Public Policy calls for papers / publications

Call for Papers for a Special Issue of the International Journal of Drug Policy: Global Patterns of Domestic Cannabis Cultivation

Guest editors:

Gary R. Potter and Tom Decorte

The traditional model of the global cannabis drug trade has been of cultivation in developing world countries (such as Morocco, Mexico, Afghanistan, and Lebanon), with consumer nations of the industrialised west importing the drug. The reality of the global cannabis market has been different for some time now. A number of western developed nations have well-established patterns of domestic cultivation and many more have seen a recent trend of import substitution. Although international trafficking is still a major part of the global cannabis market, more and more countries are finding at least part of their domestic consumption is met by domestic cultivation.  Along with the emergence (or, at least, recognition) of domestic cultivation in an increasing number of countries there has been an increase in research into this phenomenon - the people and methods involved in cultivation, the explanatory factors behind import substitution, and the way this has shaped national and international cannabis markets. This special issue aims to critically examine and advance research on differences in the characteristics, motivations, cultivation methods and organisational structures of those individuals and groups involved in cannabis cultivation, as well as the factors that may help to explain these differences (different national contexts, but also different methodologies or samples). It also aims to consider developments in policing, policy and other responses to cannabis cultivation.

Abstracts (not to exceed 350 words) are invited for contributions to a forthcoming special issue of the International Journal of Drug Policy (http://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-drug-policy).

We encourage submissions that address the following topics, though we welcome submissions on other topics related to the theme:

• Explore internationally comparative data on cannabis cultivation in different countries (e.g. differences in the mechanics and organisation of cultivation and in the motivation, demographic profiles and opinions of cultivators)

• theorize and develop models to address the question of variance in patterns of domestic cultivation in the western world; and relate that to contextual differences (e.g. different policies, cultures and economic conditions of different countries and regions).

• examine how patterns of domestic cannabis cultivation vary across subgroups of cannabis growers in individual countries (e.g. building new typologies of cannabis growers, adding to the typologies that have already been developed; “medical” versus “recreational” growers, criminal involvement of different types of growers, etc.);

• investigate how patterns of cannabis cultivation affect cannabis users’ pattern of consumption;

• examine the impacts of cannabis (or more general drug) policies on cannabis cultivation; deterrence of and risk perceptions among cannabis cultivators

• examine growers’ views on cannabis policies.

Qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods, and historical research are welcome. Papers must discuss the implications of their findings for policy.

We invite six types of contributions (NB: in rare circumstances word limits may be exceeded with permission from the editors):

• Research papers: Research papers are usually based on original empirical analyses, but may also be discursive critical essays. These papers are usually between 3,000 and 5,000 words.

• Research methods papers: These papers explore methodological innovations in the field and are usually between 3,000 and 5,000 words.

• Commentary: These papers explore in depth a particular topic or issue for debate, and may also include evidence and analysis. The Editor may invite expert responses to commentaries for publication in the same issue. Commentaries are usually between 2,500 and 4,000 words.

• Viewpoint: Short comments and opinion pieces of up to 1,200 words which raise an issue for discussion, or comprise a case report on an issue relevant to research, policy, or practice.

• Policy or historical analysis: These are focused specifically around contemporary or historical analyses of policies and their impacts, and are usually between 3,000 and 5,000 words.

• Review: These papers seek to review systematically a particular area of research, intervention, or policy. Reviews are usually between 4,000 and 8,000 words.

Abstracts should be emailed to tom.decorte@ugent.be and to potterg@lsbu.ac.uk by May 31. The email subject heading should read “IJDP Special Issue”. The editors will inform authors by June 30 whether to proceed to full submission. If selected, complete manuscripts will be due October 15. All manuscripts are subject to the normal IJDP peer review process. The special issue is expected to  be published in 2014.

