2008 joint session of workshops: Rennes, France
The ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops have taken place annually for the last 35 years and is now one of the major events in European political science, with 500–700 people participating each year. Workshops are designed to be a forum for substantive discussion on research in progress and collaboration among scholars. The workshops are gatherings of approximately 15–20 participants from different institutions, lasting about 5 days. The topics of discussion are precisely defined, and only those scholars currently working in the workshop's field are invited. The main aim of the workshops is to produce a feeling of participation and of equality of endeavour between advanced students, younger members of the profession and well-established professors. Each participant presents a paper or research document for discussion as well as taking part in the discussion of the other papers presented. It is hoped that some of these workshops will lead to the creation of permanent research groups and standing groups as well as to continuing collaboration between members.
Workshop proposals should cover the following points:
- Outline of the topic: Explain why there is a need for a workshop on the subject, bearing in mind that the topic should not have been covered by another workshop during the past 2 years.
- Relation to existing research: Explain how the workshop topic relates to existing research/publications in the area.
- Participants: Indicate who the likely participants are to be. Note that all workshops should be open rather than confined to an existing closed group of specialists.
- Type of paper: Try to indicate the type of paper you wish to attract, for example empirical, case study, comparative, theory.
- Funding: Give an indication of foundations or research councils to which you would apply for funding the workshop. Note that workshop directors are strongly urged to seek such financial support before depending on hard-pressed ECPR funds.
- Biographical note: Please outline (in 60–80 words) your current research interests, most recent publications, academic affiliation and status.
Deadline for proposals:
Proposals should be submitted to the ECPR Central Services. Proposals are considered by the ECPR's Executive Committee at its meeting during the Joint Sessions in the year preceding. Proposers will be informed whether their workshop has been accepted for inclusion in the academic programme within one month of the meeting of the Committee.
If you would like to submit a proposal to run a workshop please see our website at http://www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/events/jointsessions/index.aspx for full details and proposal form.
Deadline for applications is Friday, 16th February 2007.
the first ecpr graduate conference
LA VALEUR N'ATTEND PAS LE NOMBRE DES ANNÉES
The idea of a Graduate Conference was suggested in 2003 at the initiative of Richard Bellamy (then Academic Director of the ECPR). The University of Essex, with its outstanding Department of Government, the presence of the Central Services, and a rich experience in conference management, was quickly selected as the ideal place to hold the first conference (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Delegates at the Graduate Conference take time out to read through their programmes.
Full figure and legend (211K)Discussion between members of the Executive Committee started in Marburg where Erik Neveu was appointed to organise the event in partnership with Jennifer Sands from the Graduate Network Committee. Subsequent discussions soon clarified five important issues. Firstly, the Graduate Conference should be an opportunity to offer young researchers a space for scientific discussion and socialisation to the imperatives of the Academia. It should also be considered as a tool for channelling into the Consortium more young researchers: a shop window offering an overview of all the services and opportunities offered by the ECPR (summer schools, standing groups, and so on). Thirdly, the launching of this new activity had to be boosted by the development of the Consortium Graduate Network. Fourthly, emphasis was put on what the Graduate Conference should not be: a kind of consolation prize, or even worse, a smokescreen to reduce the space dedicated to the youngest in other events such as the joint sessions and general conferences. This point triggered a final imperative: we should target quality with 'names' from the discipline as keynote speakers, a stimulating range of panels, and roundtables on professional issues.
