Convocatoria para Dossier Especial: Género y Teoría de los Sistemas: articulaciones conceptuales y aplicaciones empíricas
La Red Latinoamericana de Sistemas Sociales y Complejidad (RELASSC) a través de la coordinación del Seminario Latinoamericano de Género y Diferenciación Funcional convoca a la presentación de artículos e investigaciones para el Número Especial de la Revista MAD, publicación electrónica bianual del Magíster en Análisis Sistémico Aplicado a la Sociedad, (perteneciente a la Facultad de Ciencias Sociales de la Universidad de Chile) que será publicado en Julio del 2026.
La revista MAD difunde trabajos que desarrollen perspectivas y enfoques vinculados con la teoría de sistemas sociales, sociocibernética y constructivismo sistémico-social. La revista se encuentra indexada a Web of science (WoS)-ESCI, Scopus, Redalys, DOAJ, Latindex, Dialnet, CLASE, REDIB, ERIH Plus, MIAR.
Alcance y justificación
En las últimas décadas, el debate sobre el género se ha ampliado más allá de los enfoques normativos e identitarios, incorporando análisis de operaciones comunicativas, mecanismos organizacionales y sistemas sociales (derecho, política, ciencia, educación, medios, salud, economía). En diálogo con la teoría de los sistemas (especialmente la tradición luhmanniana y sus desarrollos contemporáneos), emergen perspectivas que describen cómo los códigos, programas, formas de diferenciación, inclusión y exclusión, y estructuras organizacionales producen asimetrías de género e interactúan con marcadores de raza, clase, sexualidad y territorio.
Este dossier busca consolidar un campo de investigación que articule género y teoría de los sistemas, explorando conceptos, métodos y evidencias capaces de proponer una nueva manera de tensionar la teoría de género y aportar avances a las discusiones sobre la teoría del sistema social.
Se invita al envío de artículos teóricos, conceptuales y/o empíricos que:
1. Dialoguen explícitamente con la teoría de los sistemas sociales (por ejemplo: comunicación, diferenciación funcional, acoplamientos, organización/interacción/sociedad, programas/códigos, inclusión y exclusión); y
2. Analicen problemas de género en contextos específicos (instituciones, políticas públicas, medios, organizaciones, educación, justicia, salud, ciencia y tecnología, trabajo, cultura).
Temas de interés (no exhaustivos, sólo deben tener como referencia de análisis la teoría de sistema sociales)
• Género como observable sistémico: semánticas, códigos y expectativas de rol.
• Organizaciones y sesgos: reclutamiento, evaluación, promoción, métricas y cumplimiento normativo.
• Derecho y justicia: decisiones, procedimientos, protocolos, producción de desigualdades y mecanismos de inclusión/exclusión.
• Política y políticas públicas: programas, implementación, aprendizaje organizacional y gobernanza.
• Ciencia, universidad y conocimiento: autoría, gatekeeping, peritajes, evaluación por pares.
• Medios y plataformas: circulación de sentidos, escándalos, observación de segundo orden, desinformación y género.
• Salud y asistencia: rutinas clínicas, expedientes, protocolos, tecnologías del cuidado, salud mental.
• Educación: currículos, evaluación, disciplina, comunicación pedagógica y marcadores de diferencia.
• Economía y trabajo: formalización/informalidad, plataformas digitales, cuidado y reproducción social.
• Tecnología e IA: modelado algorítmico, sesgos, regulación y acoplamientos con el derecho/política.
• Interseccionalidades (género/raza/clase/territorio) como programas que reconfiguran operaciones sistémicas.
• Metodología: estrategias para observar comunicaciones, decisiones y estructuras de expectativa en contextos organizacionales.
Enfoques y métodos
• Contribuciones teóricas/analíticas (reconstrucciones conceptuales, debates, síntesis).
• Estudios empíricos cualitativos, cuantitativos o mixtos (documentos, decisiones, etnografía organizacional, análisis de redes/comunicaciones, métodos computacionales).
• Ensayos metodológicos sobre cómo observar operaciones sistémicas en investigaciones de género.
Ámbito regional y comparaciones
• Se alientan trabajos con casos de América Latina, así como comparaciones y diálogos con otras regiones.
