Month: October 2023

The Editor

by Creed Tumlison

Once upon office hours dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over stacks of papers written with AI and nothing more –
While battling with my own frustration, looking for proper citation,
Suddenly, a notification, passing through my email’s door –
“Probably a student,” I presumed, “wanting extra credit more –
Check the syllabus, I implore!”

Oh how distinctly I remember, such an email in December
warmed my poor heart’s dying ember and picked me up off of the floor.
Quickly to my email turning, for this news I had been yearning,
Thinking the journal had been spurning – spurning my revisions more.
An email from the Journal Editor –  article accepted, I implore!
But said the Editor, “R&R, and nothing more.”

While I should have been elated, I sat there staring, almost sedated,
Since once again over reviewer comments I must pour.
Reading over suggested revisions, I must make some tough decisions,
And reply with no derisions, to reviewer comments galore.
How should I address these comments and not be a bore?
This is my task, and nothing more.

Then upon my resubmission, I waited through the intermission,
Dreaming of the new addition – adding to my CV more.
When an email notification, filled me with utmost elation,
For it was labeled from the desk of the Journal Editor.
“I’ll go tell my colleagues of acceptance, my journal article number four!”
But, requests the Editor, “Review one more.”


Happy Halloween from the PSJ Editorial Team!

,

Introducing Short Articles

We are excited to announce a change at PSJ that we hope will give policy scholars a unique option for developing and refining theory and strengthening our field’s methodological rigor. PSJ is now accepting short articles of 3,000-5,000 words, roughly half the length of our typical manuscripts. Short articles will meet the same high standards for theoretical depth and methodological sophistication as full PSJ articles. The difference is that short articles offer a narrower contribution, concisely communicating new ideas or approaches in policy research.

There are two options for short articles: A research note presents empirical data and analysis, ideally a novel methodology or novel application of a method, or an attempt to replicate previous empirical findings. A perspectives piece presents novel theory or arguments and potentially proposes a related research agenda.

Short articles should be situated in policy science research. They do not need to be strictly rooted in policy process theory, but should explicitly engage a readership interested in policy process theory. Both types of articles must (briefly) make a case for why the data analysis or theoretical arguments they pursue are needed or important; typically this will involve citing policy scholarship.

Like full PSJ articles, the word limit for short articles excludes references. We strongly encourage scholars to cite high-quality scholarship from a diverse range of authors. For further information on our recommendations regarding just and equitable citation practices, please see here. If a short article is accepted, authors commit to writing a PSJ blog post about it.

We are immensely thankful to Dr. Gwen Arnold (PSJ Associate Editor) for taking the lead in this endeavor as the PSJ Short Article Editor. Please reach out to the editorial team (policystudiesjournal@gmail.com) should you have any further questions. We look forward to collaborating with you on this exciting new venture!

Policy Dimension: A New Concept to Distinguish Substance from Process in the Narrative Policy Framework

by Johanna Kuenzler & Bettina Stauffer

The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) is a handy tool for policy scholars, shedding light on the strategic uses of narratives in policy debates. However, a critical distinction often remains overlooked in existing literature: the separation of narrative elements focusing on substance from those centered on process. In our study, we emphasize the significance of this differentiation.

When we talk about a policy’s “substance,” we refer to its design — the core problem it addresses and the instruments applied to solve the problem. On the other hand, “process” pertains to the dynamics of influence and power surrounding the policy. To illustrate this distinction, consider the following example:

Narrative 1: We need to stop fossil fuel companies from jeopardizing our children’s future by preventing them from extracting climate-damaging energy sources.

Narrative 2: We need to stop fossil fuel companies from jeopardizing our children’s future by curbing their excessive lobbying against the introduction of a Green New Deal.

Both narratives cast fossil fuel companies as villains, thus signaling to readers that their behavior is problematic. However, Narrative 1 delves into the substance of the issue, focusing on the environmental consequences of the companies’ business. In contrast, Narrative 2 centers on the policy process, highlighting the lobbying practices of these companies that impede progress in climate policy.

To situate this distinction within the NPF, we introduce the concept of “policy dimension.” This dimension classifies narrative content as either substance-focused or process-focused. To assess its utility, we applied this concept to the case of the Child and Adult Protection Policy (CAPP) in Zurich, Switzerland.

