Pre-Conference Short Courses
Short courses take place on Wednesday, August 28, 2019. They provide diverse opportunities, either half day or full day, for professional development and offer attendees the chance to connect with scholars from a range of backgrounds. They are sponsored by APSA Organized Sections and other affiliated organizations.
Pre-registration for short courses is required and is $25 per short course. Registration for short courses is available on the Annual Meeting registration page, as part of the registration process. All short course participants must also be registered for the APSA Annual Meeting.
Half Day, 1:30-5:30 PM
Omni Shoreham, Council Room
Professional medical associations around the world have historically been a conduit for channeling physician interests into policy. Today, these associations remain powerful national stakeholders despite increasingly crowded policy arenas and threats to their power by populist movements, the privatization and corporatization of healthcare and the fragmentation of organized medicine. The role of these national associations in policy debates has been shaped by global forces such as colonialism, the globalization of biomedicine, macroeconomic shifts, migration, and transnational professional movements. Critical analysis of professional medical associations’ role is necessary to better understand how they continue to impact debates about the future of healthcare and to assess the extent to which their interests and values are translated into nation-state policies.
Research on professional medical associations has emerged from several disciplines, including political science, sociology, anthropology, history, and global health. However, there are few spaces for researchers from diverse backgrounds to have conastructive dialogue about the different theories and methods that inform their work. In this workshop, we will bring together a global, interdisciplinary group of scholars to share research, draw comparisons, discuss methods, and consider future directions for research on the politics and strategy of professional medical associations.
This workshop will be divided into three panels. The first two panels will explore thematic concerns around the coordination and strategy of creating health policy in and through medical associations. The third panel will bring together interdisciplinary scholars for a conversation about future methodological directions and collaborations.
For our first two panels, panelists will prepare short 2-page précis that will be circulated to all workshop participants in advance of the conference. The précis will contain a summary of panelists research findings, and pose questions for discussion. During the panels, we will begin with discussion of panelists’ research, directed by the questions posed in the précis. We will then move to a group discussion of the broad themes of the panels, led by the panel chair. In our third panel, the chairs will lead all workshop participants in a brainstorming session to develop methodological insights and determine next steps. In order to help direct discussion, participants will be encouraged to consider a number of questions about their research in advance of the workshop.
The learning objectives of this workshop are threefold:
1. To enumerate shared themes in research from diverse contexts/disciplines
2. To identify methodological tools and theoretical concepts that can be exported from other disciplines
3. To formulate an interdisciplinary, globally-oriented research agenda on professional medical associations and policymaking
Full Day, 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM
Marriott Wardman Park, Virginia C Room
When the British electorate voted in June 2016 to leave the European Union, the decision shook the political establishment of the country. Three years later, the consequences of that vote are still reverberating. The Brexit vote has roiled political parties, government authority, public administration, the economy, and almost every quarter of British domestic and foreign policy. This short course sponsored by the British Politics Group will explore the on-going ramifications of the Brexit vote from the perspectives of an international gathering of scholars.
Most significantly, Brexit will transform the British economy and Britain’s relationship with the EU-27, with some predicting an economic disaster for the UK and others optimistic about the reinvigoration of the British economy. What will Britain’s new relationship with the EU resemble, and who will the winners and losers of the new arrangements be, in the UK and in the EU? Will the UK be able to strike new trade deals with other major global actors? Will the “Special Relationship” be undermined, enhanced, or unchanged by Britain’s new status? How will the UK’s relations with its nearest neighbors, including Ireland and France, change?
Brexit has introduced new dynamics into every significant political institution, including the country’s main political parties. With both Labour and the Conservatives divided on the issue, what will the state of the parties be as Brexit takes its final form? Will populists continue to challenge the mainstream British parties, or with Brexit a “done deal”, will a new map of electoral space emerge? Policy-making is also undergoing a massive disruption, particularly in domains where the UK has not made policy independently for nearly five decades. How will British institutions manage the post-Brexit policy load? Will policy be innovative and distinctive once it is freed from the collective decision-making processes of the EU (as promised by many Brexit supporters)? Where and to what extent will the policy preferences of the EU be ‘sticky’?
