Sisältöön
tampereen yliopisto: johtamiskorkeakoulu: opiskelu: tutkinto-ohjelmat: politiikan tutkimuksen tutkinto-ohjelma: tutkimus: politiikan tutkimuksen päivät 2014:
JohtamiskorkeakouluTampereen yliopistoJohtamiskorkeakoulu
Politiikan tutkimuksen päivät 2014

Työryhmät

Konferenssin työryhmät löytyvät alla olevasta listasta. Klikkaamalla työryhmän nimeä löydät työryhmien abstraktit ja puheenjohtajat.

Työryhmien aikataulu ja esitelmien abstraktit

  1. Any Limits to Security? (fi/en)
  2. Are There Borders Between Institutionalisms? (fi/sv/en)
  3. Art as Political Witness (en)
  4. At the Borderlines of Peace-Making and Peace Research (fi/en)
  5. (työryhmä peruttu)
  6. Citizens and Political Parties in Representative Democracies (fi/sv/en)
  7. (työryhmä peruttu)
  8. Continental Political Theory (en)
  9. Demokraattiset innovaatiot (fi/sv)
  10. Drawing Boundaries and Making Nations:  Politics of National Identities in Post-Soviet Borderlands (en)
  11. Foreign Policy and Diplomacy (fi/en)
  12. Globalisoituva arktinen alue murroksessa (fi)
  13. Governance of Maritime Security (en)
  14. (työryhmä peruttu)
  15. Is What’s Good for Business Best for Society? (en)
  16. Maailmanpolitiikan marginaalit – vallan ja vastavallan rajoilla (fi)
  17. The Meanings of Europe (en)
  18. Numbers, Governance, and Politics (fi/en)
  19. Oikeus ja politiikka (fi)
  20. Participatory Turn and ’New Democracy’:  Possibilities and Limits (en)
  21. Political Decision Making in Times of Crisis (en)
  22. Political Violence, Extremist Movements and Their Governance (fi/en)
  23. Politiikan ja talouden rajankäynnit (fi)
  24. Shifting Borders of Citizenship (fi/en)
  25. Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed, Something Blue: Analysing Party Change (fi/sv/en)
  26. Trajectories of Political Representation (fi/en)
  27. Valtiotila, vallan maantiede ja symboliset rajanylitykset (fi)
  28. Voices from Beyond: Borders and Victims (en)



1. Any Limits to Security

Sirpa Virta, School of Management, University of Tampere, sirpa.virta(at)uta.fi
Anniina Autero, School of Management, University of Tampere, anniina.autero(at)uta.fi

Workshop languages: Finnish, English

The working group on security studies welcomes papers from researchers and students of political science, administrative science and other disciplines. Security as a research topic or field is multidisciplinary by nature and has no borders or limits. As a concept security seems to have no limits either, we discuss today "comprehensive security" and ever-expansive securitization. Security has been described as a free floating signifier or even master-signifier. Many contemporary research topics like cyber security, biosecurity, resilience, security networks and cooperation mechanisms, crisis management, private security and security politics can benefit from multidisciplinary approaches, perspectives and discussion.

Alkuun

2. Are there borders between institutionalisms?

Kari Kuoppala, School of Management, University of Tampere, kari.kuoppala(at)uta.fi
Yuzhuo Cai , School of Management, University of Tampere, yuzhuo.cai(at)uta.fi

Workshop languages: Finnish, Swedish, English

Institution is a widely used concept in many different sciences. Apart from political science it has been used at least in economics, sociology, and organization studies. In all these different fields of sciences there exist also old and modern institutional perspectives analyzing societal phenomena. Newer perspectives often called with the prefix neo. Institutions are often considered something stable and permanent, and, what is more, something preventing change. They are often considered as things or phenomena taken for granted. In modern analyzes of institutions the problem of change in different levels of society has been taken as a core of analysis. From these perspectives have arisen studies around institutional entrepreneurs, some kind of important agents of change, forces fighting against the permanence and stability connected to the core of institutions. This way we hope to deal with the borderlines between different disciplines as well as between different perspectives in the same scientific fields.

We invite to this working group presentations from different disciplines based on various theories and conceptualizations of institutions and institutional actors. These presentations can be theoretical and conceptual analyses or they can bring empirical evidence of institutional phenomena from different levels of society. Presentations can be in English, Swedish or in Finnish. From presentations in Finnish or Swedish we hope to have an abstract in English.    

Alkuun
 

3. Art as Political Witness

Frank Möller, University of Tampere, frank.moller(at)uta.fi
Kia Lindroos, University of Jyväskylä, kia.lindroos(at)jyu.fi

Workshop language: English

This workshop invites papers exploring the practice of witnessing politics through the arts (widely understood, i.e. including popular culture) thus expanding the range, and probing the borders, of what is normally done in political science. Papers may problematize the concept of art in connection with political witnessing, or elaborate the political-ness of artistic witnessing, or explore the concept of artistic witnessing as political activity, or deal with a combination of the above. Papers may address the conceptual/theoretical level or present theoretically informed case studies or both. Events witnessed – or constructed in the process of artistically dealing with them – may be fragments from the past, different images of history, or connected to the contemporary political world. This may include reflections on the continuation of the past in the present or anticipations of the present in the past thus engaging with the complexities of temporality in connection with memory and trauma reflecting, for example, experiences of violence and horror. Papers may explore the political activities of professional artists or non-artists’ use of artistic forms of expression (e.g. photography, film, poetry, literature, dance, theatre, performance, or video) pertaining to witnessing politics, thus running counter to an elitist approach to the workshop’s subject matter, and deal with group or individual activities or the relationship between group and individual activities. The potential sphere of politics opened up by artistic testimony is thus a move towards new ways of understanding political discourses.

