Tagung der DVPW (Deutsche Vereinigung für Politikwissenschaft)

Panel Chair: Morten Harmening (Leibniz University Hannover), Dominic Nyhuis (Leibniz University Hannover)

Contact: d.nyhuis@ipw.uni-hannover.de

Abstract: Many societies around the world are becoming increasingly polarized. More and more, political opponents view each other not as legitimate competitors for the levers of the power but as veritable enemies with reprehensible political goals, making them seem threatening to the very fabric of society. Viewed in this light, certain political behaviors may seem increasingly justified which would ordinarily be considered taboo between democratic competitors. One of the most egregious violation of democratic norms is the rise in political violence. With woeful frequency we are confronted with acts of political violence against politicians and public servants at all levels of government. The goal of this panel is to bring together scholars who study the rise in political violence to understand the causes and consequences of this phenomenon, either in single case studies or comparatively. Papers in this panel might address such questions as:

• How has political violence developed over time?
•  How does contemporary political violence compare to phases of intense political violence in the past? 
• How do rates and the type of political violence compare between countries? 
• What is causing the public to be increasingly hostile towards political actors? 
• What role do elite political discourses play in this process? 
• Which individuals are most prone to resort to political violence and why? 
• Which political actors are most prone to be victimized by political violence and why? 
• Are there gender-specific differences in terms of falling victim? 
• How does the minority status of political actors impact the propensity of being victimized? 
• Are different political actors subject to different forms of political violence? 
• What are the consequences of political violence for individual political actors and political systems more generally?

Panel Chair: Lukas Grundsfeld (Free University Berlin), Djamila Jabra (Saarland University)

Contact: djamila.jabra@uni-saarland.de

Abstract: In the context of the rise of authoritarian regimes and increasing political polarization in the West, the post-Cold War liberal international order is perceived as being in decline, resulting in increasing uncertainties and challenges with significant implications for the trust within and between states. These developments have resulted in a shift in our conceptualisation of security and defence. This panel is dedicated to exploring the nexus of political polarization, trust, and security strategies and defence policies. Inviting a multidisciplinary analysis that includes comparative case studies, discourse analysis, surveys and theoretical approaches to international relations, the panel’s contributions will focus on the intricate interconnections between states, international organisations, and non-state actors. The panel thereby seeks to address the question of how these relationships are affecting – and are affected by – political polarization and trust. It thereby contributes to our understanding of how these relationships could be structured in order to ensure effective and sustainable security policies in the context of mounting global challenges. 

This examination will investigate the role of domestic and international mistrust, its impact on bi- and multilateral security cooperation, and the potential for enhancing trust through more comprehensive risk assessments and the involvement of all relevant actors. 

This panel provides a platform for in-depth examination of the factors influencing the security landscape, and encourages the participation of experts and other relevant stakeholders in a pivotal discourse that will inform the future trajectory of international security policy. 

Possible Topics: 

•  The role of trust in international cooperation 
• The impact of political polarisation on global security alliances 
• Case studies on NATO, the EU or other international security organisations 
• The effects of domestic political polarisation on a state's position within alliances 
• The relationship between polarisation and the militarisation of foreign policy 
• The role of international organisations in polarised times 
• The legitimacy of defence spending in polarised societies 
• The role of non-state actors and international organisations in polarised conflicts 

• The future of the global security architecture and international cooperation

   

Panel Chair: Philipp König (Saarland University)

Contact: philipp.koenig@uni-saarland.de

Abstract: At a time of increasing distrust in political systems (especially in the EU), political polarisation and growing electoral support for right-wing populist parties, social cohesion in Europe seems to be under threat. A common identity is often proclaimed to strengthen social cohesion within political systems, but it can also lead to nationalism or distrust of members of other groups. At the heart of identity issues are questions of 'who are the true people' and what constitutes them - a discourse often exploited by populist parties, further increasing political polarisation. Especially at the European level, different meanings of national and/or European identity can lead to Euroscepticism or support for the EU. 

