Evaluation of the internal Centres of Excellence (CoE) Åbo Akademi University

Transkript

1 Evaluation of the internal Centres of Excellence (CoE) Åbo Akademi University Questionnaire Evaluated time span: June 1 st, 2008 May 31 st, 2012 Deadline for CoE answers: October 15th, 2012 Recipient of CoE answers: registrator@abo.fi Name of the CoE Department or equivalent Address DEMOCRACY: A CITIZEN PERSPECTIVE A Center of Excellence on Democracy Research (D:CE) Department of Political Science Fänriksgatan 3A, Åbo/Strandgatan 2, Vasa Phone (0) Internet home page (CoE) Principal Investigator of the CoE Professor Lauri Karvonen Phone (0) , mobile +358-(0) lauri.karvonen@abo.fi

2 Evaluation of CoE 2012 / Organization and Self Assessment 1 ORGANIZATION OF THE CoE D:CE is an Åbo Akademi Center of Excellence that has been in operation since January 1, It underwent a mid-term evaluation in 2008 and was granted continued finance through When a Call for Applications for was issued in 2009, D:CE successfully competed for renewed funding stretching until the end of D:CE research 1 examines the development of modern democracy from the point of view of the citizen. It probes the notion that modern democracy has, as a result of fundamental economic, social and cognitive transformations, left its earlier collective nature marked by class- and party-based organization and developed into an Audience Democracy. It contributes to international research by introducing a broad perspective on these questions. Much of research hitherto has dealt with changes in social structure, institutions and organizations, the public sector, civil society, media, and communications technology separately. D:CE brings together political scientists, researchers in public administration as well as media experts to provide a multidimensional approach to vital questions about citizen influence. The objectives of the project can be summarized in the form of two broad research questions: 1. To what extent has a transition to Audience Democracy taken place? 2. What are its consequences from the point of view of the citizen, and what action do they call for? The first question concerns a range of institutional, behavioral, structural and attitudinal dimensions of politics and government in stable democracies. Much of the work has been carried out with the aid of established empirical techniques, such as statistical analyses, comparative methods and case studies. Several findings support the notion that a move toward Audience Democracy has indeed occurred during recent decades. Our research on forms of participation, political attitudes and behavior clearly points to changes that are in line with the expectations presented in the theoretical literature. Electoral volatility has increased. Young generations see voting less as a civic duty than their parents. Political participation is based on engagement in specific issues rather than on collective solidarity. Concomitant institutional changes reinforce these behavioral patterns. On the other hand, for instance, the personalization of politics has not been found to be a pervasive and linear development of the kind that has frequently been assumed in the theoretical literature. The second question probes the feasibility of expanded direct citizen involvement in the democratic process. The research therefore not only concerns what democracy is today but also what it can become in the future. This query requires a methodological approach over and above established empirical analysis. To a yet unprecedented degree in Nordic political research, D:CE has utilized and developed experimental techniques to investigate the possibilities of expanding direct citizen involvement. This experimental work by D:CE scholars indicates that several forms of participatory democracy may, if properly designed, become viable complements to representative democracy. In its current second period of operation, D:CE research endeavors to broaden the empirical and experimental foundations of the work accomplished thus far. While some effort is still required to make the research on the first main question complete, emphasis has shifted towards the second question. Consequently, the thrust of our efforts are devoted to portraying the consequences of a move towards Audience Democracy from the point of view of the citizen and, in fact, from the point of view of democracy at large. Methodologically, two tasks are given priority in our work. The experimental basis of our 1 A full-length version of the D:CE research agenda may be accessed at 2

3 Evaluation of CoE 2012 / Organization and Self Assessment research has been expanded and developed to include a wider variety of experimental designs. While most of our work has already been comparative in character, this element is being strengthened still further. The Center is led by Professor Lauri Karvonen and Deputy Director Professor Kimmo Grönlund; they are in charge of the management of the Center. Together with the Steering Group they bear overall responsibility and make policy decisions, including recruitment and administration of staff. They are also in charge of the development of research infrastructure. The composition of the Steering Group is as follows: Lauri Karvonen, professor of political science, Director of D:CE, lauri.karvonen@abo.fi Kimmo Grönlund, professor of political science, Deputy Director of D:CE, kimmo.gronlund@abo.fi Carsten Anckar, professor of political science, especially comparative politics, Steering Group member, carsten.anckar@abo.fi Åsa Bengtsson, adjoint professor (docent) of political science, Steering Group member, asa.bengtsson@abo.fi Göran Djupsund, professor of political communication, Steering Group member goran.djupsund@abo.fi Marko Joas, professor of public administration, Steering Group member marko.joas@abo.fi On important research-related issues, our International Advisory Board is heard. The IAB meets regularly for conferences and feedback (for details, see section 5.1.3). It is composed of following scholars: Sören Holmberg, Professor, University of Göteborg, soren.holmberg@pol.gu.se Rachel Gibson, Professor, University of Manchester, rachel.gibson@manchester.ac.uk Detlef Jahn, Professor, Universität Greifswald, djahn@uni-greifswald.de Henry Milner, Professor, Université de Montréal, henry.milner@umontreal.ca Poul Erik Mouritzen, Professor, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, pem@sam.sdu.dk Brigitte Geissel, Professor, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, geissel@soz.uni-frankfurt.de Much of the day-to-day administrative work is conducted by the Social Science Research Institute (Samforsk) that forms part of the Department of Political Science at Åbo Akademi University. Samforsk is led by D:CE Deputy Director Kimmo Grönlund and provides professional assistance in matters related to personnel management, research applications and budgetary issues. Although located at two campuses (Åbo and Vasa) 350 kilometers apart, D:CE scholars form a tightly knit research community. They interact on a daily basis; for meetings, seminars and teaching courses, efficient video transmission is used continuously. Doctoral students meet regularly within the framework of a Graduate School. The monthly General Research Seminar is a forum for senior and junior scholars as well as for doctoral students. The D:CE website ( is an efficient tool of both internal and external information. A Newsletter which can be accessed through the website is published regularly both electronically and in a printed version. The printed version is distributed widely within the scholarly community as well as among media, political decision-makers and government agencies. Six issues have appeared so far. 3

