Social research as a craft 2010

2195 Responsible: Asbjørn Sonne Nørgaard, Institut for Statskundskab, Syddansk Universitet, Odense Svend-Erik Skaaning, Institut for Statskundskab, Aarhus Universitet
From: 2010/02/05 to: 2010/03/19
Subscription Deadline: 2010/01/06
Place: SDU
ECTS (Danish Ph.D. students only): 10
Further information: agg@ps.au.dk

Social research as a craft

Asbjørn Sonne Nørgaard, Institut for Statskundskab, Syddansk Universitet, Odense Svend-Erik Skaaning, Institut for Statskundskab, Aarhus Universitet

Time: 10.00-15.00 on the following days: 5. February • 12 February • 19 February • 26 February • 5 March • 12 March • 19 March 2010

COURSE DESCRIPTION:

All researchers, young or old, who are in the process of making a large scholarly analysis, are faced with a set of common challenges that relates to the art and craft of making a good study. Social science in general and political science in particular, is not an easily defined type of work or process. Even a superficial inspection of the articles appearing in scholarly journals will reveal an almost infinite number of themes covered, an abundant use of research methods signifying a plurality of ideals of best practice, and a true myriad of seemingly relevantsources and data. Notwithstanding the absence of agreed upon shared standards of good science, most scholars agree that doing good social science is also a craft – a craft that can be learned. This course is an invitation to PhD scholars who want to learn more about how to systematically tackle some of the issues pertaining to the craft of making good social science. We willonly pay scant attention to the different techniques of data collection and analysis (interviewing techniques, statistical methods, etc.), and there will be no thematic umbrella for the course, although themes related to political science will be in focus.

The teachers, Asbjørn Sonne Nørgaard and Svend-Erik Skaaning, are political scientists with a broad interest in comparative politics, historical sociology, public administration, public policy, and methodology. Our methodological point of departure is the scholarly conventions that guide mainstream empirical social science. This implies that we as scholars develop theoretically informed hypotheses about the social world and hold open the possibility that these hypotheses can be proven wrong depending upon the results of empirical analysis. Unless we can be proven wrong we can never be proven right either.

The focus of the seminar will be on the interplay between the ‘Why, What, and How’ of the research design and process. The correspondence between the motivation and normative concern of a research project (the why) and a particular research question is never one to one. There are always more ways to pose a research question. A concern for the practice of local government maylead to an interest in the cause and effect of governance networks. But it could also focus on the role of professionals, central government regulation and incentives, the role of unions, etc. A concern for governance networks is compatible with numerous research questions and numerous perspectives, e.g. in relation to policy processes and impacts, democratic participation, accountability, party politics, etc.

However, particularly the relation between ‘what’ and ‘how’ is open-ended and debatable from a craft perspective. Continuing the example of governance networks, should the study be a few cases in-depth analysis of the policy-making process in one or two localities, and if so, should it mainly be based on interviews, observation, or written records; should it be a broad comparative study based on surveys and other large data bases; etc.

The trust of the course is that any research project can be improved by paying more attention to the additional ways and means to probe ones themes of interest. Even if you yourself are neither posing these additional questions nor making these additional analyses, awareness of the fact that they are relevant will make your own study better and more focused.

THEMES:

In particular, we will focus on the following themes:

Social science as a craft vis-à-vis history and the humanities:

• Thinking in units and variables
• Thinking in sources and data
• Description, interpretation and explanation
• Causality and causal modeling
• Improving research questions: the double relevance demand
• Drawing inference: analytical and statistical inference/generalization
• Correlational evidence versus sequence and process
Case-studies, comparative enquiry, statistics, (quasi-)experiments

LITERATURE:

The main text books are Gary King et al. (1994), Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research, Princeton UP (required to buy) and John Gerring (2010), Social Science Methodology, Cambridge UP (download from Gerring’s homepage).

COURSE REQUIREMENTS:

All participants produce a 3 to 5 pages description
of their project. All project descriptions
will be distributed to the participants.
Each project description includes:
• A brief declaration of intent
• The research question/problem to be
studied, and preferably propositions/
hypotheses
• A comment on relevance of the project
and the literature which the project is
debating
• A brief account of the research design
• A brief discussion of the data and
sources of the project
• And if relevant, preliminary findings
A revised 2 pages project description is produced
during the course.

COURSE PLAN:

The course is organized as six meetings,
each time five hours. Half of the time, we will
have lectures and discussions of one or more
themes. In the other half, we will discuss the
participants’ project descriptions.
Lesson 1: 5 February 2010:
On Science and Social Science
• The triangle subject-theory-method
• What is science?
• What is social science?
• Tension between cultural embeddedness,
individual choice, and patterns of
behavior
• The role of rationality
Lesson 2: 12 February 2010:
On Modelling and Proposing to the
World
Theory, conceptualization and variable specification
• From research problem to propositions
• From general relationships to specified
hypotheses
• Causation and causal hypotheses
• Complex causation and the theory of
controls
• Cross-sectional vs. cross-time modeling:
problems of time
Lesson 3: 19 February 2010:
On Data and Its Dangers
• The selection of observations (max
plausible variation on independent variables)
• Operationalization (indicators, scales,
counting - or not)
• Data sources (problems of obtrusiveness,
bias and incomplete perspectives)
Lesson 4: 26 February 2010:
On Testing and Drawing Inference
• Description and pattern-finding (central
tendencies and variance)
• Inference and generalization (‘significance’,
the null hypothesis)
• Statistical v. analytical generalization
• Different tests: experiments, quasiexperiments,
matched comparison, case
studies
• Matched comparison: maximize leverage
over data, rigor of inference
Lesson 5: 5 March 2010:
Work Shop
• Revised project descriptions: Subject,
Theory, Method
• Choices and justification
• Theory, propositions, data and operationalization,
testing and logic of inference
• Presentation, comments and discussion

Registration

Tilmelding til alle kurser senest 6. januar 2010
Tilmeldingsskema på
 http://www.samfundsvidenskab.au.dk/da/forskning/phd-skolen/fagligeprogrammer/statskundskab/kurser/kurser-foraar-2010/

Yderligere oplysninger kan fås hos:
Anne-Grethe Gammelgaard • Institut for Statskundskab • Aarhus Universitet •
Bartholins Allé • Bygning 1331 • 8000 Århus C

Kvantitativ Metode

2194 Responsible: Robert Klemmensen, Institut for Statskundskab, Syddansk Universitet. Jens Peter Frølund Thomsen, Institut for Statskundskab, Aarhus Universitet
From: 2010/03/25 to: 2010/05/20
Subscription Deadline: 2009/01/06
ECTS (Danish Ph.D. students only): 10
Further information: agg@ps.au.dk

KVANTITATIV METODE:

ved Robert Klemmensen, Institut for Statskundskab, Syddansk Universitet Jens Peter Frølund Thomsen, Institut for Statskundskab, Aarhus Universitet
Tid: Kl. 10.00-14.00 på følgende dage:

25. marts • 8. april • 15. april • 11. april • 29. april • 6. maj • 20. maj 2010

KURSUSBESKRIVELSE

De fleste beskæftiger sig med statskundskab, fordi de ønsker at få indsigt i samfundsmæssige fænomeners indbyrdes sammenhæng. Hvad er årsag, og hvad er effekt? Vi vil især gerne finde årsagerne til, at fænomener ser ud, som de gør. I så henseende er kvantitativ metode et nyttigt redskab. Denne metode giver os mulighed for at få overblik over store datamængder og identificeresammenhænge mellem variable. Solid dataanalyse forudsætter imidlertid en række færdigheder, og sådanne færdigheder bliver mere og mere centrale kompetencer både inden for forskningsverdenen og i forhold til omverdenens krav til statskundskabskandidater. Dette seminar har til formål at opøve brug af kontrol- og kausalitetslogik og gøre deltagerne bedre til at anvende kvantitative metoder som analyseredskaber. Seminaret genopfrisker og udvikler derfor deltagernes evner til at behandle og analysere kvantitative data, og alle teknikkerne afprøves i praksis. Efter seminaret skal deltagerne selv være i stand til at konstruere kausalmodeller, konstruere indeks, lave spørgeskemaer og analysere kvantitative data på tilfredsstillende vis.

Seminaret består af tre hoveddele. For det første sætter vi fokus på kontrol- og kausalitetslogik, der videre vil være seminarets bærende fundament. For det andet skal vi drøfte, hvordan vi med kvantitative metoder kobler teori og empiri. Vi skal f.eks. udvikle kvantitative indikatorer for komplekse begreber og arbejde med konstruktion af spørgeskemaer og stikprøveudvælgelse. Endelig skal vi for det tredje blive bedre til at udnytte kvantitative data bedst muligt. Vi skal med andre ord beskæftige os med analysen af datamaterialerne. I den forbindelse fokuserervi på anvendelsen af centrale teknikker inden for statskundskaben, herunder især lineær regression og faktoranalyse.

