Category: News & Updates

The interactive effects of policies: Insights for policy feedback theory from a qualitative study on homelessness

Existing policy feedback literature on participation examines how policy designs shape political behavior and argues that policies can encourage some people to participate whilst discouraging others. This prompts the inquiry: how do the effects of policy design characteristics interact? How might the positive effects of one element of a policy, for example, interact with the negative effects of another to influence participation of a marginalized group? How might multiple negative or positive effects influence participation? To explore these complex effects, this study compares how homelessness policies affect political engagement in Melbourne, Australia, and Toronto, Canada.

Drawing on 118 qualitative interviews with individuals experiencing homelessness, service providers, and policymakers, this comparative study explores how the effects of policy design characteristics (i.e., distribution of benefit, generosity, eligibility, visibility, delivery design, and integration) work together to either mobilize or discourage political engagement. Table 1 defines these terms below:

Table 1. Policy design characteristic operationalization.

Figure 1 demonstrates how the interaction of multiple policies, through their design characteristics, influences political participation. These effects are shaped by the resources allocated, the signals policies send about individuals’ roles in society, and their broader impact on institutional capacity to facilitate engagement.

Figure 1. Interactive effects of policy characteristics on participation.

The qualitative interview data reveals diverse service access among participants, highlighting key variations in characteristics, particularly visibility, delivery, and integration. Table 2 outlines the policy areas by city and sector, detailing policy characteristics and their effects on engagement as reported by participants. While both cities have many negative policy effects, Melbourne’s housing and health policies showed more positive impacts, particularly in integration, visibility, and delivery.

Table 2. Policy design characteristics of policies utilized by the sample of participants and effects on participation.

Notably, Table 3 illustrates that individuals experiencing homelessness actively engage in various efforts to drive change. While 56-64% of participants reported voting in their last federal election, over 90% engaged in actions such as peer work, providing organizational feedback, and joining advisory groups.

Table 3. Participation according to venues in Melbourne and Toronto.

The way in which different policy design characteristics interact can either amplify exclusion or help counteract it, depending on how services are structured and delivered. For example, integrated service delivery can moderate the negative effects of means-tested programs with strict eligibility rules. In Melbourne, social workers traveling to service centers helped reduce barriers related to eligibility and stigma. In contrast, Toronto’s lack of visibility and integration often left participants feeling isolated.

Policy feedback scholars must pay closer attention to the lived experiences of marginalized populations. These perspectives reveal how policy design and the interplay of its characteristics directly shape political participation. Without this understanding, we risk overlooking the conditions under which participation influences policy or the ways we might create spaces that meaningfully support civic engagement.

This research highlights how policies are structured and delivered, not just how their content affects democratic engagement. Integrated, visible services can empower marginalized individuals to engage politically, even amid social and economic instability.

For marginalized and targeted populations, policy design can dictate their civic participation and relationship with the state. Too often, policies reinforce exclusion, further distancing individuals from decisions that directly impact their lives. By examining where and how these populations participate, we gain critical insight into whether their voices are meaningfully reflected in future policymaking.

Read the original article in Policy Studies Journal:

Kopec, Anna. 2025. “The Interactive Effects of Policies: Insights For Policy Feedback Theory From a Qualitative Study on Homelessness.” Policy Studies Journal 53(2): 243–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12532.

About the Article’s Author

Anna Kopec is an Associate Professor at the School of Public Policy at Carleton University. Her research agenda examines the relationship between political participation and public policy among marginalized populations in Western welfare states. How do policy designs influence the political agency of vulnerable groups, and how in turn do such groups participate to bring about changes to the policies and systems they interact with? This comparative work focuses on populations experiencing homelessness. A secondary research agenda examines intersectionality and homelessness, with a consideration of how policies and services individuals access influence how certain communities participate.