At a more fundamental level, the Brexit vote has provoked new debates about the constitution of the United Kingdom and re-animated older debates thought to be resolved. From questions about the impact of Brexit on the legal order of the country, to contention about political and economic relations among England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where Brexit has reawakened questions about the Irish border and the peace process, Brexit has deeply unsettled the political status quo. What will British sovereignty look like in the wake of Brexit? How will regional politics be transformed by the end of UK membership in the EU? Will the British state survive in its current form?
In this short course, panelists from the BPG and from the broader APSA membership will examine these questions and others, in order to assess the course of Brexit and its repercussions on British politics and beyond. In addition to panelists invited by the BPG, we are open to proposals from other scholars whose work relates to the topics under consideration.
Interested participants should contact the short course organizer, Janet Laible (Lehigh University) at email@example.com no later than 1 May 2019. Further information about the British Politics Group can be found at www.britishpoliticsgroup.com. (NOTE: Accepted participants are requested to become members of the British Politics Group and must register for the full APSA conference in order to register for the short course. Short course registration involves a small fee that is collected by APSA).
Full Day, 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM
Marriott Wardman Park, Tyler Room
Simulation research has made some notable contributions in political science; but, it still is an emerging technique in our field. This workshop aims to introduce political scientists to the simulation technique and show how it can benefit to their research. The workshop is composed of three sections: First, participants will be introduced to the theory behind computational modeling, namely, complex adaptive systems. Second, we will examine examples of computational research from subfields, such as International Relations and Comparative Politics, to show participants how computational modeling can improve their research. In the third section, participants will do hands-on exercises and get a sense of how they can incorporate this technique to their research and teaching. Participants do not need any background in coding.
Half Day, 1:30-5:30 PM
Omni Shoreham, Embassy Room
This one-day workshop, held one day before the 2019 Annual APSA Convention, will focus on teaching human rights in Political Science. Our goal is to share best practices and discuss challenges through a series of panel discussions and subfield-focused working groups. One goal of the workshop is to create the basis for an online resource for all section members containing updated examples of syllabi (something we had done long ago but which has fallen aside) as well as links, ideas, and resources for teachers.
Tentative schedule of events:
12:45 pm Welcome and Introductions
1:00-2:00 Panel A – Challenges of teaching human rights, (Three panelists will speak about some challenges they have faced in their courses; we then open up for a floor discussion).
2:00 – 2:15 Coffee break
2:30 – 3:30 Panel B – Best practices in teaching human rights, (Three or four panelists will speak for no more than 10 minutes about some innovative or effective practice or pedagogy they have developed for their human rights teaching; we then open up for a floor discussion).
3:30 -3:45 Coffee break
4:00-5:30 Subfield working groups. Participants will split into subfield working groups for more focused discussions on the challenges they face in their own areas.
5:30 pm Wrap up and thanks
Half Day, 1:30-5:30 PM
Marriott Wardman Park, Maryland A Room
In the wake of the #noDAPL movement and of the 2018 U.S. election, in which Native politics played a prominent role, Indigenous people, Native nations, and tribal governments should be more visible than ever in political science. Yet many political science scholars feel unprepared to take on research that addresses or includes Indigenous political issues and Indigenous policy—and scholars that do take on these issues can feel sidelined by the discipline. This short course is offered as an antidote.
Designed for anyone (from the U.S. or around the world) interested in conducting research that includes Indigenous peoples and their political concerns, as well as for those already engaged in such research, this course creates an opportunity to learn from practitioners about their research needs and from established scholars about research and publication possibilities. It places Indigenous politics squarely within the discipline of political science with the goal of encouraging more scholars, departments, and journals to embrace and include tribal, Native, and Indigenous topics and research.
Opening: Welcome to Territory and Introduction to Native Nation Civics (40 minutes)
The half-day short-course will open with a welcome by the Piscataway people, on whose ancestral territory Washington, DC is located. Following the welcome, the session hosts will offer a brief educational presentation on Native nation civics addressing, for example, what tribal governments are, how they relate to settler governments, and what collective rights Indigenous people have. The material in the presentation grounds the short course discussion; it also provides college and university teachers with information about how to incorporate Indigenous peoples’ issues into their classes.
