Find the Calls for Proposals for the 2020 Annual Meeting from all of our Related Groups below. To view a group’s Call for Proposal, click on the title of the group and the call will appear below the group title.
Access the 2020 Related Group Contact List
“The State of Democratic Discourse in American Political Science” The 2020 APSA Call for papers contains extensive language about threats to democracy, authoritarianism, freedom of the Press, and illiberalism, with special reference to the current U.S. administration and a variety of other governments in the world (including Brazil and Poland). Completely absent from the Call is any sense that its particular use of terms like “democracy,” “authoritarianism,” “Freedom of the Press,” and “illiberalism” might be controversial. It consistently assumes answers to critical and complex questions without discussion. In doing so, it follows the path of much of contemporary American political science Drawing on broader and deeper reflections on these terms in the history of political philosophy, this APPI Roundtable will aim to provide a more balanced and nuanced analysis of the current state of democracy and liberalism.
<strong>Group Chair(s):</strong> Oki Takeda, Aoyama Gakuin University, Ngoc Phan, Hawai’i Pacific University
The Asian Pacific American Caucus (also known as APAC and the Asian and Pacific Islander American Caucus) welcomes proposals on all aspects of Asian Pacific American (APA) political life. Proposals related to the 2020 conference theme “Democracy, Difference, and Destabilization” are particularly welcome. For example, are APAs recognized as a legitimate minority group in U.S. society, and if so, in what areas? Do any threats, either institutional or informal, exist when APAs try to exert their constitutional political rights? Are the diversities within APAs well recognized and respected? Do U.S., state, and local governments well represent diverse interests of APAs?
Year 2020 is a good time to interrogate the relationship between APAs and elections given a lively contest for the presidency and other offices wherein the Asian American electorate has grown in voice and in number. How have APAs’ voting behaviors changed over the past ten or twenty years? Is it fair to say that now APAs are a “solid” and stable Democratic voting group? What factors increase the numbers of APA candidates and winners in elections, especially in a nation in which only a few congressional districts are majority APA? Given that APAs are an underrepresented group, can non-APA politicians substantially represent APAs’ interests?
Year 2020 is also a great time to commemorate the 19th Amendment which gave women the right to vote. Do female APAs vote differently than male APAs? Are there any differences either in number or quality between APA males running for office and APA females running for office?
Furthermore, issues such as glass ceiling, sexual harassment and equal treatment of LGBTQs are important. Have we paid enough attentions to these issues? How could we do better? As always, we welcome paper proposals on regular topics on APAs, from national, state, local context including at neighborhood levels, and from top-down elite as well as bottom-up mass analytical perspectives. Historical and contemporary frameworks as well as quantitative and qualitative approaches are equally welcome. Although we have “P” (Pacific) in our group name, we rarely receive proposals on Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders; and we welcome proposals in this burgeoning research domain. Finally, transnational politics—for example, the relationship between U.S.-based APAs and their ethnic countries of origin, and comparisons between APAs and other countries (such as Canada and Australia) are also welcome. Please note, however, APAC is a related group that primarily focuses on APAs within the U.S. If you have a proposal focused mainly on Asian countries, please consider sending it to other sections.
Democracy, Diversity, and (In)stability in Israel In line with the main conference theme, questions regarding the quality and stability of democratic institutions have not eluded Israel. 2019 saw the first time in Israel’s history, that elections to the Knesset took place twice after incumbent prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was unable to form a coalition government. Furthermore, recent years have seen multiple policies, legislative initiatives, and rhetoric that is vehemently nationalist, anti-minorities, and anti “elitist” institutions entrusted with checking the power of elected officials, such as the media, courts, and civil society. For example, proposals have emerged to legislate a “not-withstanding clause” that would allow legislatures to bypass judicial reviews. Other initiatives proposed legislation guaranteeing a seating prime minister immunity from criminal prosecution. These trends represent important questions for political scientists interested in Israel from multiple sub-disciplines: What factors have motivated this surge? Is it driven by self-serving incumbents consolidating control over institutions and mobilizing support by othering, perhaps delegitimizing, opponents? Or is it an understandable reaction against years of alleged social marginalization by cultural and social elites? What are the effects of these shifts? Are these trends reshaping Israel’s regime in a fundamental way? Or are they new versions of familiar ways of doing politics in Israel? How have citizens and political opposition responded to these changes? What will the implications be for minorities and other subaltern communities? What is the impact on Israel’s political culture? What might be the impact on Israel’s international relations and security if indeed, Israel is witnessing the erosion of democracy? The AIS invites paper proposals from scholars interested in the study of Israel seeking to assess and explain the transformations at hand and examine their probable trajectories. We encourage papers from all subfields of political science, papers that study Israel as a case study within a broader theoretical framework, and comparative papers that study Israel as one of a number of cases.
Call for papers for the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences panel at the 2019 American Political Science Association meeting: The Association for Politics and the Life Sciences invites paper proposals for the 2019 annual meeting (to be held in San Francisco, CA), September 1013, 2020). The study of biology and politics speaks to the many linkages between the life sciences and the study of politics. We invite proposals for papers as well as offers to serve as panel discussants and chairs. Papers on all topics are welcome, whether bioethics, biopolicy, neurobiological aspects of behavior, evolution and politics, etc.
The Association for the Study of Nationalities (ASN) invites paper proposals that focus on the relationship between nationalism and the resilience of democratic institutions. We welcome papers from all subfields of political science that feature new research about key aspects of this important theme. We are particularly interested in papers that include a focus on Central, Eastern, and Southeastern Europe; Russia; Ukraine; the Caucasus; and Eurasia. Information about the ASN may be found at http://nationalities.org/.
