Power Reconsidered

The 2006 APSA Annual Meeting will convene in Philadelphia, PA on August 31 – Sept 3, 2006. What better place than the birthplace of our nation to discuss this 2006 theme, “Power Reconsidered.” 2006 Program Chairs Judy Goldstein and Rick Valelly are inviting participants to address the fundamental question of whether and how the concept of power informs political science. Hosted by the Philadelphia Marriott, the Loews Philadelphia and the Pennsylvania Convention Center, the 2006 Annual Meeting will feature compelling discussions of this theme as well as current issues in political science and the public sphere.

Dahl's publication of “The Concept of Power” in 1957, prodded the discipline to consider how power—getting it, using it, taming it—was a central feature in political life. Program Chairs Goldstein and Valelly ask the discipline, 50 years later, to again consider whether and how the concept of power informs our scholarship as political scientists. And just as Dahl worried that the then dominant legalistic approach had obscured fundamental relations in society, the Program Chairs seek a discussion about how we should theorize about power, in the context of a growing hegemony of institutional approaches in the discipline. In the past decade, political science has borrowed freely and with great profit from microeconomics, mathematics, history, and cognitive psychology. While such recent preoccupations have proven enormously fruitful and important in adding both rigor and a keen appreciation of political life, we propose that it may be appropriate to rethink power, in the context of our now deeper understanding of social and political institutions.

We plan for the 2006 Meeting to focus on the understanding of both theoretical bases of power and its empirical effects. We encourage political scientists to rethink the theoretical status of power in their own empirical work and urge theorists to revaluate their models in light of empirical examples of the effects of authority relationships. Our hope is that this dialogue will enliven our work and prove an important dimension of analysis for all members of the association.

Join 5000+ political scientists who will participate in the 102nd APSA Annual Meeting!

2006 Program Chairs: Judy Goldstein, Stanford University, and Rick Valelly, Swarthmore College

Submit online: www.apsanet.org/mtgs/

DEADLINE: NOVEMBER 15, 2005

Division 1: Political Thought and Philosophy Pamela K.Jensen, Kenyon College jensen@kenyon.edu

At the 2006 meetings, we are invited to reconsider the fundamental concept of power in both the activity and the study of politics. The Political Thought and Philosophy division especially welcomes submissions of proposals for papers, panels, and roundtables that treat an aspect of the general theme. We are seeking to represent a variety of theoretical approaches and especially encourage proposals expressive of interdisciplinary work. All proposals that promote a fundamental understanding of politics or political science will be given full consideration.

Papers seeking to address the general theme might address issues pertinent to measuring power, legitimating or authorizing it, limiting it, or transcending it. Papers might draw upon classic theorists of power (e.g., Hobbes), or upon those who argue for an alternative organizing principle for politics (e.g., the quest for justice). In any case, defining what is essentially or distinctively political remains an overriding question. Does the study of politics coincide with the study of power? Is power a means or an end in politics? Is political power in need of or reducible to subjective legitimation techniques for violence or are there other ways of assessing its proper use? How useful is power to delineate human relations within political society, and especially in light of liberalism's traditional separation of private and public life? What weight should we accord to other modes of social interaction, e.g., cooperation and consensus, trust and friendship, or deference, or does “power” encompass them all? How should “power” be used as a concept that illuminates the self and human motivations, whether understood in terms of passions such as fear and ambition, in terms of the sense of obligation or duty, or in terms of generosity or love? Papers might consider aspects of culture as a congeries of decentralized sites of inf luence that challenge or check political power (e.g., religion, economics, mores, the arts, domestic life, education) or as the source of the greatest political power. Contemporary events point to efforts of various kinds to complete on a global scale the liberal project to regulate or contain power for the sake individual rights. Are there principles that should guide or temper those efforts? Liberal democracy's concern to balance equality and freedom also raises questions about the extent to which enhancements of the power of the more vulnerable must perpetually contend with efforts to prevent its abuses. As another possibility, papers might reconsider the purposes of political science itself. Is political knowledge an instance of power? If so, how should it be deployed? Should a socially responsible political science direct itself to civic ends, such as the promotion of sound political judgment on the part of citizens?

Division 2: Foundations of Political Theory Kennan Ferguson, University of South Florida kennan@cas.usf.edu

This division seeks dissensus.

One dynamic by which power operates, as generations of critical theorists have argued, can be identified by the absence of opposition. Powerful politicians, powerful cultures, powerful states: each can ignore or squelch alternative viewpoints and differing analyses. In conjunction with the conference theme, Foundations seeks papers and panels which deal critically and constructively with theories of power and powerlessness, especially as they apply to plurality, citizenship, institutions, constitutions, race, sex, rights, class, equality, voice, states and nations, democracy, ability and disability, justice, family, culture, oppression, the boundaries of the human, resistance, cosmopolitanism, and normativity (among others). Panels which promise rhetorical fisticuffs are particularly welcome.

Division 3: Normative Theory Joshua I. Miller, Lafayette College millerj@lafayette.edu

Power is the central theme of this year's convention, and power has been a major preoccupation of political theory. This theme should give political theorists inspiration and freedom since theorists have discovered power not only in institutions such as the state, but in relationships among political actors (authority, legitimacy, leadership). Power has also been linked with wealth, war, status, discipline, language, culture, and personal life. Is there any human relationship or phenomena devoid of power, and if the answer is “no,” is the concept of power any longer meaningful? Perhaps more careful distinctions should be made among types of power, e.g., are there more or less benign forms of power;what types of power should be limited and what types created and abetted? Is there a difference between political power and other types of power? The general call to the meeting elicits a dialogue between theoretical and empirical studies, i.e., what does power actually look like in specific contexts with particular histories? That seems fruitful, but more abstract reflections on power, and interesting theorizing, regardless of method, on any other theme will be considered.

Division 4: Formal Political Theory Kenneth C. Williams, Michigan State University willia59@msu.edu

In accordance with this year's theme, formal political theory has significantly contributed to the study of how the multiple facets of political power affects outcomes in various political institutions. Given the growth of understanding of this concept since the initial theories of political power were espoused, I expect many proposals that are submitted will continue to contribute to the expansion of knowledge about this critical concept. The division of formal political theory encourages papers that either theoretically or both theoretically and empirically test the concept of political power, along with the traditional topics of game theory, agent-based models, information processes, social choice theory, evolutionary theories, computational modeling and the emerging area of behavioral game theory. Papers dealing with experimental tests of formal models are also greatly encouraged.

