Big data and artificial intelligence are radically transforming the ways in which we work, are hired, and fired, managed, and led. We invite you to join us in Oslo to discuss the impacts of the digital transformation on workplace democracy and more!
DIGIWORK workshop / Algorithmic Governance Research Network
April 28, 2022 – 9:00 – 16:45 Oslo
Register here: https://nettskjema.no/a/260755
Photo by Eddie Kopp on Unsplash
Datafication is impacting our ability to influence our work conditions. Yet, the consequences of datafication of work for workplace democracy, co-determination, individual autonomy, and participation have so far not been fully understood. Workplace monitoring, algorithmic management systems, automated decision-making support systems, performance quantification and algorithmic architectures that set the defaults and premises for labour represent a new form of workplace governance. We explore these question in the project Digital Prism and the Nordic Model of Workplace Democracy under Pressure (DIGIWORK) which was initiated in 2021 and we now invite external contributors to join us to discuss the transformative effects of algorithmic governance in workplaces. Algorithmic governance, we argue, needs to be understood as a new mode of power, one that puts the Norwegian model of workplace democracy and the tripartite collaboration between employees and trade unions, employers, and authorities, under pressure. We invite you to join us in developing a novel comparative analysis and theory of the transformation of power and governance in workplaces as a result of datafication. Our project spans from creative industries (music), via higher education, healthcare to police and the oil industry and explores how increased datafication and platformization affects the control, management and governance of different forms of labour, and the consequences this has for workers’ freedom of expression, professional judgement and possibility to have a say in how their workplaces are managed. We invite empirical case studies from across as well as beyond these sectors, and theoretical contributions not limited to the Scandinavian context. We invite you to join us in these important discussions and address the following key questions: What are the effects of algorithmic governance and digital transformation on workplace democracy and workers’ power in Scandinavia? And, at a more general level, how can we theorize the often invisibilized power of algorithmic management?
Conference Program
09:00 – 09:30 Breakfast & Registration
09:30 – 09:40 Welcome by Organizers
Ingrid M. Tolstad, Tereza Østbø Kuldova and Eivind Falkum
09:40 – 10:10 Is there such a thing as algorithmic leadership? by Sverre Spoelstra
Is there such a thing as algorithmic leadership?
Sverre Spoelstra
Copenhagen Business School
In this paper, I reflect on the increasing role of algorithmic management today by situating this trend in the context of the long-standing debate about the distinction between leadership and management. I trace this distinction back to Fredrick Taylor’s break with 19th century Carlylean ‘Great Man’ thinking. Taylor proposed that organizations ought to free themselves from notions of leadership as descending from exceptional humans to whom Carlyle gave the credit for shaping history. What we ought to rely on instead, he argued, is ‘scientific management’, which is, in essence, a pre-digital form of what we today refer to as algorithmic management. Carlyle and Taylor are today both almost universally treated as villains in leadership and management thought. Nevertheless, the essence of their dispute survives in debates about the distinction between leadership and management, and their respective importance for the digital age. Those who favour leadership insist that humans ought to remain at the top of the chain of command and fear the replacement of humans by the ‘new command’ of the algorithm. The most enthusiastic defenders of algorithmic management, by contrast, celebrate algorithms for their potential to surpass the limits of human leadership. Against the background of this historical and conceptual framing, I explore if there is such a thing as ‘algorithmic leadership’, a form of leadership that descends from machines rather than humans. Or: can algorithmic management gobble up what we today refer to as leadership? And would this be something to fear?
