Available for pre-order now! See here for the cheapest place to buy it online, as well as table of contents & summary.
CALL FOR PAPERS
Radicalization and Media Logic:
Surveillances and Self-Mediatization in Social Media and Politics
A special issue of Medijske studije/ Media Studies Journal
to be published in Vol. 8, issue 15 (June 2017)
Dr Robert Imre, University of Newcastle, Australia and University of Tampere, Finland
Dr Stephen Owen, University of New South Wales, Australia
About the issue
The current state of usage of social media platforms and various types of communication tools gives us a new form of political expression at all levels. Pressed to mediatize themselves, political actors of all kinds—protestors, official political/party representatives, individual issue-drivers, and political participants—are all increasingly driven to involve themselves in complex processes of self-mediatization. The corollary of this increase in self- mediatization is a deepening engagement with the surveillance assemblage through what is often experienced (or presented to users) as mundane aspects of social-surveillance. The posting of material to, or consumption of content on social media communications makes constant interaction with the platforms de rigueur—and often compulsive—and ensures that levels of monitoring are continuing to press for these political actors to self-mediatize and monitor each others social media status and content.
The standardised architectures and designs of these social media platforms, as well as the various discourses pertaining to the correct uses of them, encourage particular presentations of self and content. As a new form of political participation these social media platforms guarantee a privileging of specific and particular kinds of persona constructs that inhibit politics at one level, while developing an ever-expanding surveillance at another level. As the surveillance assemblage becomes more entrenched the surveillance gaze upon the users of social media platforms is also more apparent. This universal surveillance assemblage perpetually adds layers of content to the social media ensemble, and creates a politics that can no longer exist, by definition, outside of the surveilled social media framing. This creates the illusion of universal participation while at the same time constricting political dialogue as the civilizing and restraining effects of the social media spotlight are brought to bear on each participant using these platforms. Given these constraints, this
special issue seeks papers dealing with some of the affects/effects when dealing with the phenomenon of radicalization.
Topics can include but are not limited to:
Left-Wing Radicalization and the media
Right-Wing Radicalization and the media
Social Media and Radicalization: theoretical views
Religious radicalization and the media
Legitimacy of the state and/or radical causes
Media Regulation and Radicalization
Information about the journal:
Media Studies is an interdisciplinary journal published by the University of Zagreb, Faculty of Political Science. The journal provides an international forum for the presentation of research and the advancement of discourse concerning media, communications, journalism, and public relations, within each field’s cultural, historical, political and/or economic contexts.
The articles should not be published before (neither partially nor completely), nor currently be considered for publication by any other journal or book, nor should the submissions be a translation of previously published articles.
The journal is indexed in the SCOPUS and ERIH Plus databases.
For more see http://www.mediastudies.fpzg.hr
Submission guidelines: Please send your abstract (500 – 700 words) and a short CV with contact information, to the guest editor and please make sure that it addresses the theoretical framework, method and (preliminary) conclusions. The deadline for abstracts is 1 December 2015 and authors will be notified by 20 December 2015.
The deadline for full articles is 1 May 2016.
Upon acceptance, manuscripts shall undergo a rigorous international double-blind peer review. Manuscripts should be written in English, using Times New Roman; size 12; 1.5 line spacing; all pages should be numbered appropriately. The main text of the article should be between 5,000 and 6,000 words (for more see Notes for authors at http://www.mediastudies.fpzg.hr).
Please send your abstract or questions to the special issue editor:
CALL FOR PAPERS
7th International Workshop on Modeling Social Media (MSM’2016)
Behavioral Analytics on the Web
to be held on April 12, 2016, Montreal, Canada
co-located with ACM WWW 2016
** Submission Deadline: Dec 22, 2015 (23:59 Hawaii Standard Time)
** Notification of Acceptance: Feb 2, 2016
** Camera-Ready Versions Due: Feb 8, 2016
** Workshop date: April 12, 2016
Martin Atzmueller, University of Kassel, Germany:
Alvin Chin, BMW Group, USA: email@example.com
Christoph Trattner, Know-Center, Austria: firstname.lastname@example.org
For the 7th International Workshop on Modeling Social Media, we aim
to attract researchers from all over the world working in the field
of behavioral analytics using web and social media data.
Behavioral analytics is an important topic, e.g., concerning web
applications as well as extensions in mobile and ubiquitous
applications, for understanding user behavior. We would also like
to invite researchers in the data and web mining community to lend
their expertise to help to increase our understanding of the web
and social media.
Thus, we invite submissions which may include the following topics,
but are not limited to:
* Behavioral analytics methods or frameworks for social media,
big data and the web
* Approaches for personalization and recommendations
* Methods for social structure and community discovery
* Methods for tie strength or link prediction
* Methods for extracting and understanding user and group behavior
* Methods for predicting user behavior
* Methods for user modeling and profiling
* Applications of behavioral analytics
* Privacy and security in behavioral analytics
* Applications of any of the above methods and technologies
The goal of this workshop is to apply behavioral analytics approaches
and algorithms on social media, big data and the web.
Hence, the workshop aims to attract and discuss various novel aspects
of personalization, recommendation, community discovery, profiling
and prediction from social media.
Submissions: We solicit full research papers (4-6 pages), and short
papers (1-4 pages) both in the ACM conference paper style.
