FROM THE EDITOR
| This is the first newsletter that I am editing. I have tried to follow the good tradition of RC10 newsletters and bring information and discussions that are of interest to RC10 members. You will find in this newsletter accounts from ISA World Congress in Montreal where many of us met, regional news and news about new events in different parts of the world. I want to to discuss with you some of my thoughts about the way the publication of RC10 newsletter should go about. I am doing this after a discussion, by mail, and face to face with a few RC10 members. First Bruce Wilson and Karen Davies, who were of tremendous help. They sent me all material they had and gave some insight into the problems facing the editor and how they can be alleviated. I had a letter from Ake Sandberg explaining me the way he worked as an editor, and also letters of support from Ann Westenholz and Wiking Ehlert. A long letter from Raymond Russell explained to me his outlook on the newsletter, and most important, Leslie Brown has promised to help with it when ever she can. Alain Chouraqui was doing his best to cooperate through the e-mail, but mostly via fax. The conclusion from all the good will that was shown to me is, that in this age of globalization, it is time that RC10 will move a phase forward. That its communication will run faster, thus also our democratic decision making will be better practiced... One solution that was proposed by Bruce is to start mailing our newsletter via e-mail. This might be problematic to some of you, but very practical for others. So as a start I suggest each one of you who is connected to e-mail, sends me a note, via e-mail, statingyour e-mail address and whether you want your newsletter via e-mail or via snail mail. Having an updated e-mail address book |
will help also receiving a fast reply to urgent issues, not only for the newsletter purposes. In this issue, candidates for office in RC10 are presenting themselves. Please read carefully the presentation of each candidate and mark the 10 names which you think are most suitable to serve as officers of RC10. It would be good if most world regions would be represented in your choice. Please do not wait long for your decision and send your choice to our secretary Ann Westenholz. The Newsletter was not edited for English, French or Spanish, I feel that some of its authenticity might be taken away by so doing (see Wiking Ehlert's discussion). Please send me all information of general interest that you would like to see in your newsletter. Also if any of you has written or read articles or books of interest for RC10 members - please write to me and I will publish the details. Last but not least, I would like to thank Bruce Wilson and his team at URCOT who have edited the newsletter for the last three years. It was not easy to be so far away and to have to depend on regular mail for information. Personally I appreciate your efforts, tenacity and the level of the newspaper you have produced and am sure that all your readers do as well. Have a very Happy New Year, a peaceful year, a year in which democracy prevails in all parts of the world and participation is among the mottos of man kind. Michal Palgi |
FROM THE CHAIR
(original in french)
1) When preparing 17 sessions for a Congress like Montreal one, anxiety is growing : How things will really happen? Is the proposed program attractive enough? Were the topics chosen correctly? And, moreover, is the interest for our field of work, for participation, remaining the same, rather falling off (as a few people think), or growing under various forms (as others believe)? So, I will not miss to-day the opportunity of saying my relief and my great satisfaction; and of warmly thanking, in name of RC10, all those who contributed to this event, specially the members of our board, our "Ibero-American" and "Privatization" Subcommittees, and mainly the Session coordinators who sometimes had to overcome many difficulties. I would like also to thank those who contributed to the long participative process of preparing the Congress program; this process began in the Conference and board meeting in Copenhagen (June 1996), when the general orientations were proposed on base of the theoretical analysis presented in the Conference itself; then a first "call for reaction and suggestions" was published in our Newsletter ; and two other board meetings finalized our program. When comparing this participative process to others we can find in many research groups or networks, we can be satisfied in applying to ourselves the democratic principles that we are usually studying.
In our sessions, the audience was rather sufficient, sometimes very numerous.
The ways of organizing the sessions were more diverse than before, with sometimes a great role for discussants or coordinators, and with short oral presentations. The efforts we decided to make towards French and Spanish were generally well understood ; therefore we could have more sessions in these languages, and succeed in experiencing bilingual sessions (English-French mainly). Unhappily we could not succeed in obtaining the final papers early enough, before the sessions; the rate of absent speakers, although low, was not improved, and remains unacceptable; and the Round table (which was planned for young unexperienced colleagues, and for papers which don't fit with the topics of other sessions) did not really succeed, despite Yolanta's efforts (in Bielefeld the equivalent session was cancelled): Perhaps we have to move towards a more classical poster-session ?
Among the six key-concepts which were the framework of our program, three (democracy, organization, workplace) were, not surprisingly, fed with good papers. About two others (globalization-property), which are more recent in our RC, the results were encouraging; our surprise came from "participatory research": The audience was really numerous there (as much as for "efficiency versus democracy?"), and the papers were very interesting. I had often the opportunity of saying how much I think that, on this methodological level, we have to move forward, and to bring results not only for being used in our field, but also in most fields of Sociology.
As a very rough conclusion from many papers, I would say that participation seems to be used nowadays as a tool for efficiency as much as (perhaps more than) a tool for democracy; but this double face, although often felt as a threat, may be also an opportunity because economic interests may then converge with democratic values in assessing participation as a regulatory principle; social actors (and researchers) have then to find the preconditions for the democratic face of this Janus to be reinforced and not weakened with this evolution.
2) When meeting in Montreal, our board was again concerned with the necessary improvement of our Newsletter. We all agreed in appreciating Bruce Wilson and his team's job; but we understood that our RC 10 members have to be very actively asked for contributions, as so few people send spontaneously material for publication, and as "regional reporters", nominated in the former board meeting, did not yet (one exception) send their reports (thanks to Volkmar KREISSIG, and to Wiking EHLERT whose report you can find in this issue). On the other hand, while Bruce could
not come to our board meeting, and his report (see below) only arrived after this meeting, the general opinion was that it was not a question of willingness or amount of work, but probably more a question of being or not in the middle of the human (and institutional) informal networks inside RC10, as it was before with Arbetlivcentrum. It appeared clearly that being an editor (not only a publisher) without being secretary of the Board (as was Ake), and without being "old" enough in the Committee for knowing personally a lot of colleagues, while not being able to come to most of the meetings, all that was a very difficult context nowadays for going more systematically to potential cooperations, and for improving sufficiently the actual situation (E-mail will probably be a solution in a few years).
That is the reason why we decided, as Bruce himself mentioned it, to look for another solution. Michal PALGI, who is one of the "oldest" and of the most respected (apologize, Michal!) members of RC10, and who is present in most of our meetings, finally agreed to take this role, in cooperation with Leslie Brown, who is a very active member in our actual board. Michal and Leslie stressed the fact that they also want to lighten the President's charges, and I can only thank them a lot for that. Let us thank once more Bruce and his team, and say good luck to Michal and Leslie! Let us hope also that RC10 members will more activity be involved in our Newsletter.
3) As you know, a two third majority of voters decided to change the RC10 name ("Participation and organizational democracy") ; our board recorded it formally. During our business meeting, I had the opportunity to say once more that for me "self management" remains clearly in the heart of our field, and that anyway, I will act firmly for the democratic dimension of participation to remain at a central place in our RC work.
4) I would like also to stress that our RC 10 will have a rich period with many scientific events:
Athens: March 1999 (Litsa NICOLAOU-SMOKOVITI)
St Petersburg: May or June 1999 (Volkmar KREISSIG)
Lima: end of June 1999 (William MORENO, S.I.)
Tel-Aviv: 11-15 July 1999 (Michal PALGI - IIS)
Amsterdam: August 1999 (Henk VOETS - ESA)
South-Africa: February 2000 (Dasarath CHETTY)
Malaga: June 2000 (Sub Committee Ibero-American)
Montreal: Summer 2000 (in cooperation with AISLF)
5) Let me also stress the importance of our RC 10 board elections. Let's be as numerous as possible in sending back our ballot. Our procedure is a specific one. Most R.C. in ISA elect their board members during the World Congresses. We usually have a mail procedure, a heavy one, because we appreciate indeed personal presentation of candidates in our World Congress business meetings (that happened in Montreal), but we prefer that other colleagues could also be candidates, even if unable to attend the World Congress; and we also try to improve the democratic process by providing time for thinking, and by circulating, via the Newsletter, short notices presenting candidates and their goals if elected. Please don't weaken this procedure by not sending your vote. And let us be coherent with our field of work!
Finally, I am happy to wish each of you a happy new year, and to wish, more collectivity, that we will be able to go on contributing, even modestly, to a more participative society, i.e. more democratic, improving freedom and justice.
