This Workshop takes stock of how disciplinarity is featured and overcome in democracy studies which unite theoretical and empirical work (Stark et al). It explores the conditions, benefits, and limits of these approaches, the contributions of democracy scholars to knowledge-production that advances public good, and the constraints imposed by disciplinarity on groundbreaking research. The Workshop advances critical scrutiny of the very concept of disciplinarity and its manifestations in democracy studies, opening avenues for a global, plural, inclusive and forward-looking research agenda where self-identifying political scientists connect with scholars of democracy, regardless of disciplinary self-identification, in a decentralised manner (Fleuß).
Rhetorically, contemporary science moves beyond disciplines (Frodeman et al). Democracy studies (Gagnon et al) flourish with concepts marking ‘beyond-disciplinarity’, such as inter-, post- or transdisciplinarity (Lawrence et al.). Beyond-disciplinarity should be an advantage for political scientists (Apter) aspiring for broad relevance (Moran), helping them amass intellectual resources to challenge pseudo-political conceptions that mask autocratic practices with democratic language (Guasti; Lewis and Lall). Yet, relatively few studies have explored the public relevance of political science (Trent; Farr et al.) and democracy studies (Keane). This gap constrains the prospects of political scientists and democracy scholars to shape contemporary debates on disciplinarity, to identify promising practices and limits of blurring disciplinary boundaries, and to advance democracy at a time when science faces growing authoritarian assaults (Gagnon; Pető; Tiffert).
By harnessing the potential of the science of democracy to engage (Saward) multiple languages, spaces and species beyond disciplinary frontiers, this Workshop deepens our understanding of the extent to and mechanisms through which stakeholders and epistemic communities who self-identify with political science and democracy studies reach beyond disciplinary confines. The Workshop appeals to multiple academic communities (Bunders et al.) by a global focus (Berg-Schlosser), that foregrounds groups and ideas historically marginalised in the West (e.g. Bosco et al; Medie and Kang; Piscopo). It lays the groundwork for a joint publication on the promises and perils of transcending disciplinary boundaries and beyond-disciplinary encounters, charting new avenues for inclusive, collaborative knowledge production that democratises academia (Steuer) and forges new democratic partnerships across the arts and sciences.
• Apter, David. ‘An Approach to Interdisciplinarity’. International Social Science Journal 60, no. 196 (2009): 183–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2451.2010.01714.x.
• Berg-Schlosser, Dirk. ‘Political Science Between Vision and Reality: Lessons in Times of Crises’. European Political Science 10, no. 2 (2011): 259–71. https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2010.48.
• Bosco, Anna, Susannah Verney, Sandra Bermúdez, and Annalisa Tonarelli. ‘Surviving in a Male Academia: Gender Gap, Publication Strategies and Career Stage in South European Political Science Journals’. European Political Science 23, no. 3 (2024): 297–320. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-023-00443-8.
• Bunders, Joske F.G., Jacqueline E.W. Broerse, Florian Keil, Christian Pohl, Roland W. Scholz, and Marjolein B.M. Zweekhorst. ‘How Can Transdisciplinary Research Contribute to Knowledge Democracy?’ In Knowledge Democracy: Consequences for Science, Politics, and Media, edited by Roeland J. in ‘t Veld, 125–52. Heidelberg: Springer, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11381-9_11.
• Farr, James, Jacob S. Hacker, and Nicole Kazee. ‘The Policy Scientist of Democracy: The Discipline of Harold D. Lasswell’. American Political Science Review 100, no. 4 (2006): 579–87. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055406062459.
• Fleuß, Dannica. ‘Gagnon’s “Data Mountain”: A Lookout Point for Revolutions to Come’. The Loop, 14 September 2021. https://theloop.ecpr.eu/gagnons-data-mountain-a-lookout-point-for-revolutions-to-come/.
• Frodeman, Robert, Julie Thompson Klein, and Roberto Carlos Dos Santos Pacheco, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.