Et vigtigt formål med seminaret er at forbedre deltagernes praktiske færdigheder. Derfor skal deltagerne løbende anvende metoderne på konkrete politologiske problemstillinger. Hver uge fårdeltagerne en konkret opgave (f.eks. konstruktion af spørgsmål til et spørgeskema). Disse opgaver løses skriftligt, afleveres til underviserne og udgør eksamen i seminaret. Underviserne giver en faglig tilbagemelding på hver opgave, herunder om den kan godkendes, men der gives ikke karakterer. Som nævnt efterspørges færdigheder inden for dataindsamling og dataanalyse både inden for og uden for forskningsverdenen, og seminaret er derfor relevant både for overbygningsstuderende og ph.d. stipendiater.

Deltagerne skal imidlertid være indstillet på et ret højt fagligt niveau og store krav til arbejdsindsatsen, eftersom kurset også udbydes som et ph.d.-kursus. Der undervises torsdage fra klokken 10.00 i syv uger.

Litteratur

Seminaret vil bl.a. bruge følgende litteratur (i uddrag):
• Agresti & B. Finlay (1997) Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences, third edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall (genopfriskning)
• Diamantopoulos, Adamantios; Winklhofer, Heidi M. (2001) ”Index Construction with Formative Indicators: An Alternative to Scale Development”, Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2): 269-277.
• Gujarati, Damodar N. (2003). Basic Econometrics, Boston: McGrawHill.
• Kempf-Leonard, Kimberly, Editor-in-Chief (2005) Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, Elsevier. (Vi bruger forskellige artikler fra denne encyklopædi. Der er online adgang fra universitetsmaskiner på
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/r eferenceworks/0123693985
• Rosenberg, Morris (1968) The Logic of Survey Analysis, New York, London: Basic Books.
• Rummel, R. J. (1967)‘Understanding Factor Analysis’, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 11(4): 444-80.

Tilmelding

Tilmelding til alle kurser senest 6. januar 2010
Tilmeldingsskema på:

http://www.samfundsvidenskab.au.dk/da/forskning/phd-skolen/fagligeprogrammer/statskundskab/kurser/kurser-foraar-2010/
Yderligere oplysninger kan fås hos:
Anne-Grethe Gammelgaard • Institut for Statskundskab • Aarhus Universitet •
Bartholins Allé • Bygning 1331 • 8000 Århus C

Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to the Study of Local Politics in Developing Countries

2199 Responsible: Laurids Lauridsen, Eric Komlavi Hahonou, Paul Stacey, Tina Maria Jensen and Signe Marie Cold-Ravnkilde, Graduate School of International Development Studies, Roskilde University
From: 2010/05/05 to: 2010/05/07
Place: Bymose Hegn, Helsinge
Fee: 400 Euro
Link to full program: here
ECTS (Danish Ph.D. students only): 4 points
Further information: inge@ruc.dk

PhD Workshop on

Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to the Study of Local Politics in Developing Countries 

Roskilde University (Denmark)

May 5-7, 2010

Call for Applications 

Organisers: Laurids Lauridsen, Eric Komlavi Hahonou, Paul Stacey, Tina Maria Jensen and Signe Marie Cold-Ravnkilde, Graduate School of International Development Studies, Roskilde University

Participants: Open to all PhD students. Maximum number of participants: 20

It is intended that the workshop will be of value to all PhD students, in various stages of their projects, who are completing or plan to undertake field work for the study of local politics.

Course venue:   Bymose Hegn, Helsinge (5-7 May 2010) www.bymosehegn.dk

ETCS: 4 points.

Invited speakers (confirmed):

• Thomas Bierschenk, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, Mainz, Germany
• Carola Lentz, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, Mainz, Germany
• Sten Hagberg, Uppsala University, Sweden
• Giorgio Blundo, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Science Sociales, Marseille, France
• Jesse Ribot, University of Illinois, USA
• Jean-Pierre Olivier de Sardan, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Science Sociales, Marseille, France

Background

The workshop develops and discusses the theoretical and methodological aspects of studying local politics in developing countries with the aim of covering a wide range of social science issues, among others decentralisation, democratisation, resources access and control, conflict occurrences, migrations, border issues and the configuration of local powers. Common to all these themes are how a good researcher strives to produce worthy, original and insightful work where there is perhaps already an abundance of existing literature.

