LIST OF PANELS

This panel addresses the major challenges for comparative design in public policy analysis today: the strong focus on the usual suspects regarding country and issue selection, the methodological divide between quantitative and qualitative approaches and the availability of comparable data. The aim of the panel is to reflect on the limitations of current practices in policy analysis and discuss innovative ways of pushing methodological and comparative boundaries within the discipline by addressing these three major challenges.

Recent research on publication patterns shows the limits of internationalization in top political science journals. Similar patterns can also be observed in public policy journals. Policy Research concentrates repeatedly on a limited number of countries, while others are barely mentioned. There is also an overfocus on a relatively limited number of policy fields that are considered to be politically salient. And even within these fields, some issues still remain largely disregarded. Finally, despite numerous calls for bridging the methodological divide, mixed-methods designs and alternative data collections remain scarce in comparative public policy analysis.

These limitations in comparative practices have major implications. It stalls our capacity for cumulative knowledge, theory building and generalization; it also hinders our aim to make better policies; it sends the wrong signal to our student population and early-career scholars about what should be studied; and it makes entry into the field for scholars working on less studied countries or policy issues more challenging.

The panel addresses the challenge of how to engage a conversation across sectoral divides and across methodological divides. While the field of comparative policy analysis has been rapidly growing, centrifugal forces pull the field in very different directions. Sectoral, regional and methodological specialization, and theory building vs. policy analysis as advice are all dividing the field in sub-communities. This fragmentation stalls our capacity for cumulative knowledge, theory building and generalization and it lessens the potential impact of policy studies on actual policy-making.

This panel proposes to look at these methodological challenges across three main lines of inquiry:

1) How comparative is our comparative perspective and how can we improve the comparative scope of our studies regarding country, sector and issue selection?

2) How can we overcome the challenges of collecting, accessing and using comparable data to build meaningful comparison?

3) How can we bridge methodological divide in our discipline? What role can compound research designs and big data play in order to bridge the divide?

The panel is meant to offer a critical forum on discussing how comparative public policy is practiced today by proposing authors to question and challenge the usual patterns of research design and the common strategies for comparative public policy by proposing critical assessments of the current state of practice and by proposing new, innovative strategies in order to increase diversity in case selection and overcome the methodological divide between within comparative public policy studies. As such, the panel aims at exploring new methodological avenues for comparing public policies.

This panel welcomes contributions reflecting on the major challenges for comparative design in public policy analysis today: the strong focus on the usual suspects regarding country and issue selection, the methodological divide between quantitative and qualitative approaches and the limited availability of comparable data.

How comparative is comparative policy research? What do we compare and how do we compare? What are the limitations of current comparative practices in public policy analysis? How can we overcome limitations to push the boundaries of comparative analysis?

The aim of the panel is to reflect on the limitations of current practices in policy analysis and discuss innovative ways of pushing methodological and comparative boundaries within the discipline by addressing these major challenges and proposing innovative ways to push the boundaries of public policy analysis.

While the field of comparative policy analysis has been rapidly growing, centrifugal forces pull the field in very different directions. Sectoral, regional and methodological specialization, and theory building vs. policy analysis as advice are all dividing the field in sub-communities. This fragmentation stalls our capacity for cumulative knowledge, theory building and generalization and it lessens the potential impact of policy studies on actual policy-making. For example, recent research on publication patterns show the limits of internationalization in top political science and public policy journals. Policy research concentrates repeatedly on a limited number of countries, while others are barely mentioned. There is also an overfocus on a relatively limited number of policy fields that are considered to be political salient. And even within these fields, some issues still remain largely disregarded. Finally, despite numerous calls for bridging the methodological divide, mixed-methods designs and alternative data collections remain scarce in comparative public policy analysis.

These limitations in comparative practices have major implications. It stalls our capacity for cumulative knowledge, theory building and generalization; it also hinders our aim to make better policies; it sends the wrong signal to our student population and early-career scholars about what should be studied; and it makes entry into the field for scholars working on less studied countries or policy issues more challenging.

The panel is meant to engage a conversation about how comparative public policy is practiced today and explore new avenues for comparative analysis. The panel invites contributions that question and challenge the usual patterns of research design and comparative strategies and propose innovative strategies for pushing the boundaries of comparative policy analysis. The panel welcomes contributions addressing in combination or separately the following lines of inquiry:

1) How comparative is our comparative perspective and how can we improve the comparative scope of our studies regarding country, sector and issue                      selection?

2) How can we overcome the challenges of collecting, accessing and using comparable data to build meaningful comparison?

3) How can we bridge methodological divide in our discipline? What role can compound research designs and big data play in order to bridge the divide?