|
Call for Presentations
82nd Annual Conference 2010
Concordia University
Chairperson, Programme Committee -
Stuart Soroka (McGill)
Local Representative, Programme Committee - Mebs Kanji (Concordia)
The Programme Committee invites proposals for participation in the Annual Conference of the Canadian Political Science Association (CPSA) to be held at Concordia University in Montreal, June 1-3, 2010.
Individuals are invited to submit their proposal by 3 November 2009. Proposals received after this date will not be considered. The Committee welcomes proposals from all areas of political science and hopes to produce a programme reflecting the breadth and diversity of the discipline. There are several ways you may propose to participate in the conference. The Committee invites proposals for single papers, multiple paper panels, roundtables and posters. Panel proposals, including discussants, are especially welcomed.
General Information: TO ENSURE A POSITIVE CONFERENCE EXPERIENCE, PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE SECTION BEFORE SUBMITTING YOUR PROPOSAL.
1) The CPSA conference is held during the Congress of the Social Sciences and Humanities (Congress). Each CPSA conference participant must register for both the Congress and the CPSA conference. Anyone who does not causes a loss of revenue for the CPSA conference and is responsible for any increase in Congress registration fees. By not paying, participants only serve to withhold much needed support for the conference and penalize their paying colleagues with higher fees. Further information on registration fees and accommodation will be available at a later date.
2) For accepted presentations by single authors or multiple authors, each author must be a member in good standing in CPSA by 15 April 2010. Membership exemptions will be provided to invited guests of the programme committee, and on request, to foreigners who can provide confirmation of a membership in their national association or individuals from other scholarly disciplines. Chairpersons, discussants and roundtable participants are not required to be members but are more then welcomed to do so.
3) The CPSA receives a travel grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to assist members to come to the annual meeting from distant places. These funds are intended to especially facilitate participation by junior members. Please read the Travel Grant Policies before submitting your proposal to see if you are eligible.
4) The CPSA proudly announces the eighth competition for the Jill Vickers Prize. The 2011 award of $750 will be made to the author or authors of the best paper presented at the 2010 CPSA conference on the topic of gender and politics. Further information will be available at a later date at Jill Vickers Prize.
5) Presenters must be prepared to attend the conference and to make their presentations in person.
6) Presenters may be considered as possible chairpersons or discussants for other sessions.
7) Each programme committee section head groups and assigns presentations to particular sessions, taking into account the type of session desired by the presenters and the overall programme balance. Research in progress is encouraged in round table or poster sessions.
8) Papers should be SINGLE SPACED, not exceeding the CJPS manuscript submission word count of 8,000 and should not have been previously published. It must be completed by 20 May 2010 and e-mailed to the relevant section head and the other participants in the session. E-mail addresses will be available in the on-line programme. Please also forward an electronic copy (pdf format) to the CPSA national office for uploading to the conference website.
Failure to comply to the 20 May 2010 deadline can result in the chairperson excluding the presentation from the session. Further, the discussant will have no obligation to comment on the paper if he/she has not seen it previously. Such an action would be a loss to all attending the session.
9) It is recommended that authors bring copies of a one-page outline of their session to their presentation for the benefit of their audience.
10) Non-presenters willing to act as a chair and/or discussant are asked to contact the CPSA secretariat at cpsa-acsp @ cpsa-acsp.ca.
11) Applicants can choose audio-visual equipment options when submitting their proposals but CPSA requests that presenters be reasonable in their demands for audio-visual equipment. CPSA cannot guarantee equipment other than overhead projectors and screens at this time. Session descriptions in the on-line programme will include any audio-visual equipment for the session.
12) General inquiries or difficulties with the submission process should be addressed to the CPSA secretariat at cpsa-acsp @ cpsa-acsp.ca.
