Member Publication: The Gendered Politics of Pandemic Relief: Labor and Family Policies in Denmark, Germany, and the United States During COVID-19

Please check out the recent publication by OOW members Nino Bariola and Caitlyn Collins:

Bariola, Nino, and Caitlyn Collins. 2021. “The Gendered Politics of Pandemic Relief: Labor and Family Policies in Denmark, Germany, and the United States During COVID-19.” American Behavioral Scientist, Online First.

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has magnified families’ struggles to reconcile caregiving and employment, especially for working mothers. How have different countries reacted to these troubling circumstances? What policies have been implemented to alleviate the pernicious effects of the pandemic on gender and labor inequalities? We examine the policies offered in Denmark, Germany, and the United States, three countries that represent distinct welfare regimes. We find important differences among the policy solutions provided, but also in the “cultural infrastructures” that allow policies to work as intended, or not. In Denmark, a social-democratic welfare state, robust federal salary guarantee programs supplemented an already strong social safety net. The country was among the first to lock down and reorganize health care—and also among the first to reopen schools and child care facilities, acknowledging that parents’ employment depends on child care provisioning, especially for mothers. Germany, a corporatist regime, substantially expanded existing programs and provided generous subsidies. However, despite an ongoing official commitment to reduce gender inequality, the cultural legacy of a father breadwinner/mother caregiver family model meant that reopening child care facilities was not a first priority, which pushed many mothers out of paid work. In the U.S. liberal regime, private organizations—particularly in privileged economic sectors—are the ones primarily offering supports to working parents. Patchwork efforts at lockdown and reopening have meant a lengthy period of limbo for working families, with disastrous consequences for women, especially the most vulnerable. Among such varied “solutions” to the consequences of the pandemic, those of liberal regimes seem to be worsening inequalities. The unprecedented nature of the current pandemic recession suggests a need for scholars to gender the study of economic crises. 

Member Publication: Unemployment Experts: Governing the Job Search in the New Economy

Please check out the recent publication by OOW member Patrick Sheehan:

Sheehan, Patrick. 2021. “Unemployment Experts: Governing the Job Search in the New Economy.” Work and Occupations, Online First.

Abstract

In recent years, sociologists have examined unemployment and job searching as important arenas in which workers are socialized to accept the terms of an increasingly precarious economy. While noting the importance of expert knowledge in manufacturing the consent of workers, research has largely overlooked the experts themselves that produce such knowledge. Who are these experts and what kinds of advice do they give? Drawing on interviews and ethnographic fieldwork conducted at three job search clubs, the author develops a three-fold typology of “unemployment experts”: Job Coaches present a technical diagnosis that centers mastery of job-hunting techniques; Self-help Gurus present a moral diagnosis focused on the job seeker’s attitude; and Skill-certifiers present a human capital diagnosis revolving around the job seeker’s productive capacities. By offering alternative diagnoses and remedies for unemployment, these experts give job seekers a sense of choice in interpreting their situation and acting in the labor market. However, the multiple discourses ultimately help to secure consent to precarious labor markets by drawing attention to a range of individual deficiencies within workers while obfuscating structural and relational explanations of unemployment. The author also finds that many unemployment experts themselves faced dislocations from professional careers and are making creative claims to expertise. By focusing on experts and their varied messages, this paper reveals how the victims of precarious work inadvertently help to legitimate the new employment regime.

Call for Unpublished or Recently Published Studies for Meta-analysis on Personality, Intelligence, Physical Size, and Social Status

Michael Grosz, Robbie van Aert, and Mitja Back are currently conducting a meta-analysis on correlations of personality traits, cognitive abilities, physical size (e.g., height) with social status (including social influence, attention, admiring respect, popularity, and leadership emergence).

They would be very grateful if you could e-mail unpublished or recently published studies and data to meta@uni-muenster.de. You can find further information and the inclusion criteria at https://osf.io/3r9h4/.

Job Posting: Public Health Analyst at RTI International

RTI’s Community and Workplace Health Program has an opening for a PhD-level Research Public Health Analyst. Candidates with primary research interests in workforce development for the health/public health workforce, or occupational health/worker health and safety are encouraged to apply.  

The preferred locations for this position are Research Triangle Park, NC, Atlanta, GA, or Washington, DC.  

Responsibilities

  • Contribute to business development by leading proposals or writing proposal sections related to the development and evaluation of workforce development for the health/public health workforce and occupational health/worker health and safety initiatives. 
  • Lead mid-size projects (<$1 million) or tasks on large complex projects. 
  • Manage project/task budgets in collaboration with financial analysts.
  • Communicate effectively with clients to plan and execute evaluations that meet clients’ needs and fulfill contract requirements. 
  • Identify and apply appropriate evaluation, workforce development, or occupational health/worker health and safety frameworks to guide project planning and implementation.
  • Provide guidance and oversight to RTI project staff and subcontractors on project methods and work products. 
  • Lead qualitative or quantitative data collection and analysis tasks. Qualitative tasks may include site visits, key informant interviews, document review, and deductive and inductive coding, and thematic analysis. Quantitative tasks may include survey development and administration, descriptive statistical analysis of program administrative data, and cross-sectional or longitudinal analysis of deidentified employer and/or employee data. 
  • Manage quality control processes for projects/tasks to ensure delivery of first-rate work products.
  • Lead the development of project deliverables in collaboration with the client and RTI project team, including reports, briefs, infographics, manuscripts, conference abstracts and posters or presentation slides, and toolkits or guidance documents for clients’ funded programs. 
     

Minimum Qualifications 

  • PhD in sociology, industrial and organizational psychology, public health, or a related field and at least one year of relevant experience; or a Master’s degree in sociology, industrial and organizational psychology, public health, or a related field and at least six years of relevant experience.
  • Experience with workforce development for the health/public health workforce or occupational health/worker health and safety initiatives. 
  • Experience managing projects, including staff and budget management.
  • Demonstrated program evaluation skills. 
  • Excellent oral and written communication skills with demonstrated capability to present evaluation work at national conferences or publish evaluation work in peer-reviewed journals.
  • Good attention to detail and ability to manage multiple tasks simultaneously.
  • Ability to work collaboratively in a team environment with staff in different geographic locations and with a range of education and experience levels.
  • Proficiency in Microsoft Word, Excel, and presentation software.
  • To qualify, applicants must be legally authorized to work in the United States and should not require, now or in the future, sponsorship for employment visa status.

Preferred Qualifications

  • Experience with analysis software (e.g., NVivo for qualitative analysis or SAS, SPSS, STATA, or R for quantitative analysis) is preferred.

Apply to the position here.

Call for Papers: Special Issue of Soziale Welt on Career Paths Inside and Outside Academia

Special Issue of the journal Soziale Welt on
“Career Paths Inside and Outside Academia”

Guest editors: Christiane Gross and Steffen Jaksztat

The special issue aims to understand the social mechanisms of career decisions, chances, and paths of higher education graduates inside and outside academia. From a cross-cultural perspective, there is a huge variation of typical career paths both inside and outside academia. While most English-speaking countries provide tenured positions in academia beyond the professorship series (assistant, associate, full professor) – e.g. lecturer – the academic labour market in German-speaking countries is characterised by precarious working conditions and a declining proportion of full or associate professorships and other permanent researcher positions. However, conditions in academia are changing in most developed countries. Differentiation and stratification, as well as competition for resources, and evaluation of achievements are increasing among institutions of higher education.

More than in other areas of society, meritocratic principles are a functional imperative of the career system in academia. Robert K. Merton has described this norm as ‘universalism’; the recognition of academic achievements can only depend on objective performance criteria – regardless of social characteristics such as gender, social origin, or ethnicity. Although academia has established a variety of measures to ensure compliance with this principle, social inequalities remain an issue, for example with regard to promoting early career researchers or recruiting professors. More empirical research is needed to explore the social mechanisms underlying social inequalities in access to postgraduate education as well as inequalities in subsequent academic careers.