Sverre Spoelstra is an Associate Professor at Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, and at Lund University, Sweden. His research interests include organizational philosophy, leadership, and work/play. He is currently working on two main projects: a sociological study of gamification and digital management, and a philosophical exploration of the relation between leading and commanding. He is the author of Leadership and Organization: A Philosophical Introduction (Routledge, 2018). Email: svsp.mpp@cbs.dk
10:10 – 10:40 Internal Threat Management, the Psy-Complex, and Hostile Algorithmic Architectures: ‘Governing the Soul’ in the Context of Regulatory and Surveillance Capitalism by Tereza Østbø Kuldova and Bitten Nordrik
Insider Threat Management, the Psy-Complex, and Hostile Algorithmic Architectures: ‘Governing the Soul’ in the Context of Regulatory and Surveillance Capitalism
Tereza Østbø Kuldova
Oslo Metropolitan University
Bitten Nordrik
Oslo Metropolitan University
Data-driven insider threat management systems promising to detect and predict different forms of organizational betrayal by current or former employees – from espionage, intellectual property fraud, financial crimes, unauthorized trading, to whistleblowing – are becoming increasingly common. Different data-driven products leveraging new advances in machine learning, big data analytics and natural language processing are on the market. Insider threat management systems are further both increasingly integrated into human resource management, performance management and compliance systems. These technologies build on particular and often limited forms of knowledge and ways of knowing, targeting largely the individual and the psyche; namely, insights from what we call the psy-complex and a legacy of intelligence services’ detection of moles and traitors. The private intelligence industry in tandem with tech developers, and audit companies, such as the Big Four and RegTech (regulatory technologies) providers, is rapidly developing and embedding these data-driven products into management systems. The insights from HUMINT (human intelligence) are paradoxically being built into the algorithmic architectures of compliance and organizational management. We argue that these create ‘hostile algorithmic environments’ of control that aim to manage, track, influence and predict not only behaviours, motivations, emotions, and actions, but also the unconscious. Simultaneously, we see that these technologies are well-aligned with human resource management theories about ‘inner work life’. As such, these technologies must be seen in light of critical theories such as those advanced by Nicholas Rose on ‘governing the soul’ (Rose 1999), as well as in the context of surveillance and regulatory capitalism (Zuboff 2019; Levi-Faur 2017). At the same time, these technologies raise additional dilemmas in that the ‘governance of the soul’ is overlaid by different forms of post-political ‘algorithmic governance’ (Kalpokas 2019; Katzenbach and Ulbricht 2019) that translates the logic of policing and intelligence into organizational management, where individuals are subjectivated as always already potential threats and traitors. While the proliferation of these technologies is most visible in US, UK, and Australia, and it is still unclear to what degree these systems are in use in Norwegian workplaces, there is no doubt that the unfolding conflict in Ukraine and the expansive sanctions against Russia will accelerate the growth of these industries in the name of (national) security, reputation management and compliance with the sanctions regimes. The securitization of compliance and management is only bound to increase, and it is high time that critical management studies and organizational anthropology place it on their agenda.
Tereza Østbø Kuldova is a Research Professor at the Work Research Institute, OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway. She is a social anthropologist and the author of How Outlaws Win Friends and Influence People (Palgrave, 2019), Luxury Indian Fashion: A Social Critique (Bloomsbury, 2016), co-editor of Crime, Harm and Consumerism (Routledge, 2020), Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs and Street Gangs (Palgrave, 2018), Urban Utopias: Excess and Expulsion in Neoliberal South Asia (Palgrave, 2017), in addition to numerous articles. She currently works on algorithmic and global governance, surveillance and artificial intelligence, corruption and crime, the compliance industry, and the pluralization of policing. She is the founder and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Extreme Anthropology and of the Algorithmic Governance Research Network.
Bitten Nordrik is a Researcher at the Work Research Institute, OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway, and a PhD Fellow at the Roskilde University in Denmark. She is a critical sociologist and the author of a research monograph in Norwegian, Psykososial arbeidsmiljøkartleggingen - trojansk hest? (Psychosocial Workplace Environment Surveys: a Trojan Horse?, Gyldendal Akademisk, 2012), and numerous research reports. The latest book, co-authored with Tereza Østbø Kuldova, Faktaundersøkelser: et “hybrid konfliktvåpen” på norske arbeidsplasser (Fact-finding Investigations: A “Hybrid Conflict Weapon” in Norwegian Workplaces, Gyldendal Akademisk, 2021), has been the first critical assessment of the method in the Norwegian context and created a broad public debate on the development of Norwegian working life. Nordrik works within the traditions of critical management studies, critical and reflexive sociology, and governance research. She has lectured extensively within organizational, working life studies and algorithmic governance and management.
Kalpokas, Ignas. 2019. Algorithmic Governance: Politics and Law in the Post-Human Era. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Katzenbach, Christian, and Lena Ulbricht. 2019. "Algorithmic Governance." Internet Policy Review 8 (4): 1-18.
Levi-Faur, David. 2017. "Regulatory Capitalism." In Regulatory Theory: Foundation and Applications, edited by P. Drahos, 289-302. Australia: ANU Press.
Rose, Nikolas. 1999. Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self. London: Free Association Books.
Zuboff, Shoshana. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. London: Profile Books.
