LIST OF PANELS

Policy process research provides different theoretical perspectives on the link between individual or collective policy actors and policy output. Thereby, the existing frameworks base on divergent assumptions, ranging from psychological roots of belief systems (Jenkins-Smith et al. 2017), ambiguity and time constraints (Herweg, Zahariadis, and Zohlnhöfer 2017), and social identities (Hornung, Bandelow, and Vogeler 2019) to theoretical propositions of how policy actors’ preferences and motivation impact collective action and coalition formation and of the specific link between actors and policy-making. In doing so, each framework presents a unique view on actors and their role in policy processes.
 
The proposed panel seeks to refine and elaborate on these actor-centered foundations, with the aim of theoretically and empirically advancing insights into the preferences, motivations, and perceptions of individual and collective actors in policy processes. What are the drivers of their preferences and motivations? How do these influence their behavior? Which challenges and opportunities do group dynamics and cognitive constraints provide for changing policies? In what way are processes on the individual and group level of actor constellations linked to policy processes and policy change? Answers to such questions can be given with reference to individual actors as policy entrepreneurs (Petridou and Mintrom 2020), boundary spanners (Brandenberger et al. 2020), or members of policy networks subject to policy learning (Howlett, Mukherjee, and Koppenjan 2017; Heikkila, Weible, and Gerlak 2020). They can likewise focus on collective actors, such as advocacy coalitions (Weible et al. 2019) or programmatic groups (Hassenteufel and Genieys 2020; Bandelow, Hornung, and Smyrl 2020). Both theoretical and empirical contributions with an explicit actor focus are welcome.
 
Bandelow, N.C., Hornung, J., and Smyrl, M. (2020) Theoretical Foundations of the Programmatic Action Framework (PAF). European Policy Analysis.
Brandenberger, L., Ingold, K., Fischer, M., Schläpfer, I., and Leifeld, P. (2020) Boundary Spanning Through Engagement of Policy Actors in Multiple Issues. Policy Studies Journal.
Hassenteufel, P. and Genieys, W. (2020) The Programmatic Action Framework: An Empirical Assessment.European Policy Analysis.
Heikkila, T., Weible, C., and Gerlak, A.K. (2020) When Does Science Persuade (or Not Persuade) in High Conflict Policy Contexts?. Public Administration.
Herweg, N., Zahariadis, N., and Zohlnhöfer, R. (2017) The Multiple Streams Framework: Foundations, Refinements, and Empirical Applications, in C.M. Weible and P.A. Sabatier (eds.), Theories of the Policy Process.
Hornung, J., Bandelow, N.C., and Vogeler, C.S. (2019) 'Social Identities in the Policy Process'. Policy Sciences.
Howlett, M., Mukherjee, I., and Koppenjan, J. (2017) Policy Learning and Policy Networks in Theory and Practice: the Role of Policy Brokers in the Indonesian Biodiesel Policy Network. Policy and Society.
Jenkins-Smith, H.C., Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C.M., and Ingold, K. (2017) The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Overview of the Research Program, in C.M. Weible and P.A. Sabatier (eds.), Theories of the Policy Process.
Petridou, E. and Mintrom, M. (2020) A Research Agenda for the Study of Policy Entrepreneurs. Policy Studies Journal.
Weible, C.M., Ingold, K., Nohrstedt, D., Henry, A.D., and Jenkins-Smith, H.C. (2019) Sharpening Advocacy Coalitions. Policy Studies Journal.

Policy process research provides different theoretical perspectives on the link between individual or collective policy actors and policy output. Thereby, the existing frameworks base on divergent assumptions, ranging from psychological roots of belief systems (Jenkins-Smith et al. 2017), ambiguity and time constraints (