 There are three elements of concern. First is to share tested theories and methods. Second is to make known some common pitfalls researchers may fall into during the project process. Third is to move beyond the tried and tested and write solid and hopefully innovative, inspiring work. We expect discussions to deal with a variety of issues such as analytical frameworks of local politics; political economy vs. historical sociology; domination or negotiation; government, governance, and governmentality and clashes of institutions or friction in local politics.

Workshop Objectives

The methodological aspect of a dissertation concerns the question of how one actually investigates the research question. This element of the workshop concerns approaches to issues such as authority and question of legitimacy, in locations where political tension is perhaps quite high, where corruption is endemic, where informants contradict each other and where testimony may be based on local translators. How can one best approach such a ‘messy field’?

The relationship between utilised theoretical frameworks and applied methodologies is additionally vital for good research, although in practice, theory positions in dissertations may range from the explicit to the virtually absent. Here the aim is to raise concrete understandings of what explicit or implicit relations there should be between use of theory and analysis of empirical data from field work. How much or how little may empirical material be manipulated to fit suitable concept construction? What is ‘enough’ data

Another important consideration to address is how much theory should one take into the field and how, in practice, does the researcher find the correct balance between theoretical parsimony and undue or unwarranted categorisation and classification?

Overall the workshop’s primary concern is to take a critical look at established theoretical and methodological approaches to studies of local politics and to provide scholarly support for students in their dissertations. These objectives will be achieved through discussions regarding concept use, theory application and methodological styles. Here, the invited speakers will comment on the students’ submitted papers. The workshop thus gives the participants access to expert comments on their own approaches, aiming to improve students’ ability to critically reflect on applied methods. Moreover, the workshop allows an exchange of theoretical ideas, methodological insights and empirical knowledge at the forefront of contemporary research and provides students an opportunity to both discuss and receive productive feedback in an open and informal atmosphere. Taken as a whole, the intention is that all will leave the course with better understandings of their own strong and weak points regarding studies of local politics.

The key note speakers will address:

1. How to bring out the unique aspects of each contributor’s work and find the correct balance, between discussing and criticising the theories of others, and building on these with a view to construct an original and dynamic framework
2. How to apply and discuss the theoretical and conceptual framework in relation to empirical material in the thesis’s analytical chapters.

Learning outcomes

1. To raise awareness of how to theoretically and methodologically approach studies of local politics in developing countries through discussion, feedback and active participation.
2. To evaluate and bring to the fore the specific role of method and theory in a dissertation.
3. To make explicit the relationships between theory, method and empirical material.
4. To incorporate the received inputs into strong method chapters. 
   

Workshop principles and structure

On the one hand the theoretical and methodological framework will be provided by the invited speakers, who each select a required reading that serves as a common background for a general academic debate during the discussions of the key note speakers’ presentations. On the other hand the students will receive feedback on their own method papers in the afternoon sessions where these will be discussed. This makes the paper to be presented by each participant an important part of the preparation for the workshop.

 The course requirements also include participation, engagement and preparation. The students are expected to read the required readings submitted by the keynote speakers beforehand. A compendium containing the required reading and students papers will be sent to all participants by April 1^st, 2010. It is our experience that a successful course is best achieved in an atmosphere of open, frank and friendly discussions with active participation and constructive criticism from all. It is intended that a central aspect of the workshop will also be the key speakers’ discussion and presentation of their tried, trusted as well as failed experiences concerning uses of theory and methodological approaches.

 
The role of the lecturers will be twofold:

1. They will present both theoretical and methodological aspect together with recent findings in their own work in plenary sessions
2. They will serve as discussants and advisors to the PhD-students on how to move along in their analysis (see below for more detail) 
   

Invited speakers’ lectures

• Carola Lentz 
  Lecture: Elusive boundaries, negotiable identities: researching Northern Ghanaian ethnicities in historical perspective
• Jesse Ribot
  Lecture:A theory of access

• Jean Pierre Olivier de Sardan
  Lecture:The politics of field work
• Thomas Bierschenk
  Lecture: ECRIS: Rapid Collective Inquiry for the Identification of Conflicts and Strategic Groups (with tentative confirmation)
• Sten Hagberg
  Lecture:Making Multisited and Multiscalar Ethnographies: Methodological challenges in studying political practice in West African municipalities
• Giorgio Blundo
  Lecture:Investigating corruption: describe the hidden (with tentative confirmation)

Requirements

PhD-student’s application for the course is to be sent to inge@ruc.dk including name, address, institutional affiliation, telephone number, and email by November 1^st, 2009, including an abstract of a maximum of 500 words for the PhD-paper. Participants will be selected on the basis of their abstract, as themes are expected to relate to the overall theme of this workshop.