13) Names of section heads and workshop organizers of the Programme Committee:
Canadian Politics – James Kelly (Concordia)
Comparative Politics – Pablo Policzer (Calgary) / Steffen Schneider (Bremen)
International Relations – Marc Doucet (St. Mary’s, ISA-Canada) / Miguel de Larrinaga (Ottawa)
Local and Urban Politics – Robert Young (UWO)
Political Behaviour/Sociology – Fred Cutler (UBC)
Political Economy - Laura Macdonald (Carleton)
Political Theory – Jacob Levy (McGill) / Jennifer Rubenstein (Virginia)
Provincial and Territorial Politics – Ian Stewart (Acadia)
Public Administration – Leslie Pal (Carleton)
Law and Public Policy – Matthew Hennigar (Brock)
Women, Gender, and Politics – Elizabeth Goodyear-Grant (Queen’s)
Race, Ethnicity, Indigenous Peoples and Politics – Kiera Ladner (Manitoba)
Workshop 1 – Canadian Politics and Law and Public Policy: The Judicialization of Politics and Politicization of the Judiciary in Comparative Perspective – Matthew Hennigar (Brock) / James Kelly (Concordia)
Workshop 2 – Comparative Politics: Democracy, the State, and the State of Democracy in Comparative Perspective - Pablo Policzer (Calgary) / Steffen Schneider (Bremen)
Workshop 3 – Comparative Politics: Politics and Policing - Michelle Bonner (Victoria) / Michael Kempa (Ottawa)
Workshop 4 – International Relations (co-sponsored by ISA Canada): Global Crisis, Global Response - Marc Doucet (St. Mary’s, ISA-Canada) / Miguel de Larrinaga (Ottawa)
Workshop 5 – International Relations (co-sponsored by ISA Canada): Canadian Critical Security Studies: Present Productions and Future Directions - Marc Doucet (St. Mary’s, ISA-Canada) / Miguel de Larrinaga (Ottawa)
Workshop 6 – Local and Urban Politics: Quantitative Approaches to Local Government - Robert Young (UWO)
Workshop 7 – Political Behaviour/Sociology: The Canadian Election Study and the Study of Canadian Politics - Fred Cutler (UBC)
Workshop 8 – Political Theory: Non-ideal and Institutional Theory – Jacob Levy (McGill) / Jennifer Rubenstein (Virginia)
Workshop 9 – Public Administration: Global Crisis, the State, and Public Management – Leslie Pal (Carleton)
Workshop 10 - Women, Gender, and Politics: Looking Back, Looking Forward: The 40th Anniversary of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women – Elizabeth Goodyear-Grant (Queen’s)
Workshop 11 – Race, Ethnicity, Indigenous Peoples and Politics: Land, Territoriality & the Environment - Kiera Ladner (Manitoba)
14) Only web submissions will be considered. Presentations will not normally be considered for inclusion in the CPSA conference unless they meet all of the requirements.
15) A proposal must be submitted to only one section. The section head of your choice will forward your proposal to another section head if necessary. The individual submitting the proposal, the CPSA secretariat and the section head will receive notification of the submitted proposal. If, after submitting your proposal, you have not had confirmation that your proposal has been received, please check with the secretariat at cpsa-acsp @ cpsa-acsp.ca. Section heads will acknowledge acceptance or rejection of the proposal in December 2009.
If submitting a proposal for a joint session between the CPSA and other associations such as CASID, please only submit the proposal to one of the suggested co- sponsoring associations. If the proposal is submitted to the CPSA and is accepted, it is the submitter’s responsibility to inform to other co-sponsoring association of all the details relating to the session including date and time.
16) Individuals will be limited to 3 presentations of which two can be papers. This does not affect chairs and discussants.
17) Criteria for Acceptance (as approved at the CPSA Board of Directors meeting of 3 Dec 2005):
a) Normally, submissions by MA students will not be considered. Only those submitted in conjunction with an academic supervisor will be considered.
b) If a proposal does not fit, it will be considered for the poster session or rejected.
c) The content of the proposal must include a clear question, analytical rigor, originality and a scholarly contribution.
d) Proposals by junior scholars or proposals that do not fit in the established programme will be considered for the poster session.
e) If a proposal has much data or is clearly better presented as a poster, it will be considered for the poster session.
f) It the programme committee receives more quality proposals than it can accommodate in the programme slots, some may be considered for the poster session.
