KVANTITATIV METODE 2012

2367 Responsible: Robert Klemmensen, Institut for Statskundskab, Syddansk Universitet Michael Bang Petersen, Institut for Statskundskab, Aarhus Universitet
From: 2012/04/26 to: 2012/06/07
Subscription Deadline: 2011/04/11
Place: Undervisningen foregår skiftevis i Odense og i Aarhus. Der undervises følgende torsdage (og en onsdag) fra klokken 10.00-15.00: Aarhus: 26. april 10. maj 24. maj 7. juni Odense: 3. maj 16. maj (bemærk: onsdag) 31. maj
ECTS (Danish Ph.D. students only): 10
Further information: AGG@ps.au.dk

Public Management: Theories and Contemporary studies

2329 Responsible: Associate Professor Karl Löfgren, Roskilde University, Associate Professor Patrik Hall, Malmö Högskola
From: 2012/05/21 to: 2012/05/24
Subscription Deadline: 2012/04/08
Place: Malmö Högskola
Fee: 150 Euro
ECTS (Danish Ph.D. students only): 5 (2.5)
Further information: sek@polforsk.dk

New Public Management (NPM) has been the far most debated “trend” in public governance for almost 30 years now. Although many writers have written its obituary, and claim that we have entered a post-NPM stage, fact remains that the concept still remains the strongest symbol for those changes that begun to evolve in the 1980s. As such, it is reason to believe that we will also in the future take a point of departure in our joint understanding of NPM when we discuss public sector reforms, changes in public governance, and new managerial methods and instruments in public administration.

While the concept as such was coined (by Hood, 1991) to compare contemporary reform initiatives across several countries, it has become an overarching (empty) signifier for both public sector reforms in industrialised societies, as well as a joint denominator for the employment of certain management techniques and tools, in particular concerning performance and quality assurance, in the public sector. Moreover, the notion is often linked to certain liberal and new-right ideologies.

This course is relevant for all PhD students are doing research in public sector reforms, changes in public organisations and issues concerning modern public service delivery. The course seeks to blend the conceptual discussion with the empirical question whether it still makes sense to discuss NPM in industralised countries.

Program

The complete program will be available soon

	Monday May 21	Tuesday May 22	Wedneday May 23	Thursday May 24
09.00 - 10.30	--	What happened to NPM in Australia and New Zealand? Jenny Lewis, Roskilde/Melbourne University	Paper presentations	Hybride organisations between public and private management. Hervé Corvellec, Lund University
10.30 - 11.00	--	Coffee break	Coffee break	Coffee break
11.00 - 12.30	Welcome – Introductory lecture. Karl Löfgren & Patrik Hall		The governmentality perspective on NPM. Peter Triantifillou, RUC
12.30 - 13.30	Lunch	Lunch	Lunch	Lunch
13.30 - 15.30	The state of NPM. Lecture by Janet Newman, UK	Paper presentations	Paper presentations	Paper presentations
15.30 - 16.00	Coffee break	Coffee break	Coffee break	Coffee break	--
16.00 - 17.30	Paper presentations	Professor, Hans Hasselbladh, Örebro University, SE	Paradoxes of welfare management. Niels Åkerstrøm, CBS	Conclusion and perspectives on NPM. Karl Löfgren & Patrik Hall	--
18:30	Dinner			Dinner

The arrangement will take place at Malmö Högskola:
Week 21, 2012                  Room:
	Mon	21 Maj	11:15-17:00			G8423		PhD Course GPS	2012-03-22
	Tue	22 Maj	09:15-17:00			G8324		PhD Course GPS	2012-03-21
	Wed	23 Maj	09:15-17:00			G8423		PhD Course GPS	2012-03-21
	Thur	24 Maj	09:15-17:00			G8305		PhD Course GPS	2012-03-21

Literature related to the lectures

Janet Newman's lecture:

• Newman, J.: Professionals, power and the reform of public services. Paper
• Newman, J. & Clarke, J.: Publics, Politics and Power - remaking the public in public services. Sage. 2009. The introduction.

Peter Triantafillou's lecture

• Dean, M., 1999. Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London: Sage Publications, pp. 149-175.
• Larner, W. and W. Walters, 2000. Privatisation, governance and identity: the United Kingdom and New Zealand compared. Policy and Politics, 28 (3): 361-377.
• McGreggor Cawley, R. and W. Chaloupka, 1997. American governmentality and the state: Michel Foucault and public administration. American Behavioral Scientist, 41 (1): 28-42.
  
• Osborne, T. (1997) 'Of health and statecraft', in: A. Petersen and R. Bunton (eds.) Foucault. Health and Medicine. London: Routledge, pp. 173-188.
  
• Power, M., 1997. The Audit Society. Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 41-68.
  
• Rose, N. 1999. Powers of Freedom. Cambridge University Press, pp. 15-60.
  
• Triantafillou, P. 2007. Benchmarking in the public sector: A critical conceptual framework, Public Administration, 85 (3): 829-846.
• Triantafillou, P. 2011. More of the same? The European Employment Strategy and the normalization of British employment policies, Critical Policy Studies, 5 (1): 1-16.

Jenny Lewis' lecture:

• Considine, M & Lewis, J. Bureaucracy, network, or enterprise? Comparing models of governance in Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, and New Zealand - Public Administration Review, 2003
• Considine, M & Lewis, J. Governance at ground level: The frontline bureaucrat in the age of markets and networks. Public Administration Review, 1999
• Considine, M. The corporate management framework as administrative science: a critique. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 1988
• Raadschelders, JCN. Understanding government: four intellectual traditions in the study of Public Administration - Public Administration, 2008
• Pollitt, C. Convergence: the useful myth? - Public administration, 2001
• Halligan, J. Reintegrating government in third generation reforms of Australia and New Zealand - Public Policy and Administration, 2007

Patrik Hall's roundtable lecture

• Brodkin, Evelyn Z. (2006). Bureaucracy Redux: Management Reformism and the Welfare State, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17(1): 1–17.
• Gregory, Robert (2007). New Public Management and the Ghost of Max Weber: Exorcized or Still Haunting?, in Christensen, Tom & Lægreid, Per (red.), Transcending New Public Management: The Transformation of Public Sector Reforms. Aldershot: Ashgate.
• Hasselbladh, Hans & Bejerot, Eva (2007). Webs of Knowledge and Circuits of Communication: Constructing Rationalized Agency in Swedish Health Care, Organization 14: 175–200.

• Hazledine, Tim & Quiggin, John (2006). No More Free Beer Tomorrow? Economic Policy and Outcomes in Australia and New Zealand since 1984, Australian Journal of Political Science 41(2): 145–159.
• Hood, Christopher & Peters, B. Guy (2004). The Middle Aging of New Public Management: Into the Age of Paradox?, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14(3): 267–282.
• Kelleher, Christine A. & Yackee, Susan Webb (2008). A Political Consequence of Contracting: Organized Interest and State Agency Decision Making, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(1): 124.
• McSweeney, Brendan (2006). Are We Living in a Post-Bureaucratic Epoch?, Journal of Organizational Change Management 19(1): 22–37.
• Meier, Kenneth J. & O’Toole, Jr, Laurence J. (2008). The Proverbs of New Public Management: Lessons From an Evidence-Based Research Agenda, The American Review of Public Administration 39(1): 4–22.
• Middleton, Chris (2000). Models of State and Market in the ‘Modernisation’ of Higher Education, British Journal of Sociology of Education 21 (4): 537–54.
• Reay, Trish & Hinings, C.R. (2009). Managing the Rivalry of Competing Institutional Logics, Organization Studies 30(6): 629–652.
• Skolnik, Michael L. (2010). Quality Assurance in Higher Education as a Political Process, Higher Education Management and Policy 22(1): 67–86.
• Timmermans, Stefan (2008). Professions and their Work: Do Market Shelters Protect Professional Interests? Work and Occupations 35(2): 164–188.

Karl Löfgren's lecture

• Hughes, Owen. What is, or was, New Public Management. IRSPM12. Brisbane 2008.
• Page S. What's new about the new public management? Administrative change in the human services - Public Administration Review, 2005
• Lynn, LE. The myth of the bureaucratic paradigm: What traditional public administration really stood for - Public Administration Review, 2001

Herve's lecture

• Corvellec, H., Hultman, J., Forthcoming. From Less Landfilling’ to ‘Wasting Less’ – Societal narratives, socio-materiality and organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management.

• Corvellec, H., Bramryd, T., Hultman, J., in press. The business model of solid waste management in Sweden–a case study of two municipally-owned companies. Waste Management & Research DOI: 10.1177/0734242X11427944.

• Hultman, J., Corvellec, H., Forthcoming. The waste hierarchy model: from the socio-materiality of waste to a politics of consumption Environment & Planning A.

This Ph.d course is funded by Polforsk and Interreg

STV9210 - NATO: Political Processes and International Role

2393 Responsible: Department of Political Science, University of Oslo / Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies, Norwegian Defence University College
From: 2012/05/29 to: 2012/06/01
Subscription Deadline: 2012/05/03
Place: Department of Political Science, University of Oslo
Fee: 0 ,-
Link to full program: here
ECTS (Danish Ph.D. students only): 10
Further information: g.s.ovregard@stv.uio.no

Using IPE to Understand Governance in a North-South Perspective: PhD Workshop and Public Seminar

2389 Responsible: Lise Ann Richley
From: 2012/05/31 to: 2012/06/01
Subscription Deadline: 2012/05/23
ECTS (Danish Ph.D. students only): 2
Further information: inge@ruc.dk

The speakers in this seminar have all published recent books in IPE that interrogate North-South relations in different and provocative ways. Whether considering institutional change, state relations, standardization and rule making, or governance between discourses and people, IPE shapes important questions, but it also must be informed by other critical perspectives if it is to maintain the ability to analyze the ongoing processes of globalization, its actors and implications.

The Department of Society and Globalisation offers a 2-Day PhD Workshop for all interested PhD students. (Ambitious Masters students are also invited if space permits).

Students should prepare a paper of 4000-5000 words for discussion as part of the workshop. These discussions will be closed to students and seminar faculty to insure open and coherent discussion of student work. PhD Students who present a paper will receive 2 ECTS points credit for the 2-day workshop. Papers must be sent by email to Inge Jensen (inge@ruc.dk) no later than Thursday the 17^th of May for distribution. All workshop participants will be expected to have read all student papers for fruitful discussion.

Speakers

Speakers:

• Professor Tim Shaw: Africa's Renaissance & the BRICS: More/Less Developmental versus Fragile/Failed States?

• Professor Stefano Ponte: Changing the Rules of North-South Governance: Standards, Stakeholders and Limitations of Regulation

• Professor Jane Parpart: Engendering (In)Security and Conflict: Toward a Critical IR of North-South Relations

Tim Shaw is a Visiting Professor at Aalborg University, Adjunct Professor at Carleton University, and Visiting Professor in the McCormack Graduate School at UMass in Boston. After teaching for three decades at Dalhousie he recently animated graduate & research programmes in Commonwealth Studies in London & International Relations in Trinidad. Tim has recently edited a series of books for Ashgate & Palgrave Macmillan on African IR, regional cooperation in the Western Hemisphere, New Regionalisms & public policy in Africa.

Jane Parpart is a Visiting Professor at Aalborg University, and Professor emeritus from Dalhousie where she taught in International Development Studies, Gender Studies and History. She has recently been graduate coordinator at the Institute for Gender and Development Studies at the University of the West Indies in Trinidad and Tobago. Her most recent writings have been on masculinities and the new wars; gender mainstreaming and gender, violence and IR theories of (in)security.

Stefano Ponte is Professor of International Political Economy at the Copenhagen Business School and Senior Researcher and Head of research unit at the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS). His areas of interest and publication include the role of celebrities, brands and consumption in development finance and intervention, and the changing role of Africa in the global economy. His recent books include Brand Aid: Shopping Well to Save the World and Governing through Standards: Origins, Drivers and Limitations.

Public Seminars and PhD Workshops - Program

EVENTS IN BOXES ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Thursday 31 May:

9.30-10.00 Coffee, cakes and registration

10.00-10.15 Welcome from Head of Dept. of Society and Globalisation, Gorm Rye Olsen

10.15-10.30 Introduction to the Graduate School, Program and Workshop Facilitators, Lisa Ann Richey

10.30-12.00 PhD student paper presentations in topic groups (closed to participants)

12.00-13.00 Lunch

13.15-14.00 Presentation--Tim Shaw: Africa's Renaissance & the BRICS: More/Less Developmental versus Fragile/Failed States?

14.00-15.00 Open Discussion, Peter Kragelund facilitator

15.00-15.30 Coffee break

16.00-17.30 PhD student paper presentations in topic groups (closed to participants)

19.30—DINNER IN COPENHAGEN

Friday 1 June

10.00-10.30 Summarizing Discussion from Day 1:

10.30-12.00 PhD student paper presentations in topic groups (closed to participants)

12.00-13.00 Lunch

13.15-14.00 Presentation- Stefano Ponte: Changing the Rules of North-South Governance: Standards, Stakeholders and Limitations of Regulation

14.00-15.00 Discussion, Laurids Lauridsen facilitator

15.00-15.15 Coffee

15.30-16.15 Presentation-Jane Parpart: Engendering (In)Security and Conflict: Toward a Critical IR of North-South Relations

16.15-17.00 Discussion, Laura Horn facilititator

17.00-17.15 Conclusion and official close of PhD seminar, Lisa Ann Richey

17.15-18.15 Reception for all Participants and Guests

19.30- Dinner in Copenhagen for ISG participants and guests

Practicalities:

Registration:
By email to Inge Jensen (inge@ruc.dk) no later than 16 April 2012. Please indicate your name, affiliation, year of study, and tentative title of your paper.

