Richard Freeman, Steven Griggs, Hendrik Wagenaar

Panel Chairs

Richard Freeman, University of Edinburgh (UK), 

Steven Griggs, University of De Montfort (UK), sgriggs@dmu.ac.uk

Hendrik Wagenaar, University of Leiden (NL), 

Abstract

We know little of the way policy-makers work, of what they actually do when they make policy. Our starting point in this panel is thus the work of policy (Colebatch, 2007). We are guided by a small set of classic ethnographic accounts of policy making (Heclo and Wildavsky, 1974), and by the standard ethnographic injunction to 'follow the actors'.  But more than that we are interested not just in what policy makers do, but what they think they are doing, that is how they understand, explain and account for their everyday activity (Bevir and Rhodes, 2006).  Seeing policy as practice, we thus invite papers that address two broad areas of investigation.

Christos Pallas, Leonidas Karakatsanis

Panel Chairs:

Christos Pallas, University of Essex (UK), cpalla@essex.ac.uk

Leonidas Karakatsanis University of Essex (UK)

Abstract:

In recent years there has been a noticeable interest in incorporating ethnographic methods within the qualitative research 'toolkit' of studying politics. Τhe publication of Political Ethnography by E. Schatz (ed.) university of Chicago Press, 2009, provided the necessary stimulus for re-opening a discussion about 'field research', 'participant observation',  'ethnographic sensibility' and 'ethnography' as well as about their role in approaches of the 'political'.This panel aims at exploring further these current debates about the possibilities of such 'political ethnographies', from the perspective of interpretive policy analysis, discourse theory and other qualitative research in political science.

 In particular, we call for the submission of papers which explore: 

1. The relationship between ethnography and political analysis and theorizing, in its ontological, epistemological and methodological implications.
2. The uses of ethnographic methods in particular research projects, in experimenting with empirical material and in promoting inter-disciplinarity in research practices.

Rosalind Cavaghan, Christophe Dubois

Panel Chairs:

Christophe Dubois, University of Liège - Belgium (c.dubois@ulg.ac.be)

Rosalind Cavaghan, University of Edinburgh - Scotland   (R.M.Cavaghan@sms.ed.ac.uk)

Abstract:

We locate our panel within the wider interpretative perspective which views policy as an unstable product and the policy environment as a series of interlocking actors and networks.  We therefore understand policy as a multi-level process where multiple actors and groups each reinterpret policy according to their own practice and situation, in a continual process of negotiation and argumentation.  These processes and the power dynamics contained within them are the analytical focus of this panel.

Within this theoretical context this panel focuses on a particular dimension of the policy process as a research problem: the translation of 'big ideas' into policy and practice.  What happens when bureaucracies or state institutions try to translate new abstract concepts like 'choice', 'restorative justice' or 'gender equality' into action? Papers in this panel explore how we should conceive of and analyse these processes.

Bas Arts, Jelle Behagel, Helga Pülzl

Panel Chairs

Bas Arts (Wageningen University, Netherlands)

Jelle Behagel (Wageningen University, Netherlands, jelle.behagel@wur.nl)

Helga Pülzl (University of Salzburg, Austria)

Abstract:

The social sciences are witnessing a 'practice turn', of which traces are also found in the policy sciences. Policy discourses are for example conceptualized as: (1) the result of 'messy practices'; (2) only loosely embedded in democratic practices; (3) hardly related to social practices; and (4) the opposite of 'what is really happening'. This panel wants to identify how the practice turn impacts the field of forest and nature conservation policy, specifically relating it to accounts of politics, legitimacy, and power in general. Conceptually, the relationship between discourse and practice will be particularly key. This relationship can range from discourse as one of the many components of a practice to discourse as constituting practice. Methodologically, we want to discuss whether a practice turn gives primacy to ethnographic techniques, or that other methods retain equal value.

Hal Colebatch

Panel Chairs:

Hal Colebatch, Public Health and Policy Studies, University of New South Wales, h.colebatch@unsw.edu.au

Abstract:

A major focus in discourse about policy has been 'policy making' - a term which sees policy as an artefact, created by the exercise of authority, which is usually preceded by various forms of bureaucratic activity labelled as 'policy analysis', 'policy development' and 'policy advising'.  The emergence of critical and interpretive approaches to policy has challenged this framing in a number of ways.