10:40 – 11:10 Algorithmic and Neoliberal Subjectivation of Workers in the New Governances of the Platform Economy of Delivery by Nuria Soto, Felipe Diez, and Felipe Corredor
Algorithmic and neoliberal subjectivation of workers in the new governances of the platform economy of delivery
Nuria Soto
Universitat de Barcelona
Felipe Diez
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Felipe Corredor
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
In the new platform economy, new forms of control and governance of workers have emerged. Platforms have imposed a way of organizing work that often differs from the regulatory logic established by labour law. It is the platform itself, through its algorithms, that objectively ensures the maintenance of a system of constant competition that promotes individualism and maximum productivity. The company treats each worker as an independent, autonomous provider, who must be as profitable as possible, also taking advantage of the lack of minimum wage and maximum working hours possible, assuming the risks of their activity and the insecurity of never knowing what income they will have at the end of the month. The logic imbued in the different elements that make up the work in delivery platforms is marked by the anarcho-liberal principles of maximum competition between workers (Foucault, 2009). Although the use of false autonomous workers is an old strategy, in the current neoliberal context it has become a red carpet when it comes to convey the different business strategies to get workers to submit to certain norms and values, using strategies such as payment per order, competition for working hours – which are assigned according to a reputation system, based on performance and obedience scores, as if it were a video game – thus extolling the logic of meritocracy through euphemisms and neolanguage. This operation does not cease to be an appeal to the individual "to conceive himself and to conduct himself as a company" (Laval and Dardot, 2013). The question that will guide the forthcoming presentation is how does this new governance influence the processes of subjectification and subjugation of workers?
Núria Soto is Graduate in Journalism, student of the Master in Anthropology and Ethnography, Universitat de Barcelona. Former Deliveroo rider in Barcelona, Spain. Spokesperson and founder of the trade union platform Riders x Derechos. Member of the Transnational Federation of Couriers and Unidos World Action. Founding partner and worker of the bike messaging platform cooperative Mensakas.
Felipe Diez is Sociologist, Master in Cultural Anthropology, PhD student in Sociology and Anthropology at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Former Deliveroo rider in Madrid, Spain. Member of Riders x Derechos, Transnational Federation of Couriers and Unidos World Action. He participated in the team discussing the Rider Law, with the union UGT.
Felipe Corredor is PhD in Social Psychology from the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and associate professor at the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya. Former Deliveroo rider in Barcelona, Spain. Spokesperson and founder member of the trade union platform Riders x Derechos. Member of the Transnational Federation of Couriers and Unidos World Action.
11:10 – 11:30 Q&A
11:30 – 12:30 Lunch
12:30 – 13:00 Digital Surveillance and Algorithmic Control at Work by Wolfie Christl
Digital Surveillance and Algorithmic Control at Work
Wolfie Christl
Cracked Labs: Institute for Critical Digital Culture
Data collection is becoming ubiquitous, also at work. How do companies use extensive personal data about (and against) workers? Systems and devices that constantly record data about activities and behaviors at the workplace can quickly turn into extensive monitoring and control that deeply affects the rights and freedoms of employees. Risks and opportunities are not equally distributed. While employers optimize their business processes, workers are rated, ranked, pressured and disciplined. In 2021, Wolfie Christl published a comprehensive German-language report that explores and maps corporate data practices that affect employees, in call centers, warehouses, delivery, retail, mobile care and manufacturing, but also in knowledge work. Based on many examples, he will give an overview of his research. What kind of software systems, platforms, technologies, devices and cloud services are available, from enterprise resource planning to Microsoft 365 to cybersecurity to human resource management? How do they collect, analyze and utilize data in order to make decisions that affect employees? And how does this affect the power imbalance between employers and workers?
