[JoPP-Public] CfP JoPP - Work issue

[Vasilis Kostakis]

Dear all,

You may document posts of the cfp here
http://etherpad2-p2plab.rhcloud.com/p/JoPP-WORK

Best,

Vasilis

On 8 June 2015 at 15:34, Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil at anu.edu.au> wrote:

>  Hi all
>
>
>  I posted the following CFP (which incorporates Peter's suggestion of
> mentioning the "sharing economy" - thanks) to the following lists:
>
> AIR, ACS, CITASA, FIBRECULTURE, IC&S. Will post to Historical
> Materialism; also sent to members of the COST Action on Digital labour.
>
>
> @Stefano: are there are developer lists which may be appropriate?
>
>
> @All: please forward to others lists but remember to document posts on
> this list to avoid multiple posts (or if you are feeling energetic, set up
> an editable page somewhere as others did).
>
>
>  cheers
>
>
>  Mathieu
>
>
>
>  ******************************************
>
>  <apologies if you receive this message more than once>
>
>  CFP Journal of Peer Production: Work and peer production
> Editors: Phoebe Moore (Middlesex University London), Mathieu O’Neil
> (University of Canberra), Stefano Zacchiroli (University Paris Diderot)
>
>  The rise in the usage and delivery capacity of the Internet in the 1990s
> has led to the development of massively distributed online projects where
> self-governing volunteers collaboratively produce public goods. Notable
> examples include Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) projects such as
> Debian and GNOME, as well as the Wikipedia encyclopedia. These distributed
> practices have been characterised as peer production, crowdsourcing, mass
> customization, social production, co-configurative work, playbour,
> user-generated content, wikinomics, open innovation, participatory culture,
> produsage, and the wisdom of the crowd, amongst other terms. In peer
> production, labour is communal and outputs are orientated towards the
> further expansion of the commons, an ecology of production that aims to
> defy and resist the hierarchies and rules of ownership that drive
> productive models within capitalism (Moore, 2011); while the commons,
> recursively, are the chief resource in this mode of production (Söderberg &
> O’Neil, 2014).
>
>  Peer projects are ‘ethical’ as participation is primarily motivated by
> self-fulfillment and validated by a community of peers, rather than by
> earning wages. Their governance is ‘modular’, understood in a design sense
> (decomposable blocks sharing a common interface), but also in
> political-economy terms: participants oppose restricted ownership and
> control by individually socializing their works into commons. Conflicting
> interpretations of their societal impact have been articulated (O’Neil,
> 2015). Skeptics view the abjuration of exclusive property rights over the
> goods they produce as irrelevant, and ethical-modular projects as
> increasing worker exploitation: participants’ passionate labour occurs at
> the expense of less fortunate others, who do not have the disposable
> income, cultural capital, or family support to engage in unpaid labour
> (Moore & Taylor, 2009; Huws, 2013). In contrast, reformists, often hailing
> from a management perspective, suggest that the co-optation of communal
> labour by firms will improve business practices and society (Arvidsson,
> 2008; Demil et al., 2015). Finally activists celebrate the abjuration of
> exclusive property rights, and present ethical-modular projects as key
> actors in a historical process leading to the supersession of capitalism
> and hierarchy (Kostakis & Bauwens, 2014).
>
>  This last perspective raises a central challenge, which is the avoidance
> of purely utopian thinking. In other words, how can commons-based peer
> production reach deeply into daily life? How can ‘already existing
> non-capitalist economic processes’ be strengthened, ‘new non-capitalist
> enterprises’ be built, and ‘communal subjects’ be established
> (Gibson-Graham, 2003: 157)? An increasingly large free public goods and
> services sector could well cohabit in a plural economy with employment in
> cooperatives, paid independent work, and the wage-earning of the commercial
> sector. However analysis of peer production typically eschews mundane
> considerations such as living wages, benefits, job security, working
> conditions, work-induced medical conditions, and debates on labour
> organization. How can peer production operate as a sustainable practice
> enabling people to live, if labour and work issues are not formally
> addressed?
>
>  To advance this agenda, the tenth issue of the Journal of Peer
> Production, titled Peer Production and Work, calls for papers in two linked
> areas:
>
>  *Peer production in a paid work society*
> Nowadays firms attempt to monetize crowdsourced labour. The paradigmatic
> example is Amazon’s Mechanical Turk labourers (popularly known as
> ‘Turkers’, ‘cloud workers’ or ‘click workers’) who accomplish micro-tasks
> such as tagging and labeling images, transcribing audio or video
> recordings, and categorizing products. This extreme modularization of work
