Kaifeng Yang, Rutgers University–Newark

Equity in public performance management remains underoperationalized despite being recognized as fundamental to public administration. Recent governmental experiments with equity indicators and disaggregated data offer opportunities to examine how distributional questions can be integrated into organizational decision-making, yet significant gaps remain in understanding the translation from measurement to actual outcomes.

This symposium addresses three urgent challenges: understanding how equity information influences managerial practice, managing implications of artificial intelligence for equity outcomes, and sustaining equity commitments amid shifting political landscapes. The call seeks both academic research and practitioner expertise to bridge research-practice gaps and develop frameworks for public organizations pursuing equitable performance.

The symposium welcomes international perspectives on managing for equitable performance across different contexts. Research using quantitative, qualitative, experimental, and mixed methods is encouraged, including critical and participatory approaches that center marginalized voices.

Appel publié par Public Performance & Management Review. Voir l'appel sur le site de l'éditeur. Fiche de l'appel sur kerostig.

Potential topics

• Equity indicators and disaggregated data in performance management
• Managerial decision-making and equity information
• Street-level discretion and service design
• Leadership and analytic capacity for equity
• Gaming and unintended consequences of equity metrics
• Adoption and implementation of equity initiatives
• Stakeholder power and institutional capacity
• Equity-weighted indicators and gap-closing measures
• Defining equity standards and community voice
• Political polarization and equity goals
• AI and algorithmic equity
• Technology assessment and algorithmic accountability
• Frontline worker interactions with algorithmic tools
• Sustaining equity initiatives under political change
• Equity office institutionalization and relabeling
• Longitudinal studies of equity initiatives
• Communication and framing of equity
• Policy networks and diffusion of equity approaches

Timeline

• November 10, 2026: Abstract deadline
• August 10, 2027: Manuscript deadline

Seulki Lee-Geiller, University at Albany, State University of New York

Mila Gascó-Hernández, University at Albany, State University of New York

This special issue examines how artificial intelligence becomes embedded and institutionalized within local governments and the consequent transformations in governance. While AI scholarship typically focuses on national initiatives or public administration broadly, local governments have distinctive conditions that warrant focused attention. The issue seeks to understand not just adoption and implementation of AI systems, but how AI reshapes everyday administrative practice, institutional capabilities, organizational structures, and democratic engagement.

The special issue addresses three interconnected dimensions. First, institutional capacity examines how local governments build lasting infrastructure, expertise, and governance structures to support AI sustainably. Second, organizational arrangements explore how AI influences administrative routines, professional roles, and authority distribution. Third, democratic practices investigate how citizens participate in and influence AI integration decisions. The issue welcomes diverse methodological approaches and comparative research across different municipalities and policy sectors.

Appel publié par Local Government Studies. Voir l'appel sur le site de l'éditeur. Fiche de l'appel sur kerostig.

Potential topics

• How local governments build and sustain infrastructure, expertise, learning systems, governance arrangements, and collaborative capacity to support AI over time
• What enduring capabilities allow local governments to institutionalize AI
• How AI integration affects the capacity of local governments to carry out their main responsibilities
• How local governments learn from pilots, failures, and unintended outcomes
• How local governments address gaps in technical and professional expertise under resource constraints
• How AI changes administrative routines, workflows, and professional roles
• How authority, expertise, discretion, and responsibility are reorganized around AI
• Accountability and responsibility when decisions are jointly produced by officials and AI systems
• How local government uses of AI are authorized, explained, scrutinized, and revised
• How AI integration changes interactions between local governments and citizens
• How local governments involve residents in developing AI guidelines and governance frameworks
• How public feedback and community concerns regarding AI-assisted public services are incorporated into AI institutionalization

Timeline

• November 1, 2026: Abstract submission deadline
• March 1, 2027: Full manuscript submission deadline

Matthias Döring, University of Southern Denmark

Ayesha Masood, Lahore University of Management Sciences

Johan Sandén, Södertörn University

Administrative burdens—the learning, compliance, and psychological costs citizens face when interacting with government—have become a significant research area. These burdens disproportionately affect vulnerable groups and threaten administrative equity, particularly in welfare systems. Scholars are increasingly investigating strategies to reduce or mitigate these burdens, including fostering citizen resources through intermediaries and improving organizational design and communication practices.