The aim of this panel is to explore under what conditions a common identity can be a bulwark against or a catalysator for the growing polarisation in Europe by investigating the following questions: 

• How do different forms of national and European identity relate to relevant issues such as social cohesion and Euroscepticism? 
• How do they relate to (dis-)trust in political systems (e.g., the EU)? 
• How have national and European identities changed in times of rapid social change (e.g., migration and integration, gender roles and inequalities, Europeanisation)? 

Panel structure: The panel will consist of four 15-minute presentations, followed by a 30-minute open discussion, during which specific questions will be asked about the different papers, and a reflection on the theme and its relevance to the main topics of the conference will take place. 

Relevance and contributions to the field: In recent years, the issue of national and European identity has not only received increasing attention in times of growing EU integration and politicisation, but has also been brought to life in the everyday communication of political actors. Right-wing populist parties in particular, have found ways to link these issues in a seemingly attractive way for more and more citizens in Europe. Social sciences and foremost political science, should investigate how European citizens construct their national and European identities and how the different contents of these identities can also be used for the sake of political support, trust and ultimately cohesion in the EU. Linking these social psychological constructs and exploring how they might be related seems to be a promising approach. Further, due to the complex nature of these concepts, methodological concerns are also to be considered. The field of research would be enriched by different contributions which try to more specifically disentangle social psychological variables or discover more about their relation.

Panel Chair: Elena Frech (University Bamberg)

Contact: elena.frech@uni-bamberg.de

Panel Abstract: This panel explores the relationship between political careers in the European Union (EU) and citizens, building upon previous research on political careers in the EU (Daniel 2015, Salvati 2016, Scarrow 1997) while addressing recent questions about how these careers impact representation (Bailer et al. 2022, Dodeigne et al. 2025, Dodeigne et al. 2024). By using a variety of methods and data, the papers of this panel seek to understand how the experiences (and identities) of politicians influence who they represent and how. Additionally, it will also explore how politicians' connections to citizens, including their representative approaches, shape their careers within the EU. This discussion is particularly timely given the EU's substantive legislative power that is contrasted by rising concerns about democratic deficits in the EU and citizen dissatisfaction. 

The panel invites contributions that deepen our understanding of the interplay between political careers and citizen representation in the evolving EU landscape. Target Audience: The panel is open to all papers on the topic and encourages contributions from junior scholars. The panel is open to all methodological approaches. Panel discussants are not specified yet but could for example potentially be Prof. S. Bailer (University of Basel). The topic and conceptualization of political careers is broad and should interest many scholars. The panel is of interest to EU scholars (members of the DVPW Standing Group „Europa- und Regionalismusforschung”), participants interested in democracy and representation (members of the DVPW Standing Group “Demokratieforschung“) and other researchers. 

• References: Bailer S, Breunig C, Giger N, Wüst AM. 2022. The Diminishing Value of Representing the Disadvantaged: Between Group Representation and Individual Career Paths. British Journal of Political Science;52(2):535-552. 
• Daniel, W.T., 2015. Career behaviour and the European parliament: All roads lead through Brussels? Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
• Jeremy Dodeigne, Elena Frech and Nelson Leonardo Rodrigues dos Santos. 2024. Career Orientation and Legislative Behaviour in the European Parliament: How Institutional and Political Transformations Re-Shape MEPs’ Behaviour (1979-2024) 
• Dodeigne, J., Erzeel, S., Randour, F., 2025. Putting the European Parliament’s gender exceptionalism to the test: a content analysis of masculine and feminine policy domains in MEPs’ parliamentary questions. European Union Politics 26. 
• Salvati, E., 2016. Towards an European Parliamentary class? A proposal for a typology of the MEPs. Journal of Comparative Politics, 9(1), p.59. 
• Scarrow, S.E., 1997. Political career paths and the European Parliament. Legislative Studies Quarterly 22, 253–263.