Division 5: Political Psychology Rose McDermott, UC Santa Barbara rmcdermott@polsci.ucsb.edu

The Political Psychology Section seeks papers that examine the relationship between psychology, politics and power through a variety of methods, including experimental and psychophysiological. Harold Lasswell's early work in political psychology called particular atttention to the relationship between the individual and power in his classic works “Psychopathology and Politics” and “Power and Personality.” We call for a renewed examination of the relationship between power and the individual in light of new models and methodologies in the cognitive neurosciences. In particular, we are eager to solicit applications of neuroscience findings and approaches to politics and power. Considerations of the relative role of reason and emotion in political decision making and choice are especially welcomed. We hope such work can be combined with attempts to examine individual motives and strategies for seeking and maintaining power and influence. For example, recent emphasis on the importance of emotion can serve to illuminate the dynamics of status rivalries in many arena of political conflict.

Division 6: Political Economy Rick K.Wilson, Rice University rkw@rice.edu; Liz Gerber, University of Michigan ergerber@umich.edu

Political economy represents a diverse subfield that includes research defined by topic—substantive studies of politics and markets—and by methodology—theoretical or empirical studies of politics that utilize tools derived from economics. We invite papers from both of these branches of political economy.

On the substantive front, we welcome paper or panel proposals that study questions such as economic policy; trade; budgeting; regulation; development; etc. These papers should be theoretically and empirically rigorous and may be situated in a domestic, comparative, or international context.

On the methodological front, priority will be given to paper or panel proposals that test, refine, critique, or support core political economy theories, especially those related to collective action; institutions and development; governmental performance; legislative behavior; voter behavior; and federal systems. Critics of economic approaches to the study of politics often argue that our abstract models are not supported by empirical evidence or that our empirical approaches (especially large-n quantitative analyses or lab experiments) lack validity. We see the 2006 APSA meetings as a ripe opportunity to pull together papers that provide strong field evidence for our theories, that validate experimental results with field evidence and other data, or that demonstrate promising efforts to develop better theoretical foundations to explain anomalous empirical findings.

Division 7: Politics and History Dan Tichenor, Rutgers University, New Brunswick tichen@rci.rutgers.edu; Kathy Thelen, Northwestern University thelen@northwestern.edu

Consistent with the conference theme,“Power Reconsidered,” this section welcomes proposals that draw on historical methods or materials, or that employ theoretical perspectives attuned to the role of history and temporality to reinvigorate the study of power in political life. How do historical or developmental approaches to political inquiry enrich our understanding of the political, institutional, cultural, and social bases of power and their empirical effects? We are especially interested in proposals that offer fresh insights about how to conceptualize power and analyze its use and abuse in light of historical patterns, sequences, contingencies, and trajectories. Proposals might focus on how the acquisition, use, and control of power shapes and is shaped by political culture and ideas over time; by the genesis, development, interaction, and breakdown of institutions; by political leaders and entrepreneurs operating in distinctive historical contexts; and by the mobilization and decline of social movements and organized interests. We encourage submissions that employ longitudinal research and cross-case analyses, as well as those that advance innovative theoretical or methodological approaches to the study of history and politics.

Division 8: Political Methodology Langche Zeng, George Washington University Lzeng@gwu.edu

The Political Methodology Division invites paper, panel and roundtable proposals on all aspects of quantitative methodology. Contribution of new methods and models accommodating unique features of political data, introduction and adaptation of useful methods from other disciplines, and innovative application of existing methods are all welcome. Advancement in any of the key areas of identification, measurement, functional form, estimation, and inference is valued, and proposals exploring recent development in statistical learning theory, computational modeling, and causal inference theory are of particular interest. The conference theme is “Power Reconsidered,” and proposals addressing methodological issues directly related to the theme are especially encouraged.

Division 9: Teaching and Learningin Political Science Rudra Sil, University of Pennsylvania rudysil@sas.upenn.edu

The Division on Teaching and Learning in Political Science welcomes proposals for panels or roundtables to explore the range of issues that teachers and scholars in political science departments must cope with in the classroom. These include, but are not limited to, consideration of effective pedagogical techniques (active learning strategies, involvement in civic affairs or service programs, use of new technologies and simulations, techniques for stimulating greater engagement and participation, etc.); alternative means and objectives for evaluating “teaching” and “learning” as related but distinct processes; the various ways in which research and teaching activities complement or support each other in classroom settings; and the diverse challenges of teaching in different learning environments (such as lecture halls or seminars, whether in research universities, liberal arts colleges or community colleges, whether involving undergraduates or graduate students at various stages in their respective programs). The Division especially welcomes proposals that are consistent with the program theme of “The Concept of Power.” As such special attention will be given to proposals that: (a) investigate the meaning, role, and effects of “power” in the classroom; (b) explore alternative strategies for teaching students about the origins, structure, and effects of “power” in diverse political arenas; and (c) examine how shifts in power structures at global, national, and local levels have affected the content of syllabi and the goals of teaching in the various subfields that constitute the discipline.

Division 10: Undergraduate Education Charles C. Turner, California State University, Chico, ccturner@csuchico.edu

This division welcomes proposals for panels, papers, and posters that address undergraduate education from a variety of theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches. Examples of relevant topics include but are not limited to: pedagogical analysis, assessment of student learning, contemporary trends in undergraduate education, and undergraduate research. Proposals that address the program theme of “Power Reconsidered” are especially welcome. Such proposals might explore the role of power in the classroom, within the department or college/university, or across the discipline more broadly. What does power mean in each of these contexts and should this meaning be reconsidered? What is the relationship between pedagogy and power? How do instructional choices inform students'understandings of the use and abuse of power? In what ways can a political science education empower college students? The Undergraduate Education section is strongly committed to honoring the diversity of institutions with which APSA members are associated and we welcome submissions from political scientists at community colleges and two-year colleges as well as four-year colleges and universities.

Division 11: Comparative Politics Deborah J. Yashar, Princeton University dyashar@princeton.edu

The division invites proposals dealing with any aspect of comparative politics that engages important substantive questions in a theoretically self-conscious way. Panels, workshops, and papers can focus on a wide range of questions, including but not limited to political regimes; state formation/collapse; nations and empire; public policy and welfare states; varieties of capitalism; patterns of development; political economy of reform; party systems; institutional design; rule of law; civil society; social movements; ethnic conflict; revolutions; civil war; post-war reconstruction; and identity politics. In line with the 2006 conference theme, however, the comparative politics division particularly encourages proposals that creatively address the theoretical and empirical relationship between power and politics—analyzing the assumptions, sites, forms, content, reach, contradictions, consequences, and/or contestation of power. Questions of particular interest include: How do different theoretical approaches and methodological choices enrich and delimit our understanding of where power lies, how it is configured, when it is successfully wielded, and how it is contested? How far do competing assumptions about power travel across time, levels of development and institutionalization, culture, and issue areas. Finally, how do shifting political scales (i.e., those commonly associated with globalization and decentralization) affect the power of domestic actors (citizens and state officials) to shape national policy?

