invite contributions that address task shifting and knowledge transfer between and within (suggested and not limited to):

• technology and humans 
• urban vs remote areas (equal access to care) 
• care levels (primary care/family doctors and hospitals) 
• publicly funded healthcare and private sector 

We also welcome conceptual contributions that question and reflect on the concepts in this emerging area, such as the concept of task-shifting itself, continuity in service, fragmented service, and knowledge transfer from the health care field as well as from other sectors.

References:

Maier CB, Kroezen M, Busse R, Wismar M, editors. Skill-mix Innovation, Effectiveness and Implementation: Improving Primary and Chronic Care [Internet]. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press; 2022 OECD (2016).

Health Workforce Policies in OECD Countries: Right Jobs, Right Skills, Right Places. OECD Health Policy Studies. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

World Health Organization (2006). The world health report 2006: working together for health. Geneva, World Health Organization World Health Organization (2016).

Global strategy on human resources for health: Workforce 2030. Geneva, World Health Organization 

Paper submissions required?

Yes

Language

Norwegian & Scandinavian

Format

Paper session

Publishing

No

Track organizers

Etty R. Nilsen, professor, Senter for helse og teknologi, Universitetet i Sørøst-Norge (etty.nilsen@usn.no) (hovedkontaktperson)

Vibeke Sundling, professor, Senter for helse og teknologi, Universitetet i Sørøst-Norge (vibeke.sundling@usn.no)

Lena Heyn, professor, Senter for helse og teknologi, Universitetet i Sørøst-Norge (lena.heyn@usn.no)

Monika Gullslett, professor, Nasjonalt senter for e-helseforskning (Monika.Knudsen.Gullslett@ehealthresearch.no)

Espen Brembo, 1. amanuensis, Senter for helse og teknologi, Universitetet i Sørøst-Norge (espen.andreas.brembo@usn.no)

Vibeke Narverud Nyborg, 1. amanuensis, Senter for helse og teknologi, Universitetet i Sørøst-Norge (vibeke.narverud.nyborg@usn.no)

Janne Dugstad, 1.amanuensis, Senter for helse og teknologi, Universitetet i Sørøst-Norge (janne.dugstad@usn.no)

Gjennom pandemien ble vi kjent med «den nye normalen», og tradisjonelt har vi vært vant til at statssikkerhet og samfunnssikkerhet utgjør adskilte områder innen beredskapsfeltet. De to siste kommisjonsrapportene (NOU 2023:14 og NOU 2023:17) har imidlertid bekreftet en utvikling som har pågått en tid: Disse to områdene har nå langt på vei smeltet sammen. For eksempel: Klimaendringene omtales ofte som en trusselforsterker som bidrar til politisk og sosial ustabilitet i mange regioner, som igjen kan bidra til massemigrasjon som kan få følger også i Norge. (NOU 2023:17 s. 15). Dette tracket tar for seg fenomener innen beredskap, krisehåndtering, samfunns- og statssikkerhet som skaper utfordringer gjennom å være grenseoverskridende på mange måter: geografisk, tematisk, og i tid (langvarige kriser som veksler i intensitet). Ett spørsmål, av flere, vi stiller oss: Hvordan kan offentlige myndigheter, nød- og beredskapsetater, frivillige organisasjoner og privat næringsliv bli bedre til å jobbe sammen når krisen inntreffer? Det være seg innen planlegging, utdanning, trening/øving, og samarbeid for øvrig. Det vil være relevant å se på ledelse og organisering, kommunikasjon, teamarbeid, beslutningstaking, situasjonsbevissthet, med mer. Eksempler på vidtrekkende utfordringer vi kan ta opp i tracket: Klimaendringene er en av trendene som i størst grad truer samfunnssikkerheten og setter liv og helse i fare. Vi må øke takten når det gjelder forebygging gjennom klimatilpasning. Det er behov for å bygge beredskap som kan håndtere de globale konsekvensene og omfattende ekstremværhendelser og mer alvorlige naturfarer i Norge. (NOU 2023:17, s. 31) Sammensatte (hybride) trusler: Den forverrede sikkerhetspolitiske situasjonen gjør at Norges sikkerhet blir utfordret på nye måter. Koordinert bruk av alle statens virkemidler, inkludert de militære, for å oppnå strategiske målsettinger i konkurranse, konfrontasjon og konflikt faller inn under definisjonen av sammensatte trusler. (ibid., s. 117) Teknologiutviklingen er en av de viktigste endringsdriverne i samfunnet. Betydningen som teknologiutviklingen har for samfunnet har en tosidighet ved seg, ved at utviklingen både skaper nye muligheter, men samtidig nye utfordringer. En grunnleggende utfordring er tempoet, som skaper usikkerhet og uforutsigbarhet. (ibid., s. 366) Vi ønsker bidrag av alle typer: korte og lange papers (konseptuelle og empiriske), også «work in progress», og rene power point for muntlig presentasjon. Relevante problemstillinger kan være spesifikke innen for eksempel risiko- og sårbarhetsanalyse, beredskapsplanlegging, trening og øving, men også generelle innen statsvitenskap, psykologi, organisasjon og ledelse, teknologi, historie, filosofi, sosiologi, helsevitenskap med mer. (Sitater er hentet fra NOU (2013:17): "Nå er det alvor. Rustet for en usikker fremtid". Lastet ned fra www.regjeringen.no)

