LIST OF WORKSHOPS

The general focus of the workshop is on the role of emotions as an agent of policy change. More specifically, it will explore the function of emotional intensity in the construction and transformation of public problems and their treatment by public authorities. While the question of the role of emotions is rather abundant when it comes to studying political behavior, little research can be found in the policy literature. Nonetheless, there is yet new literature that seeks to shed light on the policy process through emotional inputs. This is known as the “affective turn” present in several social science disciplines such as geography (Anderson and Smith, 2001; Bondi, Davidson and Smith, 2005), political science (Brader, 2011; Marcus, 2002) or sociology of collective action (Aminzade and McAdam, 2001; Latté, 2015; Groenendyk, 2011). Generally speaking, this affective turn is an opportunity to break away from approaches that regard public policy as goal-oriented and fundamentally evidence-based. Emotions may include anger, indignation, sadness, fear, but also joy or pride (Coleman and Wu, 2010). Mercer proposes the following definition: “An emotional belief is one where emotion constitutes and strengthens a belief and which makes possible a generalization about an actor that involves certainty beyond evidence. The experience of emotion is not a mere product of cognition or a reaction to a belief. It is not an afterthought. Feelings influence what one wants, what one believes, and what one does” (2010:2). In this workshop, we suggest, following Jones (2003) Coleman and Wu (2010) and Mercer (2010), to put emotions back at the heart of rationality and not to evacuate it.

The workshop theme is guided by a general research question, that is, how do emotions participate in the construction and transformation of territorial public problems? Through the contributors’ work, we intend to explore how citizens’ emotional reactions to specific events transform certain public issues into public problems at the territorial scale as the latter is a relevant, accessible and relatively unexplored laboratory for observation and analysis. Indeed, very few studies focus their analysis on the emotional dimensions that shape local public policies, whereas this would make it possible to identify, as Douillet, Négrier, and Faure (2015:328) cited, the mechanisms that structure the narration of metropolitan policy issues.

Public policy analysis’s theoretical corpus is abundant. Marked by parallel development in North America and Europe, it has traditionally revolved around three main families of approaches, known as the 3 I’s (Palier and Surel, 2005). Theories are thus categorized by the importance they place on either ideas (Sabatier and Schlager, 2000), interests (Rhodes, 2006) and institutions (Hall and Taylor, 1996). Each of these I’s is, in fact, an umbrella that embraces a diversity of theories and concepts and later works have led to the inclusion of both instruments (Lascoumes and LeGalès, 2004; Hood 2007) and discursive analysis (Schmidt, 2011; Zittoun and Demongeot, 2009). Through this workshop, however, we propose to explore another body of work, also known as the affective turn. The importance of this literature lies in its claim to be able to contribute to the renewal of policy analysis. Within that literature, Faure and Négrier (2017) recently developed a new analytical triad to capture the link between emotions and politics. Following the three I’s model, they identified three E’s articulated around the State (État), Power spaces (Espaces de pouvoir) and Eros. As an analytical starting point, this workshop will focus on the second “E” which is both fuelled by constructivist approaches in which the elites instrumentalize emotions to establish their authority, and by the governmentalisation of the world, the Foucaldian approach (Foucault, 2004).