4 Evaluation of CoE 2012 / Organization and Self Assessment The D:CE research agenda defines the individual projects financed and organized by the center. D:CE scholars interact in a multitude of combinations to carry out the work. Particular emphasis is placed on international research cooperation and dissemination of research. D:CE has organized and continues to organize a large number of international conferences, seminars and training courses. When D:CE started its operations in 2006, the disciplines that constitute it belonged to three separate departments and two separate research institutes subordinate to two different faculties. We soon realized that this administrative complexity was not ideal. We launched an effort to bring together the participating institutions and scholars under a single administrative structure. We were very pleased that these concerns were not only recognized but acted upon by the Åbo Akademi leadership. As of 2010, a new Department of Political Science located at two campuses and comprising the three D:CE disciplines and a unified research institute (Samforsk) has been in operation. This means that the formal administrative structure of the department now matches the scope of the research collaboration that has operated successfully for a much longer period of time. The efficient use of resources is greatly enhanced by this reorganization, as is the democratic participation of all concerned scholars and other employees. When all scholars continuously participating in D:CE operations (senior and junior researchers, doctoral students, International Advisory Board members, scholars from partner institutions and networks) are included, the total number of researchers in the D:CE community is around forty. 1.1 Senior researchers of the CoE Name Gender Academic Position (M/F) Degree Lauri Karvonen M Dr. Professor Kimmo Grönlund M Dr. Professor Maija Setälä F Dr. Professor (University of Turku) Göran Djupsund M Dr. Professor Marko Joas M Dr. Professor Carsten Anckar M Dr. Professor Guy-Erik Isaksson M Dr. Senior lecturer Kaisa Herne F Dr. Senior lecturer (University of Turku) Thomas Denk M Dr. Senior lecturer Åsa Bengtsson F Dr. Academy fellow Tom Carlson M Dr. Senior lecturer Krister Lundell M Dr. Research fellow Peter Söderlund M Dr. Senior fellow Kim Strandberg M Dr. Senior fellow Sari Pikkala F Dr. Research fellow 4

5 Evaluation of CoE 2012 / Organization and Self Assessment Ann-Sofie Hermanson F Dr. Lecturer Henrik Serup Christensen M Dr. Post-doctoral fellow Maria Ackrén F Dr. Senior lecturer (University of Greenland) Staffan Himmelroos M Dr. Post-doctoral fellow 2 SELF ASSESSMENT 2.1 How well have the goals of the CoE been achieved so far and what can be expected during ? For the on-going CoE period, the D:CE research agenda envisages major syntheses related to the first research question and expanded methodological ambitions as well as new research questions concerning the second. As to the first overarching research question ( To what extent has a transition to Audience Democracy taken place? ) broad segments of the D:CE agenda have been covered in the form of internationally published monographs. Among these, Karvonen s analysis of the alleged personalization of politics (2010), Anckar s broad comparative work on religion and democracy (2011) and Lundell s book on electoral institutions (2010) are particularly noteworthy. At present, Jussi Westinen is peparing his doctoral thesis containg a broad analysis of the contemporary relevance of the social cleavages that originally conditioned the formation of party systems. He will defend his thesis in Together with several important edited volumes and internationally published journal articles, these oeuvres go a long way towards synthesizing central empirical and theoretical questions about the behavioral, attitudinal and institutional aspects of contemporary democracy. As for the second question, the D:CE agenda formulates two overarching methodological ambitions as well as a number of updated and new research questions. Being a CoE, our scientific environment encourages intellectual stimuli and new ideas. Moreover, doing research on contemporary democracy is a volatile business and calls for a constant monitoring of the research agenda. Nevertheless, we have been able to follow the original research agenda remarkably well. As promised in the plan, we have been able to develop both the experimental and the comparative approaches of D:CE research. When it comes to the specific research themes listed in the plan, we can report the following: 1. Are more inclusive participatory models of democracy feasible? This research question guides much of our work. Also, the Academy of Finland projects led by Grönlund and Bengtsson both relate to this research question. First, we have been able to design and use representative survey data gathered among the Finnish population and measuring items that capture the feasibility of participatory democracy. The Finnish National Election Studies of 2007 and 2011 included several items designed by D:CE researchers (Grönlund, Karvonen, Bengtsson) with the aim to test people s willingness to engage themselves in participatory democracy. In connection with the parliamentary 5

