Doing Political Discourse Analysis: Applications, Strategies, Methods and Techniques 2012
| Please, register here: |
Responsible: David Howarth & Aletta Norval (Department of Government, University of Essex), Allan Dreyer Hansen (Department of Society and Globalisation Roskilde University)
From: 2012/10/22 to: 2012/10/26
Registration Deadline: 2012/08/26
Place: Roskilde University, Department of Society and Globalisation
Fee: 100 Euro
ECTS (Get approval from your own department!!!): 5
Short description: This course introduces and elaborates the theoretical and methodological tools for doing political discourse analysis. It is concerned with the way in which we can articulate and apply discourse analysis to problematized empirical cases in the name of critical explanation. It will also serve as a forum to discuss practical research strategies, methods and techniques that are consonant with the field of discourse analysis. The course focuses on the definition of research objects and problems; the construction of appropriate theoretical frameworks; the requisite character and collection of empirical data; the logics of rhetorical and textual analysis; as well as the different modes of argumentation and
Lecturers: David Howarth, Aletta Norval & Allan Dreyer
Further information: sek@polforsk.dk
More
precisely,
the
course
puts
forward
a
logic
of
critical
explanation,
which
comprises
five
basic
elements:
problematization;
retroduction;
logics;
articulation;
and
critique.
In
so
doing,
it
briefly
examines
the
philosophical
underpinnings
of
a
poststructuralist
approach
to
social
and
political
analysis,
and
also
concentrates
on
actual
instances
of
discursive
research.
With
respect
to
the
theoretical
aspects,
attention
is
focused
on
Michel
Foucault’s
method
of
problematization;
Laclau
and
Mouffe’s
logics
of
discourse
analysis;
Norman
Fairclough's Critical Discourse Analysis,
as
well
as
certain
psychoanalytical
themes
explored
by
Lacan
and
Zizek.
We
also
draw
on
discussions
in
speech
act
theory
and
their
extension
to
political
analysis
in
the
works
of
Austin,
Derrida,
Cavell
and
Rancière. Participants
will
also
be
encouraged
to
discuss
their
own
ongoing
research
or
research
proposals/plans. This
is
an
intensive
course,
available
to
all
those
students
who
are
interested
in
conducting
research
from
a
poststructuralist
discourse
theory
approach
at
PhD
level. At
the
end
of
the
course,
participants: will
be
conversant
with
major
literatures
and
debates
in
the
field
of
discourse
analysis; will
have
acquired
a
solid
grounding
in
discourse
theoretical
approaches
to
social
and
political
analysis
and
critique; will
be
able
to
design
a
research
project
in
this
field; will
be
trained
in
the
theoretical
and
methodological
considerations
arising
in
this
area; will
finish
with
a
keen
sense
of
the
critical
role
that
discourse
plays
both
in
theory
and
in
social
and
political
practice. During
the
course,
and
especially
in
the
last
sessions,
we
will
also
discuss
the
research
projects
of
individual
participants.
Those
interested
in
doing
this
should
send
a
summary
of
their
projects
(max.
1500
words)
and
a
short
research
paper
to paper@polforsk.dk
no
later
than
October
4,
so
that
we
can
build
them
into
the
programme.
PhD-students
submitting
project
summary
or
paper
will
be
preferred
in
case
the
course
is
overbooked. The
course
runs
for
five
days
with
two
sessions
on
each
day,
with
the
exception
of
the
final
day,
on
which
there
will
be
one
session
only.
Participants
should
treat
these
sessions
as
flexible,
since
we
will
accommodate
discussions
and
issues
as
they
arise. Session
times: Lunch
12h00-13h00 The
course
arises
from
our
recent
books:
Logics
of
Critical
Explanation
in
Social
and
Political
Theory
(Abingdon,
Routledge,
2007)
and
Aversive
Democracy
(Cambridge,
2007).
It
will
also
discuss
material
from
our
forthcoming
books:
Howarth,
After
Poststructuralism
(Palgrave,
2010)
and
Griggs
and
Howarth,
The
Politics
of
Sustainable
Aviation
(Manchester
University
Press,
2010). Within
a
week
after
the
registration
deadline,
participants
will
be
informed
whether
they
are
approved
or
not. Introducing
Poststructuralist
Discourse
Theory:
A
Problem-Driven
Approach The
first
day
focuses
on
providing
an
introduction
to
Poststructuralist
Discourse
Theory,
and
is
divided
into
two
sessions.