In addition to the theoretical foundations for studying the determinants of public policy, their analysis is traditionally based on a sequential breakdown of the process. Public problems, agenda-setting, formulation, decision-making, implementation, and evaluation are all sequences that follow one another in a rational vision of the State’s action. While the rationality of this sequencing has been widely discussed and critiqued, this breakdown nevertheless offers a simplification of reality, when coupled with other analytical tools (such as the 3 I's) (Muller and Surel, 1998). In this vein, it is not the whole policy process that will the center of attention in this workshop, but rather the manufacturing of policy problems. From the constructivist perspective we adopt, problems do not exist outside the problematization process that guides their definition. On the contrary, they are derived from the subjective perspectives of individuals. Problematization is generally seen as a process that revolves around three mechanisms: framing, justification, and promotion. Within this triad, emotions are particularly called upon when framing the problem. Framing refers to how issues attract attention, which in turn depends on how problems are presented and connected to values, beliefs or emotions that can touch people. Framing is therefore the product of interpretations and of reconstructions of information (Fischer, 2003). Jones and Baumgartner (1991) describe framing as a “public policy image”, which brings together empirical information, ideas, values and emotional appeal. As such, framing offers a shared understanding of the problem and underlying emotions, which then allow some actors to grasp it. To that effect, several studies have already demonstrated the way in which, for example, from a memorable event, a double shift operates: from emotion to awareness and from awareness to politicization (Dassié, 2017; Fabre, 2013; Latté, 2015). Although the role of emotions in the policy process is not a new phenomenon, it is usually considered as variable among others in the construction of public problems. This dimension is particularly reflected in the studies done on the role of the media in agenda setting (Coleman and Wu, 2010; Miller, 2007). More recent work argues, however, that emotions can be taken seriously in order to give them a more central place in understanding problem construction and, by extension, policy change. That is what we propose to do in this workshop.

The workshop has three objectives: 1) exploring how the emotional dimensions of the public policy process fit into current theoretical discussions in political science and public administration; 2) generating knowledge on the emotional construction of public problems with an important territorial dimension. This will fill gaps in urban and regional public policy literature, while at the same time creating more explicit links between public policy analysis and urban and regional studies; 3) working toward submitting a special issue for publication in Policy and Society.

Papers submitted are expected to explore the contribution of emotional input in the construction and transformation of public problems through case studies or theoretical reflections on existing approaches to public problems. For example, contributors may want to tackle if emotions have to be opposed to rationality, as some work on negative emotions do (e.g. see Maor, 2016 about negative emotions and negative policy bubbles). Since the affective turn is a relatively recent approach, papers focusing on methodological considerations linked to the study of emotions in public policy are also welcome. Contributors interested in methodological issues may, for example, question how emotions can be captured in public policy; what types of data collection and analysis could be used to grasp this important dimension around public problems’ construction of; or, if and how research should rely on other disciplines’—such as psychology—research methods. Although open to other levels of analysis, the workshop will also prioritize contributions at the territorial scale. Indeed, very few studies focus their analysis on the emotional dimensions that shape local and regional public policies, whereas this would make it possible to better understand the narration of local and regional policy issues. The territorial angle will make it possible to delineate an otherwise very broad topic. This workshop will provide an opportunity to engage both public policy analysis and urban and territorial studies to document the inescapable link between public problems, emotions, and territory. It is meant to be a place for international and multisectoral exchanges.

Papers accepted for this workshop are expected to be sent at least three weeks before the event. This workshop will be organized around three or four sessions of a maximum of 5 individual presentations, each lasting 20 to 25 minutes. Two discussants and a rapporteur will be assigned to each session. The conclusions, comments, and propositions for future research collected by the rapporteurs will be shared in a final wrap-up session in addition to a discussion devoted to the planning of a special issue to be submitted for publication.

References

Aminzade, R. et D. McAdam (2001). « Emotions and contentious politics», in Aminzade, Ron et al. dir. Silence and Voice in contentious politics. Cambridge University Press.

Anderson, K. et S. J. Smith (2001). Editorial: Emotional geographies. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 26 (1), 7-10.

Bondi, L., Davidson, J. et Smith, M. (2005). Emotional Geographies. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing.

Brader, T. (2011). “The Political Relevance of Emotions: “Reassessing” Revisited”, Political Psychology, 32 (2), 337-346.

Coleman, R., & Wu, H. D. (2010). Proposing Emotion as a Dimension of Affective Agenda Setting: Separating Affect into Two Components and Comparing Their Second-Level Effects. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 87(2), 315–327.

