Call for Papers

Detailed 'calls for papers' outlines:

Making an Article Proposal

Authors who are interested in submitting a paper for any of the collections listed below should send a short abstract-length summary to the Editorial Office outlining the scope of their proposed paper; any general enquiries can also be directed to this address.

Socioeconomic Factors and Mental Health: Past and Present

Editors: Professor Matthew Smith and Dr Lucas Richert (University of Strathclyde, UK)

This article collection will examine how the relationship between socioeconomic factors and mental health has been and is understood in an array of different places and periods. Although much of the focus of current mental health research and clinical practice is on the neurological aspects of mental illness and psychopharmacological treatment, historical research demonstrates that a wide range of factors — from vitamin deficiencies such as pellagra, and infections such as syphilis to traumatic life events — have contributed to the onset and exacerbation of mental health problems. Among all these factors, one looms largest: socioeconomic status. On the one hand, socioeconomic inequality has been long recognised as a potential cause of mental illness, as the history of mental hygiene and social psychiatry during much of the twentieth century demonstrates. On the other hand, however, the mentally ill have also historically faced much socioeconomic hardship; today, a high proportion of the homeless and incarcerated in many countries suffer from mental illness.

By exploring this topic across time and place, this collection aims to provide a historical context for today’s mental health crisis, and also to inform current mental health policy, especially attempts to prevent or alleviate mental illness through social change.

Insights on a broad spectrum of themes are welcomed, including, but not restricted to:

  • Homelessness and mental illness;
  • Social psychiatry and mental hygiene;
  • Community mental health;
  • Forensic psychiatry;
  • Race and mental health;
  • Psychiatry and various economic/political systems (e.g., communism, socialism, capitalism);
  • Socioeconomic factors and child mental health;
  • How health professionals deal with poverty and mental health;
  • Social policy and mental health;
  • Social activism and mental health.

This is a rolling article collection and as such proposals and submissions will be welcome throughout 2018.

Continuity and Change in Russian Politics

Editor: Professor Neil Robinson (Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Limerick)

The centenary of the Russian Revolution of 1917 has been a cause for reflection. Political, social and economic change in Russia have reshaped Russia over the last century, but at the same time, as the return to autocratic rule under Vladimir Putin shows, there are powerful continuities in Russia that need to be accounted for. 

This article collection will explore how continuity and change have shaped Russian politics over the last century and their legacies today, and how different social science disciplines, and interdisciplinary work have taken account of continuities and change to explain the role of different forces and institutions in the development of Russia.

Contributions are invited from a range of disciplines and perspectives, including, but not restricted to: political studies, international relations, history and sociology.

Articles exploring the following key themes and others of relevance will be considered:

  • Policy continuity and change in Russia
  • Perspectives on change in Russian politics and society
  • Conceptualising change in Russia
  • Sources of change in Russian politics
  • Continuity and change in Russian foreign relations
  • Legacies of the past in Russian politics
  • Social and economic adaptation to change in Russia

This is a rolling article collection and as such proposals and submissions will be welcomed throughout 2018. 

The Future of Research Assessment

Editor: Professor James Wilsdon (Professor of Research Policy, Department of Politics & Director of Impact and Engagement, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Sheffield, UK)

It is now thirty years since the UK’s first research assessment exercise took place in 1986. To mark this anniversary, Palgrave Communications will publish a thematic collection on the future of research assessment. A strong cast of contributors, drawn from academia, management, policy and practice, will explore recent developments and debates in the UK and internationally.

Across research systems worldwide, policymakers, universities, funders and publishers are grappling with how to measure and assess the qualities and impacts of research. Since the mid-1980s, there has been a steady escalation in the quantity, reach and sophistication of research assessment. 

Several triggers lie behind this: pressure from governments for tighter audit and evaluation of public investment in research; demand by policymakers for more strategic intelligence on impacts and future priorities; the need for universities and other institutions to mange and develop their research portfolios; competition within and between institutions for prestige, students, staff and resources; increases in the availability of real-time ‘big data’ on research uptake; and the capacity of indicators, metrics and other tools for data analysis. 

Architects and advocates of assessment point to accompanying increases in research productivity and quality. But the relationship to outcomes is intensely debated, and critics argue that the burdens of audit and assessment systems, and the pressures and incentives they create, are having corrosive effects on research cultures, qualities and values.

We invite contributions from academics, policymakers and practitioners on the following themes:

  • The development, use and effectiveness of different policies, frameworks and tools for research assessment; 
  • The relationship between research assessment and outcomes, qualities and impacts;
  • Uses, merits and limitations of quantitative indicators and peer review in research assessment;
  • The politics and ethics of research assessment;
  • The effects of assessment on research cultures, careers, equality and diversity;
  • Responses to the growing influence of university rankings and league tables;
  • Altmetrics and indicators for assessing research qualities and/or wider impacts;
  • Gaming, unintended consequences and strategic responses to assessment;
  • The history, development and comparative analysis of national assessment systems;
  • Strategies for evaluating inter, multi and transdisciplinary research.

This is a rolling collection and as such submissions/proposals will be welcome throughout 2018.

Read papers published to date in this collection.

Global Governance

We invite submissions and article proposals for this rolling article collection dedicated to Global Governance. This collection provides a multi- and inter-disciplinary forum for current thinking in this fast evolving field of scholarship.

Insights from a broad spectrum of areas are welcomed, including, but not restricted to: international relations, political science, law, economics, sociology, history, sustainability, development, security, sports, public health, demography and cultural studies.

Advisory Editors: Michele Acuto (University College London, UK), Nikolay Anguelov (University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, US) and Martin Geiger (Institute of Political Economy Carleton University, Canada).

This is a rolling collection and as such submissions/proposals will be welcome throughout 2018.

Read papers published to date in this collection.

Multi- and Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Gender Studies

Editor: Professor Kath Woodward (Open University, UK).

The field of Gender Studies offers theoretical and methodological advantages in understanding multiply constituted social worlds and addressing a variety of pressing global problems, from the dynamics of migration, through to the uneven global power geometries and climate change. Not only are most of the major challenges of the contemporary world underpinned by social divisions, including those based on sex and gender, but also the issues addressed by sexual politics are often a key motor of activism and change. Notably, gender studies are also playing an integral part of the increasing interdisciplinarity of academic research.

This rolling collection provides a multi- and inter-disciplinary forum for current thinking in this field of scholarship—insights and perspectives from a broad spectrum of areas are welcomed, including, but not restricted to, sociology, criminology, politics, history, literature, education, psychology, anthropology and cultural and media studies.

This is a rolling collection and as such submissions/proposals will be welcome throughout 2018.

Read papers published to date in this collection.

Scientific Advice to Governments

EditorsSir Peter Gluckman (Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister of New Zealand & Chair, International Network for Government Science Advice) and Professor James Wilsdon (Professor of Science & Democracy, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, UK).

Scientific advice to governments has never been in greater demand; nor has it been more contested. From climate change to cyber-security, poverty to pandemics, food technologies to fracking, the questions being asked of scientists, engineers and other experts by policymakers, the media and the wider public continue to multiply and increase in complexity. At the same time, the authority and legitimacy of experts are under increasing scrutiny, particularly on controversial topics, such as climate change and genetically modified crops.