Wolfie Christl is a public-interest researcher, educator and digital rights activist based in Vienna, Austria. His work focuses on consumer surveillance, the economy of personal data, algorithmic decision-making, the power of tech platforms and the datafication of the work. As a technologist with a background in sociology and policy, he published several comprehensive reports on today's personal data industries and contributed to investigations by civil society organizations, consumer protection associations, trade unions and EU data protection authorities. His research contributed to legal complaints against systematic data misuse for commercial purposes and was taken up by policymakers across Europe and the US. He also works as a trainer for workplace privacy. Christl and his projects have been featured in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Financial Times, The Guardian and many other media outlets around the world.https://wolfie.crackedlabs.org
13:00 – 13:30 Boundaries in Flux: Shifting Enactments of ‘we’ for Protecting the Journalistic Craft in a Digitalised Newsroom by Gudrun Rudningen
Boundaries in Flux: Shifting Enactments of ‘we’ for Protecting the Journalistic Craft in a Digitalised Newsroom
Gudrun Rudningen
Oslo Metropolitan University
Boundaries for journalism are in flux, also the social boundaries in between news workers in a digitalised news organisation. Based on one-year fieldwork in a small Norwegian newsroom, I display how the changing social interaction in a digitalised newsroom contributed to new mechanisms for (re)establishing collective belonging from three different angles: spatially, verbally and relationally. For instance, the openness, transparency, and accessibility of the physical open office landscape extended into the newsroom’s digital ‘landscape’ of their shared production platform. There were no walls in the office landscape and the tools were not “walled off” either, but the journalists protected both the physical and digital spaces by cultivating invisible fences around their craft in both spaces. Since digital ways of performing journalism hold potential for fostering more individualism as well as different forms of control and surveillance, a protective ‘we’ and an invasive ‘we’ affected each other in the identity formation. I explore how journalistic professionalism is largely protected through practices of shifting enactments of ‘we’ as a collective concept for establishing harmony and internal trust and protecting professionalism. My findings show that shifting collectives of ‘we’ did not necessarily mean less individual autonomy, rather professional autonomy was guaranteed through the collective community as well as the core values and mission embedded in the journalistic craft.
Gudrun Rudningen is a Senior Researcher at the Work Research Institute, OsloMet. She holds a PhD in social anthropology from University of Oslo on digitalization of journalistic work and a MA in visual anthropology from Goldsmiths college. Her research includes organizational creativity and innovation, digital technology, and visual culture. Contact: rugu@oslomet.no
13:30 – 14:00 Platformization of the Sex Industry and Global Inequalities of Gendered Labour by Emília Barna
Platformization of the Sex Industry and Global Inequalities of Gendered Labour
Emília Barna
Budapest University of Technology and Economics
The proposed presentation is based on research conducted together with Noémi Katona (Centre for Social Science, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Centre for Excellence). We look at the sex camera industry with a focus on digital platform companies and the working conditions in the industry. Since the emergence of erotic webcam platforms in the early 2000s, camming has become a global business. The market is dominated by the oligopoly of a few companies, including the Hungarian LiveJasmin, founded in 2001 and counting, presently, more than 50 million users and 1.5 million registered webcam models. The majority of studies on the sex camera industry focus on the work of models from the global core (e.g. Jones 2020), who have relatively higher social status and are more financially “successful.” Other local settings and actors, however, are significantly under-researched, including the Eastern European region, which nevertheless plays a considerable role in the industry, not only through the platform LiveJasmin, but also through providing labour (models, chat operators, admin staff etc.). In our research, based on interviews with people working in the sex camera industry in Hungary in various roles, as well as the analysis of online sources, we asked how what characterises the operation of platforms as central actors from the perspective of labour, and in a local context. Our analysis indicates, on the one hand, that digital platformization has contributed to the expansion of the market: increasingly accessible technological infrastructure has made it easier for models alongside other workers to enter the industry. At the same time, looking at working conditions along the global value chain reveals that rather than technology acting as a “democratizing” force, existing global and gender inequalities are strengthened through platformization, and crises such as the current COVID-19 situation only reinforce this effect.
Emília Barna, PhD is Associate Professor at the Budapest University of Technology and Economics, and Head of the Cultural Industries specialisation. She is a sociologist and popular music scholar. Her main research areas are the music industries and digitization, popular music, technology and gender, cultural labour, and music and politics. With Tamás Tófalvy, she has co-edited the books Made in Hungary: Studies in Popular Music (2017, Routledge) and Popular Music, Technology, and the Changing Media Ecosystem: From Cassettes to Stream (2020, Palgrave). She is a member of the International Association for the Study of Popular Music (IASPM) and the Working Group for Public Sociology “Helyzet.” Contact: emilia.barna@gmail.com
14:00 – 14:20 Q&A
14:20 – 14:40 Break
14:40 – 15:10 Governance and Post-politics by Kristin Reichborn Kjennerud
Governance and Post-politics
Kristin Reichborn-Kjennerud
Oslo Metropolitan University
