February 25, 2026 Methods of Normative Political Theory Newsletter March 2026 #14The quarterly newsletter of the ECPR Standing Group on Methods of Normative Political Theory.
On behalf of the Standing Group on Methods of Normative Political Theory, we are happy to announce that the quarterly newsletter of the Methods of Normative Political Theory will appear at the beginning of March, June, September, and December. The newsletters will remain ... more
From the Standing Group on Methods of Normative Political TheoryUpcoming Academic EventsECPR Joint Sessions Workshop 2026Between Norms and Evidence:
Connecting Normative Political Theory and Political Science 7–10 April 2026
University of Innsbruck, Austria Registration is now open until 4 March 2026. Register here. 
The workshop Between Norms and Evidence: Connecting Normative Political Theory and Political Science, organised by Sune Lægaard and Marina Vahter, is endorsed by the Methods of Normative Political Theory and the Analytical Politics and Public Choice standing groups. This workshop seeks to connect empirical political research and normative political theory. The goal is to develop methodologies that better justify empirical research’s conceptual premises and pin down how normative political theory should use empirical evidence. The results of this dialogue would enhance both fields as well as provide rich material for future collaborations. The Joint Sessions format allows for in-depth engagement with every paper over the four days. Each paper will have a dedicated discussant, assigned by the workshop directors, Sune and Marina. Thus, every paper will receive detailed feedback. You can find more information about the 2026 ECPR Joint Sessions here. You can also have a look at the workshop outline here. ECPR General Conference 2026Methodological Reflections on the Status, Norms, and Institutions of Democracy 8–11 September 2026
Jagiellonian University, Kraków Registration opens on 18 March 2026. 
The 2026 ECPR General Conference will be held in Jagiellonian University Kraków, Poland from 8 to 11 September 2026. Esma Baycan-Herzog and Ed Handby are co-organising the section Methodological Reflections on the Status, Norms, and Institutions of Democracy. The section provides a venue for methodologists to contribute to the ongoing project of examining democratic norms and institutions in light of methodological reflections. Papers in this section approach questions of method in the context of challenges to democracy: how to understand or model democracy in ways that strengthen norms and institutions or propose viable alternatives. This includes papers on how to understand democracy in theory and practice, such as the role of democratic institutions, forms of justification in democracy, and the nature of democratic consent. Furthermore, the section examines various core features of democracy, such as the nature of the democratic citizen, and how their investigation changes depending on the methodology and the kind of normativity employed. In this way, the focus of the section is not only democracy more broadly, but its constituent parts. Finally, the section examines the place of democracy and democratic ideals. It invites comparisons between democratic and non-democratic forms of government, the online dimensions of democracy, and the very nexus between democracy and the study of methods itself.
NewsUniversity of Geneva
Funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation Principal Investigator: Professor Emanuela Ceva Public institutional action in non-ideal circumstances may require public officeholders to deviate from compliance with institutional rules to get round institutional dysfunctions. This may occur when public officeholders struggle to ensure service delivery due to excessive bureaucracy, corruption, or emergencies such as health or security crises. Public officeholders might develop the conviction that the only way forward is to (ab)use the discretion that comes with their office to perform their functions. However, this apparent necessity can impose significant affective and moral burdens on officeholders and reveal a breakdown of their relations of mutual trust. How should public officeholders handle those situations when the demands of institutional compliance conflict with those of addressing institutional dysfunctions? The IDHEA project—Institutional Dirty-Hands Heuristic Approach (funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation)—proposes to address this question by adopting a heuristic approach based on “dirty hands.” Find out more about the IDHEA project here. Job OpportunityDoctoral researchers in the DFG Graduate Program “Collective Decision-Making” (12 positions) Universität Hamburg
Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences
Faculty of Humanities Application deadline: 31 March 2026
Start date: 1 November 2026, fixed for a period of three years The English language graduate program is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and is concerned with the descriptive and normative dimensions of collective decision-making. It provides doctoral researchers in Economics, Philosophy, and Political Science (including Political Theory) with a structured qualification program to do their doctorate in one of the three disciplines. The research program conceptualises collective decision-making as a complex and interactive process involving individual preferences, epistemic and normative beliefs, as well as decision-making procedures and institutions. It integrates theoretical and empirical research, including experimental methods. Researchers completing the program will stand out for their ability to engage in advanced theoretical, empirical, and normative reasoning about collective decision-making and generate new ideas concerning the design of procedures to tackle the complex governance problems of modern society. Find more information and apply for this position here.
