Back by unpopular demand, I thought this was interesting. It’s an analysis of RAE results for psychology, showing that an H-index aggregated for departments, rather than individuals, provides a pretty good fit for a department’s RAE income award. The main additional variable that accounts for the variance is whether the department is represented on the panel or not.
Any CPPE-ers with a thing for Bataille or curious to know more about my ongoing collaboration with performance artists Goldin+Senneby, and who happen to be in London on Wednesday evening, might be interested in this:
http://www.ica.org.uk/37023/Talks/GoldinSenneby-Headless-Presented-by-Angus-Cameron.html
Hi everyone,
I’m working on a project about the Pareto Principle (or 80/20 rule) in management and business studies. For this project, I’m trying to collect examples of the 80/20 rule. I’m hoping to show that 80% of the evidence supporting the Pareto Principle comes from 20% of the cases. If you come across any examples which posit the truth of the 80/20 rule please feel free to post them as comments on http://8020rules.wordpress.com/ or email me.
R
In our ‘toxic’ paper ( http://hdl.handle.net/2381/27632 ) claiming a lack of interest in OS regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming we counted relevant papers in a sample of mainstream organisation studies journals, both orthodox and critical. By ‘mainstream’ we mean journals without a specific focus on environment, climate change, etc. – relevant to our theme because we were arguing that AGW ought to be a mainstream concern. We have since updated our original imprecise survey by looking at 2012 in our chosen journals –ASQ, JMS, Human Relations, Organization Studies, Organization, ephemera. These were selected as representing a cross section of organisation studies, from the generally functionalist/managerialist approaches, through relatively neutral and soft critical ones, to the hard critical approach.
In 2012 Organization Studies and ephemera each had relevant special issues on climate change, Human Relations published one paper. ASQ, JMS and Organization did not publish any.
In total there were c. 243 main articles during 2012 in our selected journals, of which 15, or c.6%, were concerned with climate change. However, not all address anthropogenic driven change, i.e. change we have caused and which we could do something about if we act quickly. Is this a sufficient level of interest in a problem so important and to which OS should be so relevant?
Yesterday I was putting the finishing touches to an introductory lecture on Descartes when I listened to a news item which now has me re-structuring it (the lecture) somewhat. Based upon a comparison of the skull structures of Neanderthals and Anatomically Modern Humans (AMHs), a team of researchers have suggested that the development of higher cognitive functions within human beings has an environmentally demonstrable evolutionary base. An overview of the argument can be found here whereas the article itself can be read here.
This made me wonder whether the development of philosophical and scientific speculation could also be explained along similar lines, that is to say, that philosophy and science, as with non-sensory and non-perceptual cognitive functions, might also be explainable in terms of environmental challenges characteristic of a particular historical epoch. This is a question of time-scales, at least initially, so I did a little more reading. There is evidence of Neanderthal existence which dates back approximately a quarter of a million years – evidence of their existence ceases around 25,000 years ago. Thales lived around 2,700 years ago. Aristotle died around 2,300 years ago, The School of Athens was painted just over 500 years ago, Descartes died 363 years ago. It is often easy to think of Descartes, or Raphael, or Thales, as far distant predecessors yet they are extremely close relatives when compared to the Neanderthal. I composed a graph to give a sense for how large the gap is: DarwinianCartesianism
What can this graph be taken to mean? Does it mean that philosophy and science have had a minimal effect upon the evolution of the species? Or, on the other hand, does it underline the unfathomable intellectual progress that has been made by the species in a relatively minimal period of time?
This year the Centre for Philosophy and Political Economy will celebrate its 10th birthday. Launched in October 2003 the CPPE has opened up and sustained a space in the university, but not accountable to the university, in which to explore questions of philosophy, political economy, their intersection and their critique (see http://tinyurl.com/cppe-position-document for more details). Over this decade, the CPPE has organised over 13 conferences and numerous workshops, seminars and public lectures. We have hosted a range of speakers and invited contributions from academics, activists and thinkers from around the world.