Call for Papers for a Special Focus Issue of the International Journal of Drug Policy: Governance of Drug Policy: Actors, Interests and Processes

Guest Editors:

Susanne MacGregor, Nicola Singleton and Franz Trautmann

The concept of ‘governance’ has replaced ideas of public or social administration in contemporary discussions on politics and policy. This draws attention to new processes of governing in increasingly complex societies. Although understandings of the concept and definitions of the term may differ, issues raised include: the role of networks and policy communities; the influence of different stakeholders  and  interests on the design and implementation of policy; the shape of the new public management – such as forms of contracting and compliance procedures; new styles of governing in multi-level arrangements, such as those of the European Union; and links between the public and private sectors and with civil society. Key assumptions are that the boundaries of the nation-state are more permeable in a globalised world and that new modes of coordination are now required, involving linkages between actors beyond the traditional forms of government. Complexity and change are major themes in this literature.

Abstracts (not to exceed 350 words) are invited for contributions to a forthcoming special issue of the International Journal of Drug Policy. This special edition will critically examine the relevance of the concept of governance and debates surrounding it to understanding of drug policy and discuss what implications this has for the promotion of better policies. The focus is on the ‘how’ of drug policy-making and delivery (its form) rather than the ‘what’ (its content).

We encourage submissions that address the following topics, though we welcome submissions on other topics related to the theme. Papers should focus on issues relating to psychoactive substances widely defined but not deal primarily with alcohol, tobacco, (or sugar or gambling) unless commenting on lessons for drugs policy from research on these substances (or behaviours):

CRITICAL DISCUSSIONS

• Issues arising in researching the governance of drug policy

• What is ‘good governance’?

• The utility of models of governance and policy making

• The place of evidence in contemporary processes of governance

• Lessons for drugs from examples of patterns of governance of other substances eg tobacco,  alcohol and foodstuffs

• Analysis of how governance factors and processes may impede or facilitate change in policy eg from prohibition to regulation to decriminalisation

• Mechanisms for accountability and scrutiny within the governance of drug policy and their effectiveness in safeguarding the interests of different groups.

CASE STUDIES (at international, national, regional or local level or interaction between levels)

• How different policy actors operate to influence the policy process, including: strategies, alliances and coalitions between different types of policy actors – state, commercial, professions, and NGOs; the role and practices of interest groups in relation to political parties; the influence of lobbyists and networks on decision making

• How  governance structures and processes create opportunities for or impede radical policy initiatives

• The role of governance factors in a specific instance of policy change: eg marijuana legislation in states of USA; regulation of new psychoactive substances in New Zealand;  and the decriminalisation of cannabis

• How interests frame perceptions of problems and solutions proposed

• Comparative cross national analysis of governance arrangements.

• Role of social networking or new media in governance processes

Qualitative or mixed methods and historical and/or comparative research are welcome.

We invite six types of contributions:

• Research papers: research papers are usually based on original empirical analyses but may be discursive critical essays dealing with theoretical or methodological or policy issues. These papers are usually between 3,000 and 5,000 words.

• Research methods papers: these papers explore methodological innovations in the field and are usually between 3,000 and 5,000 words

• Commentary: these papers explore in depth a particular topic or issue for debate and may also include evidence and analysis. We may invite expert responses to commentaries for publication in the same issue. Commentaries are usually between 2,500 and 4,000 words.

• Viewpoint: short comments and opinion pieces of up to 1,200 words which raise an issue for discussion or comprise a case report on an issue relevant to research, policy or practice

• Policy or historical analysis: these are focused specifically around contemporary or historical analyses of policies and their impact and are usually between 3,000 and 5,000 words

• Review: these papers seek to review systematically a particular area of research, intervention or policy. Reviews are usually between 4000 and 8000 words.

Abstracts should be mailed to Susanne.MacGregor@LSHTM.ac.uk by 31 May 2013. The email subject heading should read ‘IJDP special issue’. The editors will inform authors by 30 June 2013 whether to proceed to full submission. If selected, complete manuscripts will be due by 30 September 2013.All manuscripts are subject to normal IJDP peer review process. The issue is expected to be published in 2014.

Call for Chapters: Global Issues and Ethical Concerns in Human Enhancement Technologies

Editors
Dr. Steven John Thompson (Johns Hopkins University and University of Maryland University College, USA)

Proposals Submission Deadline: June 15, 2013

Full Chapters Due: September 1, 2013

Submission Date: November 30, 2013

Society is struggling with issues regarding rapid advancements in Human Enhancement Technologies (HET), especially in terms of definition, effects, participation, regulation, and control. These are global matters that legislators must sufficiently address, as was evidenced partly by debate within the 2008 European Parliament’s Science and Technology Options Assessment (STOA), among other discussions; yet, relevance must not be relegated entirely to scientists, legislators, and lobbyists who may gain power and control at the expense of those parties most affected by these life-changing technologies. Since current and future HET initiatives should be in the best interests of those who will eventually participate, research into critical pragmatic elements of HET must expand beyond government and scientific experimentation for eventual societal adoption to incorporate deeper relevant inquiry from within the humanities.