This blueprint laid down the guidelines for a countdown, which really started in 2004. Announcements appeared on the website, a central theme on 'Contentious Politics' was defined and Professor Tilly happily agreed to be the keynote speaker. As always in such adventures, the organisers went through some hard times. Can we admit that we were just plain scared when, several months after the call for papers, less than sixty proposals were registered? Would the first Graduate Conference also be the last? Should we transfer the event from lecture theatres to the campus telephone booths? However, the usual miracle happened in the last weeks, when a huge tide of 400 proposals, both individual ones and ready-made panels, hit the Central Services' computers. For the Academic Convenors, it was the beginning of an academic jigsaw puzzle: how to make panels into sessions? And how to combine nearly 250 individual proposals on topics ranging from Rawls' theories to anti WTO protest via political journalism? Further meetings and brain storming sessions offered Jennifer and Erik some serious training in this academic witchcraft called panel making. Jennifer's knowledge of the secrets and wishes of the Network members and Erik's French flair for packaging together the pieces from the kaleidoscope of proposals gave birth to more than ninety panels, structured into 12 sessions. Some of them were easy to combine, thanks to the numerous proposals and to the federative powers of topics such as 'Contentious Politics' or 'Europeanisation' or the 'Changes in I.R. Analysis'. The real challenge came after making the 'easy' panels: how to combine excellent, but heterogeneous, proposals into something coherent? We dreamed – or was it a nightmare? – of what should be done if the remaining proposals were about 'the Churchillian legacy to the Conservative Party', 'Cuba after Castro' 'the Clinton-Lewinsky affair'...a Cigar and Politics panel, of course...
Finally, all was on track by early June. Nearly all the members of the Executive Committee made some commitment to the roundtables. A stimulating contribution was coordinated in the Department of Government by Han Dorussen, and Richard Topf brought the contribution of EPSnet. The Central Services and the Essex staff did, once more, a wonderful job. If all were equal in their efficiency, Louise Hawkridge was more equal than others and has been the conductor of the local organisation. A final alert came from the USA: Charles Tilly had to cancel his participation through illness. However, Ian Budge and Sidney Tarrow kindly agreed to give lectures and offered two major moments of reflection and debate (Figure 2).
Figure 2.
Sidney Tarrow draws the crowds for the keynote lecture of the Graduate Conference.
Full figure and legend (151K)Thus, the first participants reached Essex on the evening of Tuesday 6th September. From the Friday morning, 400 young researchers were presenting papers and debating. The conference also offered the opportunity to promote the Graduate Network and introduce both the outgoing and incoming members of the Graduate Committee. On the spot discussions and post-event feedback suggest that the conference was a real success. Participants described the quality of papers and discussions as excellent (less than 5 per cent of the proposals were rejected for lack of scientific content). The active and large audiences of round-tables such as the one titled 'Knocking on heaven's door: finding a job in European Academia' was the proof that real topics of debate had been identified. Even if late arrivals reduced the audience of Professor Budge, both lectures received warm and satisfied comments and, as always in such events, the backstage and social events were of major importance too. Many participants returned home with new addresses, hopes of networking, and desires to invest in the training and debating opportunities offered by the Consortium.
A complete balance sheet, however, invites us to identify improvements for future experiences. The percentage of no-shows was just beyond 15 per cent, reflecting, on the whole, a lack of funding for participants. The audiences of two high-quality roundtables were simply too low. The scheduling of the various cogs and events of the conference will be revised for the second conference. Reducing the financial costs of participation – in the limits of the Consortium budget – should be another major target of reflection.
Thus, to quote a famous reply from Corneille 'La valeur n'attend pas le nombre des années', this first try was a success. If any were needed, proof has been given that young researchers can be the producers of rich scientific debate and, once again, Essex has been the place of a major development in ECPR activities. A new bridge connects better generations of political scientists.
Don't tell anyone, because it's a secret... but the second Graduate Conference in 2008 will probably be hosted in a pleasant city on the Mediterranean coast. A reveure companys!
Erik Neveu and Jennifer Sands
'over there': ecpr at apsa 2006
For the third year in succession the ECPR was very well represented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association (APSA), held in 2006 in the historic city of Philadelphia. Throughout the whole of the conference the ECPR had a big presence at the book exhibition where great interest was shown in our various publications and the wider work of the ECPR. Especial interest was shown in the ECPR Monographs and Classics series, though our three journals – European Political Science (EPS), European Journal of International Relations (EJIR) and the European Journal of Political Research (EJPR) – also invited a good deal of very positive comment.