Group Chair(s): Jennifer Fredette, Ohio University and Vincent Pons, Harvard Business School
The Association of Chinese Political Studies (ACPS) invites submissions from scholars and practitioners for its panel at the 2020 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. The overarching conference theme, “Democracy, Difference, and Destabilization,” refers to issue areas and developments central for the study of contemporary and modern China. The ACPS invites paper proposals that apply innovative theoretical and methodological approaches to the analysis of China-related research puzzles, particularly those that address political, cultural, economic, historical, and religious dimensions of democracy and (de)stabilization. In the Chinese context, such questions cover a wide range of aspects of both domestic politics (e.g., constitutional reforms, institutional restructuring, the anti-corruption efforts…) and China’s interactions with other nations as well as regional and global organizations (e.g., democracy/autocracy promotion, institution-building along the “New Silk Road”).
The Association of Korean Political Studies (AKPS) welcomes submissions for its panel at the 2020 APSA Annual Meeting in San Francisco from Sept. 10-13. We invite paper or panel proposals from any subfield in political science, and they may apply any theoretical or empirical approach to the study of Korea-related questions. The conference theme is “Democracy, Difference, and Destabilization,” which is especially relevant for the study of the Korean Peninsula. We encourage proposals related to this theme, since it resonates with issues in the domestic politics of the two Koreas and in their relations with other countries and the international system. AKPS particularly welcomes proposals that consider the Koreas in comparative perspective. For more information about AKPS, please visit http://www.akps.org/.
The Brazilian Political Science Association welcomes proposals analyzing the crisis of democracy in Latin America, with special attention to illiberal and antidemocratic tendencies and its regional expressions. It encourages authors to approach the theme of the Apsa 2020 Annual Meeting, “Democracy, Difference, and Destabilization”, from a perspective that sheds light upon the recent changes in consolidated as well as more fragile and unstable democracies. The analysis of the crisis of democracy in Brazil and other Latin American countries could also bring to debate the fact that in the last decades liberal democracies have stablished and consolidated in the region as high rates of economic inequalities and violence remained.
The Campeign Finance Institute Our 2020 meeting will take place in the final weeks of the U.S. presidential, congressional and many state and local elections.Recent elections have featured new campaign finance practices and trends, as well as some disturbing activities, such as Russian directed and funded interference in American elections via social media. Mega-donors and dark money have become more prominent, but so too have cadres of small donors mobilized over Internet platforms. Publicly financed vouchers and matching funds have gained a foothold in some state and local jurisdictions, but other regulations seem no longer to fit contemporary realities. We invite any paper and panel proposals that discuss the state of policy, practice and scholarship in this field. We particularly invite proposals related to the conference theme of “Democracy, Difference, and Destabilization” that examine how electoral financing may reflect, exacerbate, or help ameliorate the threats and stresses faced in the United States or other democracies.
The Cato Institute, a related group of the APSA, will be organizing at least one panel/workshop/symposium for the 2020 American Political Science Association annual meeting. The Institute seeks to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace. In his iconic address on July 4, 1821, John Quincy Adams advised Americans to resist the temptation to go abroad “in search of monsters to destroy.” If the United States shifted its fundamental policy from “liberty to force,” Adams warned, “She might become dictatress of the world,” but “she would no longer [be] the ruler of her own spirit.” Was he right? In keeping with the key themes of the 2020 annual meeting — Democracy, Difference, and Destabilization — the Institute invites proposals that address whether and how U.S. foreign policy undermines or threatens liberal democracy, both at home and abroad, and welcomes contributions from a diverse audience of researchers and academic disciplines.
<strong>Group Chair(s):</strong>Troy Smith, Brigham Young University, Hawaii and John Kincaid, Lafayette College
The Center for the Study of Federalism invites papers that investigate how federalism impacts partisanship and partisanship impacts federalism. In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2019 decision to reject partisan gerrymandering cases, will the states remedy partisan gerrymandering, and, if so, which ones, and will less partisan redistricting reduce partisan polarization? Will the country remain divided between deep blue and deep red states? Is “progressive federalism” ephemeral, or will it survive Trump? To what extent has centralization contributed to partisan polarization or vice versa?
The Center for the Study of Statesmanship is accepting paper proposals for APSA 2020 aimed at understanding the roots and ramifications of democratism–the ideology sometimes underlying arguments for an increase in centralized power at home and a projection of political power and military might abroad. While so many consider “illiberal democracy” an oxymoron, there is a broad and increasing awareness that democratic ideology itself can lead to non- or anti-democratic policies and events. This is no accident. The connection is at least as old as the writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau and is also present in Plato and Aristotle. But that connection is receiving renewed and worthwhile attention in these days. Bringing the wisdom of past authors to bear on contemporary political concerns forms part of the mission of CSS, which will gladly accept proposals that are integrative and interdisciplinary in nature–particularly those focused on connections between politics and the imagination.
Christians in Political Science seeks proposals for its panel during the 2020 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. There is no set agenda regarding the substance of the panel; we’d consider panel proposals from any subfield of the discipline. We’re hoping for a panel that emphasizes diversity of approach and interdisciplinarity from a wide-ranging collection of researchers.
The Related Group on Civil Society, Policy, and Power invites proposals relating to the nongovernmental actors and spaces that shape politics and policymaking in the US and around the world. This universe includes policy advocacy organizations, trade and professional associations, unions, nonprofit service providers, grassroots groups, think tanks, grantmaking institutions, individual donors, and informal networks of social capital. In light of the conference theme, we are especially interested in papers that address the relationships between civil society and democratic institutions. Such work might think about civil society as a space where people develop skills and orientations that serve to buttress (or undermine) liberal democracy. Work might also explore the role that civil society plays in facilitating resistance to (or hastening the development of) illiberal regimes. Likewise, papers might consider civil society organizations as sources of ideas and collective action for democratic renewal (or deconsolidation). Thinking of civil society as the dependent variable, we also are interested in work that examines how government agencies, courts, legislatures, political leaders, and philanthropists threaten or protect civil society organizations and individual participation in the civic sphere. Work in this vein might explore policy innovation, threats, retrenchment, and feedback effects. Work that illuminates historical precursors to present predicaments would be warmly welcomed, as would work focusing on traditionally marginalized and vulnerable populations. Research that puts individual nations in comparative perspective would be especially relevant. Of course, papers need not directly engage the conference theme; we welcome the full range of original contributions. We invite empirical studies from diverse methodological traditions, as well as works of political theory. We encourage paper submissions and organized panel submissions. Panel submissions must include at least four papers, a panel chair, and a discussant. Where appropriate, the program co-chairs may add papers to these panels. We ask that all faculty members submitting proposals also volunteer to serve either as panel chairs or as discussants. Because the conference includes new presentation formats, we encourage proposals for one of these new formats. Please submit proposals to a second APSA division/group so that we have the opportunity to co-sponsor panels.
