Category: Call for papers

Coordinator(s): Ketil Skogen, Olve Krange, Helene Figari and Håkon Aspøy (Norwegian Institute for Nature Research)

Science between a rock and a hard place – how should sociology respond?

Sociologists have often studied the role of science in modern societies in a context of power, explaining how science is intertwined with power structures in multiple ways. When the state acts, its actions are normally based on (or legitimized by) expert knowledge and advice. Studies of working-class and rural culture have described a deep skepticism of academic forms of knowledge, rooted partly in an experience of precisely the connection between expert knowledge and power. Sociologists have commonly taken a stance in defense of lay knowledge and taken it upon themselves to expose how expert knowledge often contributes to perpetuation of power relations. But what happens when science comes under fire from powerful actors, as we can see in so many fields today? This is not least the case in the environmental sector, where elaborate efforts are undertaken to undermine climate science and established knowledge in other areas that has previously guided government and set the premises for public debate. A main goal is to create an impression of scientific disagreement, and large resources are used to accomplish this.

These well-funded and well-organized efforts at undermining science have become much bolder than before, and at the same time the opposition against “elites” (and their expert knowledge) has been growing in disadvantaged segments of the population. Powerful corporate and political actors seem to hitch onto this unrest, and construe themselves as defenders of common sense and as allies in the struggle against illegitimate elites – meaning in essence the highly educated middle class, the media and indeed the state (which is taken to be synonymous with a bureaucracy populated by middle-class academics). They cast themselves as victims of the same marginalization that “ordinary people” experience, thus furthering their own (economic) interests while simultaneously stoking grassroots anti-elitism.

Despite historic class antagonism, there has always been a convergence of interests between workers and the owners of “the means of production”: Material production and resource extraction tie them together in a common destiny. Facing all kinds of threats to those activities, seen as originating in the ever more powerful middle class and its “over-reaching” state, this alliance has had a substantial boost. The “war on science” is at the heart of the backlash we now see in the environmental sector, but also in many other policy fields.

Undermining science (and thus for example environmental policies) from a position of power in order to protect material interests is not the same as challenging it from below and exposing its relation to power structures. However, it is often made out to be the same. It is important to critique the role of science and expert knowledge as instruments of power, but it is equally important to distinguish this from an “anti-elitism” that is really about something else: precisely to consolidate power and secure economic interests.

How should sociology respond to these developments? We invite presentations dealing with all aspects of “the war on science, not least in the context of contemporary social unrest. We are especially interested in contributions that address the dilemmas we have outlined above, and tasks for sociology that emanates from them.

Coordinator(s): Lone Friis Thing (National School of Sports Sciences, Norway), Ørnulf Seippel (National School of Sports Sciences, Norway) and Nils Asle Bergsgaard (University of South-Eastern Norway)

In the Nordic countries, sports for all has been a dominant policy for a long time. But, even though we see a physical active population in the Nordic welfare states, we do also face some very nonequal activity patterns challenging the success of these dominant sport policies. Global transformations do also influence on local manifestations in sports activities.

In the session “Facing inequalities in Sports”, we will focus on different conflicts and problems in sports, mainly for children and youth, but also adults and elder people. The Nordic welfare states have traditionally secured a certain form of cultural and economic capital in the civil sphere in form of voluntary sports systems with low payments and open memberships. But gender, ethnicity and class still matter for participation in sports. How can we face, manage and perhaps change the possibilities for doing sports among children & youth? And shall we? Who should be responsible for organizing sports? What are the best policy tools for reaching aims as sports for all? What about elite sports versus grassroot sports?

Sustainability is not only about the environment, but also related to human rights, communities and daily living conditions. Unequal pathways to sport are not sustainable for societies in the long run and can also be very costly. We open the session for a broad variety of papers.

Coordinator(s): Hans-Peter Y. Qvist, (Aalborg University, Denmark)

This session invites papers that contribute to the sociology of volunteering. Empirical papers may use quantitative data to shed light on the causes of volunteering including how they change over time and vary between contexts or to examine the possible effects of volunteering on different outcomes such as career progression, health, or social trust.

Papers may also use qualitative data to elucidate the social mechanisms through which people become volunteers or explain how the possible effects of volunteering on different outcomes come about. The session also welcomes papers that reviews existing sociological literature on volunteering or address important methodological issues within it.