Papers should be submitted in EasyChair to
Alejandro Bellogin, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Spain
Shlomo Berkovsky, CSIRO, Australia
Robin Burke, DePaul University, USA
Javier Luis Canovas Izquierdo, IN3 – UOC, Spain
Guanling Chen, University of Massachusetts Lowell, USA
Stephan Doerfel, University of Kassel, Germany
Ruth Garcia, Oxford University, UK
Daniel Gayo-Avello, University of Oviedo, Spain
Mouzhi Ge, University of Bolzano, Italy
Michael Granitzer, University of Passau, Germany
Bin Guo, Northwestern Polytechnical University, China
Geert-Jan Houben, TU Delft, Netherlands
Sharon Hsiao, Arizona State University, USA
Andreas Kaltenbrunner, Barcelona Media, Spain
Mark Kibanov, University of Kassel, Germany
Bart Knijnenburg, University of California, Irvine, USA
Simon Koo, Jesuit Liberal Arts College, Hong Kong, China
Florian Lemmerich, University of Wuerzburg, Germany
Harold Liu, Beijing Institute of Technology, China
Kjetil Nørvåg, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
Denis Parra, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Chile
Shaghayegh Sahebi, University of Pittsburgh, USA
Philipp Singer, GESIS, Germany
Alan Said, Recorded Future, SE
Su Yang, Fudan University, China
Shengdong Zhao, National University of Singapore, Singapore
Arkaitz Zubiaga, University of Warwick, UK
Contributions will be included in the Companion volume of the ACM
WWW2016 conference, which will be published by ACM and included
in the ACM Digital Library.
However, to make that happen at least one author of the accepted
paper has to register. At the time of submission of the final
camera-ready copy, authors will have to indicate the already
registered person for that publication.
Any paper published by the ACM, IEEE, etc. which can be properly
cited constitutes research which must be considered in judging the
novelty of a WWW submission, whether the published paper was in a
conference, journal, or workshop. Therefore, any paper previously
published as part of a WWW workshop must be referenced and suitably
extended with new content to qualify as a new submission to the
Research Track at the WWW conference.
All submitted papers must
* be written in English;
* contain author names, affiliations, and email addresses;
* be formatted according to the ACM SIG Proceedings template
with a font size no smaller than 9pt;
* be in PDF (make sure that the PDF can be viewed on any
platform), and formatted for US Letter size;
* occupy no more than six pages, including the abstract,
references, and appendices.
It is the authors’ responsibility to ensure that their submissions
adhere strictly to the required format.
Submissions that do not comply with the above guidelines may be
rejected without review.
All submissions must be entered into the reviewing system:
This looks great:
# In solidarity with Library Genesis and Sci-Hub
In Antoine de Saint Exupéry’s tale the Little Prince meets a
businessman who accumulates stars with the sole purpose of being able
to buy more stars. The Little Prince is perplexed. He owns only a
flower, which he waters every day. Three volcanoes, which he cleans
every week. “It is of some use to my volcanoes, and it is of some use
to my flower, that I own them,” he says, “but you are of no use to the
stars that you own”.
There are many businessmen who own knowledge today. Consider Elsevier,
the largest scholarly publisher, whose 37% profit margin[^1] stands in
sharp contrast to the rising fees, expanding student loan debt and
poverty-level wages for adjunct faculty. Elsevier owns some of the
largest databases of academic material, which are licensed at prices
so scandalously high that even Harvard, the richest university of the
global north, has complained that it cannot afford them any longer.
Robert Darnton, the past director of Harvard Library, says “We faculty
do the research, write the papers, referee papers by other
researchers, serve on editorial boards, all of it for free … and then
we buy back the results of our labour at outrageous prices.”[^2] For
all the work supported by public money benefiting scholarly
publishers, particularly the peer review that grounds their
legitimacy, journal articles are priced such that they prohibit access
to science to many academics – and all non-academics – across the
world, and render it a token of privilege[^3].
Elsevier has recently filed a copyright infringement suit in New York
against Science Hub and Library Genesis claiming millions of dollars
in damages.[^4] This has come as a big blow, not just to the
administrators of the websites but also to thousands of researchers
around the world for whom these sites are the only viable source of
academic materials. The social media, mailing lists and IRC
channels have been filled with their distress messages, desperately
seeking articles and publications.
Even as the New York District Court was delivering its injunction,
news came of the entire editorial board of highly-esteemed journal
Lingua handing in their collective resignation, citing as their reason
the refusal by Elsevier to go open access and give up on the high fees
it charges to authors and their academic institutions. As we write
these lines, a petition is doing the rounds demanding that Taylor &
Francis doesn’t shut down Ashgate[^5], a formerly independent
humanities publisher that it acquired earlier in 2015. It is
threatened to go the way of other small publishers that are being
rolled over by the growing monopoly and concentration in the
publishing market. These are just some of the signs that the system is
broken. It devalues us, authors, editors and readers alike. It
parasites on our labor, it thwarts our service to the public, it
denies us access[^6].
We have the means and methods to make knowledge accessible to
everyone, with no economic barrier to access and at a much lower cost
to society. But closed access’s monopoly over academic publishing, its
spectacular profits and its central role in the allocation of academic
prestige trumps the public interest. Commercial publishers effectively
impede open access, criminalize us, prosecute our heroes and heroines,
and destroy our libraries, again and again. Before Science Hub and
Library Genesis there was Library.nu or Gigapedia; before Gigapedia
there was textz.org; before textz.org there was little; and before
there was little there was nothing. That’s what they want: to reduce
most of us back to nothing. And they have the full support of the
courts and law to do exactly that.[^7]
In Elsevier’s case against Sci-Hub and Library Genesis, the judge
said: “simply making copyrighted content available for free via a
foreign website, disserves the public interest”[^8]. Alexandra
Elbakyan’s original plea put the stakes much higher: “If Elsevier
manages to shut down our projects or force them into the darknet, that
will demonstrate an important idea: that the public does not have the
right to knowledge.”