6 Evaluation of CoE 2012 / Organization and Self Assessment election of 2011, the D:CE team organized an online panel survey and a telephone survey in order to compare these methods with the face-to-face survey conducted within the Finnish NES. Second, the population based experiments carried out by D:CE in 2006, 2008 and most recently in 2012 (team Grönlund, Herne, Setälä) have combined survey data with observational data. The 2006 face-to-face experiment and its online replication in 2008 were designed to compare how the decision-making method in small-n group discussion affects the outcome of deliberation. The topic of these experiments was energy policy, particularly nuclear power. Several core articles attached to this report provide detailed accounts of these experiments. The experiment of 2012 on enclave deliberation was co-funded by the Academy of Finland. The core question is whether deliberation in like-minded groups leads to opinion polarization as suggested in by social psychologists. The topic of this experiment was immigration. The results are being analyzed and reported at present. Third, Bengtsson has organized a series of focus groups in 2012 in order to gauge how participatory mechanisms work in practise. Work on this broad research theme is advancing as planned and several articles have already been published (see the list of publications). The upcoming experiment in 2013 will deepen our knowledge of the mechanisms of participatory and discursive democracy further. The experiment is described below (2.4). 2. How can the scale problem (face-to-face requirement vs. large societies) be solved? This theme relates to the first theme in several ways. We are interested in the puzzle of incorporating participatory elements in large scale societies. The idea of mini-publics is central to participatory and deliberative theories. Following the democratic tradition of ancient Greece, it was restated by Robert A. Dahl in Dahl sketched a more democratic country where a representative random sample of the whole population would be formed for each major issue on the political agenda. A sample of about 1000 citizens (a mini-demos ), would meet by the means of telecommunications in order to deliberate on a political issue. The mini-demos could use experts and civil servants in the course of its deliberative process. Eventually, a verdict would be made. This verdict would be the verdict of the people. While Dahl s ideas remained fairly vague and theoretical, others have developed them further. James Fishkin, for one, has launched the idea of deliberative polling where a microcosm of the citizenry meets in order to deliberate on a political issue. In Fishkin s model, there is no collective decision-making. Other deliberative democrats, such as Jürgen Habermas also incorporate decision-making in their model of deliberative democracy. Our research has been inspired by the ideas of Robert Dahl, Benjamin Barber, Jürgen Habermas, John Rawls, James Fishkin & Robert Luskin, John Gastil, Jane Mansbridge, Carole Pateman, Robert Goodin, Mark Warren and John Dryzek, to name a few. Especially the problems of accountability and responsibility have guided our research on deliberative mini-publics. Important publications have been completed concerning this question, most notably in the book on Deliberative Mini-Publics edited by Grönlund, Bächtiger & Setälä (ECPR Press 2013). This research has advanced according to plan. 3. Can discursive quality be measured objectively? This central methodological question has been inspired by the literature on the need for measuring the quality of political discussion. In our case, the main focus has been on the deliberative discussions in our first experiment in All the discussions were audio recorded. Staffan Himmelroos, who defended his thesis in September 2012, has conducted a comprehensive content analysis of the small group deliberations. In his thesis, he has combined two analytical instruments, the discourse quality index (DQI) and interaction analysis (IR). The analyses show on the one hand that DQI, which was originally designed for 6

7 Evaluation of CoE 2012 / Organization and Self Assessment parliamentary debates, is not fully applicable on citizen deliberation, but on the other hand that ordinary people are capable of public deliberation. The D:CE team has a close collaboration on the issue with the fathers of DQI. Professors André Bächtiger, Jürg Steiner and Marco Steenbergen have all made research visits to Åbo Akademi, while Grönlund, Himmelroos and Setälä have made several visits to seminars and conferences organized by the Swiss group in Bern and Lucerne. Himmelroos will continue this collaboration as a post-doctoral fellow and he will be in charge of the development of the content analysis research based on the newest experimental data from The audio recorded small group discussions have been transcribed during the summer of The major publication within this research question has so far been Himmelroos doctoral thesis. 4. How can the deliberative capacity of societies and individuals be measured, and what are its determinants? This topic was mainly inspired by John Dryzek (2009 article in Comparative Political Studies), where he discusses political systems with high and low deliberative capacity. D:CE researchers have mostly been interested in how to operationalize deliberative capacity both at the macro and at the micro level. Marina Lindell s doctoral dissertation (to be presented in 2014) approaches the question from the opposite angle compared to much of earlier research. Her focus is on the non-deliberative citizen, i.e. persons who not only deviate from the deliberative ideals behaviorally, but who also appear immune to the documented opionion changes traced in experiments with mini-publics. Her thesis combines survey data and transcriptions of group discussion from the 2012 experiment on enclave deliberation. Additional analyses on deliberative capacity have been conducted by Krister Lundell and Peter Söderlund. Moreover, D:CE organized an international conference, Deliberative Democracy in Action, in Åbo in June Some 50 participants from 14 different countries participated. The first keynote speaker at the conference, Prof. John Dryzek, introduced to the theme of deliberative capacity, after which 20 papers were presented and discussed in a two-day workshop. 5. What are implications of deliberative democracy in terms of institutional design? This is a central research theme, sometimes called the scaling-up problem, in deliberative and participatory literature. In D:CE research this area is emerging as a focal one. Setälä s seminal article The role of deliberative mini-publics in democratic systems (Representation 2011) analyses and evaluates the use of mini-publics in the context of representative democracy. Moreover, Setälä, Grönlund and Herne have embarked on a new research project where the connections between mini-publics and representative bodies with decisive functions are studied with a variety of experimental methods, especially when it comes to issues of accountability and trust. In order to underline the importance of this research, we decided to define the scaling-up problem as one of the two major themes in the above-mentioned conference on deliberative democracy. Prof. Mark Warren was invited to deliver a keynote speech on this topic at this conference. In the corresponding workshop, another 20 papers were presented. 6. The anonymization of politics 7