Alain CHOURAQUI
President of RC 10
Aix-en-Provence, December 15, 1998
LE MOT DU PRESIDENT
1) Lorsque l'on pr�pare 17 sessions pour un Congr�s comme celui de Montr�al, l'inqui�tude monte progressivement: Comment les choses vont-elles se passer r�ellement? Est-ce que le programme propos� sera attractif? Les th�mes ont-ils �t� bien choisis? Et surtout, l'int�r�t pour notre domaine de travail, la participation, se maintient-il, d�cline-t-il (comme certains le pr�tendent), se d�veloppe-t-il sous des formes diverses (comme beaucoup d'entre nous le croient)? Alors, je ne me priverai pas aujourd'hui de dire mon soulagement et ma grande satisfaction; et de remercier chaleureusement tous ceux qui ont contribu� � cet �v�nement, sp�cialement les membres du bureau, les sous-comit�s Ib�ro-Am�ricain et "Privatisation", et les coordinateurs de session qui ont parfois d� surmonter de nombreuses difficult�s. Je voudrais aussi remercier tous ceux qui ont contribu� au long processus participatif de pr�paration de ce Congr�s; ce processus a commenc� lors de la Conf�rence puis du bureau de Copenhague (juin 1996), o� les grandes lignes du programme ont �t� trac�es (� partir du contenu de la Conf�rence elle-m�me dont les approches th�oriques ont �t� bien utiles); puis un premier "appel � r�action et manifestation d'int�r�t" a �t� diffus� dans notre Lettre d'information; et deux autres r�unions de bureau ont finalis� le programme. Lorsque l'on compare ce processus participatif � celui qui pr�vaut dans plusieurs autres groupes ou r�seaux de recherche, nous pouvons �tre satisfaits d'appliquer � nous-m�mes les principes d�mocratiques que nous �tudions.
L'assistance � nos sessions a �t� g�n�ralement suffisante, parfois �tonnamment forte. Les formes d'organisation interne des sessions ont �t� diversifi�es, avec parfois un r�le plus grand pour les discutants ou les rapporteurs, et avec des communications orales plus courtes. Les efforts d'ouverture vers l'espagnol et le fran�ais ont g�n�ralement �t� bien compris, ce qui a permis non seulement d'augmenter le nombre de sessions dans ces langues, mais de r�ussir l'exp�rience des sessions bilingues. Par contre, nous n'avons g�n�ralement pas r�ussi � obtenir les papiers complets suffisamment avant les sessions; le taux de non pr�sence des intervenants annonc�s, bien que faible, n'a pas �t� am�lior�; et surtout la "Table-Ronde", destin�e aux jeunes coll�gues d�butants ou aux papiers n'entrant pas dans les th�mes principaux des autres sessions, a eu � peine plus de succ�s qu'� Bielefeld: peut-�tre faudra-t-il revenir � une classique poster-session.
Parmi les six concept-cl�s qui structuraient le programme, c'est sans �tonnement que trois d'entre eux ont donn� lieu � d'int�ressants papiers: d�mocratie - organisation - lieu de travail; sur deux autres (globalisation et propri�t� (plus r�cents dans notre r�seau, les r�sultats ont �t� encourageants; et l'heureuse surprise est venue de la recherche participative qui a � la fois attir� un public nombreux, et des papiers fort int�ressants. J'ai d�j� eu l'occasion de dire combien je crois que, sur ce terrain m�thodologique, nous devrions avancer, au service non seulement de notre domaine particulier, mais de la plupart des domaines sociologiques.
Si je devais tirer une conclusion tr�s sommaire de toutes ces contributions, je dirais que la participation appara�t clairement aujourd'hui comme un outil d'efficacit �productive autant que comme un levier pour la d�mocratie, mais que ce double visage, ressenti g�n�ralement comme une menace, peut aussi �tre une chance puisque l'int�r�t �conomique vient aujourd'hui renforcer les valeurs d�mocratiques pour imposer la n�cessit� de la participation comme principe de r�gulation; il reste aux acteurs (et aux chercheurs) � trouver les conditions pour que la dimension d�mocratique de ce Janus sorte plus renforc�e qu'affaiblie de cette �volution.
2) Lors de sa r�union � Montr�al, notre bureau a r�fl�chi � nouveau au d�veloppement n�cessaire de notre "Lettre d'information". Nous avons tous �t� d'accord pour appr�cier le travail de Bruce Wilson et de son �quipe, mais il a �t� constat� que trop peu de nos membres envoient du mat�riel pour publication, et que les "rapporteurs r�gionaux" d�sign�s lors du pr�c�dent bureau, n'avaient pas encore, � une exception pr�s, envoy� leur rapport (merci � Volkmar KREISSIG, et � Wiking EHLERT dont le rapport est publi� ici). En outre, en l'absence regrett�e de Bruce Wilson � notre r�union, et
alors que son propre rapport (publi� dans cette Newsletter) n'est parvenu qu'apr�s celle-ci, l'opinion g�n�rale �tait qu'il ne s'agissait pas tant de bonne volont� ou de travail de la part de l'�diteur, mais probablement d'�tre ou non au milieu des r�seaux informels, humains (et institutionnels) � l'int�rieur du RC10, comme c'�tait le cas avec l'Arbetlivcentrum. Il appara�t clairement qu'�tre �diteur (et pas seulement imprimeur) sans �tre secr�taire du bureau (comme l'�tait Ake), et sans �tre assez ancien dans le Comit� pour conna�tre personnellement la plupart des coll�gues, tout en ne pouvant pas venir � la plupart des r�unions ou s�minaires, tout cela �tait un contexte difficile pour rechercher syst�matiquement des coop�rations potentielles, et pour am�liorer suffisamment la situation actuelle. (L'e-mail pourrait d'ailleurs �tre une solution dans quelques ann�es). C'est pourquoi le bureau d�cida, comme Bruce l'avait �voqu� lui-m�me, de chercher une nouvelle solution. Michal Palgi, qui est l'un des membres les plus anciens et les plus respect�s de notre Comit� (excuse-moi Michal), et qui est pr�sente � la plupart de nos r�unions, accepta cette charge, en coop�ration avec Leslie Brown qui est aujourd'hui tr�s active dans notre bureau. Toutes deux insist�rent sur le fait qu'elles souhaitaient aussi all�ger ainsi la t�che du Pr�sident, et je ne peux que les en remercier vivement. Remercions encore une fois Bruce et son �quipe, et souhaitons bonne chance � Michal et Leslie pour leur nouvelle t�che. Esp�rons surtout que les membres de notre C.R. sauront faire vivre notre Lettre d'information.
3) La majorit� des deux tiers s'�tant prononc�e pour le changement de titre de notre C.R.10 (Participation et d�mocratie organisationnelle), le bureau en prit acte. Face aux inqui�tudes de certains, lors de notre assembl�e g�n�rale de Montr�al, j'eus l'occasion de redire qu'� mes yeux, l'autogestion restait au coeur de notre travail, et qu'en tous cas, en ce qui me concerne, j'agirai fermement pour que la dimension d�mocratique de la participation soit toujours centrale dans notre C.R.
4) Je voudrais aussi souligner que notre C.R. va conna�tre une p�riode riche en �v�nements scientifiques :
Ath�nes: mars 1999 (Litsa NICOLAOU - SMOKOVITI)
Saint-Petersbourg: mai ou juin 1999 (Volkmar KREISSIG)
Lima: fin juin 1999 (W. MORENO, S.I.)
Tel Aviv: 11-15 juillet 1999 (Michal PALGI - IIS)
Amsterdam: ao�t 1999 (Henk VOETS - ESA)
Afrique du Sud: - f�vrier 2000 (Dasarath CHETTY)
Malaga : juin 2000 (Sous-comit� Ibero-Am�ricain)
Montr�al : �t� 2000) en coop�ration avec l'AISLF).
5) Permettez-moi aussi de souligner l'importance des �lections au bureau de notre C.R. Soyez nombreux � renvoyer votre bulletin de vote. Notre proc�dure est particuli�re. La plupart des C.R. de l'AIS �lisent leur bureau durant les Congr�s Mondiaux. Nous avons une proc�dure postale, donc plus lourde, car si nous souhaitons certes que les candidats se pr�sentent personnellement lors du Congr�s (ce qui fut fait � Montr�al), nous pr�f�rons que d'autres, non pr�sents au Congr�s, puissent aussi �tre candidats; et nous souhaitons aussi favoriser la r�flexion d�mocratique avant le vote, en laissant du temps, et en diffusant une courte note pr�sentant chaque candidat et ses objectifs. Alors, n'affaiblissons pas nos proc�dures en n'envoyant pas notre bulletin de vote. En outre, soyons coh�rents avec notre th�me de "participation" !
Permettez-moi enfin de pr�senter mes voeux les plus chaleureux � chacun d'entre vous, et de faire le voeu collectif d'une ann�e o� nous pourrons continuer, m�me modestement, � contribuer � une soci�t� plus participative, c'est � dire plus d�mocratique, plus libre et plus juste.
