RC32 - Public Policy and Administration

With this note we issue the conference general call for papers with a deadline of 1st Febuary 2013.We would like invite you to propose a paper for this conference to one of our 80 panels (titles, abstracts and contacts of the call for papers for each panel can be found on our website at http://icpp2013.sciencesconf.org/ or http://icpublicpolicy.org/

Leadership (conceived as the most important form of agency) is a fundamental driver of all the aspects of policy dynamics. However one of the less investigated dimensions is exactly the relationship between leadership and policy design.

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.

Please forward paper proposals (titles with 300 word abstracts) for this section to Giliberto CAPANO (giliberto.capano@unibo.it) before Feb 1, 2013

ON POLICY LEADERSHIP and POLICY DESIGN Chair :

 *   giliberto Capano, University of Bologna, Italy, giliberto.capano@unibo.it<mailto:howlett@sfu.ca>

Abstract

 Leadership (conceived as the most important form of agency) is a fundamental driver of all the aspects of policy dynamics. However one of the less investigated dimensions is exactly the relationship between leadership and policy design. Policy design is a complex process which can be conceived as a rationalistic attempt to develop efficient and effective policies through the application of knowledge although it is continuously affected by cognitive bias and symbolic disputes. So the way towards optimal policy is is full of hurdles. This is because policy design needs to be steered and so the role of leaders (in broader sense) can make the difference for the final result. Thus papers of this panel should address the under-investigated role of leadership in policy design both from the theoretical and empirical point of views. Empirical papers should have a comparative perspective while theoretical papers should deal with the issue by clearly focusing on who policy leaders are, which role they can play, which resources they have, in which stage of the policy design process they can make the difference

Giliberto Capano Professor of Political Science and Public Policy CHAIR of the Committee on Research and Training, International Political Science Association

Department of Political and Social Sciences School of Political Sciences University of Bologna at Forlì via Giacomo della Torre, 1 47100 Forlì - Italy

email: giliberto.capano@unibo.it<mailto:giliberto.capano@unibo.it> phone: 0039.0543374180 mobile phone: 0039.335407496

The scholarships have been devised to support research around one cutting-edge question: what is the role of different actors, governance levels, spatial scales and pro-poor planning strategies in reconnecting cities (physically, economically and socially) with their surrounding countryside'?

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 ipa2013@univie.ac.at 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 ipa2013@univie.ac.at 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: anna.durnova@univie.ac.at tel: +431 4277 22704

The Crawford School of Public Policy of Australian National University invites you to publish in an exciting new journal called Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies. The journal is a peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary journal that targets research in policy studies in Australia, Asia and the Pacific. Authors publishing in Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies benefit from:

   unrestricted international readership in the academic and policy community, via Open Access publication on Wiley Online Library, with no author fees
   contributing to multidisciplinary research in public policy in Australia, Asia and the Pacific
   exposure to influential policymakers in Asia and the Pacific, and throughout the world
   publication in a journal led by a world-class multidisciplinary editorial team, including Quentin Grafton, Ann Florini, Martin Painter, Stephan Haggard, Kelley Lee, Huang Jikun, Ngo Van Long, Colin Talbot, Peter Larmour, John Gibson, Robert Glennon, Dale Squires, Henrik Hansen and Dominique van de Walle.

About the Journal

Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies is the flagship journal of the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University. The Journal aims to break down barriers across disciplines, and generate policy impact.

Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies has funding support from the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), and commissions research in areas of particular interest to the Journal's Editors and AusAID.

Aims and scope

Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies is a peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary journal that targets research in policy studies in Australia, Asia and the Pacific, with a discipline focus that includes governance, economics, political science, development and the environment. Specific themes of interest include health and education, aid, migration, public administration, climate change, energy, the environment, food policy, the role of the private sector in public policy, trade, foreign policy, natural resource management and development policy.

Editorial team

The Editorial office for Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies is based in the Crawford School at the Australian National University in Canberra. Professor Tom Kompas, Director of the Crawford School of Public Policy, is the founding Editor-in-Chief. Professor Kompas is supported by a distinguished group of Editors drawn from across various disciplines, and from Australia, the region and the world.