8 Evaluation of CoE 2012 / Organization and Self Assessment The research under this heading examines anonymous website comments on moderated forums and tries to assess whether they fulfil the ideas of democratic conversation. Online discussions between citizens have been subject to a vast scholarly debate as well as several empirical studies for a substantial period of time. As such, scholars have envisioned online discussions as potential venues for citizen deliberation. Often, however, empirical findings do not readily support these notions. The quality of discussion, especially on forums left to their own devices, has not always been up to the standards of a truly deliberative exchange. Nonetheless, there are strains of evidence suggesting that online discussion venues applying facilitators, fixed topics and actively enforcing discussion rules, may avoid many of the problems of poor discussion quality. The responsible researchers within this theme are Kim Strandberg and Jan Berg. The latter is writing a doctoral thesis on the topic, to be completed in In their first joint paper, Strandberg and Berg examined, by the means of quantitative content analysis, 300 comments during the course of three weeks in the spring of These findings indicate that the discussions do not entirely meet the standards of democratic conversations; there are strains of democratic conversations found in the analysis but also many instances in which the opposite holds true. Overall, we feel that we have been able to keep the pace required by our agenda for The progress of our research lives up to the promises formulated in that document. 2.2 Have there been unexpected obstacles during the project? The answer is no. The first D:CE period was a process of learning that has helped us avoid major obstacles during the on-going period. The need to reorganize the administrative structure of our academic department was mentioned in section 1. This restructuring was successfully carried out and has improved our administrative efficiency in a decisive manner. Similarly, the first large-scale face-to-face experiment in 2006 and the first major online experiment in 2008 taught us a great deal about the possibilities and pitfalls of doing this type of research. These lessons have been immensely valuable in our continued work. 2.3 Benchmark the CoE with leading research groups in the same scientific area If not there, what would be needed to reach their level? What differs in the structures of the units? etc. There are a number of relevant research groups within this scientific area. Comparing our research with other similar is a somewhat difficult task, especially when many of the leading groups are considerably larger than our CoE. Also, numerous political science institutions are involved in democracy research, making the number of relevant groups large. Nevertheless, we have decided to list the ones we find strongest at the moment. 8

9 Evaluation of CoE 2012 / Organization and Self Assessment 1) Similarly to our center, the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law at Stanford University ( operates with a broad program for research on democracy and democratization. Stanford can boast with a large team and a variety of research areas, whereas our comparative advantage is the structure that links our program teams close together. 2) The Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard Kennedy School ( is a leading institution in the study of government from the point of view of good governance and citizen influence. Our center adds macro level analysis to these questions. The Ash center, on the other hand, has a more policy-oriented focus, especially on government innovations and crisis leadership. It also covers special area programs for governance in areas such as Asia and Latin America. Our focus by contrast is on established western democracies. 3) The Multidisciplinary Opinion and Democracy Research Group at the University of Gothenburg (MOD, focuses on the role of citizens opinions in sustainable democratic development. In some ways MOD resembles D:CE. It is a strategic initiative by the University to ensure top-quality research. Just as our CoE, MOD uses large-scale surveys, online panels and experimental methods in its research. Being a multidisciplinary group, MOD is not a very tightly knit organization, whereas D:CE is closely co-ordinated within the Department of Political Science at ÅA. The strength of MOD is that it is built on a long tradition of Swedish National Election Studies, and is also strengthened by the Quality of Government Institute at the same department. 4) The Belgian PARTIREP network ( consists of leading scholars at major Belgian universities. The research agenda of PARTIREP resembles that of D:CE in many ways. With the help of large scale surveys and experimental methods, PARTIREP scholars examine value change, societal transformations and party system change as well as how participation and representation are affected by these changes. Moreover, they are interested in what effect participation and representation patterns have on the legitimacy of democratic government. Within the PARTIREP network we collaborate especially with the Centre for Political Research at KU Leuven, led by Prof. Marc Hooghe. The Belgian network is well managed and gathers all relevant Belgian political scientists under the same umbrella. In a way, it resembles the collaboration of the Finnish National Election Study in which D:CE researchers have a strong impact. Overall, D:CE has carved out an independent profile as compared to major institutions and undertakings in democracy studies. As these institutions complement each other rather than being rivals it has been natural for us to forge strong collaborative ties with several of them. 2.4 What would be achieved by an unchanged CoE funding for ? If the funding remains unchanged, we can deliver the research as promised. We will be able to produce syntheses in our main fields of study plus pursue the experimental and comparative work necessary to answer our current research questions. The core ideas in the updated research agenda for D:CE (listed under 2.1 above) have been studied by various scholars at the CoE. The individual projects have already produced a great deal of new 9