Coordinator(s): Rebecca Lund (University of Oslo, Norway) Ann Christin Nilsen (University of Agder, Norway) and May-Linda Magnussen (University of Agder, Norway)

Institutional Ethnography is a method of inquiry, originally developed by Canadian sociologist Dorothy Smith (1987; 2005), to explicate the institutional organization of social interaction. It has since then been taken up and developed around the world, including the Nordic countries – used particularly (but not only) to study social relations within the welfare state and welfare state institutions; including the effects of reform and ruling discourse on professionals, users and clients.

The inquiry, not unlike other forms of ethnographic qualitative inquiry, starts from everyday experience and action, but it asks different questions, aiming at “keeping institutions in view.” This makes it possible to move from experiential accounts of everyday life to understand how these have been shaped in text mediated ruling relations.

For this session we invite empirical investigations drawing on or inspired by Institutional Ethnography. We also invite papers that focus on theoretical and/or methodological explorations and discussions of Institutional Ethnography. We hope that this session will provide PhD students an opportunity to present and receive feedback on work-in-progress, but also welcome contributions from scholars seeking to develop research proposals or manuscripts for publication.

It is not a requirement, for participating in this session, that you are well-versed in Institutional Ethnography beforehand. We do, however, expect an interest in exploring the premises and promises of using Institutional Ethnography.

Coordinator(s): Øyvind Wiborg (Department of sociology and human geography, University of Oslo, Norway) 

Western societies are experiencing rapid changes with huge implications on many levels. On a political level, western democracies are under pressure from non-democratic forces. BREXIT, Trump, and the growth of radical and popular right-wing movements in European societies represent notable examples of these developments. There are many sources behind such significant changes, but growing social inequalities and tensions between different social groupings represent a major factor.   

The Scandinavian societies are no longer safe havens. Despite being some of the most egalitarian societies, also the Nordic countries have experienced noticeable increments in inequality over the last decades. As in other Western societies, the increasing divides have bolstered traditional sociological dimensions such as social classes, socioeconomic status, and school and neighborhood segregation, often intertwined with new dimensions such as inequality between ethnic groups. Nevertheless, a new social force has marked its entrance in Nordic societies: the growing inequality in wealth accumulation. Surprising to many, the levels of inequality in wealth in Scandinavia match other Western societies with rather high levels of inequality. This new social force has significant implications for stratification processes over the life course and across generations.   

In this session, we call for empirical studies that focus on social inequalities across or within generations, which address central concerns within sociological stratification research.  More specifically, we call for papers that focus on educational attainment (performance and choices), and the outcomes of those choices (rewards and opportunities in the labor market). We call for papers that focus on wealth accumulation, either transmission across generations or sources of accumulation within the life courses. We also welcome papers that deal with other consequences of the increasing divides between the haves and have-nots, such as digital divides, the form of rhetoric and use of social media, political preferences, and voting behaviors. 

Coordinator(s): Rolf Lidskog (Örebro University, Sweden)

Scientific advances, technological development and changes in risk consciousness have led to stronger demands on society to manage and control various kinds of risks. Risk should be assessed, prevented, controlled and communicated in order to avoid severe negative impacts. Much thinking about risk management treats risk as separate from, and external to, its social context, thereby concealing the political and conflictual nature of risk issues. There are not only diverse definitions and understandings of risk, but the benefits and burdens of risk generation are unevenly distributed, socially, spatially and temporally.

This working group welcome papers that discusses environmental and risk issues in contemporary society. Contributions will range across different levels of analysis, theoretical approaches and methods. Presentations can be either in the form of a written paper circulated beforehand (with a discussant appointed) or an oral presentation (no paper circulated beforehand).

NB! THIS IS A PANEL. Only 4-5 papers or presentations will be selected.

Coordinator(s): Andrea Hjálmsdóttir and Hjördís Sigursteinsdóttir, (University of Akureyri, Island).

For many years in a row the Nordic countries have been at the top of the World’s Economic Forum gender gap index. This indicates that the Nordic countries have been quite successful when it comes to gender equality in terms of women´s economic participation and opportunities, educational attainment, health, survival; and political empowerment. Still, as everyday tasks have become more and more miscellaneous resent research indicates that many people are experiencing difficulties balancing work and family tasks in their everyday life. Despite their higher level of labour force participation, women still do a greater share of domestic work and childcare than men. This shows that gender inequalities seem to be embedded in social structures and are reproduced not only in the workplaces but not in the least at home.

