[Tps] TPS/ECPR Policy Network - CFP 'Communicating and interpreting policy meanings'

[Navdeep Mathur]

On Behalf of Dvora Yanow ----


Call for abstracts for theme session at the conference
Language, Culture, and Mind
Odense, Denmark, 14-16 July 2008
http://www.lcm.sdu.dk/

Theme Session on
Communicating and interpreting policy meanings

Organizers:
Alan Cienki                                             Dvora Yanow
Dept. of Language and Communication             Dept. of Culture,
Organization & Management
Faculty of Arts and Humanities                  Faculty of Social Sciences
Vrije Universiteit                                      Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam, Netherlands                          Amsterdam, Netherlands
a.cienki at let.vu.nl                                      d.yanow at fsw.vu.nl

The topic of this theme session brings together ideas from two scholarly
(and perhaps epistemic) communities: linguistic semantics, and public policy
studies (a subfield within political science). On the side of semantics, a
number of cognitively oriented approaches have developed over the past few
decades, involving theories of categorization (Lakoff 1987), cognitive and
cultural models (Strauss & Quinn 1997), conceptual integration/blending
(Fauconnier & Turner 2002), conceptual metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson 1980),
conceptual metonymy (Panther & Radden 1999), frame semantics (Fillmore
1982), and mental spaces (Fauconnier 1985/1994). Some of these have been
applied to language as used in political contexts, but this has mostly
involved the analysis of metaphor and cognitive models in the rhetoric of
political figures (e.g., Charteris-Black 2005, Cienki 2004, and Lakoff
1996/2002) or as reflections of ideologies (Dirven et al. 2001, Frank et al.
2003). The language of public policy itself has only occasionally been the
object of cognitive semantic research (e.g., Nerlich 2002 and elsewhere).
The theories and methods employed in cognitive linguistic research in
semantics thus remain a rich potential resource for helping us understand
how meaning is expressed (or not) and interpreted (or not) via the language
of public policy.

In public policy studies, a growing community of scholars has been taking an
"interpretive" approach to policy analysis (e.g., Fischer 2003, Hajer and
Wagenaar 2003, Yanow 1995, 1996, 2000; additional references below). By
contrast with the more positivistic, quantitative approach that has been
dominant since the field's founding in the 1970s, this group has been
exploring the importance for understanding public policies and policy-making
processes of phenomenology, hermeneutics, (some) critical theory,
pragmatism, symbolic interactionism, and ethnomethodology, and their
attendant research methods (e.g., ethnography, semiotics, metaphor and
category analyses, discourse analysis). While disparate in their analytic
approaches, these studies share an interest in situating human meaning front
and center in public policy analysis. Analyses ask not just what specific
policies mean, but how they mean, and how these meanings are communicated
(or not) to various policy-relevant publics.

This session would provide an opportunity for those schooled in political
and certain other social science approaches to the study of meaning to learn
from those coming from a more linguistic focus.  In turn, the session would
afford an arena for those well-versed in cognitively based theories of
meaning to consider the analysis of data from contexts with social policy
implications.

The title of the session is intentionally broad with respect to specific
empirical case (e.g., environmental, health, social, military, science and
technology or other policy topic), as well as with respect to method of
analysis. Examples of topics which might be analyzed include the use of
metaphor, metonymy, imagery, categories, discursive frames,
cognitive/cultural models, or subjective perspective/point of view. The
theoretical framework for analyses is open, but might include semantic,
semiotic, cognitive linguistic, ethnomethodological, or cognitive
ethnographic approaches. Collaboration between scholars from different
fields in the formulation of proposals is encouraged, but not required.

This theme session has openings for six presentations, of 30 minutes each,
including discussion.  Abstracts (maximum 500 words) should be sent to
d.yanow at fsw.vu.nl by February 15th, 2008.  Abstracts accepted by the theme
session organizers will be forwarded to the conference selection committee
for final approval.  Abstracts not accepted for the theme session will also
be sent on to the conference selection committee to be considered for the
general session.  Notification concerning acceptances will be sent April
1st.  Inquiries about possible submissions for this theme session may also
be sent to either organizer.

References
1. Works involving cognitive linguistic approaches
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2005. Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive
power of metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cienki, Alan. 2004. Bush's and Gore's language and gestures in the 2000 US
presidential debates: A test case for two models of metaphors. Journal of
Language and Politics 3: 409-40.
Dirven, René, R. Frank, & C. Ilie, eds. 2001. Language and ideology:
Descriptive cognitive approaches. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fauconnier, Gilles. [1985] 1994. Mental spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Fauconnier, Gilles, & M. Turner. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending
and the mind's hidden complexities. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Fillmore, Charles. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea,
ed., Linguistics in the morning calm. Seoul: Hanshin.
Frank, Roslyn, M. Pütz, & R. Dirven, eds. 2003. Cognitive models in language
and thought: Ideology, metaphors and meanings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories
reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. 1996/2002. Moral politics: What conservatives know that
liberals don't. Second edition published as Moral politics: How liberals and
conservatives think. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George & M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Nerlich, Brigitte, R. Dingwall, & D. Clarke. 2002. The Book of Life: How the
human genome project was revealed to the public. Health 6: 445-469.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & G. Radden, eds. 1999. Metonymy in language and thought.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Strauss, Claudia & N. Quinn. 1997. A cognitive theory of cultural meaning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2. Representative works in public policy studies
Fischer, Frank. 2003. Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and
deliberative practices. NY: Oxford University Press.
Fischer, Frank and Forester, John.  1993. The argumentative turn in policy
analysis and planning.  Durham, NC:  Duke University Press.
Hajer, Maarten A. and Wagenaar, Hendrik, eds. 2003. Deliberative policy
analysis. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Hawkesworth, M. E. 1988. Theoretical issues in policy analysis. Albany, NY:
SUNY Press.
Rein, Martin and Schön, Donald A. 1977. Problem setting in policy research.
In Carol Weiss, ed. Using social research in policy making. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Schön, Donald A. and Rein, Martin. 1994. Frame reflection. NY: Basic Books.
Yanow, Dvora. 1993. The communication of policy meanings: Implementation as
interpretation and text. Policy Sciences 26: 41-61.
Yanow, Dvora, ed. 1995. Special issue, "Policy interpretations." Policy
Sciences 28: 111-126.
Yanow, Dvora. 1996. How does a policy mean? Interpreting organizational and
policy actions. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Yanow, Dvora. 2000. Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://malagigi.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/tps/attachments/20071212/b3d88b64/attachment.html