We demonstrate daily, and on a massive scale, that the system is
broken. We share our writing secretly behind the backs of our
publishers, circumvent paywalls to access articles and publications,
digitize and upload books to libraries. This is the other side of 37%
profit margins: our knowledge commons grows in the fault lines of a
broken system. We are all custodians of knowledge, custodians of the
same infrastructures that we depend on for producing knowledge,
custodians of our fertile but fragile commons. To be a custodian is,
de facto, to download, to share, to read, to write, to review, to
edit, to digitize, to archive, to maintain libraries, to make them
accessible. It is to be of use to, not to make property of, our
More than seven years ago Aaron Swartz, who spared no risk in standing
up for what we here urge you to stand up for too, wrote: “We need to
take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share
them with the world. We need to take stuff that’s out of copyright and
add it to the archive. We need to buy secret databases and put them on
the Web. We need to download scientific journals and upload them to
file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open Access. With
enough of us, around the world, we’ll not just send a strong message
opposing the privatization of knowledge — we’ll make it a thing of the
past. Will you join us?”[^9]
We find ourselves at a decisive moment. This is the time to recognize
that the very existence of our massive knowledge commons is an act of
collective civil disobedience. It is the time to emerge from hiding
and put our names behind this act of resistance. You may feel
isolated, but there are many of us. The anger, desperation and fear of
losing our library infrastructures, voiced across the internet, tell
us that. This is the time for us custodians, being dogs, humans or
cyborgs, with our names, nicknames and pseudonyms, to raise our
Share this letter – read it in public – leave it in the printer. Share
your writing – digitize a book – upload your files. Don’t let our
knowledge be crushed. Care for the libraries – care for the metadata –
care for the backup. Water the flowers – clean the volcanoes.
[^7]: In fact, with the TPP and TTIP being rushed through the
legislative process, no domain registrar, ISP provider, host or human
rights organization will be able to prevent copyright industries and
courts from criminalizing and shutting down websites “expeditiously”.
If you want to disseminate further:
on twitter it says:
http://custodians.online 4LibGen&Sci-hub: share this letter, read it
in public, care for the libraries, water the ❀❀❀❀❀, clean the
In Solidarity with Library Genesis and Sci-hub
Share this letter – read it in public – leave it in the printer. Share
your writing – digitize a book – upload your files. Don’t let our
knowledge be crushed. Care for the libraries – care for the metadata –
care for the backup. Water the ❀❀❀❀❀ – clean the volcanoes.”
if you want to check few more variations or add your own, please:
Call for Book Chapters:”Internet Research Ethics for the Social Age: New Cases and Challenges”
Editors: Michael Zimmer and Katharina Kinder-Kurlanda
Publisher: Peter Lang: Digital Formations (Steve Jones, series editor)
The Internet and related social media technologies and platforms have opened up vast new means for communication, socialization, expression, and collaboration. They also have provided new resources for researchers seeking to explore, observe, and measure human opinions, activities and interactions. Increasingly, social media tools are used to aid traditional research: subjects might be recruited through Facebook or Twitter, surveys are administered and shared online, and data is often stored and processed on social and collaborative Web-based platforms and repositories. Social media has also emerged as a preferred domain for research itself: ethnographies take place within massively online social environments, entire collections of Facebook profile pages are scraped for data analysis, and public Twitter streams are routinely mined for academic purposes. Process data such as timestamps or logs are allowing researchers to model usage across time and space employing new computational methods.
In short, academic research has begun to fully embrace what Maria Azua describes in her book, “The Social Factor: Innovate, Ignite, and Win through Mass Collaboration and Social Networking,” as “the social age,” the leveraging of the Internet and pervasive connected devices to enhance communication, information exchange, collaboration, and social interactions. As a result, researchers studying the internet find themselves immersed in a domain where information flows freely but potentially bound by contextual norms and expectations, where platforms may oscillate between open and closed information flows, and where data may be user-generated or proprietary. They are confronted with new economies of attention, where algorithms, memes and crowdfunding play a role in what is made visible on the Internet.
As in its offline counterpart, Internet and social media-based research raises critical ethical issues of risk and safety to the human subject. The many disciplines already long engaged in human subjects research (such as medicine, anthropology, psychology, communication) have long-standing ethical codes and policies intended to guide researchers and those charged with ensuring that research on human subjects follows both legal requirements and ethical practices, and ethical review boards are charged with approving, monitoring, and reviewing research involving humans to ensure the rights and welfare of the research subjects are protected.
But in the so-called “social age” – where individuals increasingly share personal information on platforms with porous and shifting boundaries, the aggregation of data from disparate sources is increasingly the norm, and web-based services, and their privacy policies and terms of service statements change too rapidly for an average user to keep up – the ethical frameworks and assumptions traditionally used by researchers and review boards alike are frequently challenged and, in some cases, inadequate. Researchers using the Internet as a tool or a space of research – and their ethical review boards – are confronted with a continuously expanding set of ethical dilemmas: What ethical obligations do researchers have to protect the privacy of subjects engaging in activities in “public” Internet spaces? Which national or international ethical standards apply when researching global networks, communities, or information flows? How is confidentiality or anonymity assured online? How is and should informed consent be obtained online? How should research on minors be conducted, and how do you prove a subject is not a minor? Is deception (pretending to be someone you are not or withholding identifiable information) in online spaces a norm, or a harm? Is “harm” possible to someone existing online in digital spaces? What are researchers’ obligations in spaces which are governed by platform providers? How should contend with inequalities in data access and uncertainties about data provenance and quality?
