Abstract
Abstract“Tempest in a teapot” is an idiom that refers to a problem that has been blown out of proportion, which is how we see the supposedly divisive relationship between two research traditions: mainstream policy process studies and interpretive policy studies. In this commentary, we explore both research traditions, comparing and contrasting their views of public policy and policy processes, uses of theories, and approaches to research. Our aim is not to unite them or reject points of debate. Instead, we offer strategies for more productive collaborations, including side-by-side research, integrative research, engagement in constructive discussions of research techniques, and applied research.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Public Administration,General Social Sciences,Sociology and Political Science,Development
Reference47 articles.
1. Bacchi, C. (2005). Discourse, discourse everywhere: Subject “agency” in feminist discourse methodology. NORA: Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 13(3), 198–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/08038740600600407.
2. Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be?. Frenchs Forest: Australia Pearson.
3. Barbehön, M. (2020). Reclaiming constructivism: Towards an interpretive reading of the ‘social construction framework’. Policy Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-020-09370-7.
4. Bardach, E., & Patashnik, E. M. (2019). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving. Thousand Oaks: CQ Press.
5. Boswell, J., & Corbett, J. (2015). Embracing impressionism: Revealing the brush strokes of interpretive research. Critical Policy Studies, 9(2), 216–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2014.971039.
Cited by
30 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献