Thank you for thinking about contributing to one of the CriDis issues. We are looking forward to receiving your contribution and stimulating input.
How to become part of a CriDis issue
Please note that we can only accept and process submissions that relate to a running or past call for contributions to a specific issue of the Crisis Discourse Blog (for these see Calls and News) and that are in English or German. The calls usually require contributors to hand in proposals first.
These proposals will be reviewed and selected by the editors of an issue. Once a call closes, an authors’ workshop on that topic will be convened by the issue’s editors, usually online. Contributors, whose proposals got accepted, hand in their draft blog posts one week in advance of the workshop and discuss the posts during the workshop with regard to content, writing and ‘bloggish’ style. They also develop common lines on the issue’s topic that will be taken up by the editorial to the issue.
After the workshop, contributors will engage in an open and collaborative peer review process, with each contributor reviewing another contributor’s blog post. Successively, they will prepare a revised version, which is then being reviewed by the editors of the issue. It will take approximately six months up until an issue is ready for publication.
Should you have missed the call on a topic that you would have liked to contribute to, you can always submit a contribution ex-post to the address firstname.lastname@example.org. The submission will then be reviewed by the editors of an issue according to their capacity and time frame. Make sure that your blog post fits the issue’s topic, has a clear discourse-analytical purpose and approach and conforms to one of the rubrics as well as to the authors’ guidelines of the Crisis Discourse Blog, which we detail out further below.
How to submit a draft contribution
Should your proposal be accepted, you can move on with submitting a draft contribution. If not indicated otherwise in the call (see Calls and News), please email your draft contribution to email@example.com. It should be in an editable document format and contain the following:
- Title of the contribution
- Name and email address of the author(s)
- Abstract: 100 words; please provide an English-language abstract for contributions made in German
- Keywords: 5
- Text: see CriDis rubrics below for content specifications and length requirements
- References: references should be used scarcingly, always be given in endnotes and in APA citation style, see
- Author information: 1 paragraph containing key biographical data and information about your research interests / field of study / field of work relevant to the blog post
Crisis Discourse Blog has four different rubrics: Snapshots, Slippery Concepts, Heuristic Tools and Reviews. There is also the Editorial, but its design is in the discretion of the editors of an issue. The four CriDis rubrics that authors can use each offer a genre and method of critical reading that prompt the writer to re- and deconstruct current or historic debates in specific ways. The CriDis rubrics put research or reflections on crisis discourse in more accessible format and language compared to academic text genres, while at the same time keeping to rigour in argumentation and transparency in method. As snapshot analysis, for instance, can start with a personal reflection, puzzling discovery or current event, but will still make transparent how the ensuing analysis was conducted and how it is informed by a discourse approach. Each rubric also has its specific formatting. The rubrics were developed in several rounds of experimentation, together with students of Amelie Kutter’s discourse studies classes and CriDis contributors.
A Snapshot presents the pinpoint analysis of a specific feature of a crisis debate, such as targets of mockery in social media memes or the ‘health broker’ in official Swedish health campaigns, usually drawing on a piece of ongoing scientific discourse research. Its objective is to provide an on-the-spot discourse analysis of crisis construction. The method of critical reading that applies to snapshots is implied by the chosen discourse approach, more precisely, by the heuristic tools, concepts and methods that the chosen tradition of discourse research has established. A snapshot analysis is structured along the following elements: a peg that highlights the currency or puzzlement associated with the issue investigated and a brief introduction; a paragraph situating the issue in its broader social-political context; a brief explication of how, by which discourse-analytical concepts or categories the isolated issue of crisis discourse is being investigated; and the summary and discussion of that insights generated by that approach. While the style may be essayistic, academic and non-academic references are used and made explicit in endnotes. Length: about eight pages or 4000 words max.
A Slippery Concept highlights ambiguous terms that have become widespread or backgrounded in the course of recent crises, and whose use or non-use has been instrumental in defining current crises in specific and potentially dubious ways. The objective of this rubric is to draw attention to the (non-)uses of these terms and the origins of their different meanings. Slippery concepts assess the conceptual history of the term, look at shifts in contemporary usage and possible alternative meanings. Through this genre of critical reading, the authors develop a deeper understanding of the slipperiness of a term and of how contemporary uses can be situated and confronted. Slippery concepts can be commented on in form of an extended entry to an (imagined) encyclopedia of contemporary political and crisis debate, which emphasizes the etymology and historical semantics of the term. Slippery concepts can also be commented on in form of a witty column on a specific situation in which the term was used, which highlights the author’s puzzlement with the term and the explorations of its uses and misuses that followed from this puzzlement. Length: two to eight pages or 1000 to 4000 words max.
