“Oproep voor Papers” voor het 14de Politicologenetmaal
Universiteit Maastricht 11 juni – 12 juni 2015
Op donderdag 11 juni en vrijdag 12 juni 2015 organiseren de Nederlandse Kring voor
Wetenschap der Politiek (NKWP) en de Vereniging voor Politieke Wetenschappen (VPW)
voor de 14de maal gezamenlijk het Politicologenetmaal. Het Etmaal wordt dit jaar opnieuw
georganiseerd door de afdeling Politieke Wetenschap van de Faculteit der Cultuur- en
Maatschappijwetenschappen van de Universiteit Maastricht.
Het Etmaal begint op donderdagmiddag met een lunch en eindigt op vrijdagmiddag na de
lunch. Het Etmaal kent een plenaire bijeenkomst, met onder meer de uitreiking van de
bekende prijzen, maar de klemtoon ligt op het werk in de vier parallelle sessies.
Indien u een papervoorstel van maximaal één pagina wilt indienen wordt u verzocht uiterlijk
20 maart 2015 contact op te nemen met de sessievoorzitters. Hun e-mailadressen staan
vermeld in het onderstaand overzicht van de workshops. Voor 7 april 2015 verneemt u of uw
paper geselecteerd is voor de workshop. Het is ook mogelijk om aan het Etmaal deel te
nemen zonder een paper te presenteren. In dat geval wordt u verzocht uw interesse in de
workshop kenbaar te maken aan de workshop voorzitters.
U kunt zich vanaf 1 april registreren voor het politicologenetmaal via de website van het
Etmaal http://politicologenetmaal.nl/. Op deze website vindt u dan ook meer informatie over
hotels, rooster en conferentie. Gereduceerde tarieven zijn beschikbaar tot 15 Mei 2015. U
wordt geadviseerd pas te registreren nadat de workshop voorzitters u hebben geïnformeerd
over de status van uw paper voorstel.
Indien u vragen heeft over het Etmaal kunt u deze sturen naar het email adres van de lokaal
organiserend comité: etmaal2015@maastrichtuniversity.nl
Namens het organiserend comité van Universiteit Maastricht,
Christine Arnold en Maarten Vink
Namens de VPW en de NKWP,
Karen Celis (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) en Sarah de Lange (Universiteit van Amsterdam)
“Call for Papers” for the 14th Politicologenetmaal
Maastricht University 11 June – 12 June 2015
On Thursday 11 June and Friday 12 June 2015, the 14th ‘Politicologenetmaal’ (‘24-hour
Political Science Conference’) is jointly organized by the Political Science Associations of
the Netherlands (NKWP) and Belgium (VPW) and the Department of Political Science at
Maastricht University.
The conference starts on Thursday (noon) with a lunch and ends on Friday (noon) after lunch.
There will be four parallel sessions, two on Thursday afternoon and two on Friday morning.
If you would like to submit a paper proposal to one of the workshops please submit a
maximum of one page to the chairs of the workshop you are interested by the 20th of March
2015. The email addresses of the chairs of workshops are included below in the list of
workshops. By the 7th of April 2015, the workshop chairs will inform everyone who has
submitted a paper proposal. It is also possible to participate in the Etmaal without presenting
a paper. One of the goals of the NKWP and the VPW is to bring together scholars and
practitioners. If you are interested in one of the workshops, but do not wish to submit a paper
proposal, please contact the workshop chairs and inform them about your interest in the
workshop.
Please make sure to register for the conference at the website http://politicologenetmaal.nl/,
from 1 April onwards. On this website you may also find information on hotels, schedule and
conference venue. ‘Early bird’ conference rates are available until 15 May 2015. Please
register for the conference as soon as the workshop chairs have informed you about the status
of your paper proposal.
If you have any questions regarding the Etmaal, you can reach the members of the local
organizing committee with the following email address: etmaal2015@maastrichtuniversity.nl
On behalf of the organising committee at Maastricht University,
Christine Arnold and Maarten Vink
On behalf of the VPW and the NKWP,
Karen Celis (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) and Sarah de Lange (Universiteit van Amsterdam)
WORKSHOPS | ETMAAL 2015 | WORKSHOPS
Nederlandstalige workshops
1. Nieuwe tijden, ander bestuur?
2. Beleidsevaluatie in woelige publieke wateren: pompen of verzuipen?
Workshops in English
3. Personalization of Politics: How candidates and party leaders influence society
4. Determining the lines of conflict in politics
5. Lipset’s Legacy – The 55th Anniversary of Political Man
6. Same Old, Same Old? EU Foreign Policy Making after the Lisbon Treaty
7. The Quality of Elections
8. Political socialization and citizenship education of young people
9. Political Communication
10. The Contestation of Immigration, Ethnic Diversity and Citizenship
11. Elections: Dealing with Dealignment
12. Advances in Political Psychology
13. Political Theory
14. Developments in International Relations
Workshop 1: “Nieuwe tijden, ander bestuur?”