> results in their status being that of independent contractors rather than
> employees with rights, necessitating novel means of protection and redress
> (Irani & Silberman, 2013). The so-called 'sharing economy' also uses peer
> production methods, such as the self-selection of modular and granular
> tasks, to extract ever-more value from the labour of volunteer ‘prosumers’
> (Frayssé & O’Neil, 2015). Capitalist firms are also increasingly engaging
> with ethical-modular organizations, in some cases paying wages to
> participants. Such labour is thus both ‘alienated’, or sold, and
> ‘communal’, as workers freely cooperate to produce commons. Do traditional
> categories such as exploitation and alienation still apply?
> Topics may include, but are not limited to:
> - Peer production and the global political economy
> - Peer production and the rise of precarious work
> - Peer workers and possibilities for worker organisation
> - Does the autonomy of peer workers cause conflict in firms, and how is it
> resolved?
> - What strategies do firms adopt to co-opt peer production (e.g.,
> ‘hackhathons’)?
> - Do tensions around property rights emerge?
> - Subjectivity in peer production
> - Peer production and intellectual property, coded work
>
>  *Paid work in peer production projects*
> How does paid labour affect ethical P2P projects? Mansell and Berdou
> (2010) argue that firms supporting the work of programmers who contribute
> to volunteer projects, to the commons, will not affect the ‘cooperative
> spirit’ of projects; nor can this support prevent the results of labour
> from being socialized into commons. Is this always the case?
> Topics may include, but are not limited to:
> - How do peer projects deal with the presence of paid or waged labour?
> - Is this topic discussed within peer production projects? In what way?
> - What benefits do paid or waged workers enjoy in peer projects?
> - How does paid labour affect peer production projects?
>
>  *Timeline*
> 300-500 word-abstract due: 30 July 2015
> Notification to authors: 30 August 2015
> Submission of full paper: 31 December 2015
> Reviews to authors: 15 February 2016
> Revised papers: 30 April 2016
> Signals due: 30 May 2016
> Issue release: June/July 2016
>
>  *Submission guidelines*
> Submission abstracts of 300-500 words are due by July 30, 2015 and should
> be sent to <work at peerproduction.net>. All peer reviewed papers will be
> reviewed according to Journal of Peer Production guidelines. See
> http://peerproduction.net/peer-review/process/
> Full papers and materials are due by December 31, 2015 for review.
> Peer reviewed papers should be around 8,000 words; personal testimonies or
> ‘tales of toil’ in the Processed World tradition should be up to 4,000
> words.
>
>  *References*
> Arvidsson, A. (2008). The ethical economy of consumer coproduction.
> Journal of Macromarketing, 8, 326-338.
>
>  Demil, B., Lecoq. X. & Warnier, E. (2015). The capabilities of bazaar
> governance: Investigating the advantage of business models based on open
> communities. Journal of Organizational Change Management, in press.
>
>  Frayssé, O. & O’Neil, M. (2015) Digital labour and prosumer capitalism:
> The US matrix. Basingstoke: Palgrave, in press.
>
>  Gibson-Graham, J.K. (2003). Enabling ethical economies: Cooperativism
> and class. Critical Sociology, 29, 123-164.
>
>  Huws, U. (2013). The underpinnings of class in the digital age: Living,
> labour and value. Socialist Register, 50, 80-107.
>
>  Irani, L. & Silberman, M. (2013). Turkopticon: Interrupting worker
> invisibility in Amazon Mechanical Turk. Proceedings of the SIGCHI
> Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
>
>  Kostakis, V. & Bauwens, M. (2014) Network society and future scenarios
> for a collaborative economy. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
>
>  Mansell, R. & Berdou, E. (2010). Political economy, the internet and
> FL/OSS development. In Hunsinger, J., Allen, M. & Klastrup, L. (Eds.)
> International handbook of Internet research (pp. 341-362). Amsterdam, The
> Netherlands: Springer.
>
>  Moore, P. (2011). Subjectivity in the ecologies of P2P Production. The
> Journal of Fibreculture FCJ-119. Online.
>
>  Moore, P. & Taylor, P. A. (2009). Exploitation of the self in
> community-based software production: Workers’ freedoms or firm foundations?
> Capital & Class, 99-117.
>
>  O’Neil, M. (2015). Labour out of control: The political economy of
> capitalist and ethical organizations. Organization Studies, 1-21.
>
>  Söderberg, J. & O’Neil, M. (2014). 'Introduction'. Book of Peer
> Production (pp. 2-3). Göteborg: NSU Press.
>
>  ******************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> JoPP-Public mailing list
> JoPP-Public at lists.ourproject.org
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public
>
>


-- 
Dr. Vasilis Kostakis

Senior Research Fellow
Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and Governance

Research Director
P2P Lab: http://p2plab.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/jopp-public/attachments/20150609/13d38341/attachment.htm