This section encourages paper, panel, and workshop proposals that reflect the full range of empirical, theoretical, and methodological approaches in the field. Premium will be placed on proposals that incorporate comparison (subnational, cross-national, and/or inter-temporal) into individual papers or that structure a set of papers around such comparisons to form integrated panels. Comparisons across regions are encouraged, as are efforts to incorporate innovative theoretical ideas from other disciplines.

Division 12: Comparative Politics of Developing Countries Marc Lynch, Williams College mlynch@williams.edu

The Bush administration's call for the promotion of democracy in the Arab and Islamic world has reinvigorated public debate about the virtues of spreading democracy. Early enthusiasm for a vaguely sketched but normatively desirable ‘democracy’ has been tempered by the painful struggle to rebuild Iraq, as well as the determined persistence of Arab autocracies and the widespread fears of Islamist electoral victories. This is therefore an essential time for students of the comparative politics of developing countries to offer theoretically and empirically informed analysis of the prospects for democratic change. Following the theme of the annual meeting, the division on Comparative Politics of Developing Countries particularly invites proposals which engage with the role of power in these democratic reforms: whether in the attempts to impose or promote democracy from the outside or in domestic struggles over institutional forms and electoral outcomes. We invite proposals which consider the strategic political processes in these struggles, the role of institutions and identities in shaping the nature of political and economic reforms, as well as the distributive consequences of such reforms. We especially invite proposals which pay careful attention to the nature and role of power in such environments, particularly the interactions between international power, state power, and the power mobilized by social movements, ethnic groups, and civil society. The division is open with regard to methodology, and welcomes papers which concentrate on a single country, cross-regional and historical comparisons, and large or small cross-country comparisons.

Division 13: Politics of Communist and Former Communist Societies Daniel Treisman, UCLA treisman@polisci.ucla.edu

The countries that once flew—or still fly—a red flag are as diverse today as their official ideologies were once similar. Strategies for studying the political processes that have evolved within communist and postcommunist countries must be equally diverse. This division will be eclectic in choosing among proposals. We will look for original ideas, rigorous methods, and the generation and appropriate use of new data. We particularly welcome comparative approaches, whether the items compared are countries, regions, economic sectors, firms, individuals, time periods, institutions, or policies. As always, proposals for panels will be particularly welcome, especially when the individual papers complement or debate each other.

Division 14: Comparative Politics of Advanced Industrial Societies Ken Scheve, University of Michigan, scheve@umich.edu

The division welcomes paper and panel proposals that identify important substantive problems in the study of the comparative politics of advanced industrial societies. Special attention will be given to proposals that, consistent with the theme of the conference, engage the concept of power in the context of the political institutions and history of these societies.

The division is particularly interested in research examining how modern theories and empirical studies of representation shed light on what political power is and how it is experienced by citizens. Of course innovative proposals addressing any of the wide array of substantive questions that are part of the study of comparative politics in these societies will be given careful consideration. This includes but is not limited to studies of mass political behavior, the workings and effects of political institutions, the dynamics and consequences of electoral competition, and the determinants and consequences of policymaking. For all topics, innovative empirical work, both quantitative and qualitative, that is closely connected to theory will be given special attention. The division especially welcomes carefully designed panel proposals that provide a compelling motivation for the problem(s) to be addressed by the panel and the contribution of each paper to that investigation.

Division 15: European Politics and Society Christopher J. Anderson, Syracuse University anderson@maxwell.syr.edu

The division welcomes paper, panel, and roundtable proposals on any aspect of European politics that reflect the full range of the field's empirical and geographic breadth as well as its theoretical and methodological diversity. While panels will not be restricted to topics fitting the theme of the conference, many topics relating to Europe fit the theme “Power Reconsidered.” This includes the study of political institutions (their causes and consequences), behavioral politics, political economy, representation, democratization and democratic consolidation, politics and governance in the European Union, as well as Europe's and European states' interactions with international actors. In light of recent events, I also welcome proposals that address the future of the European Union and what defines Europe and the European model. Many other topics will be equally suitable. Proposals that transcend the traditional theoretical or empirical boundaries of “East” and “West” are particularly welcome.

Division 16: International Political Economy Wendy L. Hansen, University of New Mexico wlhansen@unm.edu

The focus on the concept of power for the 2006 convention is clearly central to the sub-discipline of International Political Economy because it is the evolution of economic and political power relationships in the world that is at least in part responsible for shaping the greater international political economic relationships and outcomes that comprise the major substantive issues of this subfield. Increasing political and economic integration—frequently characterized as the catchall “globalization”—has deeply affected the battle for power and influence among nation-states, international organizations, corporations, interest groups and institutions, and the interaction of domestic and international factors is increasingly important to shaping domestic and international policies and economies. The IPE division invites papers, panels and roundtables that examine the concept of power and power relationships, domestically and internationally, and how these relationships interact to affect policy and outcomes in a variety of areas including international trade, finance, monetary policy, economic development, foreign investment, debt, and economic integration.

Division 17: International Collaboration Timothy McKeown, University of North Carolina timmck@email.unc.edu

Although power was an important theme in political scientists' and sociologists' investigations of bargaining in the 1950s and '60s, it fell into relative disuse with the rise of choice-theoretic treatments. For the 2006 meetings, the International Collaboration section will be especially seeking paper, panel, and roundtable proposals that seek to re-integrate an understanding of power with our current understandings of international collaboration. Whether treated as a social relation or a set of capabilities, power may be viewed as a source of bargaining advantage. An alteration of power relationships may also be viewed as an outcome of efforts to collaborate. Questions of conceptualization and measurement typically arise when power is discussed; these can also be addressed by the submissions. Although our ultimate concern is with international collaboration, proposals may also address power at any level individual, sub-nationally, nationally, transnationally that sheds light on this concern.

Division 18: International Security Kenneth Schultz, Stanford University kschultz@standford.edu

Power is a core concept in the study of international security, and this year's conference theme, “Power Reconsidered,” readily describes a central preoccupation of this field. The recurring emphasis on power reflects not simply a sense that this concept has explanatory or descriptive power, but also widespread and profound disagreements about the meaning and importance of this term. What is power, and how can we observe and measure its influence in international politics? Does power come solely from material capabilities, or caninstitutional and/or ideationalfactors influence who has power and howitis exercised? If thelatter, how can we empirically verify these effects? Does power define actors' interests or should interests be considered as analytically distinct? This division welcomes proposals for papers, panel, and roundtables that explore issues ofinternationalsecurity and particularly those that further our understanding of the nature and role of power. This is not, however, an invitation to revisit or rehash the “-ism wars,” which frequently revolve around contending views of power. Rather, preference will be given to proposals that develop rigorous new arguments, perhaps drawing from more than one theoretical tradition, and innovative empirical tests.

Division 19: International Security and Arms Control T.V. Paul, McGill University t.paul@mcgill.ca

International security/arms control questions have assumed renewed significance in the post 9/11 world of transnational terrorism where the probability of spread and use of weapons of mass destruction by state and non-state actors has been on the rise. Consistent with this year's main APSA convention theme, “power reconsidered,” it will be useful to examine why more states and non-state actors are pursuing WMD? Does the possession of these weapons confer ‘power’ to these actors and if so, vis-à-vis whom? What are the implications for traditional understanding of power at the systemic and regional levels if and when a large number of states and non-state actors acquire “the absolute weapon?” Further, in reaction to the changed security environment, the U.S. and other nuclear powers have altered their policies on the nonproliferation regime and they refuse to engage in serious arms control negotiations. This division seeks panels and papers on these and other theoretical and empirical issues relating to international security and arms control. Proposals on security issues at regional, global, and transnational levels of analysis are welcome. The relationship between globalization and international/national security behavior, increasing defense expenditures world-wide, and the absence of balance of power politics are some other potential themes for paper-givers.

Division 20: Foreign Policy Miriam Elman, Arizona State Miriam.elman@asu.edu

The Foreign Policy division welcomes proposals for papers and panels that address central topics related to the study of foreign policy and the policymaking process. Consistent with its emphasis on pluralism, the division is interested in papers and panels that span a variety of methodological approaches, and that draw on different theoretical approaches, including (but not limited to) liberal, institutional, realist, constructivist, rational choice, and psychological perspectives. Papers that develop fresh theorizing for foreign policy analysis by bridging levels of analysis or crossing disciplinary lines are also encouraged. Although proposals on any aspect of foreign policy are welcome, the division is especially interested in proposals that investigate the relationship between power and authority on the one hand, and the foreign policy process and its consequences on the other, consistent with the theme of the 2006 Annual Meeting, “Power Reconsidered”. How is power used, and often abused, in both the process of making and implementing foreign policy? Why do “powerful” states frequently fail to achieve desired foreign policy outcomes? What foreign policy tradeoffs emerge when material power capabilities are employed as opposed to non-material power sources? Proposals that address these, or related, questions in the context of either comparative or U.S. foreign policy will receive careful consideration.

Division 21: Conflict Processes William Reed, Rice University wlreed@rice.edu

We invite proposals that reconsider the effect of power on conflict, in the context of social and political institutions. We seek papers about how to conceptualize and study power and conflict utilizing theoretical and empirical approaches. Theoretical work that examines the link between conflict, power, decision-making, and preference-formation is especially encouraged. We also seek empirical studies of power and conflict. Overall we encourage scholars to rethink the theoretical status of power in their own empirical work on conflict processes, and urge theorists to revaluate their models in light of empirical examples of the effects of power on conflict.

Division 22: Legislative Studies Wendy J. Schiller, Brown University Wendy_Schiller@Brown.edu

Power is a fundamental concept to the study of legislative politics from the individual and group perspective. The 2006 APSA theme of “Power Reconsidered” is thus especially relevant to the subject matter of the legislative studies division. In keeping with this theme, the division is particularly seeking panels and papers that add to our understanding of the accumulation and distribution of power across legislators and parties within legislative institutions. The legislative studies division is also looking for papers that address the array of topics that arise naturally in the study of legislative politics: parties, coalition formation, committees, rules changes, budgets, leadership, chamber floor strategy, elections, and patterns of legislative behavior in a historical context. Comparative studies of state legislatures or national legislatures are encouraged. Although both panel and individual paper proposals are welcome, individual paper proposals are typically easier to accommodate. We encourage a wide range of methodologies so long as they are used to investigate clearly stated theoretical or empirical puzzles.

Division 23: Presidency Research Kenneth R. Mayer, University of Wisconsin krmayer@facstaff.wisc.edu

The 2006 Conference theme, “Power Reconsidered,” might well have been written by a presidential scholar, as the research questions raised therein mesh almost perfectly with the concerns of the subfield. If there is one unifying theme among students of the presidency, it is an interest in power, although we approach the question from a variety of perspectives and methodologies—how presidents amass it, its formal and informal basis, legitimacy, how other political actors respond to it, the role of institutions and political parties, how presidents seek to exercise it, how it is checked.

In keeping with this theme, we seek panels and papers that offer methodologically sound and theoretically informed studies of power (which includes the question of authority): the constitutional and legal foundations of executive power, historical development of the office and powers, presidential interaction with Congress, the politics of Supreme Court appointments, war and emergency powers, presidential leadership of public opinion, control over the executive branch, foreign and domestic policy making, the advisory process, executive privilege, interpreting the 2004 and handicapping the 2008 elections, comparative investigations of executive leadership (this list is not meant to exhaust the possibilities). Given the importance and timeliness of the topic, we are especially interested in work that explores the exercise of presidential power during wartime. We welcome work from a broad range of methodological approaches. We will give special consideration to panels that explicitly connect to the status of power, as well as to those which offer fresh approaches to these enduring problems

Division 24: Public Administration J. Edward Kellough, University of Georgia kellough@uga.edu

Proposals for papers and panels on a broad array of public administration topics are welcome. The conference theme focuses on the attainment and exercise of political power generally and provides an excellent opportunity for reexamination of the role of bureaucratic power in democratic political systems. Research addressing questions related to such topics as agenda setting, bureaucratic decision making, principal agent problems, accountability, and bureaucratic responsiveness will fit well within this context. Work associated with aspects of bureaucratic control, including internal and external checks on bureaucratic power and effective administrative and managerial strategies within the public sector would be valuable as well. In addition, other research that may address the historical development of bureaucratic power, that examines this or related issues from a cross-national comparative perspective, or that focuses on the role of nonprofit organizations in democratic societies is also encouraged.

