 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
839774 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Course |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Perspectives on theories and methods in Business and Politics (runs annually) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faculty |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Edward Ashbee, Manuele Citi, Christoph Houman Ellersgaard, Carsten Greve, Lasse Folke Henriksen, Sine Nørholm Just, Mogens Kamp Justesen, Janine Leschke, Lene Holm Pedersen, Eleni Tsingou, Antje Vetterlein, all from the Department of Business and Politics, CBS Derek Beach, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Course Coordinator |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Janine Leschke and Lene Holm Pedersen | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Prerequisites |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This course is for PhD students only. It is most suitable for PhD students in the first half of their PhD studies. The PhD students must hand in a five pages (maximum) written presentation on the research question, theories and method(s) of their project, in which they relate the curriculum literature where applicable to their project. The short paper should include specific references to the literature of the course and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of their chosen approach in comparison to other relevant approaches. Deadline for submission of short papers is 10 days before the beginning of the course. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aim |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The interlinkage between theory and methods is in focus when this course introduces PhD students to the core approaches constituting the scientific grounding of the study of ‘business and politics’. We will focus in particular on case-studies, network analysis, process tracing, discourse analysis, surveys and panel data. The idea of the course is to give the PhD-students an opportunity to engage with the core theories and approaches to studying business and politics, as well as to develop the awareness of different designs applied in the field. This will allow the course participant to reflect critically upon their own projects and to discuss the strengths and weaknesses in comparison to other relevant approaches. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Course content |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This course covers the constitutive dimensions of business and politics as well as a wide range of methodological approaches used in this field. The teachers use applications from their own field of research which is exemplary in terms of combining theories, concepts and methods in high quality research designs. 1. Governance and institution studies with qualitative as well as quantitative methods. The teachings cover historical institutionalism and process tracing, policy change, case studies, discourse analysis, survey and panel data designs. 2. Public management and administration. The main theoretical and conceptual themes are public private partnerships, performance, motivation and leadership. We focus on a selection of empirical studies of these relationships using case study as well as combinations of survey and register data. 3. Elite theory and networks. This theme covers elite theory and gives an introduction to quantitative network analysis as well as qualitative analysis using interviews and content analysis. 4. Policy and regulation including theoretical, methodological and empirical perspectives on policy dynamics. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Teaching style |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Dialogue lectures and group discussions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lecture plan |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Learning objectives |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
• Describe and justify the research design of and main ideas in their project • Compare and contrast how theoretical concepts and methodological approaches interlink in different research designs • Discuss strengths and weaknesses of the theoretical and methodological choices made in the PhD project • Draw out implications and apply the knowledge and insights from the course in a critical reflection on their own project |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Exam |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| N/A | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| N/A | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Start date |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 27/02/2017 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End date |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 03/03/2017 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Level |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PhD | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ECTS |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Language |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| English | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Course Literature |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| You find the course literature below. Book chapters will be provided by the course faculty on LEARN; it will be the students' responsibility to obtain the journal articles if these are not uploaded on LEARN. All texts should be read prior to the start of the course. Day 1 - Historical institutionalism and process tracingHistorical Institutionalism (Edward Ashbee)This session will look at processes of continuity and change. It will survey some of the theoretical approaches associated with historical institutionalism. It will look at the concept of path dependence and later work that seeks to qualify path dependency by bringing in more incremental forms of change such as “layering”. On the basis of this, the session will also consider the ways in which historical institutionalism is applied and some of the accounts that challenge the assumptions upon which it is constructed.ReadingsPaul Pierson (2000) Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics, American Political Science Review, Vol. 94(02), pp 251-267Edward Ashbee (2015) Intercurrence and its Implications, in: Edward Ashbee, The Right and the Recession, Manchester University Press. Supplementary readingsJames Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen (2010) A Theory of Gradual Institutional Change, in James Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen, Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power, Cambridge University Press, pp 1-37.Herman Schwartz, Down the Wrong Path: Path Dependence, Increasing Returns, and Historical Institutionalism, http://people.virginia.edu/~hms2f/Path.pdfMethodological exemplification: process tracing (Derek Beach, Arhus University)Process-tracing in social science is a method for studying causal mechanisms linking causes with outcomes. This enables the researcher to make strong inferences about how a cause (or set of causes) contributes to producing an outcome. Derek Beach introduces a refined definition of process-tracing, differentiating it into three distinct variants and explaining the applications and limitations of each. . ReadingsBeach (forthcoming) Process-tracing methods. Accepted for publication in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia.Koss (2015) ‘The Origins of Parliamentary Agenda Control.’, West European Politics, 38(5): 1062-1085.Supplementary readingsBeach and Pedersen (2016) Causal Case Study Methods. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. (Especially chapters 2 – 5, 9)Day 2 - International organizations and discourse analysisAnalyzing Policy Change in International Organizations using case-studies and comparative research design (Antje Vetterlein)In this session students will be introduced to what a case study actually is, different case study designs as well as their strengths, weaknesses and pitfalls. We will also talk about the comparative method in relation to cases as this is where cases (small N) figure rather prominently in the social sciences. In order to illustrate this type of research design and show how theory is linked to empirical work through methods, I will present my own work analyzing policy change in the World Bank. ReadingsGeorge, Alexander L. and Andrew Bennett (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, chapter 1.Vetterlein, Antje (2012) ‘Seeing Like the World Bank on Poverty’, New Political Economy 17(1).Supplementary readingsWeaver, Catherine (2008) The Hypocrisy Trap: The World Bank and the Poverty of Reform, Princeton University Press, chapter 3.Flyvbjerg, B. (2006) ‘Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research’, Qualitative Inquiry 12(2): 219-245.Gerring, John (2004) ‘What is A Case Study and What is It Good For?’, American Political Science Review 98: 341-354.Gerring, J. (2012). "Mere Description." British Journal of Political Science 42(04): 721-746.Charles Ragin (1994) Constructing Social Research, Pine Forge: chapter 5.Reza Azarian (2011) ‘Potentials and Limitations of Comparative Method in Social Science’, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol 1(4): 113-125.Nissen, S. (1998). "The Case of Case Studies: On the Methodological Discussion in Comparative Political Science." Quality and Quantity 32(4): 399-418.Discourse Analysis (Sine Nørholm Just)This session will introduce discourse analysis as a theoretical and methodological approach to the analysis of social phenomena. We will survey current discussions concerning how best to apply the notion of discourse in organization studies and political science. As an illustration of the discursive approach, I will present my ongoing research that explores ‘alternatives to currently dominant forms of economic organizing’. ReadingsCederström, C. & Spicer, A. (2014). Discourse of the real kind: A post-foundational approach to organizational discourse analysis. Organization, 21(2): 178-205. Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis and critical policy studies. Critical Policy Studies, 7(2): 177-197.Supplementary readingsJust, S.N. (2015). The negotiation of Basel III – Post-liberalism in the making? Journal of Cultural Economy, 8(1): 25-41.Fairhurst, G. T. & Uhl-Bien, M. (2012). Organizational discourse analysis (ODA): Examining leadership as a relational process. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(6): 1043-1062.Schmidt, V. A. (2014). Speaking to the markets or to the people? A discursive institutionalist analysis of the EU’s sovereign debt crisis. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 16(1): 188-209.Day 3 - Governance and institutions Survey design and analysis (Mogens Kamp Justesen and Janine Leschke)The session will first discuss why the social sciences need surveys. In a second part, the session draws on empirical examples from employment and welfare state research and illustrates different ways of linking individual and household level information from national and comparative surveys with institutional information. Theoretically, the students will be introduced to the new social risks literature with a specific focus on life-course approaches.ReadingsKrosnick, Jon A. (1999) Survey Research, Annu. Rev. Psychol. 50: 537-67.Heinz, W. R. and Krüger, H. (2001) Life Course: Innovations and Challenges for Social Research, Current Sociology 49(2): 29-45.Leschke, J. / K. Vandaele, K. (2015) Explaining leaving union membership by the degree of labour market attachment: Exploring the case of Germany, Economic and Industrial Democracy, online first, doi: 10.1177/0143831X15603456. Supplementary readingsBarbieri, P. and R. Bozzon (2016) Welfare, labour market deregulation and households’ poverty risks: An analysis of the risk of entering poverty at childbirth in different European welfare clusters, Journal of European Social Policy, Vol. 26(2) 99 –123. DOI: 10.1177/0958928716633044Chung, H. & van Oorschot , W. (2011) Institutions versus Market Forces: Explaining the Employment Insecurity of European Individuals During (the Beginning of) the Financial Crisis, Journal of European Social Policy 21(4):287-301 2011 DOI: 10.1177/0958928711412224Gazier, B. Gautié, J. (2009) The "Transitional Labour Markets" Approach: Theory, history and Future Research Agenda. Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne, 2009.01: https://hal.inria.fr/file/index/docid/363404/filename/09001.pdfTaylor-Gooby, P. (2004) New Risks and Social Change (Chapter 1), in: Taylor-Gooby, P. (ed.) New risks, new welfare: The transformation of the European welfare state, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Public management and administration (Carsten Greve & Lene Holm Pedersen)This session gives an introduction to some of the core concepts in public administration and management; the discussion of public private partnerships and the dynamics of performance in the public sector. Recent empirical research on this is presented employing case study designs as well as survey data and register data combined.ReadingsGreve, C. & Hodge, G. (eds) (2013, pbk 2016) Rethinking Public-Private Partnerships. Strategies for Turbulent Times, London: Routledge. Chp 1, 1-32.Andersen, Lotte Bøgh, Eskil Heinesen & Lene Holm Pedersen (2016): Individual Performance: From Common Source Bias to Institutionalized Assessment. In Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (JPART), 26 (1): 63-78Supplementary readingsAndersen, Lotte Bøgh, Andreas Boesen & Lene Holm Pedersen (2015) Performance in Public Organizations: Clarifying the Conceptual Space, in Public Administration Review. Bellé, N (2013): Experimental evidence on the relationship between public service motivation and job performance, Public Administration Review, Vol. 73, pp. 143-153.Houlberg, Kurt, Asmus Leth Olsen, Lene Holm Pedersen (2016): Spending and cutting are two different worlds: experimental evidence from Danish local councils, Local Government StudiesYosef Bhatti; Mette Gørtz; Lene Holm Pedersen (2015) The Causal Effect of Profound Organizational Change When Job Insecurity is Low : A Quasi-experiment Analyzing Municipal Mergers. In Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (JPART), 25 (4):1185-1220Hodge, Graeme & Greve, Carsten. 2016. “On Public-Private Partnership Performance. A Contemporary Review” Public Works Management & Policy 1087724X16657830, first published on July 12, 2016 as doi:10.1177/1087724X16657830Boardman, Anthony, Greve, Carsten & Hodge, Graeme. “Comparative Analyses of Infrastructure Public-Private Partnerships” Journal of Comparative Public Policy 2015 17(5) 441-447Day 4 – Elites and networksElite theory and network analysis (Christoph Houman Ellersgaard, Lasse Folke Henriksen & Eleni Tsingou)Empirically and theoretically, the session will focus on elites and decision-makers in a policy-making setting and provide examples that cut across the national, European and global levels. In a first part we cover how to identify the most powerful individuals in different societies, the elites, using social network analysis. In a second part we will cover different ways to undertake agent-centric research as linked to policy outcomes by focusing on the commonly used methods of interviewing and content analysis. ReadingsFirst part on network analysisKhan, Shamus Rahman (2012) The Sociology of Elites. Annual Review of Sociology 38, no. 1: 361–77. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145542.Ellersgaard, Christoph Houman, and Anton Grau Larsen (2015) The Power Elite in the Welfare State – Key Institutional Orders of the Power Networks in Denmark. In Elites in Denmark: Power Elites and Ruling Classes in a Welfare State. Department of Sociology, University of Copenhagen.Andrade, S. and L.F. Henriksen. Climbing the Ladder. Professional competition and closure in an elite bureaucratic setting.Supplementary readingsBühlmann, Felix, Thomas David, and André Mach (2012) The Swiss Business Elite (1980–2000): How the Changing Composition of the Elite Explains the Decline of the Swiss Company Network. Economy and Society 41(2), pp 199–226. doi:10.1080/03085147.2011.602542.Henriksen, L., L. Seabrooke and K. Young. Neoliberal grandfathers. A Genealogical Analysis of Economists’ Professional Networks.Second part on interview and content analysisMosley, Layna (ed.) (2013) Interview Research in Political Science, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, Introduction.Seabrooke, Leonard and Eleni Tsingou (2014) Distinctions, Affiliations, and Professional Knowledge in Financial Reform Expert Groups, Journal of European Public Policy, 21(3), pp 389-407.Supplementary readingsMosley, Layna (ed.) (2013) Interview Research in Political Science, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, Chapters 2 and 3.Neundorf, Kimberly A. (2002) The Content Analysis Guidebook, Thousand Oaks: Sage. Woll, Cornelia (2007) Leading the Dance? Power and Political Resources of Business Lobbyists, Journal of Public Policy, 27, pp 57-78. Day 5 - Policy and regulationPolicy dynamics: theoretical, methodological and empirical perspectives (Manuele Citi)In this session, we analyze how political science and public policy have dealt with the problem of theorizing and measuring policy change in actual legislation. In particular, the focus will be on two types of policies, which together constitute the overwhelming majority of legislative decisions: regulatory policies and distributive/redistributive policies. We will show how the contemporary literature has employed these measurements to study policy stability and change in the long run, and to compare policy dynamics across countries. ReadingsMichael W. Bauer & Christoph Knill (2014) A Conceptual Framework for the Comparative Analysis of Policy Change: Measurement, Explanation and Strategies of Policy Dismantling, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, Vol. 16(1), pp 28-44, DOI:10.1080/13876988.2014.885186Soroka, S. N. and Wlezien, C. (2005) Opinion-Policy Dynamics: Public Preferences and Public Expenditure in the United Kingdom, British Journal of Political Science 35(4), pp 665-689, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4092416Citi, M. & Justesen, M. K. (2014) Measuring and explaining regulatory reform in the EU: A time-series analysis of eight sectors, 1984–2012, European Journal of Political Research 53, pp 709–726,doi: 10.1111/1475-6765.12061Afternoon Session - Feedback to students (Janine Leschke & Lene Holm Pedersen) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fee |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| DKK 6,500 (covers the course, coffee/tea, lunch and one dinner) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minimum number of participants |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 16 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Maximum number of participants |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 16 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Location |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Copenhagen Business School |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contact information |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The PhD Support Katja Høeg Tingleff Tel.: +45 38 15 28 39 E-mail: kht.research@cbs.dk |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Registration deadline |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 16/01/2017 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please note that your registration is binding after the registration deadline.
In case we receive more registrations for the course than we have places, the registrations will be prioritized in the following order: Students from Doctoral School of Organisation and Management Studies (OMS), students from other CBS PhD schools, students from other institutions than CBS. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||