Social and Labour History News

Throughout all its manifestations, the structure of enslavement is designed to maintain control over people through the privation of rights. As such, privacy may seem a distant concept to enslaved people both past and present. What is private in a setting of constant surveillance? Can a kinship bond be private whilst commodified? And how is it possible to raise questions about the privacies of those who leave very few records of their own and live much of their lives under the control of others? In this conference, we invite artists and academics to engage with these and similar questions by convening in a spirit of open-minded curiosity and creative approaches to knowledge production. We hope to produce new ways of thinking about slavery that may generate awareness about this ancient and sadly also contemporary phenomenon in ways that could alter its future.

Studies within the emerging field of historical privacy studies have shown that, historically, both privacy and privacy-related phenomena such as intimacy, secrecy, family, and domesticity existed and mattered in surprising contexts and ways. Is this also the case today? Although conventional ideas of privacy might seem almost intuitively opposed to life under enslavement and other forms of subjugation, this does not mean that enslaved people simply submit to doing without it. Across history, privacy is perceived as both a quality and risk: too little may threaten the individual while too much may ruin society. In this conference, we wish to examine how no­tions and practices of privacy shape relations between individuals and communities when the exploitation of enslaved labour, in its historical and contemporary forms, is part of the social status quo.

By using historical privacy studies as a lens on practices of enslavement, we begin to understand the intersection of societal macro- and microstructures. We can study the ways enslaved people manage to carve out pockets of privacy, what occurs when that privacy is breached, and how privacy-curbing and -enforcing methods are used and perceived by authorities as means to enforce social hierarchies.

The privacy perspective raises an array of urgent questions: When does privacy curb the freedom of individuals, and when does it protect it? Should privacy under slavery be seen as a form of resistance, or are private spaces controlled and defined by the oppressors? Under what circumstances does privacy contribute to practices of enslavement and the privation of rights? When does domestic spaces, for instance, enable bonds of servitude such as trafficking, forced marriage, and debt bondage? Do the privacy rights of companies and states contribute to industrial slavery? What do the private spaces of enslaved people look like? How are they produced? What is their agency? How can we study them? And how can artistic and academic practices inform each other in producing knowledge about these and similar questions? 

In this three-day conference we invite artists and academics dealing with slavery past and present to convene around the topic of privacy. We wish to generate new knowledge about practices of enslavement and the ways in which privacy has been, and continues to be, used as a means of social resistance and control. 

We aim for a global perspective spanning all time periods and welcome papers from a wide range of fields to foster cross- and interdisciplinary approaches to the topic. We are interested in aesthetic engagements and representations, conceptual definitions, and practices of slavery/enslavement and privacy/the private that are represented and interpreted through artistic performances, artworks and research. Themes of interest include (but are not limited to):

• The materiality and spatial organization of enslaved peoples’ privacy
• Symbolic dimensions of privacy within contexts of slavery and enslavement
• The lived experience of enslaved peoples’ privacy
• Privacy as resistance against practices and structures of enslavement
• Privacy within the infrastructures of slavery and vice versa
• Religious and spiritual dimensions of privacy and slavery as justification, resistance and practice
• Privacy as a threat or as a quality in relation to practices of enslavement and notions of slavery
• Archival, ethical, and methodological issues relating to the study of privacy and slavery

Before the conference, on 14-15 September 2026, we will arrange an online workshop where participants will be invited to share early drafts of papers, presentations, and project ideas, as well as giving and receiving peer feedback. This pre-event is very much a matter of presenting works-in-progress in a spirit of open-minded curiosity. Participants may simply present empirical material, initial research questions or methodological questions. The aim of the workshop is twofold: on the one hand, we wish to encourage crosspollination and thematic resonance between the individual contributions to the final conference; on the other hand, we wish to explore the productive tensions arising in the encounter between academic and artistic approaches to knowledge production.

The event takes place on 21-23 October 2026 at the Centre for Privacy Studies, University of Copenhagen and is organized by Assistant Professors Bastian Felter Vaucanson (PRIVACY), Francis Ethelbert Kwabena Benyah (PRIVACY), Felicia J. Fricke (PRIVACY), and PhD Student Hannah Katharina Hjorth (PRIVACY), as well as curator and postdoc Anne Julie Arnfred (PASS) and Professor Mikkel Bogh (PASS).

For more information about PRIVACY and PASS please visit: https://teol.ku.dk/privacy/ and https://pass.ku.dk/.

Submission guidelines 

Abstracts should be no more than 300 words, accompanied by a short bio (max 150 words) and submitted by 1 April 2026 to Bastian Felter Vaucanson (bva@teol.ku.dk) and Anne Julie Arnfred (aja@hum.ku.dk). Accepted papers will be notified by 1 June 2026. We look forward to reading your proposals! 

Travel bursaries for non-funded artists and PhD students may be offered, pending the results of our funding applications. Those interested in applying for a bursary should indicate this when submitting their abstract and specify the location from which they will be traveling. To ensure as diverse and globally representative an event as possible, priority will be given to applicants traveling from non-Western countries.

 

Potsdam/Germany   Veranstalter: Christian Stachelbeck / Frank Reichherzer / Pierre Köckert / Martin Schulz, Zentrum für Militärgeschichte und Sozialwissenschaften der Bundeswehr Veranstaltungsort: Zeppelinstraße 127/128 PLZ: 14471 Ort: Potsdam Land: Deutschland Findet statt: In Präsenz Vom - Bis: 07.10.2026 - 08.10.2026 Deadline: 30.06.2026  

Der Workshop „Vom deutschen Kolonialkrieg zur postkolonialen Erinnerung. Transformation und Deutung kolonialer militärischer Gewalt“ lädt zur Einreichung von Beiträgen ein. Im Zentrum steht die Frage, ob und wie sich koloniale militärische Gewalt über 1918 hinaus fortschrieb, transformierte oder in neuen politischen Kontexten gedeutet wurde. Diskutiert werden mögliche personelle, institutionelle und diskursive Anschlussstellen ebenso wie Brüche und Distanzierungen. Willkommen sind Beiträge zur Rolle militärischer Akteure und Institutionen, zu Gewaltsemantiken, Traditionslinien, musealen Repräsentationen sowie zu öffentlichen Narrativen kolonialer Militärgewalt.