Division 25: Public Policy Michael E. Kraft, University of Wisconsin, Green Bay kraftm@uwgb.edu

The 2006 meeting theme, “Power Reconsidered,” returns to long-standing concerns within the discipline and the public policy section: how power is exercised and how it affects public policy decisions. Members are asked to consider whether and how the concept of power informs public policy scholarship. How might the study of power deepen our understanding of social, economic, and political institutions, and their effects on public policy? How should power be conceptualized for contemporary public policy scholarship? What is the best way to study power in light of major methodological and analytical advances of the past several decades? Studies of power and its use in policy processes that are theoretically grounded and empirically informed are especially encouraged. Proposals might include studies of the role of business and other interest groups in public policy processes, the role of policy analysis institutions, the promise of new approaches to stakeholder involvement and collaboration, public participation in policy processes, power issues in institutional and policy design, privatization and public policy, mechanisms for promoting accountability, federal-state relations in policy development and implementation, legislative-executive relations in policy processes, and issues of inequality in the distribution of policy benefits and costs. The division especially welcomes paper or panel proposals that offer fresh examination of existing theories or new theoretical approaches, creative use of qualitative or quantitative approaches, or comparative policy studies that permit generalizations across policy areas or institutional venues.

Division 26: Law and Courts Robert M. Howard, Georgia State University polrhh@langate.gsu.edu

The concept of power is quite appropriate for those of us who study law and courts. It is an idea with which many of us have long grappled, studied and analyzed, and an opportunity to reconsider the power of courts is most welcome. The program chairs also propose a second theme, in addition to this main topic of “Power Reconsidered.” They ask us to use fresh empirical applications and tools in our proposals. Together these themes give law and courts scholars an opportunity to reexamine and rethink the power of courts to impact and influence social, economic, bureaucratic and political change. Are there new ways to conceptualize and study the power of courts in relationship to the other branches of government, to examine the relative power of courts in hierarchical and federalist systems, and to investigate the impact and influence of individual judges and justices? Proposals that combine fresh perspectives and use new and emerging sophisticated methodological tools are most welcome. Of course, as always, given the breadth and diversity of our subfield, papers on all topics pertinent to law and courts, such as decision making, public opinion and the courts, state courts, judicial selection, trial courts, litigation, and those using a variety of approaches are encouraged and will be considered.

Division 27: ConstitutionalLaw and Jurisprudence Carol Nackenoff, Swarthmore College Cnacken1@swarthmore.edu

In Dahl's famous formulation, A has power over B to the extent A can get B to do something B would not otherwise do. From this perspective, how much power does the Court have to affect national policy? Dahl's critics found this definition of power too behavioral and too instrumental, offering other conceptualizations of power. How does this debate bear on thinking about the ways in which courts in the U.S. and abroad exercise power in the political system? Does the Court function primarily to legitimate the majority coalition's understanding of the Constitution, as Robert Dahl contended in the 1950s, and does the Court's legitimacy hinge on performing in this manner? To what extent does an examination of Rehnquist Court jurisprudence bear out Dahl's belief that the Court fails to stray far from the opinions of the majority coalition? If power is a relationship, how should scholars model the relationship between the Court and other institutions in the political system? What is its relationship to activist organizations, legal scholars, and think tanks that press particular understandings of the Constitution on the Court and bring cases to Court? What recent approaches, methods, and frameworks have been most helpful in thinking about the power of the Court, and/or about the power of specific members of the Rehnquist Court?

Panels and papers might also consider whether we are witnessing significant change in the power of courts in the U.S. and other constitutional democracies. Are courts in these nations in fact becoming more powerful, as they constitutionalize rights, aquire broader powers of judicial review, and remove political issues from the realm of democratic decision-making? If such changes are occurring, what is their import? Do court interventions in majoritarian decision-making promote a wider distribution of power in the political system?

Division 28: Federalism William Gormley, Georgetown University gormleyw@georgetown.edu

Disputes over power lie at the heart of federalism and intergovernmental relations, in the U.S. and elsewhere. How much power does the federal government enjoy by virtue of its ability to award or withhold grants-in-aid? How much power do state and local governments enjoy by virtue of their ability to promote or impede the implementation of federal laws? How has the balance of power shifted over time? How does this vary across countries? And what is the optimal distribution of power between the federal government and the states? Answers to these questions may be provided through theory-building and empirical research.

Power is, of course, multidimensional, and it is important to take political, economic, and social power into account. It is also important to recognize that disputes over federalism and intergovernmental relations take different forms in different policy domains. In the U.S., for example, we may reach different conclusions about the state of federalism depending on whether we consider education policy, health policy, national security policy, environmental policy, abortion policy, or gay rights. We may also reach different conclusions depending on whether we focus on politicians, judges, or citizens.

Proposals from different epistemological traditions are welcomed. All proposals should be clear about the theories they are testing, comparing, or developing.

Division 29: State Politics and Policy Kathleen Bratton, Louisiana State University bratton@lsu.edu

This year's theme “Power Reconsidered” is particularly germane to the study of state politics and policy. Dahl himself turned to state and local politics in his empirical examination of the sources of political power. Because of the variance across state institutions and in the relationships among institutions within states, the American states offer a unique opportunity to examine the shifting sources and nature of political power. The last two decades have witnessed marked changes in state institutions; state legislatures and courts in particular have become increasingly visible, and there are ongoing political debates over the selection process for state judges and over potential reforms in legislative elections. This evolution occurs as the American states have become the arena for vigorous policy debates involving education, health, and family policy.

Many unanswered questions remain regarding power and influence within and across state institutions, and between state government officials and state electorates. These questions include, but are certainly not limited to:

How have changes in state institutions, such as term limits, or changes in judicial power, selection methods, and visibility, influenced the power of political actors to influence policy outcomes?

To what degree has partisan polarization at the elite and mass levels within states influenced political behavior, policy making, and policy outcomes? How have linkages between the elite and mass levels of politics changed?

How have the increased representativeness and responsiveness of state governments changed public policy, and the distribution of political power across groups and institutions?

Finally, how do state institutions interact with each other to shape policy outcomes?

The section invites all research proposals that contribute to our scholarly knowledge of state politics and policy. We particularly encourage scholars to submit proposals for innovative and thoughtful research addressing unanswered questions of power and influence in state politics.