Panel Chair: Daniela Braun (University Saarland), Kristina Weissenbach (University of Duisburg-Essen)

Contact: d.braun@uni-saarland.de

Abstract: Representative democracy in Europe is currently said to be under pressure: paradigmatic indicators are low turnout in elections together with a more diverse set of protest activities and decreasing levels of political trust in the representative institutions of the state. However, previous research mixes up different attitudinal and behavioural components when analysing representative democracy under pressure, so the empirical findings on this broad phenomenon are still inconclusive. The conceptual as well as empirical linkage between political attitudes and engagement is still underdeveloped. Citizens may display low levels of trust in their representative institutions, distrust their politicians or feel not well represented by them. But is this related to the way they engage with politics?

To provide better answers to fix these and related problems of representative democracy, we need to conceptualise and measure citizens' disaffection with representative democracy in a broader perspective: attitudinal and a behavioural perspective need to be linked to each other more systematically; qualitative approaches need to be linked more systematically with quantitative approaches; researchers need to use more innovative ways of data collection (e.g., using AI) to get a better grip of these recent problems of political trust, legitimacy and disaffection. Moreover, new ways of citizen science need to be thought to resolve these issues. We invite qualitative as well as quantitative researchers interested in these topics to present their research ideas in our panel.
 

Panel Chair: Alexander Hartland (Saarland University)

Contact: alexander.hartland@uni-saarland.de

Abstract: Polarisation is an important and complex issue of increasing relevance for the study of politics. As new cleavages and contestations emerge at both the elite and mass levels, capturing polarisation accurately and systematically is more valuable than ever. Some have identified the growing influence of online political discourse as one likely driver of these cleavages, though our understanding of the mechanisms and pathways of this influence are still in their early stages. From large social media and video sharing platforms like Facebook and TikTok to the growing power of Large Language Models and Chatbots, the online environment and associated technologies have certainly never been more central to research in political science. While they may act as a source of political conflict, it is also increasingly clear that these technologies can contribute significantly to our understanding of the issue of polarisation, political attitudes, and political behaviour, creating several new opportunities for adding nuance to their measurement.

At the same time, relying too heavily on these sources and methods brings several risks. The change of ownership at Twitter/X and subsequent loss of data access experienced by many social science researchers was an important reminder that private companies and proprietary information are always likely to be an uncertain source of data. Despite government efforts to regulate public access to their data and newly developing application procedures, researchers also find it as useful as ever to innovate in the collection, sources, and analysis of large online datasets. Sources including open-ended survey responses, video transcripts, and the images and audio content from videos themselves offer promising results for researchers. Meanwhile, more traditional sources such as parliamentary debates, party manifestos, and position papers remain highly useful, while the growing possibility of image analysis creates potential new uses for content from traditional news media and manifestos in particular.

The methods of analysis themselves also continue to develop. Where previously, bag of words approaches were the standard method of text analysis, the affordability of powerful computer technology means that more advanced methods are now available to most researchers. The widespread availability of a range of private and open source Large Language Models makes the classification and scaling of large quantities of political texts and related content a realistic possibility at a fraction of the budget and technological knowledge. At the same time, researchers must still find innovative ways to both validate the accuracy of these methods to avoid spurious results, and again future-proof their use against any potential change of management or loss of interest from their easily distracted owners.

This panel will explore the use of these developing sources and methods, with a particular focus on how they can enhance our understanding of polarisation and related political phenomena. We are interested in research that employs innovative approaches, including but not limited to quantitative text analysis, machine learning, natural language processing, social network analysis, video content analysis, and the use of big data from social media platforms and other online sources. We welcome submissions that not only present new methods but also apply them to empirical cases, providing insights into the dynamics of polarisation in varied political contexts. The contexts of interest extend beyond Western democracies to include other countries and political systems. While topics such as migration, climate change, and international conflict are always highly relevant, we also welcome analysis of a range of issues with from a political perspective.