This thematic collection brings together leading contributors – from across Europe and internationally – to the theory, practice and politics of scientific advice. It will build on the conclusions of a landmark conference in Auckland in August 2014, which led to the creation of the International Network for Government Science Advice (INGSA).

Articles are invited that explore scientific advice from a range of disciplinary perspectives, including science and technology studies, science policy studies, political science, sociology and philosophy. Case studies and practitioner perspectives are also welcome. Topics that the collection hopes to cover include:

  • Institutional arrangements for scientific advice in national governments, European and international institutions;
  • Different modes of scientific advice: including deliberative and informal advice; advice in crises and emergencies; foresight and horizon scanning;
  • The relationship between scientific advice and wider approaches to evidence-informed policymaking;
  • The qualities, skills and capabilities of scientific advisors and policy commissioners and ‘customers’ of advice;
  • The role of different types of evidence and expertise in advisory processes (including from the natural sciences, engineering, social and behavioural sciences, arts and humanities), and the prospects for inter- or trans-disciplinary approaches;
  • The role of public values, engagement and dialogue in science advisory processes;
  • The contribution of boundary organisations to scientific advisory systems and processes, including national academies, learned societies, think tanks, business lobby groups, NGOs, foundations and civil society organisations;
  • Scientific advice in situations of uncertainty, complexity and ‘post-normal’ science;
  • Science advice in diplomacy and international relations.

This is a rolling collection and as such submissions/proposals will be welcome throughout 2018.

Read papers published to date in this collection.

The Role of Women in Management and the Workplace

Editors: Rosa Lombardi (Sapienza University of Rome, Italy) and Paola Paoloni (Niccolo' Cusano University, Rome, Italy).

While historically the male perspective has predominated inside organisations, there is now an increasing understanding that a greater role for women in management, the workplace and organizations in general, is an essential precursor for promoting economic development and creating a fair and inclusive society. A continuing lack of gender equality demonstrates that human resources are not being harnessed to their greatest effect. For this reason greater awareness of gender equality and women’s empowerment is essential for attaining economic and societal development through various channels, including employment in the labour market, higher education, research, innovation and entrepreneurship. Moreover, a deeper understanding of the female perspective in modern organizational contexts is significant to enriching organizations’ stock of knowledge, culture, competence, capabilities and skills.

Featuring research from academics and practitioners, this thematic collection aims to provide a contribution to this wider debate by encouraging the submission of empirical and/or conceptual papers that seek to address gender equality and women’s empowerment in management, the wider workplace and organisational structures.

Papers that adopt diverse research methodologies and draw from different theoretical streams and disciplines are welcomed, as are comparative analyses from different countries or regions.

The themes covered in the collection include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • Women’s issues in the modern world;
  • Women’s role in socioeconomic development;
  • Modern business ethics;
  • Women leadership and entrepreneurship;
  • Women’s roles in management and governance;
  • Women’s roles in management and governance;
  • Work, family, financial issues and careers;
  • Women’s roles in creativity and innovation;
  • Discrimination and gender (in)equality;
  • Intellectual capital and gender.

Contributions on other related and relevant themes will be welcomed, subject to the approval of the Editors. This is a rolling collection and as such submissions/proposals will be welcome throughout 2018.

Read papers published to date in this collection.

Perspectives on Soft Power

Editor: Professor Nick Anguelov (Department of Public Policy, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, USA)

Since its conceptualisation in the 1980s by Joseph Nye, the term ‘soft power’–the ability of states to persuade others to do what they want without force or coercion–has been widely invoked in foreign policy discussions. While proponents highlight the successful applications of soft power in confronting critical regional or global issues, others point to its limitations in contrast to those of ‘hard power’ approaches, such as military intervention, coercive diplomacy and economic sanctions.

This thematic collection explores all aspects of soft power, from approaches to framing foreign-policy agendas, to the strategies that countries use to persuade and elicit positive attraction in order to obtain preferred outcomes.

Contributions are invited from a range of disciplines and perspectives, including, but not restricted to: diplomacy, international relations, security studies, international economics and law, sociology and anthropology.

Given the new and emerging incarnations of soft power in the era of ‘new media’, submissions from the following fields are also welcomed: communications studies, cross-cultural sociology, global business and marketing studies, and information technology management.

Articles exploring the following key themes and others of relevance will be considered:

  • Evolving definitions of soft power
  • Instruments of soft power and their use (e.g., public diplomacy, cultural diplomacy and financial aid)
  • Country- and region-specific case studies
  • Interplay between soft and hard power
  • Infrastructure dynamics to support soft power (e.g., informational technology, social media)
  • Implications and outcomes of soft power
  • Future of soft power and ‘smart power’

This is a rolling collection and as such submissions/proposals will be welcome throughout 2018.

Studies in Horror and the Gothic

Editor: Dr John Edgar Browning (Georgia Institute of Technology, USA).

‘Studies in Horror and the Gothic’ is by necessity of its pervasive, aesthetic nature a broad and all-encapsulating thematic collection, one that will engage the study of horror and the Gothic through literature, film, television, new media, and electronic gaming. We are here interested in the dark, the forbidden, the secret. But fundamentally all our submissions should ask, and strive to address (or redress) on their own terms, what is “horror” and what is the “Gothic,” employing in the process individual or multiple methods of theoretical inquiry and myriad disciplinary or interdisciplinary approaches from across the humanities, social sciences, and beyond.    This thematic collection concerns itself with the business of exhuming, from the dark recesses of human experience, any number of cultural products from any historical moment or geography that might prove useful in uncovering some of horror’s and the Gothic’s more fascinating junctures and deeper meanings. Submissions should be scholarly but remain accessible to the advanced student or knowledgeable general reader interested in the subject. 

Contributions on the following themes are especially encouraged:

  • Theories of horror and monstrosity;
  • Horror, the Gothic, and pedagogy;
  • National Gothic(s) and horrors;
  • Female Gothic/horror histories;
  • Specialised themes in horror and the Gothic (law, sexuality, disability, etc);
  • Ethnographic approaches to horror and the Gothic;
  • Horror by the decade;
  • Lost Gothics;
  • Post-millennial horrors and Gothic(s).

Collection Advisory Board: Jeffrey Andrew Weinstock (Central Michigan University, USA), Carol Margaret Davison (University of Windsor, Canada), Harry M. Benshoff (University of North Texas, USA), Dylan Trigg (University of Memphis, USA and University College Dublin, Ireland), Maisha L Wester (Indiana University, USA), and Jesse Stommel (University of Mary Washington, USA).

Read Dr John Edgar Browning's paper 'The real vampires of New Orleans and Buffalo: a research note towards comparative ethnography'.

This is a rolling collection and as such submissions/proposals will be welcome up until the end of 2018. 

Read papers published to date in this collection.

Discourse studies: Theories and Methodologies at the Crossroads of Language and Society

Editor: Professor Johannes Angermuller (University of Warwick, UK)

Discourse Studies is a field that has been developing dynamically at the intersection of language and society. While discourse analysis is an established subfield within linguistics, discourse designates an object of investigation and topic of controversial debate in many other fields of the social sciences and humanities: sociology, political science, education, history, anthropology, literary criticism, cultural studies, philosophy and beyond. This collection reflects the growing awareness of the many strands and traditions that have been developing in different disciplines and aims to take stock of Discourse Studies as an interdisciplinary field. Its objective is to step outside the niche of established schools and to make recent discourse-related developments in specialised disciplinary fields available to a broader interdisciplinary audience.