<strong>Group Chair(s):</strong> Joseph Postell, The University of Colorado, Colorado Springs
The Claremont Institute is dedicated to the study of the principles of the American Founding and to enhancing and maintaining an understanding of those principles in the academy and in the public mind. The Institute understands this mission in broad terms, and is thus also interested in the tradition of political philosophy that influenced the thinking of the American Founders, as well as issues in contemporary American politics and foreign policy that might be informed by the principles of the American Founding. The Institute sponsors panels and roundtables at the annual meeting that explore these themes through a diversity of approaches and a variety of disciplines. Paper proposals must be made through the APSA proposal system. Interested parties can also contact Joseph Postell (firstname.lastname@example.org), who serves as organizer for these panels.
Personalization of Politics and Challenges to democracy Democracy is not a given and liberal democracy is currently challenged by illiberal tendencies at the macro level. The meso level of politics also face challenges. One of them is that politics seems to become more personalized, understood as increased political weight to individual actors in the political processes, and decreased importance to political groups. This could imply decreased access to collective resources and hence prove a challenge for the participation of less resourceful individuals. On this basis the panel aims to explore to what extent the personalization of politics and decreased importance of political groups such as parties, interest groups and social movements have an impact on the inclusiveness and representativeness of these institutions? And does the personalization of politics challenge the extent to which mass publics are able to barricade against illiberal tactics and practices? We encourage diversity and welcome papers applying all kinds of social science approaches, methods and empirical cases.
The 2020 meeting theme, “Democracy, Difference, and Destabilization,” is one that scholars of Latin American politics and political economy have long examined, given the history and current realities in the region. We are able to sponsor one panel in 2020. Typically, we do so in conjunction with an APSA section; accordingly, submissions should be made to us and an APSA section such as Comparative Democratization, Comparative Politics of Developing Countries, Comparative Politics, Human Rights, International Political Economy, International Collaboration, or Political Economy.
In accordance with the meeting theme, we are especially interested this year in a panel proposal or papers that examine the evolving nature of threats and stresses to political democracy in the region, or that explain the trajectories of different types of democratic and authoritarian rule. We are also interested in papers that examine the uneasy and complicated relationships of states and regimes with: electoral, participatory and other forms of democracy; accountability, the rule of law and the judiciary; the media; different forms of gender, ethnic or social inclusion (or exclusion); sustainable economic development; and international alliances. Other topics could include links across citizen views and behavior, political party systems and patterns and forms of representation; inequality and social policy; corruption and corruption scandals; social mobilization, protest, violence and security; explanations for differences across sub-national units; manipulation of electoral and other rules by state actors; and electoral trends and political behavior.
Additional subjects could include the changing impact of trans-national trends such as migration, or of international actors such as the United States or the People’s Republic of China, international organizations such as the Organization of American States (OAS), or regional or sub-regional groupings of states. We welcome proposals from all scholars, employing diverse methodological approaches chosen on the basis of the problems or issues they are examining.
As societies across the world face extreme pressure on democratic institutions and illiberal political developments, urban residents are at the forefront of demanding democracy. Alternatively, the city is an arena for contentious struggles over rights, distribution, migration, and development. The city has become a site of both populism and privilege, where extreme inequality confronts powerful urban social movements, as well as populist politicians that mobilize poor and marginalized residents. What are the political ramifications of rapid urbanization across the world? Cities can no longer be understood solely within a national context but should be examined within an international and comparative framework. The Comparative Urban Politics related group welcomes panel and paper proposals addressing any aspect of the politics and governance of cities in a comparative context. Panel proposals that include perspectives from both the developed and developing world, have broad appeal across the discipline, and draw from significant fieldwork will be favored. Since we only have one panel on the APSA program, it is advisable to submit your proposals to other Sections as well.
The theme for the 2019 theme for the APSA Annual Meetings is ‘Democracy, Difference, and Destabilization’. The Conference Group on Italian Politics (CONGRIPS) would like to use that theme to highlight the Italian case. Indeed, Italy represents a privileged viewpoint for understanding the challenges in modern democratic politics and the related social problems of discrimination, marginalization and exclusion.
Understanding democratic destabilization requires to take into account very different research perspectives. The CONGRIPS panel welcomes studies addressing issues such as: the fading of political ideologies, the party organizational change, the shifts in public opinion and antiparty feelings as well as dissatisfaction with democracy, the new trends in political communication with reference to the role played by social media in disintermediation processes, the personalization of politics and the role of leadership. Papers that explore these dimensions by focusing on 2018 general elections and 2019 European Parliamentary elections are welcome, as are papers that highlight debates about the Constitution of the Italian Republic. Papers that put Italy in a comparative context are welcome as well.
As with last year, the aim is to bring together a set of papers which together convey the richness and complexity of the politics of discontent in Italy, which itself is a reflection of broader trends in Europe and beyond. Paper proposals must be made through the APSA proposal system. Informal inquiries can be made to the CONGRIPS program chairs, Erik Jones (email@example.com) and Antonella Seddone (firstname.lastname@example.org).