Alain CHOURAQUI
Pr�sident du C.R.10
UNAS PALABRAS DEL PRESIDENTE
(Texto original en franc�s)
1) Cuando se preparan 17 sesiones para un Congreso como el de Montreal, aumenta progresivamente la preocupaci�n: �C�mo se pasar�n realmente las cosas? �El programa propuesto ser� atractivo? �Los temas han sido bien escogidos? Y sobretodo, el interes para nuestro campo de trabajo, la participaci�n �se mantiene?, �declina (como algunos lo pretenden)?, �se desarrolla en diversas formas (c�mo muchos de nosotros lo creemos)?. Entonces hoy no me privar� en manifestar mi alivio y mi gran satisfacci�n ni de agradecer calurosamente a todos aquellos que contribuyeron an este evento, especialmente a los miembros directivos, los sub-comit�s Iberoamericano y de "Privatizaci�n" y a los coordinadores de sesi�n que algunas veces debieron superar muchis�mas dificultades. Quisiera agardecer tambi�n a todos aquellos que contribuyeron al largo proceso participativo de la preparaci�n de este Congreso; proceso que comenz� durante la Conferencia luego desde la oficina de Copenhague (junio de 1996) en donde se trazaron las lineas principales del programa (a partir del contenido de la Conferencia misma cuyos enfoques te�ricos nos fueron de gran utilidad); despu�s una primera "llamada de atenci�n y manifestaci�n de interes" fue difundida en nuestro Bolet�n de informaci�n y dos reuniones m�s de la Directiva concluyeron este proceso participativo al que prevalece en otros grupos o redes de investigaci�n, podemos estimarnos satisfechos en aplicar nosotros mismos los principios democr�ticos que son nuestro objeto de estudio.
La asistencia a nuestras reuniones fue en general satisfactorias, a veces sorprendentemente buena. Las formas de organizaci�n interna de las sesiones fueron variadas, a veces con un papel mayor de los discursantes o de los ponentes y con intervenciones m�s cortas. Los esfuerzos de apertura hacia el espa�ol y el franc�s fueron en general bien acogidos, lo que permiti� no solo aumentar el n�mero de sesiones sino tambi�n de llevar a bien la experiencia de las sesiones biling�es. En cambio, no hemos tenido �xito generalmente en la obtenci�n de los papeles completos suficientemente antes de las sesiones; el n�mero de ausentes aunque poco no ha disminuido y sobretodo la "Mesa Redonda" destinada a los colegas m�s j�venes que debutan o los papeles que no conciernen los temas principales de las otras sesiones a penas tuvieron �xito que en Bielefeld: tal vez se necesitar� volver a una sesi�n posterior.
Entre los seis conceptos-claves que estructuraban el programa, no es sorprendente que tr�s de ellos hayan dado lugar a papeles interesantes: democracia-organizaci�n-lugar de trabajo; sobre los dos otros (globalizaci�n y propiedad) m�s recientes en nuestra red los resultados han sido m�s alentadores; y la feliz sorpresa provino de la investigaci�n que atrajo a la vez a numeroso p�blico como a papeles m�s interesantes. Ya hab�a tenido la oportunidad de decir cuanto, a mi parecer, deber�amos avanzar en ese terreno metodol�gico al servicio no solo en nuestro dominio particular sino en la mayor�a de los campos sociol�gicos.
Si tuviera que sacar una breve conclusi�nde todas estas contribuciones, dir�a que la participaci�n aparece hoy en forma clara como el instrumento que eficazmente es el m�s productivo tanto como palanca para la democracia pero que esa doble cara que puede ser percibida en general como una amenaza pueda ser una suerte ya que el interes econ�mico viene hoy a acentuar los valores democr�ticos para imponer la necesidad de la participaci�n como principio de regulaci�n; falta que los actores ( y los investigadores) encuntren las condiciones para que la dimensi�n democr�tica de ese Jano salga m�s fortalecido que debilitado de este cambio
2) Durante la reuni�n en Montreal, nuestra Directiva reflexion� de nuevo sobre la evoluci�n necesaria de nuestro Bolet�n de informaci�n. Todos estuvimos de acuerdo en apreciar el trabajo realizado por Bruce Wilson y por su equipo pero se constat� que muy pocos miembros enviaban el material para su publicaci�n y que los "informadores regionales" designados en la �ltima reuni�n a�n no hab�an enviado sus informes excepto unos (gracias a Volkmar KREISSIG y a Viking
EHLERT (cuyo informe aparece publicado en este n�mero). Adem�s la ausencia lamentable de Bruce Wilson a nuestra reuni�n cuyo informe (publicado en este Bolet�n de informaci�n) lleg�
muy tarde, la opini�n general fue que se trat� no de la mala voluntad o del trabajo llevado a cabo por el editor sino probablemente de estar o no en medio de redes informales, humanas (e institucionales) en el seno del Comit� de Investigaci�n ,10 como fue el caso con el Arbetlivcentrum. Ser editor, parece ser (no solo impresor) sin ser secretario de la directiva (comolo era Ake) y sin tener antig�edad en el Comit� para conocer bien la mayor�a de los colegas, sin poder venir a la mayor�a de las reuniones o seminarios, era todo eso un contexto dif�cil para buscar puntualmente la ayuda necesaria y mejorar la situaci�n actual en forma conveniente. (El correo electr�nico podr�a ser una soluci�n en algunos a�os). Es por eso que la Directiva decidi�, como Bruce ya lo hab�a manifestado, de buscar otra soluci�n. Michal Palgi, qui�n es una de las m�s antiguas y respetadas entre los miembros de nuestro Comit� )disculpame Michal) y asistente asidua a nuestras reuniones, acept� este cargo en colaboraci�n con Leslie Brown, miembro activo de nuestro actual comit�. Ambas insistieron en el hecho de que desaban aliviar de esta manera las tareas del Presidente y yo no puedo m�s que agradecerselo. Agradecemos una vez m�s a Bruce y a su equipo y les desamos buena suerte a Michal y a Leslie en su nueva tarea. Esperamos sobretodo que los miembros de nuestro comit� de investigaci�n continuar�n a publicar nuestro Bolet�n de informaci�n.
3) Los dos tercios de los miembros se pronunciaron por el cambio de nombre de nuestro Comit� de Investigaci�n 10 (Participaci�n y Democracia Organizacional), la directiva tom� nota. Frente a la preocupaci�n de algunos de los miembros durante nuestra Asamblea General en Montreal, tuve la oportunidad de volver a decir que la auto-gesti�n ser�a el centro de nuestro trabajo y que en todo caso, en lo que a m� concierne, yo actuar�a firmemente para que la dimensi�n democr�tica de la participaci�n est� siempre presente en nuestro Comit� de Investigaci�n
4) Tambi�n quisiera subrayar que nuestro Comit� de Investigaci�n va a conocer un periodo fructifero en eventos cient�ficos:
Atenas: marzo 1999 5litsa NICOLAU - SMOKOVITI)
San Petersburgo: mayo o junio 1999 (Volkmar KREISSIG)
Lima: finales de junio 1999 (W. MORENO, SI)
Tel Aviv: 11-15 julio 1999 (Michal PALGI -IIS)
Amsterdam: agosto 1999 (Henk VOETS - ESA)
Africa del Sur: febrero 2000 (Dasarath CHETTY)
Malaga: junio 2000 (Sub-Comit� Iberoamericano)
Montreal: verano 2000 (en coordinaci�n con l'AISLF).
5) Permitanme tambi�n de subrayar la importancia de las elecciones de la Directiva de nuestro Comit� de Investigaci�n. Esperamos que todos envien su voto. Nuestro procedimiento es muy particular. La mayor�a de los comit�s de investigaci�n de la Asociaci�n Internacional de Sociolog�a eligen su comit� directivo durante los Congresos Mundiales. Tenemos un procedimiento postal, m�s pesado a�n, pero si incluso deseamos que los candidatos se presenten personalmente durante el Congreso (lo que ocurri� en Montreal), nosotros preferimos que otros, que no asist�an al Congreso, pudieran ser tambi�n candidatos; deseamos tambi�n favorecer la reflexi�n democr�tica antes que el voto, dejando un tiempo necesario, con la difusi�n de una breve nota de presentaci�n de cada candidato y sus objetivos. Entonces no nos desanimemos en nuestras acciones sin enviar el voto. Adem�s seamos coherentes con nuestro tema de la "participaci�n"!.
Permitanme por fin presentarles mis m�s cordiales deseos a cada uno y de formular un deseo colectivo por un a�o en el podamos continuar, incluso en forma modesta, a contribuir por una sociedad m�s participativa, o sea m�s democr�tica, m�s libre y m�s justa.