Contributing authors are invited to approach the topic from either a theoretical or methodological vantage point. From a theoretical angle, articles can focus on critical conceptual and epistemological debates that have characterised a field, approach or school in Discourse Studies. These contributions should focus on contemporary challenges in the broader context of Discourse Studies. They should avoid theoretical exegesis, focus on problems and questions relevant to discourse researchers and explicitly aim to establish a dialogue across the disciplinary spectrum. From a methodological angle, contributions can present analytical tools and research methods that are applied to an empirical object. Against a background of past achievements, contributions should reflect on the articulation of theories and methods in discourse research.

This is a rolling collection and as such submissions/proposals will be welcome throughout 2018. 

Green Criminology and Environmental Harm

Editor: Dr Angus Nurse (Middlesex University School of Law, UK)

Palgrave Communications is inviting submissions and article proposals for a thematic article collection dedicated to Green Criminology and Environmental Harm. The collection invites original research and reviews of policy and practice aimed at addressing contemporary environmental harm problems. This includes work aimed at addressing the manner in which environmental harm is framed within criminal justice systems as well as how failures in enforcement practice or issues within policy and legislation impact on environmental harm. Insights from a broad spectrum of areas are welcomed, including, but not restricted to: environmental harm as crime, environmental victimology, environmental policing, environmental law and the prosecution of environmental offences, environmental criminality, wildlife crime as environmental harm.

This is a rolling collection and as such submissions/proposals will be welcome throughout 2018. 

China in the Global South

Editor: Professor Ho-fung Hung (Department of Sociology, Johns Hopkins University, USA)

Over the last decade, China has become ever more active in exporting capital to other developing countries. Sectors that Chinese companies invest in range from mining and infrastructure to manufacturing. These investments cover all continents. China’s initiation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and its participation in the BRICS bank will give extra financial boost to outward investment of Chinese companies. Journalistic and policy discussion about the impact of China’s outward investment on the prospect of development in the global South abounds. While some hail China’s capital export as creator of a new context of development, others see it as not much different from old colonial exploitation of less developed countries. Academic research on this topic is still lacking and uneven. This thematic collection aims to bring together pioneering research on the local impacts of Chinese investment in different parts of the developing world. It will foster comprehensive and comparative perspectives on whether Chinese outward investment is creating a new context of development in the developing world or not.

This is a rolling collection and as such submissions/proposals will be welcome throughout 2018. 

Digital Society and Capitalism

Editor: Professor Mike Grimshaw (University of Canterbury, New Zealand)

This article collection addresses the questions that arise concerning the impacts and challenges that digital society provides for and against capitalism. Digital society has been lauded as emancipatory and freeing individuals from the constrictions of time and place and yet also critiqued as introducing a type of techno-feudalism of data extraction. The vaunted freedom of work and leisure time, work-space and leisure-place, has occurred to some, yet for many others it has created the collapse of work and non-work time and space into a digital surveillance of work, identity and social interaction. There are also issues of technological inequality and generational differences.

Contributions are invited that provide perspectives on hot topics within this theme, including, but not restricted to, questions such as:

  • Can digital society be now considered the new opiate of the masses of neo-liberal capitalism?
  • What are the issues and possibilities of digitalism society within the turn to the financialisation of capitalism?
  • Did digital society contribute to the survival of capitalism after the Global Financial crisis?
  • Is the issue the 1% that the Occupy movement focused on, often via social media and digital society, or is it the hyper-capitalist entrepreneurs and plutocracy of the digital economy who are calculated to form the far smaller 0.0001%?
  • How has labour changed within digital society?
  • In what way can we talk about an App economy and App labour?
  • In what ways can we discuss ethnicity and gender within digital society and capitalism?
  • How have different forms of politics within capitalism made use of digital society to advance their claims and ideologies?
  • How has publishing, news, sports and entertainment within capitalism been affected by the rise of digital society?
  • What are the impacts upon universities and other forms of knowledge production?
  • Where and how do the precariat exist within the matrix of digital society and capitalism?

This is a rolling collection and as such submissions/proposals will be welcome throughout 2018. 

The Politics of an Urban Age

EditorsDr Michele Acuto (University College London, UK), Dr Joana Setzer (London School of Economics and Political Science, UK), Enora Robin (University College London, UK), Dr Kristin Ljungkvist (Uppsala University, Sweden).

Since 2015, the international community has been drawing the contours of the new global Sustainable Development Agenda. With most of the world’s population now living in urban areas, cities more than ever have been called into action to help solve some of the most pressing challenges of our time, such as climate change, growing inequalities, economic instability, and pandemics. The third United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development will discuss the ways in which municipalities across the world can actually help tackle these challenges. Yet, recognising the increasing roles of city-governments in finding urban solutions to global problems raises various questions in relation to the changing politics of the ‘urban age’, and the governance challenges posed by the apprehension of global and trans sectorial issues through an urban lens. 

This thematic collection will explore the political and governance implications of the urban age at various scales, welcoming contributions from leading scholars working across academic fields (development studies, economics, environmental science, geography, international studies, political science, science and technology studies, sociology) and from different geographical perspectives. 

The various themes developed in this issue will question the political implications of the urban age across multiple ‘levels’ including:

  • Space politics: the impacts of cyberspace on cities and the future of cities;
  • Global politics: city-diplomacy and the ways in which cities engage in multilateral processes; how cities can respond to humanitarian crises and refugees;
  • Regional politics: how cities participate in the reconfiguration of their regional environment (e.g. in the EU, South East Asia);
  • National politics: what are the implications of a growing role of cities on power distribution within nations (e.g. questions around devolution/decentralisation, political participation, accountability);
  • Subnational politics: the formation of large urban regions, coordination between city and state/regional governments;
  • Urban/metropolitan: city-level of analysis, urban governance challenges, resilience and adaptation;
  • Neighbourhood: role of community and neighbour politics in sprawling cities, connections between neighbourhoods and politics of shifting from rural villages to metropolitan neighbourhoods;
  • Infra-urban politics: coordination of different government levels across the city, infra-city disparities, city fragmentation, displacement, megaprojects;
  • Home politics: impact of rapid urbanisation on housing, households, societal structures;
  • Body politics: city and surveillance, movement, flux, conflicts, gender;
  • Microbial politics: pandemics and health.

Each author is invited to propose a contribution with the title ‘The [level] politics of an urban age’, in which the different levels of the urban age will be addressed.

This is a rolling article collection and as such submissions will be welcomed at any point up until the end of December 2018. To register interest prospective authors should submit a short article proposal (abstract summary) to the Editorial Office in the first instance.

The Politics of Evidence-based Policymaking: Maximising the Use of Evidence in Policy

Editor: Professor Paul Cairney (Professor of Politics and Public Policy, Division of History and Politics, University of Stirling, UK)

Many academics, in areas such as health and environmental policy, bemoan the inevitability of ‘policy based evidence’ rather than ‘evidence-based policy’. Some express the naïve view that policymakers should think like scientists and/or that evidence-based policymaking should be more like the ideal of evidence-based medicine in which everyone supports a hierarchy of evidence. Others try to work out how they can improve the supply of evidence or set up new institutions to get policymakers to pay more attention to it.