Tracket ønsker papers innenfor følgende temaer:

Risiko- og sårbarhetsanalyse, beredskapsplanlegging, trening og øving, men også generelle bidrag innen statsvitenskap, psykologi, organisasjon og ledelse, teknologi, historie, filosofi, sosiologi, helsevitenskap med mer.

Krav til papers

Papers er ønskelig, men ikke et absolutt krav

Språk

Alle ovenfor

Format

Paper sesjon

Publisering

Ja. Vi ønsker å se på muligheten for utgivelse av antologi på norsk eller internasjonalt forlag etter konferansen.

Track ansvarlige

Bjørn T. Bakken, HINN, bjorn.bakken@inn.no

Mass Soldal Lund, HINN, mass.lund@inn.no

Gunhild Sætren, NORD/HINN, gunhild.b.satren@nord.no

Marianne Riddervold, HINN, marianne.ridervold@inn.no

Ole Boe, USN/PHS/HINN, ole.boe@usn.no

Universitetscampus: forholdet mellom fysiske og digitale rammer og en bærekraftig, inkluderende, organisatorisk utvikling/University campus: the links between physical and digital frameworks and sustainable, inclusive, organisational development Mange institusjoner i UH-sektoren gjennomfører for tiden ulike byggeprosjekt som blant annet innebærer å forholde seg til statens arealnorm, og forventninger til digitalisering og nye bærekraftige løsninger. Prosjektene er i tillegg ofte store og kompliserte, og utsettes for endrede betingelser knyttet til både til politiske prioriteringer, økonomiske forhold og andre endringer det er vanskelig å planlegge for. Nye fysiske og digitale løsninger for arbeidsplasser, undervisningsareal og samarbeidsformer fører imidlertid også til organisatoriske endringer. I hvor stor grad er de som bestiller, utvikler og bygger campusene bevisst de organisatoriske endringene, og i hvor stor grad kan vi bygge på tilgjengelig, forskningsbasert kunnskap når det gjelder ulike løsninger? For at en campus skal fungere som ønsket er det stor enighet om at ulike grupper av brukere bør være involvert i prosessen. Hvem bør være med i medvirkningsprosesser, hvordan skal medvirkningen foregå og i hvor stor grad skal de også ha innflytelse på hvilke løsninger som velges? Økonomi setter ulike typer av rammer for prosjektene (inkludert «built-to-cost»), men hvordan regner man på kostnader av «feil» beslutninger for organisasjons kjernevirksomhet? Dersom den nybygde campusen ikke tilrettelegger for aktiviteten som skal drives i organisasjonen, hvem har ansvar og hvem må ta konsekvensene? Forskere, undervisere og praktikere som er interessert i campusutvikling, arbeidsplasser, undervisningsareal, prosjektutvikling og tilhørende organisatorisk utvikling inviteres til denne sesjonen for kunnskap- og erfaringsutveksling på tvers av fagfelt, perspektiver og campuser. 

Tracket ønsker papers innenfor følgende temaer: 

Bærekraftig campusutvikling, akademiske arbeidsplasser, undervisningsareal, medvirkning, digitalisering, prosjektutvikling, økonomiske perspektiv, "built-to-cost". 

Krav til papers 

Papers er ønskelig, men ikke et absolutt krav 

Språk Skandinavisk og engelsk 

Format Paper sesjon 

Publisering  

Ja. Vi ønsker å samle alle egnede bidrag i en open access publikasjon. I tillegg har forskningsprogrammet Fremtidens campus flere plattformer (hjemmeside, SoME-kanaler) som vil brukes til formidling. 

