[OK-AT Open Science] Call for papers ECPR 2017 panel “Knowledge: embodied, inscribed, enacted” – the framework reconsidered

Sedlacko Michal michal.sedlacko at fh-campuswien.ac.at
Mon Jan 30 18:13:54 UTC 2017

Dear colleagues,

although not directly related to open science, the following panel might nevertheless be of interest to some of you:

Call for papers
Panel title: “Knowledge: embodied, inscribed, enacted” – the framework reconsidered

European Consortium on Political Research (ECPR) General Conference,
7–10 September 2017, Oslo, Norway

Conveners: Michal Sedlacko and Julia Dahlvik
University of Applied Science FH Campus Wien, Public Management, Vienna, AT
(michal.sedlacko at fh-campuswien.ac.at<mailto:michal.sedlacko at fh-campuswien.ac.at>, julia.dahlvik at fh-campuswien.ac.at<mailto:julia.dahlvik at fh-campuswien.ac.at>)

Discussant: Steven Sturdy
University of Edinburg, School of Social and Political Science

The volume “Knowledge in policy – embodied, inscribed, enacted” (eds. Freeman and Sturdy, 2014) builds on recent research endeavours and brings together several strands of research to develop a “phenomenological” or “pre-theoretical” framework that classifies policy knowledge from a perspective analogous to “phases of matter,” i.e. embodied, inscribed and enacted forms of knowledge. Thereby, it brings into policy studies the terminology – and perhaps also concerns – of sociology of knowledge and organisational studies (from areas such as organisational learning or knowledge management), using these concepts to structure the multiple debates on knowledge in/into policy.

This panel aims to critically examine the framework, identify areas for its further development and stimulate further debates as well as bring together researchers with shared interests in empirical research of knowledge in policy processes.

Suggested topics for contributions regarding the general methodological/empirical, theoretical or practical value of the ‘embodied, inscribed, enacted’ framework:

·         The framework aims to “draw attention to aspects of knowledge in policy that had not hitherto been noticed.” Which fields or disciplines can benefit from these new perspectives?

·         The framework aims to be a ‘phenomenology’ compatible with all epistemologies, a ‘pre-theoretical language’ to span different research approaches. What is the potential of the framework beyond ethnographic research strategies?

·         What view is afforded by the framework? Do we get a new window on the more traditional concerns such as policy interests, policy diffusion or epistemic selectivity? What difference does the framework make in relation to practice – does it open new corridors of action?

·         What is the framework’s value as compared to the models of organizational learning such as the integrated framework by Lam (2000), the knowledge spiral (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995), the Munich model of knowledge management (Reinmann-Rothmeier 2001) or the take on tacit and explicit knowledge by Collins (2010, Collins and Evans 2007)?

Suggested topics for contributions on specific issues:

·         How easily can the framework be combined with other theoretical approaches in studies of knowledge and policy and beyond as well as with classifications of knowledge? Which combinations seem to work well?

·         How should the various implied understandings of enactment (as drawing on knowledge resources, as communicating knowledge to other participants, as negotiating knowledge claims, as enacting expert status) be theoretically “sorted out”?

·         What can be said theoretically or empirically about translations between the different forms of knowledge? What is the relation between enactment and translation – and “knowledge moments”?

·         What is the benefit of differentiating between “know-what” and “know-how”? How central is the classification of propositional vs. mediating knowledge? (And why is this distinction absent in the treatment of enacted knowledge?)

·         What language should be adopted for describing the knowledge patterns and hierarchies in policy? What does empirical emphasis on certain forms of knowledge (at the expense of others) signify? How do these patterns “build and form social and organisational space”?

The conveners of the panel are of course open to other issues related to the examination, experience with or further development of the framework.

Please submit your abstract until 10 February 2017 to one of the e-mail addresses listed above. The conveners will submit the whole panel including all the accepted contributions and inform the contributors.

Thank you!

All the best,

Michal Sedlacko, PhD
Forschung und Lehre / Academic Staff

Studiengang Public Management, FH Campus Wien
Mauerbachstraße 43, 1140 Wien, Austria
Tel: +43-1-606 6877 3812

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/science-at/attachments/20170130/191d19a7/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the science-at mailing list