The
first
session
introduces
poststructuralist/post-Marxist
discourse
theory
(PDT)
in
relation
to
the
“discursive
turn”
in
the
contemporary
social
sciences.
We
present
a
brief
genealogy
of
the
development
of
the
concept
of
discourse
by
focusing
on
its
ever-widening
ontological
and
methodological
scope;
situate
PDT
in
relation
to
other
discourse-oriented
approaches;
outline
some
of
the
basic
assumptions
and
core
concepts
of
the
approach;
and
introduce
the
logics
of
critical
explanation
as
one
way
operationalizing
these
assumptions
and
concepts
in
empirical
research. Session
1 Readings Laclau,
E.,
&
C.
Mouffe,
Hegemony
and
Socialist
Strategy
(London:
Verso,
1985,
2001
2nd
Edition),
Chapter
3. ´i¸ek,
S.
(1990)
‘Beyond
Discourse
Analysis’,
in
Laclau,
E.
New
Reflections
on
the
Revolution
of
Our
Time
(London:
Verso). Laclau,
E.
New
Reflections
on
the
Revolution
of
Our
Time
(London:
Verso,
1990),
pp.
3-59. D.
Howarth
(2010)
‘Pluralizing
Methods:
Contingency,
Ethics
and
Critical
Explanation’,
in
A.
Finlayson
(ed.)
Democracy
and
Pluralism:
The
Political
Thought
of
William
E.
Connolly,
London:
Routledge.
M.
Hajer
(1995)
The
Politics
of
Environmental
Discourse
(Oxford:
OUP),
Chapter
2.
J.
Dryzek
(1997)
The
Politics
of
the
Earth
(Oxford:
OUP),
Chapter
1. Laclau,
E.
On
Populist
Reason
(London:
Verso,
2005),
Chapter
5. Background
Readings
Glynos,
J.,
Howarth,
D.,
Norval,
A.,
and
Speed,
E.
(2009)
‘Discourse
Analysis:
Varieties
and
Methods’,
ESRC
National
Centre
for
Research
Methods,
NCRM/014,
http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/796/1/discourse_analysis_NCRM_014.pdf
´i¸ek,
S.
The
Sublime
Object
of
Ideology
(London:
Verso,
1989),
Chapter
1.
Laclau,
E.,
‘Discourse’
in
Goodin,
Robert
A.,
and
Philip
Pettit,
eds.,
A
Companion
to
Contemporary
Political
Philosophy
(Oxford:
Blackwell,
1993),
pp.
431-437.
Laclau,
E.
‘Populism:
What’s
in
a
Name?’
in
Panizza,
F.,
ed.,
Populism
and
the
Mirror
of
Democracy
(London:
Verso,
2005).
D.
Howarth
and
Y.
Stavrakakis,
‘Introducing
Discourse
Theory
and
Political
Analysis’,
in
Howarth,
D.,
A.
J.
Norval
and
Y.
Stavrakakis
(eds),
Discourse
Theory
and
Political
Analysis:
Identities,
Hegemonies
and
Social
Change
(Manchester:
Manchester
University
Press,
2000),
Introduction.
D.
Howarth,
Discourse
(Buckingham:
Open
University
Press,
2000),
Introduction
&
Chapters
3-7. Session
2 In
the
second
session
of
Day
1,
we
turn
to
the
role
of
problematization
and
logics
in
the
practice
of
applying
discourse
theory
in
political
science.
We
begin
by
discussing
Michel
Foucault’s
efforts
to
develop
a
method
of
discourse
analysis
that
goes
beyond
traditional
hermeneutics,
without
relapsing
into
naturalism,
positivism,
or
a
methodological
anarchism.
Attention
is
paid
to
the
archaeological
method,
which
Foucault
employed
in
his
early
writings
(The
Birth
of
the
Clinic,
The
Order
of
Things),
after
which
we
concentrate
on
the
genealogical
approach
of
his
later
studies. Participants
will
be
given
the
opportunity
to
problematize
a
set
of
themes
and
issues
related
to
their
own
research,
and
to
construct
a
short
research
problem
or
proposal. Readings J.
Glynos
and
D.
Howarth,
Logics
of
Critical
Explanation
(Abingdon:
Routledge,
2007),
Introduction,
Chapters
2
and
3. C.
S.