As research careers within academia become increasingly competitive, the demand for scientifically trained staff outside academia is high and likely to continue to grow in the future. A large number of doctorate holders work outside academia – in the public service, in company research and development departments, or in non-governmental organisations. Moreover, career paths in science management, administration, and services become increasingly relevant for doctorate holders. In general, the scientific workforce is recognised as a key factor in the ability of modern economies to innovate, and in the ability of societies to solve future problems. At present, its great societal relevance is clearly demonstrated by the global Covid-19 crisis. Yet there is still insufficient knowledge on doctorate holders’ career paths and success outside academia, on the relevant decision-making processes, on job requirements, and on potential social barriers to career success.

Fortunately, various research projects have recently helped to improve data availability. In
light of this situation, a number of questions arise:

  • Who decides to stay in academia following graduation and why? What are the prerequisites for successfully completing postgraduate education?
  • Is academia producing more highly qualified researchers than can be absorbed by the labour market?
  • Are career decisions and chances determined by social origin, gender, migration background, or intersections of these dimensions? And what role do new career paths (e.g. tenure-track positions) play in this context?
  • Which countries provide the most meritocratic (academic) labour markets? And what are the driving forces?
  • What achievements are particularly rewarded inside and outside academia (e.g. publications, international mobility experiences, raised research funds, or patents)?
  • Are there discipline-specific determinants of career success? And if so, how can they be explained theoretically?
  • Are cooperation patterns in science changing? Does cooperation foster new ideas and innovations? Do scientists benefit from being part of interdisciplinary, international, or non-scientific professional networks?
  • What are the mobility patterns between the different labour market sectors?
  • To what degree are tasks in jobs outside academia related to the skills acquired during the studies and/or the doctorate?

Contributions that examine other than these research questions, but are still related to the topic, are also welcome. The special issue will include both theoretical and theory-driven empirical contributions. We encourage international and national contributions from all social science disciplines. The special issue will be published with open access and no OA fees for authors. The publication will be listed in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). The guest editors will conduct a fair but challenging peer-review process to guarantee the high quality of the special issue.

Deadline for the submission of proposals is May 31, 2021. Please send your proposal (up to 3,000 characters) to christiane.gross@uni-wuerzburg.de and jaksztat@dzhw.eu

Timeline

  • Notification of acceptance or rejection of proposals: July 2021
  • Submission of manuscripts: Feb 2022
  • Peer-review process: Mar-May 2022
  • Submission of revised manuscripts: Oct 2022
  • Notification of final acceptance or rejection: Nov 2022
  • Language editing/proofreading: Dec 2022
  • Publication of special issue: First half of 2023

The guest editors

Prof. Dr. Christiane Gross is professor for quantitative methods in the social sciences at the University of Würzburg.

Dr. Steffen Jaksztat is researcher at the German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW).

Click here for information on the journal.

Call for Participants: International Labour Process Conference 2021: Security in Work? The workplace after COVID-19

Registration for the virtual ILPC 2021 is now open. The conference takes place on April 12-14, and the deadline for registration is April 7. You can access the registration page here https://tinyurl.com/4a449kl6 or on our website www.ilpc.org.uk. Registration is essential to be able to have access to the conference platform so please make sure you register as soon as possible. 

The theme of the conference will be Security in Work? The workplace after COVID-19

Recognising that the workplace will not be the same place after COVID-19, the Conference plenaries will focus upon the (re)organisation of work following the pandemic and the prospect of future waves. More information about the plenary speakers.

Conference Events

Doctoral Workshop: In the morning of the 12th of April, we will be organising a highly interactive workshop, which offers a space to enhance understanding about the scope and development of labour process research and to reflect on academic career goals. The workshop will include discussions and the programme will be announced soon. 