This panel will address work life balance issues and gendered patterns of division of labour; and invites presentations focusing on division of labor, both in public and private life, how people experience pressure in everyday life, hours of work and health and wellbeing of couples and families.

Coordinator(s): Professor Lars Skov Henriksen, (Aalborg University, Denmark, Research), Professor Kari Steen-Johnsen (Institute for Social Research, Oslo, Norway) and Professor Jón Gunnar Bernburg (University of Iceland, Iceland).

In recent years, civil society and its relations to the topics of civic engagement, activism and social movements, social capital, trust, co-creation, the public sphere, and foundations have received considerable attention from scholars as well as decision makers and the broader public. In the Nordic countries we have seen renewed interest in the studies of historical and current relations between state and civil society, the role of associations and voluntary organizations in sustaining public welfare and culture, new forms of activism and new forms of organizing citizens initiatives and movements, the effect of these activities on individual and collective life and much more. The role of civil society in tackling new challenges related to migration, globalization, climate change, inequality, and populism is highly debated and contested.

We invite papers that address any of these questions, and in particular papers that bridge perspectives from social movement theory and civil society, as well as activism and voluntarism. Theoretical as well as empirical work is welcome, and we encourage colleagues to submit papers based on different types of designs and different data sources.

Coordinator(s): Anne Skevik Grødem and Ragni Hege Kitterød (Institute for Social Research, Oslo, Norway)

Population ageing is a growing concern in most industrialised countries, including the Nordics. One proposed way to alleviate the challenges associated with ageing is to encourage longer working careers, i.e. later retirement. Initiatives to achieve this aim include rising retirement ages (or lower pensions for those who retire early), special advantages for workers who remain employed past a certain age (e.g. longer holidays or bonuses), and managerial programs to improve organisations’ abilities to retain older workers. Prolonging working lives however implies challenging established notions of the life course, and of who can and ought to be a worker. Such reconfigurations may be motivated by financial concerns, but they have sociological implications. These implications have yet to be fully understood. A lot of work remains in order to fully understand how, and to what extent, the normative life course changes in the face of changing expectations, the implications of later retirement for family relationships, patterns of inequality in retirement, and the position of seniors in rapidly changing Nordic labour markets.

We invite contributions on (but not limited to) the following topics:

• Retirement decisions: what factors influence when seniors retire (full-time or part-time)?
• Retirement transitions: how do individuals cope with this major life transition, and how does this vary by gender, family situation and (former) position in the labour market?
• Seniors’ adaptations in the workplace: how do seniors think about / what are seniors’ practices with regard to skills improvement, change of jobs, movement into / out of management positions? Has this changed over time?
• The concerns, and practices, of employers in the face of an ageing labour force
• Senior employees’ level of information about the pension system and their own future pensions, to what extent they seek information and where (if at all) they find it
• The impact of special advantages targeted at seniors, such as bonuses or extra holidays
• Forms of ageism, the prevalence of ageism and its effect on senior’ working careers and quality of life
• Impacts of technological change, work-place reorganisation and labour migration on retirement decisions
• Inequalities in pensions (present and projected future) in the light of gender, immigrant background, disability, atypical employment and flexible careers

Coordinator(s): Laura Maria Führer and Sabina Tica (Department of sociology and human geography, University of Oslo, Norway)

Across the Nordic region, whiteness is bound up with naturalized national belonging, whereas non-white bodies are often read as ‘bodies out of place’. This being said, racialization is far from a uniform social process. For example, (non-) whiteness acquires meaning in different ways across national contexts, various social arenas, and in interaction with other categories of difference (class, gender, sexuality, etc.). Furthermore, there is considerable debate among scholars as to how racialization should be defined and theorized. One way to remedy this is by discussing various empirical cases.

This session investigates:

1) Empirical case studies that shed light on the construction of (non-) whiteness in different local contexts and in relation to various social categories.

2) How these processes can be conceptualized and theorized.

We welcome papers addressing questions such as: How does (non-) whiteness function in different contexts (e.g. sports, schools, political organisations, fields of art, etc.)? Regarding racialization, what are commonalities across Nordic countries, and what are idiosyncrasies of national or local cases? Which theoretical concepts – such as racialization, race, visibility, phenotype, and whiteness – are most analytically promising for different empirical cases?