Idiomas
• Se aceptan envíos en portugués o español
Fechas importantes:
Los artículos serán recibidos en el correo electrónico: relassc.genero@gmail.com
• Recepción de artículos hasta el 31 de marzo del 2026.
• Notificación de propuestas seleccionadas 30 de abril del 2026
Política editorial https://revistamad.uchile.cl/index.php/RMAD/politicas
La coordinación del dossier y la recepción de artículos será responsabilidad del Seminario Latinoamericano de Género y Diferenciación Funcional
Dra. Carolina Busco Ramírez (Universidad Diego Portales-Chile)
Doctoranda Kamila Carino Machado (Universidade Estadual do Norte Fluminense Darcy Ribeiro-Brasil)
Dra. Elisa López Miranda (UNAM-México)
Dra. Mayra Rojas Rodríguez (UNAM-México)
--
Chamada para Dossiê Especial: Gênero e Teoria dos Sistemas: articulações conceituais e aplicações empíricas
A Rede Latino-Americana de Sistemas Sociais e Complexidade (RELASSC), por meio da coordenação do Seminário Latino-Americano de Gênero e Diferenciação Funcional, convoca a apresentação de artigos e pesquisas para o Número Especial da Revista MAD, publicação eletrônica semestral do Mestrado em Análise Sistêmica Aplicada à Sociedade (vinculado à Faculdade de Ciências Sociais da Universidade do Chile), que será publicado em julho de 2026.
A revista MAD publica trabalhos que desenvolvem perspectivas e abordagens relacionadas à teoria dos sistemas sociais, à sociocibernética e ao construtivismo sistêmico-social. A revista está indexada na Web of Science (WoS)-ESCI, Scopus, Redalys, DOAJ, Latindex, Dialnet, CLASE, REDIB, ERIH Plus e MIAR.
Escopo e justificativa
Nas últimas décadas, o debate sobre gênero ampliou-se para além de abordagens normativas e identitárias, incorporando análises de operações comunicativas, mecanismos organizacionais e sistemas sociais (direito, política, ciência, educação, mídia, saúde, economia). Em diálogo com a teoria dos sistemas (especialmente a tradição luhmanniana e seus desenvolvimentos contemporâneos), emergem perspectivas que descrevem como códigos, programas, formas de diferenciação, inclusão e exclusão e estruturas organizacionais produzem assimetrias de gênero e interagem com marcadores de raça, classe, sexualidade e território.
Este dossiê busca consolidar um campo de investigação que articule gênero e teoria dos sistemas, explorando conceitos, métodos e evidências capazes de propor novas maneiras de tensionar a teoria de gênero e de avançar nas discussões sobre a teoria dos sistemas sociais.
Serão aceitos artigos teóricos, conceituais e/ou empíricos que:
• Dialoguem explicitamente com a teoria dos sistemas sociais (por exemplo: comunicação, diferenciação funcional, acoplamentos, organização/interação/sociedade, programas/códigos, inclusão e exclusão); e
• Analisem problemas de gênero em contextos específicos (instituições, políticas públicas, mídia, organizações, educação, justiça, saúde, ciência e tecnologia, trabalho, cultura).
Temas de interesse
(lista não exaustiva; porém os estudos devem ter a teoria dos sistemas sociais como referência analítica)
• Gênero como observável sistêmico: semânticas, códigos e expectativas de papel.
• Organizações e vieses: recrutamento, avaliação, promoção, métricas e cumprimento normativo.
• Direito e justiça: decisões, procedimentos, protocolos, produção de desigualdades e mecanismos de inclusão/exclusão.
• Política e políticas públicas: programas, implementação, aprendizagem organizacional e governança.
• Ciência, universidade e conhecimento: autoria, gatekeeping, perícias, avaliação por pares.
• Mídia e plataformas: circulação de sentidos, escândalos, observação de segunda ordem, desinformação e gênero.
• Saúde e assistência: rotinas clínicas, prontuários, protocolos, tecnologias do cuidado, saúde mental.
• Educação: currículos, avaliação, disciplina, comunicação pedagógica e marcadores de diferença.
• Economia e trabalho: formalização/informalidade, plataformas digitais, cuidado e reprodução social.
• Tecnologia e IA: modelagem algorítmica, vieses, regulação e acoplamentos com direito/política.