Our methodology involved compiling a comprehensive dataset of parliamentary debates and newspaper articles. We then scrutinized these sources to ascertain the analytical value of the policy dimension within narrative content. Our findings revealed the prevalence of both substance and process narratives in CAPP debates. Additionally, we observed that the context in which a narrative is presented influences its policy dimension. Parliamentary debates, for instance, exhibited higher rates of process-oriented narrative elements compared to newspapers.

In summary, the “policy dimension” concept provides researchers with a more nuanced and precise tool for analyzing how narratives function in the policy process, and we look forward to seeing future applications.

We thank Eli Polley for supporting us in the drafting of this blog post.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Kuenzler, Johanna and Stauffer, Bettina. 2023. “ Policy dimension: A new concept to distinguish substance from process in the Narrative Policy Framework.” Policy Studies Journal, 51, 11–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12482.

About the Authors

Johanna Kuenzler is a research associate for public policy at the German University for Administrative Sciences Speyer. Her main areas of expertise are the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) and organizational reputation. Empirically, she focuses on social and environmental policies as well as on animal welfare.
Learn more at: www.johanna-kuenzler.com
Follow her on X: @jo_kuenzler

Bettina Stauffer is a research associate for public policy at the Center for Public Management of the University of Bern. Her research focuses on policy making and public policy implementation, particularly in the areas of social and health policy as well as child and adult protection.

, ,

The Advocacy Coalition Index: A New Approach for Identifying Advocacy Coalitions

by Keiichi Satoh, Antti Gronow & Tuomas Ylä-Anttila

Often the first step to finding a solution is knowing what the problem is.

In April 2018, Antti Gronow, Tuomas Ylä-Anttila and Keiichi Satoh were attending the Joint Sessions of the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) in Nicosia, Cyprus. The session in question was organized by Chris Weible, Karin Ingold and Daniel Nohrstedt and it made Gronow and Ylä-Anttila think of how problematic it is to study advocacy coalitions in a comparative context. Coalitions among political actors are central to politics and policy, which is a fact long recognized within the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF).

In Cyprus, Gronow and Ylä-Anttila realized that previous research lacks a consistent way of identifying and measuring advocacy coalitions. During a break in the sessions, Gronow and Ylä-Anttila shared their concerns regarding the lack of a consistent method for identifying advocacy coalitions with Keiichi Satoh. Three months later, inspired by a figure explaining the fuzzy sets used in the qualitative comparative analysis, Satoh showed an initial sketch of a way to identify coalitions to Gronow and Ylä-Anttila. After intensive discussions, this sketch evolved into the Advocacy Coalition Index (ACI).

How does the ACI work?

The ACI is a combined measure of policy beliefs and coordination of action, based on techniques of social network analysis. It is a standardized method for identifying and analyzing advocacy coalitions that can be applied to comparative research and also to other research contexts involving attribute and relational data.

To use the index, researchers must first obtain information about policy actors’ beliefs and coordination relationships between these actors. Such data can be collected through a survey, public statements, or any reliable method of data collection. Next, the method focuses on identifying homophilous ties (in which like-minded actors coordinate with one another), cross-coalition ties (coordination between actors holding diverging beliefs), and missing ties (ties that do not exist between like-minded actors). The ACI can be expressed as a formula in the following way:

ACI= 1 – (Cross-coalition ties + Missing ties)

Political subsystems with typical, adversarial advocacy coalitions are likely to be closer to the value of one as a result of the calculation. In addition, to characterize different kinds of advocacy coalitions within subsystems, scholars can analyze variation in the homophilous ties score and in the ratio of cross-coalition ties and homophilous ties (the CCH ratio), as illustrated in the figure below. For example, in the case of adversarial coalitions (i.e. typical advocacy coalitions), there are many homophilous ties between like-minded actors (i.e., few “missing ties”), and almost no ties between actors with dissimilar beliefs.

The ACI can be applied in many different contexts in a consistent way. A standard way of measuring advocacy coalitions thus allows scholars to compare their results with studies conducted in other countries or other policy subsystems.

Our work also has implications outside academia. Policymakers and analysts now have a tool to reliably detect coalitions involved in policy processes, which helps in designing policy proposals that are politically feasible. Policy can be designed, implemented, and evaluated with a clearer understanding of the kinds of coalitions that are involved, as long as appropriate data exists. 