Peirce,
Collected
Papers,
Vol.
1,
Principles
of
Philosophy,
(Cambridge,
Mass.:
The
Belknap
Press
of
Harvard
University
Press,
1960),
pp.
28-31. J.
Glynos
and
D.
Howarth,
Logics
of
Critical
Explanation
(Abingdon:
Routledge,
2007),
Introduction,
Chapters
1,
5
and
6.
Further
Reading:
D.
Howarth
(2002)
‘An
Archaeology
of
Political
Discourse?
Evaluating
Michel
Foucault’s
Explanation
and
Critique
of
Ideology’,
Political
Studies,
50(1):
117-135.
D.
Howarth,
‘Discourse
Theory
and
Political
Analysis’
in
E.
Scarborough
and
E.
Tanenbaum
(eds),
Research
Strategies
in
the
Social
Sciences
(Oxford:
OUP.
1998),
Chapter
12.
M.
Foucault,
‘Politics
and
the
Study
of
Discourse’,
in
G.
Burchell,
C.
Gordon
and
P.
Miller
(eds),
The
Foucault
Effect:
Studies
in
Governmentality,
Hemel
Hampstead:
Harvester,
1984,
Ch
2.
H.
Dreyfus
and
P.
Rabinow,
Michel
Foucault:
Beyond
Structuralism
and
Hermeneutics,
Brighton:
Harvester,
1982,
Chapters
4,
5
M.
Foucault,
The
Archaeology
of
Knowledge,
London:
Tavistock,
1972.
P.
Dews,‘Althusser,
Structuralism
and
the
French
Epistemological
Tradition’,
in
G.
Elliot
(ed),
Althusser:
A
Critical
Reader,
Oxford:
Basil
Blackwell,
1994,
Ch
5.
J.
Habermas,
The
Philosophical
Discourse
of
Modernity,
Cambridge:
Polity,
1985,
Chapters
9,
10.
Howarth,
D.,
A.
J.
Norval
and
Y.
Stavrakakis
(eds),
Discourse
Theory
and
Political
Analysis:
Identities,
Hegemonies
and
Social
Change
(Manchester:
Manchester
University
Press,
2000).
S.
Benhabib,
Critique,
Norm
and
Utopia
(New
York:
Columbia
University
Press,
1986),
Preface,
Introduction.
R.
Bernstein,
The
New
Constellation
(Cambridge:
Polity,
1991),
Chapters
1,
5,
10.
J.
Glynos
and
D.
Howarth,
Logics
of
Critical
Explanation
(Abingdon:
Routledge,
2007),
Chapter
1.
I.
Shapiro,
‘Problems,
Methods,
and
Theories
in
the
Study
of
Politics,
or:
What’s
Wrong
with
Political
Science
and
What
to
do
About
it’,
in
I.
Shapiro,
R.
M.
Smith,
and
T.
E.
Masoud
(eds)
(2004)
Problems
and
Methods
in
the
Study
of
Politics
(Cambridge:
CUP,
2004).
W.
Connolly,
‘Method,
Problem,
Faith’
in
I.
Shapiro,
R.
M.
Smith,
and
T.
E.
Masoud
(eds)
(2004)
Problems
and
Methods
in
the
Study
of
Politics
(Cambridge:
CUP,
2004). The
Emergence
and
Articulation
of
Political
Demands,
Subjectivities
and
Political
Frontiers Day
2
is
devoted
to
a
discussion
of
the
formation
and
dissolution
of
frontiers
in
political
discourse
and
the
role
that
the
logics
of
equivalence
and
difference
play
in
these
processes.
Drawing
on
the
work
of
Laclau
and
Rancière,
as
well
as
Foucault
and
Austin,
we
concentrate
on
the
analysis
of
the
emergence
and
articulation
of
political
demands
and
subjectivities,
as
well
as
on
the
different
ways
in
which
political
frontiers
are
constructed
and
managed. The
first
part
of
the
day
is
devoted
to
clarifying
the
conceptual
basis
of
the
discussion.
The
focus
here
is
on
the
development
of
the
conceptual
tools
for
the
analysis
of
political
frontiers
and
the
articulation
of
political
demands
in
Laclau
and
Mouffe’s
work,
as
well
as
the
analysis
of
the
staging
of
arguments
as
presented
in
the
work
of
Rancière.