Division 30: Urban Politics Evan McKenzie, University of Illinois at Chicago mckenzie@uic.edu; Karen M. Kaufmann, University of Maryland kkaufmann@gvpt.umd.edu

Power has long been central to the study of urban politics, and many of our most enduring theories of power have come from this scholarship. Cities and suburbs continue to be laboratories for understanding power in all its dimensions, including the political, the economic, the cultural, and the personal. In keeping with the conference theme of rethinking power, we invite papers that provide new understandings of power in urban areas, or that rethink established theories of power in light of contemporary data. Papers might explore some of the following: the nature and sources of power in cities; differing conceptions of private and public, and the ways this dichotomy—or continuum—organizes our understandings of power; models for restructuring of urban governance, including inter-jurisdictional cooperation, regional planning and centralization, or decentralized competition; differing conceptions of popular control of government that compare or contrast political and economic power; the rapidly changing demography in many metropolitan areas and the importance of these changes for how power is amassed and exercised; the significance of elections in determining who has power in cities; and studies that focus on social group relations and the extent to which they can enable or constrain diverse forms of empowerment.

Division 31: Women and Politics Karen O'Connor, American University occonkp@aol.com

The study of women and politics is, in many ways, a reconsideration of power through a gendered lens. Although the scope of these analyses continues to vary from institutions to individuals, and from the United States to the world at large, the most fundamental questions of the subdiscipline focus on gender differences and similarities in how political power is gained, used, represented and understood by the forces that shape societies. Reconsiderations of these central themes continue to raise a wide array of research questions for women and politics scholars. In the wake of the 2004 presidential elections, for example, women's issues were given but short shrift by the candidates, no viable women candidates for president emerged, the women's movement appeared to hold little sway, and women voters failed to play the key deciding roles that played in past presidential elections. Thus, papers are particularly welcome that analyze the historical as well as current trends of societal visions of women and power and how those views affect women's ability to garner power in the United States as well as internationally. Comparative studies of women and power are especially welcome as well as those that take innovative approaches to issues that continue to plague women's ability to gain and wield power.

Although the division invites all submissions that advance the study and analysis of women and politics, this year, the division especially seeks proposals for papers, panels, and round tables that reconsider political power from a gendered perspective. Given the theme of the 2006 meeting, papers and panels that examine unconventional uses of power by women, the effects of electoral systems, as well as larger issues such as war, and the emergence of new constitutions as vehicles for women to attain (or lose) power are welcome.

Division 32: Race, Ethnicity and Politics Richard Iton, Northwestern University; Jane Junn, Rutgers Unversity

The division invites submissions addressing the ways in which race and ethnicity affect the articulation and distribution of political power. We intend to feature work that reflects the diversity of methodologies and interests among the scholars working in this sub-field including purely empirical, broadly historical, normative, and theoretical. Similarly, papers and panels that engage American developments from comparative or transnational perspectives are also encouraged. It is our intention to provide a forum for identifying the ways in which the research of scholars working on issues related to ethnicity and race might correct some of the failings, and identify the blind spots, in the theoretical and empirical frameworks that currently inform our discipline. Among the sub-themes of particular interest are: a) the functioning of the court system in terms of the representation and expression of the interests of different ethnic and racial groups; b) the ways in which franchise rules have differentially affected the ability to exercise political power; c) the role of popular culture as a space for the exercise of political power; d) critical considerations of the methodological tools political scientists use from an ethnicity- and race-sensitive perspective; e) the changing balance of power between cities and the federal government in terms of their ability to facilitate the political agency of different ethnic and racial groups; and f) the ways in which categories of race and ethnicity are politicized and created by the state.

Division 33: Religion and Politics Jo Renee Formicoloa, Seton Hall University formicjo@shu.edu

“Power Reconsidered” would be incomplete without a description and assessment of the changing role of the power of religion in politics today. Domestically that role has grown in the United States, from one of attempting to infuse the public policy debate with ethical values, to a more assertive political activism for moral and ideological change. This growth invites the study of the location, scope and effects of the changing role of religion in American politics, and would be one type of analysis to address the theme of the 2006 meeting.

Internationally, religious struggles currently characterize national politics, social movements and global relations. By challenging notions of justice, rights, authority, equality, and tolerance, religious leaders and institutions are in the forefront of calling for political change in many parts of the world. An analysis of new concepts, uses and the growth of religious power in other states, then, would further address the strategic influence of religion outside of the United States. The papers from our section, then, should broadly help the discipline to reconsider the concept of power through the lens of religion; to “inform the political science scholarship, and to provide an important dimension of analysis for all the members of the association.”

Division 34: Representation & ElectoralSystems Shaun Bowler, University of California, Riverside shaun.bowler@ucr.edu

Elections and electoral systems are at the core of democratic politics and remain important topics of study. We welcome submissions on electoral systems and representation that are normative, empirical or both. Work that considers new or relatively unstudied areas within electoral systems research is especially welcome. Examples of these areas include consideration of the relationship between electoral systems and good governance, comparative work on minorities and electoral systems in the developing world, or studies of electoral arrangements at the local level or considerations of the relationship between normative ideas of representation and electoral arrangements in new democracies.

Division 35: PoliticalOrganizations and Parties Barry C. Burden, Harvard University burden@fas.harvard.edu

This year's meeting asks participants to reconsider the concept of power. I encourage proposals that explore this theme in the context of political parties, interest groups, and other political organizations. What evidence is there that party leaders actually wield power over their members (whether activists, candidates, or incumbents)? To what degree do interest groups exert power in the policy making process? Precisely how do parties, interest groups, social movements, and the public influence one another? How has the relative power of parties and other political organizations changed over time? Authors are urged to examine the power of parties and other political organizations at every stage of the policy process from candidate recruitment to lobbying and persuasion to policy implementation.

In additions to theme-related papers, I welcome all high-quality proposals concerned with political organizations. Party and interest group structure, financing, strength, and activities are all worthy topics. Papers focused on Washington politics are naturally encouraged, but so are state-based analyses and comparative research on parties and lobbying groups. Papers might develop new questions or revisit old debates. I expect a wide range of perspectives and methodologies to be represented, but preference will be given to papers that offer compelling questions and solid research designs to investigate them.