Book Launch: We are organising a session for the launch of ‘The Political Economy of the Work in the Global South’ with the editors Anita Hammer and Adam Fishwick. 
The direct link to ‘The Political Economy of Work in the Global South’ is here: https://tinyurl.com/h5t6srft a free sample chapter is available here: https://tinyurl.com/yxry2bxf

New Journal Launch: There will also be a journal launch introducing Work in the Global Economy with new Editors in Chief Prof. Sian Moore, University of Greenwich, UK and Prof. Kirsty Newsome, University of Sheffield, UK. More information about the journal is available here: https://tinyurl.com/rrasjxyd

Call for Papers: Seminar “Rethinking the free time/work time divide”

Seminar “Rethinking the free time/work time divide”

The seminar is organized by CIMMA-IMAGER (UR 3958), a research group affiliated with Université Paris-Est Créteil, France.
The (online and/or on-site) bimonthly sessions will take place from October to December 2021.
Proposals (300-word abstract + short biography) should be submitted by May 3, 2021.
Participants will be notified in June 2021.

In a seminal article entitled “Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism” (1967), the historian E. P. Thompson analyzed the evolution of the concept of time in British society in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. He demonstrated the importance of incorporating the question of time into the study of the transformations that took place in the organization of labor during industrialization. Subsequently, scholars have questioned the ways in which temporal norms in work contexts have changed over the past two centuries. For example, historians of labor have highlighted the role of trade unions in organizing the length of work hours since the end of the nineteenth century, while sociologists of labor have been particularly interested in definitions of “work” and the issue of measuring and managing the time that our contemporary societies devote to work.

Like others, E. P. Thompson also noted that the concept of time and its evolutions are issues that do not only concern work. The time devoted to hobbies, sports, holidays, entertainment, or tourism has become inherent to the study of free time. For example, social history has documented its institutionalization, as well as the practice of leisure and vacation in British or North American societies from the nineteenth century to the present day. Following in the tracks of Robert Stebbins, who coined the concept of “serious leisure,” some sociologists have renewed the theory of leisure practices.

Building on studies of volunteer work or “gray areas” of employment on the one hand, and of workers’ leisure practices on the other, this conference proposes to combine work time and free time in the English-speaking world in order to explore their various definitions, redefinitions and the ways in which they have interacted over the centuries. This means considering the ways in which these two temporalities have changed and hybridized each other, generating tensions or new forms of balance or complementarity. How has legislation in different countries regulated free time and labor time? To what extent have new practices of work and leisure blurred the boundaries between these two temporalities? How have different perceptions of the private and professional spheres changed the way people think about and experience work and leisure time?

For this seminar, we invite researchers in the various disciplines of the humanities and economic and social sciences to consider the following topics and approaches:

  • Mapping the intersections of research on free time and work time.
  • Philosophical approaches to work and leisure.
  • Images and representations.
  • Forms of work (craftwork, servile work, volunteer work, charity work, activism, “gray areas” of employment…).
  • Social conflicts, mobilization, and labor rights.
  • Gender and the organization of work.
  • Recreational practices in the workplace.
  • Boundaries, liminality, and intersections.
  • Methodological and archival particularities.

Submission of proposals and contact: sonia.birocheau@u-pec.fr and fabienne.moine@u-pec.fr

References:

Cindy S. Aron, Working at Play: A History of Vacations in the United States, New York, Oxford University Press, 1999.

Peter Bailey, Leisure and Class in Victorian England: Rational Recreation and the Contest for Control, 1830- 1885, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978.

Peter Bailey, “Leisure, Culture, and the Historian: Reviewing the First Generation of Leisure Historiography in Britain”, Leisure Studies 8:2, 1989, 107-127.

Jean-Yves Boulin, Tiphaine de Rocquigny and Jean Viard. L’économie du temps libre (4/4). Le travail à l’assaut des loisirs. Entendez-vous l’éco? France culture, December 20, 2018. 58’.

Marie-Christine Bureau and Patrick Dieuaide, “Institutional Change and Transformations in Labour and Employment Standards: An Analysis of ‘Grey Zones’”, Transfer: European Review of Labor and Research, 24:3, August 2018, 261-277.

Hugh Cunningham, Time, Work and Leisure: Life Changes in England since 1700, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2014.

John Krinsky and Maud Simonet, “La servitude et le volontaire: les usages politiques du travail invisible dans les parcs de la ville de New York”, Sociétés contemporaines 2012/3 (n°87), 49-74.