To celebrate our anniversary, we are have invited the 200-plus people who have addressed the CPPE in one form or another to participate in a conference in Leicester. We are planning the conference for the second week of December 2013. At this stage, we are keeping the conference’s themes and content open. Our intention is to shape the conference according to the responses and proposals we receive. So, if you’ve been involved with the CPPE over the years but have been missed out of the initial invitations please let us know if you are interested in attending this CPPE@10 conference and, if so, what you might be interested in presenting.
Once we have an idea of the interest from the CPPE’s past, we will begin advertising for our future. We hope to begin pulling together ideas – from which the conference’s themes will emerge – towards the beginning of April. At this point we will promote the conference more widely and invite contributions from the wider community.
Already, the event is promising to be lively, eclectic and inspiring. Mark it in your diary.
Evidenced by a lack of journal papers and an absence of conference streams we detect an unhealthy lack of interest within mainstream, functional and critical, organisation studies on Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Our attempt, in response to a call for papers in ‘Organization’, to draw attention to this met not with a measured response to our argument but with a flurry of personal abuse (see Leicester Research Archive http://hdl.handle.net/2381/27632 ). We were accused by one reviewer, inter alia, of using ‘cut’n’pastes from Wikipedia and a few half-understood papers’, of ‘ wannabee scholasticism’ and then of ‘casually fellating’ CPPE. Naturally, no justification for making such claims was provided. This reviewer, although carefully remaining anonymous, also thought that our paper was ‘a potent argument AGAINST double-blind review’ and that the authors ‘should be named and shamed’. Amazingly, this review had already been redacted by the editors! Another reviewer implied that we were racist, again without any evidence being adduced. Invective like this is, clearly, a subversion of the idea of peer review.
Such a response, reviewing the authors rather than the argument, is disturbing in any circumstances, but particularly when seen in the context of the imminent and irreversible threat posed by global warming. Is it perhaps a manifestation of the general state of denial that surrounds the topic? However, it also raises an interesting question as to what constitutes peer-review.
Peer-review connotes a relationship of equals and does not sanction unaccountable abuse of power. If a paper is sent out for review, (an editorial decision, not an authorial one), it could be assumed, prime facie, that it has some potential. We should also be able to assume, minimally, that any assessment of the paper by reviewer should bear some relation to the content, or lack of it, of the paper. Reviews should not comprise wild and unsubstantiated accusations impugning the character of the authors. Apart from being unethical and unprofessional, it is also potentially damaging to authors, who, additionally, have no right of reply. What are we to understand of reviewers who, immune from any scrutiny, aim to do damage to authors with whom they disagree? What price collegiality? What price knowledge? We also need to question the editorial role in this respect. No doubt choleric and dyspeptic reviewers are a fact of life, but these bilious reviews carried the imprimatur of the editorial team. This appears to suggest something beyond the rational and unimpassioned assessment of a text.
If peer-review is about the facilitation of new knowledge production, about the quest for wisdom and truth, where does attacking the messenger rather than the message fit in do this expectation? Or is it that peer-review has become part of the now prevalent dog-eat-dog competitive culture?
Norman Jackson and Pippa Carter
Please find below the call for papers for the Anarchism and Critical Management Studies stream at the 8th International CMS conference to be held in Manchester from the 10th to 12th of July 2013. The final deadline for abstracts submissions is the end of this week (01/03/13), so please do get in touch and send us something as soon as possible if you would like to participate. You should email both Thomas (trs6@le.ac.uk) and Kostya (ks302@le.ac.uk).
One may get the impression with this initiative that we are trying to marry two mutually exclusive traditions: anarchism and management. We would argue that there is in fact nothing exclusive about the study of management, either as a phenomenon of capitalist society or as a mode of organisation, and anarchism. Sadly, the only points of contact between the two seem to have been in the co-opting of anarchist and other radical ideas into mainstream management discourse; for example, think of non-heirarchical, networked workplaces or canteens with vegan options. Is it the case that these and other examples have been deprived through their integration of their powerful ethical and political potentials, or can they be salvaged for radical political praxis?
