Call for Papers

Call for short papers (pdf)

This sub-theme aims to foster the scholarly debate on workplace exclusion/inclusion in the context of ongoing digitalization and emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), robotization, and algorithms at work. Today’s technological developments have profound implications for where, how and when work is performed and organized. This includes, among others, the emergence of new types of work (activities) like ‘gig work’ (Keegan & Meijerink, 2023), ‘data annotation for AI training’ (Tubaro et al., 2020), and ‘prompt engineering’ (Korzynski et al., 2023) as well as changes in existing jobs due to work automation and augmentation (Raisch & Krakowski, 2021). These technology-driven changes are not limited to low-skilled, frontline work. Research shows that knowledge workers and managerial functions are equally affected by artificial intelligence that is now capable of performing knowledge work as well as algorithmic management systems that replace human supervisors by (semi-)automating managerial decision making (Kellogg et al., 2020; Lamers et al., 2024).
 
These changes are particularly profound for workers with (intersectional) attributes such as a disability, low socio-economic status, younger/older age and/or migrant history. Research shows that these workers have lower employment rates and if employed, they are prone to be in short-term, precarious employment (OECD, 2022). Emerging technologies and related organizational developments increase precarity, for instance, in the case of profit-maximizing online platforms like Uber that exploit migrant workers (Dubal, 2017; van Doorn et al., 2023), the use of hiring algorithms that entrench bias and prejudices (Hunkenschroer & Luetge, 2022) and algorithmic management practices that lower job quality (Parent-Rocheleau & Parker, 2022). Such developments may go against the inclusionary potential of technology like exoskeletons that help to overcome physical disabilities (Hill et al., 2017) or assistive technologies that support the visually impaired (Hakobyan et al., 2013).
 
A significant portion of studies on workplace technology focuses – for good reasons – on exclusion and the downsides of digital technology. These studies adopt a critical management studies approach, informed by labor process theory or critical disability studies, to show how technology in neoliberalist and (platform) capitalist systems heighten precarity and oppression (Keegan & Meijerink, 2025; Lamers et al., 2024). As noted by Spicer and Alvesson (2025), this research approach runs the risk of advancing a one-dimensional and overly dystopian perspective on technology at work, thereby creating blind spots regarding the positive effects and inclusionary potential of ‘usual suspects’ like capitalism, managerialism or neo-liberalism.
 
Similar blind spots also occur in other streams of literature that examine the empowering potential of technology for labor market inclusion (e.g. labor economics, operations research). They suffer from a similar one-dimensional perspective, stressing the positive effects of technology, while overlooking the exclusionary potential that emerging technologies also bring (Vallas & Schor, 2020). Our sub-theme responds to the call for more nuanced accounts (Spicer & Alvesson, 2025) on the co-occurrence of positive and negative implications of emerging technologies at work (Meijerink & Bondarouk, 2023). In doing so, it will provide a platform for bridging different streams of literature and advance nuanced insights on the exclusionary and inclusionary affordances of workplace technology.
 
We want our sub-theme to be as inclusive as possible. This means that we are open to scholarly work that is built on diverse paradigmatic perspectives on inclusion and technology as well as rely on different methodologies and types of data from across the globe. Relevant perspectives and examples on workplace inclusion and technology include, but are not limited to:
 
Workplace technologies and in-/exclusion – i.e., technologies that are used by (frontline) workers for producing goods and services. From an in/exclusion perspective, this includes technologies that assist workers with a physical impairment in performing manual labor (e.g., exoskeletons, cobots), remote working schemes for individuals with mobility restrictions, or digital support for employees with mental health or neurodiverse conditions. Relevant research questions that we envisage are:

• What are the drivers of successful adoption and implementation of inclusive workplace technologies?

• How do inclusive workplace technologies interface with non-digital inclusive work practices?

• What are the recursive interrelations among workplace inclusion and technology?

• What are the (un)anticipated and (un)wanted outcomes of workplace technologies which are designed to foster inclusion?

HRM technologies and in-/exclusion – i.e., technologies that are used by (human resource) management and supervisors, and that enable labor market inclusion. Relevant examples of technological affordances for workplace and labor market inclusion include social robots and virtual reality to upskill and reskill workers, matching algorithms that connect employers with (long-term) job seekers/unemployed workers, or digital strength/talent finders. Relevant research questions that we envisage are:

• In what ways do managers enact inclusive HRM technologies?

• How do digital and non-digital HRM activities interface to drive labor market inclusion or exclusion?

• How to foster inclusion, and prevent exclusion, during technology development?