Notice of acceptance will be sent by December 1st, 2009.

Deadline for the PhD method paper, of a maximum of 6000 words, is March 1^st 2010. The paper is to be sent to the same address, together with a half page abstract of the research project.

Fee

Fee for the participation in the workshop is 400 Euro, payable after the notice of acceptance. This includes food, and accommodation (5-7May). The fee is not refundable.

Credits

Participation in the workshop earns the student 4 ECTS points.

Comparative Political Analysis Through Case Studies

2190 Responsible: Associate Professor Viola Burau, University of Aarhus & Maurice Falk Professor of American Government B Guy Peters, University of Pittsburgh
From: 2010/05/25 to: 2010/05/28
Subscription Deadline: 2009/04/05
Place: University of Aarhus
Fee: 750 DKK
ECTS (Danish Ph.D. students only): 4,5
Further information: sek@polforsk.dk

Programme

The course covers the following topics:
1) Logics of Comparing and Selecting Cases for Comparison
2) Using Concepts and Conceptualisations in Comparison
3) Case Methods
4) Approaches to Aggregating Case Materials, and other Qualitative Techniques.
The purpose of this course will be to introduce the student to some of the crucial areas of comparative political analysis. The focus will not be on quantitative analysis, but rather on methods such as the case method and the aggregation of cases that are more appropriate for the "Small-N" research in which many comparativists engage. The primary topics covered in the course will be:

Logics of Comparing and Selecting Cases for Comparison

Presentation by Viola Burau/B Guy Peters:

Tuesday 25 May 2010, 9-12am
One of the fundamental issues for comparative analysis is which cases. We will discuss issues such as most-similar and most-different designs, selecting cases on the dependent variable, and classic methods of difference and agreement.
Workshop
Tuesday 25 May 2010, 1-3pm

Key Readings

Geddes, B. Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics University of Michigan Press, 2003, Chapter 3
S. Lieberson, Small N's and Big Conclusions: An Examination of the Reasoning in Comparative Studies Based on a Small Number of Cases, Social Forces 70 (1991), 307-20.
A. Lijphart, The Comparable Cases Strategy in Comparative Research, Comparative Political Studies 8, (1975), 158-77.
G. De Meur and D. Berg-Schlosser, Conditions of Authoritarianism, Fascism and Democracy in Interwar Europe: Systemic Matching and Contrasting of Cases for "Small-N" Research, Comparative Political Studies 29 (1996), 423-68.
L. De Winter, D. Della Porta and K. Deschouwer, Comparing Similar Countries: Italy and Belgium, Res Publica 38 (1996), 215-35.

2) Using Concepts and Conceptualisations in Comparison

Presentation by Viola Burau/B Guy Peters:

Wednesday 26 May, 9-12am
Sartori and others have argued for the importance of conceptualization in comparative analysis. We will begin with Sartori’s work and discuss the alternatives to “classical categorization” that have become important for comparative analysis.
Workshop
Wednesday 26 May, 1-3pm

Key Readings

Giovanni Sartori, "Concept Misinformation in Comparative Research", American Political Science Review, 64 (1970), 1033-53.
Giovanni Sartori, "Comparing and Miscomparing", Journal of Theoretical Politics 3 (1991), 243-57.
R. Rose, Comparing Forms of Comparative Analysis, Political Studies 39 (1991), 446-62.
D. Collier and J. E. Mahon, "Conceptual 'Stretching' Revisited: Adapting Categories to Comparative Analysis", American Political Science Review 87 (1993), 845-55.
M. R. Somers, "What's Political or Cultural about Political Culture and the Public Sphere", Sociological Theory 13 (1995), 113-44.
D. Collier and S. Levistsky, "Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research, World Politics 49 (1997), pp, 430-51.
Alvarez et al., "Classifying Political Regimes...," Studies in Comparative International Development 31 (1996), 3-36.
A. Lijphart, Typologies of Democratic Systems, Comparative Political Studies 1 (1968), 3-44.
A. Marradi, "On Classification" in A. Bebler and J. Seroka, Contemporary Political Systems: Classifications and Typologies

The Case Method.

