Whereas there is wide range of research on problems at the ’science-policy interface’ as well as on different kinds of advisory institutions (e.g. single ministerial advisors or research agencies), there is a lack of theory-driven, comparative research on the organizational characteristics of policy advisory systems and its effects.
07:56 - By Robert Hoppe - RC32 activities
07:51 - By Robert Hoppe - RC32 activities
The set of panels proposed herein is aimed at revisiting the older literature and re-establishing design as a serious area of concern in the policy sciences. The Panel is composed of three topics : • (1) Policy Design : What is it ? - which explores the definitions, metaphors and concepts used in the study of policy design as both a subject (noun) and a process (verb) ; • (2) Policy Design : Who Does It ? - which explores the process of policy formulation and how design considerations enter into it ; and • (3) Policy Design : Where Is It Going ? - which provides an opportunity for discussions about contemporary trends and directions in policy design(s) and design research.
08:31 - By Robert Hoppe - RC32 activities
The Department of Political Science at the University of Vienna together with the Life-Science-Governance Research Platform (LSG), the Austrian Political Science Association (ÖGPW), Institute of Forest, Environmental, and Natural Resource Policy at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU) hosts the 8th International Interpretive Policy Analysis (IPA) conference under the title "Societies in Conflict: Experts, Publics and Democracy".
Call for panels: Please submit your panel proposal at email@example.com by 30th November 2012 Affairs such as Stuttgart 21, the ‘Occupy movement’s’ response to the financial crisis, ecological problems, or diverse controversies around novel technologies, are timely examples of conflicts between groups of publics and the political establishment. Such movements put into question the status of legitimate knowledge and the articulation of legitimate representation. They question, at the same time, routine operations of traditional democratic institutions, and reintroduce the question of how to define “the political” and “politics” in general. The 8th continuation of the IPA conference gives therefore a special focus to the intersection of policy analysis with Science and Technology Studies (STS) by highlighting the relation between publics and experts around one of the fundamental keywords of politics: “conflict”. We conceive conflicts as constellations of knowledge and power, in which diverse actors are gathered around values, meanings and practices. The complexity of current policy issues and the institutional ambiguity create a demand for new forms of dealing with conflicts. They also invite us to study formats, in which the meaning of expertise and citizen participation can be renegotiated in performative manners. Rearticulating policy settings along the relation between experts and publics is one of the main challenges of current research on democracy, governance and policy practices. Actors increasingly establish their positions through argumentations or performances, while the increased need for public acknowledgment recasts the issue of citizen’s participation or the framing of “experts”. These ideas are not entirely new: interpretive policy analysts have investigated mechanisms through which knowledge becomes the central device of power, creates institutions and governs them and/or legitimizes agendas of policy actors. In a similar vein, STS scholars have shown that scientific knowledge can legitimize political agendas or block them. Towards that end, they have investigated, how “experts” get their status and how they shape and are shaped by “publics”. By debating and analyzing the shape of diverse “publics”, they have also launched the question of whose knowledge counts as legitimate in specific time and place. In the last decades, questions like these have regained the interest in both policy analysis and STS. How do we think about the study of conflicts through interpretive lenses? What aspects do we consider both as analysts and practitioners, when facing conflicts and controversies in environmental, urban, planning or health care policies? In how far do the current policy debates force us to rethink, what we mean by “political” and “politics”? What is the role or function of policy analysis and analysts in times of multiple crises? These are some of the pending issues that will be addressed at the IPA conference 2013. We therefore welcome proposals for panels that reconsider the relationship between publics and experts and engage one or more of the following themes: • Questioning of traditional models of government, administration and policy-making in response to the relationship between experts and publics. • Theoretical reflections on the ontological dimension of a “conflict”: investigating the meaning of “politics” and “the political”. • The intersection of STS approaches with particular theoretical or philosophical approach (e.g. pragmatism, hermeneutics, post-structuralism, etc.). • The role of performativity and engagement in policymaking and democratic governance • Case studies from particular policy issue arenas that deal with “conflict” (e.g. the new challenges of environmental politics; bio-politics; local governance; asylum or immigration policy; food policy; urban and regional planning; issues of risk and novelty). • Interpretive perspectives on community conflict resolution practices; policy evaluation; leadership; network organizations; and other public management questions. • The relationship between practitioners and policy analysis. • Clarification of approaches in use (e.g. varieties of discourse analysis or narrative analyses; the role of rhetoric and metaphor, the role of arguments, the role of emotions). • Methodological issues in doing critical policy analysis (e.g. reflexivity in policy analytic practices; getting, and using, feedback from ‘informants’; issues in using new recording technologies; data collection and analysis; evaluating software programs). Panel proposals should have no more than 500 words and should contain a theme, a rationale for the session, and a brief discussion of its contribution to the IPA community. Proposals should list a chairperson and names of all organizers of the panel, including institutional affiliations and (electronic) addresses. Panel proposals should be based on the assumption of 1½-hour time slots with fifteen minutes per presentation. Please submit your panel proposal at firstname.lastname@example.org by 30th November 2012 Note: After the notification about acceptance of the panel, a call for papers will be launched, to which scholars can respond. A limited number of free-floating papers will be accepted.