In
addition,
we
will
also
look
at
the
work
of
Michel
Foucault
and
John
Austin,
to
capture
the
processes
involved
in
the
articulation
of
subject
positions. The
second
part
of
the
day
focuses
on
a
discussion
of
work
putting
these
insights
to
use
in
political
analysis.
In
this
session
we
will
concentrate
on
some
practical
examples,
where
course
participants
will
be
analysing
the
articulation
of
political
frontiers
in
selected
political
speeches,
such
as
speeches
by
Barack
Obama
and
Nelson
Mandela.
(Texts
of
these
speeches
will
be
provided
to
participants
on
Day
1.) Readings E.
Laclau,
On
Populist
Reason
(London:
Verso,
2005),
especially
chapters
4
and
5. Aletta
J.
Norval,
‘Frontiers
in
Question’,
Acta
Philosophica,
2
(1997),
pp.
51-76. Aletta
J.
Norval,
‘Democracy,
Pluralization
and
Voice’,
Ethics
and
Global
Politics,
Vol.
2
(4)
(December
2009),
pp.297-320.. Aletta
J.
Norval,
‘Passionate
Subjectivity,
Contestation
and
Acknowledgement:
Rereading
Austin
and
Cavell’,
in
Andrew
Schaap
(ed.)
Law
and
Agonistic
Politics
(Aldershot:
Ashgate,
2009),
pp.
163-78.
Articulating
Demands
and
Political
Frontiers:
Applications Andries
du
Toit,
‘The
micropolitics
of
paternalism’,
Journal
of
Southern
African
Studies,
Vol.
19,
no.
2,
1993,
pp.314-366 A.
J.
Norval,
'Social
ambiguity
and
the
crisis
of
apartheid',
in
Laclau,
E.
(ed.)
The
Making
of
Political
Identities.
London:
Verso
(1994). Andrew
Schaap,
‘The
absurd
proposition
of
Aboriginal
sovereignty’,
in
Andrew
Schaap,
(ed.)
Agonistic
Politics
(Farnham:
Ashgate
Publishers,
2009),
pp.
209-223 A.J.
Norval,
‘‘No
Reconciliation
without
Redress’:
Articulating
political
demands
in
post-transitional
South
Africa’,
Critical
Discourse
Studies,
Vol.
6
(4),
(forthcoming,
November
2009)
J.
Austin,
How
to
do
Things
with
Words.
H.
Gottweis,
‘Rhetoric
in
policy
making:
between
logos,
ethos,
and
pathos’,
in
F.
Fischer,
Handbook
of
Public
Policy
(London:
Taylor
and
Francis,
2006).
S.
F.
Griggs
and
D.
Howarth,
‘A
Transformative
Political
Campaign?
The
New
Rhetoric
of
Protest
Against
Airport
Expansion
in
the
UK’,
Journal
of
Political
Ideologies,
(2004),
Vol.
9,
No.
2,
pp.
167-87
[available
on-line
via
library].
S.
F.
Griggs
and
D.
Howarth,
‘An
Alliance
of
Interest
and
Identity?
Explaining
the
Campaign
against
Manchester
Airport’s
Second
Runway’,
Mobilization,
(2002)
Vol.
7,
No.
1,
pp.
43-58.
M.
Hajer
and
Justus
Uitermark,
‘Performing
Authority:
Discursive
politics
after
the
assassination
of
Theo
van
Gogh’
Public
Administration
Vol.
86
(1),
pp.
5-19
(2007).
D.
Howarth,
‘The
Difficult
Emergence
of
a
Democratic
Imaginary:
Black
Consciousness
and
Non-Racial
Democracy
in
South
Africa’,
in
D.
Howarth,
A.
J.
Norval
and
Y.
Stavrakakis
(eds)
Discourse
Theory
and
Political
Analysis,
Manchester:
Manchester
University
Press,
2000.
D.
Howarth,
‘Complexities
of
Identity/Difference:
Black
Consciousness
Ideology
in
South
Africa’,
Journal
of
Political
Ideologies,
Vol.
2
(1),
1997
[available
on-line
via
library].
D.
Howarth
and
Y.
Stavrakakis,
‘Introducing
Discourse
Theory
and
Political
Analysis’,
in
D.
Howarth,
A.
J.
Norval
and
Y.
Stavrakakis
(eds),
Discourse
Theory
and
Political
Analysis
(Manchester:
Manchester
University
Press,
2000).