Panel 1: Indigenous Politics—A Conversation with Practitioners (70 minutes)
In a moderated session, tribal elected officials, governmental staff, and advocates will discuss their roles and the political science research that would help them in their work. The session is intended to be both applied and scholarly, so that political scientists can learn more about real-world Native politics (including information about conferences and meetings where they can continue to learn about Indigenous politics), practitioners can learn about resources within the political science field, and all will gain an increased understanding of the importance of Indigenous community-driven, participatory research.
Panelists: Moroni Benally, private consultant, PhD candidate in political science, and former candidate for president of the Navajo Nation (firstname.lastname@example.org); Frank Ettawageshik, Executive Director, United Tribes of Michigan (email@example.com); Mary Nugent, 2018-19 American Political Science Association Congressional Fellow, Office of U.S. Representative Deb Haaland (NM), and PhD candidate in political science, Rutgers University
Moderator: Rudy Soto, Legislative Director, National Indian Gaming Association, and past American Political Science Association Congressional Fellow (RSoto@indiangaming.org)
Break (10 minutes)
Panel 2: Indigenous Politics within Political Science (60 minutes)
This panel offers a wide-ranging discussion about the “place” of Indigenous political studies within the field of political science. The panellists, all established scholars in the field, will discuss why Indigenous politics are a critical aspect of political science generally. They will highlight connections between research questions in Indigenous politics and various subfields of political science (e.g., where Indigenous questions fit in to comparative politics, American politics, methodology, public policy, etc.). And, they will provide specific examples of how work on Indigenous issues informs the broader field.
Panelists: Laura Evans, Associate Professor, Evans School of Public Policy and Governance, University of Washington (firstname.lastname@example.org); Raymond Foxworth, Vice President, First Nations Development Institute (email@example.com); Raymond Orr, Associate Professor, Department of Native American Studies, University of Oklahoma (Raymond_Orr@ou.edu)
Moderators: Miriam Jorgensen, Research Scientist, Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, and Research Director, Native Nations Institute, University of Arizona (firstname.lastname@example.org); Richard Witmer, Chair, Indigenous Studies Network, and Professor, Department of Political Science, Creighton University (RichardWitmer@creighton.edu)
Talking Circle: Opportunities for Established and Emerging Scholars (60 minutes)
Hosted as a talking circle, in which both invited speakers and session attendees have the opportunity to listen deeply and respond with information and ideas, this session focuses on how students, young scholars, and established scholars can become more engaged in Indigenous political science. Initial invited statements will address placement options for publication, how some more senior scholars have made a shift toward this field, and the kinds of support younger scholars may need. It will transition through the talking circle format into a wider-ranging discussion among participants on the topics of the day, including how to link practical needs with research, why Indigenous politics actually are and should be central to the disciple, and how established scholars across the discipline can support students and younger colleagues with an interest in the field.
1st comments: Kirsten Matoy Carlson, Associate Professor, School of Law, and Adjunct Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Wayne State University (email@example.com); Gabe Sanchez, Professor, Department of Political Science and Director of the Center for Social Policy, University of New Mexico (firstname.lastname@example.org); Andrew Curley, Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill (email@example.com); Jean Schroedel, Professor of Political Science, Claremont Graduate University, (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Circle hosts: Danielle Hiraldo, Senior Researcher and Outreach Specialist, Native Nations Institute, University of Arizona (email@example.com)
Half Day, 1:30-5:30 PM
Omni Shoreham, Senate Room
There has been a growing body of literature that has identified simulations as successful tools for teaching students about political science. This workshop will focus on several simulations and games that allow the students to be “lab rats” in their own experiments related to identity, ethnicity, oppression and conflict. The workshop will focus on providing exercises and tools educators can use to teach their students about how identity and ethnicity relate to oppression and conflict. It will focus on exercises and games that allow students to identify how their identity shapes their views and the link between ethnic discrimination and mobilization- participants will participate in the different exercises and the games.
Half Day, 1:30-5:30 PM
Marriott Wardman Park, Maryland B Room
In recent years, researchers across disciplines have become increasingly interested in Bayesian analysis. This is not surprising because they often have some prior knowledge about parameters of interest, and this can be incorporated when using a Bayesian estimation approach. Bayesian analysis also provides a more natural interpretation of results in terms of probabilities. In this workshop, we will introduce some basic concepts relevant to Bayesian analysis, and we will focus on how to perform Bayesian analysis in Stata.