To say the least, management annoys us intensely, primarily because it is more often than not the management of one group of people by other people: workers by managers, women by men, non-white people by white people, and so on. This is one point at which anarcha-feminism, queer anarchism and postcolinial theory can intervene in the debate around anarchism and management, and we would encourage anyone working on the intersection between anarcha-feminist theory, queer theory or anarchist race theory and how these relate to contemporary business and management to consider submitting an abstract. We recognise that our original call for submissions didn’t reflect this openness to a complete picture of the social and political struggle against capital and as a result perhaps excluded many non-male and non-white academics, but we assure you this was not intentional and we more than welcome submissions dealing with all aspects of anarchist theory and how they relate to management and business, both in terms of critiquing mainstream models and realities and defining alternatives.
Another thing we want to encourage is submissions that deal with topics that are perhaps sometimes considered peripheral to management but that are nonetheless crucial to the development of both business and anarchist struggle (if such a neutral appreciation of a means can be accepted); for example, marketing and PR, economic analysis, etc.
If you or any of your friends and/or colleagues are working on anything that would fit within this broad definition of anarchism and critical management studies, then please do get in touch with us as soon as possible.
The full CFP is available here: https://socialmediaandradicalpolitics.wordpress.com/2013-cms-conference-cfp/
An idea for a research project. Can be linked to application for Leverhulme grant under its “Innovation for Sustainable Living” theme (deadline=3.10.2013).
Complementary to the strands suggested below are perhaps three overarching themes:
A. Physical environment and ecology;
B. Social relations, social organisation, institutions;
C. Technology.
Markets have failed. Nicolas Stern has described climate change as ‘the greatest market failure the world has ever seen’ — and it shows no sign of being corrected anytime soon. The costs — for human beings — of ignoring climate change are catastrophic. But markets are also failing human beings in the here and now. Rising inequality; greater poverty; risk of social breakdown. Pensions crisis. More general crisis of elder care. We can understand this a crisis of social reproduction. (See George Caffentzis, ‘On the notion of a crisis in social reproduction: a theoretical review‘, The Commoner, 2002.) According to a recent GlobeScan survey only 57% of people in the UK believe ‘the free market is the best system of which to base the future of the world’ — a very low number given the lack of alternative visions. Even fewer people (50%) have ‘trust in global business’. These findings are replicated across the planet and echo those of two earlier BBC global polls.
This project attempts to provide such an alternative vision on a local level — Leicestershire. Leicestershire covers an area of 2,150 square kilometres and currently has a population of almost 1 million people. Its scope will range from the concrete to the highly speculative and could involve collaboration across a wide range of disciplines: agricultural science, architecture, civil, mechanical and structural engineering climate and environmental science, finance, organisation studies, political science, psychology, science and technology studies, sociology, urban planning.
The project involves a number of strands or themes.
1. What will the territory that Leicestershire covers be like physically/environmentally in 50 years, in 100 years, in 150 years? Particularly in terms of climate, average temperatures, rainfall, seasonal variations, etc. If the planet warms by an average of 2 degrees, 3 degrees, 4 degrees.
2. What are the implications of 1. for agriculture and also for infrastructure?
3. The underpinning political-philosophy or value-system is that human needs and reproducing human beings must take priority over market rationality. Democracy is also a core value. This is the perspective of the commons (see Elinor Ostrom, “Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems“; Peter Linebaugh, The Magna Carta Manifesto: Liberties and Commons for All; for a review of literature on commons and commoning, see Massimo De Angelis and David Harvie, “The Commons”, forthcoming in Martin Parker, George Cheney, Valérie Fournier and Chris Land (eds) The Routledge Companion to Alternative Organization) and leads to operating principle of localism (which must be anti-xenophobic — see below) and broad self-sufficiency — food sovereignty, but also energy-sovereignty, health-sovereignty, etc. Such an approach also requires a reconceptualisation of work: in summary, many more people will contribute to production of food (but the challenge is to avoid the “social retrogression” associated with “back to the land” conceptions); the work of social reproduction (in particular care for young, old and sick) must be accorded far greater value; but many jobs will disappear — they will no longer be necessary — and so people will not have to work harder or longer. But one aim of the research project is to assess whether this is really the case.