Vom deutschen Kolonialkrieg zur postkolonialen Erinnerung. Transformation und Deutung kolonialer militärischer Gewalt

Mit dem dritten Workshop tritt das Forschungsprojekt „Deutsches Militär im kolonialen Einsatz 1880–1918. Ein Kontinuum der Gewalt“ in seine abschließende Phase ein. Während die ersten beiden Veranstaltungen theoretische Grundlagen, organisatorische Strukturen und konkrete Einsatzpraktiken kolonialer militärischer Gewalt untersucht haben, richtet sich der Blick nun auf deren mittel- und langfristige Nachwirkungen bis in die Gegenwart.

Im Zentrum steht die kritische Prüfung der im Projekt entwickelten These eines „Kontinuums militärischer Gewalt“. Ist dieses Kontinuum über 1918 hinaus analytisch tragfähig, oder stößt das Konzept bei genauerer Untersuchung an seine Grenzen? Das Kontinuum wird dabei ausdrücklich als heuristisches Prüfmodell verstanden. Ziel ist nicht die Konstruktion linearer Fortsetzungslinien, sondern die Analyse möglicher Anschlussstellen ebenso wie klarer Brüche.

Gefragt wird insbesondere nach Transfers exzessiver Gewaltformen, nach Übertragungen alltäglicher militärischer Routinen und Organisationsmuster, nach personellen und institutionellen Anschlussstellen sowie nach Rückkopplungseffekten zwischen Kolonie und „Metropole“. Der Schwerpunkt liegt nicht primär auf militärischer Praxis nach 1918 als solcher, sondern auf deren Verarbeitung, Umdeutung, Institutionalisierung und öffentlicher Rahmung in unterschiedlichen politischen Ordnungen (Weimarer Republik, NS-Staat, Bundesrepublik bis in die Gegenwart).

Der Workshop folgt einer militärhistorischen Perspektive. Beiträge sollten die spezifische Rolle militärischer Akteure, Institutionen, Organisationsformen oder Gewaltpraktiken erkennbar berücksichtigen. Postkoloniale, kultur- oder wissenshistorische Ansätze sind willkommen, sofern sie zur Analyse militärischer Gewalt und ihrer Transformation beitragen. Vergleichende und transimperiale Perspektiven sind ausdrücklich erwünscht.

Mögliche Themenfelder

- Personelle Kontinuitäten und Karrierewege
- Militärische Ausbildungsinhalte und Traditionslinien
- Gewaltsemantiken und Deutungsmuster
- Vergleich militärischer Praxis in unterschiedlichen politischen Systemen
- Traditionsdokumente und Selbstverortungen militärischer Institutionen
- Strategische Distanzierungen oder funktionale Bezugnahmen
- Verhältnis von symbolischer Kontinuität und tatsächlicher Praxis
- Museale Repräsentationen kolonialer Militärgewalt
- Restitutionsdebatten im Spannungsfeld militärhistorischer Kontextualisierung
- Öffentliche Narrative und erinnerungskulturelle Aushandlungen
- Einfluss gegenwärtiger Traditions- und Erinnerungspolitiken auf historiographische Kategorien

Der Workshop ist als diskussionsorientiertes Format konzipiert. Kurze Impulsvorträge von maximal zehn Minuten bilden den Ausgangspunkt für ausführliche Diskussionen.

Zielsetzung

Der Workshop bildet die argumentative Abschlussphase des Gesamtprojekts. Ziel ist es, die Reichweite und die analytischen Grenzen des Kontinuum-Konzepts im Lichte der vorgestellten Befunde zu diskutieren und die Ergebnisse für die geplante Publikation zu bündeln.

Publikation

Ausgewählte Beiträge werden zu einem Special Issue (peer-reviewed) eingeladen, das die zentralen Ergebnisse der Workshop-Serie bündelt.

Kontakt

Bitte senden Sie ein Abstract (max. 300 Wörter) sowie eine kurze biographische Notiz bis zum 30.06.2026 an:

Martin27Schulz@bundeswehr.org

Benachrichtigung über die Annahme erfolgt bis zum 06.07.2026.

Reise- und Übernachtungskosten können im Rahmen des Bundesreisekostengesetzes übernommen werden.
Nachwuchswissenschaftlerinnen und Nachwuchswissenschaftler sind ausdrücklich zur Bewerbung eingeladen.

Konzeptionelle Rückfragen zum Workshop können an Dr. Pierre Köckert (ZMSBw) gerichtet werden: PierreKoeckert@bundeswehr.org

Grenoble/France

How can we fight against the harmfulness of work? The concept of “harmfulness” (“nocività”) emerged from Italian political and trade union reflections in the second half of the 20th century. It refers to the detrimental effects of work on both health and the environment (Feltrin, Sacchetto, 2021) and serves to articulate the relationship between these two. The aim of this conference is to explore the forms of social creativity expressed in workers’ struggles against the health and environmental damage caused by production and reproduction activities.

By strengthening dialogue between research on the “environmentalism of the poor” (Martinez-Alier, 2003, 2023) and recent work on labour environmentalism (Barca, 2015; Bécot, 2015; Davigo, 2017; Thirion, 2024), we seek to shed light on the knowledge and practices generated by social groups at the forefront of the damage caused by work. Previous studies have focused primarily on countries with a long history of industrialization and on the postwar decades. To broaden these perspectives, this conference will propose two kinds of expansion:

• Geographical: toward territories with more recent industrialization, where repertoires of action may be less closely linked to traditional labour movements;
• Chronological: to understand the longer temporalities of certain struggles, and focus the attention on understudied historical moments, such as the interwar period or the decades of deindustrialization.

Using a multidisciplinary approach (historical, sociological, geographical, anthropological, epidemiological, medical, and others), we will examine the diversity of mobilizations while reflecting on the strengths and limitations of the forms they take. At a time when environmental policies tend to result in the “ecological dispossession of the working classes,” the objective is to explore which socio-ecological configurations fostered struggles against harmfulness and how actors confronted with constraints and obstacles. Furthermore, we wish to emphasise that such actions remain a current—and often neglected—component of the ecological condition of social classes (Collectif Classes Vertes, 2024).

