The experience of escalation in policy conflict is much more common than are empirical studies that examine the dynamics driving escalation. Literature, primarily in social psychology, explains escalation as a specific pattern that emerges when zero-sum thinking is combined with diverging perceptions and social and cognitive pressures for consistency. This combination triggers the strategic behavior-defensive and aggressive-that triggers conflict spirals. An interpretive approach complements this with the study of clashing meanings in, for example collective action frames in social movement studies, or in the study of negotiating knowledge in Science and Technology Studies. What these approaches share is a focus on relatively static, as opposed to dynamic, explanations of conflict; a study of what frames collide does not describe how the collision develops and the ensuing conflict plays out, for example. In this panel we seek to find ways to move beyond static approaches and develop an analytic vocabulary suited to escalation and the dynamics of policy conflict. This approach can help us open the relationship between the contentious behavior associated with escalation and 'hot' forms of policy negotiation and change that may be necessary to produce, learning, change, and settlement.

This panel welcomes theoretical and empirical papers that try to capture the dynamics driving the escalation of policy conflicts from an interpretative perspective. Relevant analytical aspects are:

•Framing processes or the production of stories •Broader discourses that these meaning production processes can draw on •Emotional appeals enclosed in meaning production •Scientific controversies and the negotiation of knowledge in public controversies •The role of events feeding into and changing meaning production

Policy conflicts can involve many actors such as governmental organizations, citizens, NGOs, corporations, social movements, and the media.

This panel seeks to (re)focus the study of policy conflict within the field of interpretative policy analysis to the thing all conflicts start with: escalation. By employing interpretative methods we believe research on the escalation of policy conflict can significantly contribute to our understanding of the development of public policies.

For more info on the conference and on sending a proposal: https://ipa2013.univie.ac.at/call-for-papers/

Dr. M.J. (Merlijn) van Hulst Assistant Professor/Universitair Docent Tilburg School of Politics and Public Administration Tilburg University