The topics covered will be:
– A brief introduction to Stata
– A brief overview of Bayesian analysis
+ Why and when to use Bayesian analysis
+ Advantages and disadvantages of Bayesian analysis
– An intuitive description of Markov Chain Monte Carlo
– Examples using the -bayes:- prefix with Stata estimation commands
+ Linear regression
+ Probit model
+ Random-effects Poisson model
– Example with -bayesmh-, Stata’s command for general Bayesian analysis
Half Day, 9:00 AM – 1:00 PM
Marriott Wardman Park, Virginia B Room
This short course considers focus groups as a data collection method. Its point of departure is twofold: 1. Focus groups help researchers answer certain types of questions, and 2. Focus groups create multiple types of data that help researchers undertake specific and distinct research goals. Having discussed each of these points in detail, we will then explore some of the fundamentals of undertaking focus groups, including the development of a question protocol, the role of the moderator, and how to undertake focus group analysis. Along the way, participants will carry out activities based on actual research.
By the end of the course, participants should be able to identify the kinds of questions that focus groups can help answer and whether they will be useful for their own research design. They should also understand the basics of how to carry out a focus group.
Participants are encouraged to bring specific questions to the course, so we can discuss them as a group. If there is time, the class can examine the research design of different participants and whether focus groups are (or could be) usefully incorporated. In this way, the short course will provide constructive feedback and advice to participants.
Diana Kapiszewski, Georgetown University and Sebastian Karcher, Syracuse University
Half Day, 9:00 AM – 1:00 PM
Marriott Wardman Park, Virginia A Room
This short course has three central goals. First, the course provides guidance to help scholars manage data through the research lifecycle. We show how participants can meet funders’ data-management requirements and improve their own research by creating a data management plan. We discuss strategies for effectively documenting data throughout the research process to enhance their value to those who generated them and to other scholars. We also provide practical advice on keeping data secure to protect against data loss as well as illicit access to sensitive data. Second, we consider the multiple benefits of sharing data, the various uses of shared data (e.g. for evaluating scholarly products, for secondary analysis, and for pedagogical purposes), the challenges involved in sharing qualitative research data (including copyright and human participants-related concerns), and various ways to address those challenges. Finally, we discuss transparency in qualitative research. Achieving production transparency (i.e., describing how the data drawn on in published work were produced), and analytic transparency (i.e., describing how data were analyzed and how they support empirical claims and inferences in published work) facilitate the effective interpretation and evaluation of scholarly products. We introduce several ways of achieving both types of transparency in qualitative research. We focus in particular on “Annotation for Transparent Inquiry,” a new approach to transparency for work that uses narrative causal analysis supported by individual data sources.
Andrew Bennett, Georgetown University and Tasha Fairfield, London School of Economics
Half Day, 1:30-5:30 PM
Marriott Wardman Park, Virginia A
This course will cover the underlying logic and best practices of process tracing, which is a within-case method of developing and testing causal explanations of individual cases.
We will briefly summarize the philosophy of science behind explanation via reference to hypothesized causal mechanisms and then outline the logic of process tracing in terms of Van Evera’s “hoop tests,” “smoking gun tests,” “doubly decisive tests,” and “straw in the wind tests.” We will then explicate an explicitly Bayesian approach to process tracing, which entails asking whether the evidence we find would be more or less plausible if a given hypothesis is true as compared to a rival.
Throughout the session we will emphasize best practices and applications to exemplars of process tracing research. Students will practice applying Bayesian reasoning in small group exercises. As time allows, and depending on the number of students, the instructors will also ask students to discuss how they plan to use process tracing in their current research project. This will allow the instructors and fellow students to offer constructive advice on how best to carry out process tracing in each student’s project.
Derek Beach, University of Aarhus
Half Day, 1:30-5:30 PM
Marriott Wardman Park, Virginia B
The study of causal mechanisms is ubiquitous in the social sciences. Mechanism-focused research using in-depth case studies enables us to gain a better understanding of how things work and under what conditions using real-world cases instead of gaining knowledge about mean causal effects across cases based on experimentally manipulating treatments in controlled populations. However, the potential gains of mechanism-focused research have not been fully reaped in the social sciences because of the tendency to reduce mechanisms to counterfactuals, that are then investigated using hypothetical data.