Recent Paper PublicationsCeva, Emanuela, and Patrizia Pedrini. 2026. ‘What Political Theory Can Learn from Conceptual Engineering: The Case of “Corruption”.’ American Journal of Political Science 1–14. doi: 10.1111/ajps.70035. Res Publica 32(1) is forthcoming in the beginning of 2026 and will include a special issue on “Ideal Principles, Real Behaviour, and Possible Experiments,” edited by Jonathan Floyd and Sune Lægaard. You can access the introduction to this special edition online: Floyd, Jonathan, and Sune Lægaard. 2026. ‘From Empirical to Experimental Political Theory.’ Res Publica. doi: 10.1007/s11158-026-09763-0.
Recent Book PublicationsBy Lasse Thomassen
Edinburgh University Press (30% discount with code NEW30)  Drawing on the work of Jacques Derrida and other post-structuralists, Derrida, Deconstruction and Political Theory explores deconstruction as a distinctive way to practice political theory. Lasse Thomassen shows familiar critiques of deconstruction as relativist and apolitical to be misconceived and argues for deconstruction as a critical approach to contemporary politics and society. The book contrasts deconstruction with other approaches to political theory, including analytic philosophy, critical theory, liberalism, deliberative democracy and biopolitical approaches. Developing the argument around political concepts such as rights, justice, sovereignty, democracy and populism, the chapters examine how one may combine the deconstructive readings of these political concepts with engagements with contemporary political phenomena such as 9-11, Covid-19, Donald Trump and post-truth. Contents Introduction: Deconstruction as Political Theory - Deconstruction Between Particularity and Universality: Practicing Political Theory Deconstructively
- Deconstructing Sovereignty Discourse: Between the Conditional and the Unconditional
- Democracy To-Come: Dealing with Disagreement
- Democratic Rogues: The People Goes to The Capitol
- The Force of Truth: Deconstruction against Post-Truth
- Deconstruction as/of Method: Exemplarity and Casing
Conclusion: Deconstruction and Political Theory
 Edited by Alice Baderin and David Miller
Oxford University Press (30% discount with code AUFLY30)
If we are interested in questions about how we ought to organize our political lives, what kind of role should we give to social scientific data that reveals how the political world actually works? We’ve recruited some top-flight scholars working at the intersection of political theory and social science to investigate the role of empirical evidence in normative theory. The book builds on recent efforts to move the methodological debate about ‘facts and principles’ to a more concrete level. Rather than engaging with the question of ‘fact sensitivity’ in abstract terms, the chapters illustrate the payoffs, and probe the limits, of empirically informed approaches in a range of contexts. In Part One, our contributors consider different social scientific research methods (e.g. qualitative interviewing, ethnography, survey research) and ask in each case how and why the evidence they generate can be of value for political theorists. The underlying thought here is that different types of data might serve different purposes within political theory; or they might support distinct styles of theory. Part Two shows how normative work on specific topics either has been or should be informed by empirical evidence. We believe we can best understand how social science can inform political theory by seeing it in action: how might closer engagement with factual evidence change the way we think, normatively, about free speech, or civil disobedience, or immigration, for example? Taken together, the chapters amount to a manifesto for empirically informed political theory. Whilst acknowledging limits to what facts can tell us about normative principles, and the challenges bound up with interdisciplinary inquiry, we hope that the volume demonstrates the value of integrating social science and political theory. Our target readership is political theory graduate students looking for methodological guidance, as well as established scholars working on methodological issues or on the substantive topics covered in Part Two. Contents and contributors Introduction, Alice Baderin and David Miller Part One - Inductive Political Theory, Hélène Landemore