In recent years, a growing number of scholars have begun exploring this new domain of Internet research ethics, numerous scholarly associations have drafted ethical guidelines for Internet research, and government regulatory authorities are starting to confront the myriad of ethical concerns Internet-based research brings to light.
“Internet Research Ethics for the Social Age: New Cases and Challenges” will provide a necessary update to this existing scholarship in four critical ways:
• First, as Internet tools and platforms continue to evolve at a rapid pace, we will seek to include brief case studies highlighting unique uses — and related ethical concerns — of the current state-of-the-art technologies and platforms, including new social media platforms like Vine and Tinder, cloud and distributed computing, wearable devices, health tracking applications, and so on.
• Second, we will strive to expand the disciplinary terrain impacted by Internet-based research, expanding the investigation of research approaches within the social sciences to include computer science, medicine, engineering, and business, resulting in a more inclusive umbrella of domains that must confront the challenges of Internet research ethics.
• Third, we will strive for a more global approach to the challenges of Internet research ethics, soliciting contributions from researchers in diverse regulatory environments, as well as those dealing with the complex ethical dimensions of researching platforms and users that cross borders.
• And fourth, we will also pay attention to the new ‘players’ in the domain of internet research ethics, such as platform providers and other commercial data owners who might engage in their own research, frequently disrupting traditional mechanisms of ethical review.
We envision two kinds of submissions for “Internet Research Ethics for the Social Age: New Cases and Challenges”:
– New Cases in Internet Research Ethics: We seek to include brief case studies highlighting unique uses — and related ethical concerns — of current state-of-the-art technologies and platforms within research contexts. Case studies can be descriptive and illustrative, and don’t necessarily need to resolve the ethical concerns. Cases could be examples from one’s own research, or an overview of various related projects in the field. Examples from industry, government, and academia are welcome.
Topics for cases include, but are not limited to:
• Social network analysis
• Meta-data and log analysis
• Digital ethnography
• Mobile applications
• Wearable computers
• Facebook Emotion Contagion debate
• Personal tracking
• Internet shaming
– New Challenges in Internet Research Ethics: Complementing the inclusion of various emerging cases, the 2nd part of the volume will provide broader discussions of new challenges in Internet research ethics. These chapters will tend to be more normative and analytical, engaging with the conceptual dimensions of Internet research ethics. We especially seek examples that consider a global perspective.
Topics for discussion of challenges include, but are not limited to:
• What constitutes a human subject?
• What is the nature of Informed consent in online environments?
• Issues of privacy and anonymity
• Tracking & location privacy
• Citizen science & crowdsourcing data collection
• Information security
• Data sharing & openness
• Transnational information flows
• Internal and industry-sponsored research
Submission details and timeline:
Potential contributors are invited to submit a 2-3 page chapter proposal to InternetResearchEthicsBook@gmail.com by December 1, 2015, detailing the chapter’s contribution and fit with the book, and the structure of the proposed chapter.
Authors will be notified by January 15, 2016 as to the status of their proposal and sent formatting requirements. Full chapters should be 5,000-8,000 words in length (case studies may be shorter) and are due on May 1, 2016. After a round of editorial reviews, final revised manuscripts will be due on August 15, 2016.
Dr. Michael Zimmer
School of Information Studies
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Dr. Katharina Kinder-Kurlanda
GESIS Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
Institute for Web Science and Technologies at Koblenz University
The book will be published within the Peter Lang “Digital Formations” series, edited by Dr. Steve Jones (UI-Chicago). Target publication date is late 2016/early 2017.
— Moving Beyond the Linear Model:The Role of Mixed Methods Research in an Age of Complexity —
CONFERENCE: Moving Beyond the Linear Model: The Role of Mixed Methods Research in an Age of Complexity
Wednesday, 3 August 2016 to Saturday, 6 August 2016
The 2nd International Mixed Methods International Research Association (MMIRA) conference will take place August 3rd-5th 2016 at Durham University, UK. This conference will provide an outstanding opportunity for attendees to examine the role of mixed methods in applied social research. We seek to address questions and critical concerns through a form of social inquiry that stresses the importance of understanding the complexity of the social world and addresses the issues identified by Unger when he noted that: … a practice of social and historical explanation, sensitive to structure but aware of contingency is not yet at hand. We must build it as we go along by reconstructing the available tools of social science and social theory. Its absence denies us a credible account of how transformation happens (Roberto Unger Democracy Realized London Verso 1998 24).
The theme of this conference is to center mixed methods research approaches as one of the key ways in which we can, in Unger’s words, ‘reconstruct the available tools of social science’ and the focus on social transformation putting social science back where it should be – front and center in relation to public debate, engagement and the driving of social change.