10 Evaluation of CoE 2012 / Organization and Self Assessment knowledge. During the remaining two years of operation we will put even more emphasis on bringing together results obtained through the individual projects. The feasibility of participatory democracy, the scale problem of participatory reforms in large democracies, problems related to analyses of discursive quality, deliberative capacity as well as the anonymization of politics are all linked with the question of institutional design and reforms in representative systems. In the light of its accumulated knowledge, D:CE hopes to be able to formulate comprehensive policy recommendations. In concrete terms, our fourth large scale experiment is dependent on an unchanged funding as a CoE. The planned experiment is vitally important to the research agenda of the D:CE. The experiment which will be carried out in the autumn of 2013 is designed to strengthen the external validity of the results obtained in the 2012 experiment on enclave deliberation. Whereas the basis for enclave formation in the 2012 experiment was people s opinions, the upcoming experiment will use identity as a divisor. The theme will be the future of the Swedish language in Finland and the enclaves will be formed among Swedish-speakers and Finnish-speakers. The participants will be allocated into a) pure Swedish-speaking groups, b) pure Finnishspeaking groups and c) mixed groups. Obviously, a) and b) form the enclave groups, which are compared with c). The theoretical assumption of opinion polarization in enclave groups is compared with the development of opinions in the mixed groups. The upcoming experiment will exploit the Virtual Polity environment developed by D:CE and used in the second experiment in 2008 (see article by Grönlund, Strandberg & Himmelroos on the publications list). The VP platform will be updated for this use. There will also be an additional treatment where some of the small-n groups are moderated, whereas some are not. This treatment is needed in order to cast additional light on the possible effect of deliberative norms in diminishing the mechanisms of group polarization in enclave groups. Moreover, a control group is used. This experiment will, in short, add a crucially important element to our knowledge about the conditions and potential of deliberative democracy. To sum up: an unchanged (or rather increased) funding is vital to the fulfillment of the D:CE research program. 2.5 Additional funding One of the goals of the CoE funding is to improve the units competiveness for additional funding (Academy of Finland, TEKES, ERA etc.) Give a presentation of the unit strategy for applying additional funding and results of participation in major funding application processes, include possible evaluation reviews. Observe chapter 7. The general goal of our research team is to maintain a level of activity that provides us with a critical mass in terms of individuals and infrastructure necessary for scholarship at the highest international level. For attaining this goal, a position as a Center of Excellence is a necessary but not sufficient condition. From the start of its operations, therefore, D:CE has pursued an active strategy for additional funding based on a three-pronged approach. Firstly, junior scholars are encouraged to seek individual finance for post-doctoral projects based on the D:CE research agenda. D:CE provides economic and organizational conditions for such applications by, i.a., arranging seminars where versions of applications are discussed from a scholarly point of view, and by providing administrative expertise for the economic and technical aspects of applications. The second level concerns established D:CE scholars who are encouraged to apply for funding for major projects covering important parts of the D:CE agenda. Finally, the long-term ambition is to maintain a CoE status or equivalent to enable us to pursue research, doctoral programs and postdoctoral training not just for a few more years but over the long haul as well. 10

11 Evaluation of CoE 2012 / Organization and Self Assessment In our experience, the stated goal requires a funding strategy where the CoE budget may be the largest single economic base but should not be predominant. In concrete terms, half or more of our external funds should emanate from sources other than the CoE. This is indeed a demanding task, but one in which we have thus far been successful. As of June 1, 2008 our team has been granted a total of 3.14 million euros in additional external funding. Moreover, three externally financed projects that started before that date but were in operation for the better part of the period had funds slightly exceeding one million euros (for details, see section 7). If minor grants not specified in this report are included, the team therefore has had well over four million euros of additional funds at hand. Of the total of fourteen major grants, four are post-doctoral projects while the rest are undertakings led by senior scholars; we deem the balance to be at least satisfactory. As for the long-term goal of maintaining a CoE status or equivalent, the immediate concern is of course to repeat the success of the mid-term evaluation of 2008 and the renewed application of It is vital for our operations that D:CE be deemed worthy of continued finance until the end of However, our time horizon must stretch beyond that year. Therefore, we have submitted a Letter of Intent entitled Transformations of Democracy. A Center of Excellence in Political Research to the Academy of Finland; the proposal is currently under review. If granted, the funds would cover the six-year period from 2014 through The total budget is estimated at around 8,2 million euros, out of which the Academy of Finland share is roughly 6.2 million. These funds would lift the scale of our research to yet a higher level and provide us with the necessary space to seek organize our work on a still more continuous basis, including major undertakings funded by international sources in cooperation with our international partner institutions. 2.6 Strategy for the CoE after the funding period ( exit plan ) If the funding stops at the end of 2013 As the funding decision taken by the Rector of Åbo Akademi University covers the period until the end of 2014, our strategic planning has been based on this time horizon. Consequently, it would indeed be a major problem if funding were to stop at the end of Since the bulk of our expenditure concerns researcher salaries and additional experiments - that are admittedly costly indeed - we would have to have to make painful cuts in either or both of these areas. Obviously, were we to abstain from additional experiments altogether, our research results would unavoidably fall short of the promises made in our research plan. Therefore, the most likely scenario is that we would have to limit the spending on salaries, meaning that our possibilities to offer doctoral and postdoctoral positions would be clearly more restricted than planned. If the funding stops at the end of 2014 Our planning has been based on the guidelines from the Åbo Akademi leadership; any CoE will be granted a maximum of two periods of funding. As we are in the middle of our second period, this means that December 31, 2014 is the termination date for D:CE. As described in section 2.5, we are working towards the goal that we be established as a Center of Excellence at the Academy of Finland, and our plans to that end have advanced fairly far. Despite the fierce competition for such funding we believe that we stand a realistic chance of achieving this goal in the foreseeable future. 11