Workshop Chairs:
Herwig Reynaert, Universiteit Ghent (herwig.reynaert@ugent.be)
Peter Castenmiller (p.castenmiller@planet.nl)
Waar staat het lokale bestuur in Nederland en Vlaanderen?
In Nederland hebben de decentralisaties in het sociale domein ondertussen hun beslag
gekregen. Er is veel en vaak gespeculeerd over de vraag of gemeenten dit wel aankunnen.
Wat betekent deze uitbreiding van taken en verantwoordelijkheden voor de schaal van het
bestuur en de positie van de raad? Ondertussen zullen er wat dit betreft eerste signalen zijn.
In Vlaanderen is het lokale bestuur ook al jaren in transitie. Aan uitdagingen voor de lokale
besturen zal het in de lokale driehoek politici – ambtenaren – burgers de komende tijd niet
mankeren. Hebben de lokale besturen voldoende bestuurskracht? Zal de mogelijkheid tot
vrijwillige fusies effectief tot fusies aanleiding geven? Hoe zal de integratie OCMWgemeente verlopen? Hoe zullen de verhoudingen tussen Vlaanderen, de provincies en de
gemeenten zich verder ontwikkelen? In welke mate zullen de gemeenten en steden de
Europese besluitvorming kunnen beïnvloeden? In welke mate zal Europa de besluitvorming
op lokaal vlak verder beïnvloeden? Wat gebeurt er met de bestuurlijke drukte? Heel wat
vragen die de komende tijd al dan niet een antwoord zullen krijgen. Lokaal goed besturen is
één van de grote uitdagingen van het politiek bedrijf. Een goed lokaal bestuur is immers de
hoeksteen van een democratische samenleving die Vlaanderen en Nederland moet zijn.
Het is goed dat er elk jaar een platform is waar Nederlandse en Vlaamse politicologen een
tussenbalans kunnen opmaken. Verandert er eigenlijk wel iets in het lokale bestuur, wat zijn
dan die veranderingen en hoe moeten die veranderingen worden beoordeeld? Zijn de
veranderingen wezenlijk en onomkeerbaar, of gaat het om oppervlakkige aanpassingen? De
workshop op het Etmaal is de plek om daarover papers te presenteren en te bespreken.
Peter Castenmiller (PBLQ Zenc) en Herwig Reynaert (Universiteit Gent) organiseren de
ondertussen langstlopende workshop, over lokale politiek, tijdens het politicologenetmaal. De
workshop is daarmee dé ontmoetingsplaats voor alle politicologen in Nederland en
Vlaanderen die zich bezig houden met het lokale bestuur. Onze insteek impliceert dat allerlei
bijdragen over het lokale bestuur meer dan welkom zijn. Het essentiële doel van onze
weerkerende workshop is om elke politicoloog die zich bezighoudt met lokale besturen een
platform en ontmoetingsplaats te bieden waar kennis, ervaringen en inzichten uitgewisseld
kunnen worden. Ook dit jaar, in Maastricht, bieden wij weer graag de mogelijkheid om naast
die uitwisseling van kennis en informatie ook de persoonlijke relaties te versterken.
Deelnemers aan de workshop of belangstellenden worden uitgenodigd om contact op te
nemen met de organisatoren Herwig Reynaert (herwig.reynaert@ugent.be) en Peter
Castenmiller (p.castenmiller@planet.nl). Vanzelfsprekend zijn wij ook meer dan
geïnteresseerd in papervoorstellen.
Workshop 2 “Beleidsevaluatie in woelige publieke wateren: pompen of verzuipen?”