Full details are available from:
Second call for papersCSCW2016 workshop, February 28
Toward a typology of participation in crowd work
Deadline for paper submissions December 7
The development of technologies and practices of broad public participation are changing the notion of the public. As the use of participatory and social media has become widespread in society and enabled a more collaborative information production, the potential for a transformation of production relations through crowd-based activities affect many aspects of life. There are new potentials for transformative developments in government, work life, science, and emergency response. However, these new platforms for participation have not solved many of the pre-crowd problems regarding participation, such as lack of representativeness and flawed deliberative processes. Therefore it is important and relevant to look at the power relations within crowd production and to examine how different tools handle participatory processes in the crowd.
This workshop examines different types of participatory process, in crowd work such as crowdsourced policymaking, crisis management, citizen science and paid crowd work, among other, focusing on relations and power dynamics within and beyond the crowds. We welcome researchers from a diversity of disciplines and perspectives to formulate a typology of participation in crowd work.
Typologies of participation
In the wider field of participation, in areas like participatory planning, design or participatory research, the power relations in the participatory setting are seen as central for the outcome of the participation.
However, we haven’t seen a more structured overview of typologies of participation indicating levels of power and agency in the context of crowdwork. For this workshop, we therefore invite participants to look more closely at different types of participation within crowdwork, and at different levels of interaction. Possible sites of analysis could be the interaction between crowd workers, the participation in the work by different stakeholders, the potentially privileged levels of interaction with the data, or tensions in the agency of the crowdworkers in relation to the task.
What types of ontologies exist in different types of crowdsourcing contexts, and how do these ontologies reflect one or more epistemologies? How is this expressed in the relations between the crowd and the sourcer, or in how different interfaces and tools support different roles and different modes of crowd participation? What are the relations between different attitudes towards knowledge and the social relations in the crowdsourcing process? What are the implications for power relations between different modes of participation?
If we learn more about how participation in crowd work can be described in terms of power and relations, we might get a better understanding of how participation can be articulated, how different tools for crowd participation can be developed, and how the different perspectives and stakes in crowd work might be harmonized, or at least clarified.
Suggested subthemes and topics
Controlling economic structures in crowd work
• Controlling levels of; access; transparency, secrecy, closeness, connectedness, alienation
• Relation between crowd work control dynamics and power relationships outside the technology framework.
• Differentiations in entry and exit points to the platform
Intersecting belief systems in crowd work
• Norms about crowds, collaboration and democracy
• Balance between exclusive groups and democratic publics
• Stakeholders’ different cultural assumptions
• Tensions between individual scoring systems and collective sharing processe
Community support in crowd work
• Communication needs within the crowd
• Available avenues of communication to support community
• Apprenticeship models
• Relations between the crowd and the “sourcers”
• Navigating intersecting communities in crowd setting
• Relations between different types of stakeholders in the crowd setting
Going from crowd to public
• Publics as performative states; co-constitution an interdependence
• Ethics and power relations in crowd sourced research
• The power relations between the designer/inventor and the crowd
• Quantified selves, data sources or co-researchers
This one-day workshop will explore the topics in mini presentations and brainstorming sessions. The objective with the workshop is to develop a typology of participation in crowd work based on an overview of the field. Furthermore, selected contributions from the workshop will be considered for a special issue in a HCI journal.
Participants are selected based on their submitted position-papers.
The maximum length of a paper is 2,000 words.
Deadline for submissions is December 07.
Send submissions and inquiries to: email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
The workshop builds on four earlier successful workshops: Back to the Future
of Organizational Work: Crowdsourcing Digital Work Marketplaces, Structures for Knowledge Co-creation between Organizations and the Public hosted at ACM CSCW 2014, The Morphing Organization – Rethinking Groupwork Systems in the Era of Crowdwork hosted at ACM GROUP 2014, and Examining the Essence of the Crowds: Motivations, Roles and Identities at ECSCW 2015. (2)
This workshop is organized by:
Karin Hansson PhD, the Department of Computer & Systems Sciences at Stockholm University.
Michael Muller, PhD, the Cognitive User Experience group of IBM Research, Cambridge MA USA
Tanja Aitamurto, PhD, Deputy Director of the Brown Institute for Media Innovation at the School of Engineering at Stanford University.
Ann Light, Professor of Design and Creative Technology at the University of Sussex and leader of the Creative Technology Group.
Athanasios Mazarakis, PhD, Web Science at Kiel University.
Neha Gupta, PhD student at the School of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, UK.
Thomas Ludwig, Ph.D. student at the Institute for Information Systems at the University of Siegen, Germany.
As anyone who follows party politics in the UK will have noticed, the home secretary’s rhetoric on ‘extremism’ has been getting increasingly bellicose in recent months. While it remains an open question as to what extent she believes this, as opposed to simply positioning herself to the right of Osborne and Johnson for the coming leadership election, it builds upon many statements by David Cameron of the need to attack ‘non-violent extremism’ because it provides an environment conducive to violent extremism:
In her speech last year, May talked about Prevent having previously been focused only on the ‘hard end’ of the ‘extremism spectrum’ and promised new policies that move beyond this. This is framed in terms of bringing other bodies (not least of all the charity commission) into an anti-extremism framework, either through ‘toughening up their powers’ or creating new statuary responsibilities to combat extremism. The ‘extremism spectrum’ encompasses a wide range of extremist groups:
This strategy will be devised and overseen by the Home Office, but its implementation will be the responsibility of the whole of government, the rest of the public sector, and wider civil society. It will aim to undermine and eliminate extremism in all its forms – neo-Nazism and other forms of extremism as well as Islamist extremism – and it will aim to build up society to identify extremism, confront it, challenge it and defeat it.