Yet, a more pragmatic solution is to work out how and why policymakers demand information, and the political and complex policymaking context in which they operate. Only then can we produce evidence-based strategies based on how the world works rather than how we would like it to work. This new strategy requires new skills, such as the ability to turn a large amount of scientific evidence into simple and effective stories that appeal to the biases of policymakers, and to form alliances with key actors operating in many levels and types of government. It also requires scholars of policy to turn their scientific understanding of how policymaking works into a practical understanding of how to operate effectively within it. 

This article collection aims to learn from many disciplinary and practitioner perspectives, about how to tell good stories, form networks, influence allies, understand politics enough to engage effectively within it, and simply be able to tell if decision-making processes are sufficiently ‘evidence-informed’.

This is a rolling collection and as such submissions/proposals will be welcome throughout 2018. 

Read Prof Cairney's blog for more information about this collection.

Religion and Poverty

Editors: Dr Gottfried Schweiger and Dr Helmut P Gaisbauer (Centre for Ethic and Poverty Research, University of Salzburg, Austria); Prof Clemens Sedmak (Department of Theology and Religious Studies, King's College London, UK/Centre for Ethics and Poverty Research, University of Salzburg, Austria).

Poverty and religion are interrelated in different ways. On the one hand, for various religious traditions poverty is both an aspect of a particular faithful life (e.g. monastic communities) and giving to the poor is seen as a religious duty. Such traditions have evolved over time and expanded the role of faith-based organisations nowadays play in welfare provision and international development. Faith-based organizations play an important role in poverty alleviation both in rich and poor countries. These actions and practices, as well as their religious and theological underpinnings, deserve scrutiny. On the other hand, religion plays an important role in the life of people living in poverty: how they experience and shape their living, and how they find their place in society and the communities in which they. The role of religion in justifying certain inequalities and processes of exclusion (e.g. in India) and thus contributing to the sustainability of poverty is another important theme worth reflection.

We invite papers, from a range of disciplinary perspectives, that consider the following overarching question: how can religion be used as a vehicle to overcome structures of poverty, and how does it sometimes hinder such processes?

Contributions from sociology, development studies, religious studies, economics, theology, and other social sciences and humanities are welcomed; as are insights from different geographical settings, forms of poverty, and religious traditions.

This is a rolling article collection and as such submissions/proposals will be welcome throughout 2018.

This special issue is run in collaboration with the 2017 Salzburg Conference on Interdisciplinary Poverty Research, organised by the Centre for Ethics and Poverty Research of the University of Salzburg.

Geographies of Emotional and Care Labour

Editors: Jean Michel Montsion (Associate Professor, International Studies, Glendon College, York University, Canada); Jessica Parish (Political Science, York University, Canada)

In recent years, shifts have been witnessed in the social organization of emotional and care labour, notably as they intersect with new global trends in migratory patterns and international mobility, the restructuring of social reproduction and public-private divides, as well as the flexibilization of labour markets and a resurgence of volunteer work. Building on key insights from feminist scholars, theorists of affect, and critical social theory, this thematic collection will explore the various spatial dimensions of emotional and care labour in neoliberal times. In particular, it aims to examine how local and global processes create new challenges and opportunities for those who participate in, and/or are the object(s) of, forms of emotional and care labour. With a focus on emotions and affect as a central epistemological and methodological orientation, this collection aims to put the emphasis on heretofore under-explored linkages between spatial/social functions and broader political and economic processes.

Both theoretical and empirical contributions are welcomed, from various Social Sciences and Humanities disciplines.

If you are interested in submitting a paper please send the Managing Editor a short proposal in the first instance.

This is a rolling collection and as such submissions/proposals will be welcome throughout 2018. 

Mediated Populism

Editor: Dr Michael Higgins (University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK)

This article collection examines the relationship between populism and media culture and practice. In its original conception, populism describes a political alignment with the ordinary people against the interests of the governing, cultural and corporate classes. It assumes that formal elites are dedicated to self-enrichment and the retention of power, and only the aggressive animation of popular interests can counter their protective norms and tactics. This political stance has occasioned forms of rhetoric and practice claiming association with popular sentiment, often based on constructions of anti-politics and authenticity.

Populist discourses have become essential in understanding the relationship between media and contemporary politics. This article collection promises to examine mediated populism as it continues to innovate in a multi-modal media setting and amid shifting political circumstances.

Articles should make a contribution to the understanding of mediated populism and its histories. Contributions that expand the study of populism across new contexts and political movements, and encourage an emphasis on emergent media platforms, are encouraged. Topics welcomed include, but are not restricted to:

  • Populist politics and social media
  • Mediated populism across the political spectrum
  • Mediating authoritarian populism
  • Mediated populism and emotionality
  • Populism and mediatization
  • Populism in a cross-national and international setting

This is a rolling collection and as such submissions/proposals will be welcome throughout 2018. 

What Future for the Philosophy of Religion?

Editor: Dr Russell Re Manning (Bath Spa University, UK)

We are living through an exciting time for the philosophy of religion: a time of crisis. There is, it seems, widespread discontent within the discipline about its current state and future directions – indeed about whether it even has a future whatsoever.

For many, the discipline has rightly recognised that it has become philosophically and religiously provincial - with a disproportionate emphasis on analysis of arguments for and against the existence of God. In a context of increasing philosophical and religious diversity, along with a welcome tendency towards inter/trans-disciplinarity, philosophers of religion seem aware that something has to change to secure the discipline's future. Here, however, consensus evaporates and a range of proposals has been put forward. A rough typology of (non-exclusive) alternatives suggests a variety of directions for philosophy of religion: 1) a turn towards the continental style of philosophy; 2) a turn towards non-Western philosophies; 3) a turn towards religious practices (beyond the current focus on religious beliefs); 4) a turn towards non-Western religious traditions; 5) a turn towards the methodologies of the study of religions; 6) a turn towards ethico-political engagements; 7) a turn towards those historically marginalised in the discipline; 8) a turn towards confessional apologetics and 9) a turn towards the methodologies of the natural sciences.

This article collection will seek interdisciplinary perspectives on the analysis of the current situation of the crisis of the philosophy of religion and solicit evaluations of proposals for its future. It aims to provide a forum for those engaging the state of the discipline and of its future - whether with regret, frustration, and/or hope.

This is a rolling collection and as such submissions/proposals will be welcome throughout 2018. 

Anti-biosis? – Social and Cultural Inquiries into Human-Microbe Relations

Editors: Professor Steve Hinchliffe (University of Exeter, UK), Professor Clare Chandler (London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, UK), Professor Komatra Chuengsatiansup (Ministry of Public Health, Thailand), and Professor Helen Lambert (Bristol Medical School, UK).

As a pinnacle of twentieth-century medical innovation, one could argue that antibiotics, and more broadly antimicrobials, have fundamentally altered ways of life.  Everything from the control of common infectious diseases, to the possibility for densely housed, mass-produced livestock, to the availability of minor surgery, to the ability to treat life-threatening diseases are entangled with effective antibiosis.  
 
And yet, the role of antimicrobials cannot be taken for granted. Resistance to these medicines is accelerated though their extensive and intensive uses. Resistant bacteria as well as mobile genetic elements are now known to be widespread in some communities and environments. The threat of resistance, alongside corporate, market and governance failures that militate against new therapies or alternative treatments, raise the spectre of a post-antibiotic future.  Needless to say, the effects could be severe.
 