Panel Chair: Veronica Hera (OECD Trust Survey team)

Contact: veronica.hera@oecd.org

Abstract: Trust in public institutions is essential for the effective functioning and legitimacy of democratic systems. Tracking the levels of trust in public institutions can offer valuable insights to public administrations about citizens' experiences with and assessments of policy and service delivery. When there is a high level of trust in public institutions, governments can achieve significant outcomes, such as reducing transaction costs, ensuring compliance with public policies, and encouraging public investments in forward-looking reforms and programmes. 
The OECD's Public Governance Directorate has developed an analytical and policy framework to understand and measure the key drivers of trust in public institutions. The recently published 2024 OECD Trust Survey report provides a comprehensive perspective of what drives trust in public institutions by asking people in 30 OECD countries about their experience with, and expectations of public institutions at all levels of government. The data for this report was collected from 30 OECD countries in October and November 2023, following the inaugural 2021 wave that included 22 OECD countries.
The OECD Trust Survey measures government performance across five drivers of trust - reliability and responsiveness of public institutions, as well as their adherence to the values of openness, integrity, and fairness. The survey questions were built on the OECD Framework on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions, a framework that has been developed by the OECD’s Public Governance Committee over the last decade. In addition to asking the same set of questions as in 2021 for comparing trends over time, the 2023 Trust Survey also introduced a few new questions to provide a more in-depth analysis of the results.
The Trust Survey serves as a foundation for the OECD’s Reinforcing Democracy Initiative. Launched at the 2022 OECD Global Forum and Ministerial on “Building Trust and Reinforcing Democracy”, the Reinforcing Democracy Initiative provides evidence-based guidance and good international practices to help countries reinforce democratic values and institutions. The countries which opt in to participate in the Trust Survey do so with the aim of better understanding people’s expectations of their democracies and identifying ways in which they can deliver better for people through improved public governance. 
Based on our recent report findings, we would like to propose an open panel looking at differences in trust drivers across different regions of the world. Taking a comparative perspective to the study of trust would enable us to delve deeper into the results and better understand how regional differences shape the factors behind institutional trust and satisfaction with services, while also explaining the differences in citizens perceptions of day-to-day interactions with government in contrast to long-term complex decision-making processes. Having a broader overview of these relationships can enable us to recognise patterns and understand what lies behind citizens’ perceptions in different clusters of countries. This would enable a better interpretation of data, as well as the development of tailored strategies for each country. 
A similar approach to the above could be taken for country comparisons based on their administrative or electoral systems, to capture the influence of these system-level characteristics on the importance of trust drivers. For instance, one could imagine that the make-up of the electoral system would affect citizen's perceptions of representativeness, which could in turn be reflected in their understanding of the government's openness and fairness. Similarly, for countries operating a federalised system, there might be more opportunities for influencing local policymaking, which would be reflected in the citizens’ perception of available opportunities to voice their opinion on local government decision, as opposed to states operating a centralised system. 
Additionally, despite governments' efforts to multiply avenues for participation, our most recent report findings show that only about 30% of citizens across OECD countries think their political system lets them have a say, would adopt the opinions express in a public consultation, or that their governments can resist corporate influence, and 38% believe in the effectiveness of parliamentary checks and balances. Data shows these are all important drivers of trust today for which results are unsatisfactory in many countries, potentially indicating that citizens are responding to an erosion in democratic, electoral and parliamentary norms. Thus, in line with our 2024 report recommendation, we would be keen for the panel to highlight meaningful and inclusive opportunities for citizen participation and influence in decision-making processes. These could include participatory governance strategies, highlight the nature and role of public spaces in these processes and showcase the connection between citizen’s attitudes and different forms of behaviour and representation as part of citizens’ trust. Ultimately, the examples would help outline how engagement initiatives can serve to work alongside other existing, more traditional democratic mechanisms, such as elections, parliamentary governance or referenda.