18) A single paper proposal must include a 250 word abstract. The submission form will not accept any text beyond the stated limit. The abstract should outline the argument or inquiry to be developed, identify the method of analysis to be used, show the theoretical significance of what is proposed in relation to existing scholarship in the field, and locate what is proposed within the wider research interests of the author(s). Once your proposal has been submitted, you will be able to access your proposal until 3 November 2009 to make any necessary changes. If your paper proposal is accepted, the submitted abstracts will be made available on the CPSA web site.
19) A multiple paper panel proposal must be submitted by one individual. The proposal must include the title and a 250 word abstract of the session and a 250 word abstract for each paper. The submission form will not accept any text beyond the stated limit. Each abstract should outline the argument or inquiry to be developed, identify the method of analysis to be used, show the theoretical significance of what is proposed in relation to existing scholarship in the field, and locate what is proposed within the wider research interests of the authors. Once your proposal has been submitted, you will be able to access your proposal until 3 November 2009 to make any necessary changes. If the panel proposal is accepted, the submitted abstracts for the papers will be made available on the CPSA web site.
Multiple paper panel proposals with an entire panel of presenters from the same department are not permitted as these types of sessions can easily be organized in the departments. Multiple paper panels with two out of three or four presenters from the same department are acceptable. Chairs and discussants can be from any institution.
20) A roundtable proposal must include a 250 word abstract. The submission form will not accept any text beyond the stated limit. The abstract should include a description of the argument or inquiry to be developed, the theoretical significance of what is proposed in relation to existing scholarship in the field, and locate what is proposed within the wider research interest of the roundtable participants. Once your proposal has been submitted, you will be able to access your proposal until 3 November 2009 to make any necessary changes.
In order to allow sufficient time for each presentation and a good discussion during the one hour and 45 minutes session, it is recommended that a maximum of 4 presenters participate on a roundtable.
21) A poster proposal
The poster session is for work that relies heavily on tables/graphs/figures, or work that is still at a conceptual stage (although the poster must include at least preliminary results). The poster session will be held in the late afternoon, and will give presenters an opportunity to discuss their work with interested conference attendees.
The poster session will be held in one room at the conference. Presenters will be able to start setting up at 4 pm on the day of the session. Presenters will be asked to be present at the poster session. A discussant will be assigned to each poster. However, to facilitate discussion, poster presenters must provide for the discussant a 2000 word abstract/summary in advance of the meeting. These are to reach the section head and discussant by the 20 May 2010 deadline.
A poster board surface, 4' high and 6' wide will be provided for poster presenters. On this surface, the author(s) will attach the following: the title of the presentation and authors; a copy of the abstract (in large type); an introduction, methods, results, and a short bibliography; and any tables or figures that communicate the results of the research. These items should be mounted on the poster boards before the session and remain until the end of the conference or until the day the author leaves the conference. Poster presenters should note that visual representations of results will be more effective than text.
Individuals may submit proposals as either papers or posters. Once your proposal has been submitted, you will be able to access your proposal until 3 November 2009 to make any necessary changes. In addition, the Programme Committee may decide that some proposals would be more appropriate as posters, and will notify potential presenters by 15 December 2009 if they are to present their work as posters.
A prize for the best poster will be awarded by the Programme Committee and the following criteria, approved at the CPSA Board of Directors meeting of 3 Dec 2005 are used to evaluate the posters and choose a winner: visual impact, clarity and scholarly contribution. The award of a three-year membership in the CPSA (including three years of the CJPS) will be presented to the recipient at the conference dinner.
The poster that won the 2006 prize is available on the CPSA website at http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2006/Bastien.ppt as reference.
22) A proposal within a workshop
The programme will include a number of half-day and full-day workshops, each organized around a particular theme. Proposals within a workshop should meet all of the conditions set out above in 17), 18) or 19). Please be sure to provide an abstract, including a description of how the proposal fits within the workshop theme. All conference registrants may attend the workshops. Once your proposal has been submitted, you will be able to access your proposal until 3 November 2009 to make any necessary changes.
