We are recruiting two lecturers – International Politics, International Politics and Policy – at the University of Stirling

‘The Division of History, Heritage and Politics wishes to appoint two suitably qualified and experienced Grade 7/8 Lecturers in (1) International Politics, and (2) International Politics and Policy. International Politics is a core element of our interdisciplinary research in relation to politics and policy, including human rights, justice, climate, energy, resource conflict, sustainable development, international security, and health. Each appointee will pursue a programme of research, including research outputs and funding applications, in that context.

For International Politics, we are open to applicants with regional specialisms (such as Africa, Europe, Americas, or Asia).  For International Politics and Policy, we seek applicants who can contribute to research on global challenges, such as to enhance our focus on environmental politics and climate change.  For both posts, we also welcome a critical focus on gendered and racialised dimensions of international politics’.

https://www.stir.ac.uk/about/work-at-stirling/list/details/?jobId=3622&jobTitle=Lecturer%20in%20International%20Politics%20and%20Lecturer%20in%20International%20Politics%20and%20Public%20Policy

I am one of the pre-interview contacts. To speak with someone with more expertise in International Politics, please email Professor Andrea Schapper andrea.schapper@stir.ac.uk  

These are my personal thoughts on that process, which blend background information and some helpful advice. These notes are also there to address a potentially major imbalance in the informal side to recruitment: if you do not have the contacts and networks that help give you the confidence to seek information (on the things not mentioned in the further particulars), here is the next best thing: the information I would otherwise give you on the phone. This approach is also handy under the current circumstances, in which (a) the vacancies will run for a short period (3 weeks, with a deadline in mid-June, and interviews on 3^rd July), because (b) we need someone to start in September.

Here are some general tips on the application and interview processes.

The application process:

• At this stage, the main documents are the CV and the cover letter.
• You should keep the cover letter short to show your skills at concise writing (I suggest 1-page). Focus on what you can offer the Division specifically, given the nature of our call and further particulars.
• Lecturers will be competing with many people who have completed a PhD and have some publications – so what makes your CV stand out?
• We take teaching very seriously. Within our division, we plan an overall curriculum together, discuss regularly if it is working, and come to agreements about how to teach and assess work. We pride ourselves on being a small and friendly bunch of people, open to regular student contact and, for example, committed to meaningful and regular feedback.
• You might think generally about how you would contribute to teaching and learning in that context. In particular, you should think about how, for example, you would deliver large undergraduate modules (in which you may only be an expert on some of the material) as well as the smaller, more specialist and advanced, modules closer to your expertise. However, please also note that your main initial contribution is specific:

‘The appointees will contribute to our successful Masters Programmes – in International Conflict and Cooperation (ICC) and Master of Public Policy (MPP) – and BA programmes in International Politics, as well as doctoral and dissertation supervision. An ability to contribute to introductory undergraduate modules, as well as design and deliver an advanced undergraduate and ICC module, is essential. The ability to teach qualitative or quantitative research methods is welcome’.

The interview process

We have combined the advert for two posts partly for the sake of efficiency: it should help you to apply (if appropriate) for two posts at the same time, and for us to consider candidates whose skills may overlap between posts (although the interview process will be separate for each). The shortlisting should be finished by the 22^nd June so, all going well, you will know if you have reached the interview stage by 26^th June. The presentations and interviews will take place – ideally in person, but possibly on Teams – on 3^rd July. 

The interview stage

By the interview stage, here are the things that you should normally know:

• The teaching and research specialisms of the division and their links to cross-divisional research.
• The kinds of courses that the division would expect you to teach.

Perhaps most importantly, you need to be able to articulate why you want to come and work at Stirling. ‘Why Stirling?’ or ‘Why this division?’ is usually the first question in an interview, so you should think about it in advance. We recommend doing some research on Stirling and the division/ faculty, to show in some detail that you have a considered reply (beyond the usual ‘it is a beautiful campus’ and ‘I need a job’). Since it is the first question, your answer will set the tone for the rest of the interview. You might check, for example, who you might share interests with in the Division, and how you might develop links beyond the division or faculty, since this is likely to be a featured question too.

• Then you might think about what you would bring to the University in a wider sense, such as through well-established (domestic and international) links with other scholars in academic networks.
• Further, since ‘impact’ is of rising importance, you might discuss your links with people and organisations outside of the University, and how you have pursued meaningful engagement with the public or practitioners to maximise the wider contribution of your research. This point is especially true for the IP and Policy post, which relates somewhat to the trend in funding towards ‘mission oriented’ research.

The interview format

For open-ended contracts, we tend to combine (a) presentations to divisional staff in the morning, with (b) interviews in the afternoon. They will be in person if possible (but Teams if need be). The usual expectation is that if you can’t make the date, you can’t get the job. In addition:

• We recommend keeping the presentation compact, to show that you can present complex information in a concise and clear way. Presentations are usually a mix of what you do in research and what you will contribute in a wider sense to the University. Please note that most of your interview panel will not attend the presentation.
• The interview panel format at this level will have four members: two subject specialists from the Division (in this case, Professor Schapper and me), the Dean of Faculty of Arts and Humanities, and a senior academic in another Faculty.
• So, only 2 members of your panel will be a specialist in International Politics or Policy. This means that (at the very least) you need to describe your success in a way that a wider audience will appreciate. For example, you would have to explain the significance of a single-author article in the top-rated journal in your field.

