Convention All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention. Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! Click here for more information.
Association: Name: ISA's 49th ANNUAL CONVENTION, BRIDGING MULTIPLE DIVIDES URL: http://www.isanet.org
Citation: URL: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p253763_index.html Direct Link: HTML Code:

"Do We Bridge it? Using Science Studies to Explore Security Scholars Policy Practices" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA's 49th ANNUAL CONVENTION, BRIDGING MULTIPLE DIVIDES, Hilton San Francisco, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, USA, Mar 26, 2008 <Not Available>. 2008-12-11 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p253763_index.html>

, 2008-03-26 "Do We Bridge it? Using Science Studies to Explore Security Scholars Policy Practices" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA's 49th ANNUAL CONVENTION, BRIDGING MULTIPLE DIVIDES, Hilton San Francisco, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, USA <Not Available>. 2008-12-11 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p253763_index.html

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript Abstract: Similar to other social science disciplines, International Relations (IR) is facing these days a growing range of critics accusing it for being a useless discipline, of being incapable of bridging the gap between the world of theory and the world of practice. Whether these critics come from the inside or from the outside of IR, they attack the very heart of the discipline. If an autonomous discipline of international relations is a useless project, why should it persist? The cynic might argue that the problems addressed by IR, such as international cooperation, war and peace are persistent to a degree that also in future all sorts of social knowledge that can be made available will be needed. This is however an argument that drives IR into arbitrariness and does not justify the resources the members of the project have been granted, or the existence of a master programme in IR (or even IR theory). The positivist scholar might argue for the superiority of the formalized knowledge that an academic discipline can provide. Given that it is a conventional wisdom also among politicians these days, that academics rarely speak in the name of truth and scholastic knowledge has offered little problem solutions, how to justify the existence of an autonomous discipline of international relations instead? I suggest in this paper that a strategy to defend self-governance requires constant and most uncompromising and harshest self-examinations by which scholars define their tasks and ways and means to fulfil them. I argue that IR should be understood first and foremost as a social practice. Science is materially and socially situated; it requires material, financial and human resources; it is structured by socialization and disciplinarization; it requires knowing subjects, who are gendered, marginalized or authorized; it is negotiations about relevance, significance, instruments and methods; it requires a range of institutions and techniques, and it is also a political practice involving ethical considerations of all sorts. These are some of the forces and dimensions that have been identified by the sociology of science. According to Habermas studies of science should reflect on the constitutive conditions of knowledge production, on the organisation and practices of knowledge production and on institutions and practices by which the knowledge is used, disseminated and put into praxis. Based on such a science studies perspective and following the traits outlined by Habermas and partly Bourdieu, I will investigate in this paper the practices of contemporary security scholars. More concretely I will focus on recent work on peace operations and study two narratives and their influence on contemporary work on peace operations in the UN. By using science studies accounts the paper attempts to open a novel path for studying how IR scholars actually bridge the gap between theory and practice and provides some empirical evidence.

Bridging the Gap between Science and Policy: The Role of Experiments and Policy Games in Environmental Policy

Security as Rules: A discursive approach to international security -or- Constructing Security through Foreign Policy practice