Work is understood here in a broad sense: we aim to encompass mobilisations organised in paid sectors—including productive work(agriculture, industry) and services (transportation, public administration, care, etc.)—as well as in reproductive work, covering a range of activities (material, emotional, or educational) that are rarely remunerated (Fortunati, 1982; Sarti, Bellavitis, Martini, 2018; Barca, 2020; Gallot, Harari-Kermadec, 2024). This broad definition of work allows us to grasp how red flags of harmfulness take shape within particular activities, and to better identify the actors who facilitate the transmission of these alerts across the different spheres of work.

In this perspective, we will also consider the production of knowledge and practices that have contributed to reinventing occupational medicine, as well as the mobilisations of scientists and doctors defending occupational and environmental health (Marri, Oddone, 1967; Oddone, 1974, 1978; Laure Pitti, 2009; Marichalar, Pitti, 2013; Centemeri, 2022).

We invite researchers from all disciplines to submit original contributions based on concrete case studies to ground reflection in specific territories and give substance to the narratives of struggle. Contributions should rely on a variety of sources (maps, testimonies, documents, photographs, videos, etc.) that help articulate analysis and the materiality of mobilisations. The goal of this call is to build a multidisciplinary research team toward a project for a global atlas of workers’ mobilisations around health and environmental issues, aiming to map, contextualize, and document these conflicts worldwide.

We welcome in particular submissions focusing on non-Western contexts. Such perspectives, still underrepresented in research on health- and environment-related labour mobilisations, provide essential insights for widening analytical frameworks, highlighting the diversity of collective experiences, and fostering a truly global reflection on the relationships between work, health, and environment.

The material dimension of struggles is strictly related with the materiality of sources used to reconstruct their history and stakes. In France, the abolition of Comités d’hygiène, de sécurité et des conditions de travail by the 2017 executive order raises, among other things, questions about the fate and preservation of their valuable archives. The growing use of digitalised sources (such as those from the Centro ricerche e documentazione rischi e danni da lavoro in Italy) reflects a major shift in archival access. Yet the status of digital archives, the sustainability of digitalisation projects, and the future of historiographical research based increasingly on immaterial sources are serious concerns for scholars. Although archives are not the conference’s central topic, participants are encouraged to take these issues into account in their reflections.

Beyond traditional academic presentations, other formats will be especially welcome—such as dialogues between researchers and activists, or presentations by activists or association representatives about past or ongoing struggles.

Our discussions will be guided by several lines of inquiry:

• Building collectives: Who are the actors in these mobilisations? What forms do the groups take? How are they connected to existing collectives? Are they short-lived or long-lasting? How are they organised and how do they function? What ties do they maintain with other collectives or professional figures (physicians, lawyers, etc.)?
• Producing counter-expertise and counter-information: How is knowledge about health and environment produced by those mobilised? How is it disseminated, to what effect, and who are its main audiences (other workers, local residents, public opinion, etc.)?
• Mobilising repertoires of action: How do mobilisations take shape in practice? How do these practices evolve over time? What imaginaries do they draw upon?
• Forging class pride: Through what instruments is socio-professional identity built among participants? How does their social perception of work change through conflict? What forms of commitment have opposed the coercion of the “employment blackmail”?
• Engaging territories: How are the environmental impacts of work conceptualised? How do mobilisations root themselves in specific territories, and on what scales? How do militant practices circulate between territories, and through which actors?
• Resisting green backlash: When mobilisations face repression or institutional dismantling, how do actors reorganise? How are their goals reoriented? What new forms of action emerge in such contexts? Given that such backlash often seeks to erase the history of these mobilisations, how do activists work to preserve the visibility of their causes?

This conference will take place on the 50th anniversary of a conference dedicated to responsibility in workplace accidents and diseases, organized in Grenoble by the CGT, CFDT, and Syndicat de la magistrature (January 31–February 1, 1976). Occurring amid heated debates over occupational legislation, that event marked a significant moment. As professional and environmental contamination remain subjects of recurring controversy and socio-ecological struggle, this conference on the fight against harmfulness will welcome not only academic researchers but also health professionals, prevention key actors, and union or association activists who wish to participate.

Submission Guidelines and Timeline

The conference languages will be French, English, Italian, and Spanish.

Submissions from non-tenured researchers are particularly welcome.

The conference will be held in person.

Proposals should be sent to luttercontrelanocivite@gmail.com and must include:

• A title
• An abstract of the paper indicating the sources analysed (300–500 words)
• A short biographical note (150 words)

All elements (proposal and biography) should be submitted as a single PDF file.

Submission deadline: 30 April 2026
Notification of acceptance or rejection: before the beginning of summer

The organising committee cannot guarantee full coverage of transportation costs for speakers. We invite you to inform us of any potential needs, which we will address depending on the available financial support.

Organising Comittee

-          Estelle Amilien (UGA, ILCEA4)

-          Renaud Bécot (SciencePo Grenoble, Pacte)

-          Elisa Santalena (UGA, LUHCIE)

-          Marie Thirion (UGA, LUHCIE)

Scientific Committee

-          Mikaël Chambru (MCF en sciences sociales, UGA)

-          Emilie Counil (Chargée de recherche en épidémiologie à l’INED)

-          Marie Ghis Malfilatre (Chargée de recherche en sociologie, CNRS, Pacte)

-          Emanuele Leonardi (MCF en sociologie, Università di Bologna)

-          Judith Rainhorn (PR en histoire sociale contemporaine, Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne)

-          Nicolas Renahy (chercheur au Centre d'économie et de sociologie appliquées à l'agriculture et aux espaces ruraux - CESAER, INRAE-Institut Agro Dijon)

-          Amalia Rossi (Fellow Researcher at THE NEW INSTITUTE – Center for Environmental Humanities (NICHE))

-          Dr Borhane Slama (Onco-Hématologue, Chef de pole de Cancérologie Publique de Territoire, Président de la Commission Médicale du Groupement 84)

-          Bruno Strasser (PR en histoire des sciences et de la médecine, Université de Genève)

-          Gilda Zazzara (MCF en histoire contemporaine, Università Ca’ Foscari, Venezia)

Contact Information

Organising Comittee

-          Estelle Amilien (UGA, ILCEA4)

-          Renaud Bécot (SciencePo Grenoble, Pacte)

-          Elisa Santalena (UGA, LUHCIE)

-          Marie Thirion (UGA, LUHCIE)

Contact Email: luttercontrelanocivite@gmail.com

Saint-Denis/France

Ce colloque, qui se tient le 19 et 20 novembre 2026 à l’université de Paris 8 Vincennes-St Denis, entend réunir des chercheurs travaillant sur l’histoire de la migration portugaise durant l’entre-deux-guerres. Il s’agit de créer un espace de dialogue et de débat scientifique fondé sur un regard multidirectionnel et à géographies multiples pour mettre en évidence les apports et les nouvelles approches de la recherche vers lesquelles la communauté scientifique s’est plus récemment orientée.

