Navigation
 

Nepos.net Ph.D Courses

Content



SOCIAL RESEARCH AS A CRAFT 2012

2365 Responsible: Asbjørn Sonne Nørgaard, Institut for Statskundskab, Syddansk Universitet, Odense Svend-Erik Skaaning, Institut for Statskundskab, Aarhus Universitet
From: 2012/02/01 to: 2012/03/14
Subscription Deadline: 2012/01/18
Place: Half the lectures will be located in Odense and half in Aarhus on Wednesdays from 10:00-16:00
ECTS (Danish Ph.D. students only): 10
 Further information: AGG@ps.au.dk

COURSE DESCRIPTION:

All researchers, young or old, who are in the process of making a large scholarly analysis, are faced with a set of common challenges that relates to the art and craft of making a good study. Social science in general and political science in particular, is not an easily defined type of work or process. Even a superficial inspection of the articles appearing in scholarly journals will reveal an almost infinite number of themes covered, an abundant use of research methods signifying a plurality of ideals of best practice, and a true myriad of seemingly relevant sources and data. Notwithstanding the absence of agreed upon shared standards of good science, most scholars agree that doing good social science is also a craft – a craft that can be learned.

This course is an invitation to PhD scholars who want to learn more about how to systematically tackle some of the issues pertaining to the craft of making good social science. We will only pay scant attention to the different techniques of data collection and analysis (interviewing techniques, statistical methods, etc.), and there will be no thematic umbrella for the course, although themes related to political science will be in focus.

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

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

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

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


LITERATURE:

  1.  King, Gary; Sidney Verba & Robert Keohane (1994). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  2.  And the texts – journal articles and book chapters – listed below under readings (please notice that we will not provide a reader).

COURSE REQUIREMENTS:

All participants produce a five pages (not including references) description of their project and send it to all participants and the teachers (list of e-mail addresses will be provided) no later than 27 January. Each project description should include:

  1.  Declaration of intent
  2.  Account of the research question/problem to be studied and a comment on the relevance of the project
  3.  Definitions of core concepts
  4.  Account of theoretical argument(s), specific propositions/hypotheses, and – if applicable – a causal model
  5.  Discussion of the data and sources
  6.  Account of the research design (cases and methods)

COURSE PLAN:

The course is organised as seven meetings, each time six hours. We will start at 10.00 AM. In the first two hours we will have lectures and discussions of one or more general topics. After a lunch break, we will discuss the participants’ project descriptions. Each time two or three projects will be discussed. Half of the meetings will take place in Aarhus and half in Odense.

Lesson 1: 1 February 2012:
On (Social) Science

Aarhus University, Building 1330, Room 0.38

  1.  The triangle of subject-theory-method
  2.  Problem-driven research
  3.  What is science and social science?
  4.  Discovery

Readings:

Gerring, John (2001). Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapters 1 and 2.

King, Gary; Sidney Verba & Robert Keohane (1994). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research, Princeton: Princeton University Press, Chapters 1 and 2.1.

Smith, Rogers (2002). ”Should We Make Political Science More of a Science or More about Politics?”, PS, Political Science and Politics 35(2), pp. 199-204.

Lesson 2: 8 February 2012:
Conceptualization

Odense University, Building xx, room xx

  1.  Ladder of abstraction
  2.  Classical concepts, family resemblance concepts, and radial concepts
  3.  Conceptual trees
  4.  Minimalist and maximalist definitions
  5.  Conceptual stretching

Readings:

Collier, David & James E. Mahon, Jr. (1993). ”Conceptual ‘Stretching’ Revisited: Adapting Categories in Comparative Analysis”, American Political Science Review 87(4), pp. 845-855.

Goertz, Gary (2006). Social Science Concepts: A Users’ Guide, Princeton: Princeton University Press, Chapters 2 and 3.

Gerring, John (1999). ”What Makes a Concept Good?”, Polity 31(3), pp. 357-393.