 

Panel Chair: Georg Wenzelburger (Saarland University)

Contact: georg.wenzelburger@uni-saarland.de

Abstract: As trust in the state to deliver on its promise of security has become brittle in many Western Democracies in these times of polycrisis (Aassve et al., 2024), governments have been struggling with how to respond to the increased feelings of insecurity of their citizens. Protective policies – policies that are communicated by political actors as providing safety and security to citizens – have therefore moved centre stage in political competition, with right-wing populist parties scoring all-time high results with their promises of protection linked to the questions of migration and law and order as well as, depending on the countries, the protection of purchasing power of the “ordinary citizens” (Biard et al., 2019; Bonansinga, 2022). Moreover, the question of who is protected or not may raise new issues of “unequal security” (Starke et al., 2024) and oppose groups in society.

In this panel, we want to discuss patterns, causes and consequences of this new dynamics of politics about protection against insecurity. We welcome conceptual and theoretical papers that help us to understand this dimension of politics, as well as empirical papers that provide insights into party competition about insecurity from a comparative perspective. We are particularly interested in contributions that link protection and insecurity to questions of polarization, asking, for instance, who feels insecure and how these feelings are translated into politics, or papers that explore linkages between insecurity, protective policies and trust in governments or democracy.

References

Aassve, A., Capezzone, T., Cavalli, N., Conzo, P., & Peng, C. (2024). Social and political trust diverge during a crisis. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 331. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-50898-4

Biard, B., Bernhard, L., & Betz, H.-G. (2019). Do they make a difference? : the policy influence of radical right populist parties in Western Europe. ECPR Press, Rowman & Littlefield International. https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781785523304/Do-They-Make-a-Difference-The-Policy-Influence-of-Radical-Right-Populist-Parties-in-Western-Europe

http://kxp.k10plus.de/DB=2.1/PPNSET?PPN=1677767839

Bonansinga, D. (2022). Insecurity narratives and implicit emotional appeals in French competing populisms. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 35(1), 86-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2021.1964349

Starke, P., Elbek, L. L., & Wenzelburger, G. (Eds.). (2024). Unequal Security Welfare, Crime and Social Inequality. Routledge. 

Panel Chair: Moritz Rehm (Saarland University)

Contact: moritz.rehm@uni-saarland.de

Abstract: Both media and popular social science accounts argue for extreme and further increasing attitude polarization within developed countries. Particularly in the US, voting and electoral campaigns, as well as attitudes about climate change, vaccination, culture and social inequality seem to provide strong evidence of polarization, where groups with diametrically opposed opinions are pitted against each other, utterly unwilling to reconcile. 

However, are such impressions of extreme attitude polarization actually indicative of population-wide polarization trends, or are they country- or issue-specific impressions that are not always grounded in reality? Are, thus, the trends of increasing societal polarization as described by much of popular discourse, political analysis, and social science theories indeed empirically observable?

To answer this question, it is important to not take popular accounts of polarization at face value, but to test claims of strong polarization empirically. It is therefore necessary to measure whether polarization indeed occurs and where it occurs, namely in which countries, times, issue areas and between which groups. It may also be necessary to improve the empirical conceptualization of polarization. And it may be important to highlight the role political actors and other intermediaries, such as social media, play in the process of polarization as well as in its perception.

To understand levels and changes in polarization, as well as the absence of polarization and depolarization, this open panel welcomes a variety of submissions that aim to analyze and explain dynamics of attitude polarization. We therefore invite contributions interested in polarization from a wide variety of perspectives.

1. Contributions using a comparative approach to describe changes over time or differences between countries in polarization. 

2. Contributions which focus on improving measurements or highlight shortcomings in current analytical frameworks of polarization. 

3. Contributions which use an inferential design, explaining under which conditions and where polarization increases. 

4. Contributions which focus on conceptual aspects of polarization, highlighting, for example, differences and similarities of political and attitude polarization. 

Ideally, contributions should (but are not limited to) measure increases or decreases of polarization over time rather than being purely cross-sectional; they are comparative by showing country-differences in polarization rather than single-country results, and analyze different attitudes, such as political trust, value orientations, or political attitudes; lastly, they should be focused on politically relevant attitudes rather than e.g. measuring polarization of health, wealth, life satisfaction. 