Inspired by recent developments in mechanism-focused research in medicine and policy evaluation (Clarke et al, 2014; Cartwright and Hardie, 2012), the first session of the course will discuss the standards developed in the natural sciences for what constitutes a ‘good’ mechanistic explanation (Craver and Darden, 2013), and how these can be translated into social science theories. The second session will then present the developing standards in the natural sciences regarding what constitutes ‘good’ mechanistic evidence, and what this can look like in the social sciences. The final session discusses practical applications, including how mechanism-focused research can be used as an adjunct method to improve social science experiments – showing that most good experimental studies already engage in mechanism-focused case studies parallel with their experimental design, but they are just unaware of it when they are theorizing, designing the experiment, and interpreting the data.
Beach, Derek, and Rasmus Brun Pedersen. 2019. Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines. 2nd Edition. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Cartwright, Nancy and Jeremy Hardie. 2012. Evidence-Based Policy: A Practical Guide to Doing It Better. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clarke, B., D. Gillies, Phyllis Illari, Federica Russo, Jon Williamson. 2014. Mechanisms and the Evidence Hierarchy. Topoi, 33(2): 339-360.
Craver, Carl F. and Lindley Darden. 2013. In Search of Mechanisms: Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Half Day, 1:30-5:30 PM
Marriott Wardman Park, Maryland C Room
We live in a tumultuous period for American politics, one that presents great challenges–and perhaps also, vast opportunities–to instructors of the introductory course on the topic. For decades, instructors nationwide have adopted a standard approach to teaching the course, typically offering a “soup to nuts” survey that encompasses topics from the Constitution through Congress, and public opinion through public policy. Yet various developments present challenges to instructors today, both in terms of appropriate course content and meaningful instructional approaches. Rising partisan polarization, soaring economic inequality, and an unorthodox presidency raise fundamental questions about longstanding theories about the political system operates. While textbooks routinely treat the United States as a democracy, scholars of comparative politics observe that the nation’s present politics resembles those of nations around the world in which democracy has suffered deterioration. Instructors also face a transformed student body, given partisan polarization and the rise of social media, for example, and these developments influence the possibilities for class discussions and which pedagogies may prove most effective for student learning.
We will convene several scholars of American politics who teach the introductory course and who grapple with how to do so in the context of these developments. The half-day short course will consist of three parts, addressing: overarching questions about how to structure the course, and whether and how to part ways with established approaches to doing so; mid-level issues such as how to teach particular course topics on which knowledge is presently in flux, including political parties, interest groups, the presidency, and voting; and practical matters of pedagogy, including active-learning strategies, particularly for those who teach large lecture classes, and specific assignments, readings, and simulation exercises. The aim is to help instructors of the discipline’s major service course take advantage of an era of high student interest and teach the course in a manner that fosters critical thinking and civic engagement. Both the Politics and History Section (#24) and Political Science Education Section (#29) have offered their endorsement of this short course.
Presenters will include: Michelle Deardorff, University of Tennessee – Chattanooga; Robert Lieberman, Johns Hopkins University; Robert Mickey, University of Michigan; Paul Pierson, University of California Berkeley; Kenneth Roberts, Cornell University; David Brian Robertson, University of Missouri- St. Louis; Chloe Thurston, Northwestern University.
Full Day, 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM
Marriott Wardman Park, McKinley Room
This full day course, endorsed by the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) section (#49), aims to train advanced graduate students and faculty (tenure- track & non tenure-track) who teach MENA related issues in their courses but lack the regional expertise. Research demonstrates that students have a significant degree of preconceived notions about the MENA region. Research also demonstrates that these notions lower students’ ability to learn the course material and undermines the effectiveness of classroom instruction. Many political science courses, such as International Relations, Comparative Politics, American Foreign Policy, and Terrorism, now include some aspects of the MENA region making this a concern across sub-disciplines.