We are confident that our systematic, data-driven approach will be a useful contribution to the field of public policy research. We also hope that the ACI will be used as a tool in the policy process.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Satoh, K., Gronow, A. and Ylä-Anttila, T. 2023. “The Advocacy Coalition Index: A new approach for identifying advocacy coalitions.” Policy Studies Journal 51: 187–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12450

About the Authors

Keiichi Satoh is an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Social Sciences, Hitotsubashi University, Japan. His research interests include climate and energy policy, social movements, and political processes using network theory and methods. His research has appeared in peer-reviewed journals such as Social Movement Studies, Urban Studies, and Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis.

Antti Gronow is a Senior Researcher at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki. His research interests include climate policy, advocacy coalitions, social network analysis, and political polarization. His research has been published in peer-reviewed journals such as Global Environmental Change, Governance, Policy Studies Journal, Public Administration, and JPART. Follow him on X: @AnttiGronow

Tuomas Ylä-Anttila is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Helsinki. He currently leads four research projects on policy networks, communication networks and climate change politics, and chairs the 14-country comparative research effort Comparing Climate Change Policy Networks (see compon.org). His work has appeared in journals such as Global Environmental Change, Public Administration, Policy Studies Journal, Governance, and British Journal of Sociology.

, ,

Call for Applications for Guest Editor(s) of a Policy Studies Journal Special Issue on Homelessness

Policy Studies Journal, the premier outlet for scholarship developing and refining public policy theory, is seeking scholars to guest edit or co-edit a special issue on homelessness policy. Homelessness is a critical, complex societal challenge that requires creative and determined policy action. We hope to publish a collection of papers which meaningfully advance public policy theory by addressing questions such as (though not limited to): What factors shape the adoption of particular policies addressing homelessness? How do homelessness policies affect their target populations? What factors shape the stringency or laxity of these policies? How do unhoused people experience homelessness policies, and with what consequences? Can we predict the types of policy designs that will  be used in this policy domain, and why? We expect the special issue ultimately to contain at least 10 rigorous papers. Special issues typically take 18-24 months from the acceptance of a guest editor application through final publication.

An application for guest editorship should include:

  1. Name and affiliations of the proposed guest editor(s) (maximum of three) and an explanation of the homelessness policy expertise and editorial experience (as applicable) that equip the proposed guest editor(s) to manage this special issue (1-2 paragraphs per proposed guest editor).
  2. A description of the proposed guest editors’ vision for the special issue, not exceeding one page. This statement should discuss why the special issue will interest PSJ readers and highlight its expected novel contributions to public policy theory.
  3. Details on 15 or more high-quality and theoretically meaningful papers around homelessness policy that the proposed editors expect to be submitted for peer review. For each paper, these details should include an abstract and names and affiliations of its authors.
    • Although we understand that sometimes unforeseen events arise, the guest editor(s) should do their best to ensure that these authors are firmly committed to submitting their proposed papers to the special issue. 
    • The proposed papers should: Propose theoretical frameworks or concepts; empirically test theoretical frameworks or concepts using quantitative or qualitative methods; or provide a comprehensive review of relevant policy literature, identifying key themes and synthesizing key findings. 
    • During the process of developing the special issue, guest editors can solicit additional abstracts/papers not included in the original proposal. 
  4. A proposed timeline for accomplishing the guest editorship tasks described here. 

The guest editor(s) should commit to:

  1. Soliciting papers around homelessness policy that are high quality and make a meaningful theoretical contribution to public policy scholarship.
  2. Reviewing and providing feedback on each manuscript before it is submitted for review at PSJ, and/or coordinating a pre-submission review process wherein authors offer comments on each others’ work.
  3. Writing an introductory piece that frames and highlights the interconnections among papers ultimately included in the special issue and proposes an agenda for future policy scholarship on homelessness.

The PSJ editorial team will:

  1. Work closely with the guest editor(s) to ensure a smooth editorial process.
  2. Ensure the editorial process follows PSJ submission protocols, including double-blind review and resubmission within six months of a “revise and resubmit” decisions.
  3. Make final decisions about accepting or rejecting manuscripts. The PSJ team may confer with guest editor(s) about these decisions or may make them independently.
  4. Reserve the right to reject special issue paper submissions that do not meet journal standards and to cancel the special issue, if an insufficient number of high-quality submissions is received within a reasonable timeframe.
    • If the special issue is canceled, papers submitted pursuant to the special issue call, and which received an acceptance upon peer review, will be slated for inclusion in a regular PSJ issue. 

