Invitation to Submit a Paper to a Panel on Historical Institutionalism: 7th Biennial ACSPRI Social Science Methodology Conference

Source: De Percy, M.A. & Batainah, H.S. (2019). Identifying historical policy regimes in the Canadian and Australian communications industries using a model of path dependent, punctuated equilibrium, Policy Studies, DOI: 10.1080/01442872.2019.1581161.

If you are interested in participating in the panel (or other panels), please visit the 7th Biennial ACSPRI Social Science Methodology Conference website at https://conferences.acspri.org.au/2020/. The early bird rate is half-price and is quite affordable at $20 for a an employee at a member institution and only $10 for students. The non-member price is $50.

Panel Details

While there has been much debate about the theoretical strengths and weaknesses of historical institutionalism (one of the three main approaches of "new institutionalism"), there have been relatively few examples of the use of historical institutionalism as a method in comparative politics research. Yet historical institutionalism provides rich and rigorous ways to conduct process tracing when comparing institutions over time, particularly at the meso-level (industry or sectoral level) of analysis. This session is designed for researchers interested in adopting historical institutionalism as a method for conducting cross-national comparisons of politics and policies over time. The focus is on the use of historical institutionalism as a method of process tracing and a way to organise qualitative data in political science research. Participants will be introduced to the concepts of institutional theory, path dependency, punctuated equilibrium, critical junctures, momentum, and stasis. The approach will focus on developing quasi-experimental qualitative research projects to produce plausible (as opposed to falsifiable) explanations for cross-national institutional outcomes. At the end of this session, participants will have the skills and knowledge to develop their own model for adopting historical institutionalism as a form of process tracing in cross-national comparative politics research projects.

Questions?

If you have any questions about the panel, or if you wish to submit a paper, please contact me via email at michael.depercy@canberra.edu.au.

When Philosophy is Not Enough (and other journeys of self-discovery)

Sunrise over Coogee Beach, 18th July 2020. Photo by Michael de Percy.

Reclaiming your Inner Harmony: A Practical Guide by Richard Marazita
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

It's sad that it's taken me this long to read another book. But it's clear there's light at the end of the tunnel, and reading this book has been inspirational. I've been working with the author of this book for the last few weeks looking at how to get all of my "parts" to work together, instead of having a free run, an experience that hasn't worked at all before.

Some four years of working on Stoic philosophy has been useful but there have been parts that don't work for me. I suspect that Stoicism's physics, stemming from Heraclitus, has an element of sadness in its resignation to fate. Epicureanism, on the other hand, with its focus on happiness, stems from Democritus' physics. Philosophical adversaries, to be sure, but even Seneca would accept the lessons of his rivals if the lessons are useful.

Journalling is my major vehicle for practising Stoicism. I wrote about the approach I have used in the past here. While reinforcing the foundational principle of Stoicism, best captured in the first page of Epictetus' Enchiridion, I also created a chronicle of evidence that continually "stacked up" with a clear message: I wasn't happy. Even though I was much calmer and more at peace with the world, I wasn't happy. The end result was a major crisis that disrupted my otherwise disciplined journalling ritual. 

I don't regret my experience of journalling and practising Stoicism over the last four years, but after the first three years it became a struggle. Only recently have I been able to get back into my journalling practice, but it is substantially different from my previous practice. 

Now, I am learning to incorporate other aspects of Eastern philosophy and religion, especially Buddhism, and more recently, Classical Indian Philosophy in the form of the Yoga and Siva Sutras. 

After a trip to Brunei in May last year the idea of the Chakras opened up a whole new world of healing, especially for my body which has long been neglected over the last twenty years while I pursued study and an academic career. Turning to Stoicism was the first step in a much broader awakening to life outside of the mind.

My first step was to do two Rapid Transformation Therapy (RTT) sessions and then a tarot reading. I had some Bowen, Reiki, and Kinesiology sessions, too. A key theme has been the relationship of the body to the mind. As a former soldier, the only real relationship these two parts of me have had was that my mind pushed my body as far as it could go.

The therapy I have been having with Richard has been useful in recognising the different parts of me that act and react on my behalf. A key part of the technique, known as Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR), has been enlightening and brought to light a number of issues I have buried for many years. 

The approach is similar to Napoleon Hill's concept of the Cabinet of Invisible Counselors, except that the counselors are different parts of me, rather than other individuals. I am hopeful that the approach will help me develop a better sense of self and to become better at establishing and maintaining healthy boundaries.

I stumbled upon Reclaiming your Inner Harmony: A Practical Guide while checking out Richard's website. I found the book easy to read and quite practical. The basic approach is that, to achieve inner harmony, one must balance the mind, body, feelings, and gut instinct. Disharmony is caused by one of these parts dominating the others. 

For me, gut instinct is something I have buried for a long time. I think that Stoicism, which is clearly a form of ancient psychotherapy, is much easier to subscribe to for a soldier-turned-scholar. But it doesn't make any connection to the body. In fact, it tends to dissociate the body from the mind, in that it is not something that one can control. This makes sense in terms of illness or injury, but it seems to ignore the fact that my mind exists because of my body. I must admit to a feeling of dissociation which has only recently begun to retreat.