The ECPR reception hosted by Blackwell and the APSA's section on European Politics and Society (EPS) was a great success too – largely we suspect because the drink and food were free (quite a deal at a conference not famed for giving away many freebees). However, senior officers from the APSA were to be seen amongst the milling crowds and were thanked accordingly by the Chair of ECPR, Professor Michael Cox, whose speech was heard even if he could not be seen.
Finally, the ECPR organised three very successful panels: two by Professor Richard Bellamy (the outgoing Academic Director) which dealt with 'The Americanisation of European Politics' with a special focus on judicial review and whether or not Europe has adopted, or indeed should adopt 'American-Style Judicial Review'. Professor Cox then drew together a star-studded panel from the field of International Relations to examine the impact – if any – of events since 2001 on IR theory. Over 120 delegates attended, proving, if proof were needed, that the ECPR has now established itself as a genuine presence 'over there'.
We now look forward to our next American foray – the International Studies Association conference – to be held during February and March in 2007 where the ECPR and its Standing Group on International Relations (SGIR) will host not three but eight panels. ECPR will also have another great book exhibition, and (maybe) a free drinks reception!
Michael Cox
Chair of the ECPR Executive Committee
ecpr summer school in methods and techniques, faculty of social sciences, university of ljubljana
In July 2006, the first ever ECPR Summer School in Methods and Techniques was held in Ljubljana. The original idea to set up the School came from the former ECPR chair, Dirk Berg-Schlosser and Ursula Hoffmann-Lange, member of the ECPR Executive Committee and the Summer School Director. The purpose of the Summer School is to meet the growing demand for methods training in particular for those graduate students working on empirical research projects. The Summer School is not meant to compete with existing spring and summer schools, but rather to supplement these. The programme has been developed to cover the entire field of social scientific methodology, with a disciplinary focus on political science. It covers quantitative methods, but special emphasis is also placed on course offerings in comparative and in qualitative methods. In combination with the new Graduate Conference, it marks a significant improvement in ECPR provision of academic and organisational facilities for graduates in political science – in other words, for those who are the future of our profession (Figure 3).
From the initial evaluation, which we asked all participants (including instructors and teaching assistants) to complete, it appears that we managed to satisfy nearly everybody with the academic content, and general organisational structure. Out of the original 10 courses offered, we cancelled one course owing to low registration figures, and went ahead with the other nine. We had a total of 155 participants from 38 different countries, with a fairly even gender split. In terms of the instructors, there was a European 'centre of gravity' with some North American input and a mix of both male and female and junior and senior academics.
It was recognised by the team that when organising the Summer School, one of the most important aspects after the academic content is to provide opportunities for participants to build foundations of future relationships with colleagues. To this end, the Academic Convenors developed an attractive plenary programme in order to encourage academic disputes over the usefulness of different methodological approaches and at the same time to offer opportunities for communication among students of different courses. Throughout the Summer School, there were four plenary lectures, which were all very well attended. In addition to this, there was also a social programme for participants, which offered a variety of activities that included an organised excursion to the Slovenian seaside and caves. There were also opportunities for students to arrange their own activities, such as friendly football games, outings to the city and trips to Venice after the Summer School had ended.
In 2007, the Summer School will begin on Sunday 22nd July and end on Saturday 4th August and we hope to offer up to 15 courses running in parallel. We will also offer some shorter refresher/introductory courses in statistics, mathematics and software packages (such as SPSS and R) which will run immediately prior to the Summer School. Further information will be available on our website from December 2006.
There will be a full report on the 2006 Summer School available from October 2006, for further information, please visit our website www.ecprnet.org or contact me at ecpr@essex.ac.uk.
Emer Padden
ECPR Central Services