How does one define ‘extremism’? It is opposition to ‘our values’. These values resist codification in anything but the most vacuous and general of terms, lending a dangerous elasticity to the concept of ‘extremism’. Extremism risks sliding into being whatever bodies charged with combating it say that it is. In this sense, we might come to see extremism everywhere, which would explain why such a wide range of initiatives are seen to be necessary:
Also among the measures within the counter-extremism strategy are:
- A full review of public institutions such as schools, further and higher education colleges, local authorities, the NHS and the civil service to ensure they are protected from “entryism” – or infiltration – by extremists
- An official investigation into the application of Sharia law in the UK
- Extremism disruption orders to stop individuals engaging in extremist behaviour
- Closure orders for law enforcement and local authorities to close down premises used to support extremism
- Tougher powers for broadcasting regulator Ofcom so action can be taken against radio and television channels showing extremist content
- Demands that internet service providers do more to remove extremist material and identify those responsible for it
- Anyone with a conviction or civil order for extremist activity will also be automatically barred from working with children and vulnerable people
It’s worth remembering that this comes from a government which defines the leader of the Labour party as an ‘extremist’. David Cameron and other senior figures use precisely the language of extremism to denounce Jerermy Corbyn. I’m not for a second suggesting that an attempt to ban the Labour party is even remotely imminent (or anything remotely along those lines). But I do think it’s likely we’ll see a hardening of opinion, as well as an institutional environment in which groups on the periphery of the Labour party see themselves frustrated and undermined, either directly through the government or indirectly through over-eagre intermediaries keen to avoid becoming a target themselves. I suspect this is what is currently taking place with the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign:
An activist organisation which has Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn as patron has had its accounts closed down over fears that it may be inadvertently funding terrorism.
Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), whose patrons also include the Oscar winning actress Julie Christie and the playwright Caryl Churchill, was told by the Co-operative Bank that “risk-appetite” was the reason for closing its account.
In a statement, the bank said that due to the “high risk” locations in which PSC operates and send funds to, it had to carry out “advanced due diligence checks” on their accounts to ensure that funds do not “inadvertently fund illegal or other proscribed activities”.
The statement concluded that it was “not possible to complete these checks to our satisfaction and the decision to close a number of accounts, including the PSC and some of its affiliates, is an inevitable result of this process”.
Note there’s no actual accusation here. Yet Google News is full of headlines which link PCS and terrorism. Their operations are becoming increasingly difficult in the wider environment created by the Government’s ‘war on extremism’ and I think what we’re seeing here is the start of something that could get out of control far more quickly than people seem to realise.
From Countdown to Zero Day, by Kim Zetter, loc 1000-1018:
When Chien joined Symantec, antivirus researchers were like the Maytag repairman in those iconic ads— they had a lot of downtime. Viruses were still rare and tended to spread slowly via floppy disks and the “sneaker net”— carried from one computer to another by hand. Customers who thought they were infected with a virus would mail the suspicious file on a floppy disk to Symantec, where it might sit in a desk tray for a week or more before Chien or one of his colleagues wandered by and picked it up. Most of the time, the files turned out to be benign. But occasionally, they found a malicious specimen. When that occurred, they dashed off some signatures to detect it, then threw them onto another floppy disk and mailed it back to the customer along with instructions for updating their virus scanner.
It wasn’t long, though, before malware evolved and the landscape changed. The introduction of Microsoft Windows 98 and Office, along with the expanding internet and proliferation of e- mail, spawned rapid- spreading viruses and network worms that propagated to millions of machines in a matter of minutes. The Melissa virus in 1999 was one of the most notorious. Launched by a thirty- one- year- old New Jersey programmer named David Smith, it came embedded in a Word document that Smith posted to the alt.sex.usenet newsgroup. Smith knew his target audience well— he enticed them to open the file by claiming it contained usernames and passwords to access porn sites. Once opened, Melissa exploited a vulnerability in the macro function of Microsoft Word and e- mailed itself to the first fifty contacts in the victim’s Outlook address book. Within three days the world’s first mass- mailing virus had spread to more than 100,000 machines, a spectacular record at the time, but quaint by today’s standards. In addition to spreading via Outlook, it slipped a nerdy Scrabble reference into documents on infected machines: “twenty- two, plus triple- word- score, plus fifty points for using all my letters. Game’s over. I’m outta here.”
Melissa was relatively benign, but it opened the way to other fast- moving viruses and worms that would dominate headlines for years. 3 As the threat landscape expanded, Symantec realized it needed to halt infections faster, before they began to spread. When the company first entered the antivirus business, it was considered a good response time to turn a threat around— from discovery to delivery of signatures— within a week. But Symantec aimed to reduce this to less than a day. To accomplish this, the company needed analysts in multiple time zones to spot viruses in the wild when they first appeared and get signatures out to US customers before they woke up and began clicking on malicious e- mail attachments.
In my capacity as social media associate editor of the International Journal of Social Research Methodology, I’m arranging an ask the editors session on Twitter. It will take place on Tuesday 1st December, 11.00—12.00.
We’ll definitely have Ros Edwards and Christina Hughes. We’ll possibly have Malcolm Williams participating as well. We’ll use the hashtag #IJSRM for the discussion.