Catriona M. Paratt, “Little Means or Time: Working-Class Women and Leisure in Late Victorian and Edwardian England”, The International Journal of the History of Sport 15:2, August 1998, 22-53.

Robert A. Stebbins, “Serious Leisure: A Conceptual Statement”, The Pacific Sociological Review 25:2, April 1982, 251-272.

Tim Strangleman, “Representations of Labour: Visual Sociology and Work”, Sociology Compass 2:5, 2008, 1491-1505.

E. P. Thompson, “Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism”, Past and Present 38, December 1967, 56-97.

Message from the Chair / Virtual Event: Recording of Racism, Policing, and Incarceration: Organizational & Occupational Perspectives

Dear OOW community,

We had a wonderful, thought provoking, virtual panel yesterday on Racism, Policing, and Incarceration: Organizational & Occupational Perspectives. This is the second of out three OOW virtual events series for the current academic year. Thank you panel participants and organizers: Heather Schoenfeld, Brittany Friedman, Armando Lara-Millán, Rashawn Ray, Michael Sierra-Arévalo, and Tim Bartley.  

The video of yesterday’s panel can be found here.

Our next OOW virtual event will take place on April 21, at 1:30pm-4:00pm EST, focusing on Diverse Approaches to Race and Racism in Research on Organizations, Occupations and Work. We will host a panel discussion on racialized organizations with Stella Nkomo, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Bobby Banerjee, Cass Business School, United Kingdom and Victor Ray, University of Iowa. The discussion will be followed by a paper presentations panel. The registration link for this event can be found here.

For more virtual events, access to awards, mentoring, Work in Progress Blog and additional OOW perks please renew your ASA and OOW membership. Faculty members – this is the time to give your students a gift membership to ASA and OOW, or to OOW if they are already ASA members. Student membership fees are low and the gift of belonging to a community is one the best gifts we can give to our students.

Have a wonderful weekend,

Alexandra

Call for Expressions of Interest: Chief Editorship of Socio-Economic Review

Socio-Economic Review (SER) solicits applications for one or more new Chief Editors to join the existing editorial team. Candidates may apply individually or as part of a proposed team. The term of office is four years, renewable for up to eight years, starting in January 2022. The Chief Editor(s) receive(s) an honorarium and reimbursement for necessary travel expenses. The editorial team currently consists of one Chief Editor and five Editors appointed on a staggered schedule.

Socio-Economic Review (SER) is the official journal for and operates under the auspices of the Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics (SASE). A core mandate of the journal is to understand the socio-political foundations of the economy and to advance socio-economics; to this end, it addresses analytic, political, and moral questions arising at the intersection between economy and society. Articles in SER explore how the economy is or should be governed by social relations, institutional rules, political decisions, and cultural values. According to the Journal Citation Report rankings (Source Clarivate, 2020), SER ranked 6th in Sociology, 11th in Political Science, and 35th in Economics, putting SER roughly within the top 4-10% of journals in these disciplines in 2019. Its 2019 Impact Factor is 3.774. SER publishes 4 issues per year, and will be fully online starting this year.

The Chief Editor(s) of SER is (are) responsible for overall editorial decision making, as well as matters related to the editorial policy of SER and the coordination of production with Oxford University Press (OUP). The new Chief Editor(s) will ideally begin working closely with the current Chief Editor to learn the role and processes of leading SER as early as July 2021 and is (are) expected to engage actively with the current Chief Editor and Managing Editor (whose current contract runs until Dec. 2022) to move into that role. The new Chief Editor(s) can bring in a number of new Editors, either at the start of the term or during the first year. The first journal issue for which the incoming Chief Editor(s) would be fully responsible is April 2022 (Volume 20/ Issue 2).

