Category: Advocacy Coalition Framework

Advocacy Coalitions, Beliefs, and Learning: An Analysis of Stability, Change, and Reinforcement

by Christopher Weible, Kristin L. Oloffson, & Tanya Heikkila 

The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is one of the primary approaches for studying advocacy coalitions, belief systems, and policy learning. While hundreds of empirical studies have confirmed the framework’s major expectations, research is limited by a lack of longitudinal studies, comparisons between panel and non-panel data, and multiple measures of policy-oriented learning in the same study. To fill these gaps, we examine the characteristics of advocacy coalitions in the ever-evolving landscape of energy policy. Three questions guide the exploration: 

  1. What defines the characteristics of advocacy coalitions in the setting of shale oil and gas development, and to what extent do these coalitions exhibit stability over time? 
  2. To what degree do members within advocacy coalitions undergo changes in their beliefs, and how does this impact their sustained alignment within the same coalition? 
  3. What are the prevalent trends regarding advocacy coalition members self-reporting belief changes or expressing a willingness to shift their positions?

In 2013, 2015, and 2017, we conducted surveys of policy actors involved in shale oil and gas extraction in Colorado. The survey participants comprised individuals actively involved or knowledgeable about the pertinent policy issues, including industry stakeholders, government officials, non-profit and community group representatives, consultants, academics, and reporters. Respondents were identified through a purposive sampling approach, utilizing evidence from media reports, online sources, public hearings, testimonies, and recommendations. The survey included measures of policy core beliefs, such as positions on oil and gas development, problem perceptions, coordination, and interactions with other policy actors. 

To analyze the data, we used K-Means Clustering, a method that identifies distinct groups within a dataset. The K-Means Clustering method categorized respondents into two coalitions based on minimizing distances within each cluster.

As illustrated in Figure 2, while beliefs remained relatively constant, specific indicators signaled some movement, reflecting shifts in the policy subsystem’s circumstances. For instance, concerns over public nuisances rose during a period of increased drilling activity, only to subside when drilling declined due to falling oil prices. The coalitional characteristics remained relatively stable across the three time periods, confirming patterns typical for environmental policy issues.

Figure 2. Frequency of belief change for respondents by panels

This analytical approach provides valuable insights into the dynamics of advocacy coalitions, shedding light on their composition and stability over time in the context of shale oil and gas development policy. One key contribution lies in the identification and characterization of two distinct advocacy coalitions, namely the anti-oil and gas coalition primarily comprising environmental and citizen group representatives, and the pro-oil and gas coalition dominated by industry stakeholders. The stability of these coalitions over the five-year period underscores the enduring nature of these groupings. The research also delves into the nuanced realm of belief change and policy learning among coalition members. The findings provide crucial insights into the tendencies of coalition members to either reinforce their existing beliefs or undergo shifts in response to evolving circumstances, contributing to the broader discourse on policy learning. 

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Weible, C. M., Olofsson, K. L. and Heikkila, T. 2023. “Advocacy coalitions, beliefs, and learning: An analysis of stability, change, and reinforcement.” Policy Studies Journal 51: 209–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12458

About the Authors

Chris Weible is a professor at the University of Colorado Denver School of Public Affairs. His research and teaching center on policy process theories and methods, democracy, and environmental policy. He is the Co-Founder and Co-Director of the Center for Policy and Democracy (CPD) and Co-Editor of Policy & Politics. He teaches courses in environmental politics, public policy and democracy, policy analysis, and research methods and design. Recent and current research includes studying policy conflicts in energy issues (e.g., siting energy infrastructure and oil and gas development), the role of emotions in public discourse, the institutional configurations of public policies, politics involving marginalized communities, and patterns and explanations of advocacy coalitions, learning, and policy change. He has published over a hundred articles and book chapters and has been awarded millions of dollars in external funding. His edited volumes include “Theories of the Policy Process,” “Methods of the Policy Process,” and “Policy Debates in Hydraulic Fracturing.” He regularly engages and enjoys collaborating with students and communities in research projects. Professor Weible earned his Ph.D. in Ecology from the University of California Davis and a Master of Public Administration and a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics and Statistics from the University of Washington. He has an Honorary Doctor of Philosophy and a Visiting Professor position at Luleå University of Technology (LTU), Sweden. Before coming to CU Denver, Professor Weible was an Assistant Professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology. He is a returned Peace Corps Volunteer.

Dr. Kristin L. Olofsson’s research focuses on public policy, institutional design, and stakeholder participation. She specializes in policy process scholarship through the lens of environmental and energy justice to focus on the dynamics of policy coalitions and networks of policy actors. Dr. Olofsson explores differentiation in institutional settings to better understand how the people involved in the policy process shape policy outcomes. Her research questions how decisions are made in contentious politics, using both quantitative and qualitative methods.