Specifically, this full day course
1) aims to identify and discuss common misunderstandings, misconceptions and biases concerning the MENA region;
2) provides a platform to discuss the best strategies to challenge them;
3) brings together a number of experts to lecture about certain topics, such as women’s status, Islamism, diversity, democratization, social media, etc.; and
4) provides resources, such as sample lectures/slides, reading lists, movies/documentaries.
In addition to the organizers of the course, Gamze Çavdar (Colorado State University) and Sultan Tepe (University of Illinois at Chicago), will invite experts to lecture about the region.
Participants will receive a certificate upon completion.
Half Day, 9:00 AM – 1:00 PM
Marriott Wardman Park, Taft Room
In this half-day (four-hour) Pre-Conference Workshop, the French Politics Group of APSA brings together four, award-winning junior scholars along with prestigious scholars of France and Europe to workshop portions of their late-stage books and dissertations. While a portion of the workshop is devoted to in-depth commentary on these manuscripts, the event will also include open discussion as well, thereby providing a public platform for the next generation of cutting-edge political science research on France. Kevin Duong (Assistant Prof, Bard) examines violence and democracy in French political thought; Tommaso Pavone (PhC, Princeton) brings geospatial methods and ethnographic research to the study of judicialization in Europe; Isabel Perera (PhC, Penn) compares public health policies, especially pertaining to mental health, across France and the United States; and Michelle Weitzel (PhC, the New School) studies sound as a tool of political power, with a particular focus on French Algeria. A diversity of subfields and methods is represented in the group, and France is studied both for its past and its present. This half-day Pre-Conference Workshop is ideal for senior scholars interested in the next generation of scholarship on France, junior scholars interested in France as a comparative case, and all political scientists who find value in theoretically sophisticated and contextually grounded area studies.
Full Day, 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM
Omni Shoreham, Cabinet Room
The full-day course, organized by the African Politics Conference Group, will feature two theme panels in which attendees will discuss and offer feedback on current research undertaken by 6 scholars, all of whom are based at African institutions. Papers will not be presented in a formal sense; rather, panel sessions will be organized to allow for intense discussion and feedback on each paper. Discussion will be moderated by two senior faculty from the US, with a goal of identifying key areas for improvement in pursuit of publication in peer-reviewed journals. The course is open to enrollment from any APSA member interested in engaging with these discussions and networking with African scholars. The course is part of a larger collaboration between the American Political Science Association and the African Studies Association to support and enhance the networks between scholars based in Africa and the USA.
Full Day, 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM
Omni Shoreham, Forum Room
The full-day course, organized by the MENA Politics Organized Section, will feature several theme panels in which attendees will discuss and offer feedback on current research undertaken by 6 Arab scholars. Papers will not be presented in a formal sense; rather, panel sessions will be organized to allow for intense discussion and feedback on each paper. Discussion will be moderated by faculty from the US, with a goal of identifying key areas for improvement in pursuit of publication in peer-reviewed journals. The course is open to enrollment from any APSA member interested in engaging with these discussions and networking with scholars from the Arab Middle East and North Africa. The course is part of a larger collaboration between the American Political Science Association and the Project on Middle East Political Science (POMEPS) to enhance the networks between scholars based in the MENA region and the USA.
Marriott Wardman Park, Truman Room
Wednesday, August 28
1:30 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.
The Methods Studio Short Course has two parts: a workshop and a “crit,” described below. The focus of this year’s workshop (Part I) is “Interpretive Discourse Analysis.” Following that, the “crit” (Part II) will entail discussion of interpretive methods in two works in progress that were selected in advance via application.
Part I [1.30-3.45] Workshop: “Interpretive Discourse Analysis”
In the workshop part of the Methods Studio, Dr. Eric Blanchard (Assistant Professor of Political Science, SUNY-Oswego) will provide an introduction and assessment of the possibilities of discourse analysis as a way to conduct interpretive political analysis. Dr. Blanchard will first provide a brief overview of several leading discursive approaches, including narrative, metaphor and argument analysis, useful for researchers interested in exploring issues of meaning, representation, identity, interaction, and coercion in politics. He will then turn the discussion to the advantages, limitations and compatibilities of multiple, rich traditions of discourse analysis in order to prompt methodological reflection on the process of selecting and/or combining strategies.