12 3 PERSONNEL EMPLOYED USING THE CoE FUNDING 3.1 Senior (postdoctoral) researchers Name Gender (M/F) Academic Degree Position Period of employment Estim. percentage of salary Krister Lundell M Dr. Post-doctoral fellow June-Dec 2008, April-Sept , April 2010-July 2011 Lauri Karvonen M Dr. Research professor Aug 2007-Oct Kimmo Grönlund M Dr. Senior researcher March December Maria Ackrén F Dr. Post-doctoral fellow May-July Maija Setälä F Dr. Senior researcher Aug 2011-July Lauri Rapeli M Dr. Post-doctoral fellow Jan-June Henrik Serup Christensen M Dr. Post-doctoral fellow Aug Jan Peter Söderlund M Dr. Senior researcher Jan 2011-Dec Doctoral students Name Gender (M/F) Academic Degree Registration for current PhD-studies (start date) Estim. dissertation year Period of employment with CoE funding Estim. percentage of salary Åsa Lindström F MA Sept Sept 2006-Aug Marta Miklikowska F Dr. Feb 2007 Completed Feb 2007-Jan Sari Pikkala F Dr. Sept 2005 Completed March-Nov 2007, June , Sept-Oct 2008 Siv Sandberg F Lic. Sept Jan-June 2009, Apr March 2012 Staffan Himmelroos M Lic. April 2007 Completed 2012 Jan Dec

13 Marina Lindell F Lic. April Jan 2011-Aug Janne Berg M MA Jan Jan 2011-Dec Jussi Westinen M MA Sept Sept 2011-Dec Other personnel Name Gender Degree Position Period of employment Estim. percentage of (M/F) salary Annika Stålfors F MA Administrative secretary Jan 2007-Dec Linda Nordberg F BA Assistant Sept Dec Jessica Mattila F BA Assistant March April Mattias Karlsson M BA Assistant Nov 2011 Jan Maija Karjalainen F MA Project researcher Jan 2012-May RESEARCH RESULTS OF THE CoE 4.1 Scientific publications and other outputs during the period Based on your own assessment, mark the ten best publications with an asterisk Papers in refereed journals (N = 50) Authors Title Publication year Journal/Publisher etc. Additional comments (Accepted for publication, in press etc.) 13

14 Denk, Thomas Bengtsson, Åsa Denk, Thomas Marta Miklikowska *Kimmo Grönlund & Maija Setälä Krister Lundell Krister Lundell Kim Strandberg & Kimmo Grönlund Åsa Bengtsson & Hanna Wass Henrik Serup Christensen Henrik Serup Christensen & Åsa Bengtsson *Thomas Denk & Daniel Silander How to measure polyarchy with Freedom House: A proposal for revision Perceptions of Political Processes. A critical note on alternative measurements. Size and Political Support on the Local Level in Sweden Psychological underpinnings of democracy: Empathy, authoritarianism, self-esteem, interpersonal trust, normative identity style, and openness to experience as predictors of support for democratic values. In Honest Officials We Trust: Institutional Confidence in Europe. Civic Participation and Political Trust: The Impact of Compulsory Voting Disproportionality and Party System Fragmentation: Does Assembly Size Matter? Online Deliberation and Its Outcome - Evidence From the Virtual Polity Experiment The Representative Roles of MPs: A Citizen Perspective Political Activities on the Internet: Slacktivism or Political Participation by other Means? The Political Competence of Internet Participants Evidence from Finland Problems in Paradise? Challenges to Future Democratization in Democratic 2012 Quality & Quantity Accepted for publication 2012 Revista Internacional de Sociología 2012 Local Government Studies 1, Personality and Individual Differences 53(5): The American Review of Public Administration 42, p Representation 48:2, p Open Journal of Political Science 2:1, p Journal of Information Technology and Politics 9:2, p Scandinavian Political Studies 34(2): First Monday, 2/ Information Communication and Society. 14(3): International Political Science Review/ 33(1), Accepted for publication 14

15 States Miklikowska, M., B. Duriez and B. Soenens Family Roots of Empathy-Related Characteristics 2011 Developmental Psychology 47, Andreas Fagerholm Väljarstöd och ideologi inom 2011 Politiikka 53:1, s västeuropeisk yttervänster: En jämförande översikt Lauri Karvonen Multiple Facets of Democratization 2011 International Studies Review 13, Miklikowska, Marta and Helena Hurme Pekka Kettunen & Siv Sandberg *Krister Lundell Mikko Mattila, Hanna Wass, Peter Söderlund, Sami Fredriksson, Päivi Fadjukoff & Katja Kokko *Maija Setälä Peter Söderlund, Hanna Wass och Bernard Grofman *Peter Söderlund, Hanna Wass & André Blais *Åsa Bengtsson & Hanna Wass Democracy Begins at Home: Democratic Parenting and Adolescents Support for Democratic Values "Kompromissens programteori. En analys av den finländska kommun- och servicestrukturreformen" Accountability and Patterns of Alternation in Pluralitarian, Majoritarian and Consensus Democracies Personality and turnout: results from the Finnish longitudinal studies The role of deliberative mini-publics in democratic systems. Lessons from the experience of referendums. The Effect of Institutional and Party System Factors on Turnout in Finnish Parliamentary Elections, : A District-level Analysis. The impact of motivational and contextual factors on turnout in firstand second-order elections Styles of Political Representation: What Do Voters Expect? European Journal of Developmental Psychology 8, Nordisk Administrativt Tidsskrift 2/2011, Government and Opposition, 46(2), Scandinavian Political Studies, 34:4, Representation, 47:2, Homo oeconomicus 28(1/2): Electoral Studies, 30: Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, Vol. 20, No.