• Gagnon, Jean-Paul. ‘Science of Democracy 2.0’. The Loop, 15 July 2025. https://theloop.ecpr.eu/science-of-democracy-2-0/.
• Gagnon, Jean-Paul et al. The Sciences of the Democracies. London: UCL Press, 2025.
• Guasti, Petra. ‘Proposing a Taxonomy for Democratic Theory’. The Loop, 26 August 2021. https://theloop.ecpr.eu/proposing-a-taxonomy-for-democratic-theory/.
• Keane, John. The Life and Death of Democracy. Simon & Schuster, 2010.
• Lawrence, Mark G., Stephen Williams, Patrizia Nanz, and Ortwin Renn. ‘Characteristics, Potentials, and Challenges of Transdisciplinary Research’. One Earth 5, no. 1 (2022): 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.12.010.
• Lewis, Alexandra, and Marie Lall. ‘From Decolonisation to Authoritarianism: The Co-Option of the Decolonial Agenda in Higher Education by Right-Wing Nationalist Elites in Russia and India’. Higher Education 87, no. 5 (2024): 1471–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01074-0.
• Medie, Peace A., and Alice J. Kang. ‘Power, Knowledge and the Politics of Gender in the Global South’. European Journal of Politics and Gender. European Journal of Politics and Gender 1, nos 1–2 (2018): 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1332/251510818X15272520831157.
• Moran, Michael. ‘Interdisciplinarity and Political Science’. Politics 26, no. 2 (2006): 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9256.2006.00253.x.
• Pető, Andrea. ‘Current Comment: The Illiberal Academic Authority. An Oxymoron?’ Berichte Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 44, no. 4 (2021): 461–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/bewi.202100013.
• Piscopo, Jennifer M. ‘Still Marginalized? Gender and LGBTQIA+ Scholarship in Top Political Science Journals’. PS: Political Science & Politics 58, no. 1 (2025): 131–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096524000441.
• Saward, Michael. ‘Democracy May Mean Multiple Things, but That Should Not Stop Us Recasting Our Stumbling Democratic Politics’. The Loop, 10 September 2021. https://theloop.ecpr.eu/democracy-may-mean-multiple-things-but-that-should-not-stop-us-recasting-our-stumbling-democratic-politics/.
• Stark, Toralf, Norma Osterberg-Kaufmann, and Christoph Mohamad-Klotzbach. ‘How to Get to the Core of Democracy’. The Loop, 28 June 2022. https://theloop.ecpr.eu/how-to-get-to-the-core-of-democracy/.
• Steuer, Max. ‘Democracy in Academia: The Not-so-Wanted Child’. The Loop, 7 August 2025. https://theloop.ecpr.eu/democracy-in-academia-the-not-so-wanted-child/.
• Tiffert, Glenn. ‘The Authoritarian Assault on Knowledge’. Journal of Democracy 31, no. 4 (2020): 28–43. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2020.0053.
• Trent, John E. ‘Should Political Science Be More Relevant? An Empirical and Critical Analysis of the Discipline’. European Political Science 10, no. 2 (2011): 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2010.65.
1: How is disciplinarity and beyond-disciplinarity conceptualised in democracy studies?
2: How have social science histories shaped the relationship between disciplinarity and democracy?
3: How do scientists of democracy perceive their peers’ openness to beyond-disciplinary insights?
4: How can disciplinary barriers in political science be overcome through the science of democracy?
5: How does beyond-disciplinarity help improve scholarly capacity to advance democracy?
1: Review of openness beyond disciplinarity in democracy studies across gender, seniority, regions, methodologies
2: Historical development of disciplinarity in democracy studies (including publishing practice)
3: Case studies/comparisons of engagements beyond disciplinarity in democracy studies
4: The capacity and limits of democracy studies to address challenges to democracy
5: Systematisation and implications of knowledge-generative modes within democracy studies
6: Democracy studies: the value of a new discipline or transcending the language of disciplinarity?
7: Public manifestations and impacts of research on conceptions of democracy
8: The role of stakeholders within democracy studies: politics of scholarly associations and networks