- Texts Do Not Talk Back: Ethnography and Political Theory, Humeira Iqtidar
- Dynamic Public Reflective Equilibrium, Jonathan Wolff and Avner de Shalit
- Experiments as a Resource for Political Philosophy, David Miller
- Two Models of Opinion-Sensitive Political Philosophy, Alice Baderin
- Normative Behaviourism: From Observation to Justification, Jonathan Floyd
Part Two - Realising and Revising Deliberative Democracy, Alfred Moore
- Is Liberal Nationalism Empirically Plausible?, Gina Gustavsson
- Using Interviews in the Political Philosophy of Resistance, Guy Aitchison
- Free Speech Facts, Sarah Fisher and Jeffrey Howard
- The Empirical Premises of Economic Limitarianism, Huub Brouwer and Ingrid Robeyns
- Do Arguments about Immigration Ethics Change Minds?, Mollie Gerver, Dominik Duell, Miranda Simon, and Patrick Lown
Editorial TeamEdmund Handby is a Postdoctoral Associate in the Department of Political Science at Duke University. His research examines methodological questions in the history of political thought, empirically informed political theory, and politics, philosophy, and economics. His work has appeared in The Journal of Politics, the European Journal of Political Theory, and The Journal of the Philosophy of History. Glorianne Wilkins is a Ph. D. student at the department of Political Theory at the University of Potsdam. Her thesis is on ‘Uncertainty and Decision Making in a Political World.’ Her research engages with the theoretical disciplines of political philosophy, political epistemology, and liberal democratic theory. She is particularly interested in the nature of unquestioned assumptions as it relates to particular concepts taken as fundamental to contemporary politics: truth, (liberal) democracy, among others. In recent times these values have wavered in their ability to unite decision makers, instead becoming conceptual weapons wielded by all sides. Through her research she considers how engaging with these concepts and their assumptions can inform how we make decisions under greater conditions of uncertainty. Sania Ismailee is an Assistant Professor at the School of Law, BML Munjal University. Her research interests lie at the intersection of political philosophy, law, and religion. Sania’s research interests also include critically examining the methodology of Indian political theory debates. Her dissertation examined normative justifications around diverse religious family laws in India (the Uniform Civil Code Debate) from perspectives on secularism, gender justice, and religious freedom. She was a Fulbright Nehru Doctoral Researcher at Columbia University and a Commonwealth Split-Site Fellow at the University of Oxford. Sania has published on the Karnataka hijab controversy, comparing V D Savarkar’s and B R Ambedkar’s comments on Muslims, affective approaches to justice, along with several book reviews on religion and political theory. Lucas de Melo Prado is a PhD candidate at University College Dublin, specialising in applied political theory and distributive justice. His current research examines the last seven presidential elections in the USA and Brazil to evaluate candidates’ rhetoric of inequality from a liberal perspective. Before his PhD studies, Lucas worked for nine years as a lecturer of Moral and Legal Philosophy at three Brazilian law schools (Uniavan, Sinergia, and Univali). He also published in various Brazilian peer-reviewed journals, such as the Brazilian Journal of International Law and the Brazilian Journal Law and Politics (“Revista Eletrônica Direito e Política”).
