LIST OF PANELS

In the evolution of the critical policy studies paradigm at the end of the 20th century (Forester, 1993; Fischer, 1993), policy scholarship has witnessed a progressive shift that decentered and expanded the onto-epistemological orientation of approaches to policy studies, moving away from the mainstream empiricism of policy science to a more argumentative and critical turn in policy analysis (Fischer & Forester, 1993; Fischer & Gottweis, 2012). Several works have argued that these traditional methods lack the ability to capture the complexity of policy-making processes (Taylor, 1997); hence, others have advocated for a critical approach that focuses not just on surface-level understanding of policy content but also on an in-depth analysis of policy meaning and the context in which policies are constructed and the consequences they create (Fairclough, 2013; Taylor, 1997). Contemporary scholars of critical policy studies have posited that policymaking is a struggle over meaning and interpretation, where language (or, better yet, discourse), knowledge, and power are intertwined. Thus, policies are the product of such struggles, reflecting ideologies in the formulation of policy alternatives. The epistemological evolutions and developments brought about by the influence of critical policy studies in the West have addressed the major debate of that time—decentering decision-making from technocrats, elites, and power, and recentering the ‘public’ into deliberation, decision-making, and action.

The ‘Asian Century,’ as described by Bice and Sullivan (2014), refers to the 21st century, which is dominated by Asia’s economic, cultural, and political influence, in contrast to the 20th century, dominated by Western powers. They articulated unique public policy challenges and developments in Asia, focusing on the region’s rapid economic growth and its emergence as a global powerhouse. The diversity in governance and political systems (ranging from democracies, centralized systems, monarchies, and authoritarian regimes), diversified levels of economic development, and differences in social structures across various countries all pose significant challenges to inclusive, coherent, and effective policies. These developments are also accompanied by challenges related to urbanization, environmental sustainability, climate change, social safety nets, government efficiency and decentralization, and national security, among others. On a separate note, we also maintain skepticism and challenge the claim by raising the inquiry: Have we even reached the so-called ‘Asian Century’? All of this brings an interesting question to the panel: How and where can we situate discourse analysis in policy framing in the ‘Asian Century’?

Taking note of the lessons from the emergence of policy science and the rise of the critique of critical policy studies, it is now timely to examine what is being claimed as public policy in the 'Asian Century' and build on these lessons as we advance an inclusive and citizen-centered approach to policy framing. This panel notes that technocratic norms in Asia are strongly interwoven with its social, political, and economic norms. As a result, technocratic solutions from experts are often considered the default approach to addressing policy issues. While we acknowledge the significance of technocratic agendas in highly scientific issues, we also need to draw lessons from past developments and anticipate the directions of application, particularly in the context of the ‘Asian Century.’ Given the long and strong history of technocracy in Asia, this panel challenges scholars to go beyond empiricist and solutionist norms and keep an open platform for exploring discourses, critical perspectives, and alternative approaches to policy framing and analysis. This panel aims to draw lessons from existing works and ongoing projects by scholars inside and outside of Asia that build on discursive and critical paradigms in policy research. With the ‘Asian Century’ introducing new norms, policy scholars must brace themselves for conducting critical policy research with a participatory and inclusive agenda for the public’s interest. 

References:

Bice, S., & Sullivan, H. (2014). Public policy studies and the “Asian Century”: New orientations, challenges, and opportunities. Governance, 27(4), 539-544.

Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis and critical policy studies. Critical Policy Studies, 7(2), 177-197.

Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (Eds.). (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Duke University Press.

Fischer, F. (1993). Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: From theoretical inquiry to practical cases. Policy sciences, 26(3), 165-187.

Fischer, F., & Gottweis, H. (2012). The argumentative turn revisited. Public policy as communicative practice.

Forester, J. (1993). Critical theory, public policy, and planning practice. State University of New York Press.

Taylor, S. (1997). Critical policy analysis: Exploring contexts, texts and consequences. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 18(1), 23-35.

This panel invites critical policy scholars, academics, researchers, practitioners, and PhD students whose work centers on the Discourse Analysis for Policy Framing in the ‘Asian Century.’ This panel welcomes critical policy research utilizing discourse analysis, and works offering wide range critical policy lessons, lenses, and perspectives in the ‘Asian Century,’ including, but not limited to:

- Discourse analysis for framing the particular public policy issue in Asia 
- The criticism of the technical orientation of policy analysis in Asian contexts based on discursive lenses 
- The discursive practice of bottom-up, inclusive, deliberative, and collaborative policy-making in Asia 
- The role of discourses in governance networks in Asian countries
- The discursive aspect in participatory-oriented innovations and social enterprises in Asian settings 
- The discursive angle of the role of culture, local knowledge, emotions, and social norms in the Asian policy landscape 
- The reflection of discursive participation for framing public policy in Asia 
- Everyday discursive practices of street-level policy analysts in Asia 
- Narratives in policy discourses in Asia 

We encourage submissions that embody novel critical perspectives and approaches that potentially contribute to the progressive movement in relation to discourse analysis and framing in policy studies. Those papers that delve into case-specific studies and even with a new contribution towards critical methodologies in policy studies are welcome to contribute. The paper should address how the policy lessons, lenses, and perspectives shed light on Asian critical policy realms and what are the challenges of those lessons, lenses, and perspectives.

Interested contributors may submit the abstract of your paper to the following panel chairs:

Noe John Joseph E. Sacramento (nesacramento@up.edu.ph)

Pobsook Chamchong (pobsook.c@cmu.ac.th)

Piyapong Boossabong (piyapong.b@cmu.ac.th)

Theerapat Ungsuchaval (theerapat.ung@mahidol.ac.th)