The requirement to find therapeutic alternatives, to develop more targeted therapies, to reduce unnecessary medicinal dependencies, all pose social, cultural and economic challenges, as the impetus to tackle antimicrobial resistance is differentially taken up - or imposed - and reconfigured across diverse scientific and biomedical establishments as well as governance regimes and cultures worldwide. We need to understand the place and use of medicines; we need to trace new pathways and overcome barriers to innovative practices; we need to analyse regulatory environments and we need to build social capacity for change. Only by moving beyond narrowly biomedical visions of resistance can we realise the aim of sustaining effective health treatments, while delivering food security and protecting livelihoods.
 
We invite papers that address questions such as:  
• What lessons can histories of medicine offer to the current antibiotic predicament?
• How is antibiosis bound up with a particular worldview, and is this shifting in light of new scientific and social knowledge?
• What social as well as technical innovations are possible as a means to address antibiotic and antimicrobial resistance and what are the barriers to their realisation or equitable distribution?
• What are the consequences and opportunity costs of directing resources to addressing global resistance?
We invite papers on any of the following:
• The social lives, meanings, uneven availability, demand for and appeal of antibiotics
• Regulatory responses to resistance, including attempts to alter expectations, to change uses of medicines and unintended consequences of regulation
• Cultural and historical approaches to antibiotics and resistance - how can cultural sensibilities inform practice?
• Environmental and social geographies of antibiosis, their role in landscapes of production and pathways to change
• Institutional responses to antimicrobial resistance as a new global imperative - how are health policies, laboratory practices and public health initiatives being variably reconfigured to manage resistant microbes?
• How can understanding the antibiotic era, its history as well as ‘the biology of that history’, reconfigure approaches to life?
• How microbes and the challenges of resistance change social science and humanities practices?
• How do social understandings of scientific and other knowledge improve or help to inform current actions?
• How can the history of ‘rational drug use’ serve to inform current framings of antimicrobial stewardship?
 
Papers are welcomed that speak to clinical, public health and community medicine as well as agricultural uses, one health perspectives and environmental persistence and transmission of resistant microbes and genes. We welcome papers across the humanities and social sciences as well as inter-disciplinary papers that have a strong and explicit social or humanities component.

Submissions/proposals will be welcome throughout 2018.

Cultural Evolution

Editor: Dr Jamshid Tehrani (Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, Durham University, UK)

Cultural evolution describes how socially learned ideas, rules, and skills are transmitted and change over time, giving rise to diverse forms of social organization, belief systems, languages, technologies and artistic traditions. This research article collection will showcase cutting-edge research into cultural evolution, bringing together contributions that reflect the interdisciplinary scope of this rapidly growing field, as well as the diversity of topics and approaches within it.

Quantitative and qualitative research from a range of perspectives and disciplines is welcomed, including: sociology, archaeology, anthropology, complex network analysis, economics, history, linguistics, medical humanities, politics, psychology, philosophy, and religious studies.

Contributions are invited on, but not restricted to, the following themes:

  • Comparative studies of social learning and/or cultural transmission;
  • Evolution in human behaviour;
  • Cognitive anthropology;
  • Cultural attraction theory;
  • Experimental studies of cultural evolution;
  • Novel methodologies to study sociocultural evolution;
  • Quantitative/complex network analysis;
  • Modelling studies of cultural evolutionary dynamics;
  • Phylogenetic analysis of culture and language;
  • Gene-culture co-evolution and human niche construction;
  • Evolution of religious practices and beliefs;
  •  Real-world applications of cultural evolutionary knowledge, e.g. to grand societal challenges;
  •  Evolution of language and communication;
  • Philosophical perspectives on cultural evolution.

This is a rolling article collection and as such submissions will be welcomed at any point up until the end of March 2019. To register interest prospective authors should submit a short article proposal (abstract summary) to the Editorial Office in the first instance.

Social and Spatial Inequalities: Processes, Impacts and Policies

Editor: Dr Renato Miguel do Carmo (Assistant Professor at the University Institute of Lisbon, Portugal)

This research article collection will showcase cutting-edge research on the multidimensional and relational concept of ‘inequality’, bringing together contributions, both quantitative and qualitative, theoretical and empirical, on underlying causes and processes, wider impacts, and potential policy solutions.

Insights from a range of disciplinary and interdisciplinary perspectives are invited, including, sociology, social policy, political science, anthropology, economics, history, psychology, philosophy, human geography, public health and development studies. Research that reflects on and seeks to inform policymaking is also welcomed.

The intention is that the research featuring in this collection will together provide a holistic view of ‘inequality’ in its many forms.

Contributions are invited on, but not restricted to, the following themes:

  • Vertical and horizontal inequalities
  • Inequalities at varying scales — e.g., local, national, trans-national, global
  • Inequalities of conditions and of opportunities, including:
    • Income, wealth and class
    • Gender
    • Racial and ethnic
    • Age
    • Health and healthcare provision
    • Educational
    • Technological
    • Knowledge-based
    • Geographic and spatial
    • Life changes
    • Labour, unemployment, underemployment and precarious work
    • Social mobility
    • Migration
  • Methodological approaches to studying inequalities
  • Real-world case studies
  • Implications and opportunities for policymaking

This is a rolling article collection and as such submissions will be welcomed at any point up until the end of April 2019. To register interest prospective authors should submit a short article proposal (abstract summary) to the Editorial Office in the first instance.

What Guns Mean: The Symbolic Lives of Firearms

Editor: Professor Jonathan M Metzl (Frederick B. Rentschler II Professor of Sociology and Medicine, Health, and Society, Director, Center for Medicine, Health, and Society, Professor of Psychiatry, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN)

Civilian-owned firearms are particular material objects whose public health implications garner increasing academic and public attention. After years of relative silence, many leading American public health organizations, medical groups, and research universities have now come out against the research blockade put in place by the so-called Dickey Amendment in 1996. Meanwhile, each successive mass shooting highlights the untenable tensions between public demand for expert knowledge to prevent gun death on the one hand, and a government actively engaged in squelching this exact expert knowledge on the other. In response, growing numbers of medical and public health journals publish research articles and special issues that address the health effects of guns and bullets. 

To date, however, relatively little attention has been paid to larger questions of what guns mean, and how firearms emerge as powerful symbols whose connotations are shaped by history, politics, and culture. This article collection will explore these latter associations by looking in depth at guns as particular, and particularly charged, cultural and political symbols. Building on this journal’s commitment to foster, wide-ranging interdisciplinary dialogue, this collection aims to bring together work by humanists, social scientists, public health scholars, and other researchers and writers to address the complex meanings of firearms in ways that provide context for current political debates. 

Quantitative, qualitative and investigative research from a range of disciplines is welcomed, including, but not restricted to, anthropology, cultural and media studies, history, literary studies, political science, sociology, public health and psychology.