2020 American Political Science Association, Conference Group on Taiwan Studies (CGOTS) CALL FOR PAPERS The 2020 American Political Science Association (APSA) Annual Meeting will be held from September 10-13, 2010, in San Francisco, CA. The conference theme is “Democracy, Difference, and Destabilization.” CGOTS invites paper and panel proposals on Taiwan’s domestic politics, cross-Strait issues, and international relations that are consistent with the theme of “Democracy, Difference, and Destabilization.” In the United States, democratic institutions are generally thought of as bulwarks against manifold threats, both inside and outside of the American polity. Indeed, the assumption has been that our nation’s constitution is solid and prescient enough to thwart—or at the least contain—the more authoritarian impulses of citizens and elected officials alike. Donald J. Trump’s election to the presidency of the United States in 2016 has dramatically called into question this working assumption. Yet President Trump’s ascendance to executive power is more epilogue than the prologue to the inclusivity of American democracy. In the decades leading to Trump’s momentous election, there were already countless signs of democracy displaying illiberal tendencies in the United States. For example, the Supreme Court’s abandonment of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has made it possible for states to suppress the ability of citizens of color to register and vote. The practice of gerrymandering continues to enable one political party to maintain control of state legislatures and congressional delegations, regardless of the intensity of their electoral support. Doubts have been raised anew about birthright citizenship, which was first established through the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to formally incorporate Black Americans into the body politic. The United States is not alone in peering down this deep dark well. Brazilians have ushered in President Jair Bolsonaro, who openly disdains democratic principles. Poland’s citizens have been witness to their conservative party attempting a dismantling of the judiciary and separation of powers. In Egypt, repression and authoritarian control have tightened substantially under the political control of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. Hong Kong’s emerging democracy has stalled, though signs of democratic resistance emerged in summer 2019. For the 2020 Annual Meeting, we encourage participants to consider questions about “Democracy, Difference, and Destabilization” in Taiwan, especially those that speak to the strengths and weaknesses of Taiwan’s democracy under the theme perspective, and to various domestic and international issues related to threats imposed by the Chinese authoritarian regime. The next presidential and legislative elections in Taiwan will be held on January 11, 2020. It is perfect timing to investigate the existing and emerging problems facing Taiwan’s democratic rules and practices. We encourage scholars to raise and study the following questions under the Taiwan context, including how citizens react to democratic threats in Taiwan; who, within democratic publics, endorses illiberal tactics and practices in Taiwan; who, within mass publics, staffs the barricades against democratic threats in Taiwan; when individuals perceive a threat to their position within a democracy and how they respond politically in Taiwan; where, across the globe, mass publics best reconcile capitalism with support for democratic institutions; where, in the world, we see people agitating to gain or maintain rights; and why some individuals interpret demographic changes as threats to their rights, rather than a plus for democratic governance in Taiwan. We also welcome proposals that utilize innovative approaches to understand how Taiwan positions itself under the U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy and the ongoing U.S.-China trade frictions. Research investigating the dynamics of the U.S.-Taiwan-China relations, the influences of China on Taiwan’s domestic and international politics, the impact of the U.S.-China trade frictions on Taiwan’s outward and inward trade and investment patterns, the potential changes between the cross-Strait relations as a result of the 2020 general elections, and the public perception on Taiwan’s foreign policy is highly desirable. These questions help the political science academe to better understand Taiwan under the global context and raise Taiwan’s international visibility. Paper proposals must be made through the APSA proposal system. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Yao-Yuan Yeh (email@example.com), CGOTS Coordinator. Travel support for CGOTS panelists is subject to the availability of external funding.
Governing with Amnesia: Interpreting Policy Learning in Turbulent Political Times Interpretive and critical scholars of public policy memory have begun to focus on the idea of memory in the policymaking process (see eg. Grube et al. 2018; Stark 2019; Dunlop 2018). Scholars here have shed important light on how actors build, share and lose memories about specific policy failures and successes, and about the general experience of the relationships, discourses, and practices involved in navigating the often complex and byzantine processes of democratic governance. This line of research has made interesting and important strides, but requires more work in light of the destabilizing effects of recent events in democratic politics. On the one hand, this upheaval would seem to exacerbate the strains placed on memory and learning in the policy process – populist rhetoric and associated moves to constrain and marginalize traditional sources of policymaking expertise risk displacing actors with intimate experiential knowledge of the barriers and enablers to policy reform. On the other hand, contemporary political upheaval might throw into question the pragmatic value of accumulated policymaking memory – disrupting old relationships, developing new discourses and instantiating new practices, all of which potentially render ‘old’ memory and learning obsolete. What happens to institutional memory and policy learning in a context of upheaval? Who has it and what do they do with it? And is this memory even still relevant, or can we govern with amnesia? We invite papers which address these questions and tensions, and explore their implications, in policy theory and practice.
The Disasters and Crises Related Group (DCRG) brings together scholars from a broad variety of subfields within political science along with researchers from outside the discipline to foster collaboration and diffusion of ideas on disasters, mass casualty events, and crises. The DCRG invites proposals for its related group panels at the 2020 American Political Science Association meeting in San Francisco, CA the theme of which is Democracy, Difference, and Destabilization. Potential topics include how governments work with or against bottom up responses during threats, how democratic nations turn away from core principles during crises, how individuals and groups perceive extreme weather and climate change risks as threats to their positions, and how marginalized groups interact with government agencies during and after crises. We encourage proposals using a variety of methodological approaches including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods.
Because the 2020 APSA conference theme is “Democracy, Difference, and Destabilization,” the APSA Education Politics and Policy Related Group seeks papers or panels related to the intersection of education politics, democracy, and identity. How, for example, have struggles over education policy exacerbated conflicts between religious, racial, and ethnic groups? What is the relationship between the content and degree of education and individuals’ anti-democratic tendencies? Can integrated schooling strengthen democracy? These and other questions related to the relationship between schooling, democracy, and diversity are welcomed. We are also interested in papers or panels on other aspects of the politics of education. Studies on the development of education systems, citizen attitudes on education issues, how certain education policies shape political behavior and other outcomes, how various actors shape education policy and implementation, and a range of other topics are welcome. Generally, papers should speak to larger political science issues beyond education. We welcome proposals on any country or region and with any method.