Position description:

The Chief Editor(s) has (have) primary responsibility for all editorial functions of the Journal including:

  • Working collaboratively with the other Editors and the Managing Editor to ensure the smooth operation of SER.
  • Reviewing manuscripts, including decisions of fit, selection of reviewers, and decisions of acceptance.
  • Ensuring consistency in publication standards across accepted manuscripts.
  • Communicating with authors and reviewers as needed regarding invited material (review symposiums, discussion forums, special issues), as well as regarding substantive manuscript content and review questions.
  • Adhering to industry publication standards and protocols (e.g. “Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors” from the Committee on Publication Ethics), publication policies of Oxford University Press, and related international guidelines.
  • Coordinating with the other Editors to assure consistency across the manuscript review process.
  • Ensuring continuous manuscript flow of high-quality papers.
  • Appointing new Editors in consultation with the Publisher, appointing Editorial Board members in consultation with the other Editors, and nominating Advisory Committee members for approval by the SASE Executive Council.
  • Communicating and working with OUP’s editorial and production staff about review procedures and guidelines, journal production management timelines and procedures, standardized OUP Journal content and guidelines (i.e., mission & scope), marketing, and other industry-related issues such as Impact Factor ratings, open access, etc.
  • Communicating with SASE in a timely manner regarding the status of the Journal including its operations and performance, concerns or initiatives from OUP, and/or other substantive issues that may affect the success of the journal.
  • Contributing to the success of the journal through attending online or in-person editorial meetings and representing the journal at events and to institutions.

The successful candidate(s) will fulfill the following criteria:

  • A strong scholarly record in accordance with the spirit and mission statement of SER, as well as that of SASE more broadly
  • A substantive connection to SASE as a scholarly community
  • Significant editorial experience and good administrative skills
  • Interdisciplinary orientation and openness to different methodologies and research designs
  • Capacity to work constructively with authors, reviewers, and the entire editorial team, as well as with SASE leadership

Support from your home institution, such as a reduced teaching load or student assistance, is desirable but not a requirement for the position.

Potential applicants are encouraged to contact Prof. Sigrid Quack at sasepresident@sase.org to discuss any questions they may have about the position or the application process.

Please email your expressions of interest to Prof. Sigrid Quack at sasepresident@sase.org. Please send a cover letter, a short statement on your proposed editorial strategy for the journal (which may include thoughts on open access, organization of workflow, and the division of labor within the editorial team), a CV that focuses on your publishing, reviewing, and editorial experience, plus information on possible support from your institution, if available.

The closing date for expressions of interest is April 30th, 2021.

For more information about the SER and SASE, go to https://academic-oup-com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/ser and sase.org.

Achieving diversity and inclusion is a priority for the Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics (SASE). SASE members study issues of inequality and exclusion, and it is important that the organization follows the principles it stands for through seeking to confront our explicit or implicit biases. A diverse and inclusive environment will also enrich the perspective of our scholarly inquiry. It is therefore the policy of SASE to recruit, include, and make visible all scholars, independent of any differences among them. 

Member Publication: How Information about Inequality Impacts Belief in Meritocracy

Please check out the recent publication by OOW member Jonathan J.B. Mijs:

Mijs, Jonathan J.B. and Christopher Hoy. 2021. “How Information about Inequality Impacts Belief in Meritocracy: Evidence from a Randomized Survey Experiment in Australia, Indonesia and Mexico.” Social Problems, Online First.

Abstract

Most people misperceive economic inequality. Learning about actual levels of inequality and social mobility, research suggests, heightens concerns but may push people’s policy preferences in any number of directions. This mixed empirical record, we argue, reflects the omission of a more fundamental question: under what conditions do people change their understanding of the meritocratic or non-meritocratic causes of inequality? To explore mechanisms of belief change we field a unique randomized survey experiment with representative populations in Australia, Indonesia, and Mexico—societies with varying levels of popular beliefs about economic inequality. Our results highlight the importance of information, perceived social position, and self-interest. In Indonesia, information describing (high) income inequality and (low) social mobility rocked our participants’ belief in meritocracy. The same information made less of a splash in Mexico, where unequal outcomes are commonly understood as the result of corruption and other non-meritocratic processes. In Australia, the impact of our informational treatment was strongest when it provided justification for people’s income position or when it corrected their perception of relative affluence. Our findings reveal asymmetric beliefs about poverty and wealth and heterogeneous responses to information. They are a call to rethink effective informational and policy interventions.