• the recognition that the articulation of policy is part of a continuing interplay among interested players - 'stakeholders' or 'the policy community' - who have to be seen as active participants, and not simply as 'advisers' to the 'real' policy makers, or 'implementers' of the policy that they have made;
• the emergence of policy as a form of specialised practice, with named positions, organisational forms, professional qualifications, and increasingly-specified norms of 'good policy practice', which raises questions about how these 'policy workers' would construct the process in which they are engaged, particularly when they are working (as they often are) for organisations outside the bureaucratic state structure;
• the growing demand that policy should be (more ?) 'participative', with the involvement of non-official voices, which is matched and fuelled by the emergence in non-government organisations of professional policy workers who can match the skills and engage in the discourses of their counterparts in the state bureaucracy;
• the wave of regime change in the 'transition states' of eastern Europe, where 'policy' has become a vehicle for civil society organisations to interrogate and contest the working of the state bureaucracy.

Sophie Allain

Panel Chairs:

Sophie Allain, INRA (French National Institute for Agricultural Research), allain.sophie@gmail.com

Abstract:

Several scholars have argued that Interpretive Policy Analysis (IPA) has important implications for the conduct of policy analysis. Rather than provide technical answers to a policymaking elite or scientific knowledge loosely connected to policy problems, the policy analyst has to be seen as a "facilitator" of policymaking. For some scholars such as Frank Fischer, his or her role is to assist citizens and clients in their efforts to examine their own interests and to plan appropriate courses of action. While such a view suggests a role of stakeholder- or coalition-building for the policy analyst, several theorists in planning assume that the primary activity of the planner, including the planner as policy analyst, is to improve the communication among the experts, the decision-makers and the citizens.

Eve Fouilleux, Bruno Jobert, Philippe Zittoun

Panel Chairs:

Eve Fouilleux, CNRS, University of Montpellier, eve.fouilleux@cirad.fr

Bruno Jobert, CNRS, Science Po Grenoble, Bruno.Jobert@upmf-grenoble.fr

Philippe Zittoun, LET-ENTPE, University of Lyon, pzittoun@gmail.com

Abstract:

The concept of 'référentiel' has been developed in France in the 80s. It underlines the existence of specific reference frames aimed at combining in a single representation the contradictory imperatives that are inherent to any public action. While initial works in this literature were focused on the referentiel of 'modernisation', current ones would rather concentrate on 'neoliberalism' or 'sustainability' for example. More plastic and more extensive than the paradigm, this concept can be described as a discursive regime in which public and private actors inscribe their policy proposals, in order to legitimate them -and themselves- and to build coalitions. As such, the referential cannot be conceived separately from a vision of politics fully integrating conflicts and social domination.

Daniela Kleinschmitt, Peter H. Feindt

Panel Chairs:

Daniela Kleinschmitt, Cardiff University, daniela.kleinschmit@sprod.slu.se

Peter H. Feindt, Cardiff University

 Abstract:

Environmental policy and planning has often been hailed as a policy area where innovative and participatory institutional arrangements and deliberative democracy flourish. Curiously, there is little critical reflection whether these arrangements match the notion of deliberative democracy as put forward by one of the leading political theorists, Juergen Habermas. Correspondingly, his concept of political legitimacy had relatively little impact on environmental policy analysis.

Given the implicit legitimacy claims embodied in recent shifts 'from government to governance' in environmental policy arrangements, any meaningful analysis requires clarification of its normative assumptions and concepts.  This panel wants to discus how Habermas' concept of political legitimacy can enrich environmental policy analysis.  The panel will focus on Habermas' notion of deliberative democracy and his concept of critical political theory.

Sabine Weiland

Panel Chairs:

Sabine Weiland, Catholic University Louvain, Belgium,sabine.weiland@uclouvain.be

  Abstract:

This panel aims to revisit the concept of "reflexive governance" and stimulate dialogue among various approaches. The concept of "reflexive governance" has gained much attention in the discussion about science policy (Wynne 1993), network governance (Rhodes 1997), sustainability governance (Voß, Bauknecht and Kemp 2006), and multi-level decision-making (Lenoble 2005; Rogowski 2006).