Objective of the Book

While much of the realm of HET is in a state of growing experimentation, there is benefit to exploring ground that may be covered regarding universal concerns, ethics, objectives, and principles in aspects of HET as viewed through the humanities. This compendium will include contributions of professional researchers and others working with HET issues today and into the future. It will also provide a well-rounded composite of the HET field in emerging technologies.

Target Audience

The target audience of this book will be composed of researchers, graduate students, practitioners, and professionals in academe and the medical industry who should all find value in this publication. The recent surge in academic course offerings associated with the role of the body in the humanities and computer science will benefit, as will some persons engaged in a humanities approach to study of metasystems, new artificial life, and robotics. This book will merge some of the leading allied field voices regarding HET into a singular compelling voice of inquiry on the topic of human enhancement technology. Moreover, the book will provide insights and support executives concerned with the management of expertise, knowledge, information and organizational development in different types of work communities and environments.

Recommended topics include, but are not limited to, the following:

Theory and Definition

• Body and Machine

• Cyborg Creation

• Enhancement and Modification

• Uses in Medicine and Science

Ethics and Philosophy

• Internet Brain Implants and Related Interfaces

• Human Rights and Requisite Modification

• Human Values and Freedom in Experimentation

• Safety Concerns

Policy and Regulation

• Control and Threat

• Corporations, Governments, and Military Axes

• Issues in Science, Technology, and Society

Digitality and Neuronics

• Access, Availability and Privilege

• Technological Production and Purposed Results

• Ubiquity

Levels of Participation

• Current Trends

• Freedom, Requisite Implementation and Universal Adoption

• Future and The Collective Hive

Submission Procedure

Researchers and practitioners are invited to submit on or before June 15, 2013, a 2-3 page chapter proposal clearly explaining the mission and concern of the proposed chapter. All authors of accepted proposals will be notified by July 1, 2013 about status of their proposals and sent chapter guidelines. Full chapters are expected to be submitted by September 1, 2013. All submitted chapters will be reviewed on a double-blind review basis. Contributors may also be requested to serve as reviewers for this project.

Publisher

This book is scheduled to be published in 2014 by IGI Global (formerly Idea Group Inc.), publisher of the “Information Science Reference” (formerly Idea Group Reference), “Medical Information Science Reference,” “Business Science Reference,” and “Engineering Science Reference” imprints. For additional information regarding the publisher, please visit www.igi-global.com.

Important Dates

June 15, 2013: Proposal Submission Deadline

July 1, 2013: Notification of Acceptance

September 1, 2013: Full Chapter Submission

September 30, 2013:  Review Results Returned

November 30, 2013: Final Chapter Submission

January 31, 2014: Final Publication Deadline

Inquiries and submissions can be forwarded electronically (Word document):

Dr. Steven John Thompson (rhetorist@jhu.edu)

Call for Papers for the International Journal of Behavioral Medicine on Research to Reality: The Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Behavioral Medicine

Public health programs are only effective if they are widely disseminated and implemented. The different values and perspectives of practitioners, program implementers, policy makers and researchers may be a significant barrier to this. Practitioners often find generic evidence-based interventions difficult to implement in community settings, especially when there is limited information about how to adapt programs to the local context. Furthermore, public health decision makers and program implementers are often reluctant to consider new interventions when effectiveness has not been demonstrated in their particular setting or country. In contrast, researchers place greater emphasis on internal validity than on generalizability and external validity.

“Dissemination” refers to the flow of evidence-based but customised information or intervention to well-defined target audiences.  “Implementation” refers to the adoption and integration of evidence-based health interventions into specific settings. “Translation” refers to applying or adapting research findings or evidence to different community or population settings.