If you can’t be online at the date and time, e-mail me (mark AT markcarrigan.net) and I can ask the question on your behalf. Otherwise see you on December 1st!
e invite you to submit your paper on digital gaming, Game Studies or
related disciplines focusing on digital game and gaming in all its
theoretical dimensions and emerging applications. Digital technologies
promote a transformation in the practice of gaming and the role it plays in
contemporary society. From a broader perspective, the monograph aims to
accommodate the widest possible set of approaches and scope of interest
around the phenomenon of digital game taking into account primarily but not
exclusively the following topics:
– Digital game industry
– Digital gaming and ideology
– Relations between gaming and the cultural ecosystem: film, television,
comics and literature.
– Emerging genres like e-sports
– Gamers and Youtube
– Music and video games: game music and sound play
– Game literacy: Ludoliteracy
– Ludofictional worlds in video games: semiotics, narrative and
– Representation of the player and diversity
– Advergaming or newsgame
– Game Cultures: forms of social and recreational experiences
– Productive relationships between players and devices (prosumers,
– Social perceptions about the digital game in today’s society by
players and/or no players
– Treatment of digital game in the media (potentialities, fear, moral
panics, technological optimism …)
The original can be presented in Catalan, Spanish or English before January
15th. Publication is scheduled for June-July 2016.
Dani Aranda @darandaj
Jordi Sánchez-Navarro @jordisn
Antonio José Planells @antonplanells
Víctor Navarro-Remesal @VtheWanderer
CALL FOR PAPERS
The contemporary relevance of the work of Pierre Bourdieu
BSA Bourdieu Study Group’s Inaugural Biennial Conference 2016
Organised in association with the School of Sociology, Politics and International Studies, University of Bristol
4-6 July, 2016,
University of Bristol
Pierre Bourdieu has been one of the most influential sociologists of the second half of the 20th Century. His work, which has been translated into more than 24 languages, has had a significant impact on contemporary sociology internationally. Bourdieu’s importance shows no signs of decreasing as newer generations of sociologists unpack and expand his theoretical framework to a wide range of present-day sociological issues and case studies. Nonetheless, previous arguments repeatedly seem to resurface on whether Bourdieu’s ideas – developed over 50 years ago in a different era and the specific context of France – are empirically persuasive today.
From its establishment in 2012, the British Sociological Association’s (BSA) Bourdieu Study Group has sought to critically examine and extend the application of Bourdieusian social theory in contemporary research. This conference aims to further this endeavour by bringing together international researchers from different areas of inquiry and stages of career who are using Bourdieu. Through doing so, this three day event will highlight and pull together the various complementary ways in which Bourdieu’s intellectual heritage is being developed internationally.
Dr Will Atkinson (University of Bristol), Professor Gill Crozier (University of Roehampton), Professor David James (Cardiff University), Dr Joseph Ibrahim (Leeds Beckett University), Dr Lisa McKenzie (London School of Economics), Professor Tariq Modood (University of Bristol), Professor Diane Reay (Cambridge University), Professor Derek Robbins (University of East London), Dr Nicola Rollock (Institute of Education), Professor Mike Savage (London School of Economics) Professor Franz Schultheis (University of St. Gallen)
Workshop Coordinators and Discussants:
Dr Will Atkinson, Dr Michael Benson, Professor Harriet Bradley, Dr Ciaran Burke Professor Gill Crozier, Dr Sam Friedman, Professor David James, Dr Joseph Ibrahim, Dr Nicola Ingram, Dr Daniel Laurison, Dr Lisa McKenzie, Professor Diane Reay, Professor Derek Robbins, Professor Franz Schultheis, Dr Derron Wallace
All delegates will be able to attend two workshops and have eight to choose from:
Workshop 1: Bourdieu’s epistemology and the principle of reflexivity
Workshop 2: Bourdieu’s philosophy of action: habitus
Workshop 3: The social space: fields
Workshop 4: How to interpret a multiple correspondence analysis
Workshop 5: Bourdieu and public sociology
Workshop 6: Taste, culture, and distinction
Workshop 7: Bourdieu and visual ethnography
Workshop 8: Using Bourdieu in educational research
Call for papers
We welcome symposiums and individual papers relating to the below theoretical, methodological, and empirical themes of Bourdieu, including:
• The Continuing Importance of Bourdieu – why is he relevant/necessary?
• Bourdieu and Politics/Social justice and Equality/Public Sociology
• Bourdieu and Methodology
• Bourdieu and Education
• Bourdieu, “Race”, Ethnicity and Migration
• Bourdieu and “Gender”
• Bourdieu: “Place and Space”
• Bourdieu: Culture, Taste and Distinction
• Transformation of Habitus/Habitus Fluidity
A maximum of 75 papers will be accepted for presentation in parallel sessions and a Maximum of 20 posters abstracts will be accepted.
Steps to follow to participate:
1) Submission of abstracts: Wednesday 30th December 2015
Please submit you abstracts through the BSA website: http://portal.britsoc.co.uk/public/abstract/abstracts.aspx
The committee will make a selection of participants based on the quality and relevance of the submitted abstracts. Abstracts’ length should be no more than 250 words and should include a title and 3 keywords. Please provide a short biography (50-100 words) in the section marked research. Ensure that you choose a mode of presentation, either oral or poster and select a preferred stream.
2) Announcement of selected abstracts: February 2016
3) Online registration opens for accepted papers: February 2016
4) Registration for accepted papers closes: March 4th 2016
5) Registration opens for all delegates: March 7th 2016
The organisers cannot pay for participants’ travel and accommodation. The following will be provided for all participants: Refreshments and lunch during the conference; an evening meal on the first and second night of the conference.