Workshop chairs:
Dries Verlet, Studiedienst van de Vlaamse Regering, Dries.Verlet@dar.vlaanderen.be
Frank Bongers, Dialogic, bongers@dialogic.nl
Carl Devos, Universiteit Gent, Carl.Devos@UGent.be
De publieke sector staat voor grote uitdagingen. Het streven naar efficiëntiewinsten vertaalt
zich in drastische besparingen op personeel en werking. In deze context zien we ook een
andere overheid opduiken. We gaan naar een slankere, maar bovenal andere overheid. Maar
tegelijkertijd kan dit ook een sterkere overheid zijn.
Essentieel hierbij is de rol die men weglegt voor de overheid. Niettemin zien we dat binnen
alle beleidssectoren er zich grondige besparingen hebben aangediend en verder zullen
aandienen. Daarnaast zien we bij centrale –zogenaamd horizontale– overheidsdiensten dat
men meer en meer streeft naar zogenaamde “Centres of Government”. Uit de analyse van de
OESO (2014) leren we dat dergelijke centrale overheidsdiensten nieuwe taken en
verantwoordelijkheden krijgen. Deze gaan van strategische planning tot instant beleidsadvies
en van leidinggeven aan overheidsbrede beleidsinitiatieven tot het monitoren en evalueren
van output/outcomes. Op die manier spreekt men ook de (beleids-)evaluatiecapaciteit binnen
de overheid aan. Maar laat het nu net deze capaciteit zijn die ook onder druk komen te staan.
Zo zien we zowel in Nederland als in Vlaanderen grondige besparingen bij actoren binnen en
buiten de overheid die beleidsondersteunend en beleidsevaluerend onderzoek verrichten.
Hierbij denken we aan de onzekere toekomst van de lokale rekenkamers in Nederland en de
steunpunten voor beleidsondersteunend onderzoek in Vlaanderen.
Al deze evoluties leiden tot een nieuwe positionering van de verschillende actoren binnen de
publieke dienstverlening. Dit doet meteen ook tal van vragen rijzen omtrent bijvoorbeeld de
rol die beleidsevaluatie krijgt in deze nieuwe overheidscontext. Nemen de administraties deze
rol op zich of wordt dit steeds meer de rol van de politiek? En wat met de positionering van
de rekenkamers? Krijgen de sociale partners en het bredere georganiseerde middenveld hier
een nieuwe rol toebedeeld? En wat met de rol van academische actoren en de (private)
onderzoeksinstellingen?
Kortom, tal van vragen dienen zich aan wat betreft de plaats die beleidsevaluatie krijgt
binnen de veranderende overheidscontext. Voer genoeg voor een etmaal waarin academici
en/of mensen uit de praktijk elkaar kunnen vinden. We richten ons hiermee vooral op
(praktijk)politicologen, bestuurskundigen en beleidswetenschappers in Nederland en
Vlaanderen.
Workshop 3: “Personalization of Politics: How candidates and party leaders influence
society”
Workshop Chairs:
Loes Aaldering, University of Amsterdam (l.aaldering@uva.nl)
Daphne van der Pas, University of Amsterdam (d.j.vanderpas@uva.nl).
Discussants include Prof. Kees Aarts (University of Twente) and Prof. Wouter van der Brug
(University of Amsterdam)
Political leadership matters! For decades, scholars have examined political leaders and,
although some find the effects of candidates on election outcomes to be non-existent or
negligibly small (e.g. King, 2002), most studies show that political leadership matters for
voters when they cast a ballot (e.g. Mughan, 2000; Bittner, 2011). The often-studied
personalization hypothesis states that media pay increasing attention to politicians, at the
expense of issues and parties (e.g. Dalton et al., 2000; Karvonen, 2010); that media coverage
on politicians focuses more strongly on non-political personality characteristics and the
private lives of politicians (e.g. King, 2002; Kriesi, 2012); and that leaders are increasingly
important for citizens in their vote decision (e.g. McAllister, 2007; Schmitt and Ohr, 2000).
Closely related is the process of presidentialization, which entails that even in multiparty
systems there is an increased focus on party leaders, comparable with the focus on the
president in presidential systems (e.g. Mughan, 2000; Poguntke and Webb, 2007).
However, the empirical results on the importance of leaders are inconclusive and it is argued
that the contradicting findings can be explained by the conditionality of leader effects (e.g.
Kriesi, 2012; Barisione, 2009). After much debate about whether leaders matter greatly or not
at all, research in the past years has shifted to the question of under which conditions
candidates matter. This has opened up the field to a wide range of conditional explanations,
on the contextual level with electoral system, party system or country characteristics, on the
leadership level with the behavior and characteristics of candidates, and at the individual
level of the voter.