Ce colloque entend réunir des chercheurs travaillant sur l’histoire de la migration portugaise durant l’entre-deux-guerres. Il s’agit de créer un espace de dialogue et de débat scientifique fondé sur un regard multidirectionnel et à géographies multiples pour mettre en évidence les apports et les nouvelles approches de la recherche vers lesquelles la communauté scientifique s’est plus récemment orientée. 

Les périodes du XIXᵉ siècle et des Trente Glorieuses ont été privilégiées dans l’étude de la migration portugaise. Qu’il s’agisse d’une migration dans les pays transatlantiques ou européens, nous disposons de quelques travaux portant un regard sur l’entre-deux-guerres, mais ceux-ci demeurent lacunaires, fragmentées et parfois obsolètes. Il convient donc de mieux comprendre les caractéristiques de cette migration, ses enjeux et ses impacts, dans un contexte politique national et international marqué par de profonds changements.

L’entre-deux-guerres constitue une période clé de l’histoire de la migration portugaise. Elle est marquée par un renouveau et une intensification des mouvements migratoires internationaux au lendemain de la Première Guerre mondiale ; par une forte attraction exercée sur les travailleurs migrants par des pays transatlantiques tels que les États-Unis ou le Brésil ; mais aussi par l’ouverture vers de nouvelles destinations, comme la France, qui deviendra à partir des années 1960 le principal pays d’installation des migrants portugais. Elle correspond également à un moment où des mesures visant à renforcer le contrôle des entrées et de la présence des migrants sont mises en place, notamment dans le contexte de la crise économique de 1929 et de la Grande Dépression.

Ce colloque vise ainsi à ouvrir la réflexion à différents sujets et thématiques liés à l’histoire de la migration portugaise, en mobilisant aussi bien des approches multidisciplinaires que des perspectives permettant de comprendre et de questionner ce phénomène. Elle s’adresse à des chercheurs travaillant sur la migration portugaise en contexte transatlantique comme européen.

Les thèmes pouvant être abordés sont les suivants :

• Guerres mondiales et migration portugaise
• Exil, opposition et résistance
• Réseaux d’accueil et de soutien
• Engagement politique et syndical
• Émigration irrégulière
• Migration, migrants, gestion policière et administrative
• Politiques d’émigration et d’immigration
• Politiques et pratiques de rejet
• Agentivité des migrants
• Structures communautaires
• Santé et migration portugaise
• Migration, retours volontaires et forcés
• Migration et presse
• Mémoire de la migration portugaise

Tout autre sujet pouvant être considéré d’intérêt scientifique pour la compréhension de l’histoire de la migration portugaise durant l’entre-deux-guerres. 

Soumission des propositions

Les propositions de communication devront inclure un résumé (jusqu’à 250 mots), un titre, le nom de l’auteur, son affiliation institutionnelle ainsi qu’une courte note biographique (jusqu’à 200 mots). Les propositions en français, anglais et portugais sont acceptées.

Les propositions devront être envoyées à l’adresse e-mail histmigport@gmail.com avant le 30 avril 2026.

Organisation

• Cristina Clímaco (Université Paris 8 – LER)
• Yvette dos Santos (NOVA FCSH - IHC-In2Past)

Commission scientifique

• Alberto Pena Rodriguez, chercheur, Université de Vigo
• Armelle Enders, Professeur des Universités, Université Paris 8/IFG Lab; 
• Delphine Diaz, Maîtresse de Conférences, Université de Reims, CERHIC, IUF
• Érica Sarmiento, Professeure Associée d’histoire de l’Amérique- Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ)
• Heloisa Paulo, chercheuse, Université de Coimbra
• Irene dos Santos, chercheuse, CNRS/ URMIS
• Marcelo Borges, Professeur, titulaire de la chaire Boyd Lee Spahr d’Histoire des Amériques, Dickinson College, Carlisle, Pennsylvanie
• Marie-Christine Volovitch Tavares, chercheuse indépendante, vice-présidente du CERMI
• Philippe Rygiel, Professeur des Universités, ENS Lyon/INRIA
• Sónia Ferreira, chercheuse, NOVA FCSH/CRIA  
• Sylvie Aprile, Professeure des universités émérite, ISP
• Victor Pereira, chercheur, NOVA FCSH/IHC-In2Past

L’IHC est financé par des fonds nationaux par l’intermédiaire de la FCT — Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., dans le cadre des projets UID/04209/2025 (DOI : https://doi.org/10.54499/UID/04209/2025) et LA/P/0132/2020 (DOI : https://doi.org/10.54499/LA/P/0132/2020).

Lieu

• Université Paris VIII Vincennes-Saint Denis - 2 Rue de la Liberté
  Saint-Denis, Frankreich (93)

Format de l'événementeranstaltungsformat

Date limite

• Jeudi 30 avril 2026

Appendice

• Appel à communication_colloque_Fr_Pt_Eng.pdf

Mots-clés

• migration contemporaine, entre-deux-guerre, migration portugaise

Contact

• Santos Yvette
  courriel : histmigport [at] gmail [dot] com

This project examines the intersections of utopian thought, social experimentation, and colonial practice through case studies in colonial and postcolonial contexts. By foregrounding lived practices and global entanglements, it approaches early socialism not as a prelude to later ideologies but as a dynamic and contested field of social and political innovation. The analysis highlights how ideas of communal labor, association, and reform were tested and transformed under conditions of empire, and how such experiments functioned as spaces of negotiation shaped by material infrastructures, symbolic projections, and unequal power relations.

Combining empirical research with conceptual reflection, the project reassesses the role of colonial settings as laboratories of social reordering and explores the broader implications for the history of utopianism and modern social thought. Its outcomes include peer-reviewed publications, international conferences, and collaborative workshops that bring together scholars across disciplines to reflect on the entanglements of socialism, colonialism, and visions of alternative futures.