Jeremy Hunsinger

Panel Chairs:

Jeremy Hunsinger, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, jhuns@vt.edu

 Abstract:

This panel investigates the discourses of legitimation that policymakers use to legitimize and justify their policy. It investigates the roles and positions of practices and artifacts in those discourses of legitimation. Our panelists, using interpretive methods, find certain discourses that aim to legitimize certain policies related to knowledge and cultural policy in our society.  The papers describe these discourses so that in the panel discussion we can present them and discuss the similarities and differences.

The central theme of this panel is to question what are the discourses of legitimation in various policy arenas, how do those discourses of legitimation operate, for whom, and to what ends, especially if there are unforseen ends. Following Habermas, Lyotard, Boltanski and Thévenot, amongst others, the questions of legitimation and justification cross policy arenas, providing ways of rethinking the modes of analysis of policy and opening up interpretive avenues.

Sonja van der Arend, Bertien Broekhans

Sonja van der Arend, TU Delft, the Netherlands, s.h.vanderarend@tudelft.nl

Bertien Broekhans, TU Delft, the Netherlands,

 Abstract:

Both in policy practice and in policy studies, policy success is generally treated as the clear-cut outcome of simply applying criteria of goal achievement to a policy. From an interpretivist perspective, however, success can only be seen as part of the everyday social construction of meaning that is endemic to any policy process. David Mosse, for instance, finds that "development projects are 'successful' not because they turn design into reality, but because they sustain policy models offering a significant interpretation of events" (2005: 181). In his account, success as much as failure are socially produced, and turn out to be powerful categories in the social art of policy making in development work. In 'Western' interpretive policy analysis, this issue has not yet received the critical attention it gets in anthropology.

Kathrin Braun, Svea Luise Herrmann

Panel Chairs:

Kathrin Braun, Institute of Political Science, University of Hanover, k.braun@ipw.uni-hannover.de

Svea Luise Herrmann, Institute of Political Science, University of Hanover, s.herrmann@ipw.uni-hannover.de

Abstract:

The past two decades have seen a proliferation of restitution cases, official apologies, and debates on reparation schemes all over the world. Historic injustices, from genocide and slavery to forced assimilation and coercive sterilization, that had been official state policy in the past, have become subject to political and public debates and struggles for reparations on the part of the victims. Whereas in some instances, governments have actually set up reparation policies, in other cases such claims remained largely unsuccessful. Also, reparation policies have taken very different forms and have been implemented in different ways. The panel will explore the dynamics of the politics of redress in a comparative perspective. It will investigate the formation and implementation of reparation policies, or the lack thereof, in their respective cultural and historic context and pay specific attention to interactions between state and civil society actors and the role of victims and their organizations in the policy process.

Thomas König, Marion Löffler

Panel Chairs:

Thomas König, University of Vienna (thomas.koenig@univie.ac.at)
Marion Löffler, University of Vienna

Abstract:

This panel aims to discuss methodological issues on interpreting historical data. Two reciprocal questions stand in the center: How can methodological reflections of historical data contribute to policy analysis as an interpretive science? And how can Interpretive Policy Analysis contribute to analyzing historical data?

Since the end of the Cold War, records have become available containing data presented in a uniquely systematic order. Documents from state apparatuses as well as international agencies give us close insights into processes and the forming of opinion in policy-making. Social meaning relevant to policy processes was produced in many intellectual artifacts in pop culture. Even raw data from older studies gain potential for re-interpretation. These kinds of historical sources often include crucial information about topics that are subject of present-day policy processes; for example, they inform us about origins and contextual shaping of specific worldviews and ideologies, and how they provide impulse for policy processes.

Antonia Graf, Joscha Wullweber

Panel Chairs:

Joscha Wullweber, University of Hamburg, joscha.wullweber@wiso.uni-hamburg.de

Antonia Graf, M.A,  Institute of Political Science, Münster, antoniag@uni-muenster.de.de

Abstract:

Basic paradigms of knowledge production are challenged especially in times of crises. Breaks in usual value structures and norm-linked principles are applicative for questioning theories of legitimacy, power and forms of governance. Although Political Economy is directly linked with the reception of economic crises, the realm of International Political Economy (IPE) has been particularly resistant to post-structuralist approaches. Post-structuralist approaches enunciate a fundamental and comprehensive critique with respect to mainstream approaches to IPE, by challenging basic theoretical, methodological and epistemological assumptions as well as explicit and implicit essentialisms (like empiricism, economism, voluntarism, methodological nationalism or individualism). They also present and develop critical, inspiring and sometimes surprising access to and explanations of different empirical issues. Therewith post-structuralist approaches provide a set of analytical tools for questioning on the one hand established orthodoxies of the intermediation of policy structures and on the other hand on the production of knowledge.