The collection will consider questions and themes such as: 

  • How are guns represented in literature, art, film, or the media, and how do these representations provide deeper understanding of the contested politics of firearms?
  • How does history deepen understandings of racialized, gendered, or socioeconomic associations tied to firearms? How might these histories and associations differ by geographical or global context?
  • How can literary, cultural, or social scientific analysis complement or complicate public health approaches to reducing gun violence? Or deepen understanding of responses to mass shootings, particular gun laws or policies, or the divisive nature of the US corporate gun lobby?
  • In what ways are gun “debates” symbolic of larger tensions or politics?
  • How might literary, cultural, or social scientific approaches provide new modes of addressing the opinions and attitudes that people have about firearms and firearm policies, or provide better understandings of differing points of view?
  • How should the disciplines of the humanities or social sciences or the media effectively engage with political debates about firearm policies? How might these perspectives complicate public-health frameworks surrounding guns?
  • What lessons can global approaches to, or histories of, firearms impart to the United States? What conclusions can be drawn from research from beyond a US perspective?
  • How might the NRA, perceptions of American gun culture, and reports about mass shootings shape global perceptions of the United States?
  • In what ways might addressing firearms symbolically deepen conversations about the ‘sublime qualities’ of guns?

Article proposals should be submitted to the Editorial Office by October 1, 2018. Full submissions can be submitted any time up until June 28, 2019. Full author guidelines are here, and additional information on the journal's open access policy is here.

Making the cut? Scientific Possibilities and ELSI Challenges in Genome-Editing

Editors: Dr Oliver Feeney (National University of Ireland (Galway), Ireland), Dr Brígida Riso (ISCTE-University Institute of Lisbon, Portugal), Professor Vojin Rakic (University of Belgrade, Serbia)

Since 2012, the dramatically increased potential of genome editing techniques (particularly CRISPR-Cas9) in human therapeutics has created headlines, enthusiasm and concern in genetic research not seen since the mapping of the human genome at the turn of the century. It could be suggested that the recent developments in genome editing do not bring entirely new ethical, social and legal issues to the fore. Rather, it brings us to a point where many of these theoretical reflections are becoming (potentially) applicable and therefore can have a greater role to play in policy decisions, which will affect the emerging governance of new genome editing developments.

In order to help move forward a responsible debate on the issue of genome-editing with a focus on human applications and to foster a discussion that is critically reflective on existing responses from academia, policy-makers, business and the media, this collection will bring together a multidisciplinary collection of key perspectives, charged with three key tasks. Firstly, a key task is to contribute to the question of how to evaluate and guide current and imminent developments in genome editing. Secondly, a closely related task is to contribute to reviewing the existing theoretical literature on the ethical, legal and social considerations of genetic interventions on human beings that has developed over the past number of decades, in order to ascertain their suitability for contemporary genome editing evaluation and guidance. The third task aims to develop a robust framework for future discussions and evaluations on genome editing developments and to contribute toward a responsible governance framework for scientists, biotech companies and public research institutions in Europe, and beyond, as well as improving the discourse between key stakeholders, including scientists, clinicians, bioethicists, policy-makers and the wider society.

We invite papers, both empirical and theoretical, from a wide range of disciplines, including, but not restricted to, philosophy, ethics, law, medical humanities, politics and social sciences, that: 

  • Evaluate current and/or imminent developments in genome editing with regard to human interventions or non-human interventions with clear consequences for human well-being.
  • Contribute to reviewing the existing theoretical literature on the ethical, legal and social considerations of such interventions.
  • Contribute to discussion of the adaptability of the previous literature and framework to the contemporary genome-editing scene.
  • Map and compare the speculation involving genome editing to the effective and concrete developments achieved so far.
  • Develop a robust framework for future discussions and evaluations on genome editing developments and to contribute toward a responsible governance framework for scientists, biotech companies and public research institutions in Europe, and beyond.
  • Contribute to public engagement strategies on improving the discourse between key stakeholders, including scientists, clinicians, bioethicists, policy-makers and the wider society.

To register interest prospective authors should submit a short article proposal (abstract summary) to the Editorial Office in the first instance. Full submissions can be submitted any time up until the end of July 2019.

Challenging Medical Knowledge Translation – Convergence and Divergence of Translation across Epistemic and Cultural Boundaries

Editors: Professor John Ødemark (Associate Professor of Cultural History and Cultural Encounters, University of Oslo, Norway), Professor Eivind Engebretsen (Professor of Medical Epistemology, University of Oslo, Norway)

The aim of this collection is to develop contemporary knowledge translation (KT) in medicine by challenging it with current cultural and humanistic theories of translation. In the process of doing this, however, we will also challenge theories of translation within the humanities by juxtaposing them with the scientific practice of KT. Different notions of “translation” have become increasingly important in the contemporary natural and human sciences. The turn to translation can be traced across a number of human sciences, such as cultural studies, anthropology and science and technology studies (STS). Translation has lately also become institutionalized in the field of medicine, leading to the development of so-called knowledge translation and ‘translational research’. These concepts refer to a set of research activities bound together by the common goal of “bridging the gap” between science in laboratories and clinical application – and more generally, putting research-based knowledge into practice. While translation in the human sciences has emerged as a key theoretical concept, and could be seen as an index of current epistemological predicaments and the almost obligatory requirement to cross-disciplinary and cultural boundaries in a “global age”, its materialization in medical discourse is of an entirely different nature. KT denotes a scientific and purportedly non-cultural practice that defines social and cultural difference as a “barrier” to the transmission of the logos of medical science. The aim of KT is to bring “pure” scientific knowledge from “bench to bedside” by testing its validity in clinical practice – while at the same time keeping the scientific knowledge intact throughout the process of translation across various social fields and sectors of the healthcare system across the globe. However, KT implies little theoretical reflection over translation as a process of meaning production.

The point of departure for the contributors to this collection is the observation that KT is based upon a reductive understanding of translation and knowledge transmission. Standard models of KT take translation and knowledge transmission as a phenomenon for granted, and accordingly downplays the complexity of translation as an entangled material, a textual and cultural process, which inevitably affects the “original scientific message”. Moreover, we maintain that the roots of this reduction of translation should be sought in historical “deep time”; in the period where distinctions between “hard” and “soft” sciences, natural and humanistic inquiry, begin to emerge in theory (but not necessarily in practice). By contrasting KT with historical, cultural and epistemic differences from its scientific “prehistory”, and by analyzing it with reference to broader humanistic and material notions of translation, we aim to develop concepts of medical translation able to cope with contemporary epistemic and cultural differences – as well as the inevitable entanglement of the socio-cultural and biomedical aspects.

Quantitative and qualitative contributions from a range of disciplinary perspectives are welcomed, including, but not restricted to, anthropology, cultural studies and cultural history, medicine, medical humanities, sociology, science and technology studies, philosophy, comparative literature, and translation studies.

Research papers that consider the following questions and themes are welcomed:

  • The history and epistemology of knowledge translation;
  • Knowledge translation and translation across the divide between humanities and natural sciences;
  • Knowledge translation and the translation of medical knowledge and notions of the body across cultures and periods;
  • Theories and methods of translation in relation to medicine and the human body;
  • Knowledge translation and guideline development;
  • Knowledge translation, health literacy and the medical humanities;
  • Knowledge translation as a discursive process.

To register interest prospective authors should submit a short article proposal (abstract summary) to the Editorial Office in the first instance. This is a rolling article collection and as such, submissions will be welcomed at any point up until the end of October 2019.