Alkuun

4. At the Borderlines of Peace-Making and Peace Research

Maria Mekri, SaferGlobe, maria.mekri(at)saferglobe.fi
Marko Lehti, Tampereen yliopisto, marko.lehti(at)uta.fi

Workshop languages: Finnish, English

In the last two decades, international peacebuilding has changed into a multilateral effort to assist the gradual rebuilding of societies after a peace treaty has been formulated. Peace itself is no longer understood to mean the cessation of violence, but rather a stable peace requires good governance, democracy, respect for human rights and frequently, a well-functioning market economy.  Peacebuilding operations have grown into large, complex entities employing experts from energy production to education.

Peace research has largely focused on theoretical questions of the concepts of peace and security.  Recently, academic research has strongly criticized international peacebuilding operations and humanitarian aid with some researches even arguing that these interventions are a new form of colonialism. Yet, not responding to the urgent needs in crises areas is no solution and peacebuilders themselves attest to their role as crucial helpers rather than subjugators in fragile contexts.

The gulf between the experiences of peace practitioners and theoretical discussion has widened. This working group aims to identify and question this borderline between practice and theory, as well as to map how peace research might be more effectively utilized in peace making and conversely, how the theoretical discussion in peace research could better include the experiences of peacebuilders. The working group also aims to find multi- and cross-disciplinary studies where the focus is on creating peace. We welcome analysis of practical examples (both of Finnish and international peace operations) as well as theoretical considerations of the relationship between peace and peacemaking. Especially welcome are new, multi-disciplinary and broad considerations of how peace and peace processes could be better supported in the future.

Alkuun

6. Citizens and political parties in representative democracies

Jussi Westinen, Åbo Akademi, jussi.westinen(at)abo.fi
Peter Söderlund, University of Helsinki, psoderlu(at)abo.fi
Hanna Wass, University of Helsinki, hanna.wass(at)helsinki.fi

Workshop languages: Finnish, Swedish, English

The workshop will explore issues related to public opinion, political behaviour and party strategies in contemporary representative democracies. We warmly welcome theoretical and empirical papers which examine how citizens engage and participate in politics, as well as how political parties are confronted with and handle internal and external challenges. The papers may cover topics such as political socialization of citizens, psychological attachments to parties, correlates of political participation, nature of political choice, political representation and opinion congruence, and trust in political agents. Furthermore, papers which scrutinize issues such as organizational reforms in party structures, parties’ ties to the electorate and the competition between established and challenger parties are encouraged.

Alkuun


8.Continental Political Theory

Ari-Elmeri Hyvönen, University of Jyväskylä, arhyvone(at)jyu.fi
Reetta Vaahtoranta, Aberystwyth University, rmv7(at)aber.ac.uk

Workshop language: English

The aim of the workshop is to provide a venue for critical engagements between different theoretical approaches to politics, as well as between theoretical and empirical approaches. We particularly invite contributions that take their point of departure from “continental” political theory. Being one of the most important intellectual traditions in the last two centuries, continental philosophy offers immense resources for analyzing political phenomena such as freedom, sovereignty, power, democracy, critique and change. In accordance to the conference theme, division lines of all sorts have been the focal point of critical scrutiny in continental political theory. The (often porous) boundaries between  politics and ‘non-politics’, the possible and the impossible, politics, technology, and nature, science and philosophy constitute central analytical loci for many continental theorists.

We welcome papers addressing any of these themes from the perspective of, e.g., political philosophy, political science, or IR theory. Papers that develop theoretical engagements with problems in contemporary politics and/or recent developments in theoretical research are particularly welcomed. While focusing on continental theorists, the workshop aims at abridging, not deepening, the gap between continental and analytic approaches. We thus also invite contributions that combine resources from these two traditions and that bring into question the very feasibility of this divide in political theory.

Alkuun

9. Demokraattiset innovaatiot

Staffan Himmelroos, Åbo Akademi, staffan.himmelroos(at)abo.fi
Lauri Rapeli, Turun yliopisto, laurap(at)utu.fi
Maija Karjalainen, Turun yliopisto, mhkarj(at)utu.fi

Työryhmän kielet: suomi, svenska

Demokraattiset innovaatiot ovat välineitä, joiden tarkoituksena on vahvistaa kansalaisten osallistumista yhteiskunnalliseen päätöksentekoon vaaleissa äänestämisen sekä muiden perinteisten osallistumismuotojen lisäksi. Tällaisia innovaatioita ovat esimerkiksi erilaiset kansalaiskeskustelut ja suoran demokratian menetelmät, osallistuva budjetointi eli kansalaisille annettu mahdollisuus päättää pienestä osasta kunnan tai kaupungin budjettia sekä kansalaisten ehdotusten ja toiveiden käsittely esimerkiksi kaupunkisuunnittelun yhteydessä. Demokraattisia innovaatioita voidaan käyttää niin kaupunginosatasolla kuin kaupunkien ja valtioidenkin tasolla.

Ajatus demokraattisten innovaatioiden mielekkyydestä perustuu perinteisen vaaliosallistumisen laskuun länsidemokratioissa muutaman viimeksi kuluneen vuosikymmenen aikana. Puolueita on kritisoitu kyvyttömyydestä edustaa kansalaisten mielipiteitä yhteiskunnassa, jota eivät enää yhtä vahvasti määrittele samat jakolinjat kuin joille puoluejärjestelmät ovat rakentuneet. Demokraattisten innovaatioiden on ajateltu täydentävän olemassa olevan puoluedemokratian rakenteiden ilmeisiä puutteita tarjoamalla kansalaisille mahdollisuuksia vaikuttaa uusien osallistumiskeinojen kautta, usein hyödyntämällä uuden informaatioteknologian luomia edellytyksiä. Keskustelu demokraattisista innovaatioista liittyy läheisesti myös normatiivisiin demokratiateorioihin kuten deliberatiiviseen demokratiateoriaan, joka korostaa kommunikaation, argumentaation ja mielipiteiden vaihdannan merkitystä demokraattisessa päätöksenteossa.