This special issue seeks contributions examining burden-reduction initiatives undertaken by various actors across different contexts and levels of governance. It welcomes research investigating how public organizations, managers, and street-level bureaucrats can reduce administrative burdens, which interventions are effective, whether they benefit all groups equally, and how burden-reduction efforts are perceived within public administration. The issue aims to generate societal impact by addressing challenges relevant to practitioners and policymakers working to reduce administrative burdens.

Appel publié par International Journal of Public Sector Management. Voir l'appel sur le site de l'éditeur. Fiche de l'appel sur kerostig.

Potential topics

• Digital initiatives to reduce burdens, including algorithms, automation, and AI
• How burden-reduction initiatives are initiated and defined - and by whom
• Initiatives aimed at preventing administrative limbo or repeated referrals
• How do different public organizations react to and enact burden reduction strategies across policy sectors?
• How do street-level bureaucrats perceive, avoid, or create burden reduction strategies?
• How do different types of intermediaries (private companies vs. NGOs vs. public intermediaries) support citizens in their attempt to overcome burdens?
• The relationship between burden-reduction interventions and social inequalities
• What is the relationship between leadership and the responsiveness to burden reduction strategies?
• The interplay between bureaucratization and administrative processes in producing burdens
• How do administrative reforms affect administrative burden?
• Which role do burden reduction strategies play in the political debate? Is there a connection to political action?
• The materiality of burden reduction, administrative burdens, and responses.

Timeline

• October 31, 2026: Opening date for manuscripts submissions
• February 28, 2027: Closing date for manuscripts submission

Jonathan Paquette, University of Ottawa

Appel publié par The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society. Voir l'appel sur le site de l'éditeur. Fiche de l'appel sur kerostig.

Potential topics

• Street-level bureaucracy and care work in arts and heritage organizations
• Work, routines and coping mechanisms in cultural organizations
• Conceptual analysis of street-level bureaucracy in arts management
• How street-level bureaucrats navigate policy implementation in cultural institutions
• Discretionary power and professional strategies in arts organizations
• Social missions and emotional labor in cultural work
• Application of street-level bureaucracy concept across diverse global cultural policy contexts
• Intersections between street-level bureaucracy and artistic/cultural intermediaries

Timeline

• September 5, 2026: Manuscript deadline

Michelle Fernandez, Universidade de Brasília

Fernando Nieto-Morales, El Colegio de México

This special issue examines female leadership in public bureaucracies, addressing persistent structural barriers limiting women's access to senior positions and the transformative potential of gender-diverse leadership. It seeks to understand how gender shapes governance and policy outcomes across diverse national contexts, particularly in Global South settings where gender inequalities intersect with institutional fragility.

While formal mechanisms like gender quotas and merit-based recruitment have expanded pathways for women, informal norms and implicit biases continue to perpetuate gendered hierarchies. The issue explores how institutional arrangements and organizational cultures shape women's trajectories and how female leadership influences accountability and sector performance.

The collection welcomes empirical contributions examining drivers and obstacles to women's leadership, factors shaping their careers, and policy impacts. Comparative perspectives, intersectional approaches, and research on Global South experiences are particularly encouraged.

Appel publié par Public Administration and Development. Voir l'appel sur le site de l'éditeur. Fiche de l'appel sur kerostig.

Potential topics

• Gendered patterns of promotion in the public sector
• Institutional reforms aimed at fostering gender parity in public leadership
• Informal networks, mentorship, and the role of social capital in career advancement
• Intersectional inequalities shaping women's leadership in government
• The impact of female leadership on public service delivery and public policy
• The effects of female leadership on public sector organizational culture and accountability

Timeline

• October 1, 2026: Deadline for proposal submissions
• July 1, 2027: Deadline for full manuscript submissions

Yanto Chandra, City University of Hong Kong

Greta Nasi, Bocconi University

Jiasheng Zhang, Chinese University of Hong Kong

This special issue examines the negative consequences of AI adoption in public organizations, particularly how algorithmic systems can amplify existing inequalities and undermine democratic governance. The call recognizes that while AI offers potential improvements to service delivery, the benefits are unevenly distributed globally, with marginalized populations facing heightened risks related to biased datasets, algorithmic discrimination, and erosion of accountability.

The special issue seeks theoretical and empirical scholarship reconsidering how public administration frameworks must evolve to address AI-related challenges. Scholars are invited to investigate systemic downsides including workforce displacement, economic inequality, and uneven global access to AI innovations, as well as how governance mechanisms can embed fairness, transparency, and inclusiveness to protect democratic values and serve the public interest.

