LIST OF PANELS

The objective of this panel is to assess the state of theoretical, empirical, and methodological scholarship on the role of knowledge (including evidence, facts, and science) and non-knowledge (including values, norms, and emotions) in theories of the policy process. While these concepts have longstanding scholarly relevance, our interest is motivated first by its particular timeliness in face of political developments and scholarly debate on ‘post-truth politics,’ but also evidence-based policymaking. Second, we are interested in exploring these notions in the context of related efforts that aim to incorporate realistic notions of rational and irrational choice in policy process studies (e.g. Cairney & Weible 2017; Jones 2017). Finally, this panel is motivated by the emergence of a vibrant research community aimed at refining theories of the policy process, often with a focus on developing testable hypotheses and more rigorous concept definitions (e.g. Herweg, Zahariadis, & Zohlnhöfer, 2018’s review of the Multiple Streams Framework). However, several critical concepts have received comparatively little attention so far, and in particular, the role of knowledge and non-knowledge in theories of the policy process is rarely put centre stage.

Recent studies on argumentative coupling (Blum, 2018), narrative uses of evidence (Schlaufer, 2018), problem brokers (Knaggård, 2015), and others suggest a parallel effort is underway aimed at developing these abstract concepts. This work employs research approaches that embrace the messiness and ambiguity of real-world policy processes, ranging from more positivist to more interpretive approaches. Importantly, these efforts are not mere compliments to approaches aimed at identifying regularities and predicting real-world outcomes, but are essential for rigorous comparative public policy research. With this panel, we seek to bring together recent scholarship interested in conceptual advancement related to ‘knowledge’ and ‘non-knowledge,’ broadly defined, in different theories of the policy process, including established theories like Multiple Streams Framework, Advocacy Coalition Framework, Narrative Policy Framework, Punctuated Equilibrium Theory, and others, or newer alternatives such as Programmatic Actor Framework.

This panel aims to assess the state of theoretical, empirical, and methodological scholarship on the role of ‘knowledge’ (including evidence, facts, and science) and ‘non-knowledge’ (including values, norms, and emotions) in theories of the policy process. Despite longstanding scholarly relevance, these concepts are rarely put centre stage in policy-process research or in the on-going efforts to refine policy-process theories. However, recent studies (e.g. Blum, 2018; Schlaufer, 2018; Knaggård, 2015) suggest a parallel effort is underway aimed at developing these abstract concepts. This work employs approaches (ranging from more positivist to more interpretive) that embrace the messiness and ambiguity of policymaking.

This panel brings together recent scholarship interested in conceptual advancement related to ‘knowledge’ and ‘non-knowledge’ in different policy-process theories, including Multiple Streams Framework, Advocacy Coalition Framework, Punctuated Equilibrium Theory, Narrative Policy Framework, and others. Submissions may explore questions including, but not limited to:

1) How does knowledge influence agenda setting and policymaking? There is a large literature on evidence and knowledge utilization, but a large part of it does not use insights from policy research. Vice versa, which insights can be drawn for policy-process theories from other fields dealing with knowledge use?

2) What is the role of non-knowledge in policy processes? Here we are interested in understanding situations where policy actors disregard or subvert knowledge, and/or where non-knowledge influences agenda setting and policymaking.

3) How do different forms of knowledge and non-knowledge interact to direct attention to certain issues on the political agenda and away from others? Relatedly, how do ‘knowledge’ and ‘non-knowledge’ interact with renewed notions of rational and irrational choice?

The panel is open to papers that use policy process theories and make theoretical, methodological, or empirical contributions. Studies using empirical cases to develop theoretical arguments are particularly encouraged.