Alternative organizational forms and in-/exclusion – i.e., alternative organizational forms that rely on technology to foster inclusion. These alternative organizational forms include e-social enterprises, remote first organizations and platform cooperatives that combine technological properties (e.g., online labor platforms, digital services) with inclusive organizing principles such as workplace democracy, solidarity and equity. Relevant research questions include:

• What are the (paradoxical) challenges in establishing, scaling, and sustaining inclusive organizational forms?

• How do alternative organizational forms compare to traditional organizations in terms of inclusion, exclusion, and technology?

Inclusion and exclusion in the development of technology – i.e., new jobs and types of work that afford inclusion by means of technology design and development. Examples include the labelling and annotation of data that is used for training AI by workers in sheltered workshops, workers taking on consultant jobs as domain/affected-person experts in technology & workplace inclusion projects, or workers founding inclusive organizational forms such as platform cooperatives and e-social enterprises. Relevant research questions include:

• How are design processes and supply chains that underpin emerging technology organized?

• What are organizational principles for fostering inclusion through technology and domain expert collaboration?

• How are novel jobs in technology development a stepping stone to more traditional forms of and vice versa?

References

• Dubal, V.B. (2017): “Wage Slave or Entrepreneur? Contesting the Dualism of Legal Worker Identities.” California Law Review, 101, 65–123.
• Hakobyan, L., Lumsden, J., O’Sullivan, D., & Bartlett, H. (2013): “Mobile assistive technologies for the visually impaired.” Survey of Ophthalmology, 58 (6), 513–528.
• Hill, D., Holloway, C.S., Morgado Ramirez, D.Z., Smitham, P., & Pappas, Y. (2017): “What are user perspectives of exoskeleton technology? A literature review.” International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 33 (2), 160–167.
• Hunkenschroer, A.L., & Luetge, C. (2022): “Ethics of AI-enabled recruiting and selection: A review and research agenda.” Journal of Business Ethics, 178 (4), 977–1007.
• Keegan, A., & Meijerink, J. (2023): “Dynamism and realignment in the HR architecture: Online labor platform ecosystems and the key role of contractors.” Human Resource Management, 62 (1), 15–29.
• Keegan, A., & Meijerink, J. (2025): “Algorithmic Management in Organizations? From Edge Case to Center Stage.” Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 12 (1), 395–422.
• Kellogg, K.C., Valentine, M.A., & Christin, A. (2020): “Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control.” Academy of Management Annals, 14 (1), 366–410.
• Korzynski, P., Mazurek, G., Krzypkowska, P., & Kurasinski, A. (2023): “Artificial intelligence prompt engineering as a new digital competence: Analysis of generative AI technologies such as ChatGPT.” Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 11 (3), 25–37.
• Lamers, L., Meijerink, J., & Rettagliata, G. (2024): “Blinded by ‘algo economicus’: Reflecting on the assumptions of algorithmic management research to move forward.” Human Resource Management, 63 (3), 413–426.
• OECD (2022): Disability, Work and Inclusion: Mainstreaming in All Policies and Practices. Report prepared by S. Garcia-Mandicó, C. Prinz, & S. Thewissen. Paris: OECD Publishing, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/disability-work-and-inclusion_1eaa5e9c-en.html.
• Parent-Rocheleau, X., & Parker, S.K. (2022): “Algorithms as work designers: How algorithmic management influences the design of jobs.” Human Resource Management Review, 32 (3), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100838.
• Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021): “Artificial intelligence and management: The automation–augmentation paradox.” Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192–210.
• Spicer, A., & Alvesson, M. (2025): “Critical management studies: A critical review.” Journal of Management Studies, 62 (1), 446–483.
• Stoevska, V. (2022): “New ILO database highlights labour market challenges of persons with disabilities.” ILO, Department of Statistics (ILOSTAT), June 13, 2022, https://ilostat.ilo.org/blog/new-ilo-database-highlights-labour-market-challenges-of-persons-with-disabilities/.
• Tubaro, P., Casilli, A.A., & Coville, M. (2020): “The trainer, the verifier, the imitator: Three ways in which human platform workers support artificial intelligence.” Big Data & Society, 7 (1), https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720919776.
• van Doorn, N., Ferrari, F., & Graham, M. (2022): “Migration and Migrant Labour in the Gig Economy: An Intervention.” Work, Employment and Society, 37 (4), 1099–1111.
• Veale, M., Silberman, M.S., & Binns, R. (2023): “Fortifying the algorithmic management provisions in the proposed Platform Work Directive.” European Labour Law Journal, 14 (2), 308–332.