Effective dissemination, implementation and translation of public health and behavioral medicine interventions require the triangulation of evidence from formal trials with case studies, expert opinion, network analysis, and systems thinking, as well as assessment of the local context.

As a follow-up to a highly successful satellite forum on dissemination and implementation at the 11th International Congress of Behavioral Medicine, Budapest, August 2012, the International Journal of Behavioral Medicine is issuing an international call for papers to address issues pertaining to dissemination, implementation and translation in behavioral medicine. Manuscript submissions are due July 1, 2013.

Research Questions: We are particularly interested in papers that address, but are not limited to, these topics:

What theoretical models and approaches are relevant to understanding and improving dissemination, implementation and translation in Behavioral Medicine? What evidence demonstrates the effectiveness of these models and approaches?

What methods and strategies are being used in dissemination and implementation studies in behavioral medicine?

How can we maximize the impact of behavioral medicine evidence on public health policy and practice?

We will consider papers that report original research, conceptual or theoretical papers, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and papers that highlight innovative methodologies. Papers from studies conducted in both developed and developing countries are welcome.

Instructions: Please submit your manuscript by July 1, 2013 following the standard requirements for IJBM articles and are subject to standard editorial and peer review processes. See http://www.springer.com/medicine/journal/12529#.

Please address any questions regarding this special issue to the Guest Editors: Dr. Carina Chan (carina.chan@monash.edu), Dr. Brian Oldenburg (brian.oldenburg@monash.edu) and Dr. Vish Viswanath (vish_viswanath@dfci.harvard.edu).

Call for Papers: Health Care Policy Legislation and Administration

The Journal of Health and Human Services Administration (JHHSA), is organizing a symposium seeking contributions on the causes and effects of the current problems associated with health care policy and administration in the United States.

Papers which focus on the following categories will be given highest priority for publication:

(1) health care policy and administration as a strategic asset;

(2) health care policy and administration based on the principles of sustainability and/or social justice;

(3) health care policy and administration and the future of Medicare/Medicaid;

(4) health care policy and administration focusing on issues related to research methodology and its application to applied health care policy.

Submission Details

The deadline for submission of papers is September 12, 2013. Papers should be submitted directly to the guest editor by email: Edward J. Martin (Edward.Martin@csulb.edu).

By October 11, 2013, a set of papers will be selected by an ad hoc review committee based on a blind review process. Then by November 15, 2013, the ad hoc committee will select “revised” blind reviewed papers for publication in the Journal of Health and Human Services Administration (JHHSA).

The invitation to publish with JHHSA is under the assumption that the manuscripts are original, unpublished work, and not under review elsewhere.

The final versions of accepted manuscripts must comply with the manuscript guidelines based on the APA 6th format style and will be due on December 13, 2013.

The publication date for the manuscripts will be January 2014.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact the guest editor.

Call for Papers on Collaboration for the Jefferson Journal of Science and Culture

Deadline: November 4th 2013

Email jeffersonjournaluva@gmail.com with inquiries.

Collaborative work has resulted in some of the most famous and infamous advances of the last hundred years, from Neil Armstrong’s first steps on the moon, to the atom bomb, or the United Nations. This issue of the Jefferson Journal of Science and Culture seeks to investigate the nature of collaboration by examining its origins, practice, and iresults. How can collaborative work solve problems and further knowledge? What are the limits or failures of collaborative work? We welcome submissions from all academic fields, and invite authors to define, analyze and critique collaboration in innovative ways.

Natural Sciences submissions may explore the interplay between observation, experiment, and theory in projects requiring expert knowledge from several distinct fields. Authors may also examine how researchers interact with those developing new technologies or methodologies to collect data and to analyze and visualize results, or the importance, difficulties, and rewards of organizing large projects across several institutions.  

Submissions from the Arts and Humanities may include examinations of the creative process and products of collaborating artists in areas such as music, television, film-making, theater or dance. Authors may also investigate the collaborative process of community art in projects led by an individual artist, such as Frank Warren’s Post-Secret or Eric Whitacre's Virtual Choir.

Submissions from the Social Sciences may ask how and when researchers should collaborate, or whether we can collaborate with our research subjects. Authors may also investigate the social value and ethics of collaboration, as well as the collaborative nature of topics including education; trade; social groups; nations; or international organizations.