The working group has been active since 2017, beginning with a publication in Francia that explored intersections between utopianism, socialism, colonialism, and the history of early socialism more broadly. Over the years, it has provided a framework for student theses, academic conferences, and collaborative publications. Within this broader context, the current project has produced numerous international presentations and publications. 

Conference Announcement 

Revisiting the First Socialisms: Histories, Debates, and Contemporary Resonances

The international conference explores the diversity of socialist thought and practice in the early nineteenth century. Special attention is given to colonial entanglements, alongside conceptual reflections, gender perspectives, and the practices of communities, work, and institutions. Further panels examine political semantics and imaginaries that shaped socialist discourse. The concluding session will address the environmental crisis and the renewed relevance of utopian thinking.

Organisers: Anne Kwaschik (University of Konstanz), Michel Lallement (CNAM, Lise-CNRS, Paris)

Venue: Bischofsvilla, University of Konstanz
Date: 2–4 April 2026

This conference is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG).

The programme and further information are available here. The poster is available here.

Organiser: Research Centre for the History of Transformations (RECET), University of Vienna (Aula, Campus, University of Vienna) Host: Aula, Campus, University of Vienna Funded by: European Commission Postcode: 1200 City: Vienna Country: Austria Takes place: In attendance Dates: 16.11.2026 - 18.11.2026 Deadline: 18.05.2026 Website: https://retlami-see.fpn.unibl.org/eng/call-for-papers-exit-voice-labour-conference-university-of-vienna-16-18-november-2026/  

Building on (and critically updating) Albert O. Hirschman’s classic exit–voice–loyalty framework, the conference invites contributions that explore how migration relates to political circumstances, labour, and agency—across contemporary as well as historical perspectives, and across multiple migration routes (not only “East–West”).

Exit-Voice-Labour: Reassessing Central and Eastern European Migration in a Transnational and Historical Perspective

The spread of global approaches in the study of migration and diasporas at the turn of the century purportedly rendered Albert O. Hirschman’s traditional “exit, voice, and loyalty” model outdated. Nevertheless, this concept has recently gained renewed traction among migration scholars. Applied to the research of the interplay between migration and political circumstances, Hirschman’s original interpretation conceived “exit” and “voice” as irreconcilable options.[1] Citizens of a nation-state could allegedly choose to express dissatisfaction with the authorities by migrating out of their country (exit) at the cost of articulating discontent domestically (voice). Rather than completely dismissing this framework amid criticism of methodological nationalism, scholars have been reviving the model in recent years by emphasizing new forms of transnational political activism, as well as the potential for simultaneity and crisscrossing of traditional analytical categories enabled by novel technologies and enhanced mobilities.[2]

Hirschman himself revised the previously conflicting relationship between “voice” and “exit” while analysing the ongoing 1989 social transformation in the German Democratic Republic, concluding that mass migration abroad had in fact reinforced domestic social movements.[3] Today, scholars of Central and Eastern Europe are increasingly employing updated interpretations of this classic concept to analyse the complex effects of migration – and return –on both host societies and countries of origin. Some recent examples include bifocal research on Russian anti-war emigration or critics of Balkan “stabilitocracies” relocating abroad.[4] However, the potential to apply transnational conceptualizations of “exit, voice, and loyalty” to the study of contemporary and historical migrations from Central, Southeastern, and Eastern Europe remains largely untapped.

We invite scholars from a range of disciplines, including sociology, political science, economics, history, cultural studies, and social anthropology, to submit papers that present innovative and critical perspectives on the study of migrations and migrant agency in relation to political systems in the region. We especially encourage research broadening the state of the art in the following directions:

Exit, Voice, and Labour: Most migration research on Central and Eastern Europe focuses on transnational mobility driven by differences in income levels between peripheral and core regions. Non-economic migration, on the other hand, is usually observed in drastic cases, such as war refugees or forced displacements (i.e. former Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Israel/Palestine). We aim to analytically connect the search for “normal life” with responses to a wide range of political challenges (nepotism, rising authoritarianism, captured institutions, etc.) via labour. How do economic and broader social, political, and cultural concerns rank and interplay within personal or group decisions for migration? How are economic migrants politically socialized in diasporic communities and received by labour movements in the destination countries? How does the possibility of “exit” affect the chances of successful labour and social movement organizing in the countries of origin?

Historicizing Exit and Voice: Transnational migration in Central and Eastern Europe is closely tied to the turn-of-the-century EU expansion and visa liberalization regimes. Indeed, mobility in the region has expanded greatly in recent years, compared to the restrictions on movement imposed by state socialist regimes. Nevertheless, the historiography of “socialist globalization” during the Cold War challenges the historiographic cliches of the autarchic Eastern Bloc and highlights multidirectional East-South exchanges. Going back even further, one can apply the analytical insights of the “transnational turn” to the migrations in the interwar period or the 19th century. To what extent can we talk about return influences of diasporas and the circulation of people in earlier decades and centuries in the face of technological limits and different migration regimes?

“Exit, Voice” Beyond “East-West”: Despite the expanded theoretical conceptualization of transnational spaces, the actual geographic focus of research on Central and Eastern European migration remains fixated on the East-West axis, with Western Europe as the prime destination point. This is understandable given the geographic proximity, number of people migrating, unequal economic development, and the political and cultural attraction that the EU core enjoys in its Eastern semi-periphery. Still, there are many other migration trajectories, historically and contemporarily, along the West-East, East-South, North-South, or East-East axes that deserve to be highlighted. Are there new discernible patterns of movement emerging inside the former Eastern Europe in the wake of unequal spatial spread of the EU and the recent war in Ukraine? Can we see any continuity or new trends in Central and Eastern European overseas migration? What are the differences in “voice” across different migration routes?

Submission guidelines:

The application for participation in the conference should include the author’s full name, affiliation, author’s email address, the title of the paper, an abstract (max 300 words), and a short academic bio (up to 200 words). Applications should be sent to the official email address of the conference: exit_voice.recet@univie.ac.at.

The working language of the conference is English. Conference participation is free of charge. The organizers will provide participants with meals and refreshments. Limited accommodation and travel grants will be offered, prioritising early-career researchers without access to institutional funding.

The conference is organised as a collaboration of the University of Vienna – Research Centre for the History of Transformations (UNIVIE RECET) as the host, Faculty of Political Sciences University of Banja Luka (FPN UNIBL), Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Science and Arts – Institute of Culture and Memory Studies (ZRC SAZU) and Leibniz Institute for East and Southeast European Studies (IOS) in Regensburg, in the framework of the Horizon Europe project “Enhancing Capacities for Quality and Impactful Research on Transformations, Labour and Migration in Southeast-Europe (RETLAMI-SEE)” funded by the European Commission.