Presentation by Viola Burau/ B Guy Peters:

Thursday 27 May, 9-12am
A good deal fo comparative analysis is still done using the case method. We will discuss the nature of case analysis and methods such as “process tracing” that are intended to improve its utility.
Workshop
Thursday 27 May, 1-3pm

Key Readings

George, A. & Bennett, A. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences MIT Press, 2005
H. Eckstein, "Case Study and Theory in Political Science", in Greenstein and Polsby, Handbook of Political Science, V. 7
G. Munck, "Canons of Research Design in Qualitative Analysis", Studies in Comparative International Development 33 (1998), 18-45
J. Geering, What is a Case Study and What is it Good For?, American Political Science Review
98 (2004) 341-54.
Geering, J. (2007) Is There a (Viable) Crucial Case Method?, Comparative Political Studies 40, 231-53.

Aggregating Cases.

Presentation by Viola Burau/ BGuy Peters:

Friday 28 April, 9-12am
There is a huge body of existing case material that can be aggregated to make more definitive theoretical statements about underlying causal processes. We will discuss methods such as Boolean algebra and fuzzy sets that can be used for this purpose.
Workshop
Friday 28 April, 1-3pm

Key Readings

Ragin, C. Fuzzy-Set Social Science University Of Chicago Press, 2000, Chapters 1-4
Ragin, C. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies University of California Press, 1987. passim
Wickham-Crowley, T. Guerrillas and Revolution in Latin America: A Comparative Study of Insurgents and Regimes Since 1956 Princeton University Press, 1992. passim
J. Markoff, "A Comparative Method: Reflections on Charles Ragin's Innovations in Comparative Analysis, Historical Methods, 23 (1990), 177-81.

Post-secular conditions?

2198 Responsible: Christel Stormhøj and Anni Greve, The research group The significance of religion – from global to local. Department of Society and Globalisation, Roskilde University
From: 2010/05/29 to: 2010/06/02
Subscription Deadline: 2010/04/29
Place: Roskilde University
Fee: DKK 600,-
ECTS (Danish Ph.D. students only): 3 (2)
Further information: anni@ruc.dk

                                                                                                          Registration

Post-secular conditions?
Challenges to citizenship, democracy, law and social cohesion

Coordinators:
Christel Stormhøj and Anni Greve, The research group The significance of religion – from global to local. Department of Society and Globalisation, Roskilde University

Invited speakers
Bryan S. Turner, Professor at Wellesley College, US
Christel Stormhøj, Department of Society and Globalisation, Roskilde University
Lisbet Christoffersen, Department of Society and Globalisation, Roskilde University
Anni Greve, Department of Society and Globalisation, Roskilde University
Birte Siim, Research School – Welfare State and Diversity Aalborg University
Anders Berg Sørensen, Copenhagen University
Connie Carøe Christiansen, Department of Society and Globalisation, Roskilde University

Currently, the concepts of secularization and secularism are highly contested in the humanities and social sciences. Neither the concept of secularization, nor that of de-secularization is able to cover fully or to address our historical condition in all its dimensions. Moreover, the political doctrine of secularism, premised on the separation of powers, a separation that carves out a genuine political space said to be independent of religious norms, is questioned. Worldwide we are witnessing a resurgence of religion: faith communities and religious movements seem to be gaining political importance as contributors to the provision of moral, political and legal norms. Also in Europe, religious revivalism challenges the seemingly secular basis of the nation-states and their, albeit different, regimes for citizenship, democracy, law and social cohesion.

The three-day international and multidisciplinary Ph.d. course at Roskilde University brings together a number of analysts of religion and its entanglements with society in an attempt to highlight the idea of the post-secular and to assess the relationship between religion and politics in European welfare societies. It addresses new and innovative approaches for theorizing and conceptualizing secularization, secularism and the post-secular condition. Themes include: (1) New types of claim making from faith communities and religious movements as they seek recognition, in its relationship to the constituted separation between religion (private belief systems) and citizenship (public domain).  (2) The modern distinction between religious and secular categories, on the one hand, and theories about the intertwinement of religion and law on the other. (3) The role of cities as scene for religion as well as for secularisation phenomena. This gives rise to the following key research questions:

1. What are the contents, underlying assumptions and implications of the concepts of secularization and secularism'?
2. How may mediations between religiously and secular rooted values and perspectives be established in order to achieve a democratic consensus about common values?
3. Do such mediations require translations of religious vocabularies into a universal language to achieve democratic legitimacy?
4. How may the concept of ‘rule of law’ be defined in a new globalized and multi-religious context?
5. How does religion interact with secularisation phenomena of the modern great city?
6. What are the mechanisms behind culture trauma and citizens’ attachment to sanctuaries?

The Ph.D. course aims (i) to discuss the contents, underlying assumptions, and implications of the concepts of secularization and secularism; (ii) to investigate current conflicts about legal regulation, citizenship and human rights, gender and queer issues, political voice and representation as a series of mutual engagements of secular and religious discourses and practices.

