“Applied” Political Theory: What Do We Do When We Do Theory?

Session Submission Type: Roundtable Session

Abstract

This round table brings empirically focused political theorists together in a discussion about how they synthesize field research and theory in their work. The session intends to create a generative conversation on questions such as how we do political theory, how we center lived experiences, and what we call our methodology and why. While we engage in similar research and theorizing practices, we often conceptualize our methodology differently (e.g., applied, grounded, engaged theory). Many theorists don’t give it a name at all but continue engaging with empirical phenomena in their theorizing. The field of political theory would benefit from further conversations on how the field and theory speak to each other. Some other questions we explore include: What is the role of political theory in understanding, criticizing, and transforming the world we live in? How do the field and political theory transform each other? What is the researcher’s/theorist’s responsibility to the field they study? Does political theory have a methodology? To what extent do empirically focused theorists benefit from political science methods? How do we challenge/expand these methods? Do the conceptions of applied theory, grounded theory, or engaged theory sufficiently identify what we do? How do they differ from one another? Is there more hermeneutic work to be done to conceptualize what we do?

Sub Unit

• Modern & Contemporary Political Theory

Chair

• Alison Parks, Stetson University

Participants

• Delia Popescu, Le Moyne College

• Lena Zuckerwise, Simmons University

• Sumru Atuk, Ithaca College

• Naomi Scheinerman, Ohio State University

• Christy Monet, New York University