Demokraattiset innovaatiot testaavat tutkimuksen ja käytännön rajoja ja parhaimmillaan yhdistävät ne toisiinsa. Mutta tarvitaanko demokraattisia innovaatioita? Minkälaisia demokraattisia innovaatioita on käytössä tai suunnitteilla? Miten ne vaikuttavat edustuksellisen demokratian toimintaan ja toimivuuteen? Entä mitä kansalaiset ja päättäjät ajattelevat niistä?

Näiden kysymysten kautta työryhmässä tarkastellaan demokraattisia innovaatioita, uusia poliittisen osallistumisen muotoja ja deliberatiivista demokratiateoriaa. Sekä teoreettiset että empiiriset esitykset, mutta myös esitykset käynnissä olevista innovaatiokokeiluista, ovat tervetulleita. Työryhmä on kaksikielinen (suomi, ruotsi). Esiteltävät käsikirjoitukset voivat olla myös englanninkielisiä.

Esitysehdotukset pyydetään lähettämään kaikille työryhmän puheenjohtajille.

Alkuun

10. Drawing Boundaries and Making Nations: Politics of National Identities in Post-Soviet Borderlands

Lina Klymenko, Karelian Institute, University of Eastern Finland, lina.klymenko(at)uef.fi
Maria Proskuriakova , Karelian Institute, University of Eastern Finland, maria.proskuriakova(at)uef.fi

Workshop language: English

The "multinational federation" that was the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, giving rise to new nation-states. Since then, the now sovereign post-Soviet societies have been striving to create particular national identities in order to legitimize new states. By doing so, these states have been nationalizing identity markers like language, history, religion, race, gender, and popular culture.

In most cases, however, the state-led process of national identity creation is contested by various state and non-state actors, elites, and social groups. Regardless of whether this is a top-down or a bottom-up process, it is infused with politics. A study of the politics of national identity involves, therefore, the analysis of a political struggle between various actors, their interests, identities, resources, and institutional constraints. What kind of national communities have been built in post-Soviet states? How has the state-led process of national identity creation been contested by other state and non-state actors, elites, and citizens? How have the borders between "us" and "them" been drawn? How do the central, local, regional, and transnational identities overlap?

This workshop aims to discuss the politics of national identities in post-Soviet borderlands, including de-facto states on the territory of the former Soviet Union. The workshop strives to contribute to the scholarly discussion of the politics of national identity by employing innovative research designs and addressing new case studies.

Alkuun

11. Foreign Policy and Diplomacy

Hiski Haukkala, University of Tampere, hiski.haukkala(at)uta.fi

Workshop languages: Finnish, English

What are the current trends in the study of foreign policy? What theoretical developments and future needs can be ascertained? How has the foreign policies of traditional state actors changed or changing? What about the new actors, first and foremost the EU? What is the relationship between foreign policy and diplomacy now and in future? Papers on these and other related themes are highly welcomed.

Mitkä ovat ulkopolitiikan tutkimuksen nykytrendit ja tilanne? Mitkä teoreettisia kehityskulkuja ja -tarpeita on paikallistettavissa? Miten perinteisen valtiotoimijoiden ulkopolitiikka on muuttunut/muuttumassa? Entä miten on uusien toimijoiden, vaikkapa EU:n laita? Mikä on ulkopolitiikan ja diplomatian suhde ja rajat, nyt ja jatkossa? Näihin ja muihin laajasti ulkopolitiikkaan ja diplomatiaan ja niiden tutkimukseen liittyviä paperiehdotuksia otetaan mielihyvin ryhmään vastaan.

Alkuun

12. Globalisoituva arktinen alue murroksessa

Harri Mikkola, Ulkopoliittinen instituutti, harri.mikkola(at)fiia.fi
Juha Käpylä, Ulkopoliittinen instituutti, juha.kapyla(at)uta.fi

Työryhmän kieli: suomi

Arktinen alue on suuren murroksen kynnyksellä. Ilmastonmuutoksen ja Arktiksen sulamisen seurauksena avautuvat energiavarannot ja uudet merireitit nostavat arktisen alueen globaalia geopoliittista merkitystä. Samalla alue taloudellistuu, toimijat lisääntyvät ja alueen hallintaan liittyvät kysymykset monimutkaistuvat ja tulevat entistä enemmän osaksi kansainvälisen politiikan agendaa. Arktisen alueen kehitystä tulee tarkastella kokonaisvaltaisesta näkökulmasta, jossa globaalit ja alueelliset ympäristö-, talous- ja turvallisuuspoliittiset kysymykset näyttäytyvät entistä voimakkaammin. Tästä näkökulmasta työryhmä on laaja-alaisesti avoin Arktiksen nykytilaa ja kehitystä analysoiville esityksille. Mahdollisia tulokulmia Arktiksen kehitykseen voivat olla muun muassa analyysit arktisen alueen talouspotentiaaliin liittyvistä haasteista ja mahdollisuuksista, eri valtioiden arktisista intresseistä, arktisen alueen kehitykseen liittyvästä konfliktipotentiaalista, arktisen alueen tulevaisuuteen liittyvistä ympäristöpoliittisista kysymyksistä, alkuperäiskansojen asemaan liittyvistä kysymyksistä, arktisen alueen hallinnointiin liittyvistä institutionaalisista kysymyksistä jne. Arktisen alueen kehitykseen liittyvän tiedonvaihdon- ja lisäämisen lisäksi työryhmä toimii samalla suomalaisten arktisen alueen tutkijoiden verkottumistapahtumana.