Cost:
The course is free of charge but registration is required for participating PhD and Masters students.

Food:
Coffee snacks and Lunches will be provided by the hosting institution during both days for participants.

Accomodation:
Student participants are responsible for their own accommodation.

Travel:
In order to reach Roskilde University (RUC) from Copenhagen Airport (Kastrup) you will need to pass through Copenhagen Central Station.

To get to Copenhagen Central Station take the train from the airport. The train information staff at Kastrup airport can inform you of tracks etc. when you buy your ticket. For travelling in central Copenhagen it is convenient to have a 7 zones ‘discount card’. One needs to stamp discount cards before boarding the train or bus.

Roskilde University is situated approximately 30 minutes by train from Copenhagen central station. One would also have to calculate 10-15 minutes for reaching the right place on campus from the train. Get off at Trekroner Station, which is the station before Roskilde. Make sure that the train you take stops at this station, not all trains do, information about this is available from screens on the platform. When arriving at Trekroner in the morning one would only have to ‘follow the crowd’ to reach the campus.

RUC’s website provides maps and directions as to route and times.

Useful links for travelling in the grater Copenhagen area (including Roskilde) are:

www.rejseplanen.dk (travel guide)

www.krak.dk (maps)

www.aok.dk (tourist, restaurant and events guide to Copenhagen)

For additional information, please contact Lisa Ann Richey, Director of the Graduate School at richey@ruc.dk, Graduate School of Society and Globalisation

In order to acquire ECTS, paper must be presented.

Software for analysis of qualitative data: MaxQDA

2390 Responsible: Polforsk
From: 2012/06/06 to: 2012/06/06
Subscription Deadline: 2012/05/20
Place: Roskilde University, Department of Society and Globalisation
Fee: -
Further information: bjerke@polforsk.dk

MaxQDA is a German CAQDAS (Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software) that has a clear and comprehensive architecture. This gives MaxQDA considerable advantages: It is relatively easy to learn basic use, but also to become familiar with advanced use. MaxQDA is also stable, swift, and easy to install.

MaxQDA is a very advanced piece of software and provide the functionality relevant for a Phd project.

Before the course the Participants are required to:

1. Bring a laptop with workable MaxQDA installed.
2. Have gone through the basic tutorials for MaxQDA: http://www.maxqda.com/videos/creating-a-project
   

This is to make the teaching as efficient as possible. If a relatively high level of competency should be aquired in one day, the participants must have a basic understanding of how MaxQDA works. There is no time for installation problems and technical help.  Dr. Christina Silver, University of Surrey is an international expert on using software in qualitative analysis of data. It is important that the participants utilise her expertise maximally.

Preliminary Program - Introduction day

June 6. 11am – 12.30am

1.00pm – 6.00pm

Christina Silver : Introduction to MaxQDA (Part One) 11am – 12.30am : Introduction Basic Principles : Powerpoint Presentation Overview Demonstration : Volunteering Project Installation 12.30am-1.00 pm Lunch 1.00 pm – 2.30pm : Getting started using sample interview data Module 1: Familiarize and project set up Familiarise with the interface and customise settings Create and save a project Data Preparation: recognizable units of context Making folders, blank documents, memos Importing interview data, make cases

2.45pm – 4.15pm : Organising, exploring and commenting on data Module 2: Getting Started with sources 2.1. Case nodes and attributes 2.2. Explore data : making annotations 2.3. Making analytic memos 4.30pm - 6.00pm : Categorising data Module 3: Nodes and coding 3.1. creating codes deductively and inductively 3.2. coding textual data 3.3. retrieving coded data 3.4. coded data – recoding – uncoding

Litterature

• Ann Lewins and Christina Silver, 2007: Using Software in Qualitative Research. Sage. Chapters 1 – 8.

Follow-up day late September or early October

Research Design for Political Science 2012

2383 Responsible: Kasper Møller Hansen, Inst. for Statskundskab, KU
From: 2012/06/27 to: 2012/06/29
Subscription Deadline: 2012/04/08
Place: University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen
Fee: 60 Euro
ECTS (Danish Ph.D. students only): 3
Further information: sek@polforsk.dk

This three days PhD course give an intense overview of fundamental research designs in political science. The course starts out with the discussion of causality and how causality can be applied in different fields and across different of methods within the discipline of political science. Case studies and case selection are discussed the final day of the course.

Literature:

Gerring, John (2012) Social Science Methodology: A Unified Framework (2. ed.) Cambridge University Press.

Gerring, John (2007) Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge University Press.

Agenda for course

Each day will be carried out as lectures and discussions in the morning and feedback from John Gerring on research papers in the afternoon. Papers must be distributed one week prior to course start.

DAY ONE: Causality

Reading: Social Science Methodology, 2d ed, chs 3-4, 8-10

What is a causal argument? The topic defined.

What is a good causal argument? The criteria pertaining to social science argumentation.

Causal analyses

What is a causal (treatment) effect?

What are the criteria of a good research design?

Causal strategies: X and Y

Randomized designs

Nonrandomized designs

DAY TWO: Moving beyond X and Y

Reading: Social Science Methodology, 2d ed, chs 11-13

Causal strategies

Conditioning on confounders

Instrumental variables

Mechanisms

Alternate outcomes

Causal heterogeneity

Rival hypotheses

Robustness tests

Causal reasoning

Varying approaches to causal inference

Causal-process observations

Causes of effects

Necessary/sufficient causal arguments

Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA)

Concluding thoughts

Qualitative versus quantitative

Culturalism versus rationalism

Models of causality

The covering-law model

The potential-outcomes model

Pluralism and monism

A unified account

Setting standards

DAY THREE: Case studies

Reading: Case Study Research (entire)

What is a case study?

What is a case study good for? Case study and non-case study research designs contrasted.

How does one choose a case, or a small set of cases, for intensive analysis? Case-selection.

What methods of analysis are appropriate for case study work?

An experimental template.

Process-tracing.

C2. Process Tracing Methodology

2395 Responsible: Derek Beach is an Associate Professor at the University of Aarhus. His substantive research has focused upon EU integration, on which he has published one book, an edited volume, and numerous articles and chapters. He has co- authored a book on Process Tracing methodology that will be published in 2012 (University of Michigan Press), and has published several book chapters on Process Tracing.
From: 2012/07/30 to: 2012/08/03
Subscription Deadline: 2012/07/01
Place: University of Aarhus, Denmark
Further information: derek@ps.au.dk

This introductory course to Process Tracing aims to give the participant an understanding of the ontological and
epistemological foundations of Process Tracing methods, but most importantly, the aim is to enable the participant to
utilize Process Tracing methods in their own research by providing a set of practical research tools.
       In comparison to other research methods such as large-N correlation-based analysis and comparative methods,
process-tracing as a distinct method involves research where, ‘The cause-effect link that connects independent
variable and outcome is unwrapped and divided into smaller steps; then the investigator looks for observable evidence
of each step.’ (Van Evera 1997:64).
       The promise of process-tracing as a methodological tool is that it enables the researcher to study more-or-less
directly the causal mechanism(s) linking an independent variable (or set of variables) and an outcome, allowing us to
open up the ‘black box’ of causality itself. A classic example from medical science is scholarship on the association
between smoking and cancer. While a strong empirical correlation had been well established for many years, it was
only recently that medical scientists using techniques analogous to Process Tracing have provided strong proof that a
biological mechanism actually exists that causally links smoking and cancer (Bunge 1997). Within political science
methodology, Process Tracing is arguably the only method that allows us to study causal mechanisms, allowing us to
understand how an X (or set of X’s) produces Y instead of simply studying correlations and associations, and therefore
is an ‘...invaluable method that should be included in every researcher’s repertoire.’ (George and Bennett 2005:224).

       The course starts by differentiating Process Tracing from other methods; including both large-n quantitative,
frequentist methods, but also other small-n methods such as analytical narratives, comparative case studies etc. Here
we define Process Tracing by the interest in studying causal mechanisms in single case studies. We discuss the three
overall variants of Process Tracing: theory-testing, theory-builiding, and explaining outcome PT.
       This is followed by a session that discusses the ontological and epistemological debates about the nature of
causal mechanisms. Topics include how we should understand causal mechanisms (as intervening variables or
systems) in Process Tracing research, and whether we can directly observe causal mechanisms. Participants will be
asked to discuss the understanding of causality that they adopt in their own research.
       Day 2 starts with a session that introduces the Bayesian logic of inference that underpins Process Tracing,
contrasting it with both the frequentist/statistical and comparative logics of inference. Drawing on day 1, we will also
discuss the broader logic of single case research designs, and what types of inferences can be drawn based upon them.
The workshop then turns to the more practical, how-to aspects of Process Tracing, where we will work on translating
an abstract theorized causal mechanism into a set of observable implications that can be empirically assessed. The
second session of Day 2 deals with the theoretical conceptualisation phase, where a theory is developed into a
theorized causal mechanism that can explain how X produces Y. Participants will be asked to translate a theory from
their own research into a theorised causal mechanism.
       Day 3 discusses how to operationalised causal mechanisms, in other words, how causal mechanisms can be
studied empirically. Themes that will be introduced include techniques for assessing the strength of the test of the
presence/absence of a particular part of a mechanism, and logics of confirmation and falsification. Participants will be
asked to develop ‘tests’ of the observable implications of the existence of theorized causal mechanism from their own
research. The second session discusses challenges of gathering and working with different types of evidence in
Process Tracing scholarship. We focus upon archival material, elite interviews, and secondary historical sources. This
includes questions such as how should we evaluate bias, what is a ‘good’ source, and how we deal with bias in
secondary historical work.
       The first session of Day 4 turns to questions of case selection, and in particular how the strategies differ from
broader case selection research strategies in qualitative methodology. Participants will be asked to discuss the cases
they select in their own research, and why these cases have been chosen. The second session of Day 4 will involve a
workshop where you attempt to apply the guidelines for PT for the different steps of the research process on your own
PhD project.
       Day 5 first details the debate about how we can engage in mixed-method research, and in particular how we can
combine the insights gained from a Process Tracing case study with research undertaken using other methods. The
final session will bring together the key themes, discussing the strengths and weaknesses of Process Tracing. In what
research situations can Process Tracing methods be fruitfully employed? When it is inappropriate to use Process
Tracing? How can Process Tracing studies be combined in mixed-methods research designs?
       The readings for the course include a forthcoming book authored by Beach and Pedersen, along with central
articles and chapters. It is expected that participants bring draft material from their own research, including a theory
that can be translated into a causal mechanism, along with reflections upon their case selection strategy (which cases
are to be selected?).

 Day-to-day schedule

- Week 1
           Topic(s) Details [NB : incl. timing of lecture v/s lab or fieldwork etc. hours]

Day 1 Monday Mix (90 min general introduction to the topic)
           Introduction to Process Tracing (what it is and what it is not)
           What are causal mechanisms? (2nd morning session)
           Causal inference and Process Tracing (1st morning session)

Day 2 Working with theories (2nd morning session)
           Developing empirical tests (1st morning session)

Day 3 Gathering and working with evidence (2nd morning session)
           Case selection and Process Tracing (1st morning session)

Day 4 Process Tracing project (developing a research design)
           Combining Process Tracing with other methods (1st morning)

Day 5 Combining Process Tracing with other methods (1st morning)

          Using Process Tracing methods in practice (2nd morning)

Day-to-day reading list
- Week 1
          Readings (please read at least the compulsory reading for the scheduled day)
         

Day 1 Monday Morning „Mix“ (introduction)

          King, Keohane and Verba (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference
              in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 208-230.
          Bennett (2008) ‘Process-Tracing: A Bayesian Perspective.’, in Janet M. Box-
              Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady and David Collier (eds.) The Oxford Handbook
              of Political Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 702-721.
          Beach and Pedersen (forthcoming) Process Tracing: An Introduction. Ann
              Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Chapters 1 and 2.
          Blatter and Blume (2008) ‘In Search of Co-variance, Causal Mechanisms or
              Congruence? Towards a Plural Understanding of Case Studies.’, Swiss Political
              Science Review, 14(2): 315-356.
          2nd Morning (causal mechanisms)
          Beach and Pedersen (forthcoming) Process Tracing: An Introduction. Ann
              Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Chapter 3.
          Gerring (2010) ‘Causal Mechanisms: Yes, But...’, Comparative Political Studies,
              43(11): 1499-1526.
          Hedström and Ylikoski (2010) ‘Causal Mechanisms in the Social Sciences.’,
              Annual Review of Sociology, 36: 49-67.
         

Day 2, 1st Morning (causal inference)

          King, Keohane and Verba (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference
              in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 75-99.
          Beach and Pedersen (forthcoming) Process Tracing: An Introduction. Ann
              Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Chapter 5.
          Howson and Urbach (2006) Scientific Reasoning: the Bayesian Approach.
              Third Edition. La Salle, Il: Open Court. Chapter 4.
          2nd Morning (working with theories)
          Adcock and Collier (2001) ‘Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for
              Qualitative and Quantitative Research.’, American Political Science Review,
              Vol. 95, No. 3, pp. 529–546.
          Beach and Pedersen (forthcoming) Process Tracing: An Introduction. Ann
              Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Chapter 4.
          Owen (1994) ‘How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace.’, International
              Security, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Fall 1994) pp. 87-125).
         