Division 36: Elections andVoting Behavior Thomas Holbrook University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee holbroot@uwn.edu

The overall theme of the 2006 meeting is “Power Reconsidered.” Proposals that address this theme directly are especially welcome. Otherwise, I welcome all proposals that address important theoretical, substantive, and/or methodological issues that can fairly be categorized as falling under the heading of Elections and Voting Behavior. Given that recent elections have taken place in both the U.S. and abroad, proposals for papers that test the applicability of theories of elections and voting behavior to those elections are encouraged. In that vein, I am also interested in proposals for papers that investigate the impact of recent developments in U.S. elections, such as campaign finance reform, the emergence of important new actors, such the 527 groups, the renewed focus on mobilization, and innovations in campaign advertising. Proposals for papers reporting the results of new data collection efforts are also encouraged. Finally, proposals for panels or roundtables the “take stock” of specific theories or approaches to the study of elections are welcome.

Division 37: Public Opinion Christopher Wlezien, Temple University wlezien@temple.edu

Public opinion encompasses a variety of research areas. Some of these relate quite directly to the program theme—Power Reconsidered—while others are largely unrelated. Although papers addressing the theme are strongly encouraged, the primary goal will be to put together panels on which interesting and important research is presented and/or engaged. Work of this sort oftentimes makes connections with the topics of other divisions, especially elections and voting behavior, comparative politics, public policy, race and ethnicity, political communication, and political psychology. Proposals that intersect with these divisions and others are encouraged. Proposals of methodological papers with clear substantive implications are also welcome. Panel proposals also will be considered, and innovation is welcome. Those that address both theoretical and empirical concerns will have priority. Finally, there is room for roundtables of special merit and appeal.

Division 38: PoliticalCommunication Christina Holtz-Bacha, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Nuremberg christina.holtz-bacha@wiso.uni-erlangen.de

Power has always been a central concept in the study of political communication. The media exert power and are subject to power processes. By giving certain actors and certain topics access to the public agenda, while denying access to others, the media have the power to determine what is important in society and what is not. At the same time, the media are subject to direct and indirect influences by the political powers who try to harness the power the media has in modern societies. This division welcomes papers that draw on any of these perspectives of the general conference theme.

In addition, we also invite papers that explore other topics in political communication. Proposals should detail why the proposed research question is important, its general methodological approach and data sources, and give a rough sense of the hypotheses to be tested or argument to be developed.

Division 39: Science, Technology, and the Environment Kent E. Portney, Professor Tufts University kent.portney@tufts.edu

The 2006 theme of “Power Reconsidered” presents an excellent opportunity for scholars to demonstrate the importance their research to core questions in political science. We wish to cast the widest net to capture all relevant panel and paper proposals, including conceptual and empirical studies of the politics of science, technology, and environmental policies. Consistent with the broad theme of the 2006 conferences, STEP seeks to promote a deeper understanding of how political power is exercised or not exercised in the formulation, adoption, implementation, or evaluation of science, technology and environmental policies at any level of government or in any governance context. Political conflicts at the international, national, sub-nation and local levels on issues of science, technology and environmental policies inevitably involve conflicts over the exercise of political power. Proposals for panels and papers that conceptually and/or empirically explore such conflicts are especially welcome.

While casting the net widely, in addition to proposals that explicitly address the overall theme of the conference, it is expected that paper and panel proposals addressing the following issues and questions will receive special consideration: How have the changing conceptions of role of science in society become manifest in politics and policies? How have technological advancements altered the political landscape, and how have changes in the political landscape enabled or constrained technological developments, particularly but not limited to bio-technology? What is the role of business and business organizations, and by extension, free trade, in influencing the adoption and implementation of science, technology, or environmental policy? How have the roles of federal, state, and local governments and policies changed? What have been the effects of various state and local efforts in the U.S. to either limit or promote advances in science, technology or the environment? How have changes in U.S. national environmental policies affected other efforts to achieve greater sustainability? What is the role of NGOs and non-profit organizations in science, technology, and environmental policies? What kinds of innovative local governmental policies and programs have been pursued as part of efforts to improve and protect the quality of the bio-physical environment?

Division 40: InformationTechnology and Politics Ken Rogerson, Duke University rogerson@duke.edu

Traditional definitions of power should be reconsidered in the 21st century, especially in light of advances in use of information technology, which have fundamentally changed the amount and types of political information. The adage “information is power” is more relevant. But what does it mean theoretically, conceptually, and methodologically in the study of information and politics? How does the relationship between information, technology and power help us to better understand the contemporary and historical impact of politics on technology and of technology on politics?

The conference theme encourages discussions about technical inequalities, both in technological infrastructure as well as content; issues of security and uses of technology in war and terrorism; the relationships between the public, private sector and policy makers; and uses of IT in social mobilization. Does access to information technology empower individuals and groups to have an impact on policymaking? What IT-related policies exist? Are they effective? Does cooperation between government, business and the nonprofit sector facilitate or hinder IT development, use or diffusion? The Information Technology and Politics section invites paper, panel, short course, roundtable and poster session proposals to help us better understand relationships between power, information and technology. Proposals are encouraged to be broad, placing the evolution of information technology and politics in their historical context. The section also encourages proposals that look at the theoretical implications of IT or that explore its the policy context.

Division 41: Politics and Literature Joseph Lane, Emory & Henry College wniemi@western.edu

The opening scene of Homer's Iliad, arguably the first scene in our literary heritage, graphically presents the consequences of the use and abuse of political power: Agamemnon invokes his authority as king to seize Achilles' prize, and Achilles' anger results in a struggle that “put pains thousandfold upon the Achaians,/hurled in their multitudes to the house of Hades strong souls/of heroes, but their bodies to the delicate feasting of dogs …” Literary representation enjoys unique advantages as a conceptual tool for opening vantages on the character of political power and its consequences for human life. Literature in all its forms (both poetry and prose, whether on page, stage, and screen) allows us look inside the minds of those in power and those subjected to power. This imaginative inside view is essential to understanding how power relationships transform the character of human beings. From Shakespeare's kings to Robert Penn Warren's re-framing of the Kingfish, from the struggles between men and the gods that characterize Greek tragedies to the hideous physical and metaphorical transformations that illustrate the impact of power on the soul in the most recently released films, we are led to reflect on the relationship between the human condition and the quest for “power after power ceasing only in death.” The Politics, Literature, and Film section seeks papers on the ways that narratives help us understand power as a constituent element in all human social and political relationships: How do authors portray characters' understanding of their own power (or lack thereof)? How do they reveal the sources of the human longing for power or the injuries and resentments of those who lack power or suffer at the hands of those with power? How do texts themselves constitute a tool for constructing and solidifying (or unmasking and undermining) the claims of powerful elites? How can narratives reinforce, educate, transform, critique, or contain those who wield political power? We invite papers that address questions like these through the study of works of poetry, prose, drama, film, and television.