Workshop 1 – Canadian Politics and Law and Public Policy: The Judicialization of Politics and Politicization of the Judiciary in Comparative Perspective
Organizers: Matthew Hennigar (Brock) / James Kelly (Concordia)
The “global expansion of judicial power” observed by Tate and Vallinder and others over a decade ago continues to this day. Even as we have witnessed the steady expansion of judicial influence in public policy and political debate in many advanced democracies, courts have emerged as major players during periods of regime instability and transition (for example, recently in Ukraine, Pakistan, Honduras, and in Eastern Europe after the fall of communism). Moreover, recent work by Ginsburg, Moustafa, and others illuminates the important and surprisingly complex role of judges in authoritarian systems. However, as many have observed (albeit with varying levels of concern), the more judges overtly engage in policy making and regime-level crises, the more they typically find themselves the subject of political debate, pressure, interference, and even removal.
This workshop intends first to discuss this trend, and invites papers which address any of a number of possible facets of the judicialization of politics and the politicization of the judiciary: for example, the process of judicial empowerment, the judicial role in regime change, threats to judicial independence, inter-branch relations with the executive and legislature, or the impact of courts on public policy. Papers engaging these themes in a truly comparative fashion, with an eye to theoretical development or testing of existing hypotheses, are especially welcome. Papers addressing common themes will be grouped together as far as is possible, and the organizers hope to include a roundtable component in this workshop.
A second and related aim of the workshop is to recognize and showcase the growing preference for comparative research among Canadian law and politics scholars, which mirrors the “comparative turn” in Canadian political science generally. A major theme in this new body of inquiry concerns how differing human rights regimes in Canada and abroad - and especially in the Commonwealth - have influenced public policy and political processes. Papers are invited which consider the innovative mechanisms introduced to facilitate a dialogue between courts and legislatures, such as legislative override provisions, statements of compatibility, circumvented review powers of courts, and finally, the creation of committees within the legislative process that engage in rights-based scrutiny. The goal of a panel on this topic is to consider whether the attempt to create a "parliamentary approach" to bills of rights has produced a viable alternative to strong-form judicial review such as in the United States, or whether this model has institutionalized a constitutional contradiction leading to a potentially dangerous paradox: parliamentary and constitutional supremacy within a single state.
Workshop 2 – Comparative Politics: Democracy, the State, and the State of Democracy in Comparative Perspective
Organizers: Pablo Policzer (Calgary) / Steffen Schneider (Bremen)
A generation ago scholars argued that the end of communism in Europe and of authoritarian rule in other parts of the world signalled no less than the ‘end of history’ – the global triumph of political and economic orders characterized by the principles of liberal representative democracy and capitalist markets. Yet although (nominally) democratic political orders vastly outnumber authoritarian regimes in the world of today, few academic observers still uphold this sanguine view. The very meaning of the term democracy is once again in flux – and deeply contested – both within and outside the Western world, and many scholars even diagnose a performance or legitimacy crisis of liberal democracy.
There is a growing sense that liberal democracy may not easily be transferred – and perhaps should not be transferred without major adaptations – from the developed to the developing world, and that it is especially unlikely to thrive in the many fragile or failed states that have sprung up since the demise of communist and authoritarian rule. However, even with a view to established democracies there is no dearth of crisis diagnoses. The forces of economic globalization and ongoing shifts of political authority to international or non-state governance arrangements seem to jeopardize the democratic quality of liberal-democratic regimes and to undermine their effectiveness. As a result, even where the core institutions and procedures of liberal democracy have remained more or less intact, citizens seem increasingly disconnected from and disappointed by their governments and political orders, and this apparent withdrawal of regime support raises serious questions about the viability of democracy itself. Finally, many assessments of democratic quality at the level of international or non-state governance arrangements are also exceedingly bleak. To be sure, there is a growing understanding that democracy is more than elections and other traditional practices of liberal, representative democracy. We therefore observe a wide range of political – and presumably democratic – experiments around the world, and at different levels of governance, some of them inspired by theoretical literatures on, for instance, participatory and deliberative democracy. But there is relatively little knowledge on the success of these experiments and new democratic practices in different contexts.
