Call for Proposals: Which Crises for which Paradigms? Studying "Crisis Management"
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Call for Proposals: Which Crises for which Paradigms? Studying "Crisis Management”
Amphitheater George Dupuis – Sorbonne (Malher)
May 18-19, 2022
In a world that has become "uncertain", governments urge populations to be prepared and "resilient"
in order to "live with risk" (Duffield, 2007; Lakoff, 2017; Revet, 2009). This conference brings
together the scientific and professional communities to share and discuss ideas regarding the
methodological and practical issues of "Crisis Management". It will also address the difficulty of
studying a subject as broad as that of "Crisis Management" which has been, in recent years and
particularly in the context of the COVID-19 global health crisis, at the heart of political, media, and
academic concerns.
This conference is in line with the scientific events organized by the Graduate School of
Political Science of the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne and the European Center of
Sociology and Political Science. Precisely, this event draws on the scientific contributions made by
the research group "Going global? Processes of internationalization and Europeanization" and its
pole "The actors of security and the transformation of the State". Likewise, this conference interacts
with the scientific projects carried out by Sorbonne War Studies and its transdisciplinary axis "The
decision-making environment: governance and division of labor in crisis 'management'".
We view “Crisis Management” as an indigenous category that has been the subject of
continuous theoretical, methodological and practical debates in social sciences. How can we
analyze the “management” of a phenomenon, "the crisis", which indicates the conjunctural de-
sectorization of a social space where collusive intersectoral transactions no longer work and where
actors are caught up in situational logics? (Dobry, 2009). Four main lines of inquiry would appear
to provide fruitful avenues of reflection for research on “Crisis Management”: (1) the "Crisis
Management" actors; (2) instruments and knowledge in "Crisis Management"; (3) the "Crisis
Management" temporalities; (4) the circulation of "Crisis Management" actors and devices.
1. The "Crisis Management" actors. This research topic discusses “Crisis Management” as
a process of collective negotiation in which actors, situated in heterogeneous spaces and
endowed with specific resources, interact according to their own objectives, interests and
institutional routines (Allison, 1977; George, Rishikof, 2017; Jervis, 1968; Lentner 2006).
The perception of unpreparedness, as well as organizational de-sectorization, can be
explained by the competitive cohabitation of actors within State structures. As a matter of
fact, these structures are inhabited by actors driven by different administrative cultures and
properties, as well as propelled by cultural and contextual constraints (Pouponneau, 2013;
Leca, 2010; Dobry, 1992). Correspondingly, this research axis discusses the question of
representations and cognitive biases in the decision-making environment of “Crisis
Management”. To do so, concepts such as "paniques morales" (Chaumont, 2012) or
"misperception" (Jervis, 1968) are crucial to understanding how “Crisis Management” is
carried-out in the field by actors. At the intersection of the local, national and international
levels, this research axis questions how the “professionnels de la gestion des inquiétudes”
(Bigo, 2002) enter the “Crisis Management” field to claim new issues and consolidate new
prerogatives (Ambrosetti, Buchet de Neuilly, 2009; Pomarède 2013).
2. Instruments and knowledge in "Crisis Management". As an attempt to go beyond a
simplistic understanding of the voluntarism of actors and understand the “Crisis
Management” practices and body of knowledge (Buchet de Neuilly, 2015), the analysis of
instruments accounts for the transformations, interactions and innovations of “Crisis
Management” (Lascoumes, Le Galès, 2005; Lascoumes, Simard, 2011). This research
1subject emphasizes two key dynamics for the analysis of “Crisis Management”: (1) the
construction-adaptation of instruments and their placement into sector-related devices
(Hassenteufel, Saurugger, 2020; Daho, 2019; Milet, 2003); (2) the contextualized re-
problematization and reappropriation of knowledge and instruments by actors and the
subsequent effects (Lascoumes, 1996). The so-called neutrality of the use of technical
rationality, as well as the allegedly apolitical legitimacy of “Crisis Management” devices,
must therefore be questioned. This research axis invites us to consider crises as extreme
situations, embedded in conflictual configurations where the violent rupture reveals, a
contrario, what founds the social order of a specific society (Baczko, Dorronsoro, 2017).
3. The "Crisis Management" temporalities. The study of “Crisis Management” also means
to analyze the “mise en crise” by actors, that is, the process by which a series of social
events is constructed and presented as a crisis (Angeli, Cabane, Cornilleau, 2019; Gilbert,
Henry 2009; Henry, 2004). To this end, it is a matter of questioning the alleged cyclical
temporality suggested by the use of “preparedness” and “resilience” framings. Defined by
experts as a cyclical approach characterized by the continuous evolution of the phases of
prospecting, planning, preparation, and evaluation, “preparedness” paces the work of
“Crisis Management” actors before, during, and after a crisis (Lakoff, 2017; Revet, 2018).
This research axis also seeks to identify how the framing of “resilience”, understood as the
ability of a system exposed to a multiplicity of complex and changing risks to resist, absorb,
adapt, and recover from them (Alexander, 2013; Cannon, Müller-Mahn, 2010; Cooper,
Walker, 2011; Chandler, 2014), shapes the policy-design of “Crisis Management”
temporalities.