Lesson 3: 15 February 2012:
Theory, Propositions, and Models

Aarhus University, Building 1330, room 0.38

  1.  Standing on the Shoulders of Giants
  2.  Innovation
  3.  From research question to general theory to specific hypotheses
  4.  Complex relationships
  5.  Cohesion vs. eclecticism
  6.  Consistency

Readings:

King, Gary, Sidney Verba & Robert Keohane (1994). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press, Chapters 2 (except 2.1) and 3.

Swedberg, Richard (2010). The Craft of Theorizing, conference paper.


Swift, Adam & Stuart Whitel (2008). ”Political Theory, Social Science, and Real Politics”, pp. 49-69 in David Leopold & Marc Stears (eds.), Political Theory: Methods and Approaches, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lesson 4: 22 February 2012:
Operationalization and Data

Odense University, Building xx, room xx

  1.  Measurement validity
  2.  Data providers and their biases
  3.  Different types of sources
  4.  Data collection

Readings:

Adcock, Robert & David Collier (2001). ”Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research”, American Political Science Review 95(3), pp. 529-546.

Yoshiko Herrera & Devesh Kapur (2007). ”Improving Data Quality: Actors, Incentives, and Capabilities”, Political Analysis 15(4), pp. 365-386.

Andreas Schedler (2012). ”Judgment and Measurement in Political Science”, Perspectives on Politics 10(1), pp. xx-xx.

Lesson 5: 29 February March 2012:
Testing and Drawing Inference

Aarhus University, Building 1330, room 0.38

  1.  Logic of control
  2.  Case selection
  3.  Experiments, statistical studies, case studies
  4.  Descriptive and causal analysis and inference
  5.  Appraisal

Readings:

King, Gary, Sidney Verba & Robert Keohane (1994). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press, Chapters 4, 5, and 6.

Gerring, John (2004). ”What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good For?”, American Political Science Review 98(2), pp. 341-354.

Arend Lijphart (1971). ”Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method”. American Political Science Review 65(3), pp. 682-693.

Gerring, John & Jason Seawright (2008). ”Case-Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options”, Political Research Quarterly 61(2), pp. 294-308.

Lesson 6: 7 March 2012:
Testing and Drawing Inference (continued)

Odense University, Building xx, room xx

  1.  Multi-method research
  2.  Nested analysis
  3.  Multi-level analysis
  4.  Comparisons across space
  5. Comparisons across time

Readings:

Lieberman, Evan (2004). ”Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research”, American Political Science Review 99(3), pp. 435-452.

Special Issue (on mixed-method strategies) of the newsletter of the APSA Qualitative and Multi-Method research section, pp. 2-32. http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/uploadedFiles/moynihan/cqrm/Newsletter7.2.pdf

Mahoney, James (2004). ”Comparative-Historical Methodology”, Annual Review of Sociology 30, pp. 81-101.

Tarrow, Sidney (1995). ”Bridging the Quantitatve-Qualitative Divide in Political Science”, American Political Science Review 89(2), pp. 475-481.

Lesson 7: 14 March 2012:
Making Social Science Matter

Aarhus University, Building 1330, room 0.38

  1.  Heuristics and knowledge production in the social science perspective
  2.  Does anyone actually do it?
  3.  Phronetic and/or epistemic social science?

Readings:

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

Brady, Henry E., David Collier & Jason Seawright (2004). ”Refocusing the Discussion of Methodology”, pp. 3-20 in Henry E. Brady & David Collier (eds.), Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Laitin, David (2003). ”The Perestroikan Challenge to Social Science”, Politics & Society 31(1), pp. 163-184.

Flyvbjerg, Bent (2004). ”A Perestroikan Straw Man Answers Back”, Politics & Society 32(3), pp. 389-416.

LANGUAGE

The course will be held in English if not all participants are fluent in a Scandinavian language.

GRADING

All participants are graded passed or not passed. The evaluation is based on active participation in the course and the presentation of their project.