With this in mind, we propose a one-day workshop to assess the state of democracy in comparative perspective. We are especially interested in papers that address one or more of the following questions: Is the model of liberal, representative democracy still a normatively adequate, politically viable and effective regime form? Which other models of democracy have emerged in different parts of the world or at different levels of governance, and to what extent are they normatively plausible, politically viable and effective? Where do we have to draw the boundary line between democratic and non- or semi-democratic regimes in the world of today? What is the common core of different models and variants of democracy? What is the conceptual and empirical relationship between the state and democracy? Are democratic regimes, in other words, necessarily linked to or backed up by state institutions? What are the dimensions of the new contested terrains of democracy – from constitutional orders to forms of citizen participation? Finally, how are our empirical assessments of the state of democracy in different contexts related to how we understand the normative concept of democracy itself?
Papers should be explicit about their specific understanding and operationalization of democracy and its implications for comparative research. Contributions that provide a bridge between the current debates in normative democratic theory and genuinely empirical, comparative research are particularly encouraged, as are contributions that compare the state of democracy in political orders of the developed and the developing world, or at different tiers of government.
Workshop 3 – Comparative Politics: Politics and Policing
Organizers: Michelle Bonner (Victoria) / Michael Kempa (Ottawa)
The manner in which the police and other agencies involved in the definition and enforcement of collective orders carry out their functions can define a political regime. Excessive police violence is usually associated with authoritarian regimes or the legacy of authoritarianism. However, more subtle aspects of police work such as the level of access to information on the police, the types of duties assigned to the police, the types of duties contracted out from the police, police responses to mechanisms of accountability, and the degree of police autonomy, may also reveal important nuances in regimes types. Further, the balance struck between public and private service providers in the domain of policing is very revealing of participants’ competing views for the future of the polity, in terms of their visions for citizenship, accountability, and political economy. Despite the centrality of the policing to politics, few political scientists study the police.
This workshop aims to re-ignite discussion among political scientists on the topic of politics and policing. In particular, the workshop aims to explore the politics of defining the role of the police vis-à-vis other state and non-state actors that are implicated in policing activities, such as the private security industry, insurance corporations, and both violent and peaceful civil society organizations. Some authors, such as David H. Bayley (2006), have offered us excellent definitions of how democratic police forces should function, and many other authors have pointed to the types of police reforms that might achieve these goals (e.g. Goldsmith & Lewis 2000; Dammert & Bailey 2006; Frühling & Tulchin 2003). However, these democratic and institutional ideals are often challenged in their implementation by competing perspectives regarding the definition of the primary role of the police. Competing visions of the role of the police may include differences in terms of which tasks are assigned to the police versus other agencies involved in policing; the scope of tasks given police and the priorities emphasized; or, the level of violence deemed acceptable. Defining the role of the police is a highly political process and has important implications for citizenship, democracy, and economy. This is true in both new and established democracies.
The workshop encourages case study based articles that address all or part of the following questions:
Who participates in defining the role of the police (or who is excluded)? (International actors, national government, private sector, civil society, police themselves)?
What is the definition of the role of the police used by these actors? What other types of state and non-state actors do different social groups seek to introduce into the formal "policing" framework?
What are the potential consequences of this definition for issues of democracy such as citizenship, accountability, and economy?
Workshop 4 – International Relations: Global Crisis, Global Response
Organizers: Marc Doucet (St. Mary’s, ISA-Canada) / Miguel de Larrinaga (Ottawa)
There is arguably no more ubiquitous challenge confronting international studies today than understanding the origins, ramifications, and implications of the current global economic crisis. While the crisis is financial in origin, its repercussions have been wide-ranging, spilling over into questions of, for example, governance, development and inequality, environment and sustainability, and security. The workshop will begin by engaging the financial dimensions of the crisis, but will invite analyses of its multiple manifestations, thereby welcoming participants from various sub-fields of international studies. It will be explicitly concerned with both theoretical and policy-oriented questions, and with understanding the historical origins, contemporary consequences, and future possibilities (both creative and destructive) associated with the crisis.