This panel invites papers investigating the connection between political leaders and society,
including research on the development of leader effects over time, specific candidate
characteristics, the psychology behind leader effects, the selection procedure of candidates,
charismatic leadership, the conditionality of leader effects on voting behavior, the role of the
media in purportedly enhancing the importance of leaders, the portrayal and behavior of
candidates in the media, the uniqueness of right-wing populist party leaders and
methodological refinements for studying personalization of politics. The panel welcomes
papers employing experimental designs, survey studies or other relevant methods. Papers that
explicitly aim to strengthen our understanding of the causality involved in leader effects are
encouraged. In addition, we are also particularly interested in papers with a comparative
design, for instance comparing party leaders within a parliamentary system, comparing
multiple parliamentary systems, or comparing parliamentary democracies with presidential
systems.
Workshop 4: “Determining the lines of conflict in politics”
Workshop Chairs:
Mark Bovens Universiteit Utrecht (m.bovens@uu.nl)
Simon Otjes, Groningen University (simon@simonotjes.nl)*
Harmen van der Veer, Amsterdam University (H.A.A.vanderVeer@uva.nl)
Pieter de Wilde, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (pieter.dewilde@wzb.eu)
Anchrit Wille, Universiteit Leiden (a.c.wille@cdh.leidenuniv.nl)
The 'conflict of conflicts' is a crucial conflict in politics (Schattschneider 1960), i.e. the
conflict concerning which line(s) of conflict are activated. There is an infinite number of
possible political conflicts that could separate or unite political actors. Which line of conflict
dominates determines voting behaviour, political cooperation in legislatures and governments.
In the end, it defines which actors are in the majority and which are in the minority. In that
way the ability to determine the lines of conflict is often the ability to determine the outcomes
of democratic decision-making.
This workshop invites papers that analyze conflict lines and opposing groups in different
arenas (electorates, parliaments or governments). Studies can examine the structures
underlying opinions or the actual, manifest, behaviour of political actors.
We invite studies that focus on ideological divisions between citizens and parties: do the
traditional cleavages, left-right, religious-secular, identified by Lipset and Rokkan still hold
traction in structuring democratic politics, or are new cleavages activated, such as the
globalization or education cleavage? It seems apparent that change is happening. But to what
extent the candidates for new cleavages constitute truly new cleavages or whether they are
the transformation of an old cleavage, remains to be seen.
We also invite studies that examine political divisions that divide political actors, such as
those between the government and the opposition, between responsible and responsive parties
or within supranational polities such as the European Union, opposing national interests,
which divide political actors in legislatures or governments.
Central questions in this workshop are: what lines of conflict structures behaviour and
opinions of voters, parties and/or other political actors? What drives the emergence of new
ideological cleavages or the transformation of old ones? To what extent and under which
conditions do ideological divisions structure particular behaviour? And what are the
implications of differing lines of conflict for different groups (e.g. voters and parties) for the
quality of representation?
If sufficient papers for this session are submitted a number of parallel sessions may be
organized.
* Corresponding co-chair: please send your proposals here
Workshop 5: “Lipset’s Legacy – The 55th Anniversary of Political Man”
Workshop Chairs:
Peter Achterberg, Tilburg University (p.achterberg@tilburguniversity.edu)
Willem de Koster, Erasmus University Rotterdam (dekoster@fsw.eur.nl)
Tim Reeskens, Tilburg University (t.reeskens@tilburguniversity.edu)
Jeroen van der Waal, Erasmus University Rotterdam (vanderwaal@fsw.eur.nl)
In 1960, Seymour Martin Lipset published Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics. In this
seminal monograph, Lipset studied in a meticulous manner the social factors that undergird
politics, combining groundbreaking theoretical ideas with rich empirical data. To date, the
influence of Lipset’s Political Man on political sociology cannot be overstated. Being cited
over 7,500 times, Political Man is one of the most pivotal social-scientific studies, as many
corners in the field of political science, sociology, and related disciplines reflect the
intellectual legacy of Political Man to find inspiration for the scientific study of value
orientations, social movements, political elites and political parties, and political systems.