Alkuun
 

13. Governance of Maritime Security

Nina Tynkkynen, University of Tampere, nina.tynkkynen(at)uta.fi
Minna Jokela, The Finnish Border and Coast Guard Academy, minna.jokela(at)raja.fi
Petteri Partanen, The Finnish Border and Coast Guard Academy, petteri.partanen(at)raja.fi

Workshop language: English

Maritime security offers an interesting case for approaching various questions related to borders, boundaries and dividing lines. On the one hand, seas and oceans serve as arenas for transboundary interaction, thus facilitating crossovers of different kinds of borders. On the other hand, a sea usually is a boundary area between states, which makes the interaction intricate. Seas are foci of geopolitical, economic and environmental interests, which crucially also shape maritime governance. All this implies that security, whether defined in military, environmental, political, economic or other terms, always plays a role when maritime governance is concerned. Institutional arrangements governing the seas often overlap. Therefore, research needs to shed light on the complexities of the various dimensions of maritime security (e.g. environmental & climate, safety & security, surface & under water, military, border, traffic, energy). The Arctic Sea is an example case in which different dimensions of security, such as environmental/climate, energy and military, come together and pose a challenge for maritime governance. The Mediterranean is another interesting case, where human security and state security may be in conflict, when people flee from conflicts to Europe.

This workshop welcomes papers and presentations that facilitate empirical, methodological and theoretical discussion on the different interpretations of maritime security and on the governance of maritime issues related to various dimensions of security.

Alkuun

15. Is What’s Good for Business Best for Society?

Katri Sieberg, University of Tampere, katri.sieberg(at)uta.fi
Mikko Poutanen, University of Tampere, mikko.poutanen(at)uta.fi

Workshop language: English

This workshop aims to bridge academic borders by simultaneously examining an issue of current global relevance through the lenses of political science and economics. This workshop approaches the issue of potential conflicts or cooperation between corporate interests and public interests. A frequent theme is “what’s good for business is good for [name country],” and, given prospects of employment, politicians are understandably eager to provide attractive policies for corporations.

However, business interests can often conflict with the public interest, on issues as varied as pollution, wage practices, zoning, taxation, monopoly control, benefits, and pricing, to name only a few. Although, in theory, voters can express discontent with policies that are disadvantageous to them, Mancur Olson reminds us that lobbyists do not face collective action problems in organizing in favour of their interests, and therefore are more likely to be successful in their attempts to gain political favour(s).

The overall goal of the workshop is to address the issue of potential for conflict and/or cooperation between corporate and public interests. Some of the questions facing the workshop include: which set of interests are more important to meet? Is there room for compromise? What is the effect of lobbying activity on policy? Can grassroots activity be a sufficient counterbalance to lobbying? How does the media affect the portrayal of corporate versus public interest?

The workshop will be chairpersoned by professor Katri Sieberg, with doctoral researcher Mikko Poutanen as assistant chairperson. All interested parties are welcome to submit their papers or abstracts for consideration.

Alkuun

16. Maailmanpolitiikan marginaalit – vallan ja vastavallan rajoilla

Laura Junka-Aikio, Lapin yliopisto, laura.junka-aikio(at)ulapland.fi
Tiina Seppälä, Lapin ylipisto, tiina.seppala(at)ulapland.fi
Hanna Laako, ECOSUR, Meksiko, laako.hanna(at)gmail.com

Työryhmän kieli: suomi

Maailmanpolitiikan ala on nykyisin monenlaisten ristiriitojen alaisena. Näitä ristiriitoja ja paineita voi tarkastella ainakin kahdesta eri näkökulmasta.

Ensinnäkin, maailmanpolitiikan alan kyseenalaistamista tapahtuu tieteenalan itsensä sisällä. Viime vuosikymmeninä on väitelty alan tarpeellisuudesta ja teoreettisuudesta. Maailmanpolitiikan tutkimusta on kritisoitu etenkin abstraktin, rakenteellisen, länsikeskeisen ja miesvaltaisen teorian tuottamisesta. Suomessa tieteenala on suhteellisen pieni, joten oppialan ja eri tutkimussuuntien tarpeellisuuden perusteleminen eräänlaisesta ”marginaalista” käsin on erityisen haastavaa.

Toiseksi, maailmanpolitiikan tutkimusta ja tutkijan roolia kyseenalaistetaan sekä kriittisten teorioiden (kuten feministinen ja jälkikolonialistinen teoria) että erilaisten kansalaisliikkeiden taholta (esimerkiksi alkuperäiskansaliikkeet). Toistaiseksi tieteenala ei ole kyennyt vastaamaan kritiikkiin eikä pureutumaan tutkijan akateemisia etuoikeuksia ja tieto-valta -asetelmia koskeviin kysymyksiin kovinkaan syvällisesti.

Erilaiset maailmanpolitiikan raja-alueilta nousevat kriittiset teoriat voisivat kuitenkin tarjota tuoreita näkökulmia laajemmin koko tieteenalalle. Maailmanpolitiikan marginaalit nostavat esiin myös tärkeitä ja kiinnostavia kysymyksiä tutkijan rooliin, etiikkaan ja rajoihin liittyen.