With the advent of NPM from the 1980s onwards control mechanisms from the private sector were introduced into the public sector, the so called New Public Management (NPM), a concept coined by Christopher Hood in the 1990s. NPM is a collection of control mechanisms used to enhance efficiency and productivity. They span measures such as splitting public organizations into smaller parts, giving responsibility and holding leaders to account for narrower policy areas, turning public organizations into companies, managing by objectives and results, using key performance indicators (KPIs) and contracts to control subordinate entities and employees, reward systems allowing leaders, without specific professional background, higher salaries, a form of governance allowing public organizations to enter into contracts with NGOs and private organizations, to mention some. All these measures contribute to reducing inhabitants’ and employees’ possibility to influence policy. They also reduce the politicians’ possibility to make decisions. Governance favors large over small and medium sized companies. Regulations around contracts demand high administrative capacity that primarily large private companies have. When the administration enters into legally binding contracts with large companies there is no or limited possibility to change the decisions embedded in these contracts. If there is a possibility to end the contracts it is at a very high cost. These contacts are formed within and between public organizations and between public organizations and private companies. This has made management through contracts the primary control mechanism in the state. Management by objectives and results and KPIs specified in these contracts make the subordinate entities and employees’ leeway in solving their professional and social mission very limited because everything they do is split into units that can be counted (KPIs). This reduces their possibility for creative learning and improvement, but it also sets boundaries for professional discretion and ethics. Public organizations have akin to factories counting by numbers, ignoring in the process the quality service provision based on what is important to users and employees. Contracts are digitalized, making them appear even more like natural law than had they been only paper documents. In digital format the whole process can be managed more easily to be in the exact form decided by the administration. All actions can also be tracked and checked. So, the digital is impressing the control even harder on the stakeholders. This control system is impossible to combine with co-creation and bottom-up solutions because the reward system for leaders in the public sector is based on strict cost control and the counting of preset KPIs. Rewarding anything but what can easily be counted is next to impossible. Any deviation from this structure is punished. Nor is this system sustainable because of its fragmented nature into ever narrower silos. This makes it impossible to think and act more holistically. At the same time, sustainability demands a holistic worldview paying attention to both economic, social, and environmental values.
Kristin Reichborn-Kjennerud is a political scientist and sociologist that has formal education in management and audit. She has been and currently is engaged in several projects on urban governance and development. Her research interests are democracy and the organization for co-decision making in urban regeneration processes. Also, she is interested in urban governance related to innovation/entrepreneurship and the quality of government. She leads one project on sustainable procurement of food funded by the Norwegian Research Council (NRC) and is work package leader in one Horizon project on urban gardening and one NRC project on resident participation in urban development. E-mail: rekr@oslomet.no
15:10 – 15:40 Enterprise Models of Governance in Digitalized Regimes by Eivind Falkum
Enterprise models of governance in digitalized regimes
Eivind Falkum
Oslo Metropolitan University
Digital tools flourish the reign of governance and management in different ways, depending on what kind of human behavior or social relations they aim to regulate. They all represent some kind of standardization of means and/or ends to reduce uncertainties and make organizational processes and structures more predictable. This paper present data from The Co-determination Survey 2020 in Norway, which builds further on previous analysis of the same survey from 2017 – 2019, where we have constructed a model that categorizes four different regimes of governance and management in Norwegian enterprises: 1) standardization and control: a prolongation of the traditions of standardization and automation stemming from the origin of F. Taylor and Henry Ford in manufacturing industries, (Taylor 1974, Skorstad 2021) as well as bureaucratic regulations of implementation of public policies as described by Max Weber (Gerth & Mills 1970), 2) commitment and obedience: modern management concepts based on theories about individual commitment to certain human behavior and social relations decides by management in enterprises (Ulrich & Ulrich 2010, Kuvaas & Dysvik 2020), 3) co-determination: we define co-determination as concept of governance and management: a way to direct and lead enterprises by collaboration with unions and union representatives in decision-making and implementation of strategies and decisions (Hvid & Falkum (eds.) (2019 p.67-90), 4) participation and involvement: here defined as concept of a certain form of governance and management based on individual collaboration between employees and their close managers on work organization, work situations and conduct of work (Hvid & Falkum, op.cit). The Co-determination Survey 2020 contained additional questions about surveillance of work operations by digital tools, about the use of meta-information generated by these tools by management, as well as trust-relations at work and individual influence on work organization and conduct of work. The paper will first analyze and discuss how digitalization at work correlates with the different categories of governance. Secondly, the paper will analyze and discuss possible correlations between digitalization and employees’ experience of influence at work.