• Interseccionalidades (gênero/raça/classe/território) como programas que reconfiguram operações sistêmicas.
• Metodologia: estratégias para observar comunicações, decisões e estruturas de expectativa em contextos organizacionais.
Abordagens e métodos
• Contribuições teóricas/analíticas (reconstruções conceituais, debates, sínteses).
• Estudos empíricos qualitativos, quantitativos ou mistos (documentos, decisões, etnografia organizacional, análise de redes/comunicações, métodos computacionais).
• Ensaios metodológicos sobre como observar operações sistêmicas em pesquisas de gênero.
Âmbito regional e comparações
Trabalhos que abordem casos da América Latina são incentivados, assim como comparações e diálogos com outras regiões.
Idiomas
Serão aceitos envios em português ou espanhol.
Datas importantes
Os artigos devem ser enviados para o e-mail: relassc.genero@gmail.com
• Recebimento de artigos: até 31 de março de 2026
• Notificação de propostas selecionadas: 30 de abril de 2026
Política editorial: disponível na página da revista
https://revistamad.uchile.cl/index.php/RMAD/politicas
Coordenação do dossiê
A coordenação e a recepção dos artigos serão de responsabilidade do Seminário Latino-Americano de Gênero e Diferenciação Funcional:
• Dra. Carolina Busco Ramírez (Universidad Diego Portales – Chile)
• Doutoranda Kamila Carino Machado (Universidade Estadual do Norte Fluminense Darcy Ribeiro UENF – Brasil)
• Dra. Elisa López Miranda (UNAM – México)
• Dra. Mayra Rojas Rodríguez (UNAM – México)
Principios de la administración algorítmica
Resumen
Nuestro título remite al influyente libro de Frederick W. Taylor. Pero nuestra identificación de los principios de la administración algorítmica no es ciertamente una apología. Nuestra tarea en este ensayo es desarrollar una teoría de la administración algorítmica en relación con los cambios fundamentales en la forma y la estructura de la organización en el siglo XXI, que están reconfigurando los límites, las funciones y las relaciones entre directivos, trabajadores, ingenieros, profesionales, consumidores y otras categorías de usuarios. En particular, dicha teoría debe estar atenta a las transformaciones en la topología de la organización. En la actualidad, muchos de los agentes, activos y actividades más valiosos no se encuentran en el interior de la empresa, sino en una compleja maraña de flujos de información, prácticas y usuarios. Esta topología plantea un reto particular: ¿cómo gestionar cuando los activos y actividades más valiosos no se encuentran en la empresa? Mientras que en las jerarquías los agentes mandan, en los mercados contratan y en las redes colaboran, en las plataformas son cooptados. La cooptación de actores, activos y actividades se lleva a cabo mediante la administración algorítmica. Para comprender los principios distintivos de la administración algorítmica, comparamos y contrastamos las características de su ideología y sus prácticas con las de la administración científica y la forma más reciente de administración colaborativa. La administración algorítmica, argumentamos, opera dentro de una forma organizativa diferente, articula una ideología diferente y aborda problemas de administración diferentes con principios de gobernanza diferentes a lo largo de diferentes líneas de responsabilidad.Palabras clave:
administración científica , administración cooperativa , administración algorítmica , organizaciones sociales , gobernanza organizacionalCitas
Abbott, A. D. (1988). The System of Professions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Araujo de Aguiar, C. H., Pinch, T. y Green, K. (2022). Description at early phases of artifact design. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Academic Mindtrek Conference (pp. 179-191). https://doi.org/10.1145/3569219.3569380
Airoldi, M. y Rokka, J. (2022). Algorithmic Consumer Culture. Consumption Markets & Culture, 25(5), 411-428. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253866.2022.2084726
Akrich, M. (1992). The Description of Technical Objects. In: W.E. Bijker y J. Law (eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change (pp. 205-224). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Akrich, M. y Rip, A. (1995). User Representations: Practices, Methods and Sociology. In: A. Rip, T.J. Misa y J. Schot (eds.) Managing Technology in Society. The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment (pp. 205-24). London: Pinter.