Paneelissamme teemme näkyväksi näitä maailmanpolitiikan kriittisiä marginaaleja pohtimalla monipuolisesti vallan ja vastavallan rajoja tutkimuskentän itsensä sisällä. Miten tutkijan rooli, etiikka ja rajat määrittyvät maailmanpolitiikan tutkimuksessa? Miten tutkija voi ”oppia pois” perinteisistä, epätasa-arvoa uusintavista tiedontuotannon muodoista? Miten maailmanpolitiikan tutkimuksessa saadaan liikkeiden, ihmisten ja yhteisöjen ääntä kuuluville? Entä mitä merkityksiä ns. aktivistitutkimuksella sekä dekolonisaation ja solidaarisuuden käsitteillä voisi olla tieteenalalle laajemmin?

Alkuun

17. The Meanings of Europe

Claudia Wiesner, University of Jyväskylä, claudia.wiesner(at)jyu.fi

Workshop language: English

What is Europe? What are the contents of the concept of Europe? And what defines European identity? The leading questions of the panel have been asked and answered many times in the history of political, philosophical and historical thinking. But the different answers indicate a decisive problem: Trying to define Europe by some special characteristics is difficult, since Europe at a closer look proves hard to grasp: Europe may at first sight be defined as a continent, but looking closely, it is not a territory (its geographical limits are highly disputed). It may be defined as inhabited by Europeans – but Europe neither consists in a people (not only that Europe includes many nations, in these nations live many minorities), nor can Europe be defined by one language (but many languages), nor one culture (apart from the fact that the concept of culture is much younger than the reference to Europe), nor one common history (but different historical narrations).

The contributions of the panel will address these leading questions form different angles and with regard to different topics. The  panel at the same time presents the results of a larger cooperation network which are currently published in a volume at Routledge (“The Meanings of Europe”, edited by Claudia Wiesner + Meike Schmidt, 2014).

Alkuun
 

18. Numbers, Governance, and Politics

Nelli Piattoeva, University of Tampere, nelli.piattoeva(at)uta.fi
Ossi Piironen, University of Helsinki, ossi.piironen(at)helsinki.fi

Workshop languages: Finnish, English

Perhaps more than ever various kinds of numbers play a part in governance and politics. They are invoked to identify problems and solutions; they are used for planning, monitoring, evaluation, indirect control of conduct, and direct allocation of resources; they are produced by official and non-official, national and supranational organizations. The nature of data varies from stabile official statistics to highly customized, purpose-specific and ad hoc type of numeric information – the latter perhaps being an implication of general projectification and proliferation of evidence based policy making: production and demand for a certain set of numbers is not necessarily abiding. Despite the fact that numbers play such a major role in politics and governance, they are often portrayed as providing neutral, apolitical descriptions of reality: production and use of numbers is associated with expertise and epistemic authority. How should we make sense of this: Can numbers – as vanguards of modern science – provide a boundary between politics and expertise?

The workshop calls for papers, theoretical and empirical, that in any way examine the relationship(s) between any type of numeric information, politics, and governance in the broadest possible understanding. The papers can, for example, analyze the conceptual or methodological premises of a set of numbers, a policy or policy process in which numbers play a role, the production of numbers (who, what and why), or the use and consequences of using numeric information from the governance/politics point of view.

Alkuun

19. Oikeus ja politiikka

Eero Palmujoki, Johtamiskorkeakoulu Tampereen yliopisto, eero.palmujoki(at)uta.fi
Tarja Seppä, Johtamiskorkeakoulu, Tampereen yliopisto, tarja.seppa(at)uta.fi
Jukka Viljanen, Johtamiskorkeakoulu, Tampereen yliopisto, jukka.viljanen(at)uta.fi

Työryhmän kieli: suomi

Työryhmässä tarkastellaan oikeuden ja politiikan rajapintoja politiikan tutkimuksen ja oikeustieteiden näkökulmista. Työryhmässä tarkastellaan näitä rajapintoja erilaisissa yhteiskunnallisissa kysymyksissä ja viitekehyksissä. Rajapinnoille sijoittuvat esimerkiksi kysymykset yksilöiden ja instituutioiden välisistä suhteista sekä kansalaisuudesta ja kansalaisten asemasta erityyppisissä instituutioissa.

Politiikan ja oikeuden yhteisten rajapintojen tarkastelu on tärkeää, koska politiikka on oikeudellistunut ja oikeus on politisoinut niin kansallisella, alueellisella kuin globaalilla tasolla. Oikeuden ja politiikan muutosta korostaa myös se, että globalisaatio synnyttää uusia oikeuden lähteitä, jotka eivät ole suoranaisesti sidoksissa valtioon. Pehmeän sääntelyn esimerkkejä ovat muun muassa liike-elämän eettinen sääntely ja muu itsesääntely, ympäristöstandardit ja avoin koordinaatio, joiden tarkastelussa politiikan tutkimus kohtaa oikeustieteellisen sääntelytutkimuksen.

Politiikan tutkimus joutuu tarkastelemaan etenkin Euroopan unionin piirissä oikeutta siitä näkökulmasta, kuinka perus- ja ihmisoikeudet asettavat erilaisia vaatimuksia valtion poliittisen vallankäytön toiminnallisille ja sisällöllisille puolille. Kansainväliset ihmisoikeussopimukset ja tuomioistuimet muodostavat verkoston, joka on muuttanut valtion  ja yksilön suhdetta oikeuden kohteena. Tämä vahvistaa oikeuden ja politiikan uutta rajapintaa, jossa valtio ei ole ainut oikeuden lähde ja lain tulkitsija.  Kansainvälisessä politiikassa ihmisoikeudet yhä useammin rajaavat valtioiden välisiä suhteita perinteisten valtioiden välisten normien ohella. Tämä muovaa myös sodan oikeudellista asemaa kansainvälisissä suhteissa. Myös kansainvälisessä kaupassa on yhä enemmän valtioiden vapautta rajoittavia perustuslainomaisia piirteitä, joita korostaa vielä maailman kauppajärjestön sallimat rankaisutoimet. Tämäntyyppisen kansainvälisen vuorovaikutuksen konstitutionalisoitumisen tarkasteluun tarvitaan oikeuden ja politiikan vuorovaikutusta koskevaa tutkimusta.