Immigration, diversity and populism

2363 Responsible: Martin Jørgensen, martinjo@cgs.aau.dk
From: 2012/03/01 to: 2012/03/02
Subscription Deadline: 2012/02/10
Place: Aalborg University
Fee: DKK 0 - free - gratis
Link to full program: here
ECTS (Danish Ph.D. students only): 2+2
 Further information: Martin Jørgensen: martinjo@cgs.aau.dk, Susi Meret: meret@cgs.aau.dk



Why Do Social Research? A Personal Answer

2364 Responsible: Michael Hviid Jacobsen, mhj@socsci.aau.dk og Anders Petersen, apt@socsci.aau.dk
From: 2012/03/14 to: 2012/03/14
Subscription Deadline: 2012/03/01
Place: Aalborg universitet, Kroghstræde 7, rum 63, 9220 Aalborg Øst
Fee: 0 - free
Link to full program: here
ECTS (Danish Ph.D. students only): 1+2
 Further information: mhj@socsci.aau.dk



CASEUDVÆLGELSE OG INDSAMLING AF KVALITATIVT MATERIALE 2012

2366 Responsible: Jørgen Elklit og Rasmus Brun Pedersen Institut for Statskundskab, Aarhus Universitet
From: 2012/03/20 to: 2012/04/24
Subscription Deadline: 2012/03/07
Place: Undervisningen finder sted på Aarhus Universitet, tirsdage fra kl. 10.00-15.00:
ECTS (Danish Ph.D. students only): 5
 Further information: AGG@ps.au.dk

KURSUSBESKRIVELSE

Analyser af et begrænset antal cases er en vigtig del af statskundskaben, og i den forbindelse er udvælgelsen af cases helt central. Det samme gælder den efterfølgende udvælgelse og anvendelse af empirisk materiale i form af fx arkivmateriale, eliteinterviews, taler, avisartikler, aftaler og rapporter. Formålet med kurset er således for det første at præsentere forskellige teknikker til brug ved caseudvælgelse (såvel en, få eller et middelstort antal cases) og at styrke kursisternes kompetence til at vurdere hensigtsmæssigheden af caseudvælgelsen givet forskellige videnskabelige formål (fx eksplorative eller teoritestende), forskellige forskningsstrategier (fx induktive eller deduktive), forskellige problemstillinger og forskellige forklaringsmodeller. For det andet er det formålet at styrke deltagernes færdigheder i at planlægge og gennemføre indsamlingen af forskellige former for kvalitativt materiale, herunder interviews og samt dokumenter. Endelig introduceres til historisk metode i forbindelse med indsamlingen og vurderingen af historiske kilder.

FORELØBIG KURSUSPLAN

uge 12 2012

Introduktion til kurset. Casebegrebet. Forskellige kvalitative designs og strategier samt betydningen heraf for caseudvælgelsen.

uge 13 2012

Teknikker til caseudvælgelse.

uge 16 2012

Teknikker til udvælgelse af tekstmateriale. Kildebegrebet og kildekritik. Introduktion til arkivstudier

uge 17 2012

Planlægning og gennemførelse af kvalitative interviews, herunder eliteinterview.

FORELØBIG LITTERATURLISTE

Beach, Derek & Pedersen Rasmus Brun (2012) Process Tracing Methods foundations and guidelines. University of Michigan Press.

Elklit, Jørgen og Henrik Jensen (2010 (eller senere), “Kvalitative datakilder”, pp. 117-143 i Lotte Bøgh Andersen et al. (red.), Metoder i statskundskab, København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

Geddes, Barbara (2006). “How the cases you choose affect the answers you get: selection bias in comparative politics”, Political Analysis, 2(1): 131-150.

George, Alexander L. & Andrew Bennett (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press. (Købes)

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

King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane & Sidney Verba (1994). Designing Social Inquiry. Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, kap. 3+4.

Kvale, Steinar (1998). Interview. En introduction til det kvalitative forskningsinterview, Hans Reitzel, pp. 129-147.

Lieberman, Evan S. 2005. Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research. American Political Science Review 99(3): 435-451.

Lofland et al (2006) Analyzing Social Settings. A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis (4. ed), Thomson Wadsworth.

Mahoney, James and Gary Goertz (2006). “A Tale of Two Cultures”, Political Analysis, 14(2): 227-249.

Rohlfing, Ingo. 2008. What You See and What You Get: Pitfalls and Principles of Nested Analysis in Comparative Research. Comparative Political Studies 41(11): 1492-1514.

“Symposium: Interview Methods” (2002) Political Science and Politics, 35(4): 665-682.