Day 3, 1st Morning (empirical tests)

          Beach and Pedersen (forthcoming) Process Tracing: An Introduction. Ann
              Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Chapter 6.
          Tannenwald (1999) ‘The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the
              Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-Use’, International Organization, 53(3): 433-
              468.
          2nd Morning (gathering and working with evidence)
          Beach and Pedersen (forthcoming) Process Tracing: An Introduction. Ann
              Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Chapter 7.
          Lustick (1996) ’History, Historiography and Political Science.’, APSR, 90(3),
              pp. 605-618.
          Trachtenberg (2006) The Craft of International History. Princeton: Princeton
              University Press. Chapter 5.
          Tonsey (2007) ‘Process Tracing and Elite Interviewing: A Case for Non-
              probability Sampling.’, PS, 40(4): 765-772.

     
Day 4, 1st Morning (case selection)

      Gerring (2007) Case Study Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
          pp. 86-150.
      Lieberman (2005) ‘Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for
          Comparative Research.’, American Political Science Review, Vol. 99, No. 3, pp.
          435-451.
      Beach and Pedersen (forthcoming) Process Tracing: An Introduction. Ann
          Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Chapter 8.
      2nd Morning (work on research project) – no readings

Day 5, 1st Morning (combining methods)

      Rohlfing, Ingo (2008) ‘What You See and What You Get: Pitfalls and Principles
          of Nested Analysis in Comparative Research.’, Comparative Political Studies,
          41(11): 1492-1514.
      Khong (1992) Analogies at War. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp.
          47-68, 97-147 (skim the later selection).
      2nd Morning (using PT in practice) – no readings

Requested prior knowledge
Some background knowledge of qualitative case study methods will be helpful, in particular the debate between
scholars who argue that there is only one logic of scientific inquiry (e.g. King, Keohane and Verba, 1994) and
qualitative scholars who contend that there are important differences between quantitative and qualitative methods
(e.g. George and Bennett, 2005; Brady and Collier, 2010; Mahoney, 2008). If you are unfamiliar with these debates, I
would suggest skimming the chapters in the Brady and Collier edited volume (in particular chapters 1, 2, 9).

Software used
None

Literature
Beyond the above course literature, the following are cited above.
Brady, Henry E. & David Collier (eds.) (2010) Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Second
Edition. Lanham, MD: Rowman Littlefield.
George, Alexander L. & Bennett, Andrew (2005) Case studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences
Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: MIT Press.
Mahoney, James (2008) ‘Toward a Unified Theory of Causality.’, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 41, No. 4/5,
pp. 412-436.

Lecture room requirement
A seminar room that is conducive to extensive discussions with participants is preferred over a traditional
lecture room. A blackboard or whiteboard along with Powerpoint is mandatory.

CANCELLED. Polforsk summer school - stream 1: Political Behaviour

2357 Responsible: Rune Stubager (Associate Professor, Political Science, Aarhus University) and Kasper M. Hansen (Professor, Political Science, University of Copenhagen)
From: 2012/08/20 to: 2012/08/23
Subscription Deadline: 2012/04/20
Place: Torvehallerne, Vejle: Kirketorvet 12, 7100 Vejle
Fee: 3500 kr.
ECTS (Danish Ph.D. students only): 4½
Further information: KMH@ifs.ku.dk

Preliminary Program

Questions about citizens; political behaviour have for decades been at the core of the Political Science discipline. Issues like the formation of citizens opinions, citizen participation in elections, their voting behaviour, and how this is affected; if at all; by election campaigns have attracted a lot of scholarly attention in many different contexts. Thus, the field of political behaviour is in fast development and has grown tremendously over the more than 60 years that have passed since the seminal studies were published. A full survey is, therefore, impossible within the confines of the summer school, but the course focuses on several core questions that have dominated the field.

The first topic covered by the course is the formation of core values (sometimes referred to as ideologies) in the individual. Special emphasis will be on mechanisms of socialization. Next we discuss whether and how such values together with information is employed by citizens when forming opinions; i.e. how the psychological micro-processes of opinion formation work. Citizens do not, however, form their opinions in isolation from the rest of society. Therefore, we also discuss how external influences may affect citizens opinion formation through processes such as framing and media effects. We then turn to the topic of why citizens turn out to vote, and how their voting decisions are affected by stable factors such as class position and party identification. Factors of less stable character have also been found to influence the vote and, hence, we subsequently discuss the role of single issues including the central issue of the economy. Finally, we look into how, and to what extent, electoral campaigns influence voters.
The general approach of the course is to combine a reading of the classic works of the field with highlights of recent scholarship for each of the topics covered. The classics contain many leads that subsequent research has picked up and they are, therefore, vital to an understanding of these recent developments, just as the can serve as inspiration for future research. Apart from the lectures, the course will engage participants through paper presentation, the roll as discussants, and small talks over key works within the field. Thus, participants are expected to present some of there own work-in-progress; during the course. This could be in the form of papers, PhD-project proposals, or chapters from PdD-monographs (with special introduction for the readers). Work presented should not exceed 10,000 words all included.

Programme and readings:

Monday August 20:

11-12: Track intro and overview: What is comparative political behaviour (history of the field – state of the field), and how can it be studied?

Bartels, Larry (2010). ‘The Study of Electoral Behavior’. I Leighley, Jan E. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of American Elections and Political Behavior, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 239–261. (23)

Dalton, Russell and Hans-Dieter Klingemann (2008). ‘Citizens and Political Behavior’. In Russell Dalton and Hans-Dieter Klingemann (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3-29. (27)

Hillygus, D. Sunshine (2012). ‘The Practice of Survey Research: Changes and Challenges’. In Adam J. Berinsky (ed.) New Directions in Public Opinion. London: Routledge, pp. 32-51. (20)

Sears, David O. (2012). ‘Conclusion: Assessing Continuity and Change’. In Adam J. Berinsky (ed.) New Directions in Public Opinion. London: Routledge, pp. 292-310. (18)

13.30-15: Ideologies and/or basic values and their formation

Lipset, Seymor Martin (1981). Political Man. The Social Bases of Politics. Expanded edn. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Chapter 4 and pp. 476-488. (53)

Houtman, Dick (2001). ‘Class, Culture, and Conservatism. Reassessing Education as a Variable in Political Sociology’. In Clark, Terry N. & Lipset, Seymour M. (eds), The Breakdown of Class Politics, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 161–195. (35)

Inglehart, Ronald (1997). Modernization and Postmodernization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Chapter 5. (29)

Stubager, Rune (2008). ‘Education effects on authoritarian-libertarian values – A question of socialization’. British Journal of Sociology 59(2): 327-50. (24)

Sears, David O. and Sheri Levy (2003). ‘Childhood and Adult Political Development’. In David O. Sears, Leonie Huddy, and Robert Jervis (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 60-110. (50)

Federico, Christopher M. (2012). ‘Ideology and Public Opinion’. In Adam J. Berinsky (ed.) New Directions in Public Opinion. London: Routledge, pp. 79-100. (22)

15-18: Paper presentation with assigned discussants

Tuesday August 21:

9-10:30: Public Opinion I: The individual (psychological) underpinnings (information processing)

Krosnick, J. A., Visser, P. S., & Harder, J. (2009). The psychological underpinnings of political behavior. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology. New York, NY: John Wiley. (55).

http://comm.stanford.edu/faculty/krosnick/Handbook%20of%20Social%20Psychology.pdf

Lodge, M., McGraw, K., & Stroh, P. (1989). An impression - driven model of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review. 83 , 399– 420.(21)

Lodge, M., M. R. Steenbergen, and S. Brau (1995). "The Responsive Voter - Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation", American Political Science Review, Vol. 89, No. 2, pp. 309-326. (17)

Popkin, S L. Information, Participation, and Choice, Ann Arbor The University Michigan Press. chapter 1. (15)

Zaller, John R. (1992) The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Selected chapters 1-3. (40)

10:30-12: Paper presentation with assigned discussants

13.30-15: Public Opinion II: External influences: Framing, priming, media effect

Chong D. & Druckman, J. N. (2010) Dynamic Public Opinion: Communication Effects over Time . American Political Science Review Vol. 104(4): 663-680. (17)

Campbell, A., P. Converse, W. Miller, and D. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley. Selection sections (30)

Lazarsfeld, P.F., B. Berelson, and H. Gaudet. 1968. The People’s Choice. 3rd ed. New York: Columbia University Press. Selection sections (30)

Scheufele and Iyengar, The State of Framing Research: A Call for New Directions;

Christoffer Green-Pedersen and Rune Stubager, “The political conditionality of mass media influence: When do parties follow mass media attention”

Iyengar et al., “Selective Exposure to Campaign Communication: The Role of Anticipated Agreement and Issue Public Membership. JOP.

Iyengar & Kinder (1989) News That Matters: Television and American Opinion, Chapters 3 & 7.

15-18: Paper presentation with assigned discussants

Wednesday August 22:

9-10:30: Turnout - rational, socialization and norms?

Bhatti & Hansen (2011) Leaving the nest and the social act of voting - revisiting the relationship between age and turnout among first-time voters. Under review. (30)

Blais, A. (2005) What Affects Voter Turnout? Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2006. 9:111–25. (24).

Christakis, N.A., & J.H. Fowler. 2009. Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives. New York: Little, Brown and Company. (20)

Nickerson, D.W. 2008. “Is voting contagious? Evidence from two field experiments.” American Political Science Review 102 (1): 49–57. (8)

Riker, W.H. & Ordeshook, P.C. (1968). A theory of the calculus of voting, American Political Science Review 62: 25–43. (18)

Zuckerman, A.S. 2005. “Returning to the Social Logic of Political Behavior.” In The social logic of politics: personal networks as contexts for political behavior, ed. A.S. Zuckerman. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 3–19. (16).

10:30-12: Paper presentation with assigned discussants

13.30-15: Voting I: Electoral participation and the stable influences on voting KMH/RS

Kriesi Hanspeter; Edgar Grande; Romain Lachat; Martin Dolezal; Simon Bornschier; Timotheos Frey (2008). West European Politics in the Age of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3-20. (18)

Stubager, Rune (2010) ‘The Development of the Education Cleavage: Denmark as a Critical Case’. West European Politics 33(3): 505-33. (28)

Brooks, Clem; Paul Nieuwbeerta and Jeff Manza (2006). ‘Cleavage-based voting behavior in cross-national perspective: Evidence from six postwar democracies’. Social Science Research, 35(1), 88-128. (31)

Clark, Terry Nichols; Seymour Martin Lipset and Michael Rempel (1993). ‘The Declining Political Significance of Social Class’. International Sociology, 8 (3): 293-316. (25)

Evans, Geoffrey (2000). ‘The Continued Significance of Class Voting’. Annual Review of Political Science 3: 401-417. (17)

Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller & Donald E. Stokes (1960). The American Voter. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Chapter 6. (26)

Lewis-Beck, Michael; William G. Jacoby; Helmut Norpoth; Herbert F. Weisberg (2008). The American Voter Revisited. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Chapter 6. (27)

Berglund, Frode; Sören Holmberg; Hermann Schmitt, and Jacques Thomassen (2005). ‘Party Identification and Party Choice’. In Jacques Thomassen (ed.) The European Voter. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 106-124. (19)

15-17: Voting II: The rational voter? Issue voting, economic voting and effect of institutions

Bélanger, Éric and Bonnie M. Meguid (2008). ‘Issue salience, issue ownership, and issue-based vote choice’, Electoral Studies, vol. 27 (3): 477-491. (15)

Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller & Donald E. Stokes (1960). The American Voter. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Chapter 8. (21)

Downs, Anthony (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York NY: Harper and Row. Chapter 8. (27)

Green, Jane & Hobolt, Sara Binzer (2008). ‘Owning the Issue Agenda: Party Strategies and Vote Choices in British Elections’. Electoral Studies 27: 460-476. (17)

Lewis-Beck; Michael; William G. Jacoby; Helmut Norpoth; Herbert F. Weisberg (2008). The American Voter Revisited. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Chapter 8. (40)

Petrocik, John R. (1996). ”Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study”, American Journal of Political Science, 40 (3): 825–850. Primarily pp. 825-831. (7)

Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller & Donald E. Stokes (1960). The American Voter. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Chapter 14. (21)

Lewis-Beck, Michael; William G. Jacoby; Helmut Norpoth; Herbert F. Weisberg (2008). The American Voter Revisited. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Chapter 13. (24)

Lewis-Beck, Michael and Richard Nadeau (2011). ‘Economic voting theory: Testing new dimensions’. Electoral Studies, 30 (2): 288-294. (7).

Lewis-Beck, Michael and Éric Bélanger (2011). Economics and Elections Revisited. Paper presented at the ECPR General Conference, Reykjavik, August 2011. (app. 20).

Achen, C. H. & Bartels, L. (2008) Blind Retrospection - Electoral Responses to Drought, Flu, and Shark Attacks. Paper (20).