December 12, 2025 Methods of Normative Political Theory Newsletter December 2025 #13This newsletter from the Standing Group on Methods of Normative Political Theory presents key upcoming events, calls for participation, recent publications, and news from the field, including recent and forthcoming contributions to a special issue of Res Publica and a themed issue of Public Humanities on Public Political Philosophy. It also provides details of the ... more
From the Standing Group on Methods of Normative Political TheoryUpcoming Academic Events
ECPR Joint Sessions Workshop 2026
Between Norms and Evidence: Connecting Normative Political Theory and Political Science
7-10 April 2026
University of Innsbruck, Austria
We are pleased to announce that our Standing Group’s workshop proposal for the Joint Sessions has been accepted. We are now accepting abstract submissions for the workshop Between Norms and Evidence: Connecting Normative Political Theory and Political Science. Organised by Sune Lægaard and Marina Vahter, this workshop is endorsed by the Methods of Normative Political Theory and the Analytical Politics and Public Choice standing groups.
The Joint Sessions format allows for in-depth engagement with every paper over the four days. Each paper will have a dedicated discussant, assigned by the workshop directors, Sune and Marina. Thus, every paper will receive detailed feedback. Have a look at the workshop outline here. ECPR General Conference 2026
Methodological Reflections on the Status, Norms, and Institutions of Democracy
8-11 September 2026
Jagiellonian University, Kraków
The 2026 ECPR General Conference will be held in Jagiellonian University Kraków, Poland from 8 to 11 September 2026. Esma Baycan-Herzog and Ed Handby will be co-organising the Section for ECPR 2026. The deadline for paper and panel proposals is 5 January. Apply here
The Section provides a venue for methodologists to contribute to the ongoing project of examining democratic norms and institutions in light of methodological reflections. The theme of the Section proposal for 2026 continues the work started with the 2025 Section, by applying recent innovations in methodology to the role and status of democracy. We encourage proposals that approach questions of method in the context of challenges to democracy: how to understand or model democracy in a way that strengthens norms and institutions, or propose viable alternatives. This includes papers on how to understand democracy in theory and practice, such as the role of democratic institutions, forms of justification in democracy, and the nature of democratic consent. Furthermore, the Section examines various core features of democracy, such as the nature of the democratic citizen, and how their investigation changes depending on the methodology and the kind of normativity employed. In this way, the focus of the Section is not only democracy more broadly, but its constituent parts. Finally, the Section examines the place of democracy and democratic ideals. It invites comparisons between democratic and non-democratic forms of government, the online dimensions of democracy, and the very nexus between democracy and the study of methods itself. Onora O’Neill Book Prize in Political Theory
We are delighted to announce that nominations for the Onora O’Neill Political Theory Prize are now open. Sponsored by the Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy (CRISPP), this prize honours the best book in political theory published in the last three years (from January 2022 onwards). The prize cuts across all traditions, orientations and approaches in political theory, political thought, and political philosophy, and does not take into account whether the nominated works are first book publications or not. The winner will receive £250, and their book will be the subject of a panel at the 2026 ECPR General Conference, with potential publication as a symposium in CRISPP. Nominations, including a book abstract and PDF, should be submitted to ecproopt@gmail.com with the jury chair in CC (a.poama@fgga.leidenuniv.nl) by 31 January 2026. Click here for details. News
Recent Publications
Res Publica, Vol. 32, issue 1, which is forthcoming in the beginning of 2026, will include a special issue on “Ideal Principles, Real Behaviour, and Possible Experiments”, edited by Jonathan Floyd and Sune Lægaard. The papers going into the special issue are already published online as follows:
- Midtgaard, Søren Flinch. “X-Phi and Theory Acceptance in Political Philosophy.” Res Publica, Vol. 32 Issue: 1 (2026).
- Lippert-Rasmussen, Kasper. “Can Experimental Political Philosophers be Modest in their Aims?” Res Publica, Vol. 32 Issue: 1 (2026).
- Erman, Eva and Niklas Möller. “Why Normative Behaviourism Does Not Improve Political Realism.” Res Publica, Vol. 32 Issue: 1 (2026).
- Cozzaglio, Ilaria. “Revised Normative Behaviourism: An Experimental Proposal.” Res Publica, Vol. 32 Issue: 1 (2026).