Editor-in-Chief

   Tom Kompas, The Australian National University

Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies is published online three times a year by Wiley Blackwell, with all contributions made freely available from Wiley Online Library without restriction. The first issue will be published in early 2014 and 'early view papers' will be made available from September 2013.

.................................. Contact Information

Mr Sung Lee Director Research Communications Crawford School of Public Policy The Australian National University (E) sung.lee@anu.edu.au EDITORIAL OFFICE Crawford School of Public Policy, #132 Lennox Crossing, The Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia PHONE +61 2 6125 9563 FAX +61 2 6125 5448 EMAIL asiaandthepacificpolicystudies@anu.edu.au

The first program of this series, Summer School 2012 was a huge success with participants from Europe, Central and South Asia. The Winter School will offer a three-week immersion in public policy research methods. The objective of the program is to equip researchers with the tools and techniques necessary to produce outstanding research on important problems of public policy, with the goal of improving governance and the freedom and prosperity of citizens.

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 ipa2013@univie.ac.at 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 ipa2013@univie.ac.at 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.

Environmental Politics, Policy, and Ethics Department of Political Science College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

The Department of Political Science invites applications for a tenure-track position of assistant professor in North American, Anglo-American, or advanced industrialized government and politics with strengths in environmental politics, policy, and ethics; additional specializations in sustainability and urban development or climate change adaptation and social resilience with respect to their regulatory, legal, institutional, or economic impact also are of interest. This position will begin August 10, 2013.

Required qualifications: Earned doctorate in government, political science, public policy, or a closely related field at the time of application or degree in hand by August 10, 2013. Candidates must have a clear teaching specialization and research program in one of the central areas of environmental ethics, policy, and politics in the U.S. ideally as these issues relate to transnational, global or cross-national comparisons. Demonstrated effectiveness in both undergraduate and graduate teaching is necessary to meet the department's key teaching needs in its own B.A. and M.A. programs as well as its allied interdisciplinary PhD programs in the social sciences. Teaching requirements for this position will be four courses a year, including undergraduate and graduate courses on a regular (annual or biennial) basis.

Desired qualifications: Preference will be given to broadly trained candidates who have grounding and skills in a variety of theoretical, analytical, and methodological approaches to the workings of U.S. government and politics as they relate to environmental politics, policy, and ethics, and who can work with undergraduate and graduate students (at the master's and doctoral levels) in political science and international studies along with non-majors in core curricular courses. Prior teaching experience at the undergraduate and graduate level is preferred as well as familiarity with on-line instructional techniques. Proven success with sponsored research contracts and grants tied to the position’s key research foci also is preferred.

Interested persons must apply at www.jobs.vt.edu posting #0122220 where they will submit a cover letter, current curriculum vitae, recent writing samples, teaching evaluations, along with letters of support from three to five academic references. Screening of applications will begin October 15, 2012, and continue until the position is filled. All inquiries can be sent to: Professor Timothy W. Luke, <twluke@vt.edu>, Chair, Environmental Politics, Policy, and Ethics Search Committee, Department of Political Science, 531 Major Williams Hall (0130), Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061. Individuals with additional questions or with disabilities desiring accommodations in the application process also should contact the search committee chair.

Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency Virginia Tech has a strong commitment to diversity and seeks a broad spectrum of candidates, including women, veterans, minorities and people with disabilities. Individuals with disabilities desiring accommodations in the application process should notify the Chair of the Search Committee or the Virginia Tech Relay Service, 1-800-828-1129. --

Timothy W. Luke University Distinguished Professor Department of Political Science 539 Major Williams Hall VPI&SU Blacksburg, VA 2406l voice: 540.23l.6633/6571 fax: 540.231.6078 e-mail: TWLUKE@vt.edu homepage: http://www.cddc.vt.edu/tim/ OLMA/PSCI: http://www.olma.vt.edu Center for Digital Discourse and Culture: http://www.cddc.vt.edu FAST CAPITALISM: http://www.fastcapitalism.com