Dassié, V. (2017), « Une émotion patrimoniale au service d’un engagement consensuel », in Faure, A. et E. Négrier dir. La politique à l'épreuve des émotions. Rennes, Presses universitaires de Rennes, 31-41.

Douillet, A.-C., E. Négrier et A. Faure (2015). « Trois regards sur les politiques publiques vues du local ». in Boussaguet, L., S. Jacquot et P. Ravinet dir. Une « French touch » dans l'analyse des politiques publiques ?, Sciences Po Les Presses, 319-348.

Fabre, D. (2013). Émotions patrimoniales, Paris, Éditions de la MSH, collection Ethnologie de la France, cahier 27.

Faure, A. et E. Négrier dir. (2017). La politique à l'épreuve des émotions. Rennes, Presses universitaires de Rennes.

Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices, Osford, Oxford University Press.

Foucault, M. (2004). Sécurité, territoire, population : cours au Collège de France, 1977-1978. Paris, Gallimard.

Groenendyk, E. (2011). « Current Emotion Research in Political Science: How Emotions Help Democracy Overcome its Collective Action Problem », Emotion Review, 3 (4), 455-463.

Hall, P., Taylor, R. (1996) “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms”, Political Studies, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 936-957.

Hood, C., (2007). « Intellectual obsolescence and intellectual makeover: reflexions on the tool of government after two decades », Governance, 20 (1), 127-144.

Jones, B. et F. Baumgartner (1991), « Agenda Dynamics and Policy Subsystems », Journal of Politics, 53 (4), 1044-1074.

Lascoumes, P. et Le Galès, P., dir. (2004). Gouverner par les instruments, Paris, Les presses de Sciences Po.

Latté, S. (2105). « Des “mouvements émotionnels” à la mobilisation des émotions », Terrains/Théories, vol. 2 Émotions. URL : http://teth.revues.org/244 ; DOI : 10.4000/teth.244

Maor, M. (2012). Policy overreaction. Journal of Public Policy, 32(3), 231–259.

Marcus, G. (2002), The sentimental citizen: Emotion in democratic politics, Philadelphia, PA, Pennsylvania State University Press.

Mercer, J. (2010). Emotional Beliefs. International Organization, 64, 1–31.

Miller, J. M. (2007). Examining the Mediators of Agenda Setting: A New Experimental Paradigm Reveals the Role of Emotions. Political Psychology, 28(6), 689–717.

Muller, P. et Surel, Y. (1998). Analyse des politiques publiques, Paris, Montchrétien.

Palier, B., Surel, Y. (2005). « Les “trois I” et l’analyse de l’État en action », Revue française de science politique, 55 (1), 7-32.

Rhodes, R.A.W. (2006). “Policy Network Analysis”, in Moran, M., Rein, M., Goodin, R.E., eds. The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, 425-447.

Sabatier, P. et Schlager, E. (2000). « Les approches cognitives des politiques publiques : perspectives américaines », Revue française de science politique, 50 (2), 209-234.

Schmidt, V. A. (2011). “Speaking of change: why discourse is key to the dynamics of policy transformation”, Critical Policy Studies 5 (2),106-126.

Zittoun, P., Demongeot, B. (2009). « Debates in French Policy Studies: From cognitive to discursive Approaches», Critical Policy Studies, 3 (3–4): 391–406.

The workshop focuses on the role of emotions as an agent of policy change. More specifically, it will explore the function of emotional intensity in the construction and transformation of public problems and their treatment by public authorities. While studies on the role of emotions are rather abundant when it comes to studying political behavior, little research can be found from a policy perspective. Nonetheless, a new literature that seeks to shed light on public policy through emotional inputs is emerging, also known as the “affective turn” present in several social science disciplines such as geography (Anderson and Smith, 2001; Bondi, Davidson and Smith, 2005), political science (Brader, 2011; Marcus, 2002) or sociology of collective action (Aminzade and McAdam, 2001; Latté, 2015; Groenendyk, 2011). The workshop theme is guided by the general research question of how do emotions participate in the construction and transformation of territorial public problems? The role of emotions in public policy can be seen as central to the problematization process because of its association with values and beliefs. These generate reactions, either underreaction or overreaction (Maor, 2016), which in turn contribute to the transformation of public problems. Through the contributors’ work, we intend to explore how citizens’ emotional reactions to specific events transform certain public issues into public problems, both in nature and scope.