, , ,

Information Is Cheap, But Filtering Is Costly: Congressional Investment In Reference Resources

Lawmakers swim in a constant flood of information—reports from think tanks, pitches from lobbyists, pleas from constituents, memos from agencies—you name it. It’s a tidal wave of policy talk, and it hits every single day. To keep from going under and still stay focused on what matters most to them, members of Congress have to become expert navigators, developing savvy strategies to cut through the noise and zero in on their priorities.

One key strategy is investing in information filtering through media sources. Instead of drowning in data, members often pay news outlets and media companies to help them filter, summarize, and contextualize the complex policy and political environment. These media expenditures are not insignificant; our research found that members of the U.S. House of Representatives spend tens of thousands of dollars annually on media subscriptions and reference materials.

But who spends the most? In our article, we explored how a member’s experience in Congress shapes their spending on information resources. Based on the data (see Figure 1), we assume a negative correlation between the institutional experience of members and their spending on information filtering through the media. Specifically, we hypothesized that freshman members of the House are more likely to rely on and invest more money in media resources. Lacking the deep institutional knowledge, established networks, and experienced staff of their senior colleagues, freshman members typically face a steeper learning curve in navigating the complex information environment.

Figure 1. Distribution of member spending on publications and reference material by seniority.

To test our hypothesis, we looked at the official record of expenditures (the Statement of Disbursements) for U.S. House members in 2019 and 2021. We identified members’ expenditures on publications and reference material which included subscriptions to national news outlets (like the New York Times), local papers, and pricey policy monitoring services (like Politico Pro or Bloomberg’s BGov) that track legislation and political developments in real-time (see breakdown of publications expenditures in Figure 2). We built regression models that examined the relationship between a member’s total expenditures on publications/reference material and whether or not they were in their first term, while controlling for other personal and institutional factors that may influence members’ spending patterns.

Figure 2. Publications expenditures by category and vendor.

Our analysis confirmed our hypothesis: being a freshman was the strongest predictor of higher spending on media resources. We found that first-term members of the House spent about 94% more on publications and reference material than their experienced colleagues in 2019, and 169% more in 2021. This translates to an average increase of $7,000 to $10,000 per year invested in information filtering (see Figure 3).

Image Description

Figure 3. Predicted money spent on publications and reference materials.

When we tracked members who were freshmen in 2019 into their second term in 2021, we observed that, once reelected and having gained more experience and institutional knowledge, their spending on media resources dropped significantly (by an average of $10,513), as they seem less reliant on external tools and resources to filter information.

Our work highlights how crucial (and costly) information processing is to lawmaking in Congress, especially for freshman members. In a world where information is cheap but filtering is expensive, new members appear willing to pay a premium to make sense of it all.

Read the original article in Policy Studies Journal:

Craig, Alison and Annelise Russell. 2025. “Information is Cheap, but Filtering is Costly: Congressional Investment in Reference Resources.” Policy Studies Journal 53(1): 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12561.

About the Article’s Authors

Alison Craig is an assistant professor in the Department of Government at the University of Texas at Austin. Her research focuses on improving our understanding of the day-to-day functioning of the United States Congress, with an emphasis on the relationships between members and the challenges of policymaking in the modern legislature. Alison earned her Ph.D. from The Ohio State University and has a B.S. in political science from the University of Oregon. Prior to graduate school, she spent eleven years working for members of Congress on Capitol Hill and in her home state of Oregon. In that time she filled various roles, from communications to casework, with most of her work as a legislative assistant handling domestic policy issues and as a field representative working with local governments and opinion leaders.

Annelise Russell is an Associate Professor of Public Policy at the University of Kentucky. She is also a faculty associate of the U.S. Policy Agendas Project and a member of the Comparative Agendas Project. Her research focuses on questions about how policymakers communicate their agendas and the role of the media, particularly social media, in the political process. Her work centers around congressional decision-making and communication, including an active research agenda in the intersection of social media and political institutions. She received a Ph.D. in Government from the University of Texas at Austin, and she also holds bachelor’s degrees in political science and journalism from the University of Oklahoma.