Applied quantitiative metodes using STATA

2351 Responsible: Yosef Bhatti, Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen. Professor Ben Highton, UC Davis will be running the course.
From: 2012/03/26 to: 2012/03/30
Subscription Deadline: 2012/01/22
Place: University of Copenhagen, CSS, Øster Farimagsgade 5, 1353 Copenhagen K. Room no. TBA.
Fee: 100 Euro
ECTS (Danish Ph.D. students only): 1+5
 Further information: yb@ifs.ku.dk

Aim of the course:

The aims of the course are (a) To increase the participants’ ability to conduct applied quantitative research (b) To increase the participants’ knowledge of Stata (c) To give the students an opportunity to discuss their research with an experienced international scholar.

To accomplish our aims, each class will have several components including (a) lectures that introduce new material, (b) lab sessions that provide students opportunities to practice the methods from lectures, (c) discussion of journal articles that employ multivariate analysis, and (d) student presentations of their own research.

The course will be held over 5 days at the Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen. There will be teaching 6 hours per day.

Course instructor is Ben Highton, Associate Professor at UC Davis. His research and teaching interests include American national politics, political behavior, elections, public opinion, and research methods. His research has appeared in journals such as American Journal of Political Science, Journal of Politics, Political Behavior, Public Opinion Quarterly and British Journal of Political Science.

Prerequisites:

Participants are expected to have a basic understanding of Stata and some knowledge of OLS regression. Participants are not expected to have knowledge of matrix algebra.

For those not familiar with Stata we offer a voluntary 1 day brush-up course 1½ weeks prior to course start (Friday 2012/03/16). We will mainly focus on learning Stata and brush up some of the fundamental methodological concepts. Those who have not used Stata before are recommended taking the brush-up course. Yosef Bhatti, University of Copenhagen, will be instructor for the brush-up course. All PhD students with a political science background are qualified to take the course if they attend the brush-up course. We encourage both students doing qualitative and quantitative research to take the course.

All participants are required to submit their research proposal or a piece of quantitative research before course start (maximum 20 pages). The participants will get the opportunity to present their work in class and get feedback from the course instructor and their fellow students.

Course plan:

Monday, March 26: Introduction: bivariate and multivariate OLS regression models

Tuesay, March 27: Regression diagnostics, graphing, and interaction effects

Wednesday, March 28: Moving beyond OLS with instrumental variables

Thirsday, March 29: Moving beyond OLS with logistic regression

Friday, March 30: Tricks of the trade: getting the most out of your data with stata


Each day will typically begin with 2-3 hours of lecture and discussion of new material followed by a 1-2 hour lab session where students work on exercises on their laptops. The remaining time will be spent discussing applications of multivariate analysis from journal articles and students’ own research.

A final course plan and reading list will be sent to the accepted students in due time before the course.

Tentative Reading list:

  1. Nagler, Jonathan. 1995. "Coding Style and Good Computing Practices." The Political Methodologist 6 (2).

  1. Highton, Benjamin. 2006. “Long Lines, Voting Machine Availability, and Turnout: The Case of Franklin County, Ohio in the 2004 Presidential Election.” PS: Political Science and Politics 39:65-8.

  1. Bartels, Larry M. 1998. "Electoral Continuity and Change, 1868-1996." Electoral Studies 17 (3):301-26.

  1. Jackman, Robert W. 1987. "Political Institutions and Voter Turnout in the Industrial Democracies." American Political Science Review 81 (2):405-23.

  1. Green, Donald Philip, and Jonathan S. Krasno. 1988. "Salvation for the Spendthrift Incumbent: Reestimating the Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections." American Journal of Political Science 32 (4):884-907.

  1. Uscinski, Joseph E., and Casey A. Klofstad. 2010. “Who Likes Political Science?: Determinants of Senators’ Votes on the Coburn Amendment.” PS: Political Science and Politics.

  1. King, Gary, Michael Tomz, and Jason Wittenberg. 2000. "Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation." American Journal of Political Science 44 (2):347-61.

  1. Tomz, Michael, Jason Wittenberg, and Gary King. “Clarify: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results.”

