Political Science News - Call for Papers

Deliberation after consensus: Democracy, epistemic quality and public discourse

Centre franco-norvégien en sciences sociales et humaines
Paris, France
20 November, 2014 - 21 November, 2014
Application Deadline: 1 August, 2014
Contact: info@nchr.uio.no

For this workshop, the conveners welcome contributions from scholars in political science, philosophy, law, media and communication, and related disciplines on the following topics:

  1. What is the role of consensus in deliberative democratic theory? Following the critique against the ideal of consensus in deliberative democratic theory, recent years has seen increased interest in finding alternative non-ideal but acceptable outcomes short of rational consensus, e.g. workable agreements, meta-consensus, apparent consensus, plural agreement, moral compromise and deliberative disagreement. Yet others maintain that the concept of consensus is constitutive of deliberative democracy, or that critics fundamentally misconstrue its role as a regulative ideal for discourse. For this section, we invite papers that seek to critically address the role of consensus and its alternatives in the theory of deliberative democracy.
     
  2. How does agreement affect the quality of subsequent deliberation? Many studies on deliberative decision-making study how the requirement to reach consensus affect the quality of prior deliberation. However, the ex post effects of consensus on deliberation have rarely been addressed in the literature. For this section, we welcome papers that critically engage, either theoretically or empirically, the so-called consensus paradox, i.e., the tension between diversity and agreement in improving the epistemic quality of deliberative output.
     
  3. How to measure deliberative rationality and epistemic quality? The epistemic turn in democratic theory calls for adequate tools for analyzing the epistemic quality of the output of democratic decision-making. Invoking external standards – like truth or moral goodness – seems to be controversial given the fact of pluralism, but to what extent can epistemic quality be evaluated without such standards? For this section, we welcome papers that address the theoretical, conceptual and methodological problems of measuring the epistemic quality of democratic decision-making.
     
  4. What is the relationship between expert discourse, democratic deliberation and epistemic quality in political processes? As citizens we are interested in the quality of collectively binding decisions and we think of democracy as a way of reaching better decisions. But what if expert deliberations among the few outperform more inclusive, democratic discourse? The fear of critics is that the idea of epistemic democracy can be perverted into a defence of illegitimate expert privileges, and foster what has been called epistocracy (rule of the knowers). This section invites normatively oriented papers relating discussions on the legitimate role of expertise to theories of epistemic democracy, and empirically oriented papers on the effects of expert advice and delegation on epistemic quality. In particular, we encourage analyses that connect these discussions to the concept of consensus.

Practical details

  • We invite those interested in presenting a paper to submit an abstract no longer than 300 words and a short biographical note using this online form by 1 August 2014.
  • The conveners will select up to 20 papers, partly chosen in order to have a coherent set of contributions fit for possible joint publication as an edited volume or a special issue of an international academic journal.
  • Full papers must be submitted by 1 November 2014.
  • Paper givers may also be asked to serve as discussants on other papers.
  • Where required, the organizers will seek to cover travel and accommodation expenses for paper givers.

Political and Military Sociology: An Annual Review

2014
Published by: Transaction Publishers
Application Deadline: 15 August, 2014
Contact: jswarts@pnc.edu

Call for Manuscript Submissions or Edited Issue Proposals
Political and Military Sociology: An Annual Review

Political and Military Sociology: An Annual Review, published by Transaction Publishers, is currently receiving manuscript submissions for future issues. We are also interested in proposals for future edited, thematic issues of the Annual Review. Submissions and proposals are considered on a continuous, rolling basis; however, submissions for consideration in the 2015 volume should be received by 15 August 2014.

Submissions and proposals are welcome on a wide range of topics within political science, political sociology, military sociology and civil-military relations. They should reflect current research that speaks to important theoretical and conceptual issues. Political commentaries and general essays are generally not published. All manuscripts undergo anonymous, blind peer review.

Political and Military Sociology: An Annual Review is the relaunched version of the Journal of Political and Military Sociology. For over thirty years the JPMS was a leading outlet for high quality scholarship in political science and sociology generally, and military sociology specifically. As part of its recent transition to Transaction Publishers, the JPMS in 2010 became Political and Military Sociology: An Annual Review, with the same editors, thematic focus and continuity of volume numbering.

Authors interested in submitting manuscripts or proposals should consult the journal's website (www.pmsaronline.org) and/or contact one of the journal's coeditors:

Jonathan Swarts, Purdue University North Central, jswarts@pnc.edu

Neovi Karakatsanis, Indiana University South Bend, nkarakat@iusb.edu