Alkuun

20. Participatory Turn and ’New Democracy’:  Possibilities and Limits

Pertti Lappalainen, University of Jyväskylä, pertti.lappalainen(at)jyu.fi
Lauri Siisiäinen, University of Jyväskylä, lauri.siisiainen(at)jyu.fi

Workshop language: English

During the past couple of decades, discussion about new forms of participation, political agency, and activity has proliferated. Often, we meet the argument that traditional democratic institutions (parliamentarianism, the party system, administrative state, etc.) are incapable of responding to the challenges posed by globalization, intensified individualism, and plurality of identities. Both in academic discussions as well as in Western societies much more broadly, some have even declared a turn from ‘old’ to ‘new democracy’. In this framework, not only scholars but various civil-society agents, social movements, think tanks, etc., have adopted and reinterpreted the concepts and theories of deliberative democracy and extra-parliamentary participation. At the same time, governments operative in the Western world – both nation-states as well as supra-national regimes (EU) – have begun to launch numerous programs, policies, and manuals, aiming to promote ‘new’ forms of participation and citizenship.

The objective of the workshop is to explore the different facets of the discourse(s), revolving around the notions of ‘new democracy’ and ‘participatory turn’. Especially (but not exclusively), we welcome papers that discuss the articulations and tensions between, on one hand, the ‘empowerment’ of political subjectivity and participatory activity, and on the other hand, the governmental strategies and practices of engagement. We encourage papers to address these issues both through studying the experiences of civil-society agents (social movements, activists), the language(s) and discourse(s) of ‘new democracy’, as well as through governmental analyses. The approach may be empirical and/or theoretical. The workshop is interdisciplinary. 

Alkuun

21. Political decision making in times of crisis

Anna Kronlund, Finnish Institute of International Affairs, anna.kronlund(at)fiia.fi
Noora Kotilainen, Finnish Institute of International Affairs, noora.kotilainen(at)fiia.fi
Discussant: Mika Aaltola, Finnish Institute of International Affairs

Workshop language: English

Crisis can function as windows of opportunity in political decision making. Crisis can be a start of something new, and often function as a momentum of judgment and determination of one’s standpoint. When a situation is presented as a crisis – a state of emergency, temporal disruption from the normal conditions – the premises of decision making alter. Decision making in times of crisis often aspire to restore the situation to normal; to the state as how things should be or have been before. This is typical for representations of humanitarian crisis and military interventions. The current thematic of crises or the use of crises to describe the overall uncertainty and developments in both politics and economics, however, challenges the temporality of the crises and the idea of the normalcy to return to. In times of crisis quick decisions, strong tones of voices, emergency resolutions and hasty use of evidence may follow. Crisis and exceptional situations provide an opportunity to analyze the contingency of the political decision-making and how the authority and power is defined and discussed.

In this panel we welcome papers that have a critical take on political decision making in times of crisis and papers dealing with the concept of crisis, its thematic and use. Presentations may discuss high level political, humanitarian or military decision or societal discussions of judgment and making in times of momentums entitled as crisis.

Alkuun

22. Political Violence, Extremist Movements and Their Governance

Leena Malkki, University of Helsinki, leena.malkki(at)helsinki.fi
Teemu Sinkkonen, Finnish Institute of International Affairs, teemu.sinkkonen(at)fiia.fi

Workshop languages: Finnish, English

Terrorism, Counterjihad, revival of the far right, anarchist-inspired acts of sabotage, European foreign fighters travelling to conflict areas, controversial discussions on internet forums – radical words and acts have been a hot topic during the recent years in Finland and elsewhere in Europe. It has been claimed that the discussion culture and attitudes among the population have radicalized. Some have even compared our time to the 1920s and 1930s.

At the same time, the recent developments in international counterterrorism have changed the attitudes towards radical words and deeds among the politicians and policy-makers. Efforts to gather intelligence that would help the authorities to identify potential “terrorists” have intensified. Prevention of terrorism is not anymore limited to the pre-emption of terrorist plans only. Many countries, including Finland, have implemented programmes that aim at reducing radicalization into terrorism and violent extremism in the first place.

How have political extremist movements changed the political and societal atmosphere? What does the revival of extremism tell about our time? Have the attitudes towards extremist movement changed, including what is considered radical?

The conveners welcome all papers dealing with political extremism and radicalism, all time periods and disciplinary approaches included. 

Alkuun

23. Politiikan ja talouden rajankäynnit

Ville-Pekka Sorsa, Helsingin yliopisto, ville-pekka.sorsa(at)helsinki.fi
Juri Mykkänen, Helsingin yliopisto, juri.mykkanen(at)helsinki.fi

Työryhmän kieli: suomi

Poliittisissa keskusteluissa puhutaan jatkuvasti päätöksenteon taloudellisista reunaehdoista ja lähtökohdista. Esimerkiksi julkistalouden kestävyysvajeesta ja kansantalouden kilpailukyvystä on tullut suomalaista puoluepolitiikkaa vahvasti kehystäviä ideoita. Politiikan taloudelliset rajat on nostettu vahvasti poliittiselle agendalle. Esimerkiksi Euroopassa talous- ja rahaliitto sanelee suoraan jäsenmaidensa politiikkaa entistä vahvemmin. Samalla taloudellisten toimijoiden vapauksia on lisätty maailmanlaajuisesti kansantalouksien avaamisen ja talouden sääntelyn muutosten myötä. Tämä on kuitenkin johtanut myös talouden politisointiin. Esimerkiksi yrityksiin kohdistuu entistä enemmän poliittisia paineita vastuullista liiketoimintaa vaativilta kansalaisliikkeiltä. Politiikan ja talouden rajanvedot ovat toisin sanoen entistä epäselvempiä. Vastaavaa ilmiötä voidaan havaita myös tieteellisessä tutkimuksessa. Valtavirtaista politiikan tutkimusta harjoitetaan varsinkin Yhdysvalloissa entistä enemmän taloustieteellisillä menetelmillä, kun taas esimerkiksi Suomessa poliittisen talouden tieteenalan tutkimus on nousussa.