In a Heuristic Tool, contributors can share their knowledge on a specific discourse-analytical concept that facilitates the exploration of selected aspects of crisis discoursem, such as ‘crisis narratives’. Posts usually explicate how this concept is understood in some approach of discourse study and point out from which theoretical-epistemological tradition it is derived and how it has been applied so far, drawing on references from academic literature (given in endnotes). They explain why it is particularly suited to get a better understanding of a specific aspect of crisis debate, illustrate this claim drawing on a recent example, and reflect upon limitations of the concept. Concepts and categories are here understood as heuristic tools that help us to grasp specific aspects of a problem investigated, not as artifacts whose relevance we aim to prove. Length: about four pages or 2000 words max.
A review follows the rather classical format of a literature review or recension. They systematically collect and review works of contemporary intellectual debate on a certain topic, be they created in public or academic debate or art. There ought to be a common theme or leitmotif that guides through the discussion of different works and highlights the reasons why these works deserve attention. Reviews contrast valuable insights with regrettable neglects. CriDis reviews additionally assess how the reviewed works themselves are implicated in the crisis debate, how they reinforce or overcome certain narrow conceptions of what is at stake. Length: about four pages or 2000 words max.
|What is it?||Objectives||Length|
|Snapshot Analyses||a pinpointed scientific discourse analysis of a specific substantive feature of crisis debate||provide on-the-spot discourse-analytical case studies of crisis construction, crisis management scenario promotion, scapegoating etc.||8 pages or 4000 words max|
|Slippery Concepts||an investigation of ambiguous terms that have become widespread buzzwords or are backgrounded in the course of recent crises;
an investigation of a (theoretical) concept and its ambiguous meanings in a current setting
|discuss origins and current uses; raise awareness for manipulative use of ambiguous language
reflect on ambiguity ‘slipperiness’
|8 pages or 4000 words max|
|Heuristic Tools||a presentation of a specific discourse-analytical concept that facilitates the exploration of crisis discourse||share knowledge on analytical concepts and categories that help grasp specific aspects of crisis debate; situate concepts in their theoretical-epistemological contexts||4 pages or 2000 words max|
|Reviews||a critique of current discourse-analytical publications or art work related to current crisis debate||suggest readings on the subject of crisis discourse; critically discuss recent publications or artwork||4 pages or 2000 words max|
CriDis editorial guidelines
The texts should come in the following formatting:
Heading and subheading of the submission must be clearly identified as such. A maximum of two levels of subheadings can be included in the running text. Please clearly mark the subheadings as such and number them consecutively.
The desired position of illustrations, tables and graphics in the running text must be clearly indicated. Each graphic element should be given a title. Additionally, the source of an illustration, table or graphic must be explicated in the caption. If you wish to include graphic elements produced by a third party, please make sure you comply with the copyright obligations. The Crisis Discourse Blog does not incur liability for copyright breaches on behalf of blogpost authors.
All illustrations, tables and graphics must be sent as extra documents (if applicable as GIF or JPEG files) to the editorial board.
Male bias in wording is to be avoided.
To enhance readability of the blogposts, references should be used sparingly. They have to be provided as endnotes that give the full reference (no ‘ibid’, please) in APA citation style and, including the doi links of a publication or the URL of a referenced page.
This is the citation style to be used for bibliographic references:
Spradley, James (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Editor as author
Morse, Janice (Ed.) (1992). Qualitative health research. Newbury Park, California: Sage.
Article in an edited book
Fielding, Nigel G. (1993). Ethnography. In Nigel Gilbert (Ed.), Researching social life. London: Sage, pp.154-171
Lazarsfeld, Paul F. (1937). Some remarks on the typological procedures in social research. Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung, 6(2), pp. 119-139
Our guidelines follow to a great extent the conventions of the American Psychological Association (see http://www.apastyle.org/; for an online summary see http://www.wisc.edu/writing/Handbook/DocAPA.html).
Authors publishing on this Web site hold the copyright and retain publishing rights without restrictions.
The content and works provided on this Web site are governed by German copyright laws. Duplication, processing, distribution, or any form of commercialization of such material beyond the scope of the copyright law shall require the prior written consent of its respective author or creator.
The submission of a contribution entails the Crisis Discourse Blog editorial board’s right to publication in case of approval in the peer review process. Additionally, the Crisis Discourse Blog reserves the right to republish submitted contributions at a later point in time or in another media format.
Submitted contributions should be the author’s own work and comply with copyright regulations. Content (especially graphic content) produced by third parties must be labelled as such and sources must be properly referenced.
Furthermore, the author must respect previously concluded copyright agreements on behalf of his own work. When publishing a preview on a running research project, commitments made to the project, its hosting institutions and sponsors as well as to other conventional or non-conventional publishing platforms must be adhered to. It is the responsibility of the author, not of the Crisis Discourse Blog, to obtain permission to use any previously published and/or copyrighted material or material destined for further publication under already binding conditions.