It sounds daunting, but we are a friendly bunch and want you to do well. You might struggle to retain all of our names (nerves), so focus on the types of question we ask – for example, the general question to get you started will be from the senior manager, and the research question from the subject specialist. Our 4-person panels tend to be gender balanced but are often all-white panels. I hope that you can see other more useful signals about our commitment to equality, diversity, and inclusion.

We are happy to answer your questions, via email in the first instance: andrea.schapper@stir.ac.uk  and  p.a.cairney@stir.ac.uk

We are recruiting a lecturer in Politics at the University of Stirling (open ended contract)

‘The Division of History, Heritage and Politics wishes to appoint a suitably qualified and experienced Grade 7/8 Lecturer in Politics. The appointee will pursue a programme of research, including research outputs and funding applications, in the field of Scottish or UK politics and governance. We are open to different ways to approach this field, including to relate UK and devolved politics to comparative or multi-level analysis, and/ or a critical focus on gendered and racialised dimensions of politics. The appointee will be joining a team producing interdisciplinary research, which includes politics and policies related to human rights, justice, climate change, energy, security, resource conflict, health and sustainable development’.

Vacancy details | University of Stirling

I am one of the pre-interview contacts and these are my personal thoughts on that process, which blend background information and some helpful advice. These notes are also there to address a potentially major imbalance in the informal side to recruitment: if you do not have the contacts and networks that help give you the confidence to seek information (on the things not mentioned in the further particulars), here is the next best thing: the information I would otherwise give you on the phone. This approach is also handy under the current circumstances, in which (a) the vacancy will run for a short period (3 weeks, with a deadline of 14^th June, and interviews on 30^th June), because (b) we need someone to start in September. I am out of the office until the 1st June, but happy to chat (or reply to your emailed – p.a.cairney at stir.ac.uk – questions soon after).

Here are some general tips on the application and interview processes.

The application process:

• At this stage, the main documents are the CV and the cover letter.
• You should keep the cover letter short to show your skills at concise writing (I suggest 1-page). Focus on what you can offer the Division specifically, given the nature of our call and further particulars. For example, we need someone to coordinate our first Politics module for undergraduates.
• Lecturers will be competing with many people who have completed a PhD and have some publications – so what makes your CV stand out?
• We take teaching very seriously. Within our division, we plan an overall curriculum together, discuss regularly if it is working, and come to agreements about how to teach and assess work. We pride ourselves on being a small and friendly bunch of people, open to regular student contact and, for example, committed to meaningful and regular feedback. In your case, we will also contribute lectures to the module that you would coordinate.
• You might think generally about how you would contribute to teaching and learning in that context. In particular, you should think about how, for example, you would deliver large undergraduate modules (in which you may only be an expert on some of the material) as well as the smaller, more specialist and advanced, modules closer to your expertise. However, please also note that your main initial contribution is specific:

‘The appointee will contribute to our successful Masters Programmes – in International Conflict and Cooperation (ICC) or Master of Public Policy (MPP) – and BA programmes in Politics, as well as doctoral and dissertation supervision. An ability to coordinate and deliver the first undergraduate module – POLU9A1 People, Power, and the State: An Introduction to Politics –  as well as design an advanced undergraduate and postgraduate module, is essential. The ability to teach qualitative or quantitative research methods is welcome’.

The interview process

The shortlisting should be finished by the 22^nd June so, all going well, you will know if you have reached the interview stage by 26^th June. The presentations and interviews will take place – ideally in person, but possibly on Teams – on 30^th June. 

The interview stage

By the interview stage, here are the things that you should normally know:

• The teaching and research specialisms of the division and their links to cross-divisional research.
• The kinds of courses that the division would expect you to teach.

Perhaps most importantly, you need to be able to articulate why you want to come and work at Stirling. ‘Why Stirling?’ or ‘Why this division?’ is usually the first question in an interview, so you should think about it in advance. We recommend doing some research on Stirling and the division/ faculty, to show in some detail that you have a considered reply (beyond the usual ‘it is a beautiful campus’ and ‘I need a job’). Since it is the first question, your answer will set the tone for the rest of the interview. You might check, for example, who you might share interests with in the Division, and how you might develop links beyond the division or faculty, since this is likely to be a featured question too.

• Then you might think about what you would bring to the University in a wider sense, such as through well-established (domestic and international) links with other scholars in academic networks.
• Further, since ‘impact’ is of rising importance, you might discuss your links with people and organisations outside of the University, and how you have pursued meaningful engagement with the public or practitioners to maximise the wider contribution of your research.