The workshop will be organized around five panels reflecting key themes emerging from the paper proposals submitted for consideration for the workshop. These panels will bring together doctoral candidates, junior academics, and senior scholars.
Workshop 5 – International Relations: Canadian Critical Security Studies: Present Productions and Future Directions
Organizers: Marc Doucet (St. Mary’s, ISA-Canada) / Miguel de Larrinaga (Ottawa)
Critical security studies has become a growing area of interest that is bringing together a variety of disciplines and theoretical approaches to bear on the ubiquitous deployment of security discourses and practices in the post-9-11 world. This workshop is designed to bring scholars working in Critical Security Studies in Canada together to assess the state of this area of research in the Canadian scholarly community, address the potential of collaborative spaces for this community, as well as the future networking possibilities of the community with work in other disciplines and other countries.
In part, this is an identification of a group of scholars (whether or not working in the actual territory of Canada) that do not completely fit with, for example, the c.a.s.e. collective, the Paris or Copenhagen School. Within Political Science/IR, there are a number of venues for the publication of CSS – International Political Sociology; Security Dialogue; Alternatives – further afield: Geopolitics, Security Studies, Surveillance and Society, Body and Society, Critical Studies on Terrorism, the Journal of Power etc. But, these venues do not speak to the set of concerns or concepts that seem to form the core of Canadian Critical Security Studies such a the body; refugees; migration and borders; risk; global governance, empire and international organizations; intervention and state building; human security; aboriginal, postcolonial and feminist readings of security. At the moment, there are a number of loose networks that are loosely inter-conscious and there is a nascent institutionalization in the form of the Canadian Critical Security Studies website (http://criticalsecurity.ca/).A number of workshops have emerged in the past few years from different venues that highlight some of these different networks. The proposed workshop for the 2010 CPSA seeks to contribute to this by creating a series of panels that would enable the presentation of current research, as well as roundtables to assess the present state of critical security studies in Canada and possible future directions and collaborations.
Workshop 6 – Local and Urban Politics: Quantitative Approaches to Local Government
Organizer: Robert Young (UWO)
One of the great advantages of studying government at the municipal level is that researchers have access to many cases. In Canada, for example, students of federalism have 10 cases to work with (along with the three Territories), and this small N means that competing explanations cannot be subject to experimental control, so reliable generalizations are difficult to reach. In contrast, scholars working on local governments have, in theory, thousands of cases to work with. Even work on subsets of municipalities - rural ones, those within a particular provincial framework, medium-sized cities, and so on - can normally use hundreds of cases.
Quantitative studies are very common in Europe and are often found in the United States, but the approach seems underdeveloped in Canada. So we are asking for scholars to meet for a half-day to discuss such studies. We welcome proposed papers that employ quantitative methods to explore any aspects of local and municipal government. The focus can be on Canadian cases, on comparative studies, or on any other country’s municipalities.
Workshop 7 - Political Behaviour/Sociology: The Canadian Election Study and the Study of Canadian Politics
Organizer: Fred Cutler (UBC)
The Canadian Election Study has been a central research tool for students of Canadian politics. The data has been extensively used by CES teams, their students, and others to address many questions in political behaviour. The resulting research has had a impact on the field around the world. There is no consensus, however, on the CES’ contribution to our understanding of Canadian politics. The aim of this workshop is to make that contribution deeper and more prominent by forging better links between specialists in political behaviour and the much larger community of scholars studying Canadian domestic politics. Research presented at the workshop, and studies borne out of the dialogue it creates, will demonstrate that this synergy is fruitful.
Proposals for papers in this workshop should involve collaboration between scholars with experience in analysis of CES data and other Canadianists whose work uses other methodologies. The substantive focus is deliberately left open to encourage students of Canadian politics to think creatively of ways to use the CES to address any important question. Examples of such work include papers in Canadian Public Policy entitled “Globalization, Trade Policy, and the Permissive Consensus in Canada (Mendelsohn, Wolfe, and Parkin 2002) and “Divided over Internationalism: The Canadian Public and Development Assistance” (Noël, Therrien, and Dallaire 2004), as well as in CJPS: “The Changing Nature of Public Support for the Supreme Court of Canada” (Hausegger and Riddell 2004). Another way to put this is to push all Canadianists to plunder the CES studies for material relevant to their research agenda and to draw on the expertise of their political behaviour colleagues. Especially encouraged is research that uses the CES and other data sources – quantitative or qualitative – in combination.
The workshop will consist principally of original research. It will also include a roundtable discussion of how the CES can be designed to make it more accessible and appealing to those outside the political behaviour subfield.
Workshop 8 – Political Theory: Non-ideal and Institutional Theory
Organizers: Jacob Levy (McGill) and Jennifer Rubenstein (Viriginia)
From the ethics of conduct during wartime to justice in transitional societies to restitution for collective harms, political theorists have long been concerned with understanding political morality in morally compromised or materially constrained settings—in what Arendt termed “dark times.” Since Rawls, we have come to call this “non-ideal” theory: theory about moral choices and political circumstances that wouldn’t arise at all under ideal conditions. In recent years, political philosophers have done a great deal of methodological and metatheoretical work on the ideal/non-ideal distinction, while political theorists have undertaken non-ideal normative analysis of a wide range of problems. We seek both papers that are explicitly about non-ideal political theory and papers that do non-ideal theory, in order to encourage engagement between methodological reflections and normative arguments.
We especially welcome papers that do these things with attention to political institutions, by—for example— proposing institutional designs for non-ideal settings, analyzing ideal versus non-ideal ways of thinking about the justice of institutional structures, or showing how particular institutions are themselves the sources of the morally compromised settings in which decision-making must take place. In other words, we invite papers that construe institutions as either sources of injustice or as mechanisms for mitigating injustice, as obstacles to reform or as frameworks for pursuing it.
We propose four panels of three papers and one commentator each, as well as a thematic roundtable discussion. While the workshop focuses on issues that have thus far been taken up primarily in the context of analytic normative theory, we actively encourage papers with historical or critical perspectives on these issues. Finally, while the workshop itself addresses substantive problems in non-ideal and institutional theory, papers need not be explicitly framed in those terms.
Workshop 9 – Public Administration: Global Crisis, the State, and Public Management
Organizer: Leslie Pal (Carleton)
The global financial crisis has had a tectonic impact on all Western states and in the ways they organize themselves and their public policies. Several governments either collapsed or were threatened with collapse. Almost all found themselves abandoning the shibboleths of public management that favoured light regulation and tight spending. Regulatory regimes, particularly in the financial sector, have become considerably more muscular, and spending has skyrocketed. Major banks and automotive companies have been effectively nationalized.
This rapid expansion of state activity has demanded new mechanisms of public management and organization. The state has had to reconfigure itself to manage this new, more interventionist agenda. This reconfiguration is not simply about doing more and spending more, since concerns about government inefficiency have not disappeared. Moreover, the global financial crisis coincided with a spate of examples of corporate malfeasance and a heightened public appetite for ethical rectitude.
This workshop will consist of two back-to-back roundtables (with short papers) dealing with the complex impacts of the global financial crisis on public management. One panel will look at responses at the state level for several governments -- the US, Canada, selected OECD countries. The second panel will tackle the same theme in terms of functional areas: e.g., the new role of central agencies (and their equivalents), budgeting processes, human resource management, regulation.
Workshop 10 - Women, Gender, and Politics: Looking Back, Looking Forward: The 40th Anniversary of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women
Organizer: Elizabeth Goodyear-Grant (Queen’s)
A defining event of the second wave of the Canadian women’s movement, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women was set up by Lester Pearson in 1967. Its mandate was to investigate and report on all matters pertaining to the status of women in Canadian society and to make recommendations for improving the condition of women in areas under the federal government’s jurisdiction. Chaired by Florence Bird, the Commission tabled its report in 1970. Its 167 recommendations reflected its broad mandate, covering a wide range of social, legal, health, economic, and political issues such as child care, equal pay for equal work, women’s unequal treatment under the Indian Act, access to birth control and abortion, educational opportunities for women, access to pensions, and more. The Commission was instrumental in defining women’s inequality as an important problem that required government attention, and the report became a blueprint for wide-scale change.