Taylor, F. W. (1974) The principles of scientific management. New York: The Norton Library
Skorstad, E. (2021) Organisasjonsformer. Arbeidsvilkår og effektivitet. Oslo: Gyldendal
Hvid, H. & F. Falkum (eds.) (2019) Work and well-being in the Nordic Countries. Critical perspectives on the world’s best wor4king lives. London: Routledge
Gerth, H. H. & C. Wright Mills (eds.) (1970) From Max Weber. Essays in sociology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
Eivind Falkum is a Research Professor at the Work Research Institute, Oslo Metropolitan University. He is one of the leading experts on Norwegian working life, with extensive experience from both public and private sector and many projects involving trade unions. He is the author, among others, of Makt og opposition I arbeidslivet: maktforskyvninger fra 1900 til 2020 (Oslo, Cappelen Damm, 2020) which deals with the evolution of power relations in the Norwegian working life between 1900 and today, and co-editor of Work and Wellbeing in the Nordic Countries (Routledge, 2018). He has also been central in establishing the yearly Norwegian Co-Determination Survey, today comprising both a quantitative and qualitative studies of the evolution of co-determination, participation and freedom of speech in Norwegian workplaces.
15:40 – 16:10 To What Extent Is Digitalism a New Institutional Logic? Evidence from Police and Healthcare Organizations by Helene O. I. Gundhus, Christin Thea Wathne and Lars Erik Kjekshus
To What Extent Is Digitalism a New Institutional Logic? Evidence from Police and Healthcare Organizations
Helene O. I. Gundhus
University of Oslo
Christin Thea Wathne
Oslo Metropolitan University
Lars Erik Kjekshus
University of Oslo
Digitalism is introduced as a new institutional logic in public organizations compared to managerialism and professionalism. In this article we critically examine if it is possible to identify Digitalism as a new institutional logic in two different public sectors and if Digitalism is experienced differently or if the logic prevails consistently across sectors. The theoretical discussion is based on empirical material from two cross-sectional surveys, focus group and individual in-depth interviews with 40 Norwegian police officers involved in a large digitalization reform of the Police sector in 2018 and a study of organizational development before and after the implementation of centralized large-scale information and communication technology (ICT) systems in a large Norwegian university hospital in 2015. The main discussion on institutional logics in both the Police sector and the healthcare sector has been the competing logics of managerialism and professionalism (Freidson 2001). The empirical illustration of the effects of New Public Management (NPM) reforms in these sectors has shown the emerge of new identities, regulations, norms, and conflicts (Scott et al. 2000, Wathne 2020). The ongoing organizational change and latest reforms in the past 10 years in public sector should be characterized as digitalization reforms and by this we question if we also could describe the emerging of a new institutional logic–Digitalism. In this paper we show how the impact of digitalization is profound and boundary breaking and thereby bringing in new conflicting norms and ideas, blending and competing with both professionalism and managerialism. Could the understanding of digitalism give insight in how large-scale technology and organizations are tied and explain the often unforeseen and unexpected outcomes of digitalization?
Helene Oppen Ingebrigtsen Gundhus, Professor and Head of Department - Department of Criminology and Sociology of Law, Faculty of Law, University of Oslo. Her research interests include policing and society, security and social control, crime prevention, knowledge regimes, science and technology studies (STS), qualitative methods (discourse analysis, etnography).
Christin Thea Wathne is a Research Director and Research Professor at Work Research Institute (AFI), Oslo Metropolitan University in Norway. Her research interests include leadership and management, New Public Management, organizational development, organizational learning, professions, social identity and working environment and mastering.
Lars Erik Kjekshus is Professor in Sociology and head of the master program in organization, leadership and work, Department of Sociology and Human Geography, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Oslo (UiO). His research interest include the organization of hospitals and hospital mergers, management, technology and competence development, professions, sickness absence and organizational change and design, working life democracy.
16:10 – 16:45 Q&A and Closing Discussion
Moderator
Ingrid M. Tolstad is a social anthropologist with a PhD in musicology, working as a senior researcher at the Work Research Institute, Oslo Metropolitan University. Her research primarily revolves around popular music and popular culture, and she does work on songwriting and studio production, creative processes, coolness, civic participation, (digital) ethnography and the consequences of digitalization for arts and music. In DigiWORK she is conducting a study on how datafication and automation of music production and distribution is influencing creative freedom and reshuffling power relations within the Norwegian pop music industry.
Contact Organizers
Ingrid M. Tolstad (toin@oslomet.no), Tereza Østbø Kuldova (tereza.kuldova@oslomet.no), Eivind Falkum (faei@oslomet.no)
For more information about the DIGIWORK project and the Algorithmic Governance Research Network, please see https://www.algorithmic-governance.com/digiwork2021-2024
This workshop is funded by The Research Council of Norway under project no. 314486 – Digital Prism and the Nordic Model of Workplace Democracy under Pressure (DigiWORK).
Comentarios