In the spirit of APSA’s 2020 theme, “Democracy, Difference, and Destabilization,” the Environmental Politics and Theory Related Group (formerly, the Green Politics and Theory Related Group), calls for papers that explore the relationship between democracy and global environmental change. We are particularly interested in work that considers how we should understand (the value of) democratic agency in the age of the Anthropocene. Should we assume that democratic publics are capable of effectively responding to the climate crisis? Or should we instead embrace a more authoritarian, top-down, technocratic politics, as ecologists like James Lovelock have suggested? What resources does democratic theory have for approaching these overlapping crises? Proposals may also examine the potential of vivified democratic movements, particularly in Europe, for militating urgently needed climate action, or how the manifold environmental crises unfolding around us threaten to destabilize democratic governments, reinforce global inequalities of power and voice, and catalyze the rise of far-right, xenophobic, racist, politics. While the Environmental Politics and Theory Related Group especially encourages proposals that engage the themes and issues described above, any submission that addresses the wide-ranging issues relevant to environmental political theory is welcome.
Call for proposals 2020 meeting: The Eric Voegelin Society, for its 36th annual international meeting in 2020, to be held as part of the APSA annual meeting, invites papers in the general field of political philosophy with particular attention to the work of Eric Voegelin and the broad range of interdisciplinary and comparative concerns reflected in his scholarship. This includes: resistance to tyranny, classical philosophy, Christian thought, philosophy of history, the interface of religion and politics including radical Islam, modernity, post-modern thought, terrorism, ideological politics with its authoritarian and totalitarian manifestations, and contemporary challenges (both foreign and domestic) to liberty, free government, rule of law, the integrity of the American constitutional order and federal system including liberty, individual rights, and the tradition of Anglo-American constitutionalism–all prominent interests of the Society.
Paper proposals must be made through the APSA proposal system. You can also send a 200 word precis with any proposal, a title, author’s name, affiliation, and Email address.
Contact: Prof. David Walsh, Meeting Director, Eric Voegelin Society firstname.lastname@example.org
Members of Disadvantaged Groups in Populist Right-Wing Parties: Strategies, Recruitment, Careers and Behavior In the past decade, populist right-wing parties have grown in strength and aggressiveness in many liberal democracies challenging liberal democratic rights and practices. They have also increased their strength in legislatures where they have often been critical or derogatory of specific disadvantaged societal groups–women (presented as criticism of ‘political correctness’), ethnic minorities, members of LGBT communities and some other groups. Nevertheless, many legislative parties on the populist and extreme right include members belonging to such groups. What theories, data and methods are available to describe and explain variations in such group members’ behavior in legislatures? What are the conditions for them to articulate relevant group interests in the legislative process? Do they seek to ‘compensate’ for their status by adopting ideologically more radical policy positions in particular policy areas? Are they selected and promoted by their parties to defend the latter against criticism in competition with other parties? The ECPR, through its panel, wishes to explore such and related questions and welcomes both comparative work and case studies that illuminate broader trends at work. Paper proposals must be made through the APSA proposal system. You can also send a copy of the paper proposal you are submitting to Thomas Saalfeld, member of the ECPR Executive Committee, email@example.com, to whom informal enquires about the panel can also be made. The deadline is 14 January 2020, after which the selection of papers will be made and the panel constructed.
The Federalist Society invites proposals for a roundtable discussion that will consider the challenges to the rule of law given both tensions within democratic institutions and polarization of political parties. Among legal scholars and political scientists, there are competing conceptions about the role of individual citizens in democratic governance. Moreover, the increase in executive governance has created new challenges to democratic order. Potential questions include: Does the polarization of political parties threaten the rule of law? What effect do recent political trends and executive actions have on the attainment of individual liberty? How can our political institutions respond to these growing tensions within democratic order? We welcome proposals for a moderated discussion that addresses these or related questions.
The FPG welcomes paper, panel, roundtable and short course proposals on a wide range of topics related to the study of French Politics. Comparative proposals are encouraged along with proposals that focus on the theme of this year’s meetings (Democracy, Difference, and Destabilization). Co-sponsorships with other groups/divisions are required for acceptance. Of particular note, the FPG will be organizing a roundtable for APSA 2020 in honor of our late colleague, Dr. Robert Elgie. For more information about the FPG, please consult http://web.apsanet.org/fpg/
CONTACT: Convener, Vincent Pons (Harvard University) firstname.lastname@example.org; Co-Convener, Amy Mazur (Washington State University) email@example.com
We invite proposals that address issues related to democracy and destabilization, broadly understood, in Iberian politics. The global financial crisis has produced a political earthquake in many countries that has led to the disruption of the established party systems. In Iberia it has resulted in a political context that is more fragmented in both Portugal and Spain, and it has led to the emergence of new political actors that articulate aspirations questioning the legitimacy of entrenched political and social actors and call into questions the established distribution of power. The emergence of Podemos in Spain is particularly relevant in this regard, while Vox questions the tenets of established democracy from the right. In Portugal, however, the crisis has not led to the emergence of new populist parties. This leads to questions such as: What explains the emergence and success of new political parties in Spain, and the absence of a similar phenomenon in Portugal? What are the dynamics and impact generated by the new parties and their implication for democracy? In the absence of a new populist party, how do we account for the success of the Left in Portugal? Does the fragmentation of the Spanish party system and the turnover in executive office indicate democratic instability? We invite papers that analyze dimensions of democracy and destabilization in Portugal and Spain, and address the issue theoretically regardless of methodological approach. Papers that analyze democracy and destabilization in Iberia in a broader comparative context are also welcome.
In line with the conference theme of “Democracy, Difference and Destabilization”, the Indigenous Studies Network seeks papers that place Indigenous groups and their politics within the challenges that confront democracies and democratic institutions in the 21st century. We seek proposals from all subfields in political science including public policy, law, political participation, intergovernmental relations, political theory, and others that address the myriad political, legal and policy challenges faced by Indigenous groups now and in the recent past. We welcome rigorous, theoretically grounded work regardless of topic or approach including papers from the U.S., Canada, and around the world that help us better understand Indigenous groups.
The Institute for Constitutional Studies is soliciting papers and proposals that consider constitutionalism, broadly understood. We are particularly interested in panels that consider contemporary concerns with democratic decay in historical perspective. What light, if any, does the past throw on contemporary democratic ills. What forces in the past may be pushing democratic ills and do historical forces exist that suggest a democratic revival.