- Kim, Hwa Young. “What Should We Say to Denmark? Mentalism as an Essential Complement to Behavourism.” Res Publica, Vol. 32 Issue: 1 (2026).
- Favara, Greta. “Normative Behaviourism and Action-Guidance: The Challenge of the Climate Crisis.” Res Publica, Vol. 32 Issue: 1 (2026).
- Maynard, Jonathan Leader. “Comparative Historical Analysis in Political Theory.” Res Publica, Vol. 32 Issue: 1 (2026).
- Floyd, Jonathan. “Experimental Political Theory: Behavioural, Careful, Radical.” Res Publica, Vol. 32 Issue: 1 (2026).
Announcing ‘Public Political Philosophy’, themed issue at Public Humanities guest edited by George Boss (Queen Mary University of London), co-edited by Jonathan Floyd (University of Bristol)
This themed issue investigates the persistent gap between political philosophy and everyday politics. That gap has come under growing scrutiny. In part, this has been driven by external pressures from universities, funders, and policymakers to deliver measurable impact and show public engagement. More fundamentally, though, the methodological turn within the field itself has led to growing calls for forms of philosophising that are more closely attuned to the empirical realities of everyday life, and whose significance reaches beyond the academy. Responding to these shifts, the issue gathers political philosophers with diverse approaches to examine the nature, aims, and practices of public political philosophy. Together, the contributions map the conceptual contours of this emerging agenda, assess its prospects and challenges, and sketch the possible trajectories of its future development.
The following contributions have already been made available by Public Humanities, with the full issue due for release in early 2026:
- Baderin, Alice. “Making Political Philosophy Public: The Role of Empirical Inquiry.” Public Humanities (2025).
- Halldenius, Lena and Moa Petersén. “When Philosophy Meets the Street: Lived Experience and Epistemic Recognition in Field-Based Philosophy.” Public Humanities (2025).
- Doughty, Jamie. “Reclaiming Public Space: Statues as Resources for a Queer Political Philosophy.” Public Humanities (2025).
- Stitzlein, Sarah M. “Philosophy of Education as Public Political Philosophy: Practice, Possibilities, and Provocations.” Public Humanities (2025).
- Stevens, Simon. “Public Political Philosophy, Moral Sentimentalism, and Larp.” Public Humanities (2025).
- Hamilton, Lawrence. “The Attitude and Audience of the Public Political Theorist: Thinking Critically and Politically with Fellow Citizens.” Public Humanities (2025).
Editorial Team
Edmund Handby is a Postdoctoral Associate in the Department of Political Science at Duke University. His research examines methodological questions in the history of political thought, empirically informed political theory, and politics, philosophy, and economics. His work has appeared in The Journal of Politics, the European Journal of Political Theory, and The Journal of the Philosophy of History.
Glorianne Wilkins is a Ph. D. student at the department of Political Theory at the University of Potsdam. Her thesis is on 'Uncertainty and Decision Making in a Political World'. Her research engages with the theoretical disciplines of political philosophy, political epistemology, and liberal democratic theory. She is particularly interested in the nature of unquestioned assumptions as it relates to particular concepts taken as fundamental to contemporary politics: truth, (liberal) democracy, among others. In recent times these values have wavered in their ability to unite decision makers, instead becoming conceptual weapons wielded by all sides. Through her research she considers how engaging with these concepts and their assumptions can inform how we make decisions under greater conditions of uncertainty.
Sania Ismailee is an Assistant Professor at the School of Law, BML Munjal University. Her research interests lie at the intersection of political philosophy, law, and religion. Sania’s research interests also include critically examining the methodology of Indian political theory debates. Her dissertation examined normative justifications around diverse religious family laws in India (the Uniform Civil Code Debate) from perspectives on secularism, gender justice, and religious freedom. She was a Fulbright Nehru Doctoral Researcher at Columbia University and a Commonwealth Split-Site Fellow at the University of Oxford. Sania has published on the Karnataka hijab controversy, comparing V D Savarkar’s and B R Ambedkar’s comments on Muslims, affective approaches to justice, along with several book reviews on religion and political theory.