17-18: Paper presentation with assigned discussants

Thursday August 23:

9-10:30: Electoral Campaigning

Hillygus, D.S. (2010) “Campaign Effects on Vote Choice,” Oxford Handbook on Elections and Political Behavior. J. Leighly and G. C. Edwards III, eds. Oxford University Press. (s. 10)

Hillygus, D.S. & T. Shields. (2009) The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns. Princeton University Press. Selection section s (50)

Hansen, K.M. & Pedersen, R. T. (2011) The Political Empowerment through Political Campaigning. Paper (20)

Hansen, K.M. & Kosiara-Pedersen, K. (2011) Why are voters floating during campaigns in multiparty systems? Paper (20)

10:30-12: Keynote by Professor Michael Lewis-Beck

For further information:

http://polforsk.dk/course_full_view?nn=2343

CANCELLED: Polforsk summer school - stream 3: Public Policy: Explaining policy change

2359 Responsible: Michael Baggesen-Klitgaard (Associate Professor, Political Science, University of Southern Denmark) and Christoffer Green-Pedersen (Professor, Political Science, Aarhus University)
From: 2012/08/20 to: 2012/08/23
Subscription Deadline: 2012/04/20
Place: Torvehallerne, Vejle: Kirketorvet 12, 7100 Vejle
Fee: 3500 kr.
ECTS (Danish Ph.D. students only): 4½
Further information: mbk@sam.sdu.dk

Thematic outline of the Public Policy Stream

Explaining public policy developments remain a central issue within political science, and the discussion about public policy determinants, policy change and stability figures prominently on the scholarly agenda. The public policy stream of the Danish Ph.d. summer school engage in particular with the discussion about the determinants of modern public policy developments. Central questions to discuss in this stream are, for example, whether partisanship continues to matter for policy formation in advanced democracies also in the era of demising class politics; the impact of political institutions on the development, or non-development, of policy programs; the role policy ideas, learning and knowledge plays for the facilitation of policy adoption and policy change; and the relationship between agenda-dynamics and stability and change. There is, in short, a wide range of theories that are central to discuss and elaborate to understand public policy in advanced nations. It is the ambition of this stream to cover most of these theoretical issues.

Deciding upon a theoretical perspective to analyze public policy is important to any policy research project. But just as important are the methodological decisions about how to define the dependent variable, how it should be researched and measured, the type of data that should be collected in order to answer properly the raised questions. It is the intention of this stream also to create a forum for the discussion of this type of questions. Hence, we invite papers to the stream that confronts the various theoretical and methodological challenges associated with the study of public policy regardless of whether the focus is on analyzing the processes of policy making or the study of policy outcomes. The stream consists of lectures and discussions addressing the theoretical and methodological issues on which the stream is focusing, facilitated by the coordinaters and two keynotes with specific expertise in the subject matter. But it is also central for the stream to offer participants an opportunity to present papers and own work in order to have things discussed in an open atmosphere. And we welcomes all kind of papers; from a few pages that presents the ideas and general thoughts of recently started Ph.d.-projects, to the more polished papers almost ready for submission.

Outline of the Program

Monday

9.00-11.00: Check-in, welcomes and introduction: Common for the Summer school

11.00-12.00: Christoffer Green-Pedersen: Public policy as the dependent variable in comparative political analysis

12.00-13.30: Lunch break

13.30-15.00: Keynote I: Giuliano Bonoli: How much do institutions matter? Stability and convergence in social policy making in OECD countries"

15.00-18.00: Paper presentations

Literature:

• Bonoli, G. (2010). "The political economy of active labour market policies." Politics & Society 38(4): 435-457.

• Green-Pedersen, Christoffer (2004) “The Dependent Variable Problem within the Study of Welfare-State Retrenchment: Defining the problem and looking for solutions, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 6 (1), 3-14.

• Jordan, Andrew et al. (eds.) (2012) Dismantling Public Policy, Oxford, Oxford University Press

Tuesday

9.00-11.00: Michael Baggesen Klitgaard: Reforming public policy beyond class politics

11.00-12.00: Paper presentation

12.00-13.30: Lunch break

13.30-15.00: Key note II: Patrick Marier: Sources of Expertise in Executive Styles and Their Impact on the Policy Making Process: Evidence from Canada

15.00-18.00: Paper presentations

Literature

• Elmelund-Præstekær, Christian & Michael Baggesen Klitgaard (forthcoming). “Policy or Institution? The Political Choice of Retrenchment Strategy”, Journal of European Public Policy

• Hausermann, Silja (2010). “Solidarity with whom? Why Organized labour is losing ground in Continental pension politics”, European Journal of Political Research 49: 223-256

• Starke, Peter (2006). “The Politics of Welfare State Retrenchment: A Literature Review”, Social Policy & Administration, 40:1, 104-120.

Wednesday

9.00-11.00: Michael Baggesen Klitgaard: Public policy and the struggle for power

11.00-12.00: Paper Presentation

12.00-13.30: Lunch break

13.30-15.00: Christoffer Green-Pedersen: Parties, policies and agenda setting

15.00-18.00

Literature

• Hacker, Jacob S. & Paul Pierson (2010) “Winner-Take-All Politics: Public Policy, Political Organization, and the Precipitous Rise of Top Incomes in the United States”, Politics & Society 38(2): 152-204.

• Klitgaard, Michael Baggesen (2007). “Social Democracy and Market Oriented Welfare State Reforms”, West European Politics 30(1): 172-94.

• Baumgartner, Frank R., Bryan D. Jones & John Wilkerson (2011) ”Comparative Studie of Policy Dynamics”, Comparative Political Studies, 44(8), 947-972.

• Green-Pedersen, Christoffer & Jesper Krogstrup (2008), ”Immigration as a political issue in Denmark and Sweden”, European Journal of Political Research, 47(5) 610-638.

Thursday

9.00-11.00: Michael Baggesen Klitgaard & Christoffer Green-Pedersen: Data and methodology in policy research

11.00-12.00: Paper presentation

12.00-13.30: Lunch break

Literature:

• Nørgaard, Asbjørn Sonne (2008)” Political Science: Witchcraft or Craftsmanship? Standards for Good Research, World Political Science Review 4(1), 1-28

For further information:

http://polforsk.dk/course_full_view?nn=2343

Polforsk Phd-course:: Public Administration: Organising the public sector

2360 Responsible: Bente Bjørnholt (AAU) & Bodil Damgaard (RUC)
From: 2012/08/20 to: 2012/08/23
Subscription Deadline: 2012/05/20
Place: Roskilde University
Fee: 100 Euro
ECTS (Danish Ph.D. students only): 4½
Further information: bodam@ruc.dk

Preliminary Program

Theme and aim

Contemporary public administration is governed by mixes of hierarchical orders, market mechanisms, interactive networks, and forms of self-organisation and self-governing. Often reforms of the public sector/public administration are justified (at least rhetorically) in the name of efficiency, effectiveness, and innovation and they aim to capture the ‘best way of organising’. Different modes of governance and management are, however, based upon deviating premises, distinct understandings of the state, as well as different expectations regarding policy instruments, their use, and consequences. The use of conflicting principles and instruments often leaves it to public servants to navigate in complexity. Moreover, enhanced efficiency, effectiveness, and innovation are by no means always the outcome of reforms.

The purpose of this stream is to discuss and further our understanding of key elements of contemporary public administration carried out in public sector reforms. We wish to provide empirical and theoretical knowledge about changing modes of governance and management and we are interested in conceptualising and explaining the appearance and consequences of these modes.

The stream is designed to contrast and discuss two different understandings of the challenges and tasks of governing modern states which we have labelled “The performance movement” and “Governmentality”. The former addresses the way in which public management gradually seems to reform into systems of performance measurement and decentralised decision-making. The latter parts from a substantially different analysis of how societal steering takes place and hence a different view on the use of tools and instruments placing particular emphasis on self-governing and self-organising and the way in which management accounting and calculation regimes shape such endeavours. We discuss consequences and potentials of the two understandings applied to contemporary public administration in relation to political processes, political goals (e.g. redistribution of wealth or innovation), organisational and individual constructions, identities, performance, and the interaction between organisations and their environment (e.g. citizens and politicians).

Structure of stream

The stream is structured as follows. We set the scene by sketching the intellectual history of public administration examining paradigms of steering characterising the development of public administration/public sector reforms, discussing main empirical and theoretical challenges and comparing different modes of governance and management. The next two sections offer discussions on two broad responses to the current challenges of public sector administration and reform and their analysis: In section two we explore the performance movement and in section three we dig into the concept of governmentality. Finally, we offer some conjectures of future public management principles and reforms. Though out our days together there will be paper presentations and discussions.

Papers, inputs and suggestions

We welcome papers and chapter drafts¹ providing empirical investigations and theoretical perspectives discussing the development of governance and management reforms within the public sector and their consequences for different policy areas, organisations, professions, individuals, etc. We are interested in variation of governance and management and invite contribution to both conceptualise the variety and complexity of public sector reforms, explain their initiation and their consequences.

The concrete themes and priorities of the stream will depend on the incoming papers. Participants are furthermore encouraged to suggest specific topics, literature, approaches, theories, or other that they would like being addressed in the lectures and in the follow-up sessions of discussion. We are also open for suggestions regarding how to organise the paper presentations though we will use discussants in some form on all papers.

CANCELLED. Polforsk summer school - stream 5: Political Theory: Political Ethics and Real Politics

2361 Responsible: Anders Berg-Sørensen (Associate Professor, Political Science, University of Copenhagen) and Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen (Professor, Political Science, Aarhus University)
From: 2012/08/20 to: 2012/08/23
Subscription Deadline: 2012/04/20
Place: Torvehallerne, Vejle: Kirketorvet 12, 7100 Vejle
Fee: 3500 kr.
ECTS (Danish Ph.D. students only): 4½
Further information: Lippert@ps.au.dk

This reflects an increasing scholarly interest in the interaction between principled questions and political realism in various traditions of political theory (cf. e.g. the special issue of European Journal of Political Theory, Vol. 9, No. 4, 2010 on political realism and Flyod & Stears, 2011). This scholarly interest aims to go beyond the stereotypes that, on the one hand, normative political theory deals with too abstract principled matters with the consequence that normative theories have become political impotent and irrelevant for practical politics and, on the other hand, that political reality is just characterized as exercises of power and power relationships neglecting and thus making political ideals irrelevant. In that sense, the relationship between normative political theory and political “reality” could be described as a tension between utopianism and pessimism. However, the recent interest in the interaction between principled questions and political realism is modest in the level of ambitions although not falling into the trap of pessimism. Rather, the questions raised deal with the interaction between normative political theory and political practice both in terms of political theorists’ policy analyses and policy prescriptions based on political ideals and principles as well as actual political programs integrating theoretical traditions and ideals (cf. e.g. Kloppenberg, 2011; Martí & Pettit, 2010). Within this broad frame the workshop will focus on the relationship between for example ideal and non-ideal political theory, democratic ideals and practice, universalism and particularism in contemporary political thought, the new political realism, the role of political ideals for institutional change and policy reforms etc.

The workshop invites papers analyzing and discussing normative problems in specific policy areas, e.g. climate and environmental policy, health policy, immigration and integration policy, educational policy, labour market policy, social policy, fiscal policy etc. Papers can also address the issue of political ethics and real politics in abstraction from any particular policy area.

Monday August 20:

11-12: ABS: “Political Ethics and the Study of “Real” Politics”

13-15: Jeffrey E. Green, Assistant Professor in Political Theory, Department of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania: “A Plebeian Addendum to Liberal Democracy?”

15-18: Papers

Tuesday August 21:

9-11: KLR: “Ideal and Non-Ideal Theory”

11-12: Paper

13-15: Eva Erman, Associate Professor in Political Theory, Department of Political Science, University of Uppsala: “Three Failed Charges Against Ideal Theory”

15-16: Paper

Wednesday August 22:

9-12: Papers

13-15: ABS: “Visions of Politics and Political Realism”

15-18: Papers

Thursday August 23:

9-11: KLR: “Political Feasibility”

11-12: Paper

Literature:

Coady, C. A. J. (2008): Messy Morality: The Challenge of Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Estlund, David (2008): Democratic Authority. Princeton: Princeton University Press, ch. 14.

European Journal of Political Theory, Vol. 9, No. 4, 2010. Special Issue on Political Realism.

Floyd, Jonathan & Marc Stears, eds. (2011): Political Philosophy versus History? Contextualism and Real Politics in Contemporary Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Freeden, Michael (2005): “What Should the ‘Political’ in Political Theory Explore?” The Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp 113-134.

­­_____ (2009): “Failures of Political Thinking,” Political Studies, Vol. 57, pp. 141-164.

Geuss, Raymond (2008): Philosophy and Real Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Green, Jeffrey E. (2010): The Eyes of the People: Democracy in an Age of Spectatorship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kloppenberg, James T. (2011): Reading Obama: Dreams, Hope, and the American Political Tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Martí, José Luis & Philip Pettit (2010): A Political Philosophy in Public Life: Civic Republicanism in Zapatero’s Spain. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Stemplowska, Zofia (2008): “What’s Ideal About Ideal Theory?” Social Theory & Practice, Vol. 34, pp. 319-340.

Williams, Bernard (2005): “Realism and Moralism in Political Theory,” in Williams, Bernard, In the Beginning Was the Deed. Realism and Moralism in Political Argument. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 1-17.