I found this short book useful despite my first attempt at using the tools leading to my gut instinct going for an off-leash run. Like the EMDR therapy, the point is to enable all parts of oneself to "check in". 

Much like Stoic philosophy (and religions, but that's another story), it takes practice to reinforce the habit, through use of the chain method, if you will. And that is where my journalling has found a new purpose.

My journey, which began with my mind before finding practical application in the form of Stoic philosophy, neglected the feelings, body, and gut instinct that I have rediscovered. It has given me a perspective that I think I initially buried, inappropriately in hindsight, and then suppressed further with Stoicism. 

The last time I felt the connection with my body was in training before going to Duntroon. I was practising Tai Chi at the time. Like Seneca, I can choose to use whatever works for me rather than trying to be a purist in everything I do. Given the obvious health and wellbeing benefits, it makes sense. 

And while many things and people have assisted me on this latest stage of my journey, this book has given me a logical framework for connecting with my different parts while also guiding me to develop my own, unadulterated, sense of self.

View all my reviews

Canberra's Transport Conundrum: Either Way, You Pay!

Dr Michael de Percy, University of Canberra (Photo: ABC News, Matt Roberts).

 

Recently, I spoke with Tom Maddocks from ABC News Canberra about transport policy and the impact of light rail, buses, and road usage in the ACT. Although light rail is yet to make an impact on car usage, I am of the view that any infrastructure is better than no infrastructure, and a mix of transport modes, supported by appropriate pricing and charging mechanisms, is key to transport policy success.

Although I live in Gunning these days, I have had personal experience of public transport in Canberra over the last 20 years. It is great if you live near one of the major routes, but there are many pockets of under-served areas where a trip in one's car can take 10-15 minutes, whereas a bus, assuming the route is served regularly, can take up to one hour to travel as little as 10km.

One of the major problems I see with Canberra's light rail is the decision to recover costs through fares. This meant that light rail replaced what was already a well-served bus route into the city, with buses running every 15 minutes and taking about the same time as the current light rail network. Rather than redeploying the buses to under-served areas, however, the bus routes and timetables were amended, resulting, in many cases, in even longer trips than beforehand.

When writing about my "Canberra transport nightmare" in 2014 after attempting to get to the ANU campus from Palmerston (near Gungahlin), I had hoped that the redeployment of buses would bring more services to Palmerston. Instead, the redesigned bus timetable made my trips to the University of Canberra even longer.

When I first moved to Palmerston, I could catch the bus and arrive at the UC Bruce Campus within 30 minutes. Although there was a period of over one hour where no services ran, I could plan my day around it. Years later, the route was changed to bring the buses into Gungahlin, so each trip I went from Palmerston to Gungahlin then back past Palmerston to get to UC, and then up to a 1km walk to reach my office. It was far from ideal and it was easier to drive my car.

Judging from the many responses to the recent ABC article, the introduction of light rail has not improved things, and in many cases, has made things worse.

Part of the problem is that, much like government-led telecommunications, each mode is treated separately and by different parts of the bureaucracy. To be sure, the next stage of light rail from Civic to Woden will no doubt encourage more people to leave their cars at home, but the policy approach seems focused on light rail as the panacea, rather than just one part of an overall system.

Road user charging and pricing, parking fees, congestion charging, and improved rules and infrastructure for "active travel" and other incentives to change our behaviours in relation to car use is essential to ensure the sustainability benefits of public transport can be realised. But to introduce such policies is fraught with short-term political risk. 

Even the introduction of light rail, decades in the making in the ACT, saw the ACT Liberals attacking a project that had the backing of the Liberal-led federal government through Joe Hockey's under-rated "asset recycling" policy. Imagine the political scare campaign that could be mounted against increased parking fees or congestion charging in the CBD?

Infrastructure policy is a major problem for countries like Australia, Canada, and the United States, where car use has been the norm beginning in the 1920s, and increasing in Australia since the 1950s. These are long-ingrained behaviours that are difficult to change.

Compare Australia's major cities with place like Hong Kong, Shanghai, Singapore, and the difference in the quality and extent of infrastructure is astounding. Of course, politics and private property rights in China are very different to here. My point is though, that infrastructure and road user and congestion charging cna make a big difference in car-use behaviours.

In Australia, we have the worst of both worlds: governments reluctant to tackle the hard work of building infrastructure and seeing it as an investment in productivity (rather than something to be recouped through the ticket box), and a voting public unwilling to pay for road use and increased parking costs.

Which brings me to the need for leadership in building infrastructure, or, better yet, the establishment of an independent body that is one level removed from day-to-day politics - something like the Reserve Bank Board - to enable investment in infrastructure that is not at the whim of short-term political moods.

In the meantime, the most efficient method of dealing with traffic congestion and commuting times is for for people who use public transport to put up with long commuting times, and for drivers to sit in patiently in traffic. Neither choice is ideal, but try to convince people they should pay for road use or that governments should fund transport infrastructure through debt and public-private partnerships and see how that goes down.