, , , ,

Call for Papers: PSJ Special Issue on Policy Diffusion 

The Policy Studies Journal (PSJ) invites submissions for a special Issue focusing on policy diffusion. Since Walker’s groundbreaking work 65 years ago, policy diffusion research has both burgeoned and stagnated at times (Mooney 2021). It continues to be a key policy process theory that has experienced significant advancements in the last decade in data (Boehmke et al. 2020), methods (e.g., Linder et al. 2020), theory (e.g., Colvin and Jansa 2024), and broadening from the American federal context (e.g., Cao 2010, Zhang and Zhu 2019).

This special issue invites papers that engage on any of the four fronts listed above: data, methods, theory, and context. Importantly, the aim is not to publish studies of a single policy using conventional methods (e.g., Event History Analysis) that confirm existing theory. We are looking for work that continues to push the boundaries of policy diffusion research. Papers should aim to explain diffusion broadly and should only focus on a single policy if it is a unique case that illustrates the boundaries of existing theory. These could include papers that:

  • Provide methodological and/or theoretical advancements on our specification and understanding of the key mechanisms of diffusion.
  • Explore diffusion dynamics in contexts beyond the American federal system and Europe. These could be new within-country contexts or underexplored regions like Africa.
  • Propose new methods for conducting diffusion research.
  • Link the macro-level patterns most commonly observed in diffusion studies (e.g., number and timing of adoptions) with the micro-level behavioral foundations that are assumed to be generating those patterns.
  • Builds bridges between policy diffusion and other major policy process theories.
  • Make greater use of the State Policy Innovation and Diffusion (SPID) database (https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/spid).

We also invite shorter pieces (3,000 – 5,000 words), including those that wrestle with the translational and practical implications of policy diffusion research for policymaking and governance. These will be published together in Policy Theory & Practice (a rolling special issue associated with PSJ) and will be bound with the PSJ special issue through our editorial introduction. This allows us to leverage all opportunities offered by PSJ to advance our thinking about policy diffusion.

For details on PSJ article types and their requirements, see https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/15410072/homepage/forauthors.html.

**The deadline for submitting a manuscript for the Special Issue is December 1, 2025**

Potential contributors to the Special Issue may participate in a “Peer Paper Exchange” in the spring of 2025, through which authors can obtain informal feedback from peers who also plan to submit a paper to the Special Issue and opt to participate in the Exchange. For the exchange, papers will be paired together so the authors can exchange and provide each other with feedback. It is not a formal workshop. Participation in the exchange is intended to support the development of papers but has no bearing on the peer review process that will be undertaken by PSJ once papers are submitted to the journal. That review process is formal and entirely independent of the Peer Paper Exchange.

To participate in the Peer Paper Exchange, please submit a one-page abstract that explains your research question, the contribution of your research to policy diffusion, and the data and methodological approaches you plan to use to answer your research question, along with the paper title and author information. This is due by April 1st. Notifications of acceptance to participate in the Peer Paper Exchange will be made by May 15th.

Authors participating in the Exchange must share their draft papers with fellow participants by September 1st. Comments from the Exchange review will be returned to the authors by October 1st.

To apply for the Peer Paper Exchange, please visit: https://uark.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_5vwfxRpAF5NKeVM

Special Issue Schedule Summary:

  • April 1, 2025: One-page proposal for peer exchange
  • May 15, 2025: Decisions sent for inclusion in peer exchange
  • September 1, 2025: Paper shared with peer exchange
  • October 1, 2025: Comments returned from peer exchange
  • December 1, 2025: Deadline for submitting to PSJ

If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Dan Mallinson at policystudiesjournal@gmail.com

Narrative Strategies in a Nondemocratic Setting: Reflections on Conducting Policy Process Research in Autocracies

by Caroline Schlaufer & Dilyara Gafurova

Our article Narrative strategies in a nondemocratic setting: Moscow’s urban policy debates explored how narratives are strategically used in authoritarian contexts to promote or contest policy reforms. Focusing on three contentious urban policy debates in Moscow—housing renovation, public transport reforms, and waste management policies—we found stark differences in narrative strategies between government actors and their opponents. The Moscow government employed narratives that framed itself as a hero delivering widespread public benefits while avoiding acknowledgment of policy problems or villainizing opponents. In contrast, oppositional narratives depicted the government as a villain and emphasized the costs and exclusivity of governmental policies. The difference between the governmental and opposing narrative strategies, for example, between the angel and devil-shift scores of the two sides of the debates (see Table 2 of our article), is very large and much higher than in democratic contexts, indicating a strong polarization of the debate. A “debate” in an authoritarian context is less a dialogue but rather parallel monologues with governmental narratives dominating.

Image Description

The research is based on a quantitative content analysis of online sources that were written between 2012 and 2020. Since conducting our research, Russia’s policy context has transformed dramatically. The ongoing war against Ukraine has accelerated autocratization and exacerbated repression in Russia. These developments have fundamentally altered the space for public policy discourse and almost obliterated oppositional voices. The majority of the actors whose online narratives we analyzed (see Appendix A of our article) are now silenced—whether by exile, imprisonment, death, organizational closure, or the inaccessibility of platforms like Facebook within Russia. This means that replicating our study is not possible anymore, as conducting the same research today would yield far fewer critical perspectives on Moscow’s urban policies.

The shrinking space for public debate has also been accompanied by increasing restrictions on academic freedom. Many scholars who worked on our research project on narratives in Moscow have since left Russia due to safety concerns and the hostile environment for empirical social research. The closure of HSE University’s Public Policy Department, where this research was conducted, epitomizes the growing difficulties faced by academics in the country.

Our findings demonstrated that the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF), initially designed for democratic settings, is a robust tool for understanding discursive strategies in authoritarian contexts, even as genuine public debate disappears. While our research cannot be replicated in today’s Russia, the lessons it offers remain relevant—not only for autocracies but also for liberal democracies that increasingly experience polarization of public debates and attacks on academic freedom. However, our study and experience also raise critical questions about the boundaries of conducting policy process research in autocracies. Scholars must navigate significant ethical and safety concerns to protect team members and data sources, but at the same time meet high scientific standards and publish research even though access to data and possibilities to conduct research are extremely restricted.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Schlaufer, C., Gafurova, D., Zhiryakova, E., Shikhova, M. andBelyaeva, N. 2023. “Narrative strategies in a nondemocratic setting: Moscow’s urban policy debates.” Policy Studies Journal 51: 79–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12445

About the Authors

Caroline Schlaufer is a senior researcher at the KPM Center for Public Management and head of the Ethics and Policy Lab of the Multidisciplinary Center of Infectious Diseases at the University of Bern, Switzerland. Her research focuses on the role of narratives and of science in policy processes and on public policy in authoritarian contexts. She worked as a Professor at the Public Policy Department at HSE University in Moscow between 2017 and 2021.

Dilyara Gafurova heads the team of the Sphere foundation that focuses on fostering LGBTQ+ rights in Russia. She is a political scientist and worked on this research project on policy narratives in Moscow during her Master’s at HSE University in 2018-2020.

Submitter Guidelines for Recommending Reviewers

After surpassing 500 submitted manuscripts in 2024, PSJ’s need for reviewers is at an all-time high. With this, our editorial team is immensely grateful to those who continue to contribute to our field by serving as manuscript reviewers. This commitment is central to our work as policy scholars and is essential to ensure publication of high-quality scholarship. We have relied heavily on many of you to provide valuable feedback on promising manuscripts, and we do not take the time you have dedicated lightly. 

To lessen our reliance on our current pool of reviewers while still ensuring a timely review process, the PSJ editorial team has instituted a new policy for those submitting manuscripts to our system: moving forward, every submitter will be required to recommend five (5) reviewers. 

