LIST OF WORKSHOPS

Presentation

Context and relevance of the research question

This workshop will convey scholars applying different methods in policy analysis, around the following question: Which are the most reliable methods and techniques to improve comparative policy analysis? 

For many years, methodology remained a black box in policy research. In spite of their valuable contribution to theory building and testing, even the most popular analytical frameworks often lacked transparency regarding the protocols being used. Thus by jumping directly from theoretical discussion to empirical analysis, scholars often missed a good opportunity to evaluate and discuss the potentials and limits of their methods, in particular regarding case selection and data recollection. Yet, today the “conscious thinker” (Sartori, 1970) in Comparative Policy Analysis (hereafter CPA) is expected to open this black box in order to facilitate further discussion, back-up and eventually increase the external validity of his or her theory.

The first basic questions interesting CPA were raised in pathbreaking works by Lijphart (1971) and Przeworski and Teune (1970) in comparative politics. During the 1980s and 1990s, the history, sociology and economics of the welfare state made significant contributions to CPA (see Heidenheimer, 1985; Rose and Shiratori, 1984; Esping-Andersen, 1990; Castles, 1998). CPA is increasingly influenced by studies on multilevel governance, even though international relations have always been logically interested in comparison (see Pierre and Peters, 2000; Geddes, 2003; George and Bennett, 2005).

Meanwhile qualitative methods improved considerably in the wake of King, Keohane and Verba´s thundering call for more transparency in qualitative research design (See King et al., 1994; Ragin, 2008; Collier, Brady and Seawright, 2010; Peters, 2013; Gerring, 2007; Goertz and Mahoney, 2012). Yet after four decades of cross-fertilization, CPA still lacks a common language and common protocols that would produce substantial cumulative knowledge for decision-making and theory building or testing (Dodds, 2013; Schmitt, 2013; Engeli and Rothmayr Allison, 2014). It also needs improvement to bridge the two traditional bodies of literature produced by basic research and policy analysis.

Hypotheses and further research

The increasing importance of comparison in policy analysis responds first and foremost to the transnational flows of ideas, people, goods and services caused by globalization, even though it also attends the growing demand for accountability by non-state actors, especially after the post-materialist revolution and the blossoming of social networks worldwide. For its “benchmarking role” (Dodds, 2013), CPA allows for a better understanding of different political traditions by focusing on their institutional dimensions or collective action. It encompasses many dimensions of the political system, to explain policy success or failure, policy change or continuity, policy diffusion and convergence, etc. It can refer to national, subnational or regional levels to explain the decision-making process and the role played by institutions, actors, and context. 

We consider CPA as an emerging field for scholars willing to explain policy outputs and outcomes. From a substantive perspective, this field benefits from the inputs of political science, sociology, economy, history and administration studies. From a methodological perspective its development started in the aftermath of comparative politics during the 1970´s, starting with statistics techniques for large-N studies, standard regression models and experiments, proceeding with the multiplication of small-N and intermediate-N studies since the 1980´s, which were complemented by combinatory analysis in the 1990-2000´s and process tracing in the 2010´s.

The central hypothesis of the workshop is that comparative public policy is facing the challenge of conceptual and analytical harmonization, if it ought to make a significant contribution to the explanation of policy design and bridge applied and fundamental policy studies, which have been following separate ways so far. Therefore methods are a central issue and should line up with scholars´ scientific ontology in their research design (Jackson, 2016).

References

Castles Francis (2011). “Has Three Decades of Comparative Public Policy Scholarship Been Focusing on the Wrong Question?”. TranState Working Papers, 155, 41 p.

Collier, D., Brady, H., and Seawright, J. (2010), “Critiques, responses, and trade-offs: Drawing together the debate”. In Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards, edited by H. Brady and D. Collier, Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 135-160.

Dodds Anneliese (2013), Comparative public policy. London: Palgrave MacMillan, 390 p.

Engeli Isabelle, Christine Rothmayr Allison (2014), “Conceptual and methodological challenges in comparative public policy”. In: Isabelle Engeli, Christine Rothmayr Allison (Ed.), Comparative policy studies: Conceptual and methodological challenges. London: Palgrave MacMillan, 1-13.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Oxford: Polity Press.

Geddes Barbara (2003), Paradigms and sand castles: Theory building and research design in comparative politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 314 p.

George Alexander, Andrew Bennett (2005), Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press, 331 p.