Citizen Social Science: Active Citizenship Versus Data Commodification

Editors: Professor Josep Perelló (OpenSystems Research Group, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain), Dr Katja Mayer (Centre for Social Innovation Vienna, Austria), Dr Martina Franzen (WZB Berlin Social Science Center, Research Group Science Policy Studies, Germany), Dr Valeria Arza (National Scientific and Technical Research Council, Research Center for Transformation, CENIT, Argentina), Alexandra Albert (The University of Manchester & Lancaster University, UK).

There is a boom in initiatives calling for citizen involvement in research under the recent label of Citizen Science. Citizen Science is on the one hand a new instrument to integrate citizens into scientific knowledge production with the help of digital infrastructures. On the other hand, there is a Citizen Science movement aimed at democratizing science. While numerous Citizen Science projects have been installed in various disciplines in recent years, some of them with great success, the social sciences are lagging behind. Within what has been termed as Citizen Social Science, the aim of this article collection is therefore not only to explore the possibilities for Citizen Science in the social sciences, but also to subject the Citizen Science phenomenon to a social science analysis.

Digital technologies are increasingly facilitating the collective generation of data, particularly in terms of the mushrooming of crowd-sourced data initiatives in a variety of fields across the sciences, politics, and industry. Citizen Science has been mostly promoted as a method to increase the scale and efficiency of data collection in a widespread variety of disciplines; in scientific research, particularly in environmental science, astronomy, biology, and in the social sciences, particularly in political science, market research, sociology of social movements and urban planning. However, most initiatives working with citizen scientists include them only in certain steps of the research process, rather than more systematically and from the outset. In many projects, participants are assigned a passive role by design; they are mainly confined to data gathering, and are typically excluded from research design, analysis, and interpretation. Despite the vast potential of active citizenship for Citizen Social Science: active citizenship vs. data commodification evidence based "good governance", participants are frequently restricted to act as mere sensors, or data producers, rather than data owners or advocates in their own right. Moreover, it is widely debated how sustainable the involvement of citizens via digital platforms can be, particularly in terms of renewing or maintaining citizen enthusiasm and motivation to participate.

The aim of this collection is twofold: to explore the drivers and barriers to the systemic participation of citizens in all research phases to produce socially robust knowledge outcomes; and to open up the debate on the possibilities of blending, overlapping or confronting the different participatory methodologies already present in the field of social sciences, and the current approaches in citizen science projects.

We invite contributions on the following themes:

  • What can be understood as Citizen Social Science?
  • How can the Citizen Science phenomenon be interpreted from a social science perspective?
  • How should participatory research be transformed to allow for active citizenship?
  • How can citizens become more directly involved in all phases of the research process?
  • What strategies could be developed to facilitate the use of citizen-generated-data to benefit those who have contributed to its production?
  • What ownership do citizens have over the data they have produced?
  • How could the social impact of producing and using citizen-generated data be enhanced?
  • How to implement good standards in Citizen Science initiatives in relation to the social sciences?
  • What risks and challenges are involved in Citizen Social Science?
  • How can ethical risks regarding the (mis)use of data be avoided?
  • How can crowd-sourced data initiatives, particularly in science, become sustainable in social terms?
  • What type of societal problems could be better dealt with using Citizen Social Science and why?
  • How could Citizen Social Science outperform and/or be combined with traditional participatory approaches in the social sciences?

This is a rolling article collection and as such submissions will be welcomed at any point up until the end of September 2019. To register interest prospective authors should submit a short article proposal (abstract summary) to the Editorial Office in the first instance.

Social Studies of Academia: Power and Knowledge in Research, Science and Higher Education

EditorProfessor Johannes Angermuller (University of Warwick, UK)

Academia faces ever new challenges as the sector continues to grow and experience profound changes. While science, research and higher education play an important role in, and for, society, there is a growing demand for systematic, critical and reflexive ‘research on research’. Vibrant research in science and technology studies has made specialised knowledge production an object of empirical analysis. And specialists in higher education studies have traced the dynamics of power among academics.

Against this backdrop, the objectives of this research collection are twofold: first, to respond to a need for a new niche of integrative, systematic research on academia as power and knowledge; and, second, to make a difference in the broader debate about academia by responding to the challenges of higher education today. Empirical and theoretical research is welcomed that systematically investigates social practices in academia as well as critically reflects on academic practices in society. While academic research usually aims at the systematic production of specialised knowledge, more research is needed on the conditions that make such knowledge possible. Special emphasis is therefore placed on academia as a social practice of academics at the nexus of power and knowledge.

Contributions from a range of humanities and social science perspectives are welcomed, including higher education and science/technology studies, as well as the rapidly growing body of reflexive research on academia in other disciplinary fields. 

Papers may interrogate the following research themes, among others:

  • The link between knowledge and power;
  • How power makes knowledge possible;
  • The academic and non-academic impacts of academia on society;
  • Changing academic governance in a changing world;
  • Careers and trajectories in academia;
  • Academic discourses and their material conditions;
  • Citing and being cited;
  • The organizational dynamics in academic systems;
  • The making of disciplines, schools, approaches;
  • Challenges for higher education organisations and academic systems;
  • The qualities of academic work;
  • Academic micro-practices and global inequalities;
  • The construction of academic identities;
  • The cross-national circulation of ideas;
  • Modes of knowledge production in academia;
  • The political economy of higher education;
  • The value(s) of research and teaching;
  • Performing academia as a discursive practice.

This is a rolling article collection and as such submissions will be welcomed at any point up until the end of November 2019. To register interest prospective authors should submit a short article proposal (abstract summary) to the Editorial Office in the first instance.

Monsters: interdisciplinary explorations of monstrosity

Editors: Dr Sibylle Erle (Reader in English Literature), Dr Pat Beckley (Senior Lecturer in the School of Teacher Development) and Dr Helen Hendry (Senior Lecturer in Education Studies, Bishop Grosseteste University, Lincoln, UK)

There is a continued fascination with all things monsters, which is partly due to the critical and popular reception of Mary Shelley’s creature termed a “new species” by its ambitious and over-reading creator. Frankenstein regards himself a scientist, but his creature’s existence is bodged from the start. The aim of this ‘Monsters’ collection of articles is therefore to examine the legacy of Shelley’s novel as well as the different incarnations of monsters in contemporary research and teaching contexts. Attempting to explain the appeal of Shelley’s story, this collection offers a unique opportunity to promote dialogue between the social sciences and the humanities.

The title of this collection is deliberately left ambiguous to allow for an interdisciplinary exploration of ‘monstrosity’ and ‘the monstrous’. These concepts apply, in the first instance, to social and cultural threats — that is, to behaviours or (visual) qualities, which are deemed unacceptable because they are perceived as either amoral or unimaginable. The afterlife and reception of Frankenstein not only brings many opportunities for academic research to intersect with popular culture, but also brings into focus the pertinent theoretical and methodological challenges relating to how ‘monstrosity’ and ‘the monstrous’ get taught at universities and at schools.

Against the backdrop, we invite papers that explore the concepts of monsters, monstrosity and the monstrous. Contributions are welcomed on, but are not restricted to, the following themes:

  • Gothic studies;
  • Reception studies (the afterlife of Frankenstein);
  • Monsters’ as a metaphor (monstrosity, the monstrous);
  • Monsters in literature written for children and/or young adults;
  • Monsters in visual culture and performance art;
  • Horror movies for adults and/or for children and/or young adults;
  • The post-human, technology and robot-human interactions;
  • Disability studies;
  • Wellbeing;
  • Monsters’ in teaching contexts;
  • Popular culture.

