Search results

The study explains why Parliamentarians in the United Kingdom (UK) focused on accountability through data during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as on how data could be used to improve the government’s response to the pandemic.

Understanding the implications of accountability for COVID-19 is crucial to understanding how governments should respond to future pandemics. This article provides an account of what a select committee in the UK thought were the essential elements of these accountability relationships. To do so, the authors use a neo-Roman concept of liberty to show how Parliamentary oversight of the pandemic for accountability was crucial to maintaining the liberty of citizens during the crisis and to identify what lessons need to be learnt for future crises.

The study shows that Parliamentarians were concerned that the UK government was not meeting its obligations to report openly about the COVID-19 pandemic to them. It shows that the government did make progress in reporting during the pandemic but further advancements need to be made in future for restrictions to be compatible with the protection of liberty.

The study extends the concept of neo-Roman liberty showing how it is relevant in an emergency situation and provides an account of why accountability is necessary for the preservation of liberty when the government uses emergency powers.

Governments and Parliaments need to think about how they preserve liberty during crises through enhanced accountability mechanisms and the publication of data.

The study extends previous work on liberty and calculation, providing a theorisation of the role of numbers in the protection of liberty.

Firm identities are central and enduring aspects of organizations. However, when firms develop unique identities, they also face an obvious paradox: strategic decisions that are inconsistent with those identities are likely to generate internal and external resistance. Indeed, decisions that entail identity-violating changes may have destabilizing consequences. Furthermore, firms typically face the demand of multiple audiences (or stakeholders) and, therefore, must conform to them in order to be seen as legitimate and have access to symbolic and material resources. Recognizing the influence of multiple audiences in identity construction opens the door to another paradox: what expectations should a firm heed while making those binding commitments that ultimately define its “identity”? These two paradoxes are at the heart of extant research on organizational identity, and addressing them requires a genuine engagement in conversations between disciplines, particularly among scholars working at the intersection between organization theory and strategy.

A growing body of research finds that gig economy platforms use gamification to enhance managerial control. Focusing on technologically mediated forms of gamification, this literature reveals how platforms mobilize gig workers’ work effort by making the labour process resemble a game. This chapter contends that this tech-centric scholarship fails to fully capture the historical continuities between contemporary and much older occurrences of game-playing at work. Informed by interviews and participatory observations at two food delivery platforms in Amsterdam, I document how these platforms’ piece wage system gives rise to a workplace dynamic in which severely underpaid delivery couriers continuously employ game strategies to maximize their gig income. Reminiscent of observations from the early shop floor ethnographies of the manufacturing industry, I show that the game of gig income maximization operates as an indirect modality of control by (re)aligning the interests of couriers with the interests of capital and by individualizing and depoliticizing couriers’ overall low wage level. I argue that the new, algorithmic technologies expand and intensify the much older forms of gamified control by infusing the organizational activities of shift and task allocation with the logic of the piece wage game and by increasing the possibilities for interaction, direct feedback and immersion. My study contributes to the literature on gamification in the gig economy by interweaving it with the classic observations derived from the manufacturing industry and by developing a conceptualization of gamification in which both capital and labour exercise agency.

The introductory chapter in the volume offers a rationale for bringing together, in an edited collection, contributions from authors who emphasize the continued relevance of mentoring in academia. The focus of mentoring in the volume is on enabling academics to orient their practice towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); the introduction highlights the selection of SDGs discussed, as well as critically reflective responses to these in existing literature. The structure of the volume and of individual chapters is mapped for the benefit of readers. The volume is a hybrid text, combining academic scholarly reflection with narrative vignettes and with dialogue excerpts, to illustrate more fully SDG-oriented mentoring practices and experiences. The principles underpinning the writing methodology and the sources which have helped shape these principles are discussed here. As well as unpacking the writing methodology, the introductory chapter spotlights three core texts on mentoring which informed the volume at proposal stage and throughout the writing process. A personal note on mentoring from the volume editor is followed by a ‘pause and reflect’ section, which offers questions for the reader to consider when engaging with some or all the chapters in the volume.

Drawing from interviews with individuals on parole, this chapter explores experiences of and responses to penal misrecognition. It documents that participants feel fundamentally misrecognised by the parole agency and penal state. They believe that the penal state views them as dangerous, defective and incapable of virtuous self-governance. Yet this is not how they perceive themselves. This leads to a delicate balancing act where participants refuse certain aspects of the penal state while accommodating others. On the one hand, individuals refuse parole’s misrecognition of them and reject the state’s authority to define who they are. On the other hand, they largely acquiesce to parole’s authority to supervise and regulate conduct. Turning to the concept of refusal highlights that individuals do not just attempt to resist penal power; rather, they flatly reject the state’s epistemic constructions. They do this by turning away from parole and by turning towards other forms of sociality beyond the penal state. This creates material and affective distance from parole and opens up space for self-recognition and for receiving positive recognition from others. In this way, individuals seek to minimise, move away from and/or bypass a penal intervention that is ostensibly designed to assist and support them.