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

Workshop activities

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: <>


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.

More information about the workshop and the organizers can be found on the website: <;

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 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 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
– Gayming
– Gamergate
– 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,
mashups, modding)
– 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


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.

Keynote Speakers/Panellists:

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:

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

Useful Information

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.

Important information

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:   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 academic queries contact: BSA Bourdieu Study Group:
For further info contact:  or (0191) 383 0839.

For more info about the BSA Bourdieu Study Group:, Facebook: 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:

  1. Write
  2. Put one word after another. Find the right word, put it down.
  3. Finish what you’re writing. Whatever you have to do to finish it, finish it.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Laugh at your own jokes.
  8. 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.

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.