{"id":2278,"date":"2015-10-21T13:33:50","date_gmt":"2015-10-21T12:33:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/charisma.local\/charisma2023\/char1smaSSL\/?post_type=markets&p=2278"},"modified":"2025-09-27T23:46:27","modified_gmt":"2025-09-27T22:46:27","slug":"the-organization-of-multiple-and-contested-modes-of-valuation","status":"publish","type":"markets","link":"https:\/\/www.journalofculturaleconomy.org\/charisma\/markets\/the-organization-of-multiple-and-contested-modes-of-valuation","title":{"rendered":"The Organization of Multiple and Contested Modes of Valuation"},"content":{"rendered":"

6th<\/sup>\u00a0LATIN AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN MEETING ON ORGANIZATION STUDIES<\/p>\n

Vi\u00f1a del Mar – Chile\u00a06 – 9 April 2016.<\/p>\n

Call for Papers: Sub-Theme #12 The organization of Multiple and Contested modes of Valuation<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Economic sociologists, anthropologists of markets, organization theorists, accounting scholars and others have brought the notion of value (back) on the agenda (Antal et al. 2015, Beckert & Aspers 2011, Kornberger et al. 2015). In this context value is not understood as a noun but as a specific social and material practice: rather than trying to define value as essence, the focus is on valuation practices and technologies of valuing. Here it becomes central to follow the trials (experiments, sales, revenue lists) and devices (rankings, ratings, surveys) that make things (firms, consumers, goods) comparable, accountable, rankable, in short: valuable.<\/p>\n

The sub-theme continues discussion initiated at the successfully stimulating Sub-theme 12 of the fifth LEAMOS Colloquium in Havana (\u201cValuation devices and processes of organizing\u201d). This time – and responding to the colloquium\u2019s aim: \u201cto share empirical and theoretical research on the multiplicity of logics that shape current forms of organizing in and beyond Latin American and European societies\u201d \u2013 we invite scholars to reflect on the co-existence of multiple modes of valuation in organizational settings. The sub-theme aims to provide space for conceptual and empirical papers, mobilizing different theoretical resources and \/ or practical cases. We welcome papers reflecting on some of the following issues:<\/p>\n

– Case studies dealing with friction (e.g. Stark 2009) caused by the co-existence of different valuation criteria in single organizational settings<\/p>\n

–\u00a0Comparative analyzes of different modes of valuing (for instance, quantitative and ordinal lists, e.g. Guyer 2010)<\/p>\n

–\u00a0Comparative studies about similar valuation devices used to assess different entities (firms, markets, industries, non-profit organizations)<\/p>\n

–\u00a0Comparative studies of \u2018fair value\u2019 assessing practices<\/p>\n

–\u00a0Controversies where social movements, consumer or affected groups contest or produce alternatives modes of valuing organizations or economic goods (e.g. Dubuisson-Quellier 2013)<\/p>\n

–\u00a0Strategies used to skillfully deal with or avoid annoying metrics (e.g. Kreiner 2012)<\/p>\n

–\u00a0Studies about rankings that fail<\/p>\n

–\u00a0Comparisons of different conceptual and theoretical approach to valuing (e.g. McFall & Ossand\u00f3n 2014)<\/p>\n

–\u00a0Reflections about the impact in existing conceptual approaches of paying attention to simultaneous and multiple objects of valuation (e.g. Frankel 2015).<\/p>\n

Deadlines:<\/p>\n

Abstract submission:<\/b><\/span>\u00a0November 10, 2015<\/p>\n

Notification of acceptance:\u00a0<\/b><\/span>December 10, 2015<\/p>\n

Submission of full paper (6.000 words):<\/b>\u00a0<\/span>March 10, 2016<\/p>\n

Abstracts of about 1000 words should be submitted through the website form at\u00a0www.laemos.com<\/a>\u00a0The abstracts should be in English, including the name and email address of the author(s)<\/p>\n

References<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Antal, A. B., Hutter, M., & Stark, D. (Eds.).\u00a0(2015).\u00a0Moments of valuation: exploring sites of dissonance<\/i>, Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n

Beckert, J., & Aspers, P. (2011).\u00a0The worth of goods: Valuation and pricing in the economy<\/i>, Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n

Dubuisson-Quellier, S. (2013). A market mediation strategy: How social movements seek to change firms\u2019 practices by promoting new principles of product valuation.\u00a0Organization Studies<\/i>, 34(5-6), 683-703.<\/p>\n

Frankel, C. (2015). The multiple-markets problem.\u00a0Journal of Cultural Economy<\/i>, (ahead-of-print), 1-9.<\/p>\n

Kornberger, M., Justesen, L., Mouritsen, J., & Madsen, A. K. (Eds.).\u00a0(2015).\u00a0Making Things Valuable<\/i>. Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n

Kreiner, K. (2012). Organizational Decision Mechanisms in an Architectural Competition,\u00a0Research in the Sociology of Organizations<\/i>, 36, 99-429.<\/p>\n

Guyer, J. (2009). The eruption of tradition? On ordinality and calculation.\u00a0Anthropological Theory<\/i>\u00a010 (2): 123-131.<\/p>\n

Mcfall, L. & Ossand\u00f3n, J. (2014). What\u2019s new in the new, new economic sociology\u2019 and should Organisation Studies care? in\u00a0The Oxford Handbook of Sociology, Social Theory, and Organization Studies: Contemporary Currents<\/i>, eds P. Adler, P. Du gay, G. Morgan & M. Reed, Oxford University Press, pp. 510\u2013533.<\/p>\n

Stark, D. (2009).\u00a0The sense of dissonance: Accounts of worth in economic life<\/i>, Princeton University Press.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Call for papers for a stream on ‘The organization of Multiple and Contested modes of Valuation’ at the 6th Latin and American and European meeting on Organization Studies, to take place iVi\u00f1a del Mar, Chile, in early 2016. Deadline for abstracts 10th November. Read More<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"author":28,"featured_media":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1,15],"tags":[1185,28,469,1005,413,609],"class_list":["post-2278","markets","type-markets","status-publish","hentry","category-all","category-announcements","tag-latin-american","tag-markets","tag-organization","tag-organization-theory","tag-valuation","tag-valuation-studies"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.journalofculturaleconomy.org\/charisma\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/markets\/2278","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.journalofculturaleconomy.org\/charisma\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/markets"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.journalofculturaleconomy.org\/charisma\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/markets"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.journalofculturaleconomy.org\/charisma\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/28"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.journalofculturaleconomy.org\/charisma\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2278"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.journalofculturaleconomy.org\/charisma\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/markets\/2278\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4052,"href":"https:\/\/www.journalofculturaleconomy.org\/charisma\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/markets\/2278\/revisions\/4052"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.journalofculturaleconomy.org\/charisma\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2278"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.journalofculturaleconomy.org\/charisma\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2278"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.journalofculturaleconomy.org\/charisma\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2278"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}