The remaining research themes follow:
4. Could Leicestershire be largely self-sufficient in food, i.e. could it provide staples for a million people? If so, what sort of diet could we enjoy? How could such a diet be improved? Can we create 21st century equivalent of Victorian orangeries, e.g. Temperate House at Kew Gardens. 
I.e. can we grow coffee and tea and oranges and spices — or must we ‘trade’? What are the energy requirements of this type of agriculture — both human and non-human energy?
5. Energy. What are the energy needs? For agriculture. For heating. For transport. How can these needs be met? Can we invent human-powered machines that replace hydro-carbon-fuelled agricultural machines? Think of the dynapod. How can we harness human energy in other ways?
6. Transport. What are the transport needs? For humans. For goods. What infrastructure might be built? ‘Busways’? Sheltered velo-ways, velo-lifts. What types of human-powered vehicles (HPVs) or velomobiles might be designed or adapted?
7. Other infrastructure. How can the built environment be modified to meet human needs in a low-carbon society? If there are fewer cars then need less road space: Chris Carlsson has suggested ‘one lane for veg’. Leicester has nine multi-storey carparks. How could such structures be adapted? Could they be used to grow mushrooms? To play 5-a-side football?
8. Social organisation. Clearly food, energy and transport are mutually determined. It’s almost certain more people will have be involved in agriculture; it’s almost certain people will have to reduce their (non-human) energy needs. This necessitates shifts in social organisation. Which, in turn, is related to architecture, urban planning, etc., not only technology.
The ideas here are very much influenced by those of P.M., in bolo’bolo, “It’s all about potatoes and computers” and Restart Switzerland. P.M. suggests various levels of social organisation, ranging from neighbourhoods (approx. 500 people), through cities and regions (between 100,000 and 1 million people), up to planetary level. If we accepted this broad schema, then Leicestershire would be classified as a region that might be made up of roughly 2000 neighbourhoods.
Shifting patterns of work over the year. Perhaps large numbers of people engage in agricultural work during busy seasons — planting and harvest.
Eldercare and childcare: The “pensions crisis” is just aspect of a wider crisis of eldercare. In many countries, including the UK, retirement ages are being raised, and we might expect many people to work into their 70s. This prospect is unattractive, yet equally unattractive is the feeling that one is no longer of worth to society. At the same time, there are concerns about the extent and quality of nursery provision for young children. (Consider recent “relaxation” in rules governing number of toddlers nurseries and childminders can care for.) Perhaps a solution to both problems is to create new institutions in which elders can live and work alongside youngers. At present, many old folk are lonely; most children want attention!
Hospitality: we do not wish to promote chauvinism, jingoism, etc. Instead, we think it desirable that citizens can travel and can experience other cultures, environments, etc. So how can guests be accommodated?
What role, if any, might money play? Work on alternative currencies. Relates to questions about information and coordination and, even more broadly, economic governance.
9. Debt and “reparations”: as many bodies have recognised, climate change is already resulting in increasing flows of migrants and may lead to a billion displaced people by the middle of the century. Such migration is an important element in many (rich) states’ security planning. From the other side, poor countries have adopted language of “reparations”, demanding that they be compensated for their exposure to climatic and environmental changes not of their own making. Both ethics and self-interest would suggest that displaced people and other migrants be accommodated elsewhere. (Self-interest because the “security” spending necessary to repel such refugees would represent an enormous burden on scarce resources.) How might Leicestershire play a role in such accommodation?
10. Can the above be repeated for another, possibly more challenging region, such as London or part of it? A number of scholars have suggested that cities have more potential for environmentally-sustainable living, but megacities pose challenges in terms of access to agricultural land. In such cities some buildings might have to be removed or greened (e.g. green roofs) to create more farmland.