Cancellations received up to and including 30 March 2016 will incur an administration fee of £50.
Cancellations received after 30 March 2016 will not be eligible for a refund on any fees-related registration.
The Bourdieu Study Group cannot be held responsible for unforeseen circumstances that change the advertised programme.
Registration price will be released soon. Prices will be in line with other large-scale academic conferences. There will be no single day rate, as delegates are expected to attend the whole three days of the event.
There are a limited number of attendance only spaces. Registration for these places will be open soon at: http://portal.britsoc.co.uk/public/event/events.aspx Please note, that registering early will not secure you a presentation place, but that once the attendee only places are fully booked, places will only be open for accepted abstracts. Should you want to attend the event even if your abstract is unsuccessful, you are advised to book as soon as possible.
For more info about the BSA Bourdieu Study Group: http://www.britsoc.co.uk/studygroups/bourdieu.aspx, Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bsabourdieu Twitter: @BSABourdieuSG and join our mailing list: BSA-BOURDIEU-STUDY-GROUP@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
I just came across this superb introduction produced by the Cambridge Social Ontology group:
The term ontology3 derives from Greek, with “onto” meaning “being”, and “logos” usually interpreted as “science”; so that ontology, as traditionally understood, is the science or study of being4.
The word being has at least two senses:
1) Something that is, or exists;
2) What it is to be or to exist;
It follows that if ontology is the study of being it includes at least the following:
1) The study of what is, or what exists, including the study of the nature of specific existents
2) The study of how existents exist. This twofold conception is adopted here
From the Guardian, via BrainPickings:
- Put one word after another. Find the right word, put it down.
- Finish what you’re writing. Whatever you have to do to finish it, finish it.
- Put it aside. Read it pretending you’ve never read it before. Show it to friends whose opinion you respect and who like the kind of thing that this is.
- Remember: when people tell you something’s wrong or doesn’t work for them, they are almost always right. When they tell you exactly what they think is wrong and how to fix it, they are almost always wrong.
- Fix it. Remember that, sooner or later, before it ever reaches perfection, you will have to let it go and move on and start to write the next thing. Perfection is like chasing the horizon. Keep moving.
- Laugh at your own jokes.
- The main rule of writing is that if you do it with enough assurance and confidence, you’re allowed to do whatever you like. (That may be a rule for life as well as for writing. But it’s definitely true for writing.) So write your story as it needs to be written. Write it honestly, and tell it as best you can. I’m not sure that there are any other rules. Not ones that matter.
What makes human beings distinctive amongst animals? This is an argument I found myself having a few times last week. I just came across a great passage by Martha Nussbaum, quoted on Brain Pickings, reflecting my own views on this. When I say ‘reflexivity is a defining characteristic of the human’, it’s a short hand for this broader proposition, expressed in this case more elegantly than I am able to:
Human beings appear to be the only mortal finite beings who wish to transcend their finitude. Thus they are the only emotional beings who wish not to be emotional, who wish to withhold these acknowledgments of neediness and to design for themselves a life in which these acknowledgments have no place. This means that they frequently learn to reject their own vulnerability and to suppress awareness of the attachments that entail it. We might also say … that they are the only animals for whom neediness is a source of shame, and who take pride in themselves to the extent to which they have allegedly gotten clear of vulnerability.
Two new songs that are apparently from Brian Fallon’s impending solo album. I’m not that keen on the first but I can’t get the second out of my head. I still wish Gaslight Anthem hadn’t split up but it’s been a long time since I’ve looked forward to an album release this much.
Another excellent annual reflection from Daniel Little on the eighth birthday of Understanding Society. It’s one of my favourite academic blogs and certainly my favourite theory blog:
This week marks the end of the eighth year of Understanding Society. This year passed the 1000 mark — the blog is now up to 1,029 posts, or well over one million words. The blog continues to be a very good venue for me for developing and sharing ideas about the foundations of the social sciences and the ways that we attempt to understand the social world. (Mark Carrigan captures a lot of the value that a blog can have for a scholar in his recent excellent book, Social Media for Academics. Thanks, Mark, for including Understanding Society in your thinking about academic uses of social media!)
Writing Understanding Society continues to stimulate me to read and think outside the confines of the specific tradition in which I work. The collage presented above represents just a few of the books I wouldn’t have read in the past year if it weren’t for the blog. It gives me a lot of pleasure to recall the new ideas learned from working through these books and capturing a few ideas for the blog. There is a lot of diversity of content across these many books, but there are surprising cross-connections as well. (If you want to see the post where one of these books is discussed, just search for the author in the search box above.)
The scale of his writing is remarkable and it was produced iteratively, leading to the emergence of the blog as a unique record of his scholarship over time. In this way, I think it can be seen as a monument to ‘treating ideas with seriousness’: a phrase Daniel used to me when I interviewed him and which has stuck with me since. It’s an exemplar of what research blogs can and should become.
Following from our successful workshop earlier this year, we’re organising the first of what will hopefully become a regular reflexivity forum at the University of Warwick on May 24th. The intention is to provide a space in which people conducting empirical research into human reflexivity will be able to present work in progress, discuss issues they’ve encountered and meet others working on similar issues.
If you’d like to attend could you let me know as as you can, as numbers will be limited for the event. If you’d like to present work in progress, please could you send a title and 100 word abstract. Hopefully we’ll have at least 20 minutes per speaker but this depends on the numbers who are keen to speak.