General information on IPA 2013 Interpretive research in the study of politics represents a leading challenge to positivism and scientism in the name of a methodological pluralism that is sensitive to meaning, historical and social context, and the importance of human subjectivity. Important revisions of policy analysis in its linguistic, argumentative or practice turns have promoted recent research in the field. These concepts and streams have shown to which extent politics and policy practices are governed and shaped by discourse. The Department of Political Science at the University of Vienna together with the Life-Science-Governance Research Platform (LSG), the Austrian Political Science Association (ÖGPW) Institute of Forest, Environmental, and Natural Resource Policy at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU) hosts the 8th International Interpretive Policy Analysis (IPA) conference under the title "Societies in Conflict: Experts, Publics and Democracy". The IPA conference is an annual meeting of researchers and practitioners from around the world. Its 8th continuation gives a special focus to the intersection of policy analysis with Science and Technology Studies (STS) by highlighting the relation between publics and experts around one of the fundamental keywords of politics: “conflict”. How do we think of the study of conflicts through interpretive lenses? What are current societal challenges of politics and how do these challenges shape the general understanding of democracy, expertise and power? What implications can we derive for policy analysis, when investigating conflicts and controversies in environmental, urban, or health care policies? How are these implications handled in the field of science and technology studies, and what can policy analysis learn from this scholarly work? The IPA plenary sessions and panels are aimed at rethinking and debating the theory and practice of different methods of interpretation and critical explanation in policy analysis, in particular the relation of policy expertise to publics and democratic governance.
Anna Durnová & Herbert Gottweis On behalf of the IPA 2013 Organisation Board
Anna Durnová Deaprtment of Political Science & Life- Science Governance Research Platform, University of Vienna Book Review Editor, Critical Policy Studies (www.tandf.co.uk/journals/rcps) Member of the Editorial Board, Austrian Journal of Political Science (www.oezp.at)
Contact: Universitätsstraße 7 / 2.stock Vienna - 1010 Austria Email: email@example.com tel: +431 4277 22704
• Call for panels for the First Internationalk Conference on Public Policy (ICPP), Grenoble, 26-28 June 2013
07:29 - By Robert Hoppe - RC32 activities
Over the past thirty years, public policy research has grown as an academic fields of study in many countries. Coming from a range of disciplines in the social sciences and humanities, including political science, public administration, geography, sociology, economics and law among others, this research has helped develop our understanding on the many phenomena related to public policy-making by governments. In order to join together all of the researchers who work on public policy and their different approaches and topics, we invite you to attend the first international conference on public policy which will take place at Science Po Grenoble, 26-28 june 2013.
The conference is ponsored by six Research Comittees of the International Political Science Association which work on different aspect of public policy, and by the Public Policy sections of the European Consortium for Political Research and the American Political Science Association.
During this conference, opportunities will be provided for both junior and senior researchers from a variety of disciplines to present and discuss new research, theoretical, conceptual and methodological insights and empirical findings through a system of panels and workshops intended and will also involve conference speakers and plenary discussions.
The conference call for participation is structured in two steps. The first step is a call for panel proposals with a deadline of 1st november 2012. This will be followed by a general call for papers with a deadline of 31th january 2013.
We would like invite you to propose a panel for this conference. A Panel can have from 1 to 3 sessions and each session can have 4 papers which be presented. Panel proposals can be on any specific topic; theoretical, methodological, or empirical are welcome.
To propose a panel, please send an abstract of no more than 300 words to firstname.lastname@example.org providing a title and explaining the scientific interest of the Panel. Paper details are not necessary at this point.
More details on the conference and timelines can be found on our website : http://icpp2013.sciencesconf.org/
The results of the panel adjudication will be released Nov 15 and details of each accepted panel posted to the ICPP website Dec. 1 along with a call for papers.
For the Organising and Scientific Committee, Philippe Zittoun
To propose a Panel please read the Panel Chair Guidelines on the ECPR website and complete the online proposal form available here.
Please note that you will need a MyECPR account in order to propose a Panel. It only takes a minute to complete.
00:52 - By Hal Colebatch - RC32 activities
The IPSA Congress (coming up in Madrid, 8-12 July) is always a great source of information to those interested in the steering and management of public authority. Even for those who are not attending, it's useful to know what is being talked about, and the conference program is a handy guide to the current agenda of scholarship.