The workshop has three objectives: 1) examining how the emotional dimensions in the public policy process fit into current theoretical discussions in political science and public administration; 2) generating knowledge on the emotional construction of public problems with an important territorial dimension. This will fill gaps in urban and regional public policy literature, while at the same time creating more explicit links between public policy analysis and urban and regional studies; 3) working toward submitting a special issue for publication in Policy and Society.

Papers submitted are expected to explore the contribution of emotional input in the construction and transformation of public problems through case studies or theoretical reflections on existing approaches to public problems. Papers focusing on methodological considerations linked to the study of emotions in public policy are also welcome. Although open to other levels of analysis, the workshop will prioritize contributions at the territorial scale as a relevant, accessible and relatively underexplored laboratory for observation and analysis. Indeed, although it would make it possible to better understand the narration of local and regional policy issues, very few studies focus their analysis on the emotional dimensions that shape local and regional public policies. The territorial angle helps to delineate an otherwise very broad topic. This workshop will provide an opportunity to engage in a discussion with both public policy analysis and urban and territorial studies to document the inescapable link between public problems, emotions, and territory. It is meant to be a place for international and multisectoral exchanges.

The workshop focuses on the role of emotions as an agent of policy change. More specifically, it will explore the function of emotional intensity in the construction and transformation of public problems and their treatment by public authorities. While studies on the role of emotions are rather abundant when it comes to studying political behavior, little research can be found from a policy perspective. Nonetheless, also known as the “affective turn” present in several social science disciplines, a new literature that seeks to shed light on public policy through emotional inputs is emerging. The workshop theme is guided by the general research question of how do emotions participate in the construction and transformation of territorial public problems? Through the contributors’ work, we intend to explore how citizens’ emotional reactions to specific events transform certain public issues into public problems, both in nature and scope. Although open to other levels of analysis, the workshop will prioritize contributions at the territorial scale as a relevant, accessible and relatively underexplored laboratory for observation and analysis. Indeed, although it would make it possible to better understand the narration of local and regional policy issues, very few studies focus their analysis on the emotional dimensions that shape local and regional public policies. The territorial angle helps to delineate an otherwise very broad topic. This workshop will provide an opportunity to engage in a discussion with both public policy analysis and urban and territorial studies to document the inescapable link between public problems, emotions, and territory.

Nathalie Burlone is an Associate Professor in the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa in the Public Administration program. She is particularly interested in public policy development and the choice of policy instruments. Her research analyzes the policy-making process through the construction of social representations of public issues. Her work and publications focus, among others, on policy framings of the provincial and federal end-of-life policy, on how policy choices affect certain social groups and shape their life courses and social interactions, on changes in family types and existing family policies, on governance and family policy development, on horizontality in the contexts of community action, public health and renewal of public management and finally, on public ethics and policy instrument selection.

Anne Mévellec is an Associate Professor in the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa. Specialized in public policy and in political sociology, she seeks to bring together the profile, career path, and perception of local elected officials and the content of public policies. She currently studies the role of local elected officials in several territorial policies, such as regional forest management in Québec and New Brunswick, metropolitan master plan in the National Capital Region of Canada and municipal language policy in the City of Ottawa. She has also completed a quantitative and qualitative research on local elected officials in medium and large size cities in Québec. This project has been published in a book "Genre et professionnalisation de la politique municipale au Québec" in 2016. More recently, she participates in a pan-Canadian research on electoral behavior in 8 major Canadian cities.