Scientific Committee:
Anđela Pepić, FPN UNIBL
Dalibor Savić, FPN UNIBL
Bojana Vukojević, FPN UNIBL
Tanja Petrović, ZRC SAZU Institute of Culture and Memory Studies
Ana Hofman, ZRC SAZU Institute of Culture and Memory Studies
Nejra Čengić, ZRC SAZU Institute of Culture and Memory Studies
Goran Musić, UNIVIE RECET
Rory Archer, UNIVIE RECET
Ulf Brunnbauer, IOS Regensburg
Jacqueline Nießer, IOS Regensburg

Organizing Committee:
Goran Musić, UNIVIE RECET
Rory Archer, UNIVIE RECET
Tanja Petrović, ZRC SAZU Institute of Culture and Memory Studies
Anđela Pepić, FPN UNIBL
Ulf Brunnbauer, IOS Regensburg

Notes:
[1] Albert O. Hirschman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States (Cambridge/Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1970)
[2] Bert Hoffmann, Bringing Hirschman Back In: Conceptualizing Transnational Migration as a Reconfiguration of “Exit”, “Voice”, and “Loyalty”, GIGA Working Papers, No. 91 (Hamburg: German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA), 2008)
[3] Albert O. Hirschman, “Exit, Voice, and the Fate of the German Democratic Republic: An Essay in Conceptual History”, World Politics, Vol. 45, No. 2, 1993, 173–202.
[4] Evgeny Roshchin, “Exit as Voice: Implications of Russia’s War for the Understanding of Dissent under Authoritarianism”, Perspectives on Politics, 2025, 1–16; Julia Rone and Tom Junes, “Voice after exit?: Bulgarian civic activists between protest and emigration”, East European politics and societies, Vol. 35, No. 1, 2021, 226-246.

Contact

exit_voice.recet@univie.ac.at

Submissions accepted from June 1st to 19th 2026
Publication: December 2026
Instructions to authors: SciELO Brazil
 

The study of collective identities related to labour has flourished remarkably in Brazilian historiography, achieving significant regional and institutional scope in recent decades. Challenging traditional frameworks of national history, research on the worlds of labour has not only continued the shift towards the lived and perceived experiences of the working class, expanding the theoretical and methodological provocations brought about by history from below, but has also deepened this perspective. Broadly speaking, what unites these studies is the emphasis on the capacities and forms of agency of workers—whether in political struggle, associative practices, social movements, acts of protest, leisure activities, daily life, power relations, or within multiple workplaces and arrangements—and on the socio-legal, ethnic-racial, class, regional, age, gender, and sexuality intersections that historically shape them. The emerging horizon seems to inscribe a type of framework that simultaneously extrapolates, challenges, and repositions explanations based on binary oppositions, such as slavery and capitalism, waged and non-waged labour, modern and archaic, urban and rural, authoritarianism and democracy.
This progressive affirmation of the world of labour as a fertile field for historiographical research, now endowed with indisputable institutional importance, paradoxically coincides with a process of profound capitalist transformation. The prominence of financial capital, deindustrialization, and structural precariousness seem to call into question, in Brazil and in much of the globe, the centrality of work as an organizing element of life. Reaffirming the
importance of the historical struggles of workers is, in this sense, also a way of counteracting in the present an exclusion that is not only economic, but also political and cultural. More than ever, the deepening of capitalist exploitation accentuates inequalities and is associated with the resurgence of political authoritarianism, xenophobia, and fascism. For the success of this exclusionary project, it is necessary to make the working class, its achievements, and its rights invisible.
In contrast, this thematic dossier takes as its reference point the current state of historiographical criticism and the advance of precarious labour and attacks on rights within the framework of global capitalism, punctuated by the acute alteration in ways of living, producing, consuming, and desiring, resulting from the reconfiguration of global commodity chains, the invention of other forms of exploitation of human labour via digital platforms, the algorithm economy, deindustrialization, imminent environmental collapse, and the recent shift of some Latin American governments towards the conservative right.
Thus, we invite researchers to submit unpublished and original articles, in Portuguese, Spanish, or English, that aim to reflect on the historical elements that structure, justify, and legitimize, politically and ideologically, the production and reproduction of racial, regional, class, and gender inequalities. The proposal is to observe how such inequalities affect democracy and democratic experiences across different time periods, giving rise to specific processes of social exclusion, repression, and coercion of labour, while at the same time being historically and customarily affected by the reinvention of class struggle, and the construction and transformation of collective identities. We are also interested in the analysis of contemporary initiatives to promote reparation policies for injustices committed from above against entire multitudes of workers subjected to mass enslavement and regimes of exception.
It is strongly recommended that articles address experiences beyond national borders or seek to construct comprehensive theoretical approaches that aim to cross, compare, connect, and integrate multiple spaces and temporalities, seeking to understand and vary the local, transnational, and global dimensions inherent to their objects of analysis.

Organiser: Leibniz Institute for Contemporary History (IfZ) Munich; École des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS) Paris (IfZ Munich) Host: IfZ Munich Postcode: 80636 City: Munich Country: Germany Takes place: In attendance Dates: 07.10.2026 - 09.10.2026 Deadline: 01.05.2026  

Final conference of the Leibniz Junior Research Group Project “‘Man hört, man spricht’: Informal Communication and Information ‘From Below’ in Nazi Europe” (INFOCOM) at the Leibniz Institute for Contemporary History (IfZ) in Munich.

Informal Communication in Nazi Europe: World War II, Occupation, and the Search for Meaning in Societies at War

Over the course of World War II, over 200 million Europeans became subjected to Nazi rule. From the Baltic States to the Balkans, from the coasts of Normandy to the banks of the Black Sea and beyond, Nazi Germany and its allies unleashed previously unfathomable projects of ethnic cleansing and genocide, transforming European societies in ways that reverberate to the current day. These transformations, however, were not merely the product of colossal ideological visions and policies of conquest implemented “from above.” Rather, they were the continuously negotiated and tenuous result of millions of acts of introspection, self-emplacement, and action vis-à-vis myriad new and terrifying realities. Crucial to these negotiations was communication, which occurred in a very particular environment. Across Europe, wartime conditions and Axis rule devastated established sources of information and public spheres, while censorship, propaganda, and dictatorship went to unprecedented lengths to constrict, mold, and (re-) direct public opinion. As a result, World War II became a breeding ground for alternate, informal information channels, in which rumors, gossip, and tall tales helped shape individuals’ actions and sense of reality.