Goertz Gary, James Mahoney (2012), A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 238 p.

Heidenheimer Arnold (1986), “Comparative Public Policy Studies Examined: an Odyssey in Four Parts”. International Social Sciences Journal, 108: 159-177.

Jackson Patrick T. (2016), The conduct of inquiry in international relations: Philosophy of science and its implications for the study of world politics. (2nd edition). London: Routledge.

King Gary, Robert Keohane, Sidney Verba (1994), Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 247 p.

Lijphart Ahrend (1971), “Comparative politics and the comparative method”. The American Political Science Review, 65 (3): 682-693.

Peters B. Guy (2013), Strategies for Comparative Research in Political Science. London: Palgrave McMillan, 284 p.

Pierre Jon, Guy B. Peters (2000), Governance, Politics and the State. London: Macmillan Press.

Przeworski Adam, Teune Adam (1970), The logic of comparative social inquiry. Malabar: Kriegeri, 153 p.

Ragin Charles (2008), Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 225 p.

Rose Richard (1984), Comparative Policy Analysis: the Programme Approach. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde.

Sartori, G. (1970). “Concept Mis-formation in Comparative Politics”. The American Political Science Review, 64(4): 1033-1053.

Schmitt Sophie (2013), “Comparative approaches to the study of public policy-making”. In: Araral Eduardo, Scott Frizen, Michael Howlett, M. Ramesh, Xun Wu (Ed.) (2013), Routledge Handbook of Public Policy. London, New York: Routledge, 29-43.

Specific contributions expected 

The workshop will integrate methodological issues in comparative politics and comparative sociology with those used in policy analysis. We believe that, if the promise of CPA is to be fulfilled, then greater attention must be given to ways of linking comparative methods with policy, and likewise how to link methods associated with policy analysis to comparative cases. Too often these connections of research traditions are not made clearly and the resulting research may not contribute as much as it might, either to comparative studies or policy studies.

We will held five sessions. 

The first session will address contemporary trends in comparative policy analysis. Contributions will deal with methodological issues in policy research on agenda-setting, implementation, public administration, and the use of common analytical frameworks for CPA.

The second session will focus on the linkage of issues in comparative analysis. Contributors will discuss the utility of the comparative method, most-similar and most-different systems research designs, small-n case studies, large-n comparison and comparative process tracing, etc.

The third session will address further issues in qualitative methods. Contributors will deal with combinatory analysis (QCA) for CPA, comparative historical research, Q methodology, focus groups, ethnography and biases problems in data collection, etc.

The fourth session will address standard quantitative techniques. Contributors will deal with measurement issues such as regression for policy work, big data and models of policy change.

The fifth session will address multi-methods and experimental research designs. Contributors will examine the role of experimental designs –both laboratory and field experiments– , mixed methods for intermediate-n comparison, social network modeling, risk-benefit evaluation, etc.

Dynamic of sessions

Each session will involve the presentation of several papers and extensive discussions of those papers.  Many of the papers were presented as first drafts at ICPP3 in Singapore and we therefore expect these papers to be of high quality.

Final outcome, publication

As well as the intellectual developments we expect from this panel, we intend to use the papers as a major component of a Handbook for Methodology for Comparative Policy Analysis.

Comparative policy analysis is a research area aimed at explaining policy outputs and outcomes, at the crossroad of political science, sociology, economy, history, international relations and administrative studies. For the past four decades, it has experienced a consistent development thanks to the use of large-n probabilistic methods and standard regression models, small-n and middle-n studies, experiments, combinatory analysis and process-tracing.

The Workshop on Methods for Comparative Policy Analysis will integrate these methodological issues with substantive issues of theory-building and theory-testing for policy design. We wish to focus on the utility of the methods themselves more that on the application of the methods. However the methods should always be considered in light of how they can address policy problems.

The central argument of this workshop is that comparative policy analysis is currently facing the challenge of conceptual and analytical harmonization, if it is to make a significant contribution to policy design by bridging applied and theoretical studies. We believe that if the promise of comparative policy analysis is to be fulfilled, then greater attention must be given to ways of linking comparative methods with policy, and likewise to how to link methods associated with policy analysis to comparative cases. Too often these connections of research traditions are not made explicitly and the resulting research may not contribute as much as it might, either to comparative studies or policy analysis. As well as the substantive differences among these research traditions, there are marked differences between large-n and small-n traditions of research, especially in policy analysis.

We will held five sessions. 