4. The circulation of "Crisis Management" actors and devices. The development and use
of “Crisis Management” instruments can be considered as the result of a circulation of
knowledge and practices between different fields of action (Sapiro, 2013). The scientific
approaches of diffusion (Dobbin, Garrett, Simmons, 2007; Hassenteufel, Maillard, 2013),
Lesson-Drawing (James, Lodge, 2003) and Policy Transfer (Delpeuch, 2009; Dolowitz,
Marsh, 1996) allow us to understand the mechanisms of this circulation processes without
falling into the "rationalistic" trap (Benson, Jordan, 2011; Dumoulin, Sarugger, 2010). In
this perspective, this research axis aims not only to localize the circulation of this knowledge
and practices of “Crisis Management”. A crucial emphasis will also be given to the
strategies of translation, that is, the recreations and re-problematizations of these
instruments, by actors situated in heterogeneous fields of action (Bourdieu, 2000; Callon,
1986).
Deadlines and submission procedures
Proposals must be sent by February 21, 2022 to the following email address:
gdccolloque2022@gmail.com. They should be sent with a short biographical note.
Proposals must include:
- Name(s) and surname(s) of the author(s).
- Discipline, affiliation(s) and status(es).
- Title of the proposal and email address.
- Abstract of 700 characters maximum, in English and French, specifying the research axis
discussed by the proposal. Response from the organizing committee: March 25, 2022.
Presentations:
- You are expected to send a complete version of the proposal by May 2, 2022.
- 30,000 – 50,000 characters (written in French or English).
- Each presentation will not exceed 25 minutes.
2Organizing Committee
Antoine Gallard PhD Fellow, University of Paris Panthéon-Sorbonne, CESSP
(antoinegallardpro@gmail.com).
Piero Tellerías PhD Fellow, University of Paris Panthéon-Sorbonne, CESSP
(pfteller@uc.cl).
Scientific Committee
Yves Buchet de Professor of Political Science, University of Paris Panthéon-Sorbonne,
Neuilly CESSP.
Lydie Cabane Assistant Professor in Governance of Crises, Institute for Security and
Global Affairs, Leiden University, CSO SciencesPo.
Grégory Daho Associate Professor in Political Science, University of Paris Panthéon-
Sorbonne, CESSP.
Brigitte Gaïti Professor of Political Science, University of Paris Panthéon-Sorbonne,
CESSP.
Emmanuel Henry Professor of Sociology, University Paris Dauphine, IRISSO.
Jef Huysmans Professor of International Politics, Co-convenor of the research group
Doing International Political Sociology, School of Politics and
International Relations, Queen Mary University of London.
Sandrine Revet Anthropologist, Research Director FNSP, Sciences Po, CERI.
Keynote Speaker
Michel Dobry Emeritus Professor of Political Science, University of Paris Panthéon-
Sorbonne, CESSP. Author of Sociologie des crises politiques (1986,
reedited in 1992 and 2009).
Invited Speakers
Soraya Boudia Professor of Sociology, Historian of Science, Techniques, and
Environment, University of Paris, CERMES 3.
Vanessa Codaccioni Associate Professor in Political Science, Political Science Department
Co-director, University of Paris VIII, CRESPPA-CSU.
Sandrine Lefranc Political Scientist, Sociologist and Research Director at CNRS, CEE,
Sciences Po Paris.
Julien Pomarède PhD in Political Science, Visiting Fellow, University of Oxford,
Department of Politics and Political Science.
Florent Pouponneau1 Associate Professor in Political Science, Sciences Po Strasbourg,
SAGE.
1
To be confirmed.
3Bibliography
Alexander D. (2013), “Resilience and disaster risk reduction: an etymological journey”, Natural
Hazards Earth Systems Sciences, 13: 2707-2716.
Allison G. (1977), « Modèles conceptuels et la crise des missiles de Cuba », in P. Braillard (dir.),
Théorie des relations internationales, Paris, Presses universitaires de France, p. 172-197.
Ambrosetti D., Buchet de Neuilly Y. (2009), « Les organisations internationales au cœur des crises
», Cultures & Conflits, 75, p. 7-14.
Angeli Aguiton S., Cabane L., Cornilleau L. (2019), « Politiques de la « mise en crise » », Critique
internationale, (N° 85), p. 9-21.
Baczko A., Dorronsoro G. (2017), « Pour une approche sociologique des guerres civiles », Revue
française de science politique, (Vol. 67), p. 309-327.
Benson D., Jordan A. (2011), “What Have We Learned from Policy Transfer Research? Dolowitz
and Marsh Revisited”, Political Studies Review, vol. 9, n° 3, p. 366–378.
Bourdieu P. (2000), « Les conditions sociales de la circulation internationale des idées », In : Actes
de la recherche en sciences sociales, vol. 145, La circulation internationale des idées, p. 3-8.