Talouden ja politiikan epäselvät rajat herättävät kysymyksen, miten talouden ja politiikan välisiä rajanvetoja oikeastaan tehdään. Työryhmän tarkoituksena on tutkia politiikan ja talouden välisten rajojen asettamisen konkreettisia prosesseja niin politiikassa, teoriassa kuin tutkimuksessakin. Työryhmä etsii vastauksia useisiin kysymyksiin:

  • Mikä tekee poliittisesta taloudellista ja taloudellisesta poliittista eri ajassa ja paikassa?
  • Miten ja millaisissa tilanteissa taloutta politisoidaan ja politiikkaa taloudellistetaan konkreettisesti?
  • Miten politiikan “taloudelliset reunaehdot” konkreettisesti asetetaan ja miten talouden poliittinen oikeutus muuttuu tai häviää?
  • Miten talouden ja politiikan tutkimuksen välisiä rajoja muutetaan?
  • Millaisia konkreettisia poliittisia ja taloudellisia seurauksia kaikkien edellä mainittujen rajanvetojen muutoksilla on?

Työryhmän erityiskiinnostuksen kohteena ovat taloudellistamisen mekanismeja ja politiikan ja talouden tutkimuksen performatiivisuutta tarkastelevat empiiriset tutkimukset, jotka käsittelevät tutkimuksessa tapahtuneiden muutosten konkreettisia vaikutuksia politiikkaan ja talouteen.

Alkuun

24. Shifting Borders of Citizenship

Heino Nyyssönen, University of Tampere, heino.nyyssonen(at)uta.fi
Katja Mäkinen, University of Jyväskylä, katja.a.p.makinen(at)jyu.fi

Workshop languages: Finnish, English

Disputes on custody, threat of falling into army in two countries and questions concerning dual citizenship are familiar topics in newspaper headlines that bring forward the complexity of citizenship – a concept which has always been changing, contested and controversial.

Citizenship means membership in a polity, but due to multilevel governance and many other international and sub-national transformation processes (regionalism, globalisation, changing relevance of nation states, mobility, EU, etc.), it is not clear, what and where the polity is and how citizens' multiple relations to polities are constructed in dynamic and complex processes. Due to changing contexts of citizenship, both formal definitions as well as citizens’ experiences of rights, participation and identity can be attached to various territorial and administrational layers.  Citizens may act in many different frames, and public spheres can be formed around different issues, without following state borders.

All this raises questions about state sovereignty. As the state borders are diminishing, simultaneous attempts to re-define the nation and its borders can be recognised. It also arouses interest in relations between citizenship and democracy in the new and changing contexts. 

In this panel, we welcome both empirical and theoretical contributions discussing various dimensions and contexts of citizenship as well as political uses of different understandings of citizenship.

Alkuun

25. Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed, Something Blue: Analysing Party Change

David Arter, University of Tampere, david.arter(at)uta.fi
Elina Kestilä-Kekkonen, University of Tampere, elina.kestila-kekkonen(at)uta.fi

Workshop languages: Finnish, Swedish, English

Just look around the Nordic region and the contrast in the age of political parties is striking. In Norway for example the Green Party entered the Storting for the first time in October 2013 whilst the 150-year-old Høyre (literally ‘Right’) became the leading party in the post-election Norwegian government without ever having changed its name. In Iceland this year the Pirate Party claimed three parliamentary seats for the first time and, of course, the stridently anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats entered the Riksdag with twenty seats in September 2010. And then there is Muutos 2011!! Parties in short offer something old, something new and something middle-aged. Much of the recent comparative literature has focused on the origins of parties (the process of party formation) and explaining the ‘sustainability’ of new parties (Bolleyer and Bytzek 2013). Equally, several decades ago, Mogens Pedersen (1982) offered the astute observation that “parties are mortal organisations bounded by a lifespan”. Indeed, ‘infant mortality’ is much higher (can anybody remember the Young Finns?) than the death of ageing parties, although some of the more mature parties may also struggle to survive (Liberals, Agrarian-Centre etc). This workshop will focus on all aspects of the party ‘life cycle’ from origination and institutionalisation to de-institutionalisation and demise. The central question is: How and why do parties adapt and change and how effective are their change strategies. Topics to be covered would include: party change conditions; party change frameworks, the ‘life chances’ of different types of parties (class-based, ethnic, populist etc); the intra-party mechanics of change (factionalism, organisational ossification, a senescent electorate etc); the role of ideological/programme/leadership renewal; cases of ‘party death. Various types of contribution are welcome, including those still at the ‘seeds of an idea stage’ set out on a couple of printed A4 pages.  Papers can be in Finnish, Swedish or English but the working language of the workshop will be English. Contributions from younger researchers are particularly encouraged

Alkuun
 

26. Trajectories of Political Representation

Maija Mattila, University of Tampere, maija.mattila(at)uta.fi
Jenni Rinne, University of Helsinki, jenni.rinne(at)helsinki.fi

