Search results

A key meta-narrative of Employment Relations in the UK over recent decades has been that of labour market deregulation. However, governments have simultaneously introduced workplace rights legislation that juridified individual employment relationships. Within this process, employers and their representatives, Employers’ Organizations (EOs), are generally depicted as opposing the introduction of employment law or attempting to weaken its application. Contrary to this belief, our research identified a range of other responses to ask: how and why have EO responses varied?

This article draws on primary qualitative and quantitative data from three projects; one examined the totality of EOs in the UK while the others examined topic-specific behaviour of EOs and other actors. The main source is the first project and its 98 interviews with representatives of EOs and related organisations between 2013 and 2017.

We demonstrate that opposition is not the only EO response to individual employment law by identifying three others: compliance, advocating for law and going beyond legally stipulated requirements by promoting voluntary standards/best practice. The article argues that there are two explanations for this pattern. One is that individual EOs possess different sets of member interests, the other relates to differences in their organizational characteristics.

The article makes two contributions to the literature. One is that our identification of varying responses challenges more unitary accounts emphasising neoliberal and deregulatory patterns. The other lies in our identification of causal forces not previously identified. Both combine to illustrate how the neo-liberal order is not characterised by employer consensus as to regulation.

This study examines innovation configurations (i.e. sets of product/service, social and business model innovations) and configuration linkages (i.e. factors that help to combine innovations) across six organizations as contingent upon organizational structure.

Using semi-structured interviews and available public information, qualitative data were collected and examined using content analysis to characterize innovation configurations and linkages in three local/private organizations and three foreign-led/public-private partnerships in Repiblik Ayiti (Haiti).

Organizations tend to combine product/service, social, and business model innovations simultaneously in locally founded private organizations and sequentially in foreign-based public-private partnerships. Linkages for simultaneous combination include limited external support, determined autonomy and shifting from a “beneficiary mindset,” and financial need identification. Sequential combination linkages include social need identification, community connections and flexibility.

The generalizability of our findings for this qualitative study is subject to additional quantitative studies to empirically test the suggested factors and to examine other health care organizations and countries.

Locally led private organizations in low- and middle-income settings may benefit from considering how their innovations are in service to one another as they may have limited resources. Foreign based public-private partnerships may benefit from pacing their efforts alongside a broader set of stakeholders and ecosystem partners.

This study is the first, to our knowledge, to examine how organizations combine sets of innovations, i.e. innovation configurations, in a healthcare setting and the first of any setting to examine innovation configuration linkages.

As social infrastructures, public libraries are increasingly recognised as providing more than access to books and information; librarians’ work is importantly centred around practices of care. However, the ways in which they provide care is poorly researched, let alone conceptualised. This paper explores how this important part of librarians’ daily work is practiced through the lens of infrastructuring.

The paper first theoretically discusses the concepts of social infrastructuring, care and tinkering. Then, it turns to ethnographic research conducted in the public library networks of three European cities: Vienna (Austria), Rotterdam (the Netherlands) and Malmö (Sweden). The paper comprises empirical materials from all three countries and unpacks 16 librarians’ daily working routines of care through participant observations.

The empirical analysis resulted in three modes of social infrastructuring in public libraries: (1) maintaining, (2) building connections and (3) drawing boundaries. Practices of care are prominent in each of these infrastructuring modes: librarians infrastructure the library with and via their care practices. Whilst care practices are difficult to quantify and verbalise, they are valuable for library patrons. By using the concept of tinkering, the article conceptualises librarians’ infrastructuring enactments as crucial community-building aspects of libraries.

By focusing on the enactment of social infrastructuring, the paper goes beyond a descriptive approach to understanding public libraries as important social infrastructures. Rather, the paper unpacks how libraries come into being as infrastructuring agencies by highlighting what librarians do and say. Our international study articulates the importance of care practices in public libraries across different national contexts.