Panel Chair: Norma Osterberg-Kaufmann, Christoph Mohamad-Klotzbach 

Contact: demokratieforschung@dvpw.de

Abstract. How people view democracy is the yardstick by which people judge their existing political regimes and its alternatives, as it shapes their expectations of what good regimes should look like. At the same time, the discourse on what democracy means is highly contested in societies, politics, and political science. In the U.S., it is primarily a discussion of individual rights or equality; in Europe, it is a question of social justice, freedom, or free elections; while in Africa and Asia, people's views of democracy place more emphasis on political rights or socioeconomic performance. Whether people have a more instrumental or more substantive view of democracy, focus more on the input or output side, they will fundamentally differ in how they evaluate the political system in which they live. Nevertheless, the demand side, that is, the attitudes and behaviors of the population based on people's actual meaning and understanding of democracy, has been the subject of much less empirical research in recent decades than the supply side. In empirical democracy research, democracy is typically conceptualized as synonymous with the state and its associated institutions. In particular, elections constitute the fundamental essence of democracy. Consequently, the supply side of democracy is of greater significance within the tradition of democratization research, research on democracy promotion, and research on the stagnation of transformation processes in hybrid regimes. This panel is interested in focusing on the demand side, the attitudinal and behavioral consequences of people's meanings of democracy, as different meanings of democracy influence not only people's assessments of democratic practice, but also political behavior, such as engagement in participatory activities, from elections to strikes, petitions, and even political violence. What meanings and understandings of democracy can we find empirically around the world? How do they affect people's attitudes and behavior? How does this vary globally and within different regime types? We look forward to proposals that address any of these or related questions.

Panel Chair: Benjamin Höhne (TU-Chemnitz), Kristina Weissenbach (University of Duisburg-Essen)

Contact: benjamin.hoehne@phil.tu-chemnitz.de

Abstract: Political trust and political parties are traditional core objects of political culture research. Political trust is regarded as a form of expression of generalized and lasting support for a system by a country’s citizens. It is usually granted to political parties to a much lesser extent than to constitutional institutions that are more distant from politics, such as a constitutional court. As intermediary organizations, parties ideally bring the combined interests of the population into the state's decision-making processes, they act as linkage between citizens and the state. They also play an important role in the outcome by being responsive to the people.

On the one hand, people are turning away from the system-supporting parties in elections, especially from the highly integrative catch-all parties, and their turning to anti-system parties. On the other, is both a sign and a driver of a crisis of political trust in pluralist democracy. The seemingly uninterrupted withdrawal of political parties across the whole political spectrum and the rise of right-wing populist parties is akin to a far-reaching withdrawal of trust. Such parties despise party pluralism and thus a functional condition inherent in the democratic system. Possible questions that we want to discuss in this panel are:

- What is the relationship between trust in parties and trust in representative democracy under these changed circumstances?

- How does support for anti-system parties change trust in democracy?

- Does political participation in parties encourage dissatisfied citizens to support democracy, and what is the relationship with anti-system parties?

- Under which circumstances and for what reasons such as mistrust do citizens get engaged?

- Which (digital) innovations can political parties undertake to enhance political trust?

- What is the level of interpersonal trust in political parties, especially in anti-system parties?

- Under which circumstances do parties within the same party system trust each other?

This panel encourages different theoretical, conceptual, and methodological approaches and welcomes the growing body of methods used in party research, in order to improve our understanding of the various facets of citizen’s (dis-)trust in political parties and the interrelations between political trust and political parties. We also would like to invite proposals based on citizen science approaches, which take up experimental, applied learning, and foresight perspectives. The panel is open to paper proposals with scopes ranging from single case studies to large-N comparative papers. The panel aims to attract established scholars, postdoctoral researchers, and young academics (Ph.D. candidates) from across the world. It is a central aim of the German Political Science Association to increase the proportion of young scientists and women at its events, who are therefore particularly encouraged to apply.