Registration

Please indicate (2-3 lines) in your registrationn your level of knowledge and experience with quantitative methods. Please also indicate if you will be taking the brush-up course.




KVANTITATIV METODE 2012

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

FORMÅL

Efter seminaret skal deltagerne selv være i stand til at:

  1. Selvstændigt at konstruere kausalmodeller på baggrund af en teori.
  2. Indsamle kvantitative data og herunder designe survey- og eksperimentelle undersøgelser.
  3. Foretage faktoranalyse og bi- og multivariat lineær regression (herunder med dummy- og interagerende variable) af kvantitative data.
  4. Redegøre for fordele og ulemper ved forskellige metodiske valg og de anvendte statistiske teknikker.
  5. Redegøre for forudsætningerne for anvendelse af de anvendte statistiske teknikker samt vurdere konsekvenser af forudsætningsbrud.
  6. Vurdere hvilken metode og teknik, der bedst egner sig til at besvare en given problemstilling.

KURSUSBESKRIVELSE

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

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

Der undervises 7 uger med følgende temaer:

  1. Den kvantitative forskningsproces
  2. Spørgeskemakonstruktion og stikprøveudvælgelse
  3. Faktoranalyse og indekskonstruktion
  4. Modelbygning og kausalitet
  5. Bivariat regressionsanalyse
  6. Multivariat regresionsanalyse
  7. Håndtering af forudsætningsbrud i multivariat regressionsanalyse

FAGLIGE FORUDSÆTNINGER

Deltagerne skal være indstillet på et højt fagligt niveau og store krav til arbejdsindsatsen, eftersom kurset også udbydes som et ph.d.-kursus.

UNDERVISNINGS- OG
ARBEJDSFORM

Et vigtigt formål med seminaret er at forbedre deltagernes praktiske færdigheder. Derfor skal deltagerne løbende anvende metoderne på konkrete politologiske problemstillinger. Hver uge får deltagerne en konkret opgave (f.eks. konstruktion af spørgsmål til et spørgeskema). Disse opgaver løses skriftligt, afleveres til underviserne og udgør eksamen i seminaret. Underviserne giver en faglig tilbagemelding på hver opgave, herunder om den kan godkendes, men der gives ikke karakterer.

PRØVEFORM

Små obligatoriske hjemmeopgaver under kurset.

 LITTERATURLISTE

Seminaret vil bl.a. bruge følgende litteratur (i uddrag):

  1.  Gujarati, Damodar N. (2003). Basic Econometrics. Boston: McGraw Hill. kap. 1-6 (200 sider)
  2.  Kim, Jae-On & Charles W. Mueller (1978). Introduction to Factor Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
  3.  Brambor, Thomas; William Roberts Clark & Matt Golder (2006). ”Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses”, Political Analysis, 14(1): 63-82.
  4.  Kempf-Leonard, Kimberly, Editor-in-Chief (2005) Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, Elsevier (vi bruger forskellige artikler fra denne encyklopædi). Der er online adgang fra universitets maskiner på http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/referenceworks/0123693985).
  5.  Rosenberg, Morris (1968) "The Logic of Survey Analysis", New York, London: Basic Books.




Public Management: Theories and Contemporary studies

2329 Responsible: Associate Professor Karl Löfgren, Roskilde University, Associate Professor Patrik Hall, Malmö Högskola
From: 2012/05/21 to: 2012/05/25
Subscription Deadline: 2012/03/25
Place: Malmö Högskola
Fee: 150 Euro
ECTS (Danish Ph.D. students only): 5 (2.5)
 Further information: sek@polforsk.dk

The course is postponed!