Taking a multidisciplinary, transnational approach, this conference explores the role of informal communication under conditions of World War II occupation and Nazi rule. Bringing together specialists on diverse European societies, the conference examines informal communication’s relationship to official state communications on the one hand, and its embeddedness in specific social realities and wartime mentalities on the other. More broadly, it asks how individuals employed various communicative and interpretative strategies to make sense of and act upon ever-changing landscapes of destruction. As such, the conference welcomes contributions that examine the following (non-exhaustive) questions:
- What role did informal communication play in particular World War II contexts? Among which populations, in which situations, and for what purposes did certain forms of informal communication become particularly salient?
- What do the forms, contents, and modes of informal communication reveal about social relations, the creation of identificatory categories (delineated by gender, ethnicity, age, language, etc.), or the possibilities for agency in conditions of violence and upheaval? How are these related to practices of accommodation or opposition to particular regimes, especially vis-à-vis Nazi Germany and its Axis allies?
- How did soldiers and/or civilians try to explain a world turned upside-down by the global conflict? What role did experiences of previous conflicts (e.g. World War I, colonial wars) play in these processes? How did Europe’s ongoing colonial contexts shape communications and expectations about World War II?
- How did informal communication enable new kinds of knowledge, especially in relation to ongoing Nazi atrocities? What can an examination of rumors, jokes, or prophecies reveal about the emergence of knowledge on the Holocaust?
- What was the role of neutral countries (e.g. Switzerland, Sweden) or transnational networks (e.g. the Catholic Church) in spreading informal knowledge of ongoing Nazi crimes? How did state actors, including Nazi Germany or the Allies, draw on informal communication to help disseminate or obscure this nascent knowledge?
- How did states react to informal spheres of communication? What efforts did the Nazi and other dictatorial regimes mobilize to monitor their societies, counteract rumors, and demarcate informal communication as “deviant” behavior? How does this compare to the surveillance practices of democratic states during World War II (e.g. Great Britain or the USA)?
- What kinds of parallels can be drawn between the communicative ecosystems of different political regimes and the communicative practices that these fostered? To what degree can we compare Nazi Germany, Vichy France, the Soviet Union, or Europe’s various aligned or occupied territories? What can be said about the specificity of informal communication under dictatorial rule in comparison to democracies?
- How do we reconstruct the informal communicative practices of the past? What kinds of sources lie at our disposal? How do we problematize and contextualize these? How do our methodological challenges relate to larger questions of credibility and veracity, both in regard to our historical actors and our current position as social scientists?
- To what extent did wartime informal communicative practices reverberate into the postwar period? How did these shape more global efforts of postwar reconstruction and Europeans’ reckonings with the crimes of their immediate past?
- What kinds of perspectives can a historical exploration of informal communication, “fake news,” and “postfactuality” contribute to current debates on these issues?

To examine these questions, this conference welcomes perspectives from scholars of various disciplines (such as history, communication and literary studies, sociology, and anthropology) who work on World War II, its precursors and immediate aftermath, and its more long-term memorial and historiographic reverberations. It seeks studies on diverse geographic contexts, with a special emphasis on different European societies that experienced Nazi occupation and dictatorial rule. However, to encourage explicitly comparative insight, it also welcomes contributions on other societies, including Nazi Germany’s non-European collaborators (e.g. Japan) or the Allied states and their efforts surrounding informal communication. Ultimately, in exploring these subjects, the conference aims to establish a modern, transnational approach to communications in conditions of war and occupation, while historicizing ongoing debates on media, postfactuality, and truth.

Practical Information:

This is the final conference of the Leibniz Junior Research Group Project “‘Man hört, man spricht’: Informal Communication and Information ‘From Below’ in Nazi Europe” (INFOCOM), conducted at the Leibniz Institute for Contemporary History (IfZ) in Munich. For more information, please see: https://www.ifz-muenchen.de/en/news/topics/man-hoert-man-spricht.

The conference will take place at the Institute for Contemporary History (IfZ) in Munich, from October 7 to 9, 2026.

Conference participants will be asked to submit an extended abstract (ca. 500 words) for internal circulation prior to the workshop. Presentations will last 20 minutes to allow for ample discussion time. The working language is English.

A selection of original articles based on the conference contributions will be published in a collective, peer-reviewed volume. In your application to this conference, please specify whether you would be interested in contributing a (previously unpublished) article to the publication.

Invited speakers’ travel and accommodation costs will be paid for by the IfZ.

The conference’s public keynote lecture will be delivered by Jo Fox, Professor of Modern History and Pro-Vice-Chancellor for the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences at Newcastle University.

To Apply:

Please submit a short biography (max. 150 words) as well as the title and an English-language abstract (max. 250 words) of your intended contribution. Send your application as a single PDF file to the project leader, Caroline Mezger (caroline.mezger@ehess.fr). The submission deadline is May 1, 2026. You will be notified about your participation by the end of June. In case of questions, please contact Caroline Mezger by e-mail.

Scientific Committee:
Caroline Mezger (main organizer, EHESS)
Florent Brayard (EHESS/CNRS)
Thomas Chopard (EHESS)
Johannes Großmann (Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich)
Isabel Heinemann (IfZ Munich)

Contact

caroline.mezger@ehess.fr

Rouen/France

Cette journée se propose d’étudier la typologie des pouvoirs féminins dans un cadre politique, juridique, économique et intellectuel. L’adoption de bornes chronologiques larges embrassant à la fois le Moyen Âge tardif et la période moderne permettra d’aborder les variations des champs d’action féminins sur le temps long. Cette étude entend également interroger les types de pouvoirs s’inscrivant dans les recherches d’histoire par le bas en s’intéressant aux femmes appartenant aux classes populaires.