Past, Present, and Future Challenges to Intelligence Intelligence organizations occupy a multilayered position in democracies. They are vital to their stability and promoting good governance through their ability to identify foreign threats and challenges. Doing so requires that intelligence organizations and professionals be accorded a degree of autonomy. At the same time, consistent with principles of democratic oversight and governance, intelligence agencies and professionals must be held accountable. No single method exists for doing so. Investigations, whistleblowers, free press watchdogs, leaks, the appointment of political overseers, and promoting professionalism are all used. The dilemmas inherent in navigating through these requirements are complicated by tensions which exist with policy makers who often only want intelligence that supports their positions (politicization), with other intelligence organizations, with other government bodies that have competing priorities and outlooks (bureaucratic politics), and with citizens who question the actions and legitimacy of the people and institutions who govern (populism).
This panel invites paper proposals and round table proposals that deal with the past, present and future challenges that intelligence faces in operating in a democracy. Possible topics include but are not limited to 1) case studies or comparative case studies over time of intelligence organizations operating in democratic systems, or comparing intelligence in democracies and authoritarian systems, 2) studies of the effectiveness of various methods of democratic control, 3) responses by intelligence organizations to challenges, 4) theoretical inquiries into the nature of politicization, populism or professionalism, 5) interaction of intelligence organizations and the media 6) overcoming intelligence failures and 7) dealing with technological change.
Paper proposals must be made through the APSA proposal system. Inquiries and proposal can also be sent to Glenn Hastedt, James Madison University, firstname.lastname@example.org
The IASGP would like to solicit a panel related to important issues in German politics (or politics in other German-speaking countries), either individually or in comparative perspective. We especially welcome proposals centered around the conference theme of “Democracy, Difference and Destabilization.” Democracies around the world are facing threats from a variety of sources. In the German context, the rise of the Alternative for Germany represents one pressing challenge. As the Age of Angela Merkel comes to an end, we are also interested in papers exploring the changes in the German political landscape that this shift will bring with it. Panels on other themes are also welcome. A panel would normally consist of four papers, a chair and discussant. We would ask that proposals have due regard to gender balance, and it would be especially welcome if doctoral students or early career researchers formed part of the proposal.
The International Churchill Society (formerly known as The Churchill Centre) requests proposals for papers on the theme “In Churchill’s Orbit” for its twenty-second annual panel, organized as a related group at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association to be held in San Francisco, September 10-13, 2020. Papers should address Churchill’s association with friends, family members, colleagues, fellow parliamentarians or statesmen, teachers, mentors, subordinates, or assistants. In keeping with the APSA’s goal of increasing diversity, inclusion, and access throughout the profession, the International Churchill Society particularly welcomes proposals demonstrating intellectual diversity from a wide range of approaches, viewpoints, and disciplines.
The Interpretive Methodologies and Methods Conference-related Group provides a forum for the discussion of methodological and methods issues related to interpretive research, as well as issues arising from their position within contemporary political and other social sciences. Interpretive methodologies and methods are informed by philosophical traditions such as hermeneutics, phenomenology, pragmatism, and symbolic interaction. Notwithstanding their differences, these traditions presuppose that the meaningfulness and historical contingency of human life differentiates the social realm from the natural one, with implications for how research is conducted. Although diverse in their modes of identifying or generating and analyzing data, research processes in the interpretive tradition are typically characterized by: a) an empirical and normative prioritizing of the lived experience of people in research settings; b) a focus on the meaning(s) of acts, events, interactions, language, and physical artifacts to multiple stakeholders; and c) a sensitivity to the historically- and/or situationally-contingent, often-contested character of such meanings. We call for paper, panel, and roundtable proposals that explore interpretive methodological issues or that apply interpretive methods (e.g., political ethnography, grounded theory in Strauss’s more phenomenological tradition, discourse analysis) in ways that demonstrate their “comparative advantage” for empirical research across all subfields of political science. Especially welcome are proposals that reflect on how political science itself is situated in the webs of meaning and historical context that it studies.
For further Information about the IMM Conference Group: www.interpretationandmethod.com.
Paper proposals must be made through the APSA proposal system.
Interested presenters may contact the 2020 IMM program chair, Nicholas Rush Smith, with any questions at email@example.com.
The IPSA Research Committee on Concepts and Methods welcomes proposals for panels and/or papers on topics related to conceptualization, measurement, and methodology. Proposals related to the APSA conference theme of “Democracy, Difference, and Destabilization” are particularly encouraged, as are those that foster diversity and inclusion.
The International Political Science Association’s Research Committee # 12 (Biology and Politics) invites paper proposals for the 2020 annual meeting (to be held in San Francisco), September 10-13, 2020. The study of biology and politics speaks to the many linkages between the life sciences and the study of politics. We invite proposals for papers as well as offers to serve as panel discussants and chairs. Papers on all topics are welcome, whether bioethics, biopolicy, neurobiological aspects of behavior, etc. The conference theme for APSA in 2020 is “Democracy, Difference, and Destabilization.” Papers addressing this theme are encouraged, but you are not restricted to submitting a proposal on that subject. If you have any questions, contact Steven Peterson (firstname.lastname@example.org) or Albert Somit (email@example.com).
IPSA RC 36 on Political Power invites papers on power as it relates to APSA’s 2020 conference theme of “Democracy, Differences and Destabilization.”
Japan has not yet experienced the surge of national-level populism that has beset many other developed democracies. However, it has not been immune from worries about the quality of its democratic representation either. The Liberal Democratic Party continues to dominate legislative politics, amidst disarray among opposition parties and the growing apathy of voters. Japan’s press freedom rankings have fallen in the last decade, reflecting concerns about informal political pressures and media self-censorship. Recent scandals have called into question the resilience of the civil service to partisan demands. At the same time, Japan continues to lag behind many of its democratic peers in gender equality in both public and private spheres.