The aim of this session is to bring together scholars from the Low Countries and beyond who
work in the tradition of Seymour Martin Lipset, found inspiration in Political Man, and want
to contribute to the preservation of Lipset’s rich intellectual legacy. While we aim to analyze
how Lipset’s work aids understanding of politics in the Low Countries, we are particularly
open to studies with a comparative perspective. Keeping in mind the subtitle of Political Man
– The Social Bases of Politics – the relation between society and politics should be present in
all contributions. Examples include, yet are not limited to, the study of social cleavages and
the political outcomes of social positions.
In addition to political scientists, we warmly welcome students of sociology, economics,
public administration, and related disciplines, and are open to qualitative as well as
quantitative studies that build on Lipset’s legacy.
Workshop 6: “Same Old, Same Old? EU Foreign Policy Making after the Lisbon
Treaty”
Workshop Chairs:
Dr. Heidi Maurer, Maastricht University: (h.maurer@maastrichtuniversity.nl)
Dr. Kolja Raube, KU Leuven: (kolja.raube@ggs.kuleuven.be)
This workshop investigates wider trends in EU foreign policy-making and critically evaluates
the current European Union (EU) foreign policy research agenda. EU foreign policy
scholarship shows a tendency to re-invent conceptual discussions and present those as “new”,
unprecedented, and often as insulated from IR debates. A close reading of the literature from
the past 40 years shows, however, that many fundamental issues were already present
decades ago. It scrutinizes if and how qualitatively and quantitatively new challenges and
transformations have indeed emerged in EU foreign-policy making over the past decades.
In order to grasp the complexity of the EU´s attempt to engage with the outside world, the
panel deliberately brings together scholars covering different foreign policy aspects: trade,
development policy, security policy, EU approach to specific regions or strategic partners.
Five years after the Lisbon Treaty and the establishment of the European External Action
Service also provides an additional trigger to compare the impact of those more recent
changes on the various policy areas covered by EU foreign policy.
The workshop aims at a mix of junior and more senior researchers.
Workshop 7: “The Quality of Elections”
Workshop Chairs
Hans Schmeets – Universiteit Maastricht / CBS (h.schmeets@maastrichtuniversity.nl)
Max Bader – Universiteit Leiden (m.bader@hum.leidenuniv.nl)
There has been growing interest in the issue of election quality in recent years. Election
quality can be seen as encompassing two distinct dimensions. First, electoral integrity refers
to the whether there is open, genuine competition, and to the absence of both pre-election and
election-day manipulation of the vote. Second, administrative quality refers to whether the
electoral process is conducted in line with a certain set of widely agreed upon (international)
standards. The issue of election quality is pertinent both to democracies and non-democracies.
While there is generally little doubt about the integrity of the electoral process in liberal
democracies, the administrative quality of elections in those countries often leaves much to
be desired.1 In elections in non-democracies, by contrast, the lack of electoral integrity is a
matter of concern.
There are different ways of assessing the quality of elections. Election quality can be viewed
in terms of the extent of compliance with domestic legislation and/or international standards
for elections. Second, the perceptions of specific domestic groups or the population at large
can be seen as indicative of the quality of an election. Third, a measure of election quality can
be established through a survey of impartial experts. And finally, electoral returns can be
studied quantitatively to check for patterns that diverge from what would be expected in a
manipulation-free election (‘election forensics’).
This session is interested in the issue of election quality with regard to both its dimensions
(electoral integrity and administrative quality) and with regard to both democracies and nondemocracies. Questions that the session intends to address include, but are not limited to:
1) How can we measure election quality? How valid and reliable are existing measures of
election integrity based on election observation reports, expert and citizen surveys, and fraud
forensics? How can existing data be leveraged to enhance our understanding of election
quality?
2) What explains variation in election integrity? What are the causal mechanisms explaining
changes over time in election integrity and differences between countries? Are explanations
different in democracies and non-democracies? And how crucial are elections for (measuring)
democracy?
3) What is the role of (domestic and international) election observation in assessing, and
improving the quality of elections? What is the role of domestic and international actors in
promoting electoral reform? How can new voting technologies help to improve election
quality? And to what extent varies the methodology of (inter)national organizations in
assessing the quality of elections?
1
For instance, election observation missions conducted by the OSCE have criticized elections in the Netherlands on various aspects. See
http://www.osce.org/odihr/97291 Workshop 8: “Political socialization and citizenship education of young people”
Workshop Chairs
Dorien Sampermans, KU Leuven (Dorien.Sampermans@soc.kuleuven.be)*
Lies Maurissen, KU Leuven (lies.maurissen@soc.kuleuven.be)
Ellen Claes, KU Leuven (ellen.claes@soc.kuleuven.be)
In this session we want to look into the effects of new challenges for schools regarding the
political socialization of adolescents.