Additional topics may include, but are not limited to:

Market places as collaboration

Failures of collaboration

The creation of political policy as a collaborative process

Collaborations between scientists and artists

International treaties as collaborations

Teaching and learning as collaboration

Open source technologies as collaborations

Healthcare as a collaborative process

Athletic training as collaboration

Crowd-sourcing as collaboration

Please contact jeffersonjournaluva@gmail.com if you have a concept you’d like to discuss.

The Jefferson Journal of Science and Culture is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Jefferson Scholars Foundation of the University of Virginia.

Call for Papers for a Special Issue of the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law: The Global and Domestic Politics of Health Policy in Emerging Nations

In the past two decades, developing nations have become increasingly integrated into the global political-economic system. Although several nations have successfully reformed their political, economic, and health policies, many are still dependent on the international community for financial and technical assistance. Nevertheless, in recent years a group of emerging nations—namely, Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS), as well as Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Vietnam, and others—appear to have become less dependent on international assistance, mainly because of their heightened economic growth and geopolitical influence.

This special issue of the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law (JHPPL) seeks to understand the global and domestic politics of health policy in these emerging nations.

Attention is given to the evolutionary relationships among international institutions, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank, and the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and domestic policy makers, as well as the role of domestic actors and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Of particular interest are global health governance mechanisms and the role that civil society plays in transforming these linkages for equitable agenda setting, policy making, and regulation.

More specifically, this issue is guided by two areas of scholarly inquiry.

First, what are the international and domestic linkages related to health policy in the emerging nations, and how have these linkages transformed in the past two decades? What are the roles of both global and domestic institutions in health policy in these nations? And how does the health policy of these nations affect global health policy? For example, do international institutions, such as the WHO, the World Bank, and the Global Fund, employ conditionality or other coercive measures to influence health policy, and are they successful in doing so? Or do these international institutions recognize the rising influence and autonomy of emerging nations, and consequently, are they seeking new types of partnerships with them for health policy? How much influence do global actors and norms have on the domestic health politics and policy in emerging nations? How do the “natural experiments” with health policy in emerging nations influence health policy in other countries and at the global level? How are political leaders in these nations shifting their relationship with international institutions? What can we learn from the evolution of health politics and policy in these emerging nations, and how might these findings inform the global and domestic health policies of other countries?

Second, given the growing importance of domestic actors, including national governments and civil society, in these emerging countries, how do these entities create and shape health policy? What is the nature of linkages among international institutions, international NGOs (e.g., Médecins Sans Frontières), and other domestic institutions, including national governments, and how does this shape health policy? Civil society—including NGOs, community-based organizations, and social health movements dedicated to health policy—are of special interest. For example, in addition to examining their evolutionary role in advocating and pressuring for reform, is civil society working closely with international institutions to influence domestic agenda setting, policy making, and regulation? How has the role of national governments in health policy evolved in the emerging nations, and what lessons does this provide for global health governance and domestic health policy in other countries? Who, if anyone, is monitoring domestic health policy and holding national governments to account? Given that NGOs and social health movements—as well as democratization processes—are emerging in these nations, one might expect to find wide variation in civil societal strategies and influence. What role, if any, have democratizing processes played in shaping domestic health policy in these emerging nations?

Authors submitting manuscripts for this issue may focus on any of these areas of scholarly inquiry. Contributors should also feel free to address any type of health policy question in these emerging countries or global governance issue. Regarding case selection, authors may either investigate one particular nation, compare several of the emerging nations, or focus on the global level.

Submission Guidelines and Timeline

Contributors to this issue will be asked to submit research articles, critical essays, and shorter commentary in accordance with
JHPPL’s editorial guidelines. All submissions should be sent to the series coeditors: Dr. Eduardo J. Gómez of Rutgers University at edgomez@gmail.com; and Dr. Jennifer Prah Ruger of Yale University at jennifer.ruger@yale.edu. Please feel free to contact the coeditors with any questions.

All manuscript submissions are due by June 1, 2013. The journal editor will then meet with the series editors to select manuscripts for full consideration. The selected manuscripts will then be sent out for peer review. We anticipate that final publication decisions will be made and the issue will be posted online ahead of publication by September 2014 with final print and online publication to follow in December 2014.

Call for Papers for a Special Issue of Evidence & Policy: Epistemographies of Governmental and Professional Guidelines

Evidence & Policy is the first peer-reviewed journal dedicated to comprehensive and critical assessment of the relationship between research evidence and the concerns of policy makers and practitioners, as well as researchers. International in scope and interdisciplinary in focus, it addresses the needs of those who provide public services, and those who provide the research base for evaluation and development across a wide range of social and public policy issues – from social care to education, from public health to criminal justice.

Evidence & Policy invites contributions to a Special Issue on Epistemographies of governmental and professional guidelines

Guest editors: Ger Wackers and Rolf A. Markussen, Narvik University College, Norway

(Deadline for submission of abstracts (ram@hin.no): August 1, 2013)

Guidelines abound in all areas of social life. Governmental and professional guidelines constitute an important nexus in modern societies’ geography of expertise. They are a strange kind of tools. They do not produce scientific knowledge. Rather, they claim to mediate scientific knowledge and expertise. They do not have the power of law, granting practitioners discretionary space and leeway to make their own professional judgements. However, in audit or review situations, or in accident investigations, they assume the status of “state of the art” and bench mark. Guidelines re-enact and perform a hierarchy of expertise that grants scientific and cognitive authority to “laboratories” and other sites of scientific knowledge production. Simultaneously they configure practitioners as the ones in need of knowledge in order to improve their practice by making it evidence or knowledge based. This is a logic that is expressed in many policy documents across a wide range of governmental policy and professional fields. Guidelines for the development of guidelines have been developed in a range of governmental and international organisations. For clinical research The AGREE Collaboration, for example, provides a platform for the ‘Appraisal for Guideline Research and Evaluation’.

Despite their monologic format in a time that breathes dialogue, user involvement and participation, the production of governmental and professional guidelines has grown into an extensive industry. As an example, the Norwegian Health Directorate alone has currently 151 active governmental guidelines, of which 131 have been produced during the last five years. Guidelines do not only re-enact a hierarchy of expertise in their content. They also reproduce an expensive institutional infrastructure. This is accomplished through a recursive process in which governmental agencies and elite professional bodies identify practitioners' need for a better knowledge base of their practice. They commission guidelines that in turn legitimise the continued existence of the institutional infrastructure. The general confidence in the ability of scientific knowledge to improve governmental and professional practices, and in guidelines as necessary tools of mediation, is not matched by evidence that testifies to their effectiveness. There are studies though that address barriers to the implementation of guidelines in practice and call for better professional leadership to resolve these implementation issues.

Occupying a nexus between science and governance, the scientific literature that addresses epistemic issues in guideline production head on is scant. On the other hand, a sensitized and observant reader will find that guidelines, governmental and professional, figure in many research reports addressing other main issues. In the field of health care, for example, research on end of life care touches on professional guidelines for palliative sedation. Research on electronic patient records touches on guidelines for the proper coding of diseases that follow with the procurement and implementation of such systems. Research on the management of very expensive drugs touches on diagnostic guidelines for the selection of patients for treatment with and reimbursement of the expensive drug. These are guidelines that differ in the extent to which they allow leeway for the professionals' judgement, but also in the degree in which compliance with them is monitored and enforced in the practice they are aiming to regulate.

However, there are a number of on-going research projects that do pursue an empirical study of epistemic issues in governmental and professional guidelines head on, ethnographically. These have in common that they understand guidelines performatively as political agents. They share an interest in what guidelines do (enact or perform). We can sort them roughly into research that studies the genesis or production of guidelines on the one hand, and research that studies ready-made guidelines’ performance on the other. The first approach addresses the guideline-making practices and processes in which scientific knowledge, including epistemic uncertainty, is translated into this particular genre of governing devices. The other approach seeks to explore what ready-made guidelines do, what order they perform in the guideline’s text, for instance by questioning the scripts and user-configurations enacted. But also how they partake in the practices they are supposed to regulate, how they are received or rejected or translated, as well as how guidelines might appear as order-making devices beyond their proclaimed scope of intervention. In addition to pre-, post- and intra-guideline epistemic processes one can discern an infra-perspective with a focus on institutional, infrastructural processes.

In this Special Issue we aim to bring together original research papers that address and critically assess epistemic issues (epistemographies) in and of governmental and professional guidelines from the two research fields that study science and governance, Science and Technology Studies (STS) on the one hand and Policy Studies on the other. This Special Issue is scheduled for publication in 2015.

The following time schedule will be pursued.

1. August 1, 2013: Deadline for submission of abstracts. Please submit abstracts of 200-300 words to ram@hin.no, outlining the paper that you would be able to contribute.

2. October 15, 2013: Invitations to write full papers will be forwarded to contributors.

3. March 1, 2014: Deadline for the submission of first drafts to guest editors at ram@hin.no .

4. June 1, 2014: Deadline for submission of final full text manuscripts to the journal.  These will at this stage be subject to the journal’s ordinary peer review procedures, and further drafts may be requested. The responsibility for final publication decisions rests with Evidence & Policy’s managing editors.

Contact information of guest editors:

Rolf Andreas Markussen
Narvik University College
Faculty of Health and Society
P.O. Box 385
N-8505 Narvik, Norway
E-mail: ram@hin.no
Mobile phone: +47 97070776

Ger Wackers
Narvik University College
Faculty of Health and Society
P.O. Box 385
N-8505 Narvik, Norway
E-mail: ger.wackers@hin.no

Call for Papers: Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health

The Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health (JEGH) plans to impact global epidemiology and international health with peer-reviewed articles focused on innovative scholarship and strategies to advance global health policy. The journal will take special interest in publishing rigorous assessments of policies where these have been implemented based on epidemiological and public health research. At Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health we believe epidemiology and public health are closely intertwined, both scientifically, and from a health policy vantage: advances in one area exert positive consequences on the other.

The journal benefits from a diverse, multidisciplinary, experienced and unusually international editorial board that will facilitate the publication of articles and perspectives reflecting a global view of public health medicine and epidemiology. We also seek to emphasize our focus on supporting the academic, clinical and practical needs of public health practitioners in the field.

The journal seeks to improve regional and global health by informing efforts to reduce the risk of communicable and non-communicable diseases. We are particularly interested in the links between evolving epidemiologic advances and the implementation of health policy initiatives, eventually in publishing efficacy assessments, including the assessment of unintended consequences.

As global health medicine meets unprecedented problems - the H1N1 pandemic being a recent example - imaginative approaches will be needed to influence health policy, foreign policy and even immigration policy. The resulting need for multidisciplinary research is not well served by the current body of academic publications and this journal seeks to fill this important gap.

The Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health is an interdisciplinary journal that welcomes reviews, original papers, laboratory, epidemiological or clinical, as well as perspectives and commentaries from all aspects of communicable and non-communicable diseases, in particular those identified as priorities by the World Health Assembly. JEGH will not accept case reports and submissions purely focused on basic (bench) science.

Call for Papers for a Special Issue of Futures: Wild Cards

Eric Hobsbawm famously described the 20th century as the “age of extremes”. So far this still young 21th century has shown itself to be unstable and turbid and surely seems to deserve the label of “age of volatility”. Shocks and discontinuities have been felt intensively in a number of fields (military, economic, climate, etc.) in a number of places (US, Europe, North Africa, etc.) in the last few years. A few recent well known examples stand out: September 11th, hurricane Katrina, a big tsunami in Thailand, the collapse, volcanic ash clouds over Europe, BP oil spill, the “Arab Spring”, a large earthquake followed by major nuclear accident in Japan, a massive blackout in India, etc.

The present century is still in its beginnings but has proved markedly unstable. As As Thomas Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum (2012) point out in That Used to Be Us, “average is over”. It now seems that variance itself varies. Thus, instead of speaking of “the new normal”, as Mohamed El-Erian (2010) did, one should perhaps talk of “the new skewness”. A reflection on issues of dramatic disruptions, biased booms and busts, and violent volatility is timely.

What do we really know about the sources, methods of analysis and outcomes of this sort of radical renewal of human and planetary affairs? Do turning points cluster in time and space or is globalisation leading to a decoupling of their incidence? Are there new sources of instability and turbulence in the contemporary world? Are there new techniques and approaches to predict, interpret and deal with such unpredictable and trend-breaking phenomena? What have we learned regarding mitigation of impacts and strategies for capitalising of new potential for resilience?

