LIST OF PANELS

This panel focuses on the advisory roles of political scientists (including public policy and public administration) based at universities across Europe, inside as well as outside the European Union. Do academics in this field engage in advising and opinionating roles, what drives or hinders them, and how do they conceive of their position as scholars in broader political and social environment? These questions are addressed in a large scale comparative project on the Professionalization and Social Impact of European Political Science, for which the most complete pan-European survey ever was conducted to map views and roles of political scientists in the political and social environment of their university home basis. This empirical mapping across a large number of countries allows a closer investigation of the various roles that exist for the provision of policy advice.

The aim of this panel is to present and discuss findings and their possible impact on the political science community. How do advisory activities of political scientists vary across countries, or according to age, gender or location of the university in the national system? How do political and institutional regime characteristics and properties of the domestic policy advisory system affect the roles taken by political scientists? The panel gives room for presenting conceptual underpinnings, cases from countries and comparative analyses of the roles that political scientists play (or decide not to play) in the external environment of their universities across countries.

To set the stage for panel presentations and discussion, the typology of roles is useful for mapping viewpoints and behaviour of political scientists. Political scientists can be pure academics, assume an expert role, engage in opinionating, or profile as true public intellectuals. Building on the literature on boundary work between experts and policy makers and on knowledge utilization, empirically mapping scholars in this field may distinguish types of knowledge transferred, frequency of advice provided, level of governance of engagement, the formal or informal nature of advising, types of recipients of knowledge and advice, and specific channels used. Moreover, the substantive topics of advising and outreach activities may be analyzed using a topic classification system such as developed in the international Comparative Agendas Project.

The normative point of departure in this panel is a neutral stance with regard to any of the roles. Presentations may show how roles are developed, help understanding why this happens to a large or smaller extent, and discuss the meaning and impact for political science scholars in a scientific domain that faces increasing social and political turbulence, uncertainty and politicization.

The panel will provide room to present the conceptual underpinnings, the general overview as well as several country case studies addressing political scientists’ role in policy advice in different European countries. Contributions should be based on data or approaches from the ProSEPS project and reflect on the role and impact of political scientists for policy advice in different environments.

The aim of this panel is to present and discuss findings and their possible impact on the political science community. How do advisory activities of political scientists vary across countries, or according to age, gender or location of the university in the national system? How do political and institutional regime characteristics and properties of the domestic policy advisory system affect the roles taken by political scientists? The panel gives room for presenting conceptual underpinnings, cases from countries and comparative analyses of the roles that political scientists play (or decide not to play) in the external environment of their universities across countries.

To set the stage for panel presentations and discussion, the typology of roles is useful for mapping viewpoints and behaviour of political scientists. Political scientists can be pure academics, assume an expert role, engage in opinionating, or profile as true public intellectuals. Building on the literature on boundary work between experts and policy makers and on knowledge utilization, empirically mapping scholars in this field may distinguish types of knowledge transferred, frequency of advice provided, level of governance of engagement, the formal or informal nature of advising, types of recipients of knowledge and advice, and specific channels used. Moreover, the substantive topics of advising and outreach activities may be analyzed using a topic classification system such as developed in the international Comparative Agendas Project.