Workshop languages: Finnish, Swedish, English

Representative turn in democratic theory marks a transition from understanding representation simply as an epithet to democracy to seeing representation as an indispensable element in democracy.  Along with this transition, theoretical research, following e.g. Lisa Disch, Jane Mansbridge, David Plotke, Andrew Rehfeld, Michael Saward, and Nadia Urbinati, has turned its gaze to what happens in representation, instead of contemplating what kind of institutional (static) representative relationships there are. Hence, political representation can be comprehended as contingent, entailing various actors, activities, and claims. Recent discussions can additionally be described as  a ‘constitutive turn’: political representation fundamentally contains contextual, performative, and mobilizing elements. From this perspective we suggest, then, that it is worth asking what kind of representations are made of groups of people, and what political purposes these representations serve. From there a move can be made towards contemplating the meaning of representation to democracy – in what ways do the representations possibly serve democratic ideals, such as inclusion and equality? What kind of agency do representation evoke? In other words, representation is not seen as substituting those absent, but bringing new actors to the political sphere, that is, making those absent present through representation. We welcome papers that take this broad, non-static, and dynamic notion of representation as their starting point. Papers can address, discuss, and develop the concept of representation further, as well as deal with notions such as absence/presence, inclusion/exclusion, constituency, political agency, and reflexivity, both theoretically and/or empirically. The language of the workshop is English.

Alkuun
 

27. Valtiotila, vallan maantiede ja symboliset rajanylitykset

Heikki Sirviö, Tampereen yliopisto, heikki.sirvio(at)uta.fi
Anni Kangas, Tampereen yliopisto, anni.kangas(at)uta.fi

Työryhmän kieli: suomi

Työryhmässä tarkastellaan valtiomuutoksen problematiikkaa valtiotilan, sitä jäsentävien rajanvetojen ja niihin kiinnittyvien merkitysten historiallisen muutoksen kautta.

Valtiomuutos ei ole vain muuttuvia valtasuhteita ja kehittyviä institutionaalisia järjestelyjä, vaan se on hahmotettavissa poliittisen toiminnan ja kamppailun kautta jäsentyvänä prosessina, jolla on kiistanalaisten kollektiivisten merkitysten ja subjektifikaation mielessä vahva kulttuurinen ulottuvuus.

Työryhmä pyrkii kokoamaan vallan maantieteen rajanvetoihin ja niiden uudelleenmäärittelyyn kytkeytyviä esityksiä.

Alkuun

28. Voices from Beyond: Borders and Victims

Nora Repo, reponora(at)gmail.com
Teuvo Laitila, University of Eastern Finland, teuvo.laitila(at)uef.fi
Brendan Humphreys, University of Helsinki, brendan.humphreys(at)helsinki.fi

Workshop language: English

This workshop addresses the topic of victimhood, and more specifically the often culturally established borders that divide between victims and the rest of society.

Papers are invited from many disciplines and perspectives; studies of marginalization, refugees and gender are sought, and political, anthropological, historical and gender-studies perspectives are welcome. Victimhood is treated by this workshop as a group-level phenomenon; victims are identified as distinct groups on the basis of their experiences of possible marginalization and persecution to which they have been exposed, or the statuses they consider to have been imposed on them.

This workshop is organized by three scholars engaged in a dual-level research project on victimhood. At the micro level, special attention is paid to the voices of victims, the nuanced ways in which they articulate their claims. At the macro level, we seek to chart the patterns of collective – ethnic, confessional, national – claims and their usage vis-à-vis rival communities and importantly vis-à-vis third parties.

Central in these topics is the distinction of victim from non-victimhood/non-victimized groups; and the idea of social borders and frontiers is embedded in such distinctions. Victimhood can be justified and motivated by various reasons, which may lead to relatively similar manifestations, but which also can differ from one another. The workshop aims to create a multidimensional and multidisciplinary approach and gather together thoughts on diverse themes, which in their own ways relate to the concepts of victim and victimhood, and to that how they can be perceived in different academic traditions.

Dr Nora Repo has recently defended her thesis in comparative religion at the Faculty of Arts of Åbo Akademi University and is currently an independent lecturer and writer.

Brendan Humphreys is a researcher at the Helsinki University’s Alekansteri Institute and will defend his doctoral thesis in Social Sciences (political history) in December 2013.

Dr Teuvo Latila is Senior Lecturer of Religious Studies and Orthodox Church History, University of Eastern Finland.

Alkuun

 
Johtamiskorkeakoulu
33014 TAMPEREEN YLIOPISTO
puh. (03) 355 111 (vaihde)
Ylläpito: jkk.info@uta.fi
Muutettu: 18.2.2014 12.16 Muokkaa

Tampereen yliopisto

Tampereen yliopisto
03 355 111
kirjaamo@uta.fi


KARVI-auditoitu HR Excellence in Research

YLIOPISTO
Tutkimus
Opiskelijaksi
Ajankohtaista
Yhteistyö ja palvelut
Yliopisto

AJANKOHTAISTA
Aikalainen
Avoimet työpaikat
Rehtoriblogi
Tampere3

PALVELUT
Aktuaarinkanslia
Avoin yliopisto
Hallinto
Kansainvälisen koulutuksen keskus
Kielikeskus
Kielipalvelut
Kirjaamo
Kirjasto
Liikuntapalvelut
Viestintä
Tietohallinto
Tutkimuspalvelut
Täydennyskoulutus
Tietoarkisto
» lisää palveluita

OPISKELU
Opetusohjelma
Opinto-oppaat
Opiskelijan työpöytä

SÄHKÖISET PALVELUT
Andor-hakupalvelu
Uusi lainasi
Intra
Moodle (learning2)
NettiOpsu / NettiRekka
NettiKatti
Sähköinen tenttipalvelu
TamPub
Office 365 webmail
Utaposti webmail
Wentti