2010 will mark the 40th anniversary of the Commission’s report, and the purpose of this workshop is to bring together a diversity of scholars to reflect on the past, present, and future status of women in Canadian society. Paper proposals focussing on the Commission, its report, and/or its impact on women’s place in Canada are particularly welcome, as are proposals that focus on one or more of the policy issues that were of direct concern to the Commission. All perspectives are welcome, and proposals that place Canada in comparative context are also encouraged.
Workshop 11 - Race, Ethnicity, Indigenous Peoples and Politics: Land, Territoriality & the Environment
Organizer: Kiera Ladner (Manitoba)
Inspired by the 20th anniversary of the Oka Crisis, this daylong workshop will explore issues of land, territoriality and the environment from the vantage of, or its intersection with, research on race, ethnicity and Indigenous peoples.
This workshop aims to bring together scholars from different subfields and participants from government, the public sector and the community and to encourage innovative, crosscutting scholarly exchange on matters of land, territoriality and environment.
The workshop will consist of four panels: (1) Oka @ 20 which will examine the impact of the Oka crisis on Indigenous peoples, Canada and politics; (2) Contentious Claims which will explore intersections of identity and territoriality; (3) hot spots/hot topics which will look the politics of land and landlessness; and (4) a panel on constructions of land and environmental politics.
Paper proposals for this workshop are most welcome! Beyond the usual call for papers, REIPP is specifically seeking proposals connecting the study of race, ethnicity and Indigenous peoples and advancing the discipline and its theoretical and methodological underpinnings.
23) Responsibilities of presenters
Presenters must be current members of CPSA (see #2 above). ALL presenters must register for the conference. Presenters should prepare comments outlining the major points of their papers. In the event of unforeseen circumstances and you are unable to attend, you are asked to notify the respective section head as soon as possible. Your professionalism in this regard is appreciated.
A good presentation is a must for a successful session. Listed are some guidelines for preparing an oral summary of a paper: No paper should ever be read verbatim from the text. Such presentations are often not only dull but also incomplete due to time constraints imposed by the chairperson; an author reading from text may be cut off by the chairperson before reaching the most significant aspects of his/her presentation. Highlights may be given covering such points as purpose of the study, description of the sample, methodology, problems, major findings, conclusions, or recommendations. The amount of time devoted to each highlight may vary depending upon the author’s evaluation of the importance of each area related to his/her paper. Inexperienced extemporaneous speakers are advised to prepare a “reading text” of approximately 5 typed pages.
Presenters at round tables and poster sessions are requested to bring copies of their project summaries to the sessions. Doing so will enable participants to discuss the topic more effectively.
24) Responsibilities of chairpersons and discussants
The chair is responsible for monitoring the entire session. The success of a session often depends upon the chair's ability to restrict the time of speakers' presentations and temper the discussions from the floor in order to allow sufficient time for inter-action within the presentation. Some of the most important responsibilities of the chair are to:
• Open the session at the scheduled time and set the context with a few brief introductory remarks;
• Introduce the participants before their presentations;
• Maintain strict time limits for each speaker and discussant;
• Moderate panel or floor discussions; and,
• Adjourn the session in time to allow the room to clear before the next session begins.
Chairs are requested to report the name(s) of any no shows and the session number to the section head. In sessions where discussants are expected to prepare comments in advance, the CHAIR has the option to drop from the programme any author not submitting a copy of his/her presentation to the appropriate discussant two weeks before the meeting.
Discussants are to prepare, in advance, appropriate analytical or critical commentaries of the significance and contribution of the papers presented in a session. Time constraints on the length of the discussions are established by the chairs. Discussants are under no obligation to comment on papers they have not received prior to the meeting.
25) Instructions for Submitting a Proposal
Please read/print the Instructions for Submitting a Proposal before submitting your proposal. If you submitted a proposal in 2007, 2008 or 2009, your access codes are still valid.
|