Criticisms of the nature of Japanese democracy are not new, and in some cases are overstated. That said, new domestic and geopolitical challenges have renewed interest in reassessing the informal and formal rules of governance. For the APSA 2020 meeting, we invite scholars in all areas of the discipline to investigate questions related to the quality of Japanese democracy. We welcome research that looks at government actions and public reactions in response to domestic and international pressures, including (but not limited to):
- Demographics, and whether improvements in work-life balance and increasing immigration can be successful
- The changing nature of partisanship, particularly across generational cohorts, and norms about social diversity, including gender, sexuality, and nationality
- Challenges to the liberal international order, and what role Japan should play in the region and globally
- The primacy and legitimacy of the news media, and how it mediates mass-elite linkages
We invite you to submit your papers or panels on labor, work, unions, employment, or any related theme for APSA 2020. We encourage diverse perspectives on these topics from a range of academic specialties, including but not limited to human rights, political economy, public policy, interest groups, social movements, comparative politics, state politics, immigration, theory, gender, race, ethnicity, history, and law. We aim to connect diverse scholars and particularly welcome international and comparative scholarship, including contributions from international and junior scholars. We look forward to discussing topics such as the role and influence of labor in the context of closing civic space in the US and globally, migration and refugee issues, resurgent and alternative labor organizing, transnational labor activism, national and subnational policies affecting work and employment relations, changes in union politics and political organizations, efforts to protect and promote freedom of association — and many others!
In keeping with the APSA 2020 annual meeting theme of “Democracy, Difference, and Destabilization” the Caucus is particularly interested in receiving paper proposals that address current debates and issues in Latino politics including, but not limited to, Latino political representation and underrepresentation, the degree to which Latinos are excluded or included in our country’s democratic institutions and practices, how Latinos are responding to political threat, Latino contributions to major policy and politics developments, and ongoing conversations about immigration and the flow of asylum seekers at the border. Given the electoral calendar, we are also interested in papers focusing on the role of the Latino vote in 2020.
The Law and Political Process Study Group has been sponsoring and co-sponsoring panels at the APSA for over thirty years. The group concerns itself with legal and policy questions related to elections and politics, and with empirical questions germane to the legal and policy questions. Our panels are interdisciplinary, with participation by political scientists, law professors, and sometimes academics in other disciplines and lawyers, government officials, and activists. Typical subjects for papers and roundtables include campaign finance, redistricting, voting rights, election administration, rights and regulation of political parties, ballot initiatives, bribery and corruption, and legislative lobbying and ethics. The Group welcomes papers and panel proposals in these areas.
Although political homophobia continues to be a major challenge globally, there have also been promising gains in LGBTQ rights in a variety of regimes, for example when homosexuality was decriminalized and discrimination based on sexuality was banned in Angola. Nevertheless, even in established democracies like Australia and the United States where many LGBTQ rights protections have been won, we have seen that those victories continue to be challenged and in some cases, have been reversed or weakened by the proposed enactment of “religious liberty” protections. LGBTQ asylum seekers still face tremendous barriers in applying for asylum, even in countries with a strong record of protecting LGBTQ rights. Moreover, LGBTQ people whose identities intersect with other marginalized groups in society, often face heightened discrimination. The ways in which LGBTQ people and other marginalized communities are treated are indicators of the importance of diversity, equity, inclusivity, and thus the well-being of democracies. During the 2020 annual meeting, the LGBT Caucus invites paper submissions focused on assessing recent developments in LGBTQ rights and activism which tie in to these discussions about diversity, inclusion, and democratic governance globally. Papers from all subfields, relying on a variety of methodological approaches, are welcomed.
The McConnell Center for Political Leadership requests proposals that explore the themes of political leadership, statesmanship, civic virtue, the role of religion in politics, or the education of aspiring leaders. More specifically, we are looking for proposals that examine what theoretical resources are most helpful to contemporary leaders facing the challenges of this year’s APSA theme: “Democracy, Difference, and Destabilization.” While primarily focused on the examination of these themes in the history of political thought, we welcome proposals from diverse approaches in political theory and across the discipline.
The Caucus on Poverty, Inequality, and Public Policy of the Policy Studies Organization is hosting a panel at the 2019 APSA meeting on the theme: What Do the Elections Portend for Social Legislation in the US? We invite proposals for papers to be delivered at this panel.
The Political Forecasting Group invites proposals for papers and panels at the 2020 APSA meeting, September 10-13, in San Francisco. We welcome quality political forecasting research from all fields, including international relations, comparative politics, and elections. Please feel free to contact the group organizer (Mary Stegmaier, firstname.lastname@example.org) if you have questions or ideas.
The Political Studies Association of Ireland (PSAI) welcomes paper proposals related to Irish politics for its panel at the 2020 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association (APSA). It particularly welcomes proposals related to the theme of the meeting, “Democracy, Difference, and Destabilization.” The two jurisdictions on the island of Ireland have in the past been characterised by the Republic’s relative social homogeneity and Northern Ireland’s stark ethno-political cleavage between unionists and nationalists. It remains to be seen what the outworkings of Brexit will have on this cleavage in terms of intergroup cooperation and identity politics. At the same time, Irish society has become much more diverse over recent decades, as has the rest of Europe. And like other European nations, it has been forced to confront various challenges posed by such diversity, although a nativist political party has yet to emerge. There is thus much to say about democracy, difference, and political stability on this island, north and south. We also welcome, of course, paper proposals on any aspect of Irish politics. Preference will be given to individual paper submissions but panels relating to the conference theme will also be considered.
Considerable political and policy turbulence currently characterizes political life in the United States as well as any number of other nations around the globe. Among other factors, the rise of populist movements has upended conventional paradigms of the “rules” of politics and policy development. Scholars who undertake their professional endeavors through applied politics have unique opportunities to be engaged in these and other political challenges of the day. To this end, the Practicing Politics Working Group seeks submissions that capitalize on the dual role perspective and approach of scholar/practitioners. These submissions should include a discussion of one or more significant political phenomenon, and how practical experience informs that understanding and enhances the outcome of both parts of one’s professional portfolio. That is, how does role as political scientist inform one’s practitioner’s work and vice versa. An ongoing macro-level mission of the working group is to contribute to understanding as to how political science and practitioner applications can and do integrate, thereby benefitting both professional sectors.