Alain Chouraqui
Presidente del Comit� de Investigaci�n10 Aix-en Provence, 15 de diciembre 1998
Newsletter Report, 1994-98
Submitted by Bruce Wilson for the board meeting in Montreal, 1998
| 1. In the period from ,1994-98 three Newsletters have been prepared. This has been less than was planned. Generally speaking, only small amounts of material have been forwarded to the Editors. 2. At its meeting in Las Palmas in mid-,1997 the Board made a number of resolutions about attempting to make the Newsletter more inclusive and representative. This was to be achieved through Board members acting as regional reporters, providing sumaries of recent activities for information of members in other parts of the world, and through greater use of the official languages, at least in relation to the message from the President. While the latter has been undertaken, the submission of regional reports has not yet occurred. 3. While Australia is a long way from other parts of the world, and the Editor is not in such regular contact with other RC members, it would seem that there is no real reason why this should cause problems in producing the Newsletter. This has been demonstrated partly through the ease with which new members have been added to the |
mailing list; in this regard, all communication has been via fax or email. As more and more members are on email, it should be possible to forward material relatively easily and quickly from any part of the world, and for the Editor to respond equally quickly. 4. In the same way, mailing of Newsletters from Australia is quite expensive. If members were willing to receive them via email, this would speed up delivery and greatly reduce costs. A special feature of the next Newsletter could be to test this with members and gain their feedback (and cooperation, where appropriate). 5. In terms of the ongoing success of the Newsletter, the key issue would seem to be obtaining a range of articles, seminar reports and other materials for inclusion. If the RC10 Board were to agree on a policy in this regard, I would be happy to supply you as President with regular reports on how the policy is being implemented. Alternatively, I could generate some material of general interest for each Newsletter, but this would mostly be reprints from other sources. |
News from the Treasurer
| Basically, the saying, no news is good news, is valid for the treasurer too. But for the business meeting at the World Congress in Montreal and for the sake of the balances in Dollars and Cents or Mark and Pfennig the treasurer is obliged to give a report from time to time. So spend some time with the finances and some by-products of the work of the treasurer of RC 10. At first, the treasurer of RC 10 is authorized for the RC 10 only; sub committees of RC10 |
are self-reliant in finances. If you are interested in their situations, ask the colleagues. You can find their addresses in the news letter. In June 1998 the RC 10 had 240 members. 64 of those were members of ISA too. 65 will stick to the RC 10 for their life time. 50 members were exempted from membership fees. The status of membership of 17 members could not be identified. |
Balance of RC 10
The time period to report here is the time between 19.3.96 and the 1.6.98
We started with a sum of: 5.496,87 DM
We got fees from members: 1.217,61 DM
We spend for the News letter and for bank fees: 935,36 DM
So we have on the German bank account: 5.779,12 DM
Raymond Russell has on his bank account in California: 5.090,80 DM
(The money is kept in dollars)
Total: 10.869,12 DM
Some minor problems
| Even though we planned to combine our financial resources in one hand and in one bank account, we have not been successful yet. There are two reasons for that. The first one is that ISA collects membership fees from those of us who want to be members not only of the RC 10 but of ISA too. It would be silly to ask members to send fees to ISA and to us, knowing that the fees the banks take are rising more and more. So, this deviation of fees via ISA is fine for us. ISA reimburses us whenever we want it. ISA finances are dollar based. The second reason is with the international exchange rates between the currencies within the last |
half year. The US-dollar has been too weak in relation to the German Mark. It would have been a bad time for any transfer and of course, we will keep some of the money in Dollars anyway. The German bank is prepared to open an account in dollars for us; in question are the fees only. This problem will be solved soon. The regulation of fee exemption harms us more than this financial transaction business. As far as I can remember, all was very easy during the last 25 years. Those of us who lived in poor countries were exempted from |
| fees for good, because we all knew that our friends from there had no hard currencies available. And there was no word to our colleagues from the former Soviet bloc concerning this question when the East and the West united to the one World. It was clear to each of us that they had to care for their family's income first. They were badly in need of dollars and could not spend any. In the mean time, the situation seems to have improved a little bit. On the one hand, we do get membership fees from the East again especially from those who think they are able to pay for RC 10. On the other hand, the effects of globalisation have reached Europe too. The job situation for social scientists has deteriorated and some of us are jobless for long periods of time or without chances to come back to the labour market anymore. For this new situation, our membership regulations are not prepared. Some do not have to pay even though they can; others have to pay even though they cannot. The treasurer does not want to break down social contacts with our friends, who have not the luck to live in the industrial centres of the world or can not participate in their wealth. But I would like to asks those of our members who live in poor countries or wherever life is hard, but still earn some |
good money, to think about their contributions to RC 10. So lets be fair. Everybody shall evaluate his/her private situation even though the regulation stands: persons from OECD etc. are to pay reduced fees or are exempted. As for life time members, they already have the alternative of paying additional fees. They can do, if they want. Of course, there will be no control of any kind regarding this issue. We still do not really know who is a member of RC10, who has lost interest in the RC and who has left us for good. Even though I have tried hard to combine the four lists I could put my hands on at the beginning of my office, some members may still be lost in the space of small bureaucracies. I apologize for that and I ask you kindly to write to the secretary or the treasurer to get things sorted out. Please take the chance to renew your membership. Some of you have done it already. We will do our best to fix the lists, but never forget, it is lousy (alienated) work. Email and internet have become more useful and accessible for us during the last few years. So, it would be nice if you could supplement your addresses. Wiking Ehlert The Treasurer |
REPORTS FROM RC 10 SESSIONS
HELD IN ISA WORLD CONGRESS - MONTREAL, 1998
Gender and Participation
| The panelists in the session Gender and Participation were, in order of presentation: Maryan Street (University of Auckland) - theoretical overview of gendered participation in the post-liberal workplace; Harvie Ramsay (University of Strathclyde) - employee participation and gender in retailing; and Vera Vratusa- Zunjic (Cika Ljubina) - gender and the self-assessment of workplace participation in decision making. While each paper tackled issues the others did not, several common themes never the- less emerged: 1. Perceived and desired levels of particip- ation in the workplace were issues which two of the papers investigated empirically. Alerting us to the dangers of homogenizing either participants, or women, these papers looked at details of the differences between women and men, and among women. Despite the fact that one looks at British retail food chains, and the other studies a national sample of Yugoslavian workers, there are some striking similarities in their findings. All three papers lead to the conclusion that an explicit consideration of gender is required, whether as organizational researchers or as practitioners. Just as we cannot homogenize women, so we cannot homogenize participants. 2. All the papers offered reasons to challenge gendered stereotypes about the desire men and women have for influence and involvement, and about the ways they participate.. 3. All the papers raised questions about the validity of conventional measures of levels of participation and of desire to participate. Two of the presenters |
emphasized that conventional survey techniques, in particular, are problematic. The third raised issues about the conceptualization of participation. 4. There was significant overlap in the explanations these panelists offered for variations in participation between women and men and among women, and all emphasized the impact of gender differences in types of jobs and location in the hierarchy, and of ideological assumptions about the abilities and roles of men and women. 5. The theoretically focussed paper directed attention to the gendered nature of organizational relations even in so-called democratic organizations. Such organizations are generally rooted in the (neo-)liberal assumptions of contract theory, and accept without critical analysis many existing social arrangements. The author posed the possibility of operationalizing the concept of post-liberal workplace, a concept which incorporates gender equality. 6. For me these three papers taken together posed the question - how radical a change in organizations and in organizational theorizing and research strategies is necessary for gender equality in particip- ation to become more of a reality? Also, what theoretical and conceptual tools help us move in that direction? How do we recognize difference and yet bolster democracy? An animated discussion period followed the presentation of the papers, a discussion to be taken up at future RC10 meetings, no doubt. Respectfully submitted, Leslie Brown, Chair of the Session on Gender and Participation |
Organizational Changes and Workplace
| At the Montreal Congress of Sociology RC 10's program included a session on Organizational Change and Workplace Representation, chaired by Professor Volkmar Kreissig (Faculty of Management, State University St. Petersburg, Russia) and Dr Peter Leisink (Faculty of Social Sciences, Utrecht University, the Netherlands). Two interesting papers were presented and discussed with some thirty participants in this session. The first paper was given by Pernille Bottrup (Roskilde University, Denmark) Organizational learning - a way of putting democratization and life politics on the working life agenda? Against the background of reflexive modernization theories by Giddens and Beck, she discussed the concept of organizational learning. She found that prevailing American versions assumed the existence of consensus between different actors within the organization concerning goals and visions for organizational development. Acknowledging conflicting interests and power relations in workplaces would increase the opportunities of putting democratization and the improvement of working life on the agenda, Pernille Bottrup argued. Drawing on the Scandinavian experience she sketched an alternative approach to organizational learning, in the development of which unions are involved. The second paper was by Jan Kees Looise, Jan de Leede and Michiel Drucker (University of Twente, the Netherlands) - |