Several
chapters
in
this
book
deploy
Laclau’s
conceptualization
of
political
frontiers
in
the
analysis
of
concrete
cases.
Aletta
J.
Norval,
‘The
things
we
do
with
words
-
contemporary
approaches
to
the
analysis
of
ideology’,
British
Journal
of
Political
Science,
30
(2000),
pp.
313-46
Jacques
Rancière,
Disagreement
(Minneapolis
and
London:
University
of
Minnesota
Press,
1999),
especially
chapters
1-3
and
5.
Q.
Skinner,
'Meaning
and
understanding
in
the
history
of
ideas'
in
J.
Tully
(ed),
Meaning
and
Context:
Quentin
Skinner
and
his
Critics. Day
3 is devoted to the questions of articulating analytical strategies
and of normative/ ethical judgements in discourse analysis. Our
discussions will focus on the possibilities of articulating the
different approaches of Michel Foucault, Norman Fairclough and
Ernesto Laclau in terms of their conceptual tools as well as
regarding their different views on ethical and normative critique in
social analysis. The first session will present the different
positions, the second will be a work-shop for students articulating
analytical strategies focussing on conceptual as well as normative
elements of analysis. Readings Chouliaraki, Lilie,
and Norman Fairclough. 1999. Discourse
in late modernity : rethinking critical discourse analysis.
chapter 2: “Social life and critical social science” and 7
“Discourse difference and the openness of the social”.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Critchley,
Simon. 2002. «Ethics, Politics and Radical Democracy: the History
of a Disagreement». CULTURE
MACHINE. The Journal of Philosophy
4(The Ethico-Political Issue):1–17.
http://culturemachine.tees.ac.uk/Articles/critchley.htm Fairclough,
Norman. 1992. Discourse
and social change.
Chapter 2 and 3: p. 31-100Cambridge, MA: Polity Press. Fairclough,
Norman, Bob Jessop, og Andrew Sayer. 2002. ”Critical Realism and
Semiosis”. Alethia
5(1):2–10. Foucault,
Michel. 1980. ”Truth and Power”. p. 183–93 i Michel
Foucault. Power/ Knowledge,
1980. New Yourk: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Foucault,
Michel. 1991. ”What is Enlightenment”. p. 32–50 i The
Foucault reader.
London: Penguin Books. Foucault,
Michel, og Lawrence D. Kritzman. 1988. ”The concern for truth”.
i Politics,
philosophy, culture : interviews and other writings 1977-1984,
vol. 1. London: Routledge. p. 255 – 67 Hansen,
Allan Dreyer. 2010. «Dangerous Dogs, Constructivism and
Normativity: The Implications of Radical Constructivism».
Distinktion:
Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory
(20):93–107. Laclau,
Ernesto. 2002. «Ethics, Politics and Radical Democracy: a Response
to Simon Critchley». CULTURE
MACHINE. The Journal of Philosophy
4 (The Ethico-Political Issue):1–11.
http://culturemachine.tees.ac.uk/Articles/laclau.htm Laclau,
Ernesto. 2000. «Identity and Hegemony: The Role of Universality in
the Constitution of Political Logics». i Contingency,
hegemony, universality : contemporary dialogues on the left,
Phronesis.
London: Verso. Background
Applications: Critchley,
Simon, and Oliver Marchart. 2004. Laclau:
a critical reader.
London: Routledge: Section 2. Thursday and Friday, October 24-25 Research
Strategies
and
Participants’
Research On
the
fourth
day
we
discuss
the
general
principles
of
research
strategy,
and
then,
in
the
final
two
sessions
of
the
course
(afternoon
Day
4,
morning
Day
5)
turn
to
a
discussion
of
participants’
research.
These
sessions
will
primarily
be
devoted
to
the
discussion
of
the
research
projects
of
participants.
Those
interested
should
send
summaries
of
their
research
projects
(1500
words
max),
as
well
as
a
short
research
paper
at
least
three
weeks
before
our
summer
school
sessions
start
to
the
organisers,
so
that
we
can
build
them
into
the
programme.
By
way
of
conclusion,
these
sessions
will
also
act
as
a
forum
to
raise
and
discuss
general
issues
and
questions
arising
out
of
earlier
sessions. Readings J.
Glynos
and
D.
Howarth,
Logics
of
Critical
Explanation
(Abingdon:
Routledge,
2007),
Chapter
6. J.
Glynos,
and
Howarth,
D.