16 Åsa Bengtsson & Hanna Wass Thomas Denk *Kimmo Grönlund, Maija Setälä & Kaisa Herne Staffan Himmelroos *Maija Setälä, Kimmo Grönlund & Kaisa Herne Maija Setälä Åsa Bengtsson & Mikko Mattila Åsa Bengtsson & Hanna Wass Åsa Bengtsson & Henrik Serup Christensen Maria Bäck & Elina Kestilä Thomas Denk & Daniel Silander Sam Grönholm *Kimmo Grönlund, Kim Strandberg & Staffan Himmelroos Representation som representativitet, relation och deliberation Comparative Multilevel Analysis: Proposal for a Methodology Deliberation and civic virtue: lessons from a citizen deliberation experiment, Mot en mer deliberativ politik? Utmaningen i att förena deliberation med representation, Citizen Deliberation on Nuclear Power: A Comparison of Two Decision-Making Methods Democracy and Democratization in Finland. Perspectives from Outside and Inside. Direct democracy and its critics: Support for direct democracy and stealth democracy in Finland. Äänestäjien edustusta koskevat odotukset. Politiskt deltagande i Finland - spridning och drivkrafter. Social Capital and Political Trust in Finland - An Individual-level Assessment Demokratins utmaningar? En analys av 60 delvis fria länder. Governing National Parks in Finland: the Illusion of Public Involvement The challenge of deliberative democracy online A comparison of face-to-face and virtual experiments in citizen deliberation. 16 1, 55-81, February Politiikka/ 52(3) International Journal of Social Research Methodology, Vol. 13, No. 1, February 2010, European Political Science Review 2/1, pp Politiikka 52:3, s Political Studies 58, Taiwan Journal of Democracy, 6:2, West European Politics 32(5): Politiikka 51(3), Politiikka 51/2, Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 32 No. 2, Politiikka 51(3), Local Environment, Volume 14 Issue , Information Polity 14,

17 Lesley Hustinx & Thomas Denk The 'Black Box' Problem in the Study of Participation 2009 Journal of Civil Society 5(3), Elina Kestilä-Kekkonen & Peter Söderlund Rejoinder: Response to Arzheimer and Carter European Journal of Political Research, 48:3, Maija Setälä Rhetoric and Deliberative Democracy 2009 Redescriptions, 13, Kim Strandberg Peter Söderlund & Elina Kestilä- Kekkonen On-line Campaigning - An Opening for the Outsiders? -An Analysis of the Finnish Parliamentary Candidates' Websites in the 2003 Election Campaign The Dark Side of Party Identification? An Empirical Study of Political Trust New Media & Society 11(5), Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 19:2, among Radical Right-Wing Voters. Maria Ackrén & Pär M. Olausson Condition(s) for Island Autonomy 2008 International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, Volume 15, No. 2-3, Carsten Anckar Carsten Anckar On the Applicability of the Most Similar Systems Design and the Most Different Systems Design in Comparative Research Size, Islandness, and Democracy: A Global Comparison, Tom Carlson & Kim Strandberg Riding the Web 2.0 Wave: Candidates on YouTube in the 2007 Finnish National Elections Kaisa Herne & Tarja Mård Three Versions of Impartiality: An Experimental Investigation. Krister Lundell Electoral Reform and Party System Change: An Analysis of Nordic Elections with Two Different Electoral Systems Kim Strandberg Public Deliberation goes On-Line? An Analysis of Citizens Political Discussions on the Internet prior to the 2008 International Journal of Social Research Methodology (2008), Vol. 11, No. 5, International Political Science Review (2008), Vol. 29, No. 4, Journal of Information and Technology & Politics, 5(2), Homo Oeconomicus Scandinavian Political Studies, volume 31, no. 4, Javnost- The Public.

18 Kim Strandberg Peter Söderlund Finnish Parliamentary Elections in 2007, On-line Campaigning in Different Settings: A Comparative Meta- Analysis of the Research on Party Websites and Electoral Competition, Retrospective Voting and Electoral Volatility: A Nordic Perspective 2008 Party Politics 14(2), Scandinavian Political Studies Vol. 31, No , Papers in refereed edited volumes and conference proceedings (N = 30) Authors Title Publication year Publisher, Conference etc. Strandberg, Kim & Grönlund, Online Deliberation In Kimmo Grönlund, Andre Kimmo Bächtiger & Maija Setälä (eds). Deliberative Mini-Publics. ECPR Setälä, Maija & Herne, Kaisa Setälä, Maija Henrik Serup Christensen Henrik Serup Christensen and Sofie Marien Bengtsson, Åsa & Christensen, Henrik Serup. Normative Theory and Experimental Research in the Study of Deliberative Mini-Publics. The public sphere as a site of deliberation: An analysis of problems of inclusion. Institutional Incentives for Political Participation in the Off-Election Democrac Trust and Openness: Prerequisites for Democratic Engagement? The Political Competence of Internet Participants Evidence from Finland Press In Kimmo Grönlund, Andre Bächtiger & Maija Setälä (eds). Deliberative Mini-Publics. ECPR Press In Elstub, Stephen & McLaverty, Stephen (eds): Deliberative Democracy. Issues and Cases. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, forthcoming In Esaiasson, P. and Narud, H. M. (Eds.) Off-Election Democracy, Colchester: ECPR Press In Demetriou, K. (Ed.) Democracy in Transition: Political Participation in the European Union, London: Springer In Loader & Mercea (eds.) Social Media and Democracy: Additional comments In press In press In press Accepted for publication Accepted for publication 18