The trouble is that there's so much of it, and the discourse is spread around so many different locations, so to help those who are interested find their way around, the Research Committee on Public Policy and Administration (RC32) has produced this ‘Rough Guide’ to relevant sessions. If you're interested, you can go to the IPSA web site (www.ipsa.org) and consult the full conference program, which will have the abstracts of the papers and the e-mail addresses of the authors. After the congress, the papers should be available in the on-line paper room.
11:23 - By Hal Colebatch - RC32 activities
There has been a lot of interesting activity over the past few months, putting together the agenda for discussion for the World Congress in Madrid in July. The previous limit on the number of panels has been relaxed, and we have been encouraged to make links with other research committees. As a result, we will be sponsoring twenty-three panels at Madrid, twelve of them co-sponsored with other research committees.
The full listing of panels, paper titles and abstracts can be found on the IPSA website (www.ipsa.org -> Madrid Congress -> list of panels -> RC32). For the names of our panels, read on.
10:52 - By Hal Colebatch - RC32 activities
The lead story in the IPSA web page (www.ipsa.org) at the moment is an address by Rainer Eisfeld, who coordinates the IPSA research committees. on the challenge of linkage between the specialised groups within IPSA. RC32 has always struggled against the demands for differentiation and tried to build links between the existing groups, and i is interesting to see this mentioned at the close of Rainer's talk.
04:35 - By Hal Colebatch - RC32 activities
Public Policy and Administration at the at IPSA World Congress Madrid 8-12 July 2012
The Next Big Thing for public policy and administration people is the IPSA World Congress in Madrid. We have a wide range of panels organized, some co-sponsored by other research committees. If you’re interested in any of these panels, contact the organizers for further details. To register for information on the congress, go to www.ipsa.org.
1. Public policy development in post-communist countries: problems and decisions Proposers: Alexander Sungurov (St Petersburg)(email@example.com) and Zdravko Petak (Zagreb) (firstname.lastname@example.org)
2. Speaking truth to power? Critical perspectives on evidence-based policy making Proposers: Pekka Kettunen (Jyväskylä, Finland)(email@example.com), Holger Strassheim (Humboldt, Berlin) firstname.lastname@example.org)
3. Patient empowerment and democratic policy: political challenges and theoretical issues (co-sponsored by RC25 Health Policy and Public Policy Group, Belgian Association of Political Science) Proposers: Fabrizio Cantelli (Universite Libre de Bruxelles Fabrizio.Cantelli@ulb.ac.be), with Hal Colebatch, New South Wales, email@example.com) and Jim Bjorkman firstname.lastname@example.org) as a co-sponsors
4. Governance, metagovernance and the state (co-sponsored with RC31 Political Philosophy) Proposer: Paul Fawcett (Sydney)and Hal Colebatch (New South Wales email@example.com), Preston King firstname.lastname@example.org) as co-sponsor.
5. Making it official: organisation, discourse and technology in the construction of policy Proposer: Hal Colebatch (New South Wales and RC32), email@example.com),
6. Public policy making and challenges of underdevelopment (co-sponsored with RC30 Comparative Public Policy)
Proposer: Godwin Onu (Oko Federal Polytechnic, Nigeria, firstname.lastname@example.org)
7. The Rescaling of Environmental Governance Chair: Dr Jens Newig (Leuphana University, Germany email@example.com) Co-Chair: Dr Timothy Moss (Leibniz Institute for Regional Development and Structural Planning (IRS), Erkner, Germany MossT@irs-net.de) Discussant: Dr Mark N Lubel (University of California, Davis firstname.lastname@example.org)
8. Policy making for the rural sector Proposer: Troy Whitford (Charles Sturt, Australia). email@example.com)
9. The provision of public services; from public/municipal sector to private sector provision – and reverse (“re-municipalization“)? (co-sponsored with RC05 Local Government) Proposer: Hellmut Wollmann, Humboldt University Berlin, Germany firstname.lastname@example.org
10. Policy Work in Comparative Perspective (co-sponsored with RC30 Comparative Public Policy) Proposer: Michael Howlett (Simon Fraser University, chair of RC 30, Howlett@sfu.ca)
11. Policy processes as politics (co-sponsored with RC30 Comparative Public Policy) Panel Chairs: Mark Bevir (Berkeley, USA) & Philippe Zittoun (ENTPE-LET Lyon, IEP Grenoble, France)
12. Comparative governance and public administration education Chair: George Vernadakis, Middle Tennessee State, USA, email@example.com Co–Chair: Ivan Kopric, Zagreb, Croatia firstname.lastname@example.org Discussant: Leslie Pal, Carleton, Canada, email@example.com