Search

In this paper, we show how capitalism and feudalism reinforce each other to enable the former’s success in the higher education context. In this regard, Polish universities are an interesting case due to Poland’s capitalist shock therapy in the 1990s, its Western European membership in the European Union in the 2000s and due to recent reforms intended to modernize Polish academia. Based on 36 interviews with Polish early career academics from urban universities with experience working in watchdogs of higher education, we examine respondents’ perspectives on the current capitalist reforms. They treat ongoing changes as a solution for the problems experienced and defined as “feudal”: political labeling, abuse of power and discrimination against women. Understanding capitalism and feudalism through their organizing principles, the main contribution of this study is that it demonstrates how capitalist organizing principles fix existing feudalist organizing principles to flourish in Polish university. Hence, it is difficult for early career academics to recognize that capitalist organizing principles are in fact reinforcing rather than eliminating (as the advocates of capitalist reforms often claim) feudal problems in Polish academia.

In an ethnography of the organizing of an underground mine, this article critically engages with actor–network theory’s theorizing of space, particularly the risk of drifting into spatial pluralism. Inspired by Annemarie Mol’s The Body Multiple, a space multiple approach is enrolled in which seemingly disparate enactments of the mining operations are understood in terms of coexistence and difference, inclusion and exclusion. Such an account attempts to cast aside a kind of neatness that jeopardizes the empirical openness that makes actor–network theory so fruitful to work with in organization studies dealing with spatial complexity. Validerad;2020;Nivå 2;2020-09-21 (alebob)

Let G be a graph, and let w be a positive real-valued weight function on V(G). For every subset X of V(G), let $$w(X)=\sum _{v \in X} w(v)$$ . A non-empty subset $$S \subset V(G)$$ is a weighted safe set of (G, w) if, for every component C of the subgraph induced by S and every component D of $$G-S$$ , we have $$w(C) \ge w(D)$$ whenever there is an edge between C and D. If the subgraph of G induced by a weighted safe set S is connected, then the set S is called a connected weighted safe set of (G, w). The weighted safe number $$\mathrm{s}(G,w)$$ and connected weighted safe number $$\mathrm{cs}(G,w)$$ of (G, w) are the minimum weights w(S) among all weighted safe sets and all connected weighted safe sets of (G, w), respectively. It is easy to see that for any pair (G, w), $$\mathrm{s}(G,w) \le \mathrm{cs}(G,w)$$ by their definitions. In this paper, we discuss the possible equality when G is a path or a cycle. We also give an answer to a problem due to Tittmann et al. (Eur J Combin 32:954–974, 2011) concerning subgraph component polynomials for cycles and complete graphs.

The paper highlights two problematic tendencies in the burgeoning literature on organizational stigma.The first tendency is conceptual, where stigma is treated at the organizational level, thereby neglecting social encounters at the micro-level. As a way of remedying this, we enroll the seminal writings of Erving Goffman to situate organizational stigma in the interaction order.The second tendency is empirical, where the inclusion of actors performing stigma management is limited to managerial and organizational actors, thus neglecting many of those faced with managing orga- nizational stigma.We report from an explorative study of ordinary wage laborers in the Swedish arms and pornography industries situated toward the bottom of their organizations and referred to as ‘normal deviants’.The paper shows how and why the organizational stigma literature could be more sensitive and inclusive toward whom, how, when, and where organizational stigma is managed. Validerad; 2016; Nivå 1; 20151128 (sanjoh)