Professor Tanya Heikkila’s research and teaching focus on policy processes and environmental governance. She is particularly interested in how conflict and collaboration arise in policy processes, and what types of institutions support collaboration, learning, and conflict resolution. Some of her recent research has explored these issues in the context of interstate watersheds, large-scale ecosystem restoration programs, and unconventional oil and gas development. Prof. Heikkila has published numerous articles and books on these topics and has participated in several interdisciplinary research and education projects. She enjoys collaborating with faculty and students, especially through the Center for Policy and Democracy (CPD) at CU Denver, which she co-directs. She also serves as a member of the Delta Independent Science Board for the state of California. Prior to coming to CU Denver, Prof. Heikkila was a post-doctoral fellow at Indiana University’s Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis and an Assistant Professor at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. A native of Oregon, she received her BA from the University of Oregon and then learned to appreciate desert life while completing her MPA and PhD at the University of Arizona.

, , , ,

Mitigating conflict with collaboration: Reaching negotiated agreement amidst belief divergence in environmental governance

by Elizabeth A. Koebele & Deserai Anderson Crow

Conflict is a natural part of democratic processes. However, understanding what drives conflict – and how it can be mitigated to a level where negotiation can occur – is essential for fostering productive policy making.

The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) argues that policy conflict is fundamentally driven by belief divergence among coalitions, or groups of policy actors who share beliefs about a policy subsystem and coordinate to achieve their goals. It makes sense, then, that bringing coalitions’ beliefs closer together may also reduce conflict. However, the ACF warns that beliefs are hard to change, especially in high-conflict settings where actors are prone to biased assimilation of information, the devil-shift, and other tendencies that exacerbate conflict.

Collaborative governance is touted as a way to reduce policy conflict under such circumstances by encouraging diverse policy actors to engage in sustained, consensus-oriented deliberation around a shared problem. While collaborative governance may foster some level of belief convergence through information sharing and collective learning, it may also encourage opposing coalitions to negotiate through other mechanisms. For example, as they participate in a collaborative process, coalitions may come to better understand one another’s needs over time, build trust and mutual respect, and support collaborative institutions they perceive to be fair, even as they maintain unique beliefs.

To better understand the relationship between beliefs, conflict, and negotiation, we empirically analyze how two adversarial coalitions’ beliefs changed as they participated in a collaborative water governance process in Colorado, U.S., over the course of a decade. While the collaborative process ended in negotiated agreement, our analyses of longitudinal survey and interview data show that the coalitions’ beliefs actually diverged more at the end of the process than they did at the start – a finding contrary to what we would expect if negotiation was driven primarily by belief convergence.

We then identify several other aspects of the collaborative process and broader policy context that facilitated negotiation among the coalitions. Most importantly, societal value shifts, process norms that institutionalized actor roles and encouraged “multi-purpose” solutions, and the development of respect and social capital among actors appear to have promoted successful negotiation amidst belief divergence. We also found that the trend toward greater belief divergence was primarily attributed to one coalition strengthening their own unique beliefs over time while the other coalition’s beliefs remained fairly stable throughout the process.

Our results demonstrate that while belief divergence was likely a driver of conflict in this policy process, collaborative governance helped adversarial policy actors identify places where they could agree on, or at least consent to, common solutions over time. These findings have important implications for how collaborative processes can be designed to mitigate conflict among opposing coalitions and encourage future research on who changes their beliefs, how, and why while participating in a collaborative process. Scholars should also examine how collaborative governance affects different policy beliefs in different ways, which can help support the development of a more robust typology of beliefs in the ACF literature.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Koebele, Elizabeth A., and Deserai A., Crow. 2023. “ Mitigating conflict with collaboration: Reaching negotiated agreement amidst belief divergence in environmental governance.” Policy Studies Journal, 51, 439–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12496.

About the Authors

Elizabeth A. Koebele, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Associate Director of the Graduate Program of Hydrologic Sciences at the University of Nevada, Reno. She holds a Ph.D. and M.S. in Environmental Studies from the University of Colorado-Boulder, and B.A.s in English and Education from Arizona State University. Dr. Koebele researches and teaches about water policy and management in the western United States, with a focus on understanding the impacts of collaborative policy-making processes on governance and environmental outcomes in the Colorado River Basin. She also co-edits the scholarly journal Policy & Politics.

Dr. Deserai Anderson Crow is a Professor in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver. Her work focuses on environmental policy as well as crisis and disaster recovery, risk mitigation in local communities, and stakeholder involvement in decision-making processes. She earned her PhD from Duke University, and her B.S. and MPA from the University of Colorado.

, , , ,

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.

, ,