Argumentaire

« Les femmes sont incapables, par la seule raison du sexe, de plusieurs sortes d’engagements et de fonctions. » écrit, en 1740, le juriste Claude-Joseph de Ferrière dans les premières lignes de son article « Femme ». Cette définition n’est pas nouvelle au XVIIIe siècle et s’inscrit dans un processus juridique d’exclusion des femmes de la vie publique. Une des premières exclusions relève d’ailleurs d’une des lois fondamentales du royaume, la loi salique qui empêche les femmes de monter sur le trône de France. Quels que soient les textes consultés, qu’ils soient religieux, politiques, juridiques, économiques, il se dessine une société patriarcale fondée sur l’inaptitude des femmes à exercer un quelconque pouvoir, ou une autorité sur autrui. Il nous faut regarder au-delà des textes normatifs et si les marges de manœuvre semblent tenues, les femmes sont pourtant nombreuses à avoir gouverné, acquis ou possédé un statut leur accordant une place privilégiée et influente au sein de la société. Elles ont joué des interstices laissés par les normes au-delà des plus hautes sphères de la société qui sont généralement évoqués dans les travaux traitant des formes de pouvoirs. Cela nous amène à réfléchir à l’agentivité, la capacité d’agir des individus, ici des femmes au sein du système de contrainte que représente l’Europe médiévale et moderne.

Cette journée se propose d’étudier la typologie des pouvoirs féminins dans un cadre politique, juridique, économique et intellectuel. L’adoption de bornes chronologiques larges embrassant à la fois le Moyen Âge tardif et la période moderne permettra d’aborder les variations des champs d’action féminins sur le temps long. Par l’étude du motif de la « querelle des femmes », l’historiographie a montré qu’à partir de la fin du Moyen Âge et encore à l’époque moderne, les hommes et les femmes de milieux privilégiés avaient pu revendiquer l’égalité entre les deux sexes. Par le simple fait de prendre la plume, ou de tenir salon, les femmes ont pu remettre en cause les écrits juridiques ou religieux qui cherchaient à les exclure. D’autres ont pris les armes et conduit des batailles, ont tenu boutiques et fait du négoce. D’autres encore sont à l’origine de nouvelles institutions transformant la société. Cette étude entend également interroger les types de pouvoirs s’inscrivant dans les recherches d’histoire par le bas en s’intéressant aux femmes appartenant aux classes populaires.

Au cours de cette journée, plusieurs axes seront abordés permettant de montrer comment les femmes ont obtenu et exercé un pouvoir prétendument inaccessible « pour la seule raison du sexe ». On pourra réfléchir à plusieurs types de pouvoirs et à plusieurs espaces d’exercice.

1. Les formes d’acquisitions du pouvoir

La question de l’acquisition d’une quelconque forme de pouvoir par les femmes influence directement les deux autres axes de recherche proposés lors de cette journée. Il en existe plusieurs formes : un pouvoir qui est obtenu par le biais d’un héritage, d’une succession, construit par le travail ou encore gagné par la force peut influencer directement son exercice par celles qui le possèdent. L’ascendant des femmes, en tant qu’épouse ou mère est interrogé. La sphère d’influence des femmes, souvent reléguées à l’espace privé, sera pareillement explorée, en particulier par l’analyse des registres de comptes et de la correspondance.

2. L’exercice du pouvoir au féminin

Existe-t-il un exercice du pouvoir qui serait spécifiquement féminin ? En quoi la pratique de l’autorité au féminin diffère-t-elle de celle des hommes : les stratégies politiques, économiques, l’usage de la force ou le pouvoir de persuasion seront interrogés afin de mettre en relief un savoir-faire féminin, la manière ou les moyens qu’elles ont utilisés pour exercer cette domination durant un court laps de temps ou, au contraire, de façon pérenne.

La question de l’exercice d’un pouvoir féminin qui prendrait forme dans la sphère familiale et domestique est questionnée. Au sein des familles, la mise en religion d’un grand nombre de filles leur ouvre de nouvelles possibilités d’exercice de pouvoirs dans l’organisation monastique. Cet axe permet également de questionner les destinataires de cet exercice de pouvoir, de domination des femmes sur autrui. Les femmes, qui exercent une autorité acquise ou arrogée, ne le font-elles que sur des hommes ou des femmes de statut social inférieur ?

3. Les enjeux sociaux et culturels du pouvoir au féminin

Le statut juridique des femmes en Europe au Moyen Âge et à l’époque moderne est un véritable enjeu puisqu’il dessine le cadre dans lequel celles-ci ont pu évoluer. On peut se demander dans quelle mesure l’éducation des femmes, sujet de société dont on débat dès l’époque médiévale, a contribué à favoriser leur accession à des responsabilités et leur manière d’exercer celles-ci. Les femmes de ces époques ont pu contribuer ainsi à certains changements sociaux et culturels par la contestation des limites patriarcales, par le biais de leurs activités professionnelles ou par des initiatives individuelles. Le statut matrimonial des femmes ainsi que les formes de pouvoirs exercés aux différents moments de leur vie pourront aussi être interrogés.

Modalités de Soumission

Cet appel à communication est ouvert aux doctorants en histoire médiévale et moderne. Les propositions de communication, d’une longueur de 300 mots, doivent être envoyées aux adresses suivantes : lea.chacon1@univ-rouen.fr ; catherine.hans-menetrier@etu.univ-rouen.fr,

avant le 15 mars 2026.

Elles devront être accompagnées d’une proposition de titre ainsi que d’une courte présentation.

Comité Scientifique

• Anna Bellavitis (Université de Rouen-GRHis)
• Léa Chacon (Université de Rouen-GRHIS)
• Déborah Cohen (Université de Rouen-GRHis)
• Catherine Hans-Ménétrier (Université de Rouen-GRHIS)
• Alexis Grélois (Université de Rouen-GRHis)
• Marie Groult (Archives départementales de la Seine-Maritime)
• Élie Haddad (EHESS-CRH)

Comité d’organisation

• Léa Chacon
• Catherine Hans-Ménétrier

Lieu

• 1 rue Thomas Becket, 76130, Mont-Saint-Aignan
  Rouen, Frankreich (76000)

Format de l'événement

Événement hybride

Date

• Dimanche 15´mars 2026

Mots-clés

• histoire des femmes, histoire du genre,pouvoirs, agency

Contact

• Léa CHACON
  courriel : lea [dot] chacon [at] univ-rouen [dot] fr
• Catherine Hans-Ménétrier
  courriel : catherine [dot] hans-menetrier [at] etu [dot] univ-rouen [dot] fr