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

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

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

Program


 Monday Nov 7 Tuesday Nov  8 Wedneday Nov 9 Thursday Nov 10 Friday Nov 11
09.00 - 10.30 -- How to conceptualise NPM? Carsten Greve, CBS Paper presentations Paper presentations Roundtable: The end of NPM? (I) Presentation 3 x 15 min.
  1. Karl Löfgren (Roskilde)
  2. Jørgen Grønnegaard-Christensen (Aarhus)
  3. Patrik Hall (Lunds universitet)
10.30 - 11.00 -- Coffee break Coffee break Coffee break Coffee break
11.00 - 12.30 Welcome – Introductory lecture. Karl Löfgren & Patrik Hall
Beyond NPM- Impact on public management/leadership
Dorthe Pedersen, CBS
 The governmentality perspective on NPM.
Peter Triantifillou, RUC		 What happened to NPM in Australia and New Zealand? Jenny Lewis, Roskilde University Roundtable (II): Discussion & Conclusion
12.30 - 13.30 Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch
13.30 - 15.30 Paper presentations Paper presentations Paper presentations Paper presentations --
15.30 - 16.00 Coffee break Coffee break Coffee break Coffee break --
16.00 - 17.30 The state of NPM.
Lecture by Janet Newman, UK		 Paper presentations Evidence of NPM reform. Professor Colin Talbot,
An organisational policy-specific case study of NPM.
Kjell Arne Rövik, Tromsø Universitet		 --

18:30

Dinner

Dinner

Literature related to the lectures


Janet Newman's lecture:

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

Carsten Greve's lecture

  • Christensen, Tom & Lægreid, Per. Eds. 2011. The Ashgate Research Companion to New Public Management. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 1-96 and 391-430

Dorthe Pedersen's lecture

  • Jean Hartley & Dorthe Pedersen (2008): "The changing context of public leadership and management: Implications for roles and dynamics", International Journal of Public sector Management, vol 21, no 4 2008, pp 327-339.
  • Andersen, Niels, Åkerstrøm (2011): "Conceptual history and the diagnostics of the present", Management & Organizational History 2011 6: 248
  • Osborne, Steven P. (2010) Introduction. The New Public Governance: a suitable case for treatment?" in Osborne (ed), The New Public Governance. Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance, London & New York: Routledge, pp. 1-17.
  • Christensen, Tom & Per Lægreid: Democracy and administrative policy: contrasting elements of NewPublicManagement (NPM) and post-NPM in European Political Science Review (2011), 3:1, 125-146 & European Consortium for Political Research
  • Jon Stokes and Stewart Clegg (2002): "Once upon a Tine in the Bureaucracy: Power and Public Sector Management, in Organization, vol. 9 (2), Sage Social Science Collection, pp. 225-247.

Peter Triantafillou's lecture

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

  • Triantafillou, P. 2011. More of the same? The European Employment Strategy and the normalization of British employment policies, Critical Policy Studies, 5 (1): 1-16.

Jenny Lewis' lecture:

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

Jørgen Grønnegaard's roundtable lecture

  • Shaun Goldfinch & Joe Wallis: Two Myths of Convergence in Public Management Reform, Public Administration, 2010, vol. 88, no. 4, 1099-1115.
  • Martin Lodge & Derek Gill: Toward a New Era of Adminsitrative Reform? The Myth of Post-NPM in New Zealand. Governance, 2011, vol. 24, no. 1, 141-166
  • Anne Binderkrantz & Jørgen Grønnegård Christensen: Agency Performance and Executive Pay in Government: An Empircal Test. Journal for Public Administration,

Patrik Hall's roundtable lecture

  • Brodkin, Evelyn Z. (2006). Bureaucracy Redux: Management Reformism and the Welfare State, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17(1): 1–17.
  • Gregory, Robert (2007). New Public Management and the Ghost of Max Weber: Exorcized or Still Haunting?, in Christensen, Tom & Lægreid, Per (red.), Transcending New Public Management: The Transformation of Public Sector Reforms. Aldershot: Ashgate.
  • Hasselbladh, Hans & Bejerot, Eva (2007). Webs of Knowledge and Circuits of Communication: Constructing Rationalized Agency in Swedish Health Care, Organization 14: 175–200.
  • Hazledine, Tim & Quiggin, John (2006). No More Free Beer Tomorrow? Economic Policy and Outcomes in Australia and New Zealand since 1984, Australian Journal of Political Science 41(2): 145–159.
  • Hood, Christopher & Peters, B. Guy (2004). The Middle Aging of New Public Management: Into the Age of Paradox?, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14(3): 267–282.
  • Kelleher, Christine A. & Yackee, Susan Webb (2008). A Political Consequence of Contracting: Organized Interest and State Agency Decision Making, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(1): 124.
  • McSweeney, Brendan (2006). Are We Living in a Post-Bureaucratic Epoch?, Journal of Organizational Change Management 19(1): 22–37.
  • Meier, Kenneth J. & O’Toole, Jr, Laurence J. (2008). The Proverbs of New Public Management: Lessons From an Evidence-Based Research Agenda, The American Review of Public Administration 39(1): 4–22.
  • Middleton, Chris (2000). Models of State and Market in the ‘Modernisation’ of Higher Education, British Journal of Sociology of Education 21 (4): 537–54.
  • Reay, Trish & Hinings, C.R. (2009). Managing the Rivalry of Competing Institutional Logics, Organization Studies 30(6): 629–652.
  • Skolnik, Michael L. (2010). Quality Assurance in Higher Education as a Political Process, Higher Education Management and Policy 22(1): 67–86.
  • Timmermans, Stefan (2008). Professions and their Work: Do Market Shelters Protect Professional Interests? Work and Occupations 35(2): 164–188.