Schools can play a role in students’ social and political development (Claes, Hooghe &
Marien 2012) and most policymakers in western democracies are convinced of the
importance to educate young people to become more informed, competent and responsible
citizens (Torney-Purta, Wilkenfeld & Barber, 2008; Westheimer & Kahne 2004). Schools of
course do not operate in a vacuum. Hence societal challenges (e.g. globalization and
multiculturalism) also ask for new approaches regarding civic education. Also for citizenship
education researchers changing contexts create new needs and opportunities. Recently
highlighted topics in the field are new forms of political participation (Manning & Edwards,
2014), the relation between online activities and political participation (Quintelier & Vissers,
2008), the effect of open classroom climate and teacher-pupil interaction on civic attitudes.
But also more traditional questions are reconsidered, for example: is SES still a strong
predictor regarding the intention of young people to participate politically? Has the interplay
of civic education and ethnic differences changed?
In short political socialization studies and citizenship education research are - and should be evolving. This session wants to explore new, existing and changing trends in civic and
citizenship education studies in diverse contexts of learning among youth.
References
Claes, E., Hooghe M., & Marien S. (2012). A two-year panel study among Belgian late
adolescents on the impact of school environment characteristics on political trust.
International journal of public opinion research, 24(2), 208-224.
Manning N., & Edwards K. (2014). Why has civic education failed to increase young
people’s political participation? Sociological research online, 19(1), z.p.
Torney-Purta, J., Wilkenfeld, B., & Barber, C. (2008). How adolescents in 27 countries
understand, support and practice human rights. Journal of social issues, 64(4), 857-880.
Quintelier, E., & Vissers, S. (2008). The effect of Internet use on political participation.
Social science computer review, 26(4), 411-427.
Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of education for
democracy. American educational research journal, 41(2), 237-269.
* Corresponding co-chair: please send your proposals here
Workshop 9: “Political Communication”
Workshop Chairs
Laura Jacobs, KU Leuven, Belgium (Laura.Jacobs@soc.kuleuven.be)
Lotte Melenhorst, Leiden University, the Netherlands (l.d.melenhorst@fsw.leidenuniv.nl)
Over the past decades political communication, the study at the intersection of politics and
communication, has evolved into an important subfield in political science. Technological
developments and new trends in the media landscape are taking place at a fast pace, making
the relationship between media and politics a dynamic and challenging topic of interest. This
workshop aims to bring together researchers from Belgium and the Netherlands who study
the interaction between media and politics from various perspectives.
Politics is all about perception, and this renders various media – as popular information
sources in contemporary Western societies – an important socialization potential to shape
these perceptions. The power of the media to influence a whole range of political attitudes
and behaviors can thus be considered quite substantial. In this workshop, we therefore
especially welcome papers that deal with this relationship between media and political
attitudes and behaviors. Examples may be the studies of media and political participation,
media and policy making or media and political attitudes, such as political trust, antiimmigrant votes, etc. However, as the relationship between media and politics is inherently
interdependent, research that investigates the impact of politics on media, and studies
specifically addressing the interactions between media and politics are very much appreciated
as well. Because we encourage topical research, this workshop also welcomes studies
concerning the 2014 elections in Belgium and the Netherlands. When one says ‘elections’,
one says ‘campaigning’, as politicians need to present themselves to the electorate in order to
gain visibility and subsequently get votes. The various elections provide an excellent
opportunity to (comparatively) study the relationship between election campaigns and voting
behavior, both at the regional, national and European level. Also research specifically
addressing the role of social media as new forms of communication between political actors
and citizens is highly appreciated.
In this workshop, we invite papers that deal with political communication (widely defined).
Potential topics include but are not limited to: new media, media effects, agenda-setting,
framing, election campaigns, media and political attitudes, mediatization. Both methodical
papers and theoretical contributions are welcome, as well as case studies and comparative
approaches. We welcome quantitative, qualitative as well as mixed-methods studies and
contributions from both political science and communication scholars. Also welcome are
papers that apply original methodologies (e.g. experimental studies). The working language
of the panel is English.
Papers may be submitted either in Dutch or in English.
