Standing group activities

CfP: Coordination of Policy Sectors

Nicholas Pohl Calls for papers, Standing group activities

ECPR General Conference, Bordeaux, September 4-7 2013

Political sociology section

Panel 5: Coordination of Policy Sectors

Chaired by Philipp Trein, Université de Lausanne

Policy analysts have used the concept of policy sectors to distinguish actor constellations and functional logics of certain policy problems. Most of the policy analyses focus on the functional logics, structures, ideas, actors and conflicts inside a policy sector, whereas the relations in between such fields remain poorly analyzed. However, the vertical relations of policy sectors are very important, because many political problems require the coordination of actors from different fields, such as in cases of imminent catastrophes, or, for the solution of complex societal problems. This panel wants to understand how policy sectors or sub-sectors relate to each other. Possible examples are the relation of fiscal and monetary policy, foreign and defense policy or preventive health and health care policies. Certainly, other examples are possible.

Therefore, this panel invites papers that focus on the coordination of policy sectors and policy sub-sectors. Theoretical contributions are welcome, but also empirical analyses. Successful papers address, for instance, questions as the following: Where do policy sectors touch and when do conflicts among sectors emerge? Which forms of coordination between policy sectors are possible and which factors have a positive or negative impact on coordination? In which country, or group of countries, is a coordination of policy fields or sectors more likely?

This panel contributes to the debate on field concepts in political analysis, by sharpening our understanding of sectoral and sub-sectoral relations in politics and to a better understanding of the coordination patterns in public policy.

Submit proposals here

Deadline February 1st

CfP: Reshaping Democracy? Citizens and Politics in Times of Crisis

Nicholas Pohl Calls for papers, Standing group activities

ECPR General Conference, Bordeaux, September 4-7 2013

Political sociology section

Panel 4: Reshaping Democracy? Citizens and Politics in Times of Crisis

Chaired by Ewa Krazatala-Jaworska, Université de Paris I, and Bobba Giuliano, Università degli Studi, Torino

In political science, the idea of representative democracies going through critical times is a frequently discussed issue. Some social indicators have proved this trend: abstention, distrust towards the political institutions, “ordinary citizens” being critical of politics, new modes of political participation that short-circuit the traditional modes of involvement, recent claims and protests of movements such as the “Indignados” or “Occupy Wall Street”. Could we conclude though that our representative democracies are going through a crisis? This panel would aim at thinking through the modes, evolutions and manifestations of the different kinds of crises undergone by democracies.

The question will be analysed through different fields of the social and political worlds, but also through multiple angles such as the representation and the institutions of the representative democracies, the distrust and disaffection towards politics, the political conflicts and crisis within democracies, the borders and limits of the representative democracy, the usage of the Web and social network online in developing the so called “e-democracy”, the limits and the forms of participative democracy and so on, and so forth.

Supported by empirical case studies, this panel would aim at discussing the transformations of representative democracies. More specifically, we would collectively argue the usages of the notion of field in order to study various evolutions of the representative democracy. The panel would particularly take into account a comparison of different studies on similar issues in order to broaden the national work frame on framework for analysing democracy.

Submit proposals here

Deadline February 1st

CfP: At the Crossroads of Fields. Defining Fields’ Boundaries Through their Intersections

Nicholas Pohl Calls for papers, Standing group activities

ECPR General Conference, Bordeaux, September 4-7 2013

Political sociology section

Panel 3: At the Crossroads of Fields. Defining Fields’ Boundaries Through their Intersections

Chaired by Elise Roullaud and Viviane Albenga, Université Lyon II

One of the main interests of Bourdieu’s field concept is to analyze autonomous and differentiated spaces which detain their own logics, values and norms. What happens when we aim at studying the exchanges, connections and circulations between different fields? This problem raises a series of questions. To what extend does the field concept enable an empirical study of spaces situated at the intersection of various fields? Reciprocally, how do these spaces inform us about the definition of fields’ boundaries? We want to insist here on the sociological instruments which help to understand what definitions are at stake at the crossroads of various fields. With this end in view, papers based on empirical researches and methodological reflection will be privileged in the selection process.

1) How to comprehend the fields’ boundaries?

What is the process to define field’s boundaries? This problem focuses on the actors and their resources to maintain, to reinforce and to try to challenge the field’s boundaries. To what extend the analysis of hybrid or heteronomous spaces helps to comprehend the elaboration of fields’ boundaries. We will pay attention to the cases of successful or failed challenges of field frontiers, but also to the cases of reinforcement.