Dieter Plehwe, Benoit Monange

Panel Chairs:

Dieter Plehwe, WZB (Social Science Research Center Berlin), Germany, plehwe@wzb.eu

Benoit Monange, Institute of Political Studies of Grenoble, France, benmonange@hotmail.com

Abstract:

This panel proposes to investigate private policy research institutes as archetypical institutions with regard to the knowledge power nexus. Beyond the recognition of the role of think tanks in politicizing science we would like papers to advance the understanding of the various roles think tanks play as key organizations and key social technologies (compare Stone 2007) in support of (possibly conflicting) power elites and governance regimes. Papers can focus inter alia on different processes and dynamics including (de-)legitimating roles with regard to expertise and / or the strategic development of discourse communities and coalitions. We would like the panel to help better understanding the mediating role think tanks and think tank professionals obtain (between experts, politicians, interest groups, media etc.) and ask if the rise of a new professional class can be observed.

Barbara Dickhaus

Panel Chairs:

Barbara Dickhaus,  Kassel University, barbara.dickhaus@uni-kassel.de

Abstract:

New public management reforms in public sectors such as education and health services have been introduced in a number of countries around the world in recent years. These policies reflect a fundamental shift in the understanding of the role of the state, the dualism of state versus market is therefore blurred and called into question.

The issue of public sector reform and new public management has been analysed from a variety of theoretical perspectives. This panel invites contributions which explore the policy formation and translation processes in public sector reforms from different theoretical perspectives and investigate possible links between different theoretical strands.

Fabrizio Cantelli, Céline Granjou, Severine Louvel, Virginie Tournay

Panel Chairs:

Virginie Tournay,  Science Po Grenoble, (virginie.tournay@iep-grenoble.fr)

Severine Louvel, Science Po Grenoble, (severine.louvel@iep-grenoble.fr)

Céline Granjou, Cemagref,  (celine.granjou@cemagref.fr)

Fabrizio Cantelli, University of Bruxel (fcantell@ulb.ac.be).

Abstract:

This panel especially focuses on the production and the implementation process of social aggregates called "institutions" by using a pragmatic approach of Interpretative Policy Analysis. Recently, interpretive policy analysis has explored different perspectives and rediscovered old authors. In particular, Frank Fischer uses Dewey's political writings in Democracy and Expertise (2009). He draws his post-empiricist approach to challenge relations between ordinary citizens and experts and broadly, to question the bedrocks of democracy and the conditions for a harmonious "living together". With the help of Dewey's work as well as insights from pragmatist lawyers such as Maurice Hauriou and from Science and Technology Studies' authors, this panel provides here a critical discussion, able to reinvigorate policy inquiries, connecting theoretical, metholodological, and political issues.

We consider the social as a particular infrastructure and define it as ontologically interdependent entities which are constantly reshaped by controversies, demonstrations and shocks. Consolidated macro-actors and institutions appear as precarious achievements that are perpetually being renegotiated and that cannot be ex ante defined, but whose stabilization processes can be tracked. Institutions are thus regarded as a distinct state of the "social raw matter" that presents a singular texture, a particular density of anastomotic associations without borders, or even moving separations. So the challenge of this panel is to understand the founding moment as well as the implementing process of institutions by

David Laws, Tamara Metze

Panel Chairs:

David Laws, University of Amsterdam (contact: Tamara Metze: t.metze@uvt.nl)

 Abstract:

 This panel begins with the premise that public officials, citizens groups and businesses in a network society face a unique credibility challenge as they advance their arguments, policy positions, and narratives. Where public agents once secured legitimacy through the formal arrangements of government, they and other public agents must now be credible. If actors find the arguments, policy positions, and narratives of others credible, they are in principle willing to accept and support them. We introduce credibility as a more appropriate frame for legitimacy in a network society. Credibility is secured informal relations. The papers in this panel address this credibility challenge by examining these questions: How do politicians, public officials and experts regain and maintain credibility? And how do citizens and business representatives participate in problem solving and decision making for the public good in ways that appear and are credible to others? 