Polforsk Ph.d course: International Relations (IR)

2358 Responsible: Senior Researcher Rens van Munster (DIIS) and Professor Lene Hansen (KU)
From: 2012/08/20 to: 2012/08/23
Subscription Deadline: 2012/05/20
Place: Room 4.2.50, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, DK-1353 Copenhagen K.
Fee: 100 Euro.
ECTS (Danish Ph.D. students only): 4
Further information: rmu@diis.dk

Preliminary Program

Thematic focus of the IR Track:

The discipline of IR has historically conceived of itself as comprised by a specific set of approaches or theories engaged in “great debates”. The first debate is said to take place in the 1930s and 1940 as realists and idealists (or liberals) fought over how one should understand the international system and the conditions under which states might stop waging wars. This debate concerned, in other words, the political ontology of the state and the international. The second debate, from the 1950s to 1970s, was focussed on epistemology and methodology and the two main protagonists were behavioralism and “traditionalism”. In the 1970s, with the third debate, the focus (re)turned to the political dynamics that explain world politics. Conflicts expanded as the usual two combatant structure grew to three contestants: realism, liberalism/interdependence theory, and Marxism or globalization. The 1980s and 1990s witnessed another round of debate over how international politics should be studied. Robert O. Keohane coined the distinction between “rationalism” (incorporating neo-realism and neo-liberalism) and “reflectivism” (perspectives that broke with the scientific assumptions of rationalism) in 1988, and this distinction became the focal point for debate in the 1990s. Over the past 10 years, reflectivism has splintered into a plethora of non-rationalist perspectives, some of which, most prominently “thin” constructivism, have moved close(r) to the rationalist position. There is also, however, a widespread sense in the discipline that there are no longer any “grand debates” which tie competing positions together. Rather than debates, the last decennium has seen disciplinary ‘turns’, including a ‘constructivist’, ‘historical’, ‘practice’, ‘cultural’, ‘sociological’ and ‘aesthetic’ turn. Although some have celebrated this fragmentation, others have lamented the absence of a common reference point that holds the discipline together. As a response, a range of scholars, books, and prominent journals have asked why IR has become so fragmented, and ask how (if at all) “grand IR debate” might again be fostered.

The thematic focus of the IR Track of the POLFORSK Summer School 2012 is on these recent interventions and the history of IR to which they speak. This focus opens up for discussions of what makes IR theories “theories”, how research should be conducted, and what factors drive a discipline like IR forward (or not). The organizers, Rens van Munster and Lene Hansen, will give an opening lecture that lays out the main positions on the terrain of IR and sketches where current debates are at. The next lectures will provide more focussed presentations on more specific debates, interventions, and literatures. The guest lecturer, Prof. Michael C. Williams, University of Ottawa, will also speak to this theme. The specific lectures listed below are to some extent negotiable, depending on the specific research interests and requests that Ph.D. students who sign up for the Summer School may have. Papers presented by Ph.D. students – including Ph.D. proposals as well as drafts of journal articles – need not speak to the thematic focus, but can pick any empirical or theoretical subject relevant to IR. The papers presented will be discussed with a particular focus on research design, methodology and how to produce a manuscript ready for journal submission. If Ph.D. students prefer, the organizers would be happy to replace one general lecture with a lecture on how to publish in IR journals.

3. Suggested specific themes for lectures by Rens van Munster and Lene Hansen International Security Studies – the evolution of a subfield of IR (Lene Hansen) Security Studies is one of the two main subfields of IR and its evolution presents a fascinating story of how ontological, epistemological, and political debates have played themselves out. Based on her book, The Evolution of International Security Studies (co-authored with Barry Buzan), Lene Hansen will present the field’s main trajectories with a particular focus on whether there are distinct American and European traditions, on how what it means to be “critical” and “normative” changes from the field’s gestation in the 1940s and until today, and how on one might explain the way that Security Studies has evolved.

Feminist International Relations – a micro-cosmos of IR (Lene Hansen) Feminist IR and Gender Studies constitutes a “best case” micro-cosmos within IR in that this field of research is where one encounters the most explicit, and heated, debates between different epistemological positions. This lecture traces how rationalists, stand-point feminists, and poststructuralists have adopted different positions on how world politics could be studied, and thus on what constitutes a politically engaged feminist perspective.

Risk and international political sociology – outside IR (Rens van Munster) Over the last decade, IR theory has been challenged by a range of approaches who have found inspiration in other intellectual traditions such as sociology, history and philosophy. By focusing on one of the core concepts in IR theory – international security – this lecture traces how sociological theories on risk have challenged the ways in which IR theorizes and analyzes security. By focusing on the international political sociology of risk, this lecture asks what IR theory can learn from an engagement with sociology, and what possible limitations and challenges emerge in the encounter between these two disciplines

One-Worldism – remaking IR-theory? (Rens van Munster) Over the last decade, IR has witnessed the emergence of ambitious theoretical calls for one-worldism. Based on the idea that globality has become a defining material feature of humanity, this scholarship draws upon international theory, particularly classical realism, as well as classical political theory to address the problem of political order in a world characterized by the capacity for global destruction (nuclear war, environmental and technological omnicide). This lecture examines how the perspective of one-worldism reinterpret classical traditions with the aim of presenting nothing less than a new vision of world politics around which the discipline of IR can be forged. These are the four specific themes that we suggest, but depending on possible requests from Ph.D. students, alternative themes for specific lectures include: 1) images, visuality, and aesthetics: the genesis of a new research agenda in IR; 2) The Practice Turn as a communicative terrain; 3) Is IR a Western discipline?

1. Preliminary reading list

We will assume that the texts have been read – or reread – immediately before the Summer School. Thus, our list is a fairly short and prioritized one. More texts could obviously be added and we welcome requests for texts to be included from Ph.D. students. We have listed a “prioritized” at the texts we expect to discuss during the course.

General readings

Adler, Emanuel (1997) ‘Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics’, European Journal of International Relations, 3:3, 319-63.

Adler, Emanuel and Vincent Pouliot (2011) ‘International Practices’, International Theory, 3:1, 1-36. Prioritized.

Adler, Emanuel and Vincent Pouliot (eds.) (2011) International Practices, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bell, Duncan (2009) ‘Writing the World: Disciplinary History and Beyond’, International Affairs, 85:1, 3-22.

Bigo, Didier and R.B.J. Walker (2007), ‘International, Political, Sociology’, International Political Sociology, 1:1, 1-5.

European Journal of International Relations (2013) Special Issue on “The End of International Relations Theory?”, draft papers presented at the Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, San Diego, April 1-4, 2012.

Selected papers will be prioritized and circulated.

Hoffman, Mark (1987) ‘Critical Theory and the Inter-Paradigm Debate’, Millennium, 16:2, 231-49.

Kennedy, David (1987) ‘The Move to Institutions’, Cardoza Law Review, 8:5, 841-903.

Keohane, Robert. O. (1988) ‘International Institutions: Two Approaches’, International Studies Quarterly, 32:4, 379-96.

Schmidt, Brian (2002) ‘On the History and Historiography of International Relations’, in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth Simmons, eds., Handbook of International Relations, London: Sage, pp. 3-22.

Snidal, Duncan and Alexander Wendt (2009) ‘Why there is International Theory now’, International Theory, 1:1, 1-14. Prioritized.

Sylvester, Christine (2007) ‘Whither the International at the End of IR’, Millennium, 35:3, 551-73. Prioritized.

Wight, Martin (1966) ‘Why is there no International Theory?’, in Butterfield and Wight (eds) Diplomatic Investigations, London: Allen & Unwin, 17-34.

Wæver, Ole (1998) ‘The Sociology of a not so International discipline: American and European developments in International Relations’, International Organization, 52:4, 687-727.

Wæver, Ole (2007) ‘Still a Discipline after all theses Debates?’, in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith (eds.) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 288-308. Prioritized.

Readings for lecture on “International Security Studies”

Baldwin, David A. (1995) ‘Security Studies and the End of the Cold War’, World Politics, 48:1, 117-41.

Buzan, Barry and Lene Hansen (2009) The Evolution of International Security Studies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, especially chapter 1-3. Prioritized.

Krause, Keith and Michael C. Williams (1996) ‘Broadening the Agenda of Security Studies: Politics and Methods’, Mershon International Studies Review, 40:2, 229-54.

Security Dialogue (2010) Special Section on The Evolution of International Security Studies, 41:6, 589-667.

Walt, Stephen M. (1991) ‘The Renaissance of Security Studies’, International Studies Quarterly, 35:2, 211-39. Prioritized.

Wolfers, Arnold (1952) ‘National Security as an Ambiguous Symbol’, Political Science Quarterly, 67:4, 481-502.

Wæver, Ole and Barry Buzan (2007) ‘After the Return to Theory: The Past, Present, and Future of Security Studies’, in Alan Collins (ed.) Contemporary Security Studies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 383-402.

Readings for lecture on “Feminist IR”

Caprioli, Mary (2004) ‘Feminist Theory and Quantitative Methodology: A Critical Analysis’, International Studies Review, 6:2, 253-69. Prioritized.

Carpenter, R. Charli (2002) ‘Gender Theory in World Politics: Contributions from a Nonfeminist Standpoint?’, International Studies Review, 4:3, 153-65.

Carver, Terrell (ed.) (2003) ‘The Forum: Gender and International Relations’, International Studies Review, 5:2, 287-302.

Hudson, Valerie M. et al. (2008/09) ‘The Heart of the Matter: The Security of Women and the Security of States’, International Security, 33:3, 7-45. Prioritized.

Keohane, Robert O. (1989) ‘International Relations Theory: Contributions of a Feminist Standpoint’, Millennium, 18:2, 245-54.

Tickner, J. Ann (1997) ‘You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists’, International Studies Quarterly, 41:4, 611-32.

Tickner, J. Ann (2005) ‘What Is Your Research Program? Some Feminist Answers to International Relations Methodological Questions’, International Studies Quarterly, 49:1, 1-22. Prioritized.

Weber, Cynthia (1994) ‘Good Girls, Little Girls and Bad Girls: Male Paranoia in Robert Keohane’s Critique of Feminist International Relations’, Millennium, 23(2), 337-49.

Readings for lecture on “The International Political Sociology of Risk”

Albert, Mathias (2001) ‘From Defending Boundaries towards Managing Geographical Risks? Security in a Globalised World’, Geopolitics, 5:1: 57–80.

Aradau, Claudia and Rens van Munster (2007) ‘Governing terrorism through risk: taking precautions, (un)knowing the future’, European Journal of International Relations, 13(1): 89-115.

Aradau, Claudia and Rens van Munster (2011) Politics of catastrophe. Genealogies of the unknown, Abingdon and New York: Routledge, chapter 1. Prioritized.

Beck, Ulrich (2002) ‘The terrorist threat: world risk society revisited’, Theory, Culture & Society, 19:4, 39-55. Prioritized.

Ewald, Francois (1990), ‘Insurance and Risk’, in Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon and Peter Miller, eds., The Foucault Effect. Studies in Governmentality, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 197-210.

Lobo-Guerrero, Luis (2011), Insuring Security: Biopolitics, Security and Risk, Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 1-34.

Petersen, Karen Lund (2011), ‘Risk analysis – A field within security studies?’, European Journal of International Relations, forthcoming. Prioritized.

Rasmussen, Mikkel Vedby (2004) ‘“It sounds like a riddle”: security studies, the war on terror and risk’, Millennium, 33:2, 381-395.

Security Dialogue (2008) Special issue on Security, Technologies of Risk, and the Political, 39:2&3,

Readings for lecture on “IR and One-Worldism”

Ashley, Richard (1981) ‘Political realism and human interests’, International Studies Quarterly, 25:2, 204-236.

Bartelson, Jens (2010), ‘The Social Construction of Globality’, International Political Sociology, 4:3, 219-235.

Deudney, Daniel H. (2007), Republican Security Theory from the Polis to the Global Village. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1-61, 215-244. Prioritized.

Graham, Kennedy (2008), ‘Survival Research and the “Planetary Interest”: Carrying Forward the Thoughts of John Herz’, International Relations, 22, 457-472.

Herz, John H. (1984), ‘Power Politics and Policies of Survival’, in Vojtech Mastny (ed.), Power and Policy in Transition. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp. 37-54.

Scheuerman, William E. (2011), The realist case for global reform, Cambridge: Polity, 39-97, 149-169. Prioritized.

Walker, R.B.J. (2010), After the Globe, Before the World. London: Routledge, 19-54.

Wendt, Alexander (2003), ‘Why a World State is Inevitable’, European Journal of International Relations, 9:4, 491-542. Prioritized.

For further information:

http://polforsk.dk/course_full_view?nn=2343

Advanced Analysis of Qualitative Data using Nvivo and other software 2012-2

2385 Responsible: Associate Professor Merete Watt Boolsen, University of Copenhagen. & Dr. Christina Silver, University of Surrey
From: 2012/09/11 to: 2012/09/14
Subscription Deadline: 2012/07/01
Place: University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen
Fee: 60 Euro
ECTS (Danish Ph.D. students only): 3,5
Further information: bjerke@polforsk.dk

Requirements and course overview

This Ph.d course not only teaches you advanced use Computer Assisted Qualitative Data AnalysiS (CAQDAS), but also teaches how to integrate the use of CAQDAS into your Ph.d project and dissertation while taking theory of science into consideration. It focuses on how to get the maximum advantage from using CAQDAS?

It is a requirement for participation that the participants bring with them a laptop with Nvivo already installed and fully working. A free trial of Nvivo 9 may be downloaded from:
http://www.qsrinternational.com/products_nvivo_free-trial-software.aspx

You are also expected to make yourself familiar with the basic concepts of using software to analyse qualitative data by studying ch. 1-8 of Lewins & Silvers book: "Using software in qualitative research".

The course consists of two parts:

1. Introduction to and overview of Nvivo, Sep 11. The purpose of the day is to establish a common knowledge of Nvivo. 

It is recommended that at least one week before the course you check out that you can bring a computer with a working Nvivo installation. In case you have problems with this, please get hold on us at least one week before the course. If you intend to use the trial version of Nvivo, ensure that it will not expire before Sep 15.

The introduction day will teach you the basics about how to use Nvivo in your project. You will get an overview of the software and learn to prepare your data for Nvivo. Moreover, you will learn to make annotations, to search, to code, to recode, as well as to establish coding schemes and to retrieve data.