Appel publié par Public Administration and Development. Voir l'appel sur le site de l'éditeur. Fiche de l'appel sur kerostig.

Potential topics

• North vs South disparities in AI access and innovation
• Exploitation of labor in AI data collection and platform economies
• Human rights implications of AI-driven decision-making
• Accessibility to public services
• The role of AI systems in perpetuating or challenging gender, racial, and cultural discrimination in public administration and welfare policies
• Experiments on how citizens respond to diversity, inclusion and equity issues in the increasing use of AI by governments
• Influence of dominant languages in AI training and its impact on linguistic diversity
• How minority languages of the world can maintain their survival in the age of AI
• Embedding fairness, transparency, and accountability into AI systems
• Legal and regulatory frameworks for responsible AI deployment

Timeline

• April 1, 2026: Call for Papers published
• September 1, 2026: Hybrid (online and offline) workshop in Hong Kong
• November 1, 2026: Online workshop or in-person workshop in Italy
• January 1, 2027: Full papers submitted
• April 1, 2027: Peer reviews completed
• October 1, 2027: All resubmissions completed
• December 1, 2027: Final reviews completed
• March 1, 2028: Final publication of all articles

Leighton Andrews, Cardiff University

Matthew Collins, Cardiff University

The special issue examines the relationship between ministers and civil servants within Westminster model governance systems. It addresses growing tensions between political and bureaucratic cultures, where ministers increasingly prioritize electoral cycles and party interests while civil servants maintain institutional norms of impartiality. The breakdown of traditional constitutional conventions has led to public blame attribution, demands for personal accountability of officials, and increased risk aversion among civil servants, with significant implications for policy quality and governance.

The issue invites both theoretical and empirical research exploring how the minister-official relationship affects policy-making and delivery. Contributors may focus on either side of the relationship or the relationship itself, using qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods, or conceptual approaches. While emphasizing the Westminster model, comparative studies engaging with other jurisdictions and broader public administration frameworks are welcomed.

Appel publié par Public Money & Management. Voir l'appel sur le site de l'éditeur. Fiche de l'appel sur kerostig.

Potential topics

• The nature and dynamics of trust between ministers and civil servants.
• The politicization of advice and its consequences for advisory quality.
• Risk aversion, deference, and the suppression of honesty.
• Ethical and conduct standards.
• The role of special advisors in mediating the minister-official relationship.
• The consequences of ministerial turnover for policy continuity.
• The impact of organizational or departmental culture.
• Parliamentary accountability and the personal exposure of named officials.
• The constitutional position of ministers and/or civil servants.
• Historical perspectives on the cycle of strain and reform in the minister-official relationship, particularly those that reflect the impact of crises.

Timeline

• January 31, 2027: Deadline for research articles
• March 31, 2027: Deadline for debate and new development articles

Paula Rossi, University of Vaasa

Jim Broch Skarli, University of Inland Norway

Maria Petrescu, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Edwina Zhu, University of Edinburgh Business School

This special issue examines how public services can create value for citizens within public service ecosystems (PSEs), moving beyond traditional service-user and organization-centric perspectives to encompass the complex interplay of multiple actors, political contexts, and non-living elements. The PSE framework emphasizes systemic, relational, and context-dependent nature of value creation, recognizing how administrative and political governance shapes what is possible in public service environments.

The call seeks contributions that explore both societal value for communities and individual value for service users, addressing the dynamics and conditions that enable or hinder value creation across individual, organizational, and institutional levels. Submissions should advance understanding of public administration and management theory and practice, with both theoretical and empirical approaches welcome, including research articles, debate pieces, and new development articles.

Appel publié par Public Money & Management. Voir l'appel sur le site de l'éditeur. Fiche de l'appel sur kerostig.

Potential topics

• Examining the implications of the roles and individual characteristics of service users in value co-creation, for example from the perspective of vulnerable service users and family carers
• Addressing the implementation and utilization of technologies from a PSE and value creation perspective
• Widening the empirical focus from private-benefit services to include more public-benefit services such as utility services, transportation, housing, prison management or urban development, emphasizing 'value for citizens' as an outcome
• Exploring the implications of understanding place-based public services from a PSE and value creation perspective
• Addressing the hindering or enabling dynamics and conditions of value creation in and between the individual, organizational and institutional levels of PSEs in particular contexts, for example by utilizing 'conflict' as an analytical tool
• Interrogating and developing Public Service Logic (PSL) as a framework for investigating and evaluating value creation within PSEs

Timeline

• December 1, 2026: Manuscript deadline for research articles and new development pieces
• March 1, 2027: Manuscript deadline for debate pieces

Paresh Wankhade, Edge Hill University Business School

Giles McClelland, Edge Hill University Business School

This special issue examines how public organizations are shifting from traditional emergency response approaches toward more inclusive and resilient governance frameworks. It addresses the complex challenges posed by modern disasters, pandemics, and crises that require coordination across professional and organizational boundaries, while emphasizing the importance of trust, legitimacy, learning, and community engagement.