Angelika Sjöstedt Landén, Michael Orsini

Panel Chairs:

Michael Orsini, University of Ottawa

Angelika Sjöstedt Landén, Mid Sweden University

 Abstract:

 In recent years, there has been greater attention to the role of discourse and meaning-making in shaping policies and practices. While this has helped to counter the rational approach to policy that has been dominant for several decades, it has left less space for considering what specific layers of meanings make discourses "legitimate", "right" or "satisfactory". The panel argues that such layers can be found in analysis of emotions. Emotions figure into the way we think about and talk about policy and how we think about collective problems. However, what does it mean to 'bring the emotions in' to the practice of policy analysis?

Helen Schwenken & Rahel Kunz

Panel Chairs:

Helen Schwenken, Kassel University, Helena.Schwenken@uni-kassel.de

Rahel Kunz, University of Luzern, rahel.kunz@unilu.ch  

Abstract:

Feminist perspectives have not been very prominent in the IPA network yet, although they share the epistemological grounds of anti-foundationalism and often refer to similar theories. Methodological approaches such as framing or different varieties of discourse analysis are widely used in gender studies. The role of knowledge in policy-making and in shaping powerful discourses has been an important issue as well. At last year's IPA conference Mary Hawkesworth posed questions why feminist scholarship is not well received in mainstream policy studies and also in IPA: Is it incompatibility? Rigorous definitions of what constitutes a discipline? Epistemic factors on the role of evidence and knowledge production? Ann Tickner (2006, International Studies Review 8, 3) contextualized the sidelining of feminist scholarship in a general conservative backlash at (US based) universities and in the decreasing influence of academic social sciences in policy making. Noting this, Tickner emphasises the historical strength of academic feminism in keeping "morally engaged at a time when, under the conservative attacks of the 1970s and 1980s, many social scientists were retreating from public life into more narrowly defined disciplines" (ibid.: 386). A related strength is its capacity of building explanations and understandings from practice (Enloe 2004, The Curious Feminist). Knowledge has been conceptualized as "theoretically constituted human practice" which "provides an alternate account and a richer resource for understanding evidence blindness" (Hawkesworth).

Maxime Forest, Emanuela Lombardo

Panel Chairs:

Maxime Forest, Institut des Études Politiques de Toulouse

Emanuela Lombardo, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

Discussant :

Fiona Beveridge, University of Liverpool (TBC)

 Abstract:

Gender equality, as a field of EU intervention, has a rich record in the development of both "hard" and "soft" policy mechanisms, with a special emphasis on the latter, through the diffusion of mainstreaming and the open method of coordination. Hence, it provides an excellent starting point to explore the cognitive domestic impact of Europe through norms diffusion or social learning. Additionally, drawing on social movement literature and public policy analysis, the reflection on the making of gender equality and anti-discrimination policies sheds light on the importance of discursive frames that shape the meaning of policies in different ways (Lombardo, Meier and Verloo, 2009).

more information comming soon 

Jason Glynos,Steve Griggs, David Howarth,Ewen Speed

Panel Chairs:

Jason Glynos, University of Essex, ljglyn@essex.ac.uk

Steve Griggs, De Montfort University , sgriggs@dmu.ac.uk

David Howarth, University of Essex, davidh@essex.ac.uk

Ewen Speed, University of Essex, esspeed@essex.ac.uk

Abstract:

The aim of this panel is to explore the possibilities and limits of a novel approach to practicing policy analysis based on the notion of logics of critical explanation. Logics capture the rules that govern a practice, policy or policy regime, as well as the conditions that make the operation of such rules possible and vulnerable to change. They are distinct not only from causal laws, but also from mechanisms and contextualized self-interpretations.