Alaimo, C. y Kallinikos, J. (2021.). Managing by Data: Algorithmic Categories and Organizing. Organization Studies, 42(9), 1385-1407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840620934062
Altenried, M. (2022). The Digital Factory: The Human Labor of Automation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Alonso, E. (2014). AI and Agents. In: K. Frankish y W.M Ramsey (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 232-246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ashkenas, R. (1995). The Boundaryless Organization. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
Baiocco, S., Fernandez-Macias, E., Rani, U. y Pesole, A. (2022). The Algorithmic Management of Work and its Implications in Different Contexts (no. 2022/02). European Research Commission Joint Research Centre Report No. JRC129749. Retrieved from https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/reports-and-technical-documentation/algorithmic-management-work-and-its-implications-different-contexts_en
Bailey, D., Faraj, S., Hinds, P. J., Leonardi, P. M. & von Krogh, G. (2022). We Are All Theorists of Technology Now: A Relational Perspective on Emerging Technology and Organizing. Organization Science, 33(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1562
Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 408-437. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393374
Barley, S. R. (1990). The Alignment of Technology and Structure through Roles and Networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 61-103. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393551
Beckers, A. y Teubner, G. (2021). Three Liability Regimes for Artificial Intelligence: Algorithmic Actants, Hybrids, Crowds. Oxford: Bloomsbury.
Bell, D. (1973). The Coming of Post-industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting. New York: Basic Books.
Bendix, R. (1974). Work and Authority in Industry. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bengtsson, M. y Söderholm, A. (2002). Bridging Distances: Organizing Boundary-spanning Technology Development Projects. Regional Studies, 36(3), 263-274. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400220122061
Birch, K. y Muniesa, F. (eds.) (2020). Assetization: Turning Things into Assets in Technoscientific Capitalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Birnbaum, D. y Somers, M. (2023). Past as Prologue: Taylorism, the New Scientific Management and Managing Human Capital. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 31(6), 2610-2622. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-01-2022-3106
Bobbitt, J. F. (1912). The elimination of waste in education. The Elementary School Teacher, 12(6), 259-271.
Boltanski, L. y Chiapello, È (2005). The New Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Verso Books.
Boltanski, L. y Thévenot, L. (2006). On Justification: Economies of Worth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bolter, J. D. (2000). Remediation and the Desire for Immediacy. Convergence, 6(1), 62-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/135485650000600107
Brayne, S. (2017). Big Data Surveillance: The Case of Policing. American Sociological Review, 82(5), 977-1008.
Brayne, S. y Christin, A. (2021). Technologies of Crime Prediction: The Reception of Algorithms in Policing and Criminal Courts. Social problems, 68(3), 608-624. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spaa004
Brown, J. S. (2001). Creativity versus Structure: A Useful Tension. MIT Sloan Management Review, 42, 93-95.
Brown, P. y Lauder, H. (2012). The Great Transformation in the Global Labour Market. Soundings, 51(51), 41-53. https://doi.org/10.3898/136266212802019489
Brunn, M., Diefenbacher, A., Courtet, P. y Genieys, W. (2020). The Future is Knocking: How Artificial Intelligence Will Fundamentally Change Psychiatry. Academic Psychiatry, 44(4), 461-466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40596-020-01243-8
Buxbaum, R. M. (1993). Is "Network" a Legal Concept? Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE)/Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 149(4), 698-705.
Callon, M. y Latour, B. (1981). Unscrewing the Big Leviathan: How Actors Macro-structure Reality and How Sociologists Help Them to Do So. In: K. Knorr-Cetina y A. V. Cicourel (eds.), Advances in Social Theory and Methodology (pp. 277-303). London: Routledge.
Cameron, L. D. y Rahman, H. (2021). Expanding the Locus of Resistance: Understanding the Co-constitution of Control and Resistance in the Gig Economy. Organization Science, 33(1), 38-58. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1557
Cambrosio, A., Campbell, J., Keating, P. y Bourret, P. (2022). Multi-polar Scripts: Techno-Regulatory Environments and the Rise of Precision Oncology Diagnostic Tests. Soc Sci Med, 304, 112317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.05.022
John-Mathews, J.-M. y Cardon, D. (2022). The Crisis of Social Categories in the Age of AI. Sociologica, 16(3), 5-16.