Aims

In this Special Issue we focus on “wild card”-type of events, that is, a futures studies approach to disruptive surprises and trend-breaking events. More generally, the goal is to build and deliver new foresight knowledge regarding conceptual and empirical perspectives on anticipating, muddling through and accounting for the consequences of major discontinuities. In summary, what do we know in terms of detecting, preparing for, preventing, protecting against, responding to and profiting/recovering from wild cards? We therefore welcome innovative papers as well as reviews from a variety of perspectives (managerial, sociological, economic, philosophical, and historical as well as technical in inclination and foresight in methodology) on this particular foresight topic, understood in a wide sense.

Subject coverage

Original research providing new and more complete accounts of wild card phenomena should be submitted. Extreme hazards pose challenges in which multiple risks simultaneously occur, so that a diversity of views is welcomed. The notion of “wild cards” should be critically revisited, conceptually questioned, empirically tested, and analytically refined. New contributions to knowledge are sought in the following areas:

•The theoretical underpinnings: a) Critical considerations on the soundness of  epistemological basis of wild cards; b) Reconceptualisations, re-appraisals, and theoretical advancements of the concept of wild cards; c)  questioning “wild cards”, i.e. how to distinguish “wild cards” from non-“wild cards”; d) Defining and distinguishing risk and uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance in face of wild cards;

•Analysis and empirics: a) Assembling evidence that we live through “wild card”-intensive times (is the abnormal really rising?); b) Varieties and categories, intensities and severity, i.e., analytical efforts toward taxonomical efforts on wild cards; c) Wild cards as shift triggers and as correlates of change in abrupt transitions;

•Foresight and anticipation: a) Ex-ante (planning and prevention, imagining and forecasting, sensing and warning) and ex-post (mitigation and absorption, resisting and responding, recovery and reconstruction) wild card strategies; b) On predicting and piercing bubbles; c) What particular early warnings and specific weak signals matter when trying to anticipate wild cards; d) New uses and limitations of structured approaches (Scenario building, Delphi studies, Horizon scanning, Prediction markets, etc.) to wild card recognition;

•The evolution of change: a) From crises to crashes (determining tipping points in the evolution of major changes); b) The incidence of interruptions in the continuities of history;

•Management of wild cards: a) Converging and diverging strategic views on wild cards; b) Disaster education and wild card literacy; c) Rupture in facts and rupture in thought; d) Mainstreaming wild card reduction and strengthening wild card responses; e) The role of wild cards in transitions and the construction of resilient societies;

•Other topics and perspectives: a) Sharp stressors, anxiety and trauma; b) the asymmetric impact of wild cards (vulnerable individuals and groups); c) new methods to detect and defuse wild cards; d) Strategy-making in “wild card”-rich businesses; e) Radical randomness resilient regulation; f) The regulation of radical risk; g) Case studies from the managerial realm and from the public policy area; h) others.

Important dates

CfP issued:  March 2013
Submission: November 30th, 2013
Final Revisions due: February 2014
Final notification:  May 2014
Issue published:  Late 2014

Note: interested authors are advised to submit abstracts well in advance to final submission.  Please submit these to the Guest Editors: mpc@fe.unl.pt and sfm@iscte.pt

Submissions guidelines

Papers should follow the standard guidelines of Futures and they will be selected competitively according to their intrinsic quality and relevance to the special issue. All papers will be subject to a standard refereeing process. See: http://bit.ly/14T9S0W

Future’s website allows for on-line submission. See guidelines to authors on the journal’s website and the list of common formatting errors. Only original submissions will be considered, not submitted in parallel elsewhere. No pre-submission comments will be given by the guest editors but editorial comments will complement the referees’ reviews.

Submission of articles to Futures journal will open on November 1st 2013 and close on November 30th 2013. Upload the paper for review and also enter additional information at: http://ees.elsevier.com/futures/.

Submit Article / Submit New Manuscript / choose Article Type/ SI:wildcards

Enquiries and provisional abstracts should be sent by email to the Guest Editors

Guest Editors

Miguel Pina e Cunha
Nova School of Business and Economics
mpc@fe.unl.pt

Sandro Mendonça
ISCTE – Lisbon University Institute
sfm@iscte.pt