(2008)
‘Critical
Explanation
in
Social
Science:
A
Logics
Approach’,
Swiss
Journal
of
Sociology,
34(1):
5-35. Background
Applications
A.
Wright
(2012)
‘Fantasies
of
Empowerment:
Mapping
Neoliberal
Discourse
in
the
Coalition
Government’s
Schools
Policy’,
Journal
of
Educational
Policy,
Vol.
27.
Forthcoming.
M.
Hajer
(1995)
The
Politics
of
Environmental
Discourse
(Oxford:
OUP),
Chapter
4.
O.
Reyes
(2000)
‘New
Labour’s
Politics
of
the
Hard-Working
Family’,
in
D.
Howarth,
A.
J.
Norval
and
Y.
Stavrakakis
(eds)
Discourse
Theory
and
Political
Analysis:
Identities,
Hegemonies
and
Social
Change,
Manchester:
Manchester
University
Press.
D.
Howarth
&
S.
F.
Griggs
(2006)
‘Metaphor,
Catachresis
and
Equivalence:
The
Rhetoric
of
Freedom
to
Fly
in
the
Struggle
over
Aviation
Policy
in
the
United
Kingdom’,
Policy
and
Society
(2006),
Vol.
25,
No.
2,
pp.
23-46.
S.
Griggs
&
D.
Howarth
(2012)
‘Phronesis,
Logics,
&
Critical
Policy
Analysis:
Heathrow’s
“Third
Runway”
&
the
Politics
of
“Sustainable
Aviation”
in
the
UK’,
in
B.
Flyvbjerg,
T.
Landman
&
S.
Schram
(eds),
Real
Social
Science,
Cambridge:
CUP.
T.
Solomon
(2009)
‘Social
Logics
and
Normalization
in
the
War
on
Terror’,
Millennium:
Journal
of
International
Studies,
38(2),
269-294.
M.
Watson
and
C.
Hay
(2003)
‘The
Discourse
of
Globalization
and
the
Logic
of
No
Alternative’,
Policy
and
Politics,
Vol.
31,
No.
3,
pp.
289-305.
S.
F.
Griggs
and
D.
Howarth,
‘Populism,
Localism
and
Environmental
Politics:
The
Logic
and
Rhetoric
of
the
Stop
Stansted
Expansion
Campaign
in
the
United
Kingdom’,
Planning
Theory,
(2008),
Vol.
7,
No.
2,
pp.
123-44.
J.
Dean
(2010)
Rethinking
Contemporary
Feminist
Politics,
London:
Palgrave.
A.
J.
Norval,
Deconstructing
Apartheid
Discourse,
London:
Verso,
Chapter
6.
E.
Laclau,
On
Populist
Reason
(London:
Verso,
2005).
C.
Mouffe
(2005)
‘The
“End
of
Politics”
and
the
Challenge
of
Right-wing
Populism’,
in
F.
Panizza
(ed)
Populism
and
the
Mirror
of
Nature,
London:
Verso.
D.
Howarth,
‘The
Ideologies
and
Strategies
of
Resistance
in
Post-Sharpeville
South
Africa:
Thoughts
on
Anthony
Marx’s
Lessons
of
Struggle’,
Africa
Today,
(1994)
Vol.
41,
No.
1,
pp.
21-38.
D.
Howarth
(2005)
‘Populism
or
Popular
Democracy?
The
UDF,
Workerism
and
the
Struggle
for
Radical
Democracy
in
South
Africa’,
in
F.
Panizza
(ed)
Populism
and
the
Mirror
of
Nature,
London:
Verso.
Course
Objectives
Paper and Discussion
of
Participant’s
Research
Projects
- it should be in PDF-format,
- the file name should start with YOUR SURNAME and include the titel and number of pages.
- there should be NO BLANKS or special characters (parantheses, ö, æ, ø, å, é, etc) in the file name
- example: doe_john-politics_of_lazyness-12_pages.pdfProgram
Session
1:
9h30-12h00
Coffee
Break:
10h30-11h00
Session
2:
13h00-15h30
Coffee
Break:
14h00-14h30
Monday, October 22
Tuesday, October 23
Frontiers
and
the
Articulation
and
Staging
of
Demands:
Conceptual
Issues
Further
Readings
Wednesday, October 24
| Please, register here: |