Corwin, S. (2003). Picturing Efficiency: Precisionism, Scientific Management, and the Effacement of Labor. Representations, 84(1), 139-165. https://doi.org/10.1525/rep.2003.84.1.139
Christin, A. (2017). Algorithms in Practice: Comparing Web Journalism and Criminal Justice. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717718855
Christin, A. (2018). Counting Clicks: Quantification and Variation in Web Journalism in the United States and France. American Journal of Sociology, 123(5), 1382-1415. https://doi.org/10.1086/696137
Christin, A. (2020). Metrics at Work. Journalism and the Contested Meaning of Algorithms. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Christin, A., Bernstein, M. S., Hancock, J. T., Jia, C., Mado, M. N., Jeanne L. Tsai, J. L. y Xu, C. (2023). Social Media Platforms as Evaluation Machines. Manuscript.
Curchod, C., Patriotta, G., Cohen, L. y Neysen, N. (2020). Working for an Algorithm: Power Asymmetries and Agency in Online Work Settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(3), 644-676. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839219867024
Cutolo, D. y Kenney, M. (2021) Platform-Dependent Entrepreneurs: Power Asymmetries, Risks, and Strategies in the Platform Economy. Academy of Management Perspectives, 35(4): 584-605. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2019.0103
Dagognet, F. (1992). Étienne-Jules Marey: A Passion for the Trace. New York: Zone.
Danks, D. (2014). Unifying the Mind: Cognitive Representations as Graphical Models. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Davies, W. (2017). Elite Power under Advanced Neoliberalism. Theory, Culture & Society, 34(5-6), 227-250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276417715072
Davis, G. F. (2009). The Rise and Fall of Finance and the End of the Society of Organizations. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 27-44. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2009.43479262
Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the Societies of Control. October, 59, 3-7.
De Vaan, M., Stark, D. y Vedres, B. (2015). Game Changer: The Topology of Creativity. American Journal of Sociology, 120(4), 1144-1194. https://doi.org/10.1086/681213
DiMaggio, P. (ed.) (2001a). The Twenty-First Century Firm: Changing Economic Organization In International Perspective. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
DiMaggio, P. (2001b). Introduction: Making Sense of the Contemporary Firm and Prefiguring its Future. In: P. DiMaggio (ed.), The Twenty-First-Century Firm: Changing Economic Organization in International Perspective (pp. 3-30). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Dorf, M. C. y Sabel, C. F. (1998). A Constitution of Democratic Experimentalism. Columbia Law Review, 98, 267.
Elias, N. (1978). What is Sociology? New York: Columbia University Press.
Esposito, E. (2022). Artificial Communication: How Algorithms Produce Social Intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Farrell, H. y Fourcade, M. (2023). The Moral Economy of High-Tech Modernism. Daedalus, 152(1), 225-235. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01982
Fickenscher, P. (2022). There’s an App for That — or Is There? Word & World, 42(2), 145-154.
Fiske, M. y Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1945). The Columbia Office of Radio Research. Hollywood Quarterly, 1(1), 51-59. https://doi.org/10.2307/1209589.
Flyverbom, M. (2022). Overlit: Digital Architectures of Visibility. Organization Theory, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221090314
Frenken, K. y Fuenfschilling, L. (2020). The Rise of Online Platforms and the Triumph of the Corporation. Sociologica, 14(3), 101-113. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/11715
Galper, A. y Kellogg, K. (2023). Local vs Central: Regimes of Knowing in the Implementation of Algorithmic Technology. Manuscript.
Girard-Chanudet, C. (2023). La justice algorithmique en chantier. Sociologie du travail et des infrastructures de l’intelligence artificielle [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Paris: École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales.
Graber-Stiehl, I. (2023). Is the World Ready for AI-Powered Therapy? Nature, 617, 22-24. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-01473-4
Grabher, G. (2002). Cool Projects, Boring Institutions: Temporary Collaboration in Social Context. Regional Studies, 36(3), 205-214. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400220122025
Grabher, G. (2004). Temporary Architectures of Learning: Knowledge Governance in Project Ecologies. Organization studies, 25(9), 1491-1514. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840604047996
Grabher, G. (2020). Enclosure 4.0: Seizing Data, Selling Predictions, Scaling Platforms. Sociologica, 14(3), 241-265. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853%2F12107
Graham M (2020) Regulate, Replicate, and Resist – The Conjunctural Geographies of Platform Urbanism. Urban Geography, 41(3), 453-457. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2020.1717028
Grint, K. y Woolgar, S. (1997). The Machine at Work: Technology, Work and Organization. New York: Polity.