Karl Löfgren's lecture

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


This Ph.d course is funded by Polforsk and Interreg

euoks-logo.jpg



Polforsk summer school - stream 1: Political Behaviour

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

Preliminary Program

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

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


Programme and readings:


Monday August 20:


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


15-18: Paper presentation with assigned discussants


Tuesday August 21:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


10:30-12: Paper presentation with assigned discussants


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


15-18: Paper presentation with assigned discussants


Wednesday August 22:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


10:30-12: Paper presentation with assigned discussants


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


17-18: Paper presentation with assigned discussants


Thursday August 23:


9-10:30: Electoral Campaigning

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

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

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

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


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


For further information:

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




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

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

Preliminary Program

In recent years, theories focusing on change in public policy such as agenda-setting theory and theories about the role of ideas have gained momentum, but explaining change and stability of public of public policy within the same theoretical framework remains a challenge. The workshop will also deal with the methodological challenges involved in analyzing change in public policy. The workshop invites papers analyzing policy change and stability within all policy fields and from different methodological perspectives. We welcome papers dealing with these questions theoretically and empirically or from purely theoretical angles.


POLFORSK 2012: Public Policy

Mandag

Tirsdag

Onsdag

Torsdag

09.00


Patrick Marier

Ellen Immergut

MBK/CGP. Data and methodology in public policy analysis

11.00

MBK/CGP: Public policy as the dependent variable in comparative political analysis

Paper presentation

Paper presentation

Paper presentation

12.00

Lunch

Lunch

Lunch

Lunch

13.30

MBK: Public policy as the driving wheel in political conflicts

MBK: Reforming public policy. Does politics still matters?

CGP: Policy agendas and agenda setting


15.00

Paper presentation

Paper presentation

Paper presentation




For further information:

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



Polforsk summer school - stream 4: Public Administration: Organising the public sector

2360 Responsible: Bente Bjørnholt (AAU) & Bodil Damgaard (RUC)
From: 2012/08/20 to: 2012/08/23
Subscription Deadline: 2012/04/20
Place: Torvehallerne, Vejle: Kirketorvet 12, 7100 Vejle
Fee: 3500 kr.
ECTS (Danish Ph.D. students only): 4½
 Further information: bodam@ruc.dk

Preliminary Program

Theme and aim

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

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

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


Structure of stream

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


Papers, inputs and suggestions

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

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


1 Chapter drafts must feature an introduction explaining the aim of chapter, i.e. in which context it should be read.


Program


Monday Welcome and introduction

9-11 Check-in and introduction (entire summer school)


11-12 Welcome to the stream & Setting the Scene:

The development of public administration paradigms

Lecture by Bente Bjørnholt & Bodil Damgaard

In the first lecture we outline the intellectual history and development of public administration discussing different modes of governance and management. We examine different forms and principles of steering differentiating between hierarchies, marked, interactive networking and self-organising. We discuss different analytical and theoretical perspectives characterising central paradigms ending at post-NPM perspectives.