With this change, our team wanted to share guidelines that can assist submitters in selecting applicable reviewers. When considering reviewers, we ask submitters to keep in mind the following: 

  1. First, please make sure that the reviewers collectively cover the three critical aspects of your manuscript: theory, methodology, and the substantive topic.
  2. Second, please try to mix senior and emerging scholars. This diversity enriches the review process with varied perspectives and experiences.
  3. Third, the reviewers should be those who can uphold the highest standards of editorial integrity, as this is of utmost importance to us.
  4. Finally, please make sure that the selected reviewers do not have any obvious connections to you or other authors. This will help maintain anonymity and impartiality in the review process. 

Thank you in advance to all submitters for supporting your individual manuscript’s review process, and we look forward to your submissions!


Link to Geoboo’s LinkedIn post about surpassing 500 manuscripts: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/geoboo-song-%EC%86%A1%EA%B1%B0%EB%B6%80-08215359_weve-just-received-our-500th-new-submission-activity-7253819572598841344-tKQi?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

Reflecting on a Year of Growth and Collaboration at PSJ

by Geoboo Song (PSJ Editor-in-Chief)

As we mark the first anniversary of our tenure as the editorial team at the Policy Studies Journal (PSJ), I feel it’s a right moment to reflect on the journey we’ve embarked on and the progress we’ve made. While many of us were familiar with the editorial process through prior experiences, stepping into these roles brought new challenges and opportunities. The past year has been both eventful and productive, filled with significant achievements that have propelled PSJ forward in fulfilling its mission.

One of the most telling indicators of PSJ’s growing prominence is the surge in submissions. Last year, we received around 500 new submissions — a notable increase from the typical 350 submissions per year between 2019 and 2022. Already, in the current year, we have surpassed 360 new submissions, signaling an upward trajectory that speaks to the mounting interest in policy research. To manage this increased volume, nearly 20 members of our editorial team have dedicated themselves to ensuring that each submission is handled with the care and attention it deserves. The collective effort of this team has been nothing short of remarkable.

Transitioning to new leadership is never without its challenges. However, the steadfast support from long standing editorial members and the fresh perspectives brought by new team members have made this transition not only smooth but also invigorating. The guidance of experienced editorial members, such as Drs. Gwen Arnold, Melissa Merry, Aaron Smith-Walter, Holly Peterson, and Creed Tumlison, has been invaluable. Their professional camaraderie with me has ensured continuity and stability.

We are also fortunate to have the enthusiastic contributions of new editorial team members, including Drs. Saba Siddiki, Davor Mondom, Heasun Choi, and Briana Huett. Their fresh ideas and energy have greatly enhanced our operations. Special thanks are due to Dr. Ben Galloway and Victor Akakpo for their diligent handling of new manuscripts, and to Nataliia Borozdina, Camille Gilmore, and Meerim Seiitova for their exceptional work in maintaining our website content and social media presence. Their efforts have ensured that PSJ remains a dynamic and engaging platform for policy scholars worldwide. Behind the scenes, our editorial assistants Eli Polley, Izehi Oriaghan, and Chris Giller have also played crucial roles in keeping our operations running smoothly.

One of our most exciting initiatives this past year has been the introduction of the rolling special collection called Policy Theory & Practice (PT&P). This collection bridges the gap between theoretical insights and practical applications, offering a platform for innovative and impactful policy research. Additionally, we’ve introduced new manuscript types, such as Perspectives and Research Notes, allowing for shorter yet impactful research papers. These new formats broaden the range of contributions to PSJ, enabling us to address timely and emerging research topics in the policy realm.

Engagement with the policy community has also been a priority. We launched the PSJ Blog, designed to foster meaningful communication among those interested in policy research. By sharing valuable insights and highlights from PSJ publications, the blog has quickly become a central hub for discussion and exchange, nurturing a more connected and informed community of policy scholars and citizens alike.

Collaboration has been another cornerstone of our efforts. We’ve actively participated in and organized workshops, roundtables, and presentations in partnership with related organizations. These include roundtables at the Conference on Policy Process Research (COPPR) at Syracuse, the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) roundtable at Michigan, online conversations with authors through the American Political Science Association (APSA) Public Policy Section, and special lectures and presentations at Seoul National University, Sungkyunkwan University, and the International Conference on China Policy Studies (ICCPS). These collaborations have opened valuable opportunities to shape the future direction of PSJ, addressing various theoretical and practical concerns highlighted by the policy community. We are committed to continuing these efforts and are actively preparing special issues on important research topics, such as policy design, policy advisory systems, and the role of power in policy processes. Several more special issues are in the planning stages, reflecting our commitment to responding to the evolving needs of the policy community.

None of these achievements would have been possible without the support of many individuals and organizations. We are deeply grateful to the leaders of the Policy Studies Organization (PSO), the APSA Public Policy Section, Wiley, and the University of Arkansas Department of Political Science and Public Policy Ph.D. Program. Their support, both visible and behind the scenes, has been instrumental in our success. Working as the core PSJ editorial team over the past year has deepened our appreciation for the invaluable contributions of our authors, reviewers, and editorial board members. Their dedication and hard work are the lifeblood of the journal, and we sincerely thank everyone for their support and encouragement.

As we look ahead, we are excited about the future of PSJ and remain committed to advancing the field of policy studies through innovative research, meaningful collaboration, and ongoing engagement with the global policy community. Thank you for being part of this journey with us!

Bridging Policy Research Across Borders: Challenges and Opportunities for China

by Geoboo Song (PSJ Editor-in-Chief)

On June 14, 2024, I delivered a virtual keynote address at the inaugural International Conference on China Policy Studies (ICCPS) in Beijing, China. While primarily aimed at policy scholars in China, my presentation also holds significance for policy scholars in other non-Western countries. Recently, there were discussions about “Global South” issues during the Conference on Policy Process Research (COPPR) meeting in Syracuse, NY, which the PSJ editors took seriously, prompting immediate action. In light of these developments, I believe sharing my keynote speech here would be beneficial. Below is an excerpt from my keynote address:

As the Editor-in-Chief of the Policy Studies Journal, I have had the privilege of working closely with scholars from around the world, witnessing firsthand the transformative power of collaborative policy research. PSJ, a premier publication outlet for theory-driven policy research, has been at the forefront of delivering cutting-edge research that addresses some of the most pressing global challenges.

In today’s interconnected world, the challenges we face are increasingly complex, uncertain, and global in nature. Issues such as climate change, public health crises, and economic disparity do not recognize national boundaries. As such, the need for robust, collaborative policy research has never been greater. By working together, we can craft innovative solutions that benefit not just our own nations, but the world at large.

Tackling grand challenges, such as extreme weather events, disaster management, immigration crisis, and water and food insecurity, require collaborative and innovative efforts that transcend borders. Policy research plays a crucial role in addressing these issues by providing evidence-based solutions and fostering informed decision-making.

PSJ, a leading publication in the field, has been renowned for its contributions to policy process theory research over half a century. This area of research is pivotal, as the pressing policy issues we face are often fraught with uncertainty, complexity, and inherently “wicked” nature of such challenges. In these contexts, enhancing “procedural rationality” (which focuses on how decisions are made) is as important, if not more so, than “substantive rationality” (which focuses on what decisions are made). And, I firmly believe that this sort of process theory-driven approach ensures more robust problem-solving strategies in the long run, particularly when addressing the grand challenges we encounter.

Equally important is recognizing that mutual benefits arise from international policy research collaboration. By sharing knowledge, resources, and expertise across borders, we can elevate the quality and impact of our policy research. Such collaborative efforts also promote cultural exchange and mutual understanding, which are vital for addressing global challenges effectively.

China has made remarkable progress in policy research in recent years. During my five-year tenure as a PSJ editor, I’ve witnessed Chinese policy scholars, both domestically and internationally, contributing significantly to a broad spectrum of policy theories and substantive policy domains. Their work highlights innovative approaches and invaluable insights. In fact, policy scholars in China have published more articles in PSJ than any other Asian countries in recent years.

Despite this progress, significant challenges remain. Broadly, these can be examined on two levels: individual vs. research environment. On the individual level, many Chinese policy scholars, especially those from non-elite backgrounds, face difficulties in several areas. Developing compelling research questions, achieving theoretical innovation, designing robust methodologies, and effectively communicating their findings, particularly in English, are common challenges. Additionally, securing funding and publishing in top-tier policy journals remain significant hurdles. On the other hand, the research environment encompasses the tangible and intangible resources that maximize individuals’ research competencies. This includes the structure and culture of the researcher’s organization or program, as well as broader institutional and network dynamics. For example, major research universities in the United States provide substantial financial support and reduced teaching loads for pre-tenure assistant professors, fostering an environment conducive to high-level research. In contrast, many Chinese institutions may lack comparable support, making it difficult for scholars to focus on their research.

Of course, numerous opportunities for collaboration exist between policy scholars in China and their counterparts around the world. Establishing partnerships can facilitate the exchange of ideas and resources, leading to more comprehensive and impactful research outcomes. More meaningful academic exchange programs and joint research initiatives can play a crucial role in fostering collaboration, enabling policy scholars to work together, share their expertise, and develop innovative solutions to common challenges. Technology and innovation are also key enablers of collaboration. Digital platforms and tools can facilitate communication, data sharing, and joint research efforts, making it easier for scholars to collaborate across borders. By leveraging these opportunities, we can address the challenges faced by Chinese policy scholars and enhance the global impact of policy research.

In conclusion, bridging policy research across borders is essential for overcoming constraints inherent in research practices in China, addressing global challenges, and creating a sustainable future both intellectually and practically. By working together, we can leverage our collective knowledge and expertise to develop innovative solutions that benefit everybody. I particularly encourage Chinese policy scholars to engage in more international collaborations and seek out new opportunities for joint research. Together, we can overcome challenges and create a brighter future for all.

,

Theory into Action: The Important Role of Policy Theory and Practice (PT&P)

Policy Studies Journal has long been known for publishing cutting-edge policy theory research. Our authors develop new and test theories and concepts or innovate on existing theoretical frameworks, generating insights into the nature of the policy process.  At the same time, much public policy scholarship is practical, offering actionable recommendations to policymakers in local, state, national, and even international policy arenas. 

Recognizing the value of more applied research, our team has introduced a rolling special issue under the PSJ banner called Policy Theory and Practice (PT&P). Similar to the PSJ Yearbook model, PT&P is curated by our editorial team and published regularly. Manuscripts submitted go through the same review process as regular PSJ submissions, and accepted articles are still published under the PSJ name. 

While the focal areas for PT&P articles can vary, we note some specific forms that advance our theoretical discussion of the policy process to the real-world applications we strive for, including:   

  1. Manuscripts that engage in policy analysis and evaluation; 
  1. Manuscripts that apply policy theories to previously understudied issues areas, geographic regions, etc.; and 
  1. Manuscripts that examine previously identified hypotheses, seek to replicate previous findings, or report null findings.  

Each of these brings us closer to understanding how our theoretical findings can be formulated into meaningful policy action. If you are interested in having your manuscript considered as either a traditional PSJ or PT&P article, please indicate as such in our Rex submission system by selecting “Yes” in the “Policy Theory and Practice Collection” field:

We look forward to reading your submissions! 

Detangling Manuscript Types: Short Articles Explained

As announced in October 2023, the Policy Studies Journal (PSJ) editorial team has expanded the range of manuscripts we consider for publication through the addition of two short-article formats, the research note and the perspectives piece.

Below we answer some frequently asked questions about how these manuscripts are processed and evaluated.

Question 1: Do short article forms go through a less stringent review process from traditional research articles?

All short articles submitted to PSJ – both research notes and perspectives pieces alike – receive the same level of peer review as traditional research articles. Submitting your manuscript as a short article does not mean you will lose the opportunity to get valuable feedback from multiple reviewers, nor does doing so give it a higher chance of acceptance. To ensure manuscript quality across the board, every submission undergoes the same peer review process. 

Question 2: If I submit my manuscript as one type, will it only be considered for publication in that form?

There’s no need to worry about designating your manuscript a certain way – PSJ editors are here to help. If our editors believe your submission might be better designated as a different manuscript type, we will reach out to you directly to discuss it. With this, there is no “right way” to designate your manuscript submission. 

Question 3: If I am asked to consider designating my manuscript as a short article, is this a request to downgrade it?

If our editors do reach out and ask you to consider submitting your traditional research article as a short article, this does not mean we believe your manuscript to be less impactful for policy process theory. Accepted short articles meet the same high standards for both theoretical depth and methodological sophistication, just using a narrower scope. 

With these new additions, our goal is to advance the theoretical literature surrounding the policy process with the understanding that novel methodological approaches, empirical replications, and theoretical arguments are central to that process. We look forward to taking this journey with you!  

Call for Papers: PSJ Special Issue on Power in Policy Theory Research

The Policy Studies Journal (PSJ) is inviting submissions for an upcoming special issue dedicated to the concept of power in policy theory research. Although the importance of power is widely acknowledged, its investigation within the realm of policy theory has been limited, with notable exceptions (e.g., Spitzer 1987, Cook 2010, Henry 2011, Ingold 2011, Öberg et al. 2014, Favre et al. 2019, Angst and Huber 2023). This special issue aims to deepen the examination of how power shapes, is distributed, and operates in policy processes of diverse contexts.

Building on Schattschneider’s classic notion of power as the ability to shape the scope of political discourse and determine the participants and their influence in the policy process, we invite contributions that critique, apply, or advance this and other conceptualizations of power in policy theory research in an explicit and robust manner. We seek theoretical, empirical, and methodological contributions that address, but are not limited to:

  • Advancements in the theoretical understanding of power within policy processes, drawing from one or more policy theory traditions.
  • Innovative methodological approaches to examine power within policy theory research.
  • The influence of power on policy processes and policy outcomes.
  • Case studies highlighting the distinctive role of power in the policymaking process, focused on a specific policy domain.
  • Comparative studies of power dynamics across different policy settings or national contexts.

**The deadline for submitting a manuscript for the Special Issue is September 15, 2024.**

Potential contributors to the Special Issue may participate in a “Peer Paper Exchange” through which authors can obtain informal feedback from peers who also plan to submit a paper for the Special Issue and opt to participate in the Exchange. Each paper will be reviewed by 1-2 peers who will provide informal written feedback. Participation in the Exchange is intended to support the development of papers but has no bearing on the peer review process that will be undertaken by PSJ once papers are submitted to the Journal; that review process is formal and entirely independent of the “Peer Paper Exchange.”

To participate in the “Peer Paper Exchange,” please submit a one-page abstract that explains your research question, the contribution of your paper to policy scholarship, and the data and methodological approaches you plan to use to answer your research question, along with the paper title and author information. This is due by May 10th. Notifications of acceptance to participate in the “Peer Paper Exchange” will be made by June 1st. Authors participating in the Exchange must share their draft papers with fellow Exchange participants by August 1st. Comments from the Exchange peer review will be returned to authors by August 21st. 

To apply for the “Peer Paper Exchange,” please visit: https://uark.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_72222LaZlO46NgO

If you have any questions about the submission process or the “Peer Paper Exchange,” please contact Drs. Geoboo Song (PSJ Editor-in-Chief), Gwen Arnold (PSJ Associate Editor), or Aaron Smith-Walter (PSJ Associate Editor) at policystudiesjournal@gmail.com