What does the historical production of race and racism mean for those whose organizational lives and work always already evidences racial power? Our reference to organisations and organising is very broad and encompasses all formal and informal collectivities and collectivising practice.

CFP for Gender, Work, and Organization 10th Biennial International Interdisciplinary Conference Sydney, Australia 13-16 June 2018

Recent laments and discussions about the future of postcolonialism in the humanities specifically may be just another way of perpetuating the colonial illusions of Western epistemology. We worry about interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity at a moment when the postcolonial project might have its greatest impact because of its spread across disciplinary lines. However, like many other tasks in postcolonial scholarship, it is a case of using disciplinarity against the grain—which is always going to be a fraught task for the disciplinarian in practice. Trained in one discipline, and naturally concerned about its future (and the future of one’s career within the discipline), how do we put aside such concerns in order to work the postcolonial edge?

As recent events and political developments around the world have shown, race in its various incarnations is still one of the key organizing principles for action. Why then do we persistently fail to think about race in organizations and the study of them? And, perhaps most urgently, what does this mean for those whose life and work always already evidences the expectedness of racial power? We invite theoretical and empirical papers addressing, but not limited to, such themes as: -Conceptualizing race and coloniality in work and organization studies -De-naturalizing and de-ontologizing race and gender as categories of difference -Entangled architectures of race and gender -Operations of coloniality in the global south -Race and coloniality in the global distribution of work -The role of coloniality in the emergence of new forms of work -Lived experiences of racial difference in organizations -Material, psychic and epistemic violence of racial difference -Conceptual and ethical limits of representation and ‘body-counts’ -Critical race theory and postcolonial critique in work and organization studies

The concept of transparency is understood, by one side, as an instrument that promote evidence-based governance, access to public information and the reactivation of citizenship on public management (Pawson, 2006; Alvarez, 2007; Ackerman, 2008; OGP, 2015; Santamaría & Matallana, 2017). On the other hand, transparency efforts are conceived as effective anticorruption barriers to the public sector, as a critical factor in the nation's development and prosperity (Jhonston, 2015). In view of that, the transparency regulation efforts in Latin America reveal an important growth, while corruption scandals are scaling in the region (OAS, 2013; Shambaugh & Shen, 2017). The question that drives this research is if is there any relationship between the development and the execution of the transparency laws and the corruption perception index in Latin America? Our goal focus on a comparative analysis of the evolution of transparency laws in the least corrupted countries of Latin America, according to the corruption perception index (CPI) of International Transparency organization

Managing diversity has emerged as a timely issue in organizations operating in the global economy. We contribute to the critical literature on diversity and its management in transnational organizations by exploring ways in which diversity is discursively (re)constructed in a European Union Framework Programme project. We draw on Michel Foucault's insights on the specificity of the relations and mechanics of power, and the connections between disciplinary power, normalization and knowledge. We conceptualize the EU Framework Programme system as a disciplinary apparatus (dispositif)--a network of time-, place- and field-specific disciplining discursive practices--and approach diversity in an EU project as a technology of normalization. Managing diversity becomes thus understood both as an enabling and a limiting exercise of disciplinary power.

In this chapter, we explore the ethico-political character of diversity and its production in and for organizations. Our focus is on the politics of diversity as a form of knowledge, and on the ethics of the means by which that knowledge is produced. The ethical dynamics of diversity research and its politics is an issue that has thus far not received a great deal of attention. However, different approaches and ways of researching diversity lay claim to particular moral and ethical considerations, although the ethical underpinnings of the different approaches to diversity are more often than not left unarticulated and unspecified. We are particularly interested in the scholarly practices that turn difference in its multiplicity and ambiguity into categorized or categorizable diversity. What drives these practices? More importantly, what are their epistemological and ethical effects? We are interested in the political dimensions of the ethics that are deployed, implicitly or explicitly, in the production of diversity knowledge. At the centre of this discussion is the ethico-politics of the making of the ‘diverse subject’. How does this subject come to be and what are the ethico-politics of that becoming?

From the journal: "This article joins recent critical diversity studies that point to an urgent need to revitalize the field, but goes further by showing the inherent contextual issues and power relations that frame existing contributions. Based on a theoretical reading inspired by Michel Foucault, diversity is presented as discourse that is not independent of the particular research exercise of which it is part but, rather, remains contingent on the prevailing forms of knowledge and choices made by researchers. By attending to more refined understandings of power and context within diversity discourse, this article makes visible and calls into question the categorization and normalization of diversity and its management. It contributes to existing research by suggesting that the knowledge produced by mainstream and critical diversity scholars alike is biopolitical and governmental. To do diversity research differently or ‘otherwise’ requires finding ways to develop theorizations and practices that turn this modality of power against itself."

Over the past few years the UK has introduced some significant changes in childcare policy that may mark a fundamental reorientation in the policy outlook. New shared parental leave, enacted by the Coalition Government in 2014 and analysed in this paper, aims to help working parents reconcile work+care and to ‘enable working fathers to take a more active role in caring for their children and [for] working parents to share the care of their children’ (Modern Workplaces Consultation: Government Response to Flexible Parental Leave Proposals, 3 November 2012). The involvement of both parents in childcare was defined as ‘shared parenting,’ with the aim of promoting such practice to dismantle the gendered division of work (Javornik 2014). Here, the Government clearly focused on heterosexual couples. The Children and Families Act, of which the new Shared Parental Leave regulation is a major feature, is a well-meant piece of legislation, intended to give parents more job security and more control over family life. The policy also aimed to 'create a new, more equal system which allows both parents to keep a strong link to their workplace' - by men spending more time caring. Shared parenting is expected to reduce the gender opportunity gaps, i.e. 'the “gender penalty” that women suffer from taking time out of the workplace with their children’. In this paper, we aim to explore whether shared parental leave is in fact likely to challenge gender inequality through shared parenting. The new legislation purports to bring equality into the workplace and the home, however, the government has not created a new right here – it is merely allowing parents to split an existing right, making the chances of parents (voluntarily) sharing leave slimmer. Second, it creates a right only to the statutory minimum leave and pay. The Achilles heel of this intervention is that it doesn't apply to occupational schemes. Thus in many workplaces an incentive for the mother to take leave remains. We argue that the new law is unlikely to encourage more fathers to take parental leave – it appears to provide parents with new rights and choice over how the leave is taken, but in practice, 'the discretion remains with the employers' (Javornik, 2014a; Mitchell 2015). We support this by examining the eligibility, the statutory remuneration and the need for maternal consent to access leave. Using a recent employment tribunal example, we show how legal uncertainty over possible use of anti-discrimination law (to challenge father's exclusion from occupational maternity leave schemes) abounds. We explore the concept of indirect discrimination in this context, and use concepts from the field of social policy to consider whether excluding fathers from occupational schemes can be objectively justified in the context of social norms moving towards greater equality in shared parenting