Organizational scholars studying compensation often place an emphasis on certain employee groups (e.g., executives). Missing from this discussion is research on the compensation systems for low-wage jobs. In this review, the authors argue that workers in low-wage jobs represent a unique employment group in their understanding of rent allocation in organizations. The authors address the design of compensation strategies in organizations that lead to different outcomes for workers in low-wage jobs versus other workers. Drawing on and integrating human resource management (HRM), inequality, and worker literatures with compensation literature, the authors describe and explain compensation systems for low-wage work. The authors start by examining workers in low-wage work to identify aspects of these workers’ jobs and lives that can influence their health, performance, and other organizationally relevant outcomes. Next, the authors explore the compensation systems common for this type of work, building on the compensation literature, by identifying the low-wage work compensation designs, proposing the likely explanations for why organizations craft these designs, and describing the worker and organizational outcomes of these designs. The authors conclude with suggestions for future research in this growing field and explore how organizations may benefit by rethinking their approach to compensation for low-wage work. In sum, the authors hope that this review will be a foundational work for those interested in investigating organizational compensation issues at the intersection of inequality and worker and organizational outcomes.

Organizational sociology and organization studies have a long history together, while also sharing a proclivity to self-diagnose crises. Instead of taking these assessments at face value, this paper treats them as an object of study, asking what conditions have fueled them. In the case of organizational sociology, there are indications of a connection between rising levels of discontent and community building: self-identified organizational sociologists have progressively withdrawn from general debates in the discipline and turned their attention to organization studies, which, they suspect, has seen dramatic levels of growth at their expense. Organization studies, on the other hand, are still haunted by “a Faustian bargain”: leaning heavily on the authority of the social sciences, business school faculty were able to facilitate the emergence of a scholarly field of practice dedicated to the study of organizations, which they control. However, in doing so, they also set organization studies on a path of continued dependence on knowledge produced elsewhere: notably, by university disciplines such as sociology.

This paper focuses on image-to-text manuscript processing through Handwritten Text Recognition (HTR), a Machine Learning (ML) approach enabled by Artificial Intelligence (AI). With HTR now achieving high levels of accuracy, we consider its potential impact on our near-future information environment and knowledge of the past.

In undertaking a more constructivist analysis, we identified gaps in the current literature through a Grounded Theory Method (GTM). This guided an iterative process of concept mapping through writing sprints in workshop settings. We identified, explored and confirmed themes through group discussion and a further interrogation of relevant literature, until reaching saturation.

Catalogued as part of our GTM, 120 published texts underpin this paper. We found that HTR facilitates accurate transcription and dataset cleaning, while facilitating access to a variety of historical material. HTR contributes to a virtuous cycle of dataset production and can inform the development of online cataloguing. However, current limitations include dependency on digitisation pipelines, potential archival history omission and entrenchment of bias. We also cite near-future HTR considerations. These include encouraging open access, integrating advanced AI processes and metadata extraction; legal and moral issues surrounding copyright and data ethics; crediting individuals’ transcription contributions and HTR’s environmental costs.

Our research produces a set of best practice recommendations for researchers, data providers and memory institutions, surrounding HTR use. This forms an initial, though not comprehensive, blueprint for directing future HTR research. In pursuing this, the narrative that HTR’s speed and efficiency will simply transform scholarship in archives is deconstructed.

Organizations remain a vital sociological topic, but organizational sociology, as a subfield, has evolved significantly since its inception. In this paper, I argue that organization sociology is becoming increasingly disconnected from organizational theory, as currently conceived. The focus of sociological research on organizations has become more empirically grounded in the study of social problems and how organizations contribute to them. Sociologists continue to see organizations as important actors in society that play a role in shaping social order and as contexts in which social processes play out. I propose two main sociological approaches for organizational research, which I describe as “organizations within society” and “society within organizations.” The first approach examines the role of organizations as building blocks of social structure and as social actors in their own right. The second approach treats organizations as platforms and locations of social interactions and the building of community. These approaches are somewhat disconnected from the sort of grand theorizing that characterizes much of organizational theory. I argue that the problem-oriented sociology of these two approaches offers a vital way for organizational scholars to expand and theoretically revitalize the field.