Gilbreth, L. M. (1930). Efficiency Methods applied to Kitchen Design. Architectural Record, 291, 1001-1019.
Günsel, A. y Yamen, M. (2020). Digital Taylorism as an Answer to the Requirements of the New Era. In: B. Akkaya (ed.), Agile Business Leadership Methods for Industry 4.0 (pp. 103-119). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.
Hagel, J. 3rd y Brown, J. S. (1998). Productive Friction: How Difficult Business Partnerships can accelerate Innovation. Harvard Business Review, 83(2), 82-91.
Heckscher, C. y Adler, P. (2006). The Firm as a Collaborative Community. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hirschhorn, L. y Gilmore, T. (1992). The New Boundaries of the “Boundaryless” Company. Harvard Business Review, 70(3), 104-115.
Jarrahi, M. H., Newlands, G., Lee, M. K., Wolf, C. T., Kinder, E. y Sutherland, W. (2021). Algorithmic Management in a Work Context. Big Data & Society, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211020332
Kallinikos, J., Hasselbladh, H. y Marton, A. (2013). Governing Social Practice. Technology and Institutional Change. Theory and Society, 42(4), 395-421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-013-9195-y
Kelkar, S. (2018). Engineering a Platform: The Construction of Interfaces, Users, Organizational Roles, and the Division of Labor. New Media & Society, 20(7), 2629-2646. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817728682
Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A. y Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at Work: The New Contested Terrain of Control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366-410. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0174
Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1997). Sociality With Objects: Social Relations in Postsocial Knowledge Societies. Theory, Culture & Society, 14(4), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/026327697014004001
Kogut, B., Shan, W. y Walker, G. (1992). The Make-Or-Cooperate Decision in the Context of an Industry Network. In: N. Nohria & R.E. Eccles (eds.), Networks and Organizations (pp. 348-365). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kornberger, M., Pflueger, D. y Mouritsen, J. (2017). Evaluative Infrastructures: Accounting for Platform Organization. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 60, 79-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2017.05.002
Kunda, G. (1992). Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Latour, B. (1992). Where are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts. In: W. E. Bijker & J. Law (eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change (pp. 225-258). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lazarsfeld, P. F. y Merton, R. K. (1943). Section of Anthropology: Studies in Radio and Film Propaganda. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, 6(2 Series II), 58-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2164-0947.1943.tb00897.x
Lee, M. K., Kusbit, D., Metsky, E. y Dabbish, L. (2015). Working with Machines: The Impact of Algorithmic and Data-Driven Management on Human Workers. CHI ’15: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seoul. New York: ACM.
Lee, M. Y. y Edmondson, A. C. (2017). Self-managing Organizations: Exploring the Limits of Less-hierarchical Organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 37, 35-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2017.10.002
Leffingwell, W. H. (1917). Scientific Office Management. Chicago, IL: AW Shaw.
Levine, S. S. y Prietula M. J. (2014). Open Collaboration for Innovation: Principles and Performance. Organization Science, 25(5), 1414-1433. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0872
Lezaun, J. (2007). A Market of Opinions: The Political Epistemology of Focus Groups. The Sociological Review, 55(2 suppl.): 130-151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2007.00733.x
Lury, C. y Day, S. (2019). Algorithmic Personalization as a Mode of Individuation. Theory, Culture & Society, 36(2), 17-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276418818888
Manovich, L. (2020). Cultural Analytics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Manz, C. C. y Sims, Jr, H. P. (1987). Leading Workers to Lead Themselves: The External Leadership of Self- Managing Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(1), 106-129. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392745
McCarthy, T. (2021). The Making of Incarnation. New York: Knopf.
Miles, C. (2019). The Combine Will Tell the Truth: On Precision Agriculture and Algorithmic Rationality. Big Data & Society, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719849444
Moore, P. & Woodcock, J. (2021.) AI: Making it, Faking it, Breaking it. In: P. Moore & J. Woodcock (eds.), Augmented Exploitation: Artificial Intelligence, Automation and Work (pp. 1-9). London: Pluto Press.