Track ansvarlige  

Berit Therese Nilsen, NTNU Samfunnsforskning, berit.nilsen@samforsk.no 

Sofia Moratti, Institutt for tverrfaglige kulturstudier, NTNU, sofia.moratti@ntnu.no 

Ingunn Dahler Hybertsen, Fakultet for samfunns- og utdanningsvitenskap, ingunn.hybertsen@ntnu.no

Partssamarbeid og bedriftsdemokratiske prinsipper har en lang og sterk historie i organisering av norsk arbeidsliv. Kunnskapsintensivering, digitalisering og fleksibilisering åpner for nye former for organisering av arbeid, hvor både ledelse, oppgavefordeling, endringsprosesser og medvirkning må utformes på nye måter. Autonomi og selvledelse omtales stadig oftere både som ønsker fra de ansatte og som produksjonsbetingelser for effektiv drift, samtidig som medeierskap og nye styringsmodeller prøves ut i stadig større omfang. Disse tendensene fordrer stor omstillingsevne i norsk arbeidsliv, og kan utfordre bedriftsdemokratiske prinsipper for medvirkning i endringsprosesser og arbeidsmiljølovens krav til organisering og deltakelse i arbeidet.

I denne sesjonen ønsker vi å drøfte hvordan forskning skal nærme seg dette skiftende landskapet av arbeidsorganisering. Norsk arbeidslivsforskning har sterke tradisjoner for praksisnær forskning, og både intervensjons- og aksjonsforskning har praksisfeltets medvirkning som definerende strategi. Strategien innebærer både utfordringer og muligheter for medvirkning i utforming av norsk arbeidsliv. Hvordan vil denne strategien tilpasse seg et skiftende arbeidsorganisatorisk landskap? Hvordan kan forskning bidra til å engasjere praksisfeltet til deltakelse i kontinuerlige og hyppige omstillingsprosesser, og hva blir forskerens rolle?

Krav til papers

Deltakelse på sesjonen forutsetter innsending av paper. Ved innsending av paper, vil det også forventes at du kommenterer ett/to andre paper. Sesjonen vil bli organisert med dedikerte kommentatorer og oppsummerende diskusjoner. Det vil i tillegg være mulig å delta uten innsendt paper, men da med kortere muntlige presentasjoner og tid avsatt til disse. Dvs. at papers er ønskelig, men ikke et absolutt krav.

Språk

Skandinavisk og engelsk

Format

Paper sesjon

Publisering

Ja. Sikter mot å inngå avtale om et special issue i et fagfellevurdert tidsskrift.

Track ansvarlige

Anne Iversen, NTNU, Institutt for Psykologi (anne.iversen@ntnu.no)

Kristin Lebesby, SINTEF Digital, Teknologiledelse (kristin.lebesby@sintef.no)

"AI is taking our jobs!" "Algorithms will run our companies in the future!" "Prepare to be managed by a robot!" Media headlines about the implications of AI have intensified during the first half of 2023. The Covid pandemic is behind us, with the immediate and acute actions that were required for securing continuation of functioning workplaces and of society now transforming into a ‘new normal’: new work practices and new approaches towards work emerge in the wake of the pandemic. In postpandemic organizing, with these new work practices and new approaches, other alarms related to work and to working life are raised and fill our media channels. The media headlines tell us that jobs disappear and that digital technologies take over. But in the construction and implementation of technological developments, new jobs emerge – jobs that again demand new approaches to work and working life. As policy makers, politicians, industry leaders, and media compete in providing the most utopian version of our future, workers are faced with a new reality already today. The time when life-long employment next to the same (human) coworkers was common is long gone, and we thus ask what will the future of work and working life look like, and what are the implications for organizations and organizing practices. Ultimately we may ask: what, how and for who is work – now and in the future? On this background, also the idea of work and working life can be questioned. When digitalization and AI is taking over work that was previously done by humans, humans are faced with a unique possibility to work less without productivity losses. However, in parallel, stress related diseases increase across the Nordic countries as humans tend to work more, not less, in the wake of digitalization.

This track invites empirical or conceptual papers that addresses the challenges and possibilities that current and future generations face in developing new approaches to work and working life. Possible topics that may be addressed (but are not limited to) are:

• New ways of working
• New branches and professions
• Working differently
• Working less
• Working with technology/The AI colleague
• Organizing for AI

Paper submission required?

Yes

Language

English

Format

Paper session

Publishing

No

Track organizers

Anna Uhlin (anna.uhlin@mdu.se) PhD, Senior lecturer Mälardalen University School of Business, Society and Engineering Department of Organization and Management

Eva Lindell (eva.lindell@mdu.se) PhD, Senior lecturer Mälardalen University School of Business, Society and Engineering Department of Organization and Management