References and planned course readings
Peter H. Feindt and Angela Oels, “Does Discourse Matter? Discourse Analysis in Environmental Policy Making,” Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 7.3 (2005): 161-173.
Giovanni Bettini, “Climate Barbarians at the Gate? A Critique of Apocalyptic Narratives on ‘Climate Refugees’,” Geoforum 45 (2013): 63–72.
Christopher Shaw and Brigitte Nerlich, “Metaphor as a Mechanism of Global Climate Change Governance: A Study of International Policies, 1992–2012,” Ecological Economics 109 (2015): 34–40.
Brigitte Nerlich and Rusi Jaspal, “Metaphors We Die By? Geoengineering, Metaphors, and the Argument from Catastrophe,” Metaphor and Symbol, 27 (2012): 131–147.
Jens E. Kjeldsen, “Strategies of Visual Argumentation in Slideshow Presentations: The Role of the Visuals in an Al Gore Presentation on Climate Change,” Argumentation 27 (2013): 425–443.
Part II [4.00-5.30] “Crit”: Exploring research projects
Two researchers will present their projects, focusing on questions about the research methods they are using and/or the ways they have written their methods sections. Methods Studio leaders will lead off in response, to draw in comments and questions of others in attendance such that the discussion serves to educate all. The Crit enables more prolonged engagement with each research project and emphasizes supportive critique with an eye toward publication and reviewers’ reactions.
Researchers presenting their work for discussion, with respondent
Crystal Whetstone, PhD candidate, University of Cincinnati: Compares political motherhood movements in Argentina and Sri Lanka using visual, archival and interview data to understand why some movements are “remembered” while others are “forgotten”.
- RESPONDENT: Prof. Kevin Bruyneel, Babson College (politics of memory) https://www.babson.edu/academics/faculty/faculty-profiles/kevin-bruyneel.php
Philip Luke Johnson, PhD candidate, City University of New York: Discourse analysis of communication by organized crime in Mexico. Examines how organized crime (and state agents) use mass media and public spectacle to control and govern the public sphere.
RESPONDENT: Prof. Sam Handlin, Swarthmore College (Comparative Politics, Latin American & Latino Studies) https://www.swarthmore.edu/profile/sam-handlin
Full Day, 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM
To register, please complete this form.
Drexel University’s DC Center
801 17th Street NW
Lafayette Tower, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20006
This is a day-long short course broken into two parts, and held off-site at Drexel University’s DC Center in Lafayette Tower (801 17th Street NW), easy walking distance from the conference hotels. Lunch and an end-of-the-day reception will be provided. Part 1 of the day (before lunch) explores the relationship between urban policy and politics, and is based on a journal symposium. Part 2 (after lunch) is based on an edited book currently in press. Draft copies of both the symposium and the book will be provided to participants ahead of the short course.
Part 1: Towards an Urban Policy Analysis: Linking Urban Politics and Public Policy
This short course probes the distinctiveness of urban policy analysis, seeking to extend theories and understandings of urban politics and public policy by engaging them in dialogue. We argue that neither urban policy processes, nor urban policies, can be understood simply with reference to theories developed without consideration of scale or for use at other scales (e.g. national or international). By drawing on insights from urban politics and urban studies literature applied to original empirical work, participants explore several key dimensions of urban policy making and the urban context including: the relationship between participation and policy outcomes; multi-level governance and the simultaneous autonomy and constraints in urban policy making; and the role of comparison in studies of urban policy. Contributions span policy areas of immigration, economic development, participatory governance and the digital economy. They examine processes and policies in North America, Europe, and Latin America, most often in comparative perspective.
Part 2: How Ideas Shape Urban Political Development
Ideas, interests, and institutions are the “holy trinity” of the study of politics. Of the three, ideas are arguably the hardest with which to grapple and thus, despite generally broad agreement of their fundamental importance, the most often neglected or treated in an ad hoc manner. This is nowhere more true than in the study of urban politics and urban political development. Our presenters discuss the existing major theoretical approaches to the study of urban politics and how those approaches have neglected the role of ideas; define what they mean by urban political development and explain how their case studies contribute to that definition; and discuss how urban political development is shaped by ideas.