The end of (national) employee representation? The effects of changes in organization and work on works councils. The paper was presented by Jan Kees Looise, who argued that works councils have grown to maturity but at the peak of their success are threatened by a number of developments in the direction of both decentralization and re-centralization. On the one hand the flexible and innovative firm has introduced direct forms of participation at workplace level, such as quality circles, teamwork and also financial participation. On the hand, the centralization of strategic management to a supra-company level can only be matched by creating Euro or even world councils. The institution of a (national) works council no longer fits with these developments, although it could continue to be the center for the integration of a more diffuse system of co-determination. The theoretical exploration in the paper will be followed up by empirical research to examine to what extent these developments have taken place and what forms of employee representation have developed. Due to the fact that four other paper-givers did not show up in the session to present their paper, there was ample opportunity to discuss these papers, which both in their own way tried to evaluate the effects of new management practices on employee participation. The lively debate illustrated the continued interest in democratic participation issues. Peter Leisink |
Efficiency versus democracy? Coordinator: Heinz S�nker (Wuppertal University, Germany): Azril Bacal (Uppsala University, Sweden): La democratizacion de la efficiencia Alain Chouraqui (CNRS et LEST, France): Participation d�mocratique et/ou efficacit� productive: jeux et enjeux Ake Sandberg (National Institute for Working Life, Sweden): Produktivity and 'Good Work' in Industry: Images and Examples. In this well attended session all contributions dealt with the question of democracy and capitalism. They followed, so to say, the idea of Bowles and Gintis that 'no capitalist society today may reasonably be called democratic in the straightforward sense of securing personal liberty and rendering the exercise of power socially accountable'. So the question of a democratic culture in connection with problems of education, the knowledge question, the competencies of the people were brought to the fore. This means a confrontation of the needs of the capitalist accumulation process and the needs of the people. The heritage and the systematics of the participation approach shows both possibilities of solutions of the democratic question in praxis and the danger produced by the wild capitalism based on neoliberal ideology. The perspective of democratic participation in all institutions and all areas of everyday life can be understand as a possibility of overcoming the boundaries of this no longer tamed capitalism. |
Participation and Privatization of Social Services Coordinators: Eckhard Dittrich, University of Magdeburg; Veljko Rus, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana; Raymond Russell, Department of Sociology, University of California, Riverside. Bostjan Zalar, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, "The Privatization of the State's Coercive Authority: From Compact Back to Combat?" Hajdeja Iglic, Veljko Rus, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, "Privatization of Social Services: Social Networks and Coalition Formation in the Public and Private Health Care Sectors". Macur Mirna, Majda Cernic-Istenic, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, "Evaluation of Privatization Through Quality of Health Services". Michael Kleineberg, Sociological Institute, University of Magdeburg, Germany, "The Role and Function of Nonprofit Organizations Within the Emerging 'Welfare- Mix' in Russia". Because Veljko Rus and Michael Kleineberg, were unable to attend the conference, the paper by Iglic and Rus was presented by Bostjan Zalar, and the paper by Kleineberg was presented by Raymond Russell. |
| Participation and Governance in Organizations-Real and Virtual Coordinators: Ann Westenholz, Denmark and Ake Sandberg, Sweden. The following papers were discussed at the congress within three hours: 1. Joyce Rothschild, Dep. of Sociology, Virginia Tech. USA: The Suppression of Whistleblowers. 2. Edward Zammit, Workers' Participation Development Center, University of Malta, Malta: Self-Management at Malta Drydocks - A Postscript. 3. Ann Westenholz, Institute of Organization |
and Industrial Sociology, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark: Employee representation on governance of companies. 4. Peter Leisink, Utrecht University & Aake Sandberg, Arbeitslivsinstituttet, Sweden: Networking organizations and workers' participation. 5. Christian Koch & Henrik Buhl, Institute for Technology and Social Science, Technical University of Denmark: Controversy or silent content? - Participation and Social Influence on Information Technology in Distributed Organisations. |
Participatory Research Methods
Six papers were submitted by Ann Marie Farmakides (AF), Frank Heller (FH), Henri Pinaud (HP), Henk Voets (HV), Vera Vratusa (VV) and Gerard Kester (GK). The coordinators HP and GK analyzed all papers before the seminar and presented a cumulative discussion scheme including the main points of all papers. At the request of many seminar participants, the schema is presented here.
I. Assumptions/propositions:
a. Participation not (yet) very effective, meaningful, democratic. (all).
b. 'Traditional' research alone inappropriate (all).
c. 'Traditional' research serves existing power structures (VV).
d. Participatory research is a lever of participation dynamics (HP and GK).
2. Methods/Approach:
a. The need for research strategy (all).
b. Participatory research leads to intervention, learning, self-development etc. (FH, HV).
3. Theoretical relevance:
a. Increased validity and reliability (FH, GK).
b. Methodological innovation (all).
c. Theoretical development: Grounded theory (all).
d. Use for academic curricula (GK).
4. Practical relevance:
a. Use for action/practice/performance participation (FH, HV).
b. Use for education and training (HP, GK).
c. Use for policy development (AF, HV, HP, GK).
5. Partnership issues:
a. Tripartite cooperation (AF).
b. Participation of workers/management/other actors (FH, HV).
c. Trade union - university cooperation (HP, GK).
6. Implementation issues:
a. Organization/management (AF, HP)
b. Finance (VV)
c. Capacity, competence of research partners (AF, HF, HP).
7. Conclusion: Participatory research is a positive sum game (all).
Review of European Literature on Organization and Work, or:
How to argue, if you cannot be understood
Wiking Ehlert
| When Alain Chouraqui asked me in Montreal, if I would like to comment on European literature on organization and work, bad enough, I said yes. Now, sitting at my writing table at home, I do not have remorse thinking of the new work load I have taken on my shoulders. That has been on my mind when I consented. The task is not in question. However, my hesitation to fulfil it right away steams from the efficiency of my reporting. The question to think about is: how can people from different areas of the world understand what I have read and I want to comment on? You may answer me, well: we all are able to read your (German) English and of course we know how to esteem your reviews. And my answer would be: No, I do not want to question your competence. What worries me are the silent man-traps built of our mutual socio-cultural backgrounds and into our pre-conscious reception apparatus which we are not able to communicate at once but are decisive for the results of our communication. Let me give you four examples what is on my mind. I will take them all from our conference room in Montreal. The first one is my observation of Alain Chouraqui's lecture. Sitting there in front of the audience he talked and looked into our eyes. To make his arguments better understood he jumped from French to English and used Spanish and German words as well. I do not want to praise his multi-lingualism but his knowledge of the problem to communicate. If you do not find the key-words the woman or the man in the audience understand, the lecturer has no chance to be understood with success by his listeners. Alain did a fine job as an actor too, emphasizing what he said by gestures. |
He was talking with his body. And some of us will have appreciated this theater based help because they could conceive better what he was talking about even though they may not have been able to follow every single word (in French). In short, we have to see that we understand by word and by heart what is said. But let us not forget, can the French rhetoric actor still be understood on the background of cultural totally different expectations of behavior of the real and important scientists? Presumably not, the advantage planed can result into helping hands to refuse to listen to. An international standard of behavior for scientists and specific communication is not at hand. The second one is Michal's word from a back bench of the conference room on my plea as treasurer in the business meeting for more money in respect of supporting colleagues which are really poor; I was thinking of Africa. That is the wrong way. At first saying we have got enough money in the box and then asking for more.... If you would have lived in a kibbutz, you would have known etc. Of course, in Germany too, you have to paint the financial situations bleak to raise more money. That helpful strategy is not in question. The problem is more with the implying notion that this strategy has to be followed to reach a result by deviations which really is nothing but the result of pure logic of direct communication. In short, is the reception of every one of us really free to take the words as they are meant to be by the lecturer? Presumably not, our daily life influences the preconditions of our understanding for good. Even if we know about this, we have a hard time to compensate, if it is possible at all. |
| The third one is a short discussion between Ingrid and Ake. Ingrid asked Ake something about jobs I can not remember in detail. However, Ake answered the following: The German argument is clear. Kern and Schumann have said in their book on the end of the division of work ... There is nothing wrong with that. The problem is only that the two authors represent only and at best about 25 % of the scientists busy in this special sociology in Germany, most of their older German colleagues name that book a political program while the younger ones esteem the main thesis to be impressive. Close to nobody reflects that it has been written in the wake of the times of the dream of the everlasting wonder of the German economy (Wirtschaftswunder). In those days talking of job meant well paid lifelong employment in industries while to day any kind of activity with some kind of income shapes our understanding. That book and that tradition to think of jobs and industries is outdated by far. In short, how can we be sure that our statements are really valid? I am convinced that we have to talk about more than just new literature to make sure that we understand all over the world what is going on in Europe. Finally, the forth one. In Montreal, as well as in Bielefeld and you can watch the ceremony again and again on all conferences, for lunch, supper or a drink at night social groups stick together. They are organized around good wine and seafood or beer and cosy talking in the shadow of semi-privacy to talk about the major problems of science as well as matters of RC 10. Again, I do not want to blame anybody for behaving this way, but this form of pre-structured communication which is socially bounded, additionally shapes the process of mutual understanding much more than we will be able to accept. We are part of the game. |