Course format
The three-day event will involve a series of speakers presenting papers and organized into three thematic sessions

Thematic foci

• Religion, citizenship, and democracy

Contemporary European societies are characterized by multi-religiosity and the co-existence of religious and secular groups and citizens. Secularism, which advocates a separation of politics and religion with reference to ideals of tolerance, impartiality, universality, liberty, and equality, has established a common and independent ground for public deliberation and contestation. Minority and majority religious groupings challenge the separation that constitutes an opposition between religion (private belief systems) and political citizenship (public domain) as they seek to influence the foundations of the polity. Increasingly, conflicts between religious and secular worldview, values and practices arise, such as conflicts around religious symbols in public spaces, women’s and gay’s equality rights, the right to free speech and the universality of human rights. Key questions are: How may mediations between religiously and secular rooted values and perspectives be established in order to achieve a democratic consensus about common values? Do such mediations require translations of religious vocabularies into a universal language to achieve democratic legitimacy? Is secularism a precondition of democracy, or does the separation of religion and politics limits democratic processes? How can new citizenship identities that cut across the religious/secular divide be developed and on which common grounds?

• Religion and law relations

Western law is based on the normative approach of being secular, that is: without any religious influence. This understanding of law also seems to influence a global concept of ‘the rule of law’. This part of the course considers how modern distinctions between religious and secular categories, form the basis of models that regulate law & religion systems in the Nordic countries, in Europe and worldwide. Recognizing that state-building in post-secular times also have normative underpinnings opens for a post-secular recognition of possible intertwinements within these categories with the possible consequence of being able to explore a role of religion in public legal spheres. There is thus a need of rethinking relations between state and religion to understand the practical and principal changes within the content of different dimensions of the legal system, and to reflect on how the concept of ‘rule of law’ might be defined in a new globalized and multi-religious context, concepts like ‘(soft) legal pluralism’ comes into the scope here.

• Religion and the city

 The modern city is the place in which the dynamics of religious attachment are revealed and expressed with greatest intensity and at the same time the locus for an international culture. How these two aspects interact is at focus. On the one hand the negative and threatening dimension of this interrelatedness: Religious fundamentalism as connected to a wider social construction of faith communities transmitted by trans-national religious networks; locally with the risk of ghettoization and disengagement, and globally with the risk of terrorism. On the other hand the positive and enabling dimension of this interrelatedness: Belief, faith and sacredness recognized as collective phenomena of utmost importance in running also modern societies; in particular to demonstrate the enduring importance of sanctuaries for coming to terms with modernity. Key themes are: Large cities as hotspots for split loyalties and demands - Culture trauma and citizens attachment to sanctuaries - Memory, desire and the sacred - The impact of new places of worship on the urban space

Target group: European Ph.d. students within the field of sociology, law, culture studies, theology, gender studies, urban studies, and moral- and political philosophy

ECTS: Participation in the course: 3 ETCS

Presentation of paper: 2 ETCS (when the paper has been accepted)

Fee: DKK 600,- (around Euro 80,-). The fee covers refreshments,lunch all
days and a conference dinner.

Participants must themselves pay for travel costs, accommodation etc.

Deadlines: 
Registration and abstract: Not later than 29 April 2010
Paper: Not later than 14 May 2010.

Registration:
Click here

International and Multidisciplinary Ph.D. course, 31 May – 2 June 2010

Research School – Welfare State and Diversity

Roskilde University – Aalborg University

Time: May 31 – June 2 2010

Venue: Roskilde University, Universitetsvej 1, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark.

Accomodations:
Scandic Hotel - 7 km from Roskilde University - prices from 449 DKK

Motel Roskilde - 7 km from Roskilde University - prices from 300 DKK

Danholstel Roskilde - 7 km from Roskilde University - prices from 400 DKK

Social Network Analysis in Political Science

2214 Responsible: Dr Dimitrios C Christopoulos, Visiting Professor, CEPS/INSTEAD, Senior Lecturer, Department of Politics, Bristol - UWE. Associat professor Michael Strange, Department of society and globalisation, Roskilde University
From: 2010/11/22 to: 2010/11/26
Subscription Deadline: 2010/09/26
Place: Roskilde University
Fee: 100 Euro
ECTS (Danish Ph.D. students only): 5 (2,5)
Further information: bjerke@polforsk.dk

A formal network analysis perspective can be employed to understand political, economic and social organisations and individuals. The networks examined can be internal or external to institutional context; they can be formal or informal. Social Network Analysis (henceforth SNA) can be employed to:

• examine the interactions between nodes (actors, groups or institutions);

• measure the resource flows between nodes and

• measure the information flows between nodes.