Lucas de Melo Prado is a PhD candidate at University College Dublin, specialising in applied political theory and distributive justice. His current research examines the last seven presidential elections in the USA and Brazil to evaluate candidates’ rhetoric of inequality from a liberal perspective. Before his PhD studies, Lucas worked for nine years as a lecturer of Moral and Legal Philosophy at three Brazilian law schools (Uniavan, Sinergia, and Univali). He also published in various Brazilian peer-reviewed journals, such as the Brazilian Journal of International Law and the Brazilian Journal Law and Politics (“Revista Eletrônica Direito e Política”).
The quarterly newsletter of the ECPR Standing Group on Methods of Normative Political Theory On behalf of the Standing Group on Methods of Normative Political Theory, we are happy to announce that the quarterly newsletter of the Methods of Normative Political Theory will appear at the beginning of March, June, September, and December. The newsletters will remain accessible on the standing group’s website. We are happy to receive your updates regarding new publications, calls for proposals, events, Summer / Winter PhD Courses and job advertisements pertaining to methods of political theory by email to ecprmethods@gmail.com.
December 4, 2025 Call for Nominations: Onora O’Neill Political Theory PrizeCall for nominations for the Onora O’Neill Political Theory Prize are now open. The deadline is 31 January 2026, 23:59 CET.
From the Standing Group on Methods of Normative Political Theory
Nominations for the Onora O'Neill Political Theory Prize are now open. Submit your nomination by emailing ecproopt@gmail.com, with a.poama@fgga.leidenuniv.nl (the jury chair) in CC. The deadline for nominations is 23:59 CET on 31 January 2026. Details about the nomination process follow below.
The Onora O’Neill Political Theory Prize [1], sponsored by Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy (CRISPP), aims to recognise the best book published in political theory in the last three years. Political theory is widely construed to include political philosophy, the history of political thought, the methodology of political theory and philosophy, public ethics, and the ethics of public policy.
The prize cuts across all traditions, orientations and approaches in political theory, political thought, and political philosophy, and does not take into account whether the nominated works are first book publications or not. The prize is sponsored financially and editorially by CRISPP, and organisationally by four ECPR political theory and political thought Standing Groups (Political Theory, International Political Theory, Kantian Political Thought, Methods of Normative Political Theory).
Procedure
- The prize is awarded every year at the ECPR General Conference, at the beginning of the ECPR Theory Plenary.
- The winner of the prize commits in principle to be present at the ECPR Theory Plenary.
- The prize is accompanied by a £250 financial reward.
- The prize-winning book will be the topic of a panel at the ECPR General Conference. This panel will be considered for publication as a book symposium in CRISPP (following consideration and acceptance of a proposal by the CRISPP editorial team detailing the symposium editor, contributors and abstracts of their papers; and subject to peer review of the final submission). Publication is not guaranteed.
Nomination requirements
- Only books published in the last three years are admissible (i.e., not earlier than January 2022).
- In the nomination text, please submit a book abstract (no longer than 1,000 words) and a PDF copy of the book. Hard copies should be sent only if the book has been long-listed for the prize (see below).
- Books can be nominated by one academic affiliated with an ECPR institution (the nomination can come from PhD students, postdocs, tenure-track or tenured academics) or be self-nominated.
- The book will be considered for a symposium publication in CRISPP. As much as possible, nominations have to indicate 3-5 names of academics that could take part in the book symposium.
- Books may be nominated more than once.
- Nominations have to submitted by 31 January 2026. The decision is taken and announced during the summer of 2026. Our aim is to have a book prize symposium panel included in the 2026 ECPR General Conference (8 – 11 September 2026). If needed, the symposium panel will be organised in hybrid format, irrespective of the speakers’ mode of participation.
Jury composition
- The jury is composed of one secretary (with a term of four years, renewable once), and eight members (two members/Standing Group from Political Theory, International Political Theory, Kantian Thought, and Methods of Normative Political Theory). The jury members serve a one-year term, renewable twice.
- The jury members are nominated by the Steering Committees of their Standing Groups in coordination with the secretary of the jury. It is desirable that the members of the jury (other than the secretary) are not members of the Steering Committees (in particular, to ensure increased diversity and wider participation across those Standing Groups).
- When selecting jury members, Steering Committees are required to ensure gender diversity
- The secretary of the jury is selected every four years, following open vote, by the members of the four Steering Committees of the Standing Groups indicated above.
- The jury members are not allowed to nominate/have nominated a book for the prize, and they should disclose any potential conflict of interest with the authors of the short-listed books
Decision procedure
- The secretary draws a list of admissible nominations (books have to fall in the relevant discipline category). Based on their open access to the list of nominations received, jury members can veto any nomination exclusion. This brings a nominated book back into the list of admissible nominations.
- The selection procedure includes a long and a short list of nominations (max. nine books for the long list; max. five books for the short list).
- It is desirable that hard copies of the book be sent to the jury members at a deadline indicated following the selection to the long list.
- Only jury members directly vote and deliberate on the ranking of the nominations, on the long and short lists, on the prize winner and, should that be the case, on the runner-up.
- The secretary plays a coordinating and facilitating role in the deliberation process leading to the selection of the long and short lists, and of the prize winner.
- The winner is selected, as much as possible, via jury consensus. If that is not possible, the winner is selected following a qualified majority rule (6/8).
- Should the decision result in an ex aequo situation, the secretary votes as well.
CRISPP Guidelines for Book Symposium Editors
CRISPP will consider the proceedings of the prize laureate for publication, but publication is not guaranteed. The contributions should be short essays of 3,000 words maximum, inclusive of abstract and references. This would mean a maximum of of 4x3 for the commentators, and 1x4,000 for the author to reply. CRISPP would also like the editor to write a brief introduction (1x3000) setting the context for the symposium – why the book is important in the debates it addresses, and outlining the main arguments of the book so the symposium could be read by someone yet to read the book. This adds up to a maximum of 20,000 words for the entire Symposium (building in some wiggle room). It is very important to keep to that limit as CRISPP needs to be able to include three or four other articles in the issue. CRISPP also expects that there to be a good gender balance among the contributors and some ethnic, career stage and geographical diversity. We require that either two referees look at the whole symposium, or that each piece is refereed separately. We can agree who that would be beforehand – CRISPP would be grateful if you could suggest referees and then if they look adequate (a concern is avoiding using people CRISPP has recently approached) you as the symposium editor can make the arrangement with them directly. It is best to get the commentators’ pieces refereed first before the author writes his/her reply, otherwise it can be difficult to ask for revisions. So, the response should only be written once the commentaries are approved. CRISPP would then like to see the reports and the authors responses to them. Note that we do all of this outside the editorial manager system – I spare those unused to its quirks the unedifying experience of grappling with it.
NB: important issues concerning submission: All contributions must be in CRISPP format. It’s very important these are done properly and follow the guidelines.
[1] Onora O’Neill’s work combines political philosophy, political theory and moral philosophy scholarship with public policy-oriented activities. She has extensively published on questions pertaining to trust and trustworthiness, justice, accountability, consent, the role of public universities, and the ethics of communication in the context of emerging digital technologies. She was the president of the British Academy, served as the chair the Nuffield Foundation and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and was member of the Medical Research Council and Banking Standards Board. She is the recipient of various awards, prizes and official recognitions (including the Berggruen Prize).
|
 | Loading… |
| Loading… |
|