Aysem Mert, Katja Freistein

Panel Chairs:

Aysem Mert, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, aysem.mert@ivm.vu.nl

Katja Freistein, Goethe Universität Frankfurt, freistein@em.uni-frankfurt.de

Abstract:

In the so-called "post-ideological" world (Žižek 1989, 1997), in which the articulations of ideologies have changed drastically (although they might be important as ever) it is increasingly important for the political scientists to explain why social change happens or does not happen. Whether or not one agrees with the conceptualisation of a post-ideological world is beside the point: Class formations as well as nationalism are less and less decisive in shaping political identities, or at least their influence is neither directly identifiable nor steady enough to explain the changes at all levels of politics. Ernesto Laclau (2005) suggested that the force behind the formation of identities and hegemonic struggles (or the lack of these) is the logic of fantasy.

Maria José Freitas

 Panel Chairs:

Maria José Freitas, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences Maastricht (NL), m.j.freitas@hszuyd.nl

Abstract:

This discussion on practices of comparison starts from an understanding that the meaning of a concept like 'comparative analysis' changes over time and space. The discussion goes beyond comparative research as something wedded to statistics, a view that frames societies as independent constructs free from social and cultural backdrops. In his paper presented in the 2008 panel, Robert Adcock (2008:19) put forward the notion, concerning the link between situated practice and ideas, that one cannot "abstract the practice of comparison from the broad web of beliefs shaping their use". This suggests that researchers doing comparative research could develop reflective research designs that embrace the presuppositions of interpretive scholarship.

Heidrun Huber, Matthew Kearnes

Panel Chairs:

Matthew Kearnes, University of Durham, m.b.kearnes@durham.ac.uk

Heidrun Huber, University of Vienna, heidrun.huber@univie.ac.at

Discussant

Herbert Gottweis, Department of Political Science, University of Vienna

Abstract

What is collectively known as 'science policy' has become one of the most significant sites at which contemporary modes of governing are both enacted and reproduced. The relationship between policy and research practice is both contingent and dynamic. Science policy might therefore be characterized as the circulation of discourse, ideas, imaginaries and arguments at the interface between science and politics. Central to this problem is the emergence of new technoscientific research programmes as well as the rise of new regulatory narratives and policy practices dealing with emerging technologies - associated with, for example, stem-cells, nanotechnology and synthetic biology. In this context contemporary approaches to the governance of science increasingly speak of 'setting the conditions' for innovation rather than directly coordinating support for new and emerging technologies.

Florent Clement, Maarten Hajer, Sonia Lemettre

Panel Chairs:

Maarten Hajer, Universiteit van Amsterdam

Florent Clement, LET-ENTPE, University of Lyon, florent.clement@entpe.fr

Sonia Lemettre, LET-ENTPE, University of Lyon, sonia.lemettre@entpe.fr

Abstract:

 This panel focuses on sustainable development as a discourse that can change public policies. Indeed, it is commonly admitted that sustainable development has emerged as a linchpin of consensus building for environmental policies (Hajer, 1995). Nevertheless, a neat definition of it as a concept is still missing. That's why we propose to consider sustainable development as a discourse that can be contested and shaped out, instead of a goal or a path (Dryzek, 2005). In this context, this panel puts sustainable development to the test of discourse analysis (Fischer, 2003; Fischer and Black, 1995; Hajer and Versteeg, 2005; Hajer, 1995) in order to highlight the mechanisms by which sustainable development transforms, or not, public policies.

Alain Faure, Guillaume Gourgues

Panel Chairs:

Yves Surel, Laurie Boussague

Panel Chairs:

Yves Surel, University of Paris II,yves.surel@aliceadsl.fr 

Laurie Boussaguet, Université Versailles St Quentin

Abstract:

The main purpose of this panel is to analyze the processes by which ideas transfer in public policies. Since Peter Hall's seminal book, The Political Power of Economic Ideas, a growing amount of research has shown that changes in public policies are often the result of the influence progressively gained by scientific ideas in the public arena. One of the main examples here, often cited, is the so-called "tournant néo-libéral" which occurred in the 1980's, when new policy paradigms, inspired by the monetarist turn in economics, determined important shifts in macroeconomic policies as well as in social policies. 