Buchet de Neuilly, Y. (2015). Chapitre 9 / La gestion internationale routinière des crises :
Sectorisation des relations internationales et mondialisation de l’institution étatique. Dans : Myriam
Aït-Aoudia éd., La logique du désordre : Relire la sociologie de Michel Dobry (pp. 221-236).
Callon M. (1986), « Éléments pour une sociologie de la traduction. La domestication des coquilles
Saint- Jacques et des marins-pêcheurs dans la baie de Saint- Brieuc », L’Année sociologique, 36,
p. 169-208.
Cannon T., Mûller-Mahn D., (2010), « Vulnerability, Resilience and Development Discourses in
Context of Climate Change », Natural Hazards, vol. 55, n° 3, pp. 621-635.
Cooper M., Walker J., (2011), « Genealogies of Resilience: From System Ecology to the Political
Economy of Crisis Adaptation », Security Dialogue, vol. 42, n° 2, pp. 319-335.
Chandler D. (2014), Resilience. The Governance of Complexity, Routledge.
Dobry M. (2009), Sociologie des crises politiques. La dynamique des mobilisations
multisectorielles. Presses de Sciences Po, « Références », 432 p.
Delpeuch T. (2009), « Comprendre la circulation internationale des solutions d’action publique :
panorama des policy transfer studies », Critique internationale, vol. 43, n° 2, 2009, p. 153-165.
Dobbin F., Garrett G., Simmons B., (2007), « The Global Diffusion of Public Policies: Social
Construction, Coercion, Competition or Learning? », Annual Review of Sociology, 33, p. 449-472.
Dolowitz D., Marsh D. (1996), “Who Learns What from Whom: A Review of the Policy Transfer
Literature”, Political Studies, 44, p. 343-357.
Dolowitz D., Marsh D. (2000), “Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in
Contemporary Policy Making”, Governance, 13 (1), p. 5-24.
Duffield M., Development, Security and Unending War: Governing the World of Peoples,
Cambridge, Polity, 2007, 280 p.
Dumoulin L, Saurugger S. (2010), « Les policy transfer studies : analyse critique et perspectives »,
Critique internationale, n° 48, p. 9-24.
George, R. Z., Rishikof H. (eds.) ([2009] 2017), The National Security Entreprise. Navigating the
Labyrinth, Georgetown University Press, 2017.
Gilbert C., Henry E. (2009), dir., Comment se construisent les problèmes de santé publique, La
Découverte, 2009, 290 p.
Hassenteufel P., de Maillard J. (2013), « Convergence, transferts, traduction. Les apports de la
comparaison transnationale », Gouvernement et action publique, vol. 2, n° 3, p. 377-393.
Hassenteufel P., Saurugger, S. (dirs.) (2020), Les politiques publiques dans la crise, Presses de
Sciences Po.
Henry E. (2004), « Quand l’action publique devient nécessaire : qu’a signifié « résoudre » la crise
de l’amiante ? », Revue française de science politique, (vol. 54), p. 289-314.
4James O., Lodge M. (2003), “The Limitations of ‘Policy Transfer’ and ‘Lesson Drawing’ for Public
Policy Research”, Political Studies Review, vol. 1, n° 2, p. 179-193.
Jervis R. (1968), “Hypotheses on Misperception”, World Politics, vol. 20, n° 3, p. 454-479.
Lakoff A. (2017), Unprepared: Global Health in a Time of Emergency. 1st ed., University of
California Press, 240 p.
Lascoumes P. (1996), « Rendre gouvernable : de la ‘traduction’ au ‘transcodage’. L’analyse du
changement dans les réseaux d’action publique », in CURAPP, La gouvernabilité, Paris, PUF, p.
325-338.
Lascoumes P., Simard L. (2011), « L’action publique au prisme de ses instruments. Introduction »,
Revue française de science politique, vol. 61, n° 1, p. 5-22.
Lascoumes P., Le Galès P. (2005), « Introduction : L'action publique saisie par ses instruments »,
in Pierre Lascoumes et al., Gouverner par les instruments, Presses de Sciences Po, « Académique
», 2005, p. 11-44.
Leca J. (2010), « État », in Laurie (B.), éd., Dictionnaire des politiques publiques. 3e édition
actualisée et augmentée, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po, « Références », p. 231-247.
Lentner H. (2006), “Public Policy and Foreign Policy: Divergences, Intersections, Exchange”,
Review of Policy Research, vol. 23, n° 1, p. 169-181.
Milet M. (2005), « Cadres de perception et luttes d’imputation dans la gestion de crise. L’exemple
de ‘la canicule’ d’août 2003 », Revue française de science politique, (Vol. 55), p. 573-605.
Pouponneau (F.), « Les changements de la politique française d'exportations nucléaires (1974-1976)
: un triple double jeu », Critique internationale, 2013/1 (N° 58), p. 95-116.
Revet S. (2009), « ‘Vivre dans un monde plus sûr’ : Catastrophes ‘naturelles’ et sécurité ‘globale’
». Cultures & Conflits, vol. 75, n° 3, p. 33-51.
Revet S (2018), Les coulisses du monde des catastrophes « naturelles », Paris : Éditions de la
Maison des sciences de l’homme.
5You can also read