The Project on the American Constitution is accepting proposals for papers, panels and roundtables for the 2020 Annual Meeting. We are particularly interested in proposals that address the issues in contemporary constitutional theory. Paper proposals should include an abstract and full contact information for the presenter. Panel proposals should include an abstract of each paper and full contact information for all participants. Roundtable proposals should include a summary of the question to be addressed by the roundtable as well as full contact information for all participants. Paper proposals must be made through the APSA proposal system.
Federalism and the Trump Presidency. Participants will examine actions, policies, and developments and their implications for federalism during the Trump presidency
The Russian Politics Group invites paper proposals from interested scholars for its panel. The main topic of the panel is “The Fate of Democracy in Russia”. We propose the following topics and questions for discussion: Between Democracy and Autocracy: the main characteristics and development of the Russian political regime. Democracy on guard of sovereignty: the case of “sovereign democracy”. Free market and illiberal or managed democracy: how they coexist? Democracy and social inequality: the economic criteria for political participation in Russia. Is Russia a threat to American and European democracy? The future of democracy in Russia: what happens after Putin? This list of questions is not exhaustive. We are open to your proposals and initiatives. Paper proposals must be made through the APSA proposal system. You can direct your questions or/and propositions to Denys Kiryukhin (email@example.com).
Democracy under attack? Challenges facing the Central and Eastern Europe. Year 2019 was all about thirty years of democratic changes and fifteen years since joining the EU in Central and Eastern Europe. While both anniversaries offered the opportunity to celebrate freedom, economic development, cooperation and peace, the frustrations have not avoided the region. On the contrary, the widespread fatigue with the political “establishment”, endemic corruption and failure to fight it effectively, and a desire for change are the issues resonating in the societies and often driving the voters’ decisions. The nationalists and populist movements using the frustrations to question fundamental democratic values are often dominating the agenda. Harsh political rhetoric targeting the EU, attempts to control and influence the independent media and NGOs, the concentration of economic and political power in the hands of individuals or companies with often very questionable backgrounds, all these are important warning signs of the democracy order under attack. Such trends do not go unnoticed by external observers, but do these narratives affect how people in the Central and Eastern Europe see their own democracies? Do those trends effect membership in the EU or NATO? Whose values do the CEE citizens align with? Whom do they perceive as a threat to the national security and stability of their once-hard-won democracy? Do anti-democratic narratives affect them at all? National case studies from Central and Eastern European region, as well as comparative perspective research including (part of) Central and Eastern European region, will be particularly welcomed.
For more information please contact related group head, Prof. Dr. Miro Hacek, firstname.lastname@example.org
The Society for Greek Political Thought is an interdisciplinary organization devoted to the study of classical political thinking in all of its forms. We welcome a diversity of approahes and scholars from a wide range of backgrounds. We are seeking paper, roundtable, and panel proposals on the political philosophy, politics, and poetic literature of the ancient Greeks. This year’s conference theme is “Democracy, Difference, and Destabilization.” Accordingly, the Society welcomes papers, roundtables, and panel proposals that examine how ancient philosophers or poets approach problems associated with democracy and the rule of law, as well as proposals that explore other perennial issues pursued by classical thinkers.
The Society for Romanian Studies is an international interdisciplinary academic organization dedicated to promoting the professional study, criticism, and research of all aspects of Romanian culture and civilization, particularly concerning the countries of Romania and Moldova. The Society for Romanian Studies welcomes paper proposals related to Romanian politics for its panel at the 2020 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association (APSA), which will take place between September 10 and September 13, 2020, in San Francisco, CA. The theme for the 2020 meeting of the American Political Science Association is Democracy, Difference, and Destabilization. We are particularly interested in proposals that use Romania in comparative perspective or as a single case study, or in proposals that are related to the conference theme. Interdisciplinary papers and proposals from graduate students are encouraged. Since the panels are allotted 90 minutes, no more than four papers can be selected, in order to allow time for discussing the papers. The recommended length for the proposals is 500 words. All proposals will be processed directly through the APSA website.
For additional information, you can contact Claudiu Tufiș (email@example.com).
The Society of Catholic Social Scientists seeks proposals for its program at the 2020 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. We particularly welcome proposals focusing on the social thought of significant figures in the Catholic intellectual tradition, various aspects papal social teaching, and Catholicism and American public life.
The Southeast Asian Politics Related Group (SEAPRG) invites proposals for the 2020 American Political Science Association meeting in San Francisco, California. The conference theme is “Democracy, Difference, and Destabilization”. These concepts are central to politics throughout Southeast Asia, where nearly all countries blend elements of democratic and authoritarian features, and a widespread ‘democratic regression’ has been noted. As such, we welcome proposals grounded in the rich empirical landscape of the ASEAN region (plus Timor Leste) that address major issues around democracy and the threats to it. We are interested in quality of scholarship regardless of methodological approach. Proposal for individual papers or wellorganized panels/roundtables are both welcomed, though we note a preference for panels/roundtables that highlight the region’s diversity. Furthermore, in keeping with ASPA’s emphasis on diversity, we are especially welcoming of panelists from a range of different backgrounds.
Approximately 20% of the world’s population lives under single-party communist dictatorships. The transition from communism to post-communism, moreover, raises many interesting and interrelated theoretical and practical questions that political scientists are uniquely suited to address, such as how best to approach lustration, how to rebuild civil society, and how to reform state security apparatuses. The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation welcomes paper proposals from practitioners and political scientists of diverse methodologies, approaches, and viewpoints dealing with the subject of communism’s ideology, history, and legacy broadly understood. Especially welcome are papers addressing topics such as socialism, communism, Marxism, Maoism, Leninism, Stalinism, ethnicities, cultural identities, and ideologies, as well as communist and post-communist regimes.
The Walter Bagehot Research Council seeks proposals for participation on a roundtable discussion about the nature of freedom in American political life, with special focus on the contrasting understandings of freedom among contemporary political leaders and aspiring political leaders in the United States, and how debates about the meaning of freedom are playing out in American electoral politics.