19 Innovations in Participatory Politics. Routledge. Setälä, Maija & Schiller Theo Introduction Maija Setälä & Theo Schiller (eds): Citizens Initiative in Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp Schiller, Theo & Setälä, Maija Conclusions 2012 In Maija Setälä & Theo Schiller (eds): Citizens Initiative in Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp Guy-Erik Isaksson Presidentialisation of Parliamentary Systems: Reality or Illusion?' in Thomas Persson & Matti Wiberg, red., Parliamentary Government in the Nordic Countries at a Crossroads, Coping with Challenges from Europeanisation and Presidentialisation. Stockholm: Santérus Förlag, Lauri Karvonen Party System Fragmentation 2011 in Bertrand Badie, Dirk Berg- Schlosser and Leonardo Morlino, eds., International Encyclopedia of Political Science, Vol. 6, London: SAGE, Lauri Karvonen Preferential Vote in Party List 2011 in Josep M. Colomer, ed., Personal representation. The neglected dimension of electoral systems, Colchester: ECPR Press, Sandberg Siv "The Nordic Regions: Institutional Development and Public Debate " 2011 pp In Harald Baldersheim, Are Vegard Haug & Morten Øgård (eds): The Rise of the Networking Region. The Challenges of Regional Collaboration in A Globalized World. Surrey: Ashgate.

20 Maija Setälä Referendums 2011 Keith Dowding (ed.): Encyclopedia of Power. London: Sage, pp Åsa Bengtsson Svenska folkpartiet som förvaltare av det politiska och sociala kapitalet Sundback, S. & Nyqvist, F. (ed.) Det finlandssvenska sociala kapitalet. Fiktion eller fakta? Helsingfors: SLS. Åsa Bengtsson & Mikko Mattila Åsa Bengtsson Finlandssvenska demokrativisioner: Mer med medborgarinflytande eller skuggdemokrati? Minoriteters politiska mobilisering. En västeuropeisk kartläggning Grönlund, K. (ed.) Finlandssvenskar i publikdemokrati. Helsingfors: SLS Grönlund, K. (ed.) Finlandssvenskar i publikdemokrati. Helsingfors: SLS. Kimmo Grönlund Kimmo Grönlund Kimmo Grönlund Inledning finlandssvenskar i publikdemokrati Politiskt beteende i Svenskfinland och på Åland Konklusioner svenska intressen i finländsk politik Grönlund, K. (ed.) Finlandssvenskar i publikdemokrati. Helsingfors: SLS, Grönlund, K. (ed.) Finlandssvenskar i publikdemokrati. Helsingfors: SLS, Grönlund, K. (ed.) Finlandssvenskar i publikdemokrati. Helsingfors: SLS, Guy-Erik Isaksson Minoriteter och valmanifest 2011 Kimmo Grönlund, red., Språk och politisk mobilisering. Finlandssvenskar i publikdemokrati. Helsingfors: Svenska litteratursällskapet i Finland,

21 Carsten Anckar "Size and Democracy in New State Formation" Denk, Thomas (ed.): Perspectives on state-building and democracy: A research anthology. VDM: Saarbrücken, pp Thomas Denk "State-building and democratization" 2010 in Denk, Thomas (ed.): Perspectives on state-building and democracy: A research anthology. VDM: Saarbrücken, pp Siv Sandberg Siv Sandberg "Finnish Power-Shift: The Defeat of the Periphery? Decentralized, Unitary Welfare States. The Role of Local Government in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden 2010 In Baldersheim Harald & Lawrence Rose (eds): Territorial Choice. The Politics of Boundaries and Borders, Palgrave McMillan, In Stein Kuhnle, Chen Yinzhang, Klaus Petersen & Pauli Kettunen (eds): The Nordic Welfare State, Fudan University Press, Shanghai. Maija Setälä Introduction, 2009 in Schiller, Theo and Setälä, Maija, Referendums and Representative Democracy, pp London: Routledge. Bob Evans, Marko Joas, Susan Sundback & Kate Theobald Institutional and Social Capacity Enhancement for Local Sustainable Development: Lessons Learned from European Urban Settings In Susan Baker & Katarina Eckerberg (eds), In Pursuit of Sustainable Development. Oxon: Routledge, Kimmo Grönlund Compulsory Voting 2008 in Darity, William A., Jr (Ed.) International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 2nd edition. 9 vols. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA. Ann-Sofie Hermanson Environmental Concerns within the Baltic Sea Region: A Nordic-Baltic Comparison, 2008 in Marko Joas, Detlef Jahn & Kristine Kern (eds) (2008), Governing a Common Sea. Environmental Policies in the Baltic Sea Region. London: