Menu
Menu
Install this application on your home screen for quick and easy access when you’re on the go.
Just tap then “Add to Home Screen”
Between 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.
Methodological 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.
27 April 2026, University College London
Abstract submission is now open until 9 March 2026. Submit here.
The Global Theory Forum (GTF) is now inviting submissions from Early Career political theorists and philosophers for our 2026 Spring Symposium (27th April, Room 421, Roberts Building, University College London). We are thrilled to be funded by the Society for Applied Philosophy, which aims to promote philosophical work with direct practical and public impact.
The event will include four panels, each involving two early-career speakers and one senior discussant, and arranged around four topical themes:
More details on these themes can be found here. In each panel, speakers will present for 15-20 minutes, followed by a response from our senior discussant and a Q&A.
The Symposium keynote will be delivered by Professor Jeff Howard (UCL), whose research on online communications pairs political philosophy with deep engagement with policy and legal scholarship. There will also be a drinks reception hosted at UCL, and dinner for the selected panellists and discussants.
We invite PhD students and ECRs (within 5 years post-PhD) to submit their 150-word abstract by 9th March 2026 via this form. We particularly encourage those in the midst of developing ideas to apply, as GTF aims to be a space for theoretical experimentation, academic exchange, and collaborative growth. We are open to work using a variety of methodologies and disciplinary backgrounds, as long as there is a substantial political theory or philosophical focus. We particularly welcome work drawing on international political thinkers or problems. Travel and accommodation costs will also be supported for those based outside of London (up to a maximum of £135). Please direct any questions to globaltheoryforum@gmail.com.
University 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.
Doctoral 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.
Ceva, 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.
Perez, Nahshon, Ariel Zellman, and Jonathan Fox. 2026. ‘Re-Assessing Gov-ernmental Corruption of Religion: Where Political Theory Meets Empirical Evidence.’ Ethnicities (Online First): 1–23. doi: 10.1177/14687968261424659.
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.
By 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
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
Part Two
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”).