The interview format

For open-ended contracts, we tend to combine (a) presentations to divisional staff in the morning, with (b) interviews in the afternoon. They will be in person if possible (but Teams if need be). The usual expectation is that if you can’t make the date, you can’t get the job. In addition:

• We recommend keeping the presentation compact, to show that you can present complex information in a concise and clear way. Presentations are usually a mix of what you do in research and what you will contribute in a wider sense to the University. Please note that most of your interview panel will not attend the presentation.
• The usual interview panel format at this level is four members: one subject specialist from the Division (in this case, me), one member of the Faculty (in this case, our Head of Division), the Dean of Faculty of Arts and Humanities, and a senior academic in another Faculty.
• So, only 1 member of your panel will be a specialist in Politics. This means that (at the very least) you need to describe your success in a way that a wider audience will appreciate. For example, you would have to explain the significance of a single-author article in the top-rated journal in your field.

It sounds daunting, but we are a friendly bunch and want you to do well. You might struggle to retain all of our names (nerves), so focus on the types of question we ask – for example, the general question to get you started will be from the senior manager, and the research question from the divisional representative. Our 4-person panels tend to be gender balanced but are often all-white panels. I hope that you can see other more useful signals about our commitment to equality, diversity, and inclusion.

I am happy to answer your questions, via email in the first instance  p.a.cairney@stir.ac.uk

Social identities and deadlocked debates on nuclear energy policy

Dr Johanna Hornung introduces the third article – Social identities and deadlocked debates on nuclear energy policy – to be published in the Journal of European Public Policy Special Issue ‘The Politics of Policy Analysis’. Hornung uses the issue of energy transitions to show that academics can translate conceptual advances into new avenues of research for analysts. The aim is to go further than encouraging an ‘evidence informed’ process, which is the usual – ineffective – refrain of scientists. Rather, try to understand why policymaking bottlenecks have arisen. Entrenched positions may reflect the ‘dominant identities’ of key participants, which have developed in relation to context-specific events, choices, and debates, prompting social groups to fiercely protect their stances. The implications for policy analysis are profound, since these stances may be impervious to the use of evidence and argumentation to update or challenge beliefs.

Among the multiple crises that our society faces today, the energy crisis is one of them. First put on the agenda in the context of a sustainability-oriented supply of energy, the debate on alternative energy sources has been fueled by global conflicts. It seems almost natural that in times when governments are considering the regulation of energy use in winter, or the reduction of temperatures in public swimming pools, that they are also open-endedly discussing solutions for providing energy efficiently and sustainably.

Yet, it seems as if some options are by default excluded from some national debates, while they are prominently adopted in others. This suggests that logics other than a rationalist or evidence-informed solution – based on a thorough weighing of costs and benefits – are at work.

Focusing on the debate on energy sources currently led in France and Germany, I start from the puzzle that (1) nuclear energy is very differently considered in both countries, and (2) the debates seem to be deadlocked nationally. More specifically, nuclear energy is an option that is not seriously considered as an alternative source of energy in Germany, neither politically nor in public debates. By contrast, France builds heavily on nuclear energy and perceives it as a sustainable source, thereby providing an answer to the current tradeoff between cheap, available, but unsustainable sources of energy on the one hand (especially gas and coal) and between cost-intensive sustainable sources of regenerative energy (especially solar and wind), which are not (yet) able to sufficiently cover demand.

To explain these deadlocked stances on nuclear energy, I apply a social psychological lens on social identities. The idea of the Social Identity Approach (SIA) and the perspective on Social Identities in the Policy Process (SIPP) is to focus on group dynamics and the effects that group identification has on individual thinking and behavior. The main argument is that instead of joining groups on the grounds of shared preferences, individuals hold preferences as a result of group membership. By belonging to a certain social group, individuals take over norms, values, and behavior, which manifest themselves the longer the group exists, the more contact individuals have with other group members, and the stronger the group identity is connected to the topic at hand.

For example, in France, the dominance of nuclear energy can be explained by the presence of a social group within the public sector, including actors from the sectoral industry, who themselves are closely tied to the state administration.

However, in Germany, the opposition towards nuclear energy is closely tied to the Green party, whose group identity is anti-nuclear at its core, which hampers an evidence-informed debate on nuclear energy.

I demonstrate these claims with a discourse network analysis of the period following the EU’s decision to label nuclear energy as climate-friendly.

Understanding the deadlocked debates on energy sources as expression of group identities, that dominate discourses and policymaking on nuclear energy, provides two important insights

1. If the energy decision is dependent on identity – and not on beliefs or rationally formed preferences – new information does not lead to learning or a decision based on an exchange of informed arguments.

2. If it is a question of social identities, overcoming the deadlock is only possible if superordinate social identities are provided, or if social groups are transformed.

These insights contribute to completely different practical advice: to achieve an evidence-informed debate on nuclear energy, it is necessary to pay attention to social group dynamics and the identity of groups, and not to the provision of rational arguments.

This article does not take a stand for or against nuclear energy. Rather, it shows that policy theory insights help to identify and resolve deadlocked debates.

Hornung, J. (2023) ‘Social identities and deadlocked debates on nuclear energy policy’, Journal of European Public Policy, https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.2215495