Workshop 10: “The Contestation of Immigration, Ethnic Diversity and Citizenship”
Workshop Chairs
Christof Roos, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (christof.roos@vub.ac.be)
Costica Dumbrava, Maastricht University (c.dumbrava@maastrichtuniversity.nl)
In most European countries mainstream political parties and the general society seem to have
accepted the fact that they have become immigration countries over the past four decades.
Governments have sought to actively define and manage their immigrant population by
imposing distinct entry and residence conditions for particular groups of migrants (refugees,
family migrants, types of labour migrants) (Morris 2001, Mau et al. 2012. In many countries
of destination integration policies targeted immigrants’ social wellbeing and their economic
performance. A series of reforms of citizenship laws relaxed provisions on dual citizenship
mainly in order to ensure the smooth integration of immigrants. European countries
politically and legally adapt to ever more diverse and globalized European societies.
However, immigration is not without contestation. New social movements are forming that
oppose religious and ethnic diversity; populist political parties reinforce anti-immigrant
attitudes. These phenomena prompt questions such as: To what extent can we observe a
‘new’ mobilization against immigration and immigrants’ rights? Are current phenomena
different from the electoral success of radical right anti-immigrant parties in the 1990s and
2000s? What are the actors behind the new anti-immigrant mobilization? What vision of
society do they promote? What are their alternatives to cultural and ethnic diversity? What
are the political and legal responses of the EU and of national and local actors to the current
wave of anti-immigrant mobilization?
The organizers welcome contributions from senior and junior researchers who work on issues
related to current contestations of immigration policy, ethnic diversity and citizenship
policies. The panel is open to different perspectives and to various methodologies; e.g.
comparative political science, sociology, political theory.
Workshop 11: “Elections: Dealing with Dealignment”
Workshop Chairs
Yves Dejaeghere , University of Antwerp (yves.dejaeghere@uantwerpen.be)
Tom Louwerse, Trinity College Dublin (Tom.Louwerse@tcd.ie)
Martin Rosema ,University of Twente (m.rosema@utwente.nl)
Elections are increasingly fought in settings where structural bonds between voters and
parties are exceptions rather than rule. Voters consider multiple candidates or parties and
abstention, resulting in increasing electoral volatility and late decision making. This situation
is often contrasted to the era of frozen electoral cleavages in which voting choices could be
predicted well in advance from people’s socio-economic or cultural background or their longterm party identification. This workshop explores how voters respond to the challenges
resulting from dealignment.
One question is how voters cope with the increased choices they face. While there is evidence
in the literature that short-term factors such as policy preferences and candidate evaluations
are more important in vote choice, researchers also suggest that elections are not ‘free-foralls’ in which every voter is available to every party. If not ideological, which heuristics do
voters use to reduce the choice set before a final decision? Can we show that the way voters
decide has markedly changed over the last fifty years?
While formerly partisan or ideological voters could be ‘rationally ignorant’ as they would
vote for the same party in consecutive elections, contemporary dealigned voters need to be
more informed if they want to make a conscious decision. This has given a new thrust to
investigate the political knowledge of voters and campaign learning effects. How do voters
make sense of the party-issue space in multiparty settings? How is this affected by issue
saliency or campaign learning? What is the role of ‘strategic’ voting behaviour? Voters are
presented with new tools that might help them in making their electoral choices, such as
voting advice applications, which provide individualised recommendations based on voters’
(policy) preferences. In addition, opinion polls are ubiquitous during election campaigns, as
are polling average and election prediction websites, which may help voters to assess the
strategic context of the election. Are these tools well designed to be effectively helping
dealigned voters? Do they influence how voters think about elections and the act of voting
itself? This workshop welcomes contributions relating to these types of questions about
voters’ responses to dealignment. We welcome comparative analyses as well as country
studies that offer contributions to understanding the broader theoretical questions. Both
qualitative and quantitative empirical studies are welcome, as are papers that contribute to
conceptual and theoretical development.