 2. The advanced course, Sep 12-14. The course introduces advanced retrieval and coding schemes, as well as how to use memos to manage the writing process. The use of CAQDAS to handle literature and audio-visual data (e.g. TV-clips) is also introduced. To direct the attention to how Nvivo and other CAQDAS interface with your practical and theoretical work, Nvivo is compared to other CAQDAS packages. The purpose is also help Ph.d students make informed choices between CAQDAS packages for his/her project. The course focuses on Ph.d students’ own projects and helps them move towards advanced use of CAQDAS to interrogate data and make reports. Eventually, the use of CAQDAS is related to the methodological principles of grounded theory, discourse analysis, narrative analysis, and analysis of interviews.

Program

September 11 9am – 12pm Merete Watt Boolsen: Introduction to the NVivo way of thinking. The NVivo workspace. Coding procedures. PLEASE ALSO BRING A MOUSE, because it is so much easier … Perhaps – if need – also class from 1pm-3pm

September 12 9am – 12pm Christina Silver : Using NVivo to analyse your data This session will consist of teacher input, discussions and hands-on work with software. During this session the professors will spend time with each student to support work with their own data. 9am - 10.30am : Reminders and individual support The importance of memoing Coding schema structures : principles Transcribing, audio Advanced coding and retrieval 10.45am – 12pm : NVivo as a project management tool Using NVivo for your literature review Analysing audio-visual data using NVivo Autocoding for structure and content LITTERATURE: Ann Lewins and Christina Silver, 2007: Using Software in Qualitative Research. Sage. Chapters 9 – 12.

September 12 1pm – 4pm Ph.d-Presentations of projects and use of software in English. Your project has been discussed by both professors and you have received their feedback. CS has given you feedback with regard to the relevance of using NVivo or other of the programmes that will be looked at during the course in each project.  MWB has given you feedback with regard to (possible) theoretical and analytical methods in each project. This session is now devoted to how you have ‘translated’ the feedback into your workplan for the workshop: (1) what data have you chosen? and (2) what analytical strategy have you chosen? Be prepared to talk for about 10 minutes about this. And to hand in your proposal by mail.

September 13 9am – 12pm Christina Silver : Using NVivo to analyse your data This session consists of teacher input, discussions and hands-on work with software. During this session the professors will spend time with students to support work with their own data.

September 13 1pm – 4pm 1pm – 2.30pm: Interrogation Moving forwards: using sets and models to theorize Interrogating the dataset using the Query Tool Representing data: Charts and Output functions Mapping ideas and organising data. 2.45pm – 4pm: Reminders, Questions and Discussion Reminders of key principles of qualitative software Reminders about early set-up procedures Questions from students Discussion of the value of NVivo for individual projects This session will be designed around the needs of students according to the work they have achieved working with NVivo so far. Each student will be asked to briefly outline the key ways in which they expect the software to facilitate their analysis and to ask any specific questions they may have. LITTERATURE: Ann Lewins and Christina Silver, 2007: Using Software in Qualitative Research. Sage. Chapters 9 – 12.

September 14 9am – 12pm Merete Watt Boolsen: Discussion of the role of software for qualitative data analysis in different research designs Different analytical theories applied: grounded theory, discourse analysis, narrative analysis, analysis of taped recorded interviews, etc. Examples of NVivo in research projects. LITTERATURE: Martin Bauer & George Gaskell, 2000: Qualitative Researching with text, image and sound. Sage. Part II. Pages 131-281 Summing up Conclusions and consequences for Ph.D. projects - where do you go from here? What are adequate next steps ... etc.

September 14 1pm-3pm: Christina Silver: Discussion about the role of software in different project contexts, with a focus on audiovisual data and common qualitative approaches Analysing audiovisual data using software: Discussion and demonstration of the range of software options for the analysis of audiovisual data. A critique of current options will be provided in the context of methodological approaches and practical needs. Overview of software options for audiovisual analysis Similarities and differences between packages Critique of software tools Demonstration and Practice working with audiovisual data in NVivo Data Handling Data Analysis Data Representation

Literature overview

• Ann Lewins and Christina Silver, 2007: Using Software in Qualitative Research. Sage. Chapters 9 – 12 (can be purchased at this link: http://www.amazon.com/Using-Software-Qualitative-Research-Step/dp/0761949232)

• Ann Lewins and Christina Silver, 2007: Using Software in Qualitative Research. Sage, Appendices

• Martin Bauer & George Gaskell, 2000: Qualitative Researching with text, image and sound. Sage. Part II. Pages 131-281 (can be purchased at this link: http://www.amazon.com/Qualitative-Researching-Text-Image-Sound/dp/0761964819)

Description of your own project

By August 20, 2012 you must send a description of your project and data to the sek@polforsk.dk.

The description should be 3 pages max. And it should cover the following points:

1. Title

2. Problem under investigation and theory

3. Time schedule of project

4. Data collection and type of data

5. What part of your data do you want to work with during the course?

6. Intended analytical approach

7. Previous experience with NVivo

Combining methods and data sources

2382 Responsible: Associate Professor Merete Watt Bolsen,University of Copenhagen and Professor Uwe Flick, Hochschule Berlin - Unerversity of Applied Science.
From: 2012/09/17 to: 2012/09/19
Subscription Deadline: 2012/07/01
Place: University of Roskilde
Fee: 60 EURO
ECTS (Danish Ph.D. students only): 3
Further information: sek@polforsk.dk

Ph.d course: Combining methods and data sources

Much research within political science uses several sources of data such as interviews, reports, media texts, political texts, observations, etc ., and this usually implies a combination of methods of analysis. It is a complex task to combine such data sources, and often, the use of different methods are advantageous, which makes it even more complex. It is the purpose of the Ph.d course to enhance the participants' competance in handling this complex task, an to give them an overview of the state of the art of combining different methods and data sources. There is an increasing body of literature on this: Triangulation, mixed method, method integration, etc.

The Ph.d students send a 3 pages paper containing description of:

1. Problem under investigation (plus theory)
2. Time schedule of the project.
3. Methods of data collection and data soruces
4. What questions would you like to work with in the course? Please connect this with your strategy of data collection and analysis.
5. Previous experience, if any, with combining methods and data sources.

The Ph.d students will receive a written critique of their project. The Ph.d students' presentation of their project should discuss this critique and how to use the methodological considerations of the literature. Taking into consideration that combining methods and data sources often will complicate research, the purpose is to support the Ph.d students in making deliberate decisions about how to combine methods and data sources in the project. The Ph.d students should make clear what are the purpose and feasible outcomes of combining methods and data sources.

The course has the following general structure:

Monday Sep 17. The forms of combining data and methods

The first day will focus on the expectation to the art of combining methods and the outcomes of it. Different methods will be reviewed:

• Qualitative method
• Observation
• Interviewing
• Narratives
• Quantitative methods (this course does not teach quantitative methods - but how to combine different methods incl. how to combine quatitative methods with other methods)
• Etc.

Then, the relations between the different methods are explained. A key question is whether the different sources and methods entail convergence, complementarity or contradictions - and what should be done then? Different method may provide results that require each other. For instance, analyses of interviews may refer to newspaper articles, which on the other hand are analysed in the light the interviews. In such case, the results converge or contratdict each other. But, inversely, the methods may be independent, and in that case the outcomes complement each other. But, even the same methods, e.g. interviewing, may be performed with different purposes and give different results that supplement each other rather than enforce or contradict each other. To some extent, different methods refer to different epistemological backgrounds, and then, combination of methods and outcomes requires particular care. Moreover, each data source may require the use of several methods, e.g. qualitative and quantitative methods. It is also common that different interviews may require diffent methods depending on who is interviewed: clients, therapists , experts, administrators, politicians, etc.   

It will also be summed up how software may be used in the analysis of different qualitative data.

Tuesday Sep 18. The planning and practice out projects using combined methods and data sources

Each data source and method as well as combining them consume time. Therefore, it is necessary to deliberately plan how to combine different methods and data sources in relation to the goals of the project:
On the basis of which questions of analysis is this combination performed? With which purposes, and at what cost? 

There are three important dimensions for how methods and data sources are combined:

1. The relation between theory and research field: Which different methods and data may contribute to the theoretical understanding of the research field? How do they supplement, enforce or challenge each other?
2. Width vs. depth in the empirical study: Methods differ as to width and depth of study. Therefore, they provide different truth claims.
3. Unity/complementarity of the studied objects. Do the different methods and data source neatly fit together to validate and confirm the conceptualisation of the objects studied? Or, do they produce different perspectives on the same objects which may be sythesised? Or do they entail incompatible perspectives or objects that cannot be synthesised?

Another key question is the sampling of data as well as the units of research. What is being compared? Interviews tend, for instance, to focus on persons, whereas observation gives rather focus on situation, interactions, institutional processes. Studies of media tend to focus on events.

Wednesday Sep 19. Research quality and the writing

The end result should be a design that links methods and data, sort them out and present them.  Therefore, the last day the lessons deal with the particular quality and writing problems related to the use of different methods and data sources. In a thesis, the following aspects must be related to methods and data sources:

1. Issues
2. Problems
3. Chapters/articles
4. The coherent picture - different kinds of thesis' - how is it integrated?

And How is quality ensured in the thesis that combines methods and data sources? - Different methods entail diffirent criteria of quality how is the quality demonstrated the Ph.d thesis?

When information is gathered in different ways and from different sources, there are often important ethical questions where (too) much, perhaps inconsistent, information is gathered about one person or one organisation. Moreover, the reseacher may be involved in conflicts or conflicting interests. Such problems are often unvoidable when methods and data are combined. How are these questions  handled in  a  thesis and  process of writing?

Program

	9.00-12.00	12.00-13.00	13.00-16.00
Mon Sep 17	The forms of combining data and methods Conceptualization Methods Different Approaches	Lunch	Presentations
Tue Sep 18	The planning and practice out projects using combined methods and data sources Planning Practical issues	Lunch	Presentations
Wed Sep 19	Lecture: Research quality and the writing ---------------------- Presentations	Lunch	Final discussion Impact for the project Still open questions Advices Overview

Literature

Flick, Uwe: Managing quality in Qualitatuve Research. Sage 2007.

The course is to be kept Sep.17-19 in Denmark at Roskilde University or Copenhagen University.

Transnational Care, Gender and Citizenship

2377 Responsible: Prof. Lise Widding Isaksen, University of Bergen, Norway and Prof. Hanne Marlene Dahl, University of Roskilde. Denmark
From: 2012/10/08 to: 2012/10/12
Place: Dubrovnik, Kroatien
ECTS (Danish Ph.D. students only): 3(+2)
Further information: hmdahl@ruc.dk

Further information

The course format forsees the active involvement of participants through the formal debates as well as through the less formal discussions during the free time. Interested participants will have the possibility to present their own papers/PhD projects relevant to the topics before a competent panel of senior researchers and professionals.

The participation certificate is issued by the course directors and IUC Dubrovnik.Participants can receive up to 5 ECTS. Participants in the course receive 3 ECTS. They receive additionally 2 ECTS when their paper has been accepted.

Registration at:
http://www.iuc.hr/course-details.php?id=698

Doing Political Discourse Analysis: Applications, Strategies, Methods and Techniques 2012

2386 Responsible: David Howarth & Aletta Norval (Department of Government, University of Essex), Allan Dreyer Hansen (Department of Society and Globalisation Roskilde University)
From: 2012/10/22 to: 2012/10/26
Subscription Deadline: 2012/08/26
Place: Roskilde University, Department of Society and Globalisation
Fee: 100 Euro
ECTS (Danish Ph.D. students only): 5
Further information: sek@polforsk.dk

This course sets out an approach for doing discourse analysis in politics and policy analysis. It is thus concerned with the way we can articulate and apply discourse analysis to problematized empirical cases in the name of critical explanation. It will also serve as a forum to discuss practical research strategies, methods and techniques that are consonant with the emerging field of discourse analysis. The course focuses on the definition of research objects and problems; the construction of appropriate theoretical frameworks; the requisite character and collection of empirical data; the logics of rhetorical and textual analysis; as well as the different modes of argumentation and presentation within discourse theory.

More precisely, the course puts forward a logic of critical explanation, which comprises five basic elements: problematization; retroduction; logics; articulation; and critique. In so doing, it briefly examines the philosophical underpinnings of a poststructuralist approach to social and political analysis, and also concentrates on actual instances of discursive research. With respect to the theoretical aspects, attention is focused on Michel Foucault’s method of problematization; Laclau and Mouffe’s logics of discourse analysis; Norman Fairclough's Critical Discourse Analysis, as well as certain psychoanalytical themes explored by Lacan and Zizek. We also draw on discussions in speech act theory and their extension to political analysis in the works of Austin, Derrida, Cavell and Rancière.

Participants will also be encouraged to discuss their own ongoing research or research proposals/plans.

Course Objectives

This is an intensive course, available to all those students who are interested in conducting research from a poststructuralist discourse theory approach at PhD level.

At the end of the course, participants:

• will be conversant with major literatures and debates in the field of discourse analysis;

• will have acquired a solid grounding in discourse theoretical approaches to social and political analysis and critique;

• will be able to design a research project in this field;

• will be trained in the theoretical and methodological considerations arising in this area;

• will finish with a keen sense of the critical role that discourse plays both in theory and in social and political practice.