SNA can also provide measures of the structural constraints of actors dependent not only on their own relations but also on the way other actors are related. Embedding actors within the set of their interactions allows for insights on the distribution of power and the effective influence of social and political action.

All social interaction can be viewed in network terms. This is because networks account for the relations between actors. Formal network analysis assists in examining individuals within their institutional context and relational contacts. Indeed some sociologists examine all interactions that relate to individuals, social groups or society as dependent on their networks (see Wellman, 1999).

The approach comprises a paradigm in as far as it is based on mathematical foundations of graph theory and the insights allowed by relational theories of social interaction. It is also a methodology that can be applied across scientific disciplines and has a well developed set of predominantly descriptive statistics. Most widely used are measures of centrality, density, transitivity, reciprocity and brokerage. Measures also examine the way groups cohere, fraction or cluster. Hundreds of algorithms are available for the examination of network properties (see the attached list of software).

SNA can be employed along other methodology tools in the study of political institutions and actors. It easily complements more traditional qualitative and quantitative techniques and is conducive to method triangulation.

Prelimary program

Monday Nov. 22
Introduction
Network analysis in the social sciences.
 Elementary graph theory.
 Theoretical foundations of employing network analysis.

 Tuesday Nov. 23
Applications and Examples
 Innovation dissemination.
 Political networks and influence.
 Social movements.
 Agency, leadership and entrepreneurship.

Wednesday Nov. 24
Software
UCINET
Netdraw
ORA
Pajek

Thirsday-Friday Nov. 25-26
Workshop Presentations
Participant presentations.

Dead-line for submitting paper?
Sunday Oct. 26

Participants that submit a paper will be preferred in case of overbooking. The paper should be 10-15 pages and must be relevant for using social network analysis. It may be a project description.

Participants that do not submit a paper will be reward 2,5 ECTS, only.

Preliminary literature

Burt, Ronald S. (2005). Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brandes, U. Erlebach T. (2005) Network Analysis Methodological Foundations.  Springer Verlag.
Carrington, P. J. J. Scott and S. Wasserman (eds) (2005) Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis.  Cambridge: CUP.
Christopoulos, D. (2006) ‘Relational Attributes of Political Entrepreneurs: A Network Perspective’ Journal of European Public Policy, August 2006, vol 13, n5 pp. 757-78.
Christopoulos, D. (2008) ‘The Governance of Networks: Heuristic or Formal Analysis?’ in Political Studies vol. 54, 2008.
Christopoulos, D. & L. Quaglia (2009) ‘Influence and Brokerage: Network Constraints in EU Banking Regulation’ (2009) Journal of Public Policy 29: 179-200.
Coleman, James (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Della Porta, Donatella and Diani, Mario (2006) Social Movements: An Introduction.  Blackwell Publishers.
Diani, Mario and McAdam, Doug eds. (2002) Social Movements and Networks: Relational Approaches to Collective Action.  Oxford University Press.
Johnson, J. and Orbach, M. (2002) “Perceiving the political landscape: ego biases in cognitive political networks” Social Networks Vol24, pp291-310.
Knoke, D. (1990) Political Networks; The Structural Perspective. Cambridge UP.
Knoke, David, Franz Urban Pappi, Jeffrey Broadbent and Yutaka Tsujinaka. (1996). Comparing Policy Networks: Labor Politics in the U.S., Germany, and Japan. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kriesi, H., Adam, S. & Jochum, M. (2006) ‘Comparative Analysis of Policy Networks in Western Europe’ Journal of European Public Policy vol.13/3, pp.341-361.
Lin, Nan. (2001). Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pappi, F. U. and Henning, C. 1999. “The Organization of Influence on the EC’s Common Agricultural Policy: A Network Approach.” European Journal of Political Research 36:257-281.
Punam, Robert (2000) Bowling Alone: the Collapse and Revival of American Community. NY: Simon & Schuster.
Scott, John (2000) Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. 2nd ed. Sage.
Stokman, F.N. and Van den Bos J.M. (1992) “A Two Stage Model of Policy Making with an Empirical Test in the U.S. Energy-Policy Domain”.  Research in Politics and Society 4:219-253.
Valente, Thomas W. (1995). Network Models of the Diffusion of Innovations. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Wasserman, s. and Faust, K. (1994) Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. CUP.