2) How can we follow the circulation of actors, ideas and resources from one field to another?

What kind of sociological instruments can be used to follow this circulation? Indeed, researchers face a main difficulty: how to describe the very circulation and not only the consequences of this circulation.

3) What are the brokers’ roles?

Which kinds of resources enable some actors to become brokers between two fields? This question aims at bringing into light the specific trajectories of these brokers.

Submit papers here

Deadline February 1st

CfP: Human Rights Violations and Transitional Justice: A Critical Analysis of the Evolution of a Field

Nicholas Pohl Calls for papers, Standing group activities

ECPR General Conference, Bordeaux, September 4-7 2013

Political Sociology Section

Panel 2: Human Rights Violations and Transitional Justice: A Critical Analysis of the Evolution of a Field

Chaired by Olga Martin-Ortega, University of Greenwich

This panel seeks to improve our understanding of how the different interpretations to account for mass atrocities and human rights abuses have shaped and still impact the relations among different actors who are part of this field. Interestingly, however, these actors also interact in other fields, such as law, human rights, and government. Put differently, the transitional justice field consists of many actors including human rights activists, non-profit actors, jurists, academics, various experts and civil servants who have originated from these other fields. This phenomenon raises a challenging set of issues and the panel thus welcomes contributions that address in particular some of the following issues: How has this field emerged especially from a socio-historical perspective? Who constitute its main actors and who are the leading respectively most powerful actors? What shape has it taken and why? Are its boundaries flexible? What overlap exists with other related fields?

This panel invites ethnographic case studies or comparative examinations of transitional justice mechanisms in order to ground the broader theoretical discussion of the field we intend to engender here.

Papers can be submitted here

Deadline February 1st

CfP: Political Parties: Learning from Social Movements

Nicholas Pohl Calls for papers, Standing group activities

ECPR General Conference, Bordeaux, September 4-7 2013

Political sociology section

Panel 1: Political Parties: Learning from Social Movements

Chaired by Oscar Mazzoleni, University of Lausanne, and Alfio Mastropaolo, Università degli Studi Torino

The fragile, or ‘failed’, linkage between citizens and the political sphere is a key issue in political sociology. Scholars provide several attempts to explain this phenomenon, pointing out the critical situation of “mainstream” parties, especially those coming from a mass party legacy, whose organizations were, among other things, instruments of social integration and which are nowadays increasingly focused on vote and office-seeking activities. On the contrary, a widespread opinion represents social movements as agents of civic and democratic mobilization in alternative to political parties.

Nevertheless, as some scholars argued differences between parties and social movements should be considered in a less taken-for-granted perspective. According to a dynamic and relational approach, this panel wants to explore this kind of intersection between party “arenas” and the “sector” of social movements. Of course, there are all sorts of parties and of social movements. Parties can be less or more established, and social movements can be more or less institutionalized. Considering these differences, how much political parties learn from social movements? How much social movements interact with political parties? Did they set up, even if without negotiating it, some sort of division of labor? To what extent and under which conditions party organizations adopt tools and repertories of actions of social movements, or how much do they recruit political personnel coming (or expected to come) from social movements? And which are the consequences (for instance, salience of electoral arenas in party strategy, etc.) of such form of hybridization?

Case-studies and comparative analyses (both on “new” and “old” party organizations) are very welcome

Submit papers here

Deadline February 1st.

Call for papers: Reviewing social order and change. Field concepts in political analysis

Nicholas Pohl Conferences, Standing group activities

The concept of field has become an important theoretical tool in social and political analysis. Studying field dynamics situates the analysis at a meso level and promises to bring together macro-structural and micro-sociological perspectives. It means explaining social order and change as relational. Scholars have suggested different concepts account for this relational dimension: field, organisational fields, sector, arena or strategic action field. Despite their conceptual differences, all these approaches are concerned with locating actors relative to other actors and raise the question of institutionalising these locations. Furthermore, according to all concepts, units or collections of social locations are considered as structures, while processes of conflict and competition are seen as crucial to understanding the evolution of these collections of social actors.

This section provides an opportunity to discuss the progress of field approaches in political sociology. While theoretical contributions to the theory of fields are welcomed, the section encourages contributions that use field-level analysis in empirical case studies. Questions addressed could be: 1) on a theoretical level, the different conceptual notions (such as field or arena) refer to different ways of empirical object constructions and, ultimately, different theories of action. What do empirical case studies tell us about action logics? 2) On an analytical level, how does one identify fields, its boundaries and its action logics, capitals, actors? Do all participating actors share the same representations of these boundaries and of the logics that govern a field? 3) How do fields emerge, change, divide into sub-fields, or collapse?