Neff, G. (2015). Venture Labor. Work and the Burden of Risk in Innovative Industries. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Noponen, N., Feshchenko, P., Auvinen, T., Luoma-aho, V. y Abrahamsson, P. (2023). Taylorism on Steroids or Enabling Autonomy? A Systematic Review of Algorithmic Management. Management Review Quarterly, 74, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00345-5
O’ Connor, S. (2016). When Your Boss is an Algorithm. Financial Times, September 8. https://www.ft.com/content/88fdc58e-754f-11e6-b60a-de4532d5ea35
Pasquale, F. (2023). Battle of the Experts: The Strange Career of Meta-Expertise. In G. Eyal & T. Medvetz (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Expertise and Democratic Politics (pp. 345-361). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Peck, J. y Phillips, R. (2020). The Platform Conjuncture. Sociologica, 14(3), 73–99. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/11613
Piore, M.J. y Sabel, C.F.. (1984). The Second Industrial Divide. New York: Basic Books.
Piore, M. J. (1986). Perspectives on Labor Market Flexibility. Industrial Relations, 25(2), 146-166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-232X.1986.tb00677.x
Plantin, J-C., Lagoze, C., Edwards, P.N. y Sandvig, C. (2018) Infrastructure Studies meet Platform Studies in the Age of Google and Facebook. New Media & Society, 20(1), 293−310. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1461444816661553
Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither Market Nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295-336. https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221090314
Power, M. (2022). Theorizing the Economy of Traces: From Audit Society to Surveillance Capitalism. Organization Theory, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877211052296
Prey, R. (2018). Nothing Personal: Algorithmic Individuation on Music Streaming Platforms. Media, Culture & Society, 40(7), 1086-1100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443717745147
Price, B. (2003). Frank and Lillian Gilbreth and the Motion Study Controversy, 1907-1930. In: M. C. Wood & J. C. Wood (eds.), Frank and Lillian Gilbreth: Critical Evaluations in Business and Management (Vol. 2, pp. 455-474). London: Routledge.
Pullen-Blasnik, H., Eyal, G. y Weissenbach, A. (2024). ‘Is your Accuser me, or is it the Software?’ Ambiguity and Contested Expertise in Probabilistic DNA Profiling. Social Studies of Science, 54(1), 30-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127231186646
Rabeharisoa, V. y Bourret, P. (2009). Staging and Weighting Evidence in Biomedicine: Comparing Clinical Practices in Cancer Genetics and Psychiatric Genetics. Social Studies of Science, 39(5), 691-715. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312709103501
Rahman, K. S. y Thelen, K. (2019). The Rise of the Platform Business Model and the Transformation of Twenty-First-Century Capitalism. Politics & Society, 47(2), 177-204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329219838932
Rensfeldt, A. B. y Rahm, L. (2022). Automating Teacher Work? A History of the Politics of Automation and Artificial Intelligence in Education. Postdigital Science and Education, 5, 25-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00344-x
Ritzer, G. (2018). Contemporary Capitalism and the ‘New’ Prosumer. In: F. F. Wherry & I. Woodward (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Consumption (pp. 75-94). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schildt, H. (2017). Big Data and Organizational Design–the Brave New World of Algorithmic Management and Computer Augmented Transparency. Innovation, 19(1), 23-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2016.1252043
Schrijver, R., Poppe, K., Daheim, C. y Van Woensel, L. (2016). Precision Agriculture and the Future of Farming in Europe: Scientific Foresight Study. IP/G/STOA/FWC/2013-1/Lot 7/SC5. Brussels: European Parliament Research Service.
Shestakofsky, B. (2017). Working Algorithms: Software Automation and the Future of Work. Work and Occupations, 44(4), 376-423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888417726119
Schüßler E., Attwood-Charles, W., Kirchner, S. y Schor, J. (2021) Between Mutuality, Autonomy and Domination: Rethinking Digital Platforms as Contested Relational Structures. Socio-Economic Review, 19(4), 1217-1243. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwab038
Selwyn, N., Campbell, L. y Andrejevic, M. (2022). Autoroll: Scripting the Emergence of Classroom Facial Recognition Technology. Learning, Media and Technology, 48(1), 166-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2022.2039938
Spiegel, J. R., McKenna, M. T., Lakshman, G. S. y Nordstrom, P. G. (2012). Amazon Technologies, Inc. 2012. Method and System for Anticipatory Package Shipping. U.S. Patent 8,271,398.