Discussion of Participant’s Research Projects

During the course, and especially in the last sessions, we will also discuss the research projects of individual participants. Those interested in doing this should send a summary of their projects (max. 1500 words) and a short research paper to paper@polforsk.dk no later than October 4, so that we can build them into the programme. PhD-students submitting project summary or paper will be preferred in case the course is overbooked.

Program

The course runs for five days with two sessions on each day, with the exception of the final day, on which there will be one session only. Participants should treat these sessions as flexible, since we will accommodate discussions and issues as they arise.

Session times:
Session 1: 9h30-12h00
Coffee Break: 10h30-11h00

Lunch 12h00-13h00
Session 2: 13h00-15h30
Coffee Break: 14h00-14h30

The course arises from our recent books: Logics of Critical Explanation in Social and Political Theory (Abingdon, Routledge, 2007) and Aversive Democracy (Cambridge, 2007). It will also discuss material from our forthcoming books: Howarth, After Poststructuralism (Palgrave, 2010) and Griggs and Howarth, The Politics of Sustainable Aviation (Manchester University Press, 2010).

All asterisked readings are essential, and (apart from our books) are included in our reading pack (unless available from the library).

Within a week after the registration deadline, participants will be informed whether they are approved or not.

Monday, October 22

Introducing Poststructuralist Discourse Theory: A Problem-Driven Approach

The first day focuses on providing an introduction to Poststructuralist Discourse Theory, and is divided into two sessions. The first session introduces poststructuralist/post-Marxist discourse theory (PDT) in relation to the “discursive turn” in the contemporary social sciences. We present a brief genealogy of the development of the concept of discourse by focusing on its ever-widening ontological and methodological scope; situate PDT in relation to other discourse-oriented approaches; outline some of the basic assumptions and core concepts of the approach; and introduce the logics of critical explanation as one way operationalizing these assumptions and concepts in empirical research.

Session 1

Readings

• Laclau, E., & C. Mouffe, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (London: Verso, 1985, 2001 2^nd Edition), Chapter 3.

• ´i¸ek, S. (1990) ‘Beyond Discourse Analysis’, in Laclau, E. New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time (London: Verso).

• Laclau, E. New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time (London: Verso, 1990), pp. 3-59.

• D. Howarth (2010) ‘Pluralizing Methods: Contingency, Ethics and Critical Explanation’, in A. Finlayson (ed.) Democracy and Pluralism: The Political Thought of William E. Connolly, London: Routledge.

• M. Hajer (1995) The Politics of Environmental Discourse (Oxford: OUP), Chapter 2.

• J. Dryzek (1997) The Politics of the Earth (Oxford: OUP), Chapter 1.

• Laclau, E. On Populist Reason (London: Verso, 2005), Chapter 5.

Background Readings

Glynos, J., Howarth, D., Norval, A., and Speed, E. (2009) ‘Discourse Analysis: Varieties and Methods’, ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, NCRM/014, http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/796/1/discourse_analysis_NCRM_014.pdf

´i¸ek, S. The Sublime Object of Ideology (London: Verso, 1989), Chapter 1.

Laclau, E., ‘Discourse’ in Goodin, Robert A., and Philip Pettit, eds., A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), pp. 431-437.

Laclau, E. ‘Populism: What’s in a Name?’ in Panizza, F., ed., Populism and the Mirror of Democracy (London: Verso, 2005).

D. Howarth and Y. Stavrakakis, ‘Introducing Discourse Theory and Political Analysis’, in Howarth, D., A. J. Norval and Y. Stavrakakis (eds), Discourse Theory and Political Analysis: Identities, Hegemonies and Social Change (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000), Introduction.

D. Howarth, Discourse (Buckingham: Open University Press, 2000), Introduction & Chapters 3-7.

Session 2

In the second session of Day 1, we turn to the role of problematization and logics in the practice of applying discourse theory in political science. We begin by discussing Michel Foucault’s efforts to develop a method of discourse analysis that goes beyond traditional hermeneutics, without relapsing into naturalism, positivism, or a methodological anarchism. Attention is paid to the archaeological method, which Foucault employed in his early writings (The Birth of the Clinic, The Order of Things), after which we concentrate on the genealogical approach of his later studies.

Participants will be given the opportunity to problematize a set of themes and issues related to their own research, and to construct a short research problem or proposal.

Readings

• J. Glynos and D. Howarth, Logics of Critical Explanation (Abingdon: Routledge, 2007), Introduction, Chapters 2 and 3.

• C. S. Peirce, Collected Papers, Vol. 1, Principles of Philosophy, (Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1960), pp. 28-31.

• J. Glynos and D. Howarth, Logics of Critical Explanation (Abingdon: Routledge, 2007), Introduction, Chapters 1, 5 and 6.

Further Reading:

D. Howarth (2002) ‘An Archaeology of Political Discourse? Evaluating Michel Foucault’s Explanation and Critique of Ideology’, Political Studies, 50(1): 117-135.

D. Howarth, ‘Discourse Theory and Political Analysis’ in E. Scarborough and E. Tanenbaum (eds), Research Strategies in the Social Sciences (Oxford: OUP. 1998), Chapter 12.

M. Foucault, ‘Politics and the Study of Discourse’, in G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller (eds), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, Hemel Hampstead: Harvester, 1984, Ch 2.

H. Dreyfus and P. Rabinow, Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, Brighton: Harvester, 1982, Chapters 4, 5

M. Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge, London: Tavistock, 1972.

P. Dews,‘Althusser, Structuralism and the French Epistemological Tradition’, in G. Elliot (ed), Althusser: A Critical Reader, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1994, Ch 5.

J. Habermas, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, Cambridge: Polity, 1985, Chapters 9, 10.

Howarth, D., A. J. Norval and Y. Stavrakakis (eds), Discourse Theory and Political Analysis: Identities, Hegemonies and Social Change (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000).

S. Benhabib, Critique, Norm and Utopia (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986), Preface, Introduction.

R. Bernstein, The New Constellation (Cambridge: Polity, 1991), Chapters 1, 5, 10.

J. Glynos and D. Howarth, Logics of Critical Explanation (Abingdon: Routledge, 2007), Chapter 1.

I. Shapiro, ‘Problems, Methods, and Theories in the Study of Politics, or: What’s Wrong with Political Science and What to do About it’, in I. Shapiro, R. M. Smith, and T. E. Masoud (eds) (2004) Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics (Cambridge: CUP, 2004).

W. Connolly, ‘Method, Problem, Faith’ in I. Shapiro, R. M. Smith, and T. E. Masoud (eds) (2004) Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics (Cambridge: CUP, 2004).

Tuesday, October 23

The Emergence and Articulation of Political Demands, Subjectivities and Political Frontiers

Day 2 is devoted to a discussion of the formation and dissolution of frontiers in political discourse and the role that the logics of equivalence and difference play in these processes. Drawing on the work of Laclau and Rancière, as well as Foucault and Austin, we concentrate on the analysis of the emergence and articulation of political demands and subjectivities, as well as on the different ways in which political frontiers are constructed and managed.

The first part of the day is devoted to clarifying the conceptual basis of the discussion. The focus here is on the development of the conceptual tools for the analysis of political frontiers and the articulation of political demands in Laclau and Mouffe’s work, as well as the analysis of the staging of arguments as presented in the work of Rancière. In addition, we will also look at the work of Michel Foucault and John Austin, to capture the processes involved in the articulation of subject positions.

The second part of the day focuses on a discussion of work putting these insights to use in political analysis. In this session we will concentrate on some practical examples, where course participants will be analysing the articulation of political frontiers in selected political speeches, such as speeches by Barack Obama and Nelson Mandela. (Texts of these speeches will be provided to participants on Day 1.)

Readings
Frontiers and the Articulation and Staging of Demands: Conceptual Issues

• E. Laclau, On Populist Reason (London: Verso, 2005), especially chapters 4 and 5.

• Aletta J. Norval, ‘Frontiers in Question’, Acta Philosophica, 2 (1997), pp. 51-76.

• Aletta J. Norval, ‘Democracy, Pluralization and Voice’, Ethics and Global Politics, Vol. 2 (4) (December 2009), pp.297-320..

• Aletta J. Norval, ‘Passionate Subjectivity, Contestation and Acknowledgement: Rereading Austin and Cavell’, in Andrew Schaap (ed.) Law and Agonistic Politics (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2009), pp. 163-78.

Articulating Demands and Political Frontiers: Applications

• Andries du Toit, ‘The micropolitics of paternalism’, Journal of Southern African Studies, Vol. 19, no. 2, 1993, pp.314-366

• A. J. Norval, 'Social ambiguity and the crisis of apartheid', in Laclau, E. (ed.) The Making of Political Identities. London: Verso (1994).

• Andrew Schaap, ‘The absurd proposition of Aboriginal sovereignty’, in Andrew Schaap, (ed.) Agonistic Politics (Farnham: Ashgate Publishers, 2009), pp. 209-223

• A.J. Norval, ‘‘No Reconciliation without Redress’: Articulating political demands in post-transitional South Africa’, Critical Discourse Studies, Vol. 6 (4), (forthcoming, November 2009)

Further Readings

J. Austin, How to do Things with Words.

H. Gottweis, ‘Rhetoric in policy making: between logos, ethos, and pathos’, in F. Fischer, Handbook of Public Policy (London: Taylor and Francis, 2006).

S. F. Griggs and D. Howarth, ‘A Transformative Political Campaign? The New Rhetoric of Protest Against Airport Expansion in the UK’, Journal of Political Ideologies, (2004), Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 167-87 [available on-line via library].

S. F. Griggs and D. Howarth, ‘An Alliance of Interest and Identity? Explaining the Campaign against Manchester Airport’s Second Runway’, Mobilization, (2002) Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 43-58.

M. Hajer and Justus Uitermark, ‘Performing Authority: Discursive politics after the assassination of Theo van Gogh’ Public Administration Vol. 86 (1), pp. 5-19 (2007).

D. Howarth, ‘The Difficult Emergence of a Democratic Imaginary: Black Consciousness and Non-Racial Democracy in South Africa’, in D. Howarth, A. J. Norval and Y. Stavrakakis (eds) Discourse Theory and Political Analysis, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000.

D. Howarth, ‘Complexities of Identity/Difference: Black Consciousness Ideology in South Africa’, Journal of Political Ideologies, Vol. 2 (1), 1997 [available on-line via library].

D. Howarth and Y. Stavrakakis, ‘Introducing Discourse Theory and Political Analysis’, in D. Howarth, A. J. Norval and Y. Stavrakakis (eds), Discourse Theory and Political Analysis (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000). Several chapters in this book deploy Laclau’s conceptualization of political frontiers in the analysis of concrete cases.

Aletta J. Norval, ‘The things we do with words - contemporary approaches to the analysis of ideology’, British Journal of Political Science, 30 (2000), pp. 313-46

Jacques Rancière, Disagreement (Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 1999), especially chapters 1-3 and 5.

Q. Skinner, 'Meaning and understanding in the history of ideas' in J. Tully (ed), Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and his Critics.

Wednesday, October 24

Day 3 is devoted to the questions of articulating analytical strategies and of normative/ ethical judgements in discourse analysis. Our discussions will focus on the possibilities of articulating the different approaches of Michel Foucault, Norman Fairclough and Ernesto Laclau in terms of their conceptual tools as well as regarding their different views on ethical and normative critique in social analysis. The first session will present the different positions, the second will be a work-shop for students articulating analytical strategies focussing on conceptual as well as normative elements of analysis.

Readings

• Chouliaraki, Lilie, and Norman Fairclough. 1999. Discourse in late modernity : rethinking critical discourse analysis. chapter 2: “Social life and critical social science” and 7 “Discourse difference and the openness of the social”. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

• Critchley, Simon. 2002. «Ethics, Politics and Radical Democracy: the History of a Disagreement». CULTURE MACHINE. The Journal of Philosophy 4(The Ethico-Political Issue):1–17. http://culturemachine.tees.ac.uk/Articles/critchley.htm

• Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and social change. Chapter 2 and 3: p. 31-100Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

• Fairclough, Norman, Bob Jessop, og Andrew Sayer. 2002. ”Critical Realism and Semiosis”. Alethia 5(1):2–10.

• Foucault, Michel. 1980. ”Truth and Power”. p. 183–93 i Michel Foucault. Power/ Knowledge, 1980. New Yourk: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

• Foucault, Michel. 1991. ”What is Enlightenment”. p. 32–50 i The Foucault reader. London: Penguin Books.

• Foucault, Michel, og Lawrence D. Kritzman. 1988. ”The concern for truth”. i Politics, philosophy, culture : interviews and other writings 1977-1984, vol. 1. London: Routledge. p. 255 – 67

• Hansen, Allan Dreyer. 2010. «Dangerous Dogs, Constructivism and Normativity: The Implications of Radical Constructivism». Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory (20):93–107.

• Laclau, Ernesto. 2002. «Ethics, Politics and Radical Democracy: a Response to Simon Critchley». CULTURE MACHINE. The Journal of Philosophy 4 (The Ethico-Political Issue):1–11. http://culturemachine.tees.ac.uk/Articles/laclau.htm

• Laclau, Ernesto. 2000. «Identity and Hegemony: The Role of Universality in the Constitution of Political Logics». i Contingency, hegemony, universality : contemporary dialogues on the left, Phronesis. London: Verso.

Background Applications:

Critchley, Simon, and Oliver Marchart. 2004. Laclau: a critical reader. London: Routledge: Section 2.