The panel selection has now been completed and a call for papers is open.

Six panels will be held within the section:

  • Political Parties: Learning from Social Movements
  • Human Rights Violations and Transnational Justice: A Critical Analysis of the Evolution of a Field
  • At the Crossroads of Fields. Defining Fields’s Boundaries through their Intersections
  • Reshaping Democracy? Citizens and Politics in Times of Crisis
  • Coordination of Policy Sectors
  • Fields, Networks, and Social Change in a Neoliberal Age

Panel descriptions can be found on the website of the 2013 General Conference

Deadline for paper proposals is February 1st 2013.

Bordeaux 2013: section proposal on field concepts in political analysis

Nicholas Pohl Conferences, Standing group activities

Preparations for the ECPR general conference 2013 in Bordeaux have now started. For this occasion, we suggest organizing a section on the use of Field concepts in political analysis (click on the link or see below).

We are now looking for panel proposals that deal with specific aspects of this general topic, which we hope will be of interest to many of you. Deadlines are already approaching; we need to submit our section proposal by July 13. In order to have panels included by that time already, we therefore ask you to send us your panel proposal by June 30. Panel proposals should not exceed 300 words, and should include a discussant.

Note that it is also possible to propose a panel at a later stage; once the section is accepted (including the panels ready at that time), a call for panels will be issued. Also, panels that are not specifically linked to the topic developed in the section may be held if they deal with other core aspects of political sociology. It is also possible to suggest an entirely different section; if anyone has a section proposal with ideas for panels within, please let us know. We could then think about proposing two different sections for the Conference.

Panel proposals should be sent to the co-chairs of the section:

Philip Balsiger, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies (philip.balsiger-at-gmail.com)

Arnaud Kurze, George Mason University (arnaud.kurze-at-gmail.com)

Alexandre Lambelet, Sciences Po Paris (alexandre.lambelet-at-unil.ch)

as well as to standing group convenor Daniel Gaxie (Daniel.Gaxie-at-univ-paris1.fr)

 

Reviewing social order and change: Field concepts in political analysis

Over the past decade, the concept of field has become an important theoretical tool in social and political analysis. Studying field dynamics situates the analysis at a meso level and promises to bring together macro-structural and micro-sociological perspectives. It means explaining social order and social change as relational. Social actors (individual or collective) are always in complex relationships to other actors and form action systems with specific logics and dynamics. The analysis of individual actions becomes meaningful with regard to these action fields. Scholars have suggested different concepts account for this relational dimension: field (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992), organizational fields (DiMaggio and Powell 1991), sector (Scott and Meyer 1983), arena (Hilgartner and Bosk 1988, Jasper 2011), or strategic action field (Fligstein and McAdam 2012). Despite their conceptual differences, all these approaches are concerned with locating actors relative to other actors and raise the question of institutionalizing these locations. Furthermore, according to all concepts, units or collections of social locations are considered as structures, while processes of conflict and competition are seen as crucial to understanding the evolution of these collections of social actors.

This section provides an opportunity to discuss the progress of field approaches in political sociology and their usefulness in explaining social order and change. While theoretical contributions to the theory of fields are welcomed, the section encourages panels and contributions that use field-level analysis in empirical case studies. Panels and contributions could address some questions from the following (not exhaustive) list: 1) on a theoretical level, the different conceptual notions (such as field or arena) refer to different ways of empirical object constructions and, ultimately, different theories of action. What do empirical case studies tell us about action logics? 2) On an analytical level, how does one identify fields, its boundaries and its action logics, capitals, actors? Do all participating actors share the same representations of these boundaries and of the logics that govern a field? 3) All the different approaches suggest a specialisation, autonomisation or institutionalization of fields. How can such evolutionary processes be analysed? How do fields change, divide into sub-fields, or collapse? How do new fields emerge? How do certain actors come to play dominant roles in fields? How do they evolve historically and in the course of interaction? And how are different fields tied to one another?

Field analysis raises a series of original questions that are highly relevant for all aspects of political life. The section encourages panels that cover a broad variety of political processes, such as the rise of public problems, the analysis of public policies, the sociology of the state, supranational and transnational political institutions and actions, or social movements.