Referring to our common experiences, I hope to able to make myself understood. So perhaps you will be prepared now to follow what Cornelius Lammers, a former President of RC 10, wrote to me in a letter more than fifteen years ago. "International conferences seldom form a good opportunity for really serious and interesting discussions about theoretical or methodological issues. For one thing, all those whose mother tongue is not English, tend to avoid complicated topics, for the simple fear that their English is not sufficient to express a somewhat sophisticated argument. Furthermore, if you don't know people of other countries very well, you usually don't know, what kind of criticisms they can "stand". Even in your own country with colleagues you know, sometimes sincere, constructive critical comments are sometimes perceived as personal attacks! Even within one "scientific community" norms regarding what is and is not permissible in a "professional debate" are not clear. A fortiori, people from different national backgrounds are quite uncertain how much and what sort of criticism they can make or expect from another. Therefore they usually limit themselves to asking a few, polite, superficial questions for information! Only later, when they have met repeatedly and are familiar with each other's work, do they acquire an interest in exchange of evaluations". You may still object, that I have been taking about verbal communication and not about written one, there is a difference. Yes, there is. However, if you would look into books (in Germany) at first sight you will find specialists on international communication. Most of the time they think of language problems, education systems and cultural backgrounds. They do not look at the situation of social scientists. |
| So for example the problem to translate is conceived as one of the stock of words or of literal or non-literal translation. Forgotten is that most of the colleagues go with their dictionary developed for schools or the ideal processor of my computer you would find 11 different forms of English. That is, you, the reader of my review will have to be content just with one alternative: the one in my word-processor for English (Great Britain). As far as I know, there is only one dictionary which tries to present sociological English for Germans of course. Because of its price (400 US-dollars) it is not widely spread. However, via this dictionary I have the chance to use in English the terms correctly for special social theories perhaps you will know too. Again, my problem is yours, the dictionary is more or less bourgeois and does (of course) not taste my brand of social theory etc. But, and here is a small bridge, I will try to boil down all I will write to action (Weber), functional systems theory (Habermas/ Luhmann) and a critical (undogmatic/ Marxist) societal theory in which theoretical aspect are only valid if they come with those of the praxis. I cant explain my plans here more precisely. We will have to see. Let us be frank, I do not know whether the German side of the translation meets the needs of those beyond my experiences. And do not want to be Euro-centristic, but I cant but. I can not get rid of this without your support. I have to admit, that all of my life as a scientist, I analyzed the historic, the economic, the social and the human situation from the point of view of their improvement for all of us. Of course, I am convinced that the optimum has to be reached by structural changes of the society. And don't forget, what may look like a pessimistic attitude and critic against everyone and everything, is not negative by principle. The state of the social systems make them look this way. And of course this basic understanding is my mode |
of the analysis. But, even though critical, all still may look differently to you. For example, unemployment in Germany is living in luxury against unemployment in Bangladesh. My measurements will have to be European oriented. Good and bad can not be transferred without special and additional transportation. Again, you have to step in and fulfil my reviewing for the sake of your understanding. My kids wont forget the young colleague from India I invited to my home years ago. In the early morning he strolled in the garden in his morning gown, before high noon he was found sitting with crossed legs meditating. And for any help in the house, he was a total failure. Well, at home in his country, he had servants around him and he felt just at home in my house. I felt honored by his behavior. But all what he did, monitored his being strange in the eyes of everyone, even though we all belonged to the upper class in our different countries. I can not get rid of that societal background really. You cant either. However, we will see the other one better. When you attend a conference in France, you may find out that colleagues from Paris have more status than those from somewhere else. In Germany too, we have leaders of schools and scholars that fight for the boss, all in the disguise of science and purely rational discussion of course. Of course, everybody reacts to this status differences. Even though, in the Anglo-American context we skip our titles, but still the silent hierarchies are well to be seen after some time of observation. Just watch the guys leaving the room. So we should not blame our friends from the Far East because of their socially obedient behavior and the talking of san here and san there. It has to be appraised in their context anyhow at first. |
| All what interests me here is that we do evaluate what we read via the glasses of status and I will not be able to include the special relations in different countries. That will be your turn again. Galtung describes three different types of thinking in social sciences. The pragmatic one, that is the Anglo-American style including Scandinavia. The central European style, that is more or less the French and the German constructionist thinking. And the style of Japan which he describes as aiming at hierarchal groups. I do not want to blame the subordination of the rest of the world This question is not redundant because the readers of my reviews will all be scientists. No, we all are human beings on which sprouts of social sciences can grow. Whether they flourish or not depends on our human bodies of course. And they are packed with selected (profession, age, gender, socialization, status, class, society etc) experiences. We are not beyond the praxis theory debate, we are in the middle of it; and we discuss only once in a while the effects of the difference which is anyhow only analytical; and when we do we look at other people and discuss with a cold heart what is our most prominent own problem, the relation between motives and action, rationality ... I wonder, if you still are reading my text. All I said up to now can be understood as an |
attempt not to have to write the announced review. I will not do it today. In my opinion I need some kind of help from you, if I do not want to contribute to that international science, I was will be blamed all the time. So, I decided for myself to propose two arenas, in which we could try to start to solve the problem of international communication. The first one is: I would like to get to know which most important books on organization and work have been read in your country, let me say, in the last ten years. I would take those books to base on my review which could be of interest for you and me. The second one is: Via internet, the RC 10 could start a debate amongst its members on the headline of organization and work. Precondition is that we restrict our contributions to a few (5) pages and we accept that the process of discussion will take place for two years. Everybody could contribute and should take the chance. Doing so, we could have an arena, in which we could sort things out more often and perhaps find a solution to my first question: How to argue, if you cant be understood. [email protected] |
STATEMENT OF CANDIDACY
for the election of ISA Research Committee 10
("Participation and Organizational Democracy") Board
Not all candidates sent their statements
| Leslie Brown, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada Areas of Research: member participation in consumer co-operatives; women in co-ops; co-operatives and community development; social auditing in co-ops and credit unions In 1994 I was elected to the Board and have learned something of how the organization functions, what its strengths and weaknesses are. I would like the opportunity to serve a second term, with the aims of: helping the newsletter editor to further develop the newsletter as an organ of communication; exploring ways of keeping members abreast of papers presented at conferences they could not attend; exploring ways to foster networks and collaborative research among researchers having similar interests (especially drawing in young researchers); addressing issues related to the participation of researchers from the developing world. Vera Vratusa(-Zunjic), Department of Sociology, Faculty of Philosophy, Cika Ljubina 18-20, 11000 Belgrade, Yugoslavia If elected I would pursue the following goals: 1) Encourage participatory research of attitudes toward the desirable organization of social relations within the enterprise, local community and the society at large, in continuous cooperation with interested social actors. Hitherto research studies focused mainly on the quantitative impact of different privatization models and participation schemes on the enterprise performance, but there is little qualitative data on the participation motivation and satisfaction with existing participation level of employees and citizens; 2) Stimulate critical analysis of relevant legal regulation of work and communal relations, both local and international, in order to initiate |
necessary amendments that would enlarge at least the formal rights of employees and citizens to participation in decision-making, based not only in their eventual share ownership, but also in their work contribution to social reproduction; 3) Conceptualization, carrying out and promotion of implementation of the results of comparative and longitudinal characteristic case studies of economically and socially successful and unsuccessful participation schemes; 4) Devotion of special attention to the problems of education for decision making and self management or self governance as the regulative long-term strategic project. Jan C. Looise My name is Jan C. (or Jan Kees in Dutch) Looise. I am working as a professor of Social Management and Social Sciences at the Department of Technology and Management of the University of Twente in the Netherlands. I am a member of RC 10 since about 1986 (New Delhi Congress), though last years I have not been very active due to the fact that I had to fulfil a number of administrative tasks within our department. But since the beginning of this year these tasks are finished which gave me the opportunity to restart my research, especially also on participation and democracy. In my view, research in this field nowadays is more actual than ever and RC 10 offers a stimulating environment for researchers from different continents and countries that want to be active in this field. If I am elected as a member of the board I will do my best to carry out most of the plans that have been suggested in last business meeting(s) but have not been realised yet. |