Language:
English, but papers may also be written in Dutch
Workshop 12: “Advances in Political Psychology”
Workshop chairs:
Meta van der Linden, KU Leuven (meta.vanderlinden@soc.kuleuven.be)
Dr. Michael F. Meffert, Universiteit Leiden (m.f.meffert@fsw.leidenuniv.nl)
Dr. Thomas de Vroome, ERCOMER Universiteit Utrecht (t.m.devroome@uu.nl)
Political psychology is a thriving field concerned with understanding the psychological
underpinnings and consequences of political phenomena. It explores the formation, change,
and consequences of public opinion, core values, political preferences, attitudes, identity, and
conflict within a social system. Political psychology provides sharp insights into
contemporary social issues such as the transformation of political grievances into collective
action, the rising popularity of populist radical right parties and anti-immigrant sentiments,
the encouragement of reconciliation after political and social conflicts, citizens’ evaluation of
parties and other governmental institutions, and parents’ influence on the political
development of their children.
Our workshop seeks and encourages submissions on any topic in these areas, including
prejudice, multiculturalism, extremism, intergroup relations, group identification, social
change, collective action, political socialization, ideology, party and candidate preferences,
leadership, social and political trust, media effects, political knowledge, and political
emotions. Hence, this call broadly encompasses many of the central themes in political
psychology research. We are particularly interested in contributions that introduce new and
original theoretical and/or methodological approaches within the field of political
psychology.
The purpose of the workshop is both to stimulate discussion on emerging themes within the
discipline and to provide authors with valuable feedback to prepare their manuscript for
publication.
The workshop discussions will be in English, but papers may be submitted in either Dutch or
English.
Workshop 13: “Political Theory”
Workshop organizers:
Marcel Wissenburg, Radboud University Nijmegen (m.wissenburg@fm.ru.nl)
Kasper Ossenblok, Ghent University (kasper.ossenblok@ugent.be)
The Politicologenetmaal has become a highly appreciated and popular meeting place for
political theorists and legal, social and political philosophers in the Netherlands and Belgium.
This panel aims to foster the continued exchange of ideas, research and results among the
Low Countries' political thinkers.
We opt for a broad programme, open to all traditions and schools in political thought, as well
as to any research topic and theme relevant to the discipline. Topics fruitfully presented and
discussed in the past include:
ü Methods in and methodology of political theory (including the debates on morality vs
political practice and ideal vs non-ideal theory)
ü Democracy theory (deliberation, representation, radical democracy, religion &
democracy, meritocracy, associative democracy)
ü Theories of justice (in the abstract and applied, national and global)
ü The history of political thought
ü The analysis and viability of political ideologies (from classics like liberalism,
marxism and communitarianism to 'modern' feminism, populism, ecologism)
This year, we invite participants to address in their papers, if and where possible, the
suggestions made in the recent debate between Roland Pierik, Patrick Overeem and Tim
Heysse (Res Publica 56 [2014/4], pp. 529-542) on what would be the most urgent issues to
top the agenda of political theory in the Low Countries – among others: context-sensitivity,
focus on the politician rather than the citizen, and understanding rather than preaching.
The discussions during the workshop will be in English. Papers are preferably written in that
language as well.
Workshop 14: “Developments in International Relations”
(workshop targeted at young academics organized in cooperation with “ismus”, the study
association for political science students in Nijmegen)
Workshop Chairs:
Andrej Zaslove, Radboud University (a.zaslove@fm.ru.nl)
Bertjan Verbeek, Radboud University (b.verbeek@fm.ru.nl)
Mark Vlek de Coningh, Radboud University, markvlekdeconingh@gmail.com*
This workshop is targeted at an audience of young political science students. We intend to
organize a set of 4 sessions each lasting 1.5 hours in which students can present papers while
getting feedback by both peers and experienced academics. The overarching theme of
‘Developments in International Relations’ will be subdivided in four themes, based on the
papers we will receive. The general theme relates to new developments in International
Relations and the impact they have on the way we approach among others war, security,
development and the state. Examples of sub-themes could be
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
-­‐
Conflict and Security in the 21st Century
Civil Society in International Organisations
Effects of a globalising economy
Hegemony and world order
Each session will hold 3-4 papers from both students and academics. In addition, each session
will have a panel chair and a discussant. The workshop will provide young academics the
possibility to present their work while experiencing what an academic career means.
The students co-organizing this workshop have previous experience organizing political
science related activities. They were part of the organizing committee of the four-day 2014
IAPPS Autumn Convention, a student-led and organized congress with over 200 visitors
from over 40 countries, with lectures, panels, workshops.
Bachelor, Master and PhD students from universities in Belgium, the Netherlands and
elsewhere are invited to submit their paper proposal to the workshop organisers.
* Corresponding co-chair: please send your proposals here