Hernán Cuevas Valenzuela, Ewen Speed, Andreja Vezovnik

Panel Chairs:

Ewen Speed, Essex University (UK), esspeed@essex.ac.uk

Andreja Vezovnik, University of Ljubljana, (Slovenia), andrejavezovnik@gmail.com

Hernán Cuevas Valenzuela, Universidad Diego Portales (Chile), hcuevasster@gmail.com

Abstract:

This panel explores the shaping of identities and citizenship by policies and forms of governmentality through a diversity of technologies and biopolitical means in a variety of settings. We invite policy analysis papers inspired in (either) interpretative and/or poststructuralist epistemological and ontological underpinnings as a way of promoting theoretical and methodological discussion and cross-fertilization. In terms of content, we invite papers that focus on forms of control and negative biopolitics as well as on forms of self-governing practices of individuals and groups, phenomena of inclusion/exclusion of categories of people and on the constitution of individuals.  Papers can range across such diverse fields as public policy, political science, sociology, cultural studies, anthropology and humanities. 

Benjamin Stephan

Panel Chair:         

Benjamin Stephan, University of Hamburg, Benjamin.Stephan@uni-hamburg.de

Discussant:

Maria Julia Trombetta, Delft University of Technology

Abstract

This panel draws together empirical work that uses a post-structuralist perspective in order to challenge conventional interpretations of global climate governance. Post-structuralist perspectives centering around the Foucauldian concept of governmentality understand power as discursive/knowledge-based, relational and constitutive of subjects and objects.

The panel seeks to apply these Foucauldian insights to two recent developments in climate governance. On the one hand, climate change is increasingly conceived as a security issue. But other than conventional theories of 'securitization' suggest, this does not lead to privileging exceptional measures. A governmentality approach, in contrast, reveals how securitization is translated into routine security practices employing strategies of risk management. Hence, it can enhance theoretical debates about the securitization of climate change. On the other hand, many policy makers promote a global carbon market.

Bernard Delvaux

Panel Chairs:

Bernard Delvaux, University of Louvain, Bernard.delvaux@uclouvain.be

Abstract:

The panel will be focused on those "new" merging scenes and on their role in the public action process. How do they participate in the transformation and hybridization of knowledge? How do they affect representations of actors and coalitions? How do they contribute to the emergence of consensus? How do they affect actions and interactions in other scenes, and in particular in scenes where actors taking part in the merging scene are coming from? 

Gábor Eröss

Panel Chairs:

Gábor Eröss, ISB, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, KNOWandPOL, egabor@socio.mta.hu

Discussant :

Agnès van Zanten, OSC-CNRS (TBC)

Abstract:

The formation and shape of the discourses (argumentation, travelling ideas, legitimacy accounts, etc.) and scenes (ministerial cabinets, commissions, workshops, consultations, the EU-financed research projects themselves, etc.) where knowledge and power meet and merge will be the focus of this panel. Panelists will work from the common assumption that the "politisation" of knowledge and the "knowledgeisation" of policy produce somewhat similar effects.

Bernhard Kittel, Katharina Zahradnik

Panel Chairs:

Bernhard Kittel, University of Oldenburg, Germany

Katharina Zahradnik, Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna, katharina.zahradnik@ihs.ac.at

Abstract:

The aim of the panel is to explore the practices of deliberation and representation in the context of strategic interaction. The representation of various views and  preferences in processes of collective decision-making is a problem that is paramount in politics. How do parties negotiate such tensions and how does the intra-party discourse match bargaining between different factions within the party? How do different actors in a committee frame and develop their cause in the context of their aim of getting the maximum out of a bargaining process? What is the influence of institutional conditions such as the structures of delegation and decision-making rules on processes of deliberation and strategic interaction?

Anna Durnova & Mark Bevir

Books

The panel will take an author meets critics format.  The presenters will discuss Mark Bevir's Democratic Governance (Princeton University Press, 2010).  Presenters may discuss whatever themes and arguments in the book most grab their attention.  Themes might include the historical genealogy of modernist social science, the nature of the new governance, the problems governance poses for democracy, the nature of an interpretive and dialogical alternative to modernism, and the specific cases of constitutional reform, judicialization, joined-up governance, and police reform.  Potential participants may want to contact the chair for further details of the book.

Bernard Lamizet & Anna Durnová

Panel Chairs: Bernard Lamizet, bernard.lamizet@univ-lyon2.fr

Abstract:

A special panel dedicated to reflections about new ways of thinking about "reason" and " emotions"in politics. First, rationality's field has recently been considerably extended, particularly since politics deal with the place of unconscious in decision-making and in political choices.