Thursday and Friday, October 24-25

Research Strategies and Participants’ Research

On the fourth day we discuss the general principles of research strategy, and then, in the final two sessions of the course (afternoon Day 4, morning Day 5) turn to a discussion of participants’ research. These sessions will primarily be devoted to the discussion of the research projects of participants. Those interested should send summaries of their research projects (1500 words max), as well as a short research paper at least three weeks before our summer school sessions start to the organisers, so that we can build them into the programme. By way of conclusion, these sessions will also act as a forum to raise and discuss general issues and questions arising out of earlier sessions.

Readings

• J. Glynos and D. Howarth, Logics of Critical Explanation (Abingdon: Routledge, 2007), Chapter 6.

• J. Glynos, and Howarth, D. (2008) ‘Critical Explanation in Social Science: A Logics Approach’, Swiss Journal of Sociology, 34(1): 5-35.

Background Applications

A. Wright (2012) ‘Fantasies of Empowerment: Mapping Neoliberal Discourse in the Coalition Government’s Schools Policy’, Journal of Educational Policy, Vol. 27. Forthcoming.

M. Hajer (1995) The Politics of Environmental Discourse (Oxford: OUP), Chapter 4.

O. Reyes (2000) ‘New Labour’s Politics of the Hard-Working Family’, in D. Howarth, A. J. Norval and Y. Stavrakakis (eds) Discourse Theory and Political Analysis: Identities, Hegemonies and Social Change, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

D. Howarth & S. F. Griggs (2006) ‘Metaphor, Catachresis and Equivalence: The Rhetoric of Freedom to Fly in the Struggle over Aviation Policy in the United Kingdom’, Policy and Society (2006), Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 23-46.

S. Griggs & D. Howarth (2012) ‘Phronesis, Logics, & Critical Policy Analysis: Heathrow’s “Third Runway” & the Politics of “Sustainable Aviation” in the UK’, in B. Flyvbjerg, T. Landman & S. Schram (eds), Real Social Science, Cambridge: CUP.

T. Solomon (2009) ‘Social Logics and Normalization in the War on Terror’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 38(2), 269-294.

M. Watson and C. Hay (2003) ‘The Discourse of Globalization and the Logic of No Alternative’, Policy and Politics, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 289-305.

S. F. Griggs and D. Howarth, ‘Populism, Localism and Environmental Politics: The Logic and Rhetoric of the Stop Stansted Expansion Campaign in the United Kingdom’, Planning Theory, (2008), Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 123-44.

J. Dean (2010) Rethinking Contemporary Feminist Politics, London: Palgrave.

A. J. Norval, Deconstructing Apartheid Discourse, London: Verso, Chapter 6.

E. Laclau, On Populist Reason (London: Verso, 2005).

C. Mouffe (2005) ‘The “End of Politics” and the Challenge of Right-wing Populism’, in F. Panizza (ed) Populism and the Mirror of Nature, London: Verso.

D. Howarth, ‘The Ideologies and Strategies of Resistance in Post-Sharpeville South Africa: Thoughts on Anthony Marx’s Lessons of Struggle’, Africa Today, (1994) Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 21-38.

D. Howarth (2005) ‘Populism or Popular Democracy? The UDF, Workerism and the Struggle for Radical Democracy in South Africa’, in F. Panizza (ed) Populism and the Mirror of Nature, London: Verso.

Quantitative Methods for Causal Inference

2376 Responsible: Robert Klemmesen
From: 2012/10/24 to: 2012/10/27
Subscription Deadline: 2012/08/24
Place: University of Southern Denmark (Odense)
Further information: robert.klemmesen@gmail.com

In cooperation with the Danish Political Science Research School the Department of Political Science has the pleasure to offer a course titled Quantitative Methods for Causal Inference.

Requirements

In order to be admitted into the course students have to have a solid background in OLS regression including a firm understanding of the assumptions behind this technique.

Costs

Students admitted to the course have to provide transportation and accommodation while in Odense.

Admission

In order to be admitted to the course prospective participants have to send an abstract (max 250 words) explaining how their research would benefit from participating in the course. The abstract should be e-mailed to Dorte Cort Nebel (dcn@sam.sdu.dk) no later than Friday September 14^th. In the following week we notify everybody on whether they have been admitted to course or not. That week we also provide a more detailed schedule including a list of suggested readings.

Accommodation

Below is a list of relatively cheap hotels in Odense that could be used by participants.

Cabinn Odense; DanHostel Odense; Ydes Hotel

Qualitative Methods in Political Science: Political Ideas or Values?

2392 Responsible: Anders Berg-Sørensen, Associate Professor, PhD.
From: 2012/12/03 to: 2012/12/07
Subscription Deadline: 2012/10/01
Place: Preferably at CSS, University of Copenhagen
Further information: ABS@ifs.ku.dk

A classical problem in political science has been which kind of topics might be within or beyond our disciplinary concerns. Somewhere between the “behavioural revolution” and hermeneutic theories scholars have tried to navigate towards what they might consider to be the relevant political object of research in political science. Recent scholarly debates have established the need for a deeper interpretative understanding of political ideas and values embedded in social identities, as a supplement to, or in the context of large-N statistical models or “formal” theory [e.g. Shapiro, Smith & Masoud 2004].

In line with these concerns, this course addresses how to approach ideas and values from an interpretive perspective. Thus the main concern will be empirical methods in qualitative research towards policy processes – be it reflexive historical analysis, interpretative policy analysis etc.

We might raise questions such as:

• How to understand the analytical difference between focussing on ideas instead of values in politics in general and interpretation in particular?

• Which are the methodological advantages and shortcomings of interpretation versus more formal approaches (e.g. rational choice) or statistical quantification in relation to topics such as identity formation, institutional traditions, ideology etc.?

• How to heighten analytical rigour and critical reflection in contextual analysis dealing with different contemporary and historical texts?

We will scrutinize and discuss qualitative methods of understanding, knowledge-generating and criticizing topics such as political membership, status and identity during the four days, along with presentations of the participant’s own papers.

The participants will first be presented to professor of political science Rogers M. Smith’s (University of Pennsylvania) approach to “the politics of people-making”, which traces concepts of racial-, religious-, and cultural allegiance through historical narratives of nationhood. Secondly, professor of political science Lisa Wedeen (University of Chicago) presents her interpretive approach to national identity and political culture formation. Wedeen shows how a “multiple methods” approach of participant observation techniques (ethnography) and contextual reading of texts help understand the creation of national belonging.

Together, Smith and Wedeen’s approaches will represent a point of departure for a wider methodological discussion on the role of political values and ideas in qualitative political science methods. Though qualitative methods are the premise of this course, more quantitative orientated students of political identity and/or values might also benefit from these discussions, since it allows one to develop a deeper understanding of the limits and merits of “both sides”.

Papers for the course could be on themes like gender equality, ethnical or multicultural politics, secularism, welfare reforms, cosmopolitan citizenship, social movements, nation-building etc.

Preliminary time table

Time	2012/12/3	2012/12/4	2012/12/5	2012/12/6	2012/12/7
9-12	Lecture (RMS)	Lecture (RMS)	Lecture (RMS)	Lecture (LW)	Lecture (LW)
12-1	Lunch	Lunch	Lunch	Lunch	Lunch
1-2	Paper	Paper	Paper	Paper	Paper
2-4	Paper	Paper	Paper	Paper	Paper
4-5	Paper	Paper	Paper	Paper	Paper

RMW = Rogers M. Smith

LW = Lisa Wedeen

Literature

Preliminary reading list:

Wedeen, Lisa (2002). “Conceptualizing Culture: Possibilities for Political Science”, American Political Science Review 96 (4): pp 713-728

Wedeen, Lisa (2004). “Concepts and Commitments in the Study of democracy”, in Shapiro, Ian et al. (eds.): Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 274-

306

Wedeen, Lisa (2008): Peripheral visions: publics, power, and performance in Yemen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Smith, Rogers M. (1999). Civic Ideals. Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S. History. New Haven and London: Yale University Press

Smith, Rogers M. (2003). Stories of Peoplehood: the Politics and Morals of Political Membership. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, Rogers M. (2004). “The Politics of Identities and the task of Political Science” in Shapiro, Ian et al. (eds.): Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 42-66

Politics, State, and, Society - theoretical reflections in a historical context

2394 Responsible: Lars Bo Kaspersen, Dept. of Political Science, University of Copenhagen
From: 2012/12/10 to: 2012/12/14
Subscription Deadline: 2012/10/15
Place: Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Fee: 100/1000 Euro
ECTS (Danish Ph.D. students only): 5
Further information: Jette Due jd@ifs.ku.dk or Lars Bo Kaspersen lbk@ifs.ku.dk

Course organizer:  lbk@ifs.ku.dk

Fee:100 euro for polforsk-members including compendium, lunch, coffee/tea

1,000 euro for non-polforsk members including compendium, lunch, coffee/tea

The course adopts a theoretical and historical approach. It traces the development of key issues in political sociology and political theory in order to discuss their relevance to contemporary political discourse. We begin with a discussion of conceptual issues that are generic to political theory and political sociology in that they underlie many of the problems and debates in the field. We will examine classical and more recent theoretical attempts to found politics and the concept of the state within society. The course will then proceed to a discussion of conceptions of political modernity in social theory, ranging over a number of approaches and issues. The course also examines selected social theories on the nature of politics and political institutions in relation to the modern state and its society. Certain key issues and concepts, such as, power, state, society, politics, economy, space (in the form of territory), market, citizenship and the relation between state, society and political agency are introduced. These concepts will be discussed by focusing on Machiavelli, Hobbes, Montesquieu, Hegel, Marx, Weber, Durkheim, C. Schmitt, the British Pluralists, different International Relations traditions, Foucault, Habermas, Latour, and others.

The course is "modern" in the sense that it starts of from the sixteenth century where the main forms of – and attitudes to – politics, that have prevailed until today, first emerged. In this period the state became the primary political community, claiming an exclusive sovereignty over a given territory, and politics became recognized as a distinct sphere of activity with its own conditions and practices. We begin with Machiavelli, who gives coherent expression to the specificity and autonomy of politics, that is a specific field of action and is not to be confused with the pursuit of the "good life" as it was in the Greek concept of the polis or with being the necessary outward form of a Christian community pursuing salvation as it was with St. Augustine or St Thomas Aquinas. We move forward in time ending with contemporary political theory and political sociology as it is presented by Foucault, IR-theorists, Habermas and others.

The course is very explicitly focusing on political theory and political sociology and not the history of political thought. It thus excludes many writers who do not match the conditions of objectivity and conceptual rigour necessary to count as theorists. It also excludes theorists, however skilful and subtle, whose problems are no longer of central importance in politics. The first criterion excludes a brilliant publicist like Benito Mussolini and the latter a subtle reasoner like Francisco de Vittoria. The test of an enduring political theory is that it emerges in a definite political context, that is, it deals with specific problems created by the politics of its time, but that it uses concepts and a method of reasoning to deal with those problems that make it of wider relevance and more than mere opinion or ideology. Political theory is not a science, but it is a relatively rigorous form of knowledge. Political theorists survive their own context because they created concepts that we can use either to think problems that are enduring or to reason about very different circumstances in a constructive way.

Objectives

Phd-students completing this course will have been instructed in close reading of the ‘classic’ texts of social and political theory, dealing with the state, politics and social processes, and will have acquired clear perspectives on these issues. They will also have developed a sense of the continuities with and departures from political theory and political sociological thought. They will have acquired the skills of reading texts critically and analytically, and the ‘arts’ of constructing and de-constructing conceptions and arguments.

This course aims:

• to provide a high-level and reasonably comprehensive overview of selected issues within modern political theory and political sociology by concentrating on some of the major political and sociological thinkers

• to introduce PhD-students to the widest possible range of arguments and to cover the full complexity of the traditions in modern political theory and political sociology

• to inspire the PhD-students to think imaginatively about the future of society, economy, state, politics, and governance.

Program:

Monday December 10:

10:00-11:00 – Welcome and introduction: what are political theory and political sociology?

11:00-12:00 – The Greek and Medieval heritage

12:00-13:00 – Lunch

13:00-16:00 – Machiavelli & Hobbes: Stato, Leviathan, the Covenant and Politics

16:00-17:00 – The relevance of classical theoretical heritage

Tuesday December 11:

09:00-11:00 – Montesquieu: The Corp intermediare

11:00-13:00 – Hegel: the Modern State

13:00-14:00 – Lunch

14:00-15:00 – Marx’ critique of Hegel

15:00-17:00 – Marx’ alternative to Hegel

Wednesday December 12:

09:00-10:30 – The Marxist heritage (Althusser, Lefevre, Harvey)

10:30-12:30 – Durkheim on Politics and the State

12:30-13:15 – Lunch

13:15-15:00 – Weber on Politics and the State

15:00-17:00 – Space, territory and politics.

Thursday December 13:

09:00-11:00 – The British Pluralists, Associationalism, Civil Society and Voluntary Associations.

11:00-12:00 – Associative Democracy

12:00-13:00 – Lunch

13:00-14:30 – Carl Schmitt and the critique of liberal democracy

14:30-17:00 – ‘The Inside and the Outside’: State, territory and the international order (IR-

perspectives)

Friday December 14:

09:00-11:00 – Foucault, Politics, and the Social Order

11:00-12:00 – Latour on Politics

12:00-13:00 – Lunch

13:00-15:00 – Habermas: Constitutionalism, State, Law and Politics.

15:00-17:00 – The future of politics, state, and society

Enrollment: October 15 2012 to Jette Due, Depart of Political Science, CU – 

- Questions concerning enrollment or payment, please contact Jette Due, tel.: 35 32 34 25. Payment must be made no later than November 5^th 2012.

Minimum participants: 14