The first session will address contemporary trends in comparative policy analysis. Contributions will deal with methodological issues in policy research on agenda-setting, implementation, public administration, and the use of common analytical frameworks for CPA.

The second session will focus on the linkage of issues in comparative analysis. Contributors will discuss the utility of the comparative method, most-similar and most-different systems research designs, small-n case studies, large-n comparison and comparative process tracing, etc.

The third session will address further issues in qualitative methods. Contributors will deal with combinatory analysis (QCA) for CPA, comparative historical research, Q methodology, focus groups, ethnography and biases problems in data collection, etc.

The fourth session will address standard quantitative techniques. Contributors will deal with measurement issues such as regression for policy work, big data and models of policy change.

The fifth session will address multi-methods and experimental research designs. Contributors will examine the role of experimental designs –both laboratory and field experiments– , mixed methods for intermediate-n comparison, social network modeling, risk-benefit evaluation, etc.

Guidelines for authors

Extension: 

8000 words (not including references)

Paper organization: 

Brief introduction including a state of the art, the question to be addressed and a presentation of the chapter organization. 
Please consider organizing your chapter into 3-4 sections and separate each section with a specific, informative title.
Highlights: Emphasis should be made on the methodological aspects raised by the research problem, the theoretical framework and the scope of comparison. Please explain how these problems have been addressed so far in the specialized literature, then expose your main argument. Eventually, try to illustrate your point with empirical studies based on your own research or on outstanding works by other scholars. 
References: Please include secondary sources in English in the bibliography, but try to avoid technical assessments and documents. If possible, indicate the digital link to open access documents.

Schedule: 

Abstract due on November 30, 2017 (300 words)
First draft due on January 8, 2018.
Second draft due on May 31, 2018.
Final draft due on July 31, 2018. 

This workshop will convey scholars applying different methods in policy analysis, around the following question: Which are the most reliable methods and techniques to improve comparative policy analysis? 

The workshop will integrate methodological issues in comparative politics and comparative sociology with those used in policy analysis. We believe that, if the promise of CPA is to be fulfilled, then greater attention must be given to ways of linking comparative methods with policy, and likewise how to link methods associated with policy analysis to comparative cases. Too often these connections of research traditions are not made clearly and the resulting research may not contribute as much as it might, either to comparative studies or policy studies.

We will held five sessions. 

The first session will address contemporary trends in comparative policy analysis. Contributions will deal with methodological issues in policy research on agenda-setting, implementation, public administration, and the use of common analytical frameworks for CPA.

The second session will focus on the linkage of issues in comparative analysis. Contributors will discuss the utility of the comparative method, most-similar and most-different systems research designs, small-n case studies, large-n comparison and comparative process tracing, etc.

The third session will address further issues in qualitative methods. Contributors will deal with combinatory analysis (QCA) for CPA, comparative historical research, Q methodology, focus groups, ethnography and biases problems in data collection, etc.

The fourth session will address standard quantitative techniques. Contributors will deal with measurement issues such as regression for policy work, big data and models of policy change.

The fifth session will address multi-methods and experimental research designs. Contributors will examine the role of experimental designs –both laboratory and field experiments– , mixed methods for intermediate-n comparison, social network modeling, risk-benefit evaluation, etc.

B. Guy Peters is Maurice Falk Professor of Government at the University of Pittsburgh, and President of the International Public Policy Association.  He was founding co-editor of Governance and of The European Political Science Review and is now Associate Editor of the Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis.  His recent books include Governance and Comparative Politics (with Jon Pierre), and The Politics of Bureaucracy (7th edition)., 

Guillaume Fontaine has been working since 2001 as a researcher and post-graduate profesor at the Latin American Faculty for Social Sciences (FLACSO), at Quito (Ecuador). FLACSO is an international organization created by UNESCO in 1957. He owns a Doctor Degree in Sociology from the University of Paris 3-Sorbonne Nouvelle, and a post-doctoral degree in political science (in french, Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches) from the Institute of Political Studies at Paris (Sciences-Po). His current research deals with the impact of resource nationalism on accountability in oil and gas exporting countries. Among other books, he has published "El Precio del petróleo" (2003, reprinted in 2007), "Petropolítica" (2010, also available in french), "Gaz et pétrole en Amazonie" (2011) and "Análisis de políticas publicas: Conceptos, teorías y métodos" (2015).

Specialties: Latin America, energy, comparative policy analysis, governance