*CFP* "QUEER POP IN POST-2000 CHINA", SPECIAL ISSUE FEMINIST MEDIA STUDIES JOURNAL

Since the 2000s, China’s media industrialization and cultural globalization have encouraged a burgeoning “queer pop”——that is, a soaring proliferation of non-normatively gendered and/or sexualized narratives and performances, cultural productions and inventions, artistic expressions and gestures, and social relations and kinship systems in China’s media, cultural, and creative industries and spaces. 

In the meantime, digital production and cyber distribution technologies, social networking sites (both online and offline), and cellular phone applications available to self-identified LGBTQ groups have become increasingly accessible and diversified. 

In the parallel off-screen public space, China has also witnessed several waves of LGBTQ and feminist sociopolitical movements, following the decriminalization and depathologization of homosexuality in 1997 and 2001 respectively. Some queer and feminist movements were significantly shaped by transnational queer and feminist currents, such as the most recent #MeToo anti-sexual harassment movement at China-based universities.

*CFP* "SITUATING THE LOCAL IN GLOBAL CULTURAL POLICY", SPECIAL EDITION OF CULTURAL TRENDS

From the growth of city regions to the calls for more localism, engaging with ‘the local’ has become an increasingly important part of cultural policy rhetoric in many countries. Yet despite apparent recognition that the practices of culture are always situated (and hence local), contemporary cultural policy research tends to privilege the national or international as the primary site at which cultural policy is enacted and thus, can be reformed. For all of its increasing use ‘the local’ remains abstract, seemingly deployed to legitimate activity that is of debatable benefit to the places and practices imagined by its invocation.   

In opposition to this arguably token localism, a body of work calls for greater recognition of the “situated cultural practices [and] internal logics, histories and structures” of particular places in the study of cultural policy (Gilmore, 2013, p. 86; see also Durrer, 2017). It draws on work that considers the ways in which local relationships and practices of policymaking, convergence, and transference negotiate and manage national and international policies (e.g. Stevenson et al, 2010; Wilson & Boyle, 2004; Johanson et al 2014). This work has been accompanied by growing rhetoric and advocacy for co-production and citizen-led as well as participatory governance structures (Jancovich, 2015). Attempts to build “adaptive capacity” or resilience among citizens (Pike, Dawley, & Tomaney, 2010) have adopted approaches from social learning (Collins & Ison, 2006) and public participation (Brodie, Cowling, & Nissen, 2009). Many welcome these potentially more democratic approaches and the possibility of a commons of cultural assets, infrastructure, resources and knowledge (Ostrom, 1990; Gonzales, 2014; Murphy & Stewart, 2017)

*CFP* “DECOLONISING CRITICAL DISCOURSE STUDIES”, CRITICAL DISCOURSE STUDIES JOURNAL, TAYLOR & FRANCIS ONLINE

Regarding an already consolidated tradition in discourse studies in the Global South, with featured importance in graduate programs and a busy calendar of annual events in the field, it is possible to say that there is considerable amount of imported knowledge being applied and very little creativity in local theoretical or methodological production. This issue of Critical Discourse Studies seeks to address this particular problem, relating coloniality of knowledge, power and being to research and teaching in the field of discourse analysis. Themes to be addresses in candidate papers could be related to: