Tag: policy process

The Dark Side of Policy Learning: When Learning Leads to Value Destruction

by Bishoy L. Zaki

Understanding why policy actors do what they do and how their actions influence the public have always been fundamental questions in not only public policy but also public administration and governance scholarship. To address these questions, scholars rely on various approaches. Those approaches for example include viewing policymaking and governance to be outcomes of belief updates, power struggles, crisis induced shocks, political opportunity structures, and/or the rules and traditions by which public institutions operate, among others. These different approaches provide important insights into the world of policymaking and governance, albeit of course, within certain contexts and under particular conditions.

Among these different approaches, policy learning stands out as one of the most omnipresent and fundamental. Simply put, in this approach, we analyze, dissect, and even predict why policy actors do what they do by tracing how, when, and why they learn about policy and governance problems. The potency of the policy learning lens owes to several reasons, chief of which is that it allows us to peek into the kernel of policy actors’ behavior. This is rooted in the “Homo discentis” view of the individual, which sees people as “learning beings” who are constantly collecting information and knowledge within the context of rapidly changing environments. So, in a policy learning process, individual and collective policy actors pursue and process information and knowledge about emerging problems, in an attempt to develop understandings of potential viable solutions. This is while reconciling this information and knowledge with existing cognitive and institutional structures, and biases within various contexts. This renders policy learning – at heart – a problem solving activity. Hence,  the idea of learning is normatively appealing, where all policy actors like to proclaim that their decisions are based on learning the ‘right lessons.’

Accordingly, policy learning is often hailed as a tool for helping policymakers make better policy decisions, ultimately creating value for the general public. But is this always the case? For years, existing research has done an outstanding job using a policy learning lens to analyze why and how policies change or do not change, and how it contributes to improvements in policy making and governance. However, scholarship only occasionally alludes to the unintended negative consequences of learning gone wrong. I therefore ask, is the story of learning always one of success, improvement, and glory?

My recent article explores the often-overlooked dark side of policy learning, demonstrating how learning failures can systematically lead to value destruction rather than value creation. Despite its normative appeal and origins, this article highlights that learning is not inherently positive. In fact, when misdirected, learning can also contribute to the erosion democratic values, weaken trust in institutions, and distort policy outcomes. To illustrate this, I conceptualized two main categories of learning failures that contribute to value destruction:

  1. Misdirected Learning Design Failures (non-intentional and cybernetic): These occur when policymakers genuinely attempt to solve problems but make errors in designing and undertaking the learning process. This is often facilitated by factors such as ambiguity and uncertainty underlying policy problems, or the influence of crisis shocks. 
  2. Normative Failures (intentional and deontological): These happen when policymakers intentionally manipulate learning processes for political or self-serving goals, such as justifying unpopular policies, limiting public participation, or consolidating power.

In building a conceptual framework that links policy learning to value destruction, I demonstrate how these failures negatively impact both public values (i.e., norms and principles guiding policymaking and governance) (e.g., democratic participation, accountability, transparency) and public value (i.e., added value that citizens experience and receive through public products and services) (e.g., the effectiveness, and efficiency of public offerings).

Figure 1. From policy learning governance to value destruction.

First, let’s begin by looking at Misdirected Learning Design Failures. When policymakers must address complex and/or rapidly changing issues, they may rely on poorly designed learning processes–which could eventually cause the misidentification of solutions or the development of ineffective, or even harmful, policies. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the constraints of uncertainty and urgency often caused governments to undertake non-optimal learning, for example by mis-defining the policy problem at hand, excluding key stakeholders to be involved in the learning process, or misidentifying the optimal experts to learn from. These poor learning choices ultimately contributed to the loss of lives and livelihoods around the world. 

Second, in Normative failures, we see for example when policy actors attempt to deliberately limit learning to a particular group of actors that are known to legitimize predetermined political agendas, or engage in political learning to sidestep democratic decision-making norms, or exclude certain demographics from government services. These failures tend to take place when malintended policy actors strategically leverage ambiguity, complexity, and urgency to steer learning towards self-serving outcomes. 

My article ultimately challenges the assumption that learning always leads to better policies. By exposing the risks of learning failures, and theorizing failure types, it highlights the potential pitfalls of learning within the policymaking process and calls for stronger safeguards to prevent them. This is rooted in the idea that policy learning itself is a deliberately designed and governed process, where policy actors engineer how learning occurs, thus influencing its outcomes.

This serves as a crucial reminder that learning is inherently positive, and that without careful deliberate design and accountability, policy learning can just as easily contribute to value destruction as it can to value creation. To build on these theoretical developments, future research is encouraged to explore how different forms of governance (e.g., democratic vs. authoritarian) shape policy learning failures. It can also consider the increasing role of polycentricity and decentralization, and how learning therein contributes to value destruction at the subnational, national, and transnational levels.

Read the original article in Policy Studies Journal:

Zaki, Bishoy L. 2024. “ Hello Darkness My Old Friend: How Policy Learning Can Contribute to Value Destruction.” Policy Studies Journal 52(4): 907–924. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12566.

About the Author

Bishoy Louis Zaki is a professor of public policy and Administration at the department of Public Governance and Management at Ghent University, Belgium. His research and teaching focus on policy process theory with a focus on policy learning, and public management. He has several publications in leading international public administration and public policy journals including Public Administration Review, Policy & Society, Public Policy and Administration, the Journal of European Public Policy, Policy & Politics, Policy Design and Practice among others. He is also an editor at International Review of Public Policy journal, and a co-chair of the permanent study group on policy design and evaluation at the European Group for Public Administration (EGPA). Bishoy has over 14 years of experience in consulting, strategy, and policy where he served in different roles with several governments and international organizations worldwide. As a practitioner, Bishoy has overseen the design, implementation, and monitoring of large-scale international strategic capacity development, planning, and knowledge transfer initiatives.

, ,

How does a focusing event shape public opinion? Natural experimental evidence from the Orlando mass shooting

by Youlang Zhang & Xinsheng Liu

Scholars of the policy process posit that focusing events often shift public attention, policy preferences, and reshape the policy agenda. The scholarship, however, has failed to fully explain how focusing events influence public opinion. Our paper aims to remedy this by analyzing the impact of one of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history—the 2016 Orlando nightclub attack—on public attention and attitudes toward terrorism, national security, and specific policies.

Policy process theories often assume that “focusing events” (i.e., sudden, dramatic, widely publicized incidents) can jolt public attention and lead to changes in policy preferences. Yet, empirical studies have produced mixed results. We argue that the literature falls short for two major reasons: (1) prior research neglects to properly consider the different components of the public’s reaction to focusing events and uses inconsistent dependent variables; (2) the research often relies on data collected over time without carefully considering confounders.

Figure 1. An analytic framework for public responses to a focusing event.

To address this, we propose a new framework that aims to distinguish between changes in attention to the generic policy issue (e.g., terrorism broadly), attention to sub-issues (e.g., airplane safety), support for a general policy action (e.g., antiterrorism investment), and support for specific policy actions (e.g., gun control). Using this framework, we assert the following hypotheses:

  • H1: The Orlando mass shooting increases overall attention to the generic terrorism and security issue (i.e., “splash effect).
  • H2: The less relevant a specific terrorism issue is, the smaller the positive impact of the Orlando mass shooting on public attention to it (i.e., “limited ripple effect”).
  • H3: The less relevant a specific terrorism issue is, the smaller the positive impact of the Orlando mass shooting on public support for increased government investment in preventing terrorism decreases (i.e., “limited ripple effect”).
  • H4: The Orlando mass shooting has a negligible impact on public support for specific preventive government actions (e.g., gun control or immigration restrictions) (i.e., “deep water null effect”).

To test these predictions, we used a natural experimental design. A public opinion survey funded by Texas A&M University was fortuitously being conducted when the Orlando attack occurred on June 12, 2016. This allowed us to compare responses from 416 participants surveyed before the attack with 284 surveyed after. Our analysis provided support for all four of our hypotheses, providing empirical evidence of the “splash effect,” “limited ripple effect,” and “deep-water null effect.” Put plainly, this focusing event increased attention to the general issue of terrorism and heightened support for a general policy action (i.e., increased government counterterrorism spending), but it did not alter concerns for other terror-related acts that were less relevant to the Orlando shooting.

 Figure 2. The effect of the Orlando mass shooting on respondents’ concerns about specific terrorism issues.

Our study reveals that while focusing events can heighten public concern and support for broad policy responses, they rarely shift entrenched views on controversial solutions. This “deep water null effect” has major implications: even horrific events may not translate into support for specific reforms, especially in a polarized political climate.

Read the original article in Policy Studies Journal:

Zhang, Youlang and Xinsheng Liu. 2025. “ How Does a Focusing Event Shape Public Opinion? Natural Experimental Evidence From the Orlando Mass Shooting.” Policy Studies Journal 53(2): 463-479. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12543.

About the Authors

Youlang Zhang is a Professor in the School of Public Administration and Policy and a Research Scientist at the Capital Development and Governance Institute, Renmin University of China. He is also a Research Fellow with the Institute for Science, Technology and Public Policy, the Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University. His research interests include policy process, citizen-state interaction, and government management. 

Xinsheng Liu is a Senior Research Scholar and Research Scientist of the Institute for Science, Technology and Public Policy, Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University. His research interests include public policy process, policy agenda, public opinion and participation, and comparative public management and governance.

, ,

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

by Anna Kopec

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 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

by Alison Craig & Annelise Russell

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 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.

, , , ,

The Triangle of Bureaucratic Policy Analysis and the Professional Types of High-Level Civil Servants: Empirical Evidence from Southern Europe

by Giliberto Capano, Alice Cavalieri, & Andrea Pritoni

Public policy and public administration research has focused on conceptualizing bureaucrats as pivotal actors in the policymaking process. This has allowed scholars to investigate the capacities and skills of bureaucrats as policymakers and how advice and knowledge inform their behavior. Nevertheless, the literature has proceeded in a fragmented way and without a sophisticated analytical framework that would allow for comparative research. Our recent study aims to address this by proposing a new framework for understanding how high-level civil servants—those at the top of national public administrations—engage in policymaking through the lens of policy analysis.

This study asks a central question: How can we better conceptualize the professional role of senior civil servants in the policy process? To answer this, we developed the “triangle of bureaucratic policy analysis,” which connects three core dimensions of bureaucratic work:

  • Policy Work: What bureaucrats do on a daily basis (e.g., advising, managing, steering).
  • Policy Analytical Capacity: What analytical skills and techniques they use (e.g., economic, legal, statistical).
  • Sources of Information: Where they get their information (e.g., laws, government reports, statistical data).

Figure 1. Triangle of bureaucratic policy analysis.

We applied this framework to a unique dataset: a large survey of 1,014 senior civil servants in the central governments of Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain. These countries share a “Napoleonic” administrative tradition and do not typically employ specialized policy analysts, making them ideal cases for examining how policy analysis functions without formal structures.

We used factor analysis to identify patterns in how civil servants combine work, skills, and information. Then, we used principal component analysis (PCA) to cluster these patterns into three main professional “types” of high-level bureaucrats:

  1. Political Generalist: A flexible coordinator and boundary-spanner. These bureaucrats steer ministry activities, interact with politicians and stakeholders, and rely on a broad mix of information sources. They possess “eclectic” analytical capacities—skills gained through both training and professional experience—and play a central role in aligning government priorities across sectors.
  2. Legal Advisor: True to Southern Europe’s legalistic traditions, these civil servants focus on advising political leaders using legal and regulatory tools. Their policy work revolves around assessing legal feasibility, and they rely heavily on juridical sources of information. Their analytical expertise is narrowly focused on legal techniques.
  3. Manager: A newer type, these officials emphasize implementation and results. They are more empirically oriented, favoring evidence-based data and economic analysis. Their policy work includes program management and performance monitoring, reflecting the influence of New Public Management reforms.

Each of these types reflects a different way that bureaucrats contribute to policymaking—one political and strategic, one legalistic, and one managerial.

Image Description

Figure 2. (a) Empirical types of high-level civil servants in Southern Europe: Type 1 (political generalist). (b) Empirical types of high-level civil servants in Southern Europe: Type 2 (legal advisor). (c) Empirical types of high-level civil servants in Southern Europe: Type 3 (manager).

This study contributes to a growing recognition that senior civil servants are more than passive implementers—they are policy actors with distinct analytical profiles. Our “triangle” approach offers a new way to classify and understand how bureaucracies influence policymaking, moving beyond simplistic divides like “generalist vs. specialist” or “bureaucrat vs. politician.” Moreover, these insights are relevant for reform efforts, helping policymakers assess whether administrative roles and skills are well-matched—and whether bureaucrats are being utilized effectively across different policy challenges.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Capano, Giliberto, Alice Cavalieri and Andrea Pritoni. 2025. “The Triangle of Bureaucratic Policy Analysis and the Professional Types of High-level Civil Servants: Empirical Evidence From Southern Europe.” Policy Studies Journal 53(1): 69–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12577.

About the Authors

Giliberto Capano is a professor of Public Policy at the University of Bologna, Italy. He specializes in public administration, public policy analysis, and comparative higher education. His research focuses on governance dynamics and performance in higher education and education, policy design and policy change, policy instruments’ impact, the social role of political science, the policy impact of COVID-19, and leadership as an embedded function of policy making. His recent books are A modern Guide to Public Policy (coedited with M. Howlett, Edward Elgar, 2020); Convergence and Diversity in the Governance of Higher Education (coedited with D. Jarvis, Cambridge University Press, 2020); Trajectories of Governance How States Shaped Policy Sectors in the Neoliberal Age (coauthored with A. Zito, J. Rayner, and F. Toth, Palgrave, 2022); The Fate of Political Scientists in Europe (with Luca Verzichellli, Palgrave, 2023). 

Alice Cavalieri is a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Trieste (Italy), where she works on a project about the response of parliaments and governments to different crises. Her main research interests are public budgeting and women’s representation. Her first book, Italian Budgeting Policy (Palgrave Macmillan; 2023), has been awarded the “Pietro Grilli di Cortona” Biannual Prize for the best book published by a member of the Italian Political Science Association. She is a member of the Italian team of the Comparative Agendas Project and former country lead for Italy of the OxCGRT led by the Blavatnik School of Government (University of Oxford).

Andrea Pritoni is an associate professor of Political Science in the Department of Arts at the University of Bologna, where he teaches Electoral Campaigns in Italy and Institutional Relations and Advocacy. His main research interests relate to Italian politics, lobbying and interest group politics, as well as comparative public policy. He has recently published articles on South European Society & Politics (2024), International Review of Administrative Sciences (2024) and European Political Science (2024).

, , , ,

Unpacking Core Components of Interventions: A Comparison of Synthesis Approaches

by Sebastian Lemire & Allan Porowski

Evidence reviews have become a key tool for evidence-based policy, helping policymakers make informed decisions about which interventions to implement. Traditionally, these reviews have focused on the outcomes of entire interventions. However, the growing interest in the specific elements that drive intervention effect has over the past ten years led to a focus on core components—the key features that contribute to an intervention’s effectiveness. Core components refer to the essential features of an intervention—such as activities, services, or practices—that available evidence shows are effective in driving outcomes. Identifying these core components can help create more effective interventions by highlighting the features that contribute most to desired outcomes. Identifying with greater precision what works, in which contexts, and for which populations can help policymakers assess which existing policies and interventions are (or are not) likely to be effective and better understand why policies or interventions that share similar characteristics may achieve different results.

In our PSJ research note, we describe four evidence synthesis approaches—distillation and matching model, meta-regression, framework synthesis, and qualitative comparative analysis—to identify these core components. Each approach offers unique advantages depending on the available data and intervention context. Understanding the various approaches, along with their respective advantages and limitations, can help researchers select the most appropriate analysis method based on the purpose of their evidence review, the intended audience, and how the findings will be applied.

To further enhance the use of core components analysis, we call for advancements in improving reporting conventions, using multi-phased designs, and expanding applications of core component analysis. Providing more detailed reporting of the intervention characteristics, setting, participants, implementation, and costs in primary studies provides for a stronger foundation for core components analysis. To enhance core components analyses even further, a multi-phase approach can be used. In the first phase, researchers analyze evidence in a specific field, and in the second phase, they collaborate with practitioners to design field trials based on the findings to evaluate the effectiveness of core components Finally, applying core components analysis across a broader range of interventions, practices, and policies, with more diverse populations, and in a variety of settings can help policymakers understand how evidence-based interventions and policies should be designed to ensure that they promote positive outcomes in diverse contexts.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Lemire, Sebastian, Laura R. Peck, Allan Porowski and Allison Dymnicki. 2025. “ Unpacking Core Components For Policy Design: A Comparison of Synthesis Approaches.” Policy Studies Journal 53(1): 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12567.

About the Authors

Sebastian Lemire is a Senior Scientist at Abt Global. His research focuses on systematic evidence reviews, alternative approaches to impact evaluation, and evaluation capacity building. He currently serves on the executive board of the American Evaluation Association and on the editorial advisory boards of Evaluation and the American Journal of Evaluation.

Allan Porowski is a Principal Associate at Abt Global. He is a leading expert in the design, execution and analysis of randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies and national cross-site evaluations of education, health, and other social interventions.


, , , , ,

Rapid Response and Uncertain Agendas: Senators’ Response to Dobbs

by Corinne Connor & Annelise Russell

How do elected officials signal what matters to them when agenda-setting isn’t just about picking issues, but also deciding how to respond? In our recent paper, we dig into this question by looking at how U.S. senators reacted to the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision and the earlier draft opinion leak.

Twitter (or X, if you must) remains a go-to platform for today’s legislators—a direct line to advocates, the media, and political elites. Unlike traditional media, it lets lawmakers respond instantly and unfiltered, making it the perfect stage for showing where they stand. We explored how senators used Twitter during two moments: the shock of the draft opinion leak and the expected court ruling. By examining their “rhetorical agendas”— the issues they highlight and how they frame them online — we uncovered insights into how they communicate their priorities in real time

We tested the following hypotheses:

Time Hypothesis (a): More ideologically extreme senators will be more likely to react more quickly to theleaked court opinion on Twitter.

Time Hypothesis (b): Democratic senators will be more likely to react more quickly to the leaked court opinion on Twitter.

Frame Hypothesis (a): The most ideologically extreme senators will be more likely to frame the Dobbs leak and decision in terms of pro-life or pro-choice alternatives.

Frame Hypothesis (b): Senators with greater electoral security will be more likely to adopt pro-choice or pro-life responses to the leak and/or decision.

Image Description

Using 5,163 tweets from senators’ official Twitter accounts from the week surrounding both events, our analysis revealed clear distinctions in senators’ reactions. We found strong support for the Time Hypotheses regarding the leak. Ideologically extreme members were quicker to respond to the Dobbs leak compared to their more moderate peers. Democrats, as anticipated, were generally more prompt in addressing the leak, reflecting their platform’s commitment to reproductive rights. Interestingly, response timing for the court’s final decision did not follow the same pattern, suggesting that anticipation allowed for more calculated, uniform engagement across ideological lines.

Image Description

The results of our analysis, on the other hand, did not support our Frame Hypotheses. We found that partisanship and extremity of partisanship were significant predictors of whether a senator would adopt a “pro-life” or “pro-choice” position relative to the other issue frames. However, electoral vulnerability and ideological extremity did not seem to be significant predictors of issue framing—with the exception that ideological extremity predicted pro-life/pro-choice frames).

Image Description

Our study aims to understand how lawmakers’ attention and agenda-setting behavior as a response to highly salient events. During the Dobbs leak, uncertainty prompted quicker, more polarized responses. Conversely, the anticipated ruling enabled senators to prepare and standardize their communications, highlighting the difference between reactive and proactive agenda setting. Rapid-response platforms—like Twitter—compel lawmakers to not only choose whether to engage but how quickly and with what narrative. 

This study opens avenues for exploring digital responses to other unexpected events, such as acts of political violence or security crises, and how they compare to anticipated policy announcements. Additionally, further research could investigate whether similar patterns hold in the U.S. House or within other political systems that also use social media for agenda setting. Understanding these dynamics could deepen our grasp of modern policymaking and communication strategies in a digital landscape.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Connor, Corinne and Annelise Russell. 2024. “ Rapid Response and Uncertain Agendas: Senators’ Response to Dobbs.” Policy Studies Journal 52(4): 751–775. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12553.

About the Authors

Corinne Connor is a program analyst with The Heinz Endowments.





Annelise Russell is an associate professor at the University of Kentucky.





, , ,

Not Just the Nation’s Hostess: First Ladies as Policy Actors

by Mary R. Anderson & Jonathan Lewallen

Popular culture likes to view the First Lady as a symbol of American womanhood, the nation’s hostess, fashion icon, and mom-in-chief. Yet, modern First Ladies often develop their own policy priorities and programs, and the Office of the First Lady is integral to modern presidential administrations. In this article we make the case for studying First Ladies as policy actors by examining the audiences to which First Ladies speak, the roles they adopt in doing so, including an explicit policy role, and the degree of substantive policy content in their public speeches and remarks. 

We use archived First Lady public speeches and remarks from 1993-2022 covering First Ladies Clinton, Laura Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden to illustrate that First Ladies actively adopt policy roles across their speeches and other appearances; speak to policy-focused audiences like policy summits, interest groups, and government personnel and often discuss substantive policy issues in these appearances.

First Ladies adopt roles beyond the ceremonial role established by Martha Washington. She also plays the roles of policy advocate and party supporter and leader.  We depart from other scholars in our view that these roles are not “either-or” but rather “both-and,” the First Lady can be both engaging in a ceremonial role AND a policy role. For example, when the First Lady gives a commencement speech, she is acting in a ceremonial role. She may also discuss policy in that speech, in which case she is acting in a policy role, thus she is assuming both roles simultaneously, ceremonial and policy. Our analysis of First Lady roles demonstrates that the combination of Policy + Ceremonial roles is the most common configuration in our data. While First Ladies adopt the Ceremonial role more often than the others, the Policy role is a large part of the First Lady’s activities, about 72% of the data involve a Policy role in some way. 

Image Description

We argue that First Ladies are significant policy actors and that they discuss policy when they are addressing various audiences. Our data supports this characterization because we see First Ladies often addressing policy relevant audiences in their activities. Our analysis shows that First Ladies talk to three “clusters” of groups.  Excluding the broad “other” category, First Ladies have spoken most often to national interest groups (14.4%) and at policy events (14%).

Image Description

Figure 1: Percentage of First Lady Speeches and Remarks Delivered to Different Audiences

Finally, we find that First Ladies address substantive policy content frequently. We find that First Ladies address substantive policy content in about 63% of their speeches; when we dive more deeply into those observations where the First Lady adopted a Policy role, they addressed substantive policy issues about 90% of the time.  The presence of substantive policy content varies across First Ladies’ audiences as shown in the figure below.  First Ladies since 1993 mentioned some substantive policy issue in about 91% of their remarks to party supporters and 90% to policy events. 

Image Description

Figure 2: Speeches and Remarks with Substantive Policy Mentions by Audience

In this article, we challenge the traditional view of the First Lady as a largely ceremonial public figure and behind-the-scenes presidential advisor. Using her public speeches and remarks over a 30-year period we find that First Ladies consistently discuss policy issues across their different audiences and adopt the Policy role in more than three-quarters of their speeches in statements. Over time the role of the First Lady has evolved, their unique position permits them to play a role in policy that might not be obvious at first glance. They are particularly well-situated and well-resourced to engage in the policy process as executive branch actors and thus should be studied more often for their engagement in policymaking. 

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Anderson, Mary and Jonathan Lewallen. 2024. “ Not Just the Nation’s Hostess: First Ladies As Policy Actors.” Policy Studies Journal 00(0): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12558.

About the Authors

Mary Anderson is the brodsky chair for Constitutional Democracy and Culture and professor of Political Science at Salve Regina University in Newport, RI. She studies women and politics and civic participation.



Jonathan Lewallen is an associate professor of political science at the University of Tampa. His research focuses on agenda setting and the policy process and how issues and institutions evolve together over time. Dr. Lewallen’s book Committees and the Decline of Lawmaking in Congress was published in 2020 by the University of Michigan Press.

, ,

The Dynamics of Issue Attention in Policy Process Scholarship

by E. J. Fagan, Alexander Furnas, Chris Koski, Herschel Thomas, Samuel Workman, & Corinne Connor

The Policy Studies Journal (PSJ) is the premier destination for scholars who apply and advance theories of the public policy process. As such, the work published in the journal reflects important trends and priorities in the policy community. In our article, we examine the agenda of PSJ over the last three decades in an effort to understand the evolving focus of the discipline and contribute to the emerging “Science of Science” literature. To do this, we analyze over 1,300 abstracts from PSJ articles, using the Comparative Agendas Project (CAP) codebook to systematically categorize the policy topics covered.

One of the key insights from our analysis is the broad range of policy topics covered in PSJ. With the exception of a major focus on environmental policy, attention is roughly divided among a variety of different topics. While the substantive range of the scholarship in PSJ is encouraging, we do identify a recent decline in topic diversity and a lack of attention on areas like foreign policy.

Figure 1. Subfigure (a) shows the distribution of paper across policy topics from our coding of abstract text. Subfigure (b) shows the normalized Shannon’s H of the topic codings for papers published in PSJ over time. We exclude the “No Substantive Topic” category from the calculation of Shannon’s H so the measure reflects the diversity of PSJ papers across substantive policy topics. The years 1986–1990 are excluded from this plot because there are no coded papers due to the lack of available abstracts in OpenAlex.

We also examine the theoretical frameworks that have shaped policy process research within the PSJ. Notably, Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET) emerged as a dominant framework, appearing more frequently in the journal than other influential theories like the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework. We attribute PET’s extensive presence in the journal to the theory’s broad applicability across various policy domains. Additionally, we find that theories of the policy process tend to specialize in specific areas, such as ACF’s focus on environmental and energy policy.

In terms of the policy stages addressed in PSJ articles, our findings indicate a strong emphasis on the implementation and evaluation stages of the policy cycle. This is particularly interesting given that one might expect PET’s focus on agenda-setting and lawmaking to lead to greater attention to these stages. Instead, the journal’s content has increasingly shifted from stage-based analysis to a more theory-driven approach.

Figure 2. Subfigure (a) shows the distribution of PSJ papers across policy theories identified using keywords in the abstract. Subfigure (b) shows the stage of the policymaking cycle papers addressed and identified using keywords in the abstract.

Another important aspect of our study is the impact of PSJ articles on both academic research and policy-making. We find that articles addressing general policy processes or theoretical questions tend to receive more academic citations, while those focused on specific policy areas, such as education, are more likely to be cited in policy documents. This distinction highlights the dual role that the journal plays in both advancing theoretical understanding and informing practical policy decisions.

Figure 3. Subfigure (a) plots the share of PSJ papers within each topic compared to the share of CRS reports on each policy topic for 1997–2019. Subfigure (b) plots the share of PSJ papers received by papers within each topic compared to the share of think tank reports from four prominent think tanks on each policy topic for 2007–2017.

Finally, we compare the journal’s focus with the priorities of other policy experts, including those from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and various think tanks. Our analysis reveals significant discrepancies in the attention given to certain issues. For instance, while PSJ articles emphasize environmental policy, CRS reports are more likely to focus on defense and government operations. This divergence suggests that policy process scholars sometimes prioritize different issues than those that dominate the agendas of policymakers and other experts.

Through this study, we aim to shed light on the dynamics of issue attention within the field of policy process scholarship. By doing so, we hope to contribute to a deeper understanding of how scholarly priorities evolve and how they align—or sometimes fail to align—with the broader needs of society.

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Fagan, E. J., Alexander Furnas, Chris Koski, Herschel Thomas, Samuel Workman and Corinne Connor. 2024. “ The Dynamics of Issue Attention in Policy Process Scholarship.” Policy Studies Journal 52 (3): 481–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12548.

About the Authors

E.J. Fagan is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Illinois Chicago. He studies agenda setting, think tanks, political parties and policymaking in the U.S. Congress.



Alexander C. Furnas Ph.D. (Zander) is a Research Assistant Professor at the Center for Science of Science and Innovation at the Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, and Faculty Associate at the Institute for Policy Research and the Ryan Center on Complexity. He has a PhD in political science from the University of Michigan. He researches the political economy of information, with a focus on the production, dissemination and uptake of science and expertise in the policymaking process. His work has been published in American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, Policy Studies Journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Legislative Studies Quarterly, among others.

Chris Koski joined the Reed College faculty in Fall 2011 after four years as an assistant professor at James Madison University (2007–2011). His research interests include many aspects of the policy process, with a particular focus on agenda-setting, policy design, and implementation. Theoretically, much of his work is situated in punctuated equilibrium theory (PET) and the social construction framework (SCF). Substantively, the bulk of Chris’ research is focused on environmental policy, most recently the politics of climate change – mitigation, adaptation, and geoengineering. He has also published work on homeland security policy and the politics of state budgeting.

Herschel F. Thomas is an Associate Professor of Public Affairs in the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. He is a faculty fellow of the RGK Center for Philanthropy and Community Service and faculty affiliate of the Policy Agendas Project. His research examines US national institutions and policy processes, with an emphasis on the role of civil society in shaping public policy decision-making and outcomes. His work focuses on interest group politics, public health, and agenda-setting, and is published in journals such as the American Journal of Public Health, Policy Studies Journal, Public Administration, Political Research Quarterly, and Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, among others. He is co-author with Timothy LaPira of Revolving Door Lobbying.

Samuel Workman is Professor of political science and Director of the Institute for Policy Research and Public Affairs at West Virginia University. His area of expertise is constructing large data infrastructures to answer fundamental questions about public policy across time and space. His previous work has addressed public policy, regulation, and how governments generate and use information. His work emphasizes text-as-data, machine learning, and statistical modeling, especially classification. His work appears in the top public policy and public administration journals, including Policy Studies Journal, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, and Policy and Politics. He is the author of The Dynamics of Bureaucracy (Cambridge, 2015), Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: A Policy Theory of Politics (Cambridge, Forthcoming), and Co-Editor of Methods of the Policy Process (Routledge, 2022).

Corinne Connor is a Program Analyst for The Heinz Endowments in Pittsburgh, PA. She is a former affiliate of the Institute for Policy Research and Public Affairs at West Virginia University and received her MA in Political Science from WVU in May 2023.


, , , , ,

Manifesting Symbolic Representation through Collaborative Policymaking

by Jack Mewhirter, Danielle McLaughlin, & Brian Calfano

Representation is crucial to any collaborative governance arrangement. The makeup of those who participate in collaborative forums impacts not just who “wins” and “loses” in the policymaking process, but also how the public perceives participating organizations. Generally speaking, if citizens feel that their interests and incentives are being represented by those participating in a collaboration, they will hold more positive beliefs toward those organizations involved, a phenomenon referred to as “symbolic representation.” Conversely, a perceived lack of representation can potentially engender distrust and negative perceptions toward participating organizations.

The inclusion of civil society organizations in collaborative policymaking is crucial to making citizens feel represented in collaborative forums. Compared to, for example, business and government stakeholders, civil society organizations tend to be more embedded in local communities and thus more responsive to their wants and needs. Thus, we argue that collaborative policymaking forums that feature high participation from civil society organizations should produce a symbolic effect toward participating organizations for citizens aware of this representation.

We test this hypothesis in the context of the Collaborative Settlement Agreement (or CA) governing policing in Cincinnati, Ohio. Established following the controversial killing of a Black teenager in 2001, the CA created a collaborative forum that brought together the Cincinnati Police Department and civil society organizations to address concerns around policing. The CA is a good case study for our hypothesis because civil society organizations have been well-represented and very active within the forum, using it to bring about numerous reforms to department practices.

To capture respondents most representative of Cincinnati’s urban core, we conducted surveys at several community events in the city of Cincinnati between June and September 2017. We asked respondents about their familiarity with the CA and their subsequent feelings toward the Cincinnati Police Department, anticipating that the two will be positively related (i.e., those who are more knowledgeable about the CA will feel more warmly towards the police). We also asked a number of demographic and personal history questions (e.g., regarding race, age, income, any interactions with police, etc.) to see how such variables might correlate with respondents’ knowledge and attitudes. 

And indeed, we found a strong positive relationship between knowledge about the CA and attitudes towards the police. In our survey we also asked respondents to indicate whether they thought that Cincinnati police officers “looked like” them – otherwise referred to as “passive representation” – and found that those who agreed also felt more positively about the police. Other variables that showed positive correlations included age, employment, and income. 

Our study demonstrates the important role that representation in collaborative policymaking forums can play in how people feel about those who participate in it. The case of the Collaborative Agreement in Cincinnati particularly illustrates how the inclusion of civil society organizations can contribute to feelings of symbolic representation, an important finding in the context of police-community relationships. Our findings point to the need to involve groups with close community ties in collaborative policymaking endeavors, as this will go a long way to securing buy-in and coproduction from the broader population. Our findings also reinforce that passive representation – having participants in forums who “look like you” – can bolster symbolic representation. While the CA is a powerful example of inclusion and representation done well, further studies need to be done to see whether collaborative forums that don’t feature robust involvement from civil society organizations are indeed looked upon less favorably. Furthermore, our study took for granted that citizens feel represented by civil society organizations, but this assumption requires empirical testing as well. 

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Mewhirter, Jack, Danielle McLaughlin, and Brian Calfano. 2024. “Manifesting Symbolic Representation Through Collaborative Policymaking.” Policy Studies Journal, 52(2): 283–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12525.

About the Authors

Jack Mewhirter is an Associate Professor in the Baker School of Public Policy and Public Affairs at the University of Tennessee. His research assesses the origins, implementation, and impacts of public policies meant to address complex social problems. This work is done in various contexts, including environmental, health and policing policy. 

Danielle M. McLaughlin is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at Kent State University. Her research focuses on the impact of institutions in solving collective action problems, mainly in the context of environmental policy issues.

Brian Calfano is a Professor at the University of Cincinnati. His research focuses on media and politics, religion and politics, and community engagement with local government. 

, , , , ,