Applications for guest editorship should be submitted as a Word document to policystudiesjournal@gmail.com by January 29, 2024. Questions about the special issue or its editorship should be directed to the same address. The PSJ editorial team expects to make a decision concerning applications in late January or early February 2024.

Linking Issues for Long-Term Governance Success

by Dana A. Dolan

Governments frequently grapple with a perpetual cycle of reacting to immediate crises, leaving little room for proactive, long-term policy development. The concept of long-term governance, characterized by policies promising future benefits but incurring short-term costs, often faces challenges in securing priority amid more pressing issues. 

Nonetheless, the importance of long-term governance cannot be understated, given its historical successes and its relevance in addressing contemporary global challenges. For instance, the establishment of America’s National Park System was a clear investment in preserving nature for future generations. Today, nations worldwide confront a mounting array of long-term challenges, including climate change, biodiversity loss, immigration reform, and extreme economic inequality.

Lessons from Australian Climate Adaptation Policy

In a 2021 Policy Studies Journal article, I examined the process leading to Australia’s 2007 Water Act, one of the world’s earliest national climate adaptation policies, for insights into achieving long-term governance goals. The case presented several theoretical puzzles: why did Australian Prime Minister John Howard, a known climate science skeptic, champion this policy? Why did the conservative Howard Government support a policy that aimed to redirect water resources from lucrative agriculture to environmental conservation, contrary to its usual priorities? Why did the proposal garner public and political support during a severe decade-long drought, when all water users fiercely protected their allocations?

I applied Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework, analyzing the evolution of problem, policy, and political streams, and the process of coupling these streams to favor policy change over the status quo. After analyzing each of the three streams in depth, this study delved deeper into the coupling process. Its unique insight highlighted the interplay among “partial couplings” (illustrated in Figure 1 below) that connected pairs of streams for multiple policy issues. 

Figure 1. Alternative Approaches to Coupling All Three Streams.

In the Australian case, climate change rose on the policy agenda and became law under the 2007 Water Act, despite not all three streams being ready for coupling. This departure from basic expectations was explained by the policy entrepreneurial strategy known as issue linking. This strategy rhetorically connected the three streams of problems, policies, and politics through partial couplings involving three related issues: climate change (a valid problem with public demand but no viable policy solution), water management (a salient problem with a feasible solution but lacking political will), and adaptive governance (an accepted solution with political backing but no salient problem).

This configuration of multiple partial couplings allowed proponents of policy change to construct a convincing argument for legislative action. For a recent explanation of the MSF theory behind the coupling process, refer to Dolan and Blum’s work (2023/in press)

Issue Linking through Multiple Partial Couplings  

Issue linking emerges as a pivotal strategy for overcoming the challenges of long-term policymaking, where problems are recognized, viable policy solutions exist, but political will is lacking. However, not every combination of issues proves effective. Linked issues only succeed when the combination connects all pairs of streams through multiple partial couplings. In essence, issue linking serves as a guiding principle for policymakers navigating the complexities of long-term governance, where decisions today can shape a better and more sustainable tomorrow.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Dolan, Dana A. 2021. “Multiple Partial Couplings in the Multiple Streams Framework: The Case of Extreme Weather and Climate Change Adaptation.” Policy Studies Journal 49(1): 164–89. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/psj.12341#

Other References

Dolan, Dana A., and Sonja Blum. 2023/in press. “The Beating Heart of the MSF: Coupling as a Process.” In The Modern Guide to the Multiple Streams Framework, eds. Nikolaos Zahariadis, Nicole Herweg, Reimut Zohlnhöfer, and Evangelia Petridou. Edward Elgar.

About the Author

Dana A. Dolan is a policy fellow and adjunct faculty member at George Mason University’s Schar School of Policy and Government. She is also a professorial lecturer in international affairs at The George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs. Her research focuses on long-term governance issues, the politics of policymaking, and refining Kingdon’s Multiple Streams theory of the policy process. Her theory-driven work has been featured in top journals like Policy Studies Journal and Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment.

, , ,