| Heinz Suenker Dr. Heinz Suenker, Professor of Social Pedagogy in the Dept. of Social Sciences at Wuppertal University (Germany); research interests and publications in critical social theory, theory and history of social work, political education, childhood, professionali- zation and social services. Within the last four years I was alternate in the board, interested in a strengthening of international networking of those interested in real participation and organizational democracy. With respect to the next four years I'm especially interested in connecting different strands in the discussion on participation in social analysis, social organization of work and the democratic question, i.e. for example referring to debates in the field of social services (self determination and social work instead of following the advocacy approach) or even politics of childhood and participation of children. Michal Palgi, Yezreel Valley College and Haifa University, Israel. Michal Palgi is an organizational sociologist at the Kibbutz Research Institute, Haifa University and a senior lecturer at the Yezreel Valley College in Israel. She has been the director of the Kibbutz Research Institute at Haifa University; and the director of the Project for Kibbutz Studies, Harvard University as well as head of the Advisory Committee to the Industrial Democracy Section in the Histadrut (Israeli Trade Union Organization). She serves as an advisor to the Kneset's (Israeli parliament) Work Sub-Committee on women at work. Her interests are: work- place democracy, gender and participation, privatization of companies, changes in the kibbutz in which areas she published widely. Is a long standing active member of RC 10. Has organized two RC 10 conferences and participated in many. If elected to the board of RC 10 she would mainly devote herself to.enhancing participation, cooperation and communication among RC 10 members in research and |
information. Will attempt to open a site for RC 10 on the web in order to raise new ideas and open free discussion among people of similar interest. Alain Chouraqui Alain Chouraqui is director of research in CNRS (National Center for Scientific Research, France), teaching in the universities of Aix-en Provence and Marseille. He was the first coordinator of the EPOC Program (Participation in Organizational Change, comprising of 16 countries and 42 researchers 1992-1999). As a general coordinator of the 17 RC!) sessions in Montreal Congress, he was convinced that different forms of direct and representative participation are more necessary and possible than ever, and that RC10 has to better address the challenge of democratic participation and self-management, from workplace level to global one, in public, private and non profit sectors. If elected, he would go on implementing and supporting linkages between theoretical approaches and empirical results; between academics and other social actors (i.e. participatory research); between the dominating academic institutions, and colleagues from Southern countries and Central or Eastern Europe. Our new RC10 Series and our Newsletter have to be fed, especially with these perspectives. Serving from 1996 as President of RC 10. Dasarath Chetty, Department of Sociology, University of Durban-Westville. Dr Dasarath Chetty has served on the RC Board between 1994-1998. Presently, President of the South African Sociological Association of Africa. Former Council member and treasurer of the South African Sociological Association. I will promote the work of RC in the African Continent by stimulating contacts through conferences and research collaboration and facilitate the participation of Africans in the deliberations of the ISA. |
| Edward L. Zammit, W.P.D.C., University of Malta I am deeply committed to the principle of worker participation and organisational democracy. Nevertheless, I am also critical of the way in which this principle has often been put into practice in various countries, both East and West. Since 1981 I have been directing the Worker Participation Development Centre (WPDC) at the University of Malta where research, consultancy and trade union educational activities are carried out systematically in the areas of interest to RC10. I am also involved in some European research projects dealing with labour and participation issues. If elected, my contribution would be to promote research on the way that the rhetoric of participation, involvement and empowerment are being manipulated often to serve purposes which are inimical to democratisation. Litsa Nicolaou-Smokoviti, Director of Management Division, University of Piraeus. Greek sociologist, living and working in Greece. Ph.D. Boston College. Professor of Sociology of Work Organization and Industrial Relations, University of Piraeus. Elected Vice Rector of Academic Affairs, Associate Dean and Director of Management Division, University of Piraeus. Has organized international conferences, collaborated with international scholars in comparative research and joint publications. Member of national and international professional associations. She wishes to represent Southern European and Balkan countries in the Board of RC10 and contribute to: (a) the establishment of a regional Chapter, (b) the increase of RC10 membership in the area which is now limited (c) the intensification of communication among scholars in the area (d) the promotion of collaboration among colleagues in joint research and publications on regional problems.She feels that a board member representing Southern European and Balkan countries would greatly help in shaping the |
general policy and the course of action of RC10. Wiking Ehlert; Osnabruck; Germany. Being a member of RC 10 for more than 15 years now and having decided to stick with that RC for lifetime I would like to be the treasurer of RC 10 for another period. Personally I am an old fashioned social scientist. More or less the traditional orientation of RC 10 on 'societal self management is my version to fulfil any task, the one of a treasurer too. In the last period I have tried to consolidate the membership files of RC 10. In the coming up period I will support the idea of social justice on the side of fees between the members more and more. The RC 10 should be busy to get more members from Africa and from South-East Asia. Both areas have been neglected in the past.In times of the computer, we should use the new chances to communicate. A conference here, another one there could be improved if we would establish networks of discussion in between and afterwards. Costs would be low, nice for the treasurer. Antonio Lucas Has been Professor of Sociology in different Spanish Universities. From 1986 he has been teaching at the Universidad Complutense of Madrid, where he has served as Head of the Department of sociology during the last four years. He has also taught courses and seminars at different Latin American and European universities. Has published 9 books and has collaborated in 33 other books, in 12 of them as editor. He has also published sixty articles in different Sociological Journals. His studies on participation have focused on Industrial Sociology, communication and culture in organizations, and more recently on new technologies. Has been a member of RC 10 from 1990 and organized 10 International Seminars for our Latin-American Subcommittee, where he is editor of the Newsletter. Last four years he has served as Vice-president of our Committee |
RC 10 Ballots
Enclosed you will find the ballot you will need to participate in the RC10 elections. Please fill out and return the enclosed ballot in time to reach our secretary, Ann Westenholz, no later than March 15, 1999.
ONLY RC 10 MEMBERS IN GOOD STANDING CAN VOTE!
You may fax or e-mail your ballot if necessary, but if you want to keep confidentiality send your ballot by mail.
A statement from most of the candidates appears in this newsletter.
1. You may vote to a maximum of 10 candidates on the list. Do not put your name on the ballot form.
2. After making your choice insert the filled ballot form into an unmarked envelop - you need not put your name on it.
3. Put the unmarked envelop into another envelop. On the back of this last envelop print your name and add also your signature. Also print your home and e-mail address.
4. Send the ballot form by air to reach Ann Westenholz, no later than March 15, 1999. The address is:
Ann Westenholz - RC10 election
Institute of Organization and Industrial Sociology
Copenhagen Business School
Bl�g�rdsgade 23B
DK-2200 Copenhagen N
DENMARK
Tel: +45 38 15 38 15;
Fax: +45 38 15 28 28
Email: [email protected]
RC 10 Ballot Form
Election of board members 1999-2003
Vote for a maximum of 10 candidates. Mark your choices by circling the numbers next to the names of the candidates you wish to vote for.
Ballots containing votes for more than the maximum of 10 candidates will be rejected as invalid. Please return your vote by March 15, 1999.
| 1. Azril Bacal 2. Leslie Brown 3. Severyn Bruyn 4. Dasarath Chetty 5. Alain Chouraqui 6. Wiking Ehlert 7. Vladimir Gershikov 8. Volkmar Kreissig 9. Jan C. Looise 10. Antonio Lucas 11. Johann Maree 12. Michal Palgi 13. Litsa Nicolaou-Smokoviti 14. Harvie Ramsay 15. Richard Ruzicka 16. Heinz Suenker 17. Vera Vratusa (-Zunjic) 18. Edward L. Zammit |
ONLY RC 10 MEMBERS IN GOOD STANDING CAN VOTE!
Return to:
Ann Westenholz - RC10 election
Institute of Organization and Industrial Sociology
Copenhagen Business School
Bl�g�rdsgade 23B
DK-2200 Copenhagen N
DENMARK
Tel: +45 38 15 38 15;
Fax: +45 38 15 28 28
Email: [email protected]
CALL FOR PAPERS
2-day SEMINAR in Athens, March 1999
Globalization and Participation
| Prof. Litsa Nicolaou-Smokoviti has proposed the above Seminar and has been working on it. She has not been able to secure funds, as yet, but she is hopeful. Meanwhile, she requests your first response and expressed interest. If you wish to attend, please consider covering travel costs and living expenses ($50) - per day) from own funds. You can also explore possibilities of securing financial support from Erasmus/Socrates as visiting staff to the University of Piraeus (if a bilateral |
agreement exists between your University and the University of Piraeus) or obtaining funds from national and European sources. Inform Litsa of your intention specifying also topic of your proposed paper (fax: +301-6719697, tel. 6713902) until January 25. You are promised an interesting meeting and an acquaintance with the historical/cultural heritage and the natural beauty of Greece. |
CALL FOR PAPERS
JOINT MEETINGS ESA- RC 10 AT THE
4th European Sociological Conference: Will Europe Work?
August, 18-21, 1999, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| This conference is an interesting conference for the European members of RC 10. Henk Voets will try to realise some joint ESA- and RC 10- meetings on topics of common interest. Having in mind the closing date for sending in Abstracts (February, 1, 1999), he suggests that everyone who is interested should first ask the ESA secretariat for information: Tel. 31.20.5270600; Fax 31.20.6229430; e-mail [email protected] |
And those members of RC 10 who really intend to come to Amsterdam and present a paper, will contact him as soon as possible: Fax 31.15.2783956; or e-mail [email protected] Dr. Henk J.L. Voets Technical University Delft Kanaalweg 2 B 2628 EB Delft The Netherlands |
CALL FOR PAPERS
Interim Seminar on:
CHALLENGES CONFRONTING PARTICIPATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL DEMOCRACY IN AN ERA OF GLOBALIZATION
| The seminar will be held in conjunction with the 34 World Congress of the International Institute of Sociology, July 11-15, 1999, Tel Aviv, Israel Deadline for submission of titles and presenters: was November 20, 1998, but late submissions would be considered. Deadline for submission of abstracts: February 15, 1999 Suggested Topics: globalization with RC36) (in collaboration with RC36) democracy globalization zation We invite scholars involved in the study of |
related themes to submit abstracts (ca. 300 words) to the organizer: Dr. Michal Palgi Kibbutz Research Institute University of Haifa Haifa, Israel 31905 Tel: 972-4-8240418 Fax: 972-4-8240409 e-mail: [email protected] More details about the 34 World Congress of the International Institute of Sociology can be found in:http://spirit.tau.ac.il/soc/IIS99, or through e-mail: [email protected] ************************************* A common symposium of RC10 and IIS will also be held at this meeting. The title of the symposium is: "Industrial relations and participation in the process of globalization". Chair: Michal Palgi. Among the speakers: Alain Chouraqui,, France and Bjorg-Aase Sorenson, Norway. Menachem Rosner, Israel. ***************************** If any of you is still interested to participate in this RC10 seminar, you are most welcome. |
Michal Palgi recommends the following article: Moldaschl, M. & Weber, W. G. (1998). The "Three Waves" of Industrial Group Work. Historical Reflections on Current research on Group Work.. Human Relations, Vol. 51 (3), 347-388.
|
UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL MAYOR DE SAN MARCOS XII SEMINARIO INTERNACIONAL DEL SUB COMIT� IBEROAMERICANO DEL COMIT� 10 DE LA ASOCIACION INTERNACIONAL DE SOCIOLOGIA
PARTICIPACION CIUDADANA Y ECONOMIA SOCIAL EN IBEROAMERICA: UN BALANCE HACIA EL TERCER MILENIO
23-26 de Junio de 1999, Lima Per�
Invitaci�n para Asistir al XII Seminario Internacional 1999
| El Subcomit� Iberoamericano del Comit� de Investigaci�n No.10 de la Asociaci�n Internacional de Sociolog�a (RC 10 ISA), fundado en la ciudad de Lima (Per�, 1989), con eventos cient�ficos realizadas en Le�n (M�xico, 1989), Madrid (Espa�a, 1990), Santiago (Chile, 1991), Santander (Espa�a, 1992), Guanajuato (M�xico, 1993), Bielefeld (Alemania, 1994), Braga (Portugal, 1995), Santiago (Chile, 1996), Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (Espa�a, 1997), Montreal (Canad�, 1998), le invita a participar en el XII Seminario Internacional "Participaci�n Ciudadana y Econom�a Social en Iberoam�rica: Un Balance Hacia el Tercer Milenio" que se celebrar� en Lima-Per� en 1999. Es la segunda vez que el Comit� de Investigaci�n No. 10 de la ISA se reunir� en tierra peruana y ser� una oportunidad para que los cient�ficos sociales, profesionales, representantes de gobiernos locales y gobierno central, expertos de ONGs y de la cooperaci�n internacional, tengan intercambios te�ricos y de experiencias desde una perspectiva hist�rica, pol�tica, y socio-econ�mica, en proyecci�n hacia el tercer milenio. Cient�ficos Sociales de todas las Universidades del Per� tendr�n distintas actividades relacionadas con el Seminario Internacional. Lima, ciudad capital del Per�, esta muy pr�xima al Aeropuerto Internacional Jorge Ch�vez que se encuentra ubicado en la Provincia Constitucional del Callao, y en su interior coexisten urbes modernas con |
estructuras urban�sticas de origen Virreynal. El Seminario Internacional previsto para el 23-26 de Junio se desarrollar� con una temperatura media de 18�, a fines del oto�o. Con cargo a brindar le condiciones para una grata estancia, fruct�feros intercambios cient�ficos, y un conocimiento tur�stico del Per� Incaico y Virreynal, le saludamos muy cordialmente. Mstro William J. Moreno, Presidente del Sub Comit� Iberoamericano del RC 10 ISA y del Consejo Peruano para la Autogesti�n. Dr. Victor Andres Medina Flores, Decano Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos Comit� Cient�fico Lic. Juan Antonio Torres, Consejo Peruano para la Autogesti�n; Dr. Azril Bacal, Sub Comit� Iberoamericano del RC 10 ISA, Suecia; Dr. Antonio Lucas Mar�n, Universidad Complutense de Madrid; Dr. Antonio Colomer Viadel, Universidad de Valencia; Dr. Manuel da Silva e Costa, Universidade do Minho; Dr. Sergio Contreras Villa, Ministerio de la Presidencia, Chile. Programa del Seminario Internacional Teniendo como tema central "Participaci�n Ciudadana y Econom�a Social en Iberoam�rica: Un Balance Hacia el Tercer Milenio", las ponencias buscar�n expresar |
| aportes, innovaciones y desarrollos te�ricos y metodol�gicos en las siguientes �reas sustantivas: 1. Participaci�n Ciudadana en los Gobiernos Locales y en las Naciones 2. Autogesti�n Empresarial y Comunal 3. Econom�a Social Base para el Desarrollo Sostenible 4. Hip�tesis para un Tercer Milenio con Democracia Participativa, y 5. Sesi�n Especial en Ingles. Para lo cual, la presentaci�n de res�menes de las comunicaciones ser�n aceptadas hasta el 31 de Enero de 1999. Las comunicaciones aceptadas deber�n ser enviadas antes del 30 de marzo, para estar presentes en la publicaci�n previa. Exhibici�n de Publicaciones Una exhibici�n de publicaciones y servicios estar�n a cargo de la Comisi�n Organizadora, por lo que le damos la bienvenida a vuestras aportaciones. Programa para Acompa�antes Los acompa�antes de los participantes tendr�n opciones para el turismo, durante, |
antes y despu�s del Seminario Internacional. El Cusco o alguna ciudad de selva pueden ser de su inter�s. Tasa de Inscripci�n La cuota de inscripci�n al Seminario Internacional es de US$ 50, que da acceso a participar en el evento. Acomodaci�n Tenemos previsto alojamientos con un costo m�ximo de US$ 60 en el Hotel Crill�n (cinco estrellas, habitaciones doble o simple e incluye desayuno), pero existen otras opciones que van desde los US$ 15 hasta m�s de US$ 100 por noche. COPPA Para mayor informaci�n por favor contacte al Secretariado del Seminario: XII Seminario Internacional del SI RC 10 ISA Jr. Apurimac 224 Of. 506, Lima 1 Casilla Postal 1432, Lima 100 Per� Telef. (511) 4289626 Fax (511) 4274753 [email protected] |
Call for papers:
"New forms of management, participation and privatization
in small and medium sized enterprises in the process of economic and social transformation in Central and Eastern Europe"
St. Petersburg, June 1999 (exact date not known yet)
Organized by:
the Universities in Chemnitz (Prof. Lang) and in St. Petersburg (Prof. Kreissig)
| Please send titles and proposals for papers and the final decision on the concrete sessions will be made by March 1999. At that time we will know the decision of the VW foundation to which we applied. In April invitations, which are needed for getting a visa to Russia, will be sent to all participants. The theme of the conference is quite open and enables different papers from different countries. It is hoped that we can give those who participate as referents travel and accommodation support. I hope our members will agree to this type of organization, which is a result of the not so easy situation in Russia. Personally I can guarantee good organization, a cultural program and security for all participants. The |
situation in Russia is not as difficult as seen on television. Cordially, Volkmar Kreissig My addresses: Till 8th February in Germany: WIESO-europa, Rudolf-Breitscheid-Str. 24, 09112 Chemnitz, Germany Tel.:0049-371-308800; Fax:0049-371-308802;e-mail: [email protected] After 8th February: State University of St. Petersburg, Faculty of Management, 199155 St. Petersburg/Russia, Pereulok Dekabristov 16; tel.:007-812-350-8155;Fax:007-812-350-0406; e-mail:[email protected] or [email protected] |