We compare the assumption behind the different paradigms and discuss the challenges in combining the paradigms in public sector reforms. Focus will be on the analytical span between individual and collective action and the expected rationalities and motivations in the paradigms, and we touch upon the expected role and function of the state, the possibilities for the state to steer, and the empirical consequences of different modes of organising.


12-13 Lunch


13-15 Setting the Scene (continued)

Lecture by Bente Bjørnholt & Bodil Damgaard

Conclusion: Competing understandings and recommendations for post-NPM PA:

  • Performance measurement / performance governance

  • Governmentality as instrument for steering


15-18 Paper presentations


Tuesday The performance movement

The day is devoted to lectures, group discussions on performance measurement and decentralised decision-making, and paper presentations.


9-11 Post-NPM: Performance governance

Lecture by Carsten Greve, CBS

We give an overview of recent management reforms: From performance management to performance governance. The plurality and complexity of public sector reforms are discussed and we identify hybrid ways of organising.


11-12 Paper presentation


12-13 Lunch


13-14:30 Discussions in groups Introduction by BB


15-16 Paper presentations


16-18 Keynote speech (for entire summer school)


Wednesday Self-governing and innovation

The day is devoted to lectures, group discussions on governmentality and reflexive steering, and paper presentations.


9-11 Governmentality: From diagnosis to reflexive steering

Lecture by Michell Dean, University of Newcastle, Australia


11-12 Paper presentation


12-13 Lunch


13-14:30 Group discussions on governmentality Introduction by BD


15-18 Paper presentation


Thursday Conjectures for Public sector reforms

The day is devoted to paper presentations and final reflections on the future of public administration and its analysis.


9-11 Paper presentations


11-12 The future of PA and its analysis

Bente Bjørnholt & Bodil Damgaard

On the basis of earlier discussions we sum up and draw the perspectives for future modes of governance and management. Brief evaluation of our days together.


12-13:00 Lunch – then departure


Suggested literature (to be elaborated)


The state of NPM

Greve, C. (2010) “Whatever happened to new public management”, paper presented at the Panel on “New Public Management” at the Danish Political Science Association meeting, 4-5 November.

Pollitt, C. (2008) Time, Policy, Management: Governing with the Past, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Pollitt, C. (2011) “30 years of public management reforms: Has there been a pattern?”, A background paper for the World Bank consultation exercise, accessible at http://blogs.worldbank.org/30-years-of-public-management-reforms-has-there-been-a-pattern


New public governance

Osborne, S. (2006) Editorial: the new public governance? Public Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 377-387.

Osborne, S. (Ed.) (2010) The New Public Governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance, Routledge, London.


Governmentality

Dean, M. (1999): Governmentality. Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: Sage. (På dansk: Governmentality. Magt og styring i det moderne samfund. København: Forlaget Sociologi.

Miller, P. & Rose, N. (2008) Governing the Present: Administering Economic, Social and Personal Life, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Rose, N. & Miller, P. (1992) “Political power beyond the state: problematics of government”, British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 173-205.


For further information:

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



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

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

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


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


Monday August 20:

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

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

15-18: Papers


Tuesday August 21:

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

11-12: Paper

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

15-16: Paper


Wednesday August 22:

9-12: Papers

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

15-18: Papers


Thursday August 23:

9-11: KLR: “Political Feasibility”

11-12: Paper


Literature:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Polforsk summer school - stream 2: The International Relations (IR)

2358 Responsible: Senior Researcher Rens van Munster (DIIS) and Professor Lene Hansen (KU)
From: 2012/08/20 to: 2012/08/23
Subscription Deadline: 2012/04/20
Place: Torvehallerne, Vejle: Kirketorvet 12, 7100 Vejle
Fee: 3500 kr.
ECTS (Danish Ph.D. students only): 4½
 Further information: rmu@diis.dk


Preliminary Program

Thematic focus of the IR Track:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


General readings

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selected papers will be prioritized and circulated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Readings for lecture on “International Security Studies”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Readings for lecture on “Feminist IR”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Readings for lecture on “IR and One-Worldism”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


For further information:

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



Quantitative Methods for Causal Inference

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

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


Requirements

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

Costs

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

Admission

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

Accommodation

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

Cabinn Odense; DanHostel Odense; Ydes Hotel