Division 42: New PoliticalScience William L. Niemi, Western State College Colorado wniemi@western.edu

The Caucus for a New Political Science promotes an engaged scholarship, recognizing that the study of politics ought to be relevant to pressing political concerns and is itself inherently political. “Power Reconsidered” is a helpful and challenging conference theme for scholars interested in participating in New Political Science panels given the historic role that Caucus members have played in debates regarding power in its empirical and structural dimensions.

Proposals emphasizing either the empirical or theoretical aspects of the study of power (or how they relate) or its democratization are welcomed. The Caucus remains interested in proposals that examine the urgent issues of our time through the lens of the analysis of power. Such empirical studies might include the analysis of militarized globalization; concerns about human rights (now in the context of the policies of liberal democracies); political and economic development in multiple contexts; privatization of public things—its causes and consequences; decline of protections for civil rights and liberties (including new challenges to academic freedom); developing collective action for and constraints upon environmental, gender, or racial justice; and problems of poverty and/or income distribution. Another line of questions might include the analysis of the democratization of power; for instance, what role do democratic social movements play in this respect, and how? These questions are meant as suggestive—not as an inclusive list.

On the theoretical level, progressive approaches often emphasize the social sources of political or institutional power. Is this an optimal conceptualization? Does the new institutionalism successfully challenge this model of understanding, and to what end? There are other significant theoretical problems that might be addressed as well. What are the structural contexts that provide for enduring outcomes in liberal societies? How is the capacity to act enabled and constrained in contemporary contexts? How is ideology implicated in the study of power? At a more basic level, what are the appropriate analytical terms for probing the dimensions of power? How integral is an historical understanding in the analysis of power? How do such reconsiderations of power enable democratic practices? We encourage proposals from junior scholars as well as from others who are submitting to New Political Science for the first time.

Division 43: International History and Politics Andrew Moravcsik, Princeton University amoravcs@Princeton.edu

The International History and Politics (IHAP) section welcomes all paper, panel, roundtable, and poster-session proposals that lie at the intersection of history and international politics. In conjunction with the conference theme, “Power Reconsidered,” proposals are particularly encouraged that examine political power and authority from the perspective of international history. Among the issues that might be considered are the following: (1) What “faces” of power exist in international politics? What can we say about the internal consistency of different concepts of power, their predicted utility, and their empirical accuracy over space, time and issues? Is power less important in world politics than it once was? (2) Who governs international politics? How much authority do international institutions and the power structures in which they are embedded possess? (3) Is global governance democratically legitimate? How accountable are international institutions and how accountable should they be? How can positive and positive theory, singly and together, illuminate this issue? (4) What do the history of political philosophy and the history of disciplinary theories of international power teach us about the practice of power? Have we learned anything since Thucydides? Especially welcome are proposals that might be sponsored jointly by more than one APSA section.

Division 44: Comparative Democratization Mark P. Jones, Rice University mpjones@rice.edu

Proposals are encouraged on all aspects of comparative democratization. However, in line with the 2006 Annual Meeting's overall theme of “Power Reconsidered,” proposals that explore the relationship between power and democratization are especially encouraged. For instance, what effect do political institutions (broadly construed) have on the distribution and use of political power in democratizing countries? Or, how can the highly evolved theories developed to understand power relations in advanced industrial democracies be adapted to understand power relations in the world's democratizing countries? Are there instances where such adaptation is not possible? Are there instances where no adaptation is needed?

Proposals that focus on a single-country, a small number of countries, or a large number of countries are equally desired. Similarly, proposals that employ formal, qualitative, or quantitative methodologies (or a combination thereof, à la EITM) are all welcome. Innovative and coherent proposals (e.g., a set of papers where each analyzes the same issue in a different country, a set of papers where each examines a similar topic using a different set of methodological tools) for complete panels that examine important issues in the field of comparative democratization will be well received.

Division 45: Human Rights Section James M. McCormick, Iowa State University jmcc@lastate.edu

This section welcomes all panels, papers, and poster sessions that deal with human rights, broadly defined. Analyses of the observance or violations of global human rights may focus on individual countries, examine such rights from a comparative perspective, or assess the processes of human rights protection within individual states. While all forms of theoretical and methodological inquiry are welcome, systematic qualitative and quantitative analyses are particularly encouraged, both as a way to enhance our cumulative knowledge of global human rights conditions and to increase our understanding of the factors that explain the observance or violations of these rights worldwide.

In keeping with the overarching theme of the 2006 annual meeting, the section especially encourages proposals that focus on the relationship between the concept of power and human rights. This concept has long played a pivotal role in affecting the observance of human rights, nationally and internationally. Proposals that evaluate how the concept of power has been used theoretically and empirically to evaluate global human rights would be especially encouraged. Proposals that assess how this concept could be employed in new and insightful ways to increase our knowledge of human rights would also be most welcome. Finally, proposals that look as how American power has affected both international and domestic human rights would be appropriate.

Division 46: Qualitative Methods Melani Cammett, Brown University; Julia Lynch, University of Pennsylvania

The Organized Section on Qualitative Methods welcomes panel proposals and papers focused on the broad spectrum of research tools associated with qualitative methodology. These include but are not limited to: the case study method; small-N analysis; concept analysis; the logic of inquiry; comparative and historical methods; constructivism; and interpretive methods. We welcome submissions from all subfields of political science as well as proposals for complete panels.

The overall theme for APSA 2006 is “Power Reconsidered.” We encourage proposals that deal with the methodology of conceptualizing or measuring “power” and encourage submissions to explore the array of usages of the term and the methodological implications of this diversity. We welcome investigations into how methodological choices relate to wider power structures, and invite submissions that explore power within the discipline of political science itself, particularly with respect to methodological issues. In recent years, scholars have called for greater attention to methodological approaches beyond the large-N, quantitative and/or rational choice institutionalist approaches that have tended to dominate in the last few decades. Indeed, the Organized Section on Qualitative Methods is one expression of diverse calls for greater recognition of methodological diversity. Thus, papers that address forms of power within the methodology of political science as well as conceptualizing the nature of power are particularly welcome.

Guidelines for Participation

When submitting panel and individual paper proposals, keep in mind the five participation rules developed by the APSA Council.

Proposal Submission Process

All proposals submitted through the 2006 Annual Meeting Call For Papers system will be acknowledged immediately upon receipt and tracked by an ID number. Notification of acceptance and rejection will be done electronically in February 2006. Please pay special attention to the submission instructions below.

Join us at the 2006 APSA Annual Meeting, “Power Reconsidered”