Research is invited from the humanities (literature, drama, art, history) and the social sciences (education and teacher training studies, psychology, counselling studies), as well as interdisciplinary scholarship.

This is a rolling article collection and as such submissions will be welcomed at any point up until the end of November 2019. To register interest prospective authors should submit a short article proposal (abstract summary) to the Editorial Office in the first instance.

Making and Using Evidence

Editors: Dr Kathryn Oliver (Associate Professor in Sociology and Public Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, UK) and Professor Annette Boaz (Professor of Health Care Research, Kingston University, London)

There is a diverse community of policymakers, funders, scholars, and practitioners of different types all working in the field of evidence use. This diversity is a strength for the academic field of ‘evidence, policy and practice studies’, in that multiple theories, approaches, interventions and initiatives have been tried and developed. Yet, it has also led to extremely valuable work being contained within silos, or research/practice developments being duplicated in different disciplinary areas – for example, public policy, health sciences, public health, and environmental/conservation sciences all have their own theoretical stances on evidence use, and their own empirical traditions. This is both wasteful of scarce resources, and risks leading to a stagnation of the field.

We therefore propose a multi-disciplinary collection of papers, to push forward the field and showcase this journal as a unique outlet for novel scholarship in this area, including empirical, methodological and theoretical work. We welcome insights from all geographic perspectives, to ensure that the global community working in this area is reflected. In particular, we seek studies that provide truly novel insights into how evidence for policy and practice is made, negotiated, translated and used, from theoretical, methodological or practical perspectives.

Papers may interrogate the following themes, among others: 

  • How evidence is created or generated for and by different audiences;
  • How individuals and systems help the knowledge production system to provide research useful for society, and what that may mean;
  • What we mean by ‘use’, and how we can or should measure it;
  • Strategies and interventions to help audiences ‘use’ evidence, and what this implies about decision-making and research practices;
  • The roles and responsibilities of different actors in creating and using evidence;
  • The politics of evidence use;
  • Which forms of collaboration are best suited to creating different kinds of impact, and how;
  • The attributes of researchers, policymakers, practitioners and other actors who are successful at influencing policy;
  • How researchers and research respond to calls to increase research impact, and engage in coproduction;
  • The risks and costs of co-productive research, as well as the benefits;
  • The appropriateness of different methods to interrogate evidence use in different contexts;
  • How different disciplines conceptualise research use;
  • Which disciplines or practitioner fields have a strong tradition of evidence use, and why.

We are not seeking papers that describe the value of different research methods for decision-making (particularly those arguing for greater use of qualitative methods or randomised controlled trials), or those that describe initiatives to increase use or uptake in policy (for contributions in this area, please consider our related call for papers on ‘Politics of Evidence-based Policymaking’), unless there is a clear novel contribution concerning evidence creation or use. Instead, we are looking specifically for papers that make novel methodological or theoretical contributions, building on the existing field of literature about evidence use. 

This is a rolling article collection and as such submissions will be welcomed at any point up until the end of December 2019. To register interest prospective authors should submit a short article proposal (abstract summary) to the Editorial Office in the first instance.

 

Healthy publics – Transforming and Sustaining Health Research and Action

Editors: Professor Steve Hinchliffe (Geography and College of Life and Environmental Sciences and Deputy Director, The Wellcome Centre for Cultures and Environments of Health, University of Exeter, UK), Professor Lenore Manderson (Distinguished Professor of Public Health and Medical Anthropology, School of Public Health, University of the Witwatersrand, SA, and Distinguished Visiting Professor, Institute at Brown for Environment and Society, Brown University, USA), Dr Martin Moore (Associate Research Fellow in Medical History, and Wellcome Centre for Cultures and Environments of Health, University of Exeter, UK)

Editorial advisory board: Professor Mark Jackson (University of Exeter, UK), Professor Melanie Rock (University of Calgary, Canada), Professor Katrina Wyatt (University of Exeter, UK), Professor Mohan Dutta (Massey University, New Zealand).

In recent years health has shifted from something that may be possessed or lost (‘to have your health’), or from being biomedically defined (as the absence of disease), to something more elusive, something to reach for, something of a project. The project can be a matter for individuals, increasingly made to feel responsible for their own wellbeing under the auspices of a new public health and preventive medicine. It is also a matter for local and national administrations, struggling with tight budgets and demands on services, mindful of the costs of the treatment and management of chronic conditions. It can have international dimensions. Often structured by the legacies of colonialism and by international advisory bodies and aid programs, global health has long been concerned with issues of inequality and the responsibilities, some would say the self-interests, of high income countries. More recently still, health has become a collective project, tying together people, nonhuman animals and ecologies (One Health), and planetary processes (Planetary Health). In their different ways, all of these versions of health and health promotion imply a collective transdisciplinary endeavour. What ties them together is a common call for new kinds of public participation, engagement and social contract. In other words, they all tend to promote, though often fail to specify, what have been referred to as ‘healthy publics’ (see: Hinchliffe, Jackson, Wyatt et al (2018)). In this article collection we invite papers that grapple with health as a collective, contested, public, process.

We ask authors to engage with how health has been made public in the past and how the contemporary period generates opportunities and constraints for public health and the development of healthy publics. We encourage contributions across different socio-cultural, historical, legal, political and economic settings, as well as across health domains (including human, animal and environmental health).

Topics could consider, but are not limited to, the following: 

  • How do health norms emerge and stabilise?  How have counternorms faired in the past and how might healthy publics challenge established health and wellbeing practices?
  • What roles have difference, non-coherence, inequality and/or power relations played in the generation, or impeding, of healthy publics? And what roles might they continue to play?
  • Who or what constitutes a healthy public?  What roles, for example, do nonhuman actors play in health and wellbeing?
  • What are the affordances and limitations of the new public health? And is it as “new” as it proclaims?
  • How can new kinds of healthy publics be generated through transformative research processes, new technologies, multi-directional communication and so on?
  • How have healthy publics been mediated, through, for example, ‘medicine at a distance’ – including the rise of mass media, social media, e-patients and tele-care?
  • How can appreciation of cultural and social determinants of health facilitate health policies or the production of healthy publics?
  • What kinds of evidence are required to generate healthy publics? What are the issues with producing and curating relevant data and achieving impact? And to what extent have forms of evidence, ‘datafication’ and related metrics shaped ideas of health at the expense of other ideas?
  • What are the appropriate spatial formations of healthy publics – for example, do contemporary urban areas provide new opportunities for public process? How can healthy publics transgress territory and sites of relative privilege?
  • How do trans-species processes and planetary health transform and threaten approaches to public health and healthy publics?

Papers can highlight the processes and struggles involved in generating public involvement and articulating health issues; in making specific health issues public through processes such as advocacy for resource and transformative interventions; in generating the evidence that makes a difference to health practice and is responsive to concerns that are articulated by groups and communities; or in developing a public mandate for concerted and coordinated action. Papers are particularly welcome from non-Eurocentric perspectives, a variety of historical periods, geographical settings and across a range of substantive and material issues.

This is a rolling article collection and as such submissions will be welcomed at any point up until the end of December 2019. To register interest prospective authors should submit a short article proposal (abstract summary) to the Editorial Office in the first instance.