Stark, D. (1980). Class Struggle and the Transformation of the Labor Process: A Relational Approach. Theory & Society, 9(1), 89-130. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00158894
Stark, D. (2001). Ambiguous Assets for Uncertain Environments: Heterarchy in Postsocialist Firms. In: P. DiMaggio (ed.), The Twenty-First-Century Firm: Changing Economic Organization in International Perspective (pp. 69-104). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Stark, D. & Warner, N. (2013). This Place, These People: Life and Shadow on the Great Plains. New York: Columbia University Press.
Stark, D. (2009). The Sense of Dissonance: Accounts of Worth in Economic Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Stark, D. y Pais, I. (2020). Algorithmic Management in the Platform Economy. Sociologica, 14(3), 47-72. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/12221
Stark, D. (2022). Questioning Humans versus Machines: Artificial Intelligence in Class Conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 67(3), 42-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392221095682
Steinfeld, K. (2021). Signifcant Others. Machine Learning as Actor, Material, and Provocateur in Art and Design. In: I. As & P. Basu (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Artificial Intelligence in Architecture (pp. 3-12). Routledge: London.
Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Suchman, L. (2020). Algorithmic Warfare and the Reinvention of Accuracy. Critical Studies on Security, 8(2), 175-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2020.1760587
Suchman, L. (2022). Imaginaries of Omniscience: Automating Intelligence in the US Department of Defense. Social Studies of Science, 53(5), 761-786. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127221104938
Sydow, J., Lindkvist, L. y DeFillippi, R. (2004). Project-based Organizations, Embeddedness and Repositories of Knowledge. Organization studies, 25(9), 1475-1489. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840604048162
Taylor, F. W. (1914). The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Taylor, F. W. (1947). Taylor's Testimony Before the Special House Committee. In: Scientific Management: Comprising Shop Management, The Principles of Scientific Management and Testimony Before the Special House Committee (pp. 5-287). New York: Harper & Brothers.
Teubner, G. (1991). Beyond Contract and Organization? External Liability of Franchising Systems in German Law. In: C. Joerges (ed.), Franchising and the Law: Theoretical and Comparative Approaches in Europe and the United States (pp. 105-132). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Turkle, S., Essig, T. y Russell, G. I. (2017). Afterword: Reclaiming Psychoanalysis: Sherry Turkle in Conversation With the Editors. Psychoanalytic Perspectives, 14(2), 237-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/1551806X.2017.1304122
Turner, F. (2010). From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Vallas, S. y Schor, J. B. (2020). What Do Platforms Do? Understanding the Gig Economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 46, 273-294. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054857
Valentine, M. & Hinds, R. (2021). ‘Rolling Up the Leaf Node’ to New Levels of Analysis: How Algorithmic Decision-Making Changes Roles, Hierarchies, and Org Charts. Stanford Engineering Working Paper.
Vertesi, J. (2020). Shaping Science: Organizations, Decisions, and Culture on NASA’s Teams. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Vertesi, J., Goldstein, A., Enriquez, D., Lui, L. y Miller, K. T. (2020). Pre-Automation: Insourcing and Automating the Gig Economy. Sociologica, 14(3), 167-193. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/11657
Vesa, M. y Tienari, J. (2022). Artificial Intelligence and Rationalized Unaccountability: Ideology of the Elites?. Organization, 29(6), 1133-1145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508420963872
Watkins, E. y Stark, D. (2018). The Möbius Organizational Form: Make, Buy, Cooperate, or Co-opt? Sociologica, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/8364
Wilson, M. (1929). Use of Time by Oregon Farm Homemakers. Agricultural Experiment Station (Corvallis). Station Bulletin, 256, 5-9. https://archive.org/details/CAT89240603/
Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the User: The Case of Usability Trials. The Sociological Review, 38(1 suppl.), 58-99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1990.tb03349.x
Yates, J. (1989). Control Through Communication: The Rise of System in American Management. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Yates, J. y Murphy, C. N. (2019). Engineering Rules: Global Standard Setting Since 1880. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Zeavin, H. (2021). The Distance Cure: A History of Teletherapy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