The issue seeks contributions that bridge disaster management, emergency services, and public administration scholarship, with particular interest in governance capacity, collaborative networks, and the role of individual job crafting in workforce resilience. It also recognizes that crisis experiences are shaped by social inequalities, identity relations, and uneven distributions of power and resources.

Submissions may be research articles, new development pieces, or debate articles that explore topics including multi-level coordination, leadership, organizational learning, digital transformation in emergency management, and the contributions of communities and civil society to building resilience.

Appel publié par Public Money & Management. Voir l'appel sur le site de l'éditeur. Fiche de l'appel sur kerostig.

Potential topics

• How are emergency services adapting to more complex, frequent and interconnected crises?
• What forms of governance capacity are needed to manage compound and cascading risks?
• How do public organizations co-ordinate across organizational, sectoral and jurisdictional boundaries during disasters?
• What are the strengths and limitations of command-and-control, networked and collaborative models of emergency management?
• How do emergency services balance centralized command with local discretion, improvisation and community knowledge?
• How do frontline responders reshape tasks, relationships and meanings during disaster preparedness, response and recovery?
• What forms of job crafting support workforce resilience, engagement, wellbeing and service continuity?
• What role do leaders and managers play in influencing the job crafting behaviours of teams and individuals?
• How do public organizations maintain trust, legitimacy and accountability during and after crises?
• What role do identities such as women and gender-diverse actors play in community resilience, mutual aid and local crisis leadership?
• How do inequalities shape exposure to disaster risk, access to emergency services and recovery outcomes?
• What role do communities, civil society organizations, volunteers and private actors play in building resilience?
• How do governments and emergency services learn or fail to learn from inquiries, reviews and past disasters?
• How are digital technologies, data analytics, AI, early warning systems and crisis communication platforms transforming emergency management?

Timeline

• May 1, 2027: Deadline for research articles
• August 1, 2027: Deadline for debate and new development pieces

Zoe Radnor, Aston University

David Walker, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust

This special issue examines the intersection of populism and public management, inviting cross-disciplinary perspectives from law, social sciences, politics and public administration. The rise of populist movements worldwide, spanning both left and right of the political spectrum, raises fundamental questions about how public managers and administrators navigate their responsibilities when faced with politicians whose values may conflict with liberal democratic principles and established governance standards.

The issue seeks contributions that explore critical tensions in public administration under populism: whether public managers have ethical obligations to defend democratic institutions, how they balance political responsiveness with professional integrity, and whether existing accountability frameworks adequately address challenges posed by populist policies. Contributors are encouraged to consider international comparisons and examine how different governmental structures and civil service frameworks respond to populist pressures.

Appel publié par Public Money & Management. Lire l'appel complet sur le site de l'éditeur. Fiche de l'appel sur kerostig.

Potential topics

• Are we facing the limits of traditional thinking in public management? Do public managers have a 'moral personality' with value commitment to liberal democracy and/or state continuity?
• Does populism create a challenge for public managers to abide by good governance principles?
• Are public managers obliged to defend the state from attack, rhetorical or actual?
• Have public managers traditionally lacked 'voice' within the political–administrative interface and what challenges do they face with the rise of populism?
• Is there a problem facing public managers if they are becoming answerable to politicians with antagonistic value sets or who may break the law?
• How anachronistic are Weberian doctrines of 'responsiveness' in the face of populism?
• What is 'extremism'/populism and can it be defined ex ante?
• Do public managers observe/answer to a code that protects them against orders?
• How far do existing doctrines of accountability accommodate answerability for extremist policies?
• Do public managers have ethical commitments that equip them to resist political directives that might subvert constitutional order?
• What lessons could public managers learn from international and comparative perspectives on populism?
• Is the UK a special case with its uncodified constitutional system?

Timeline

• January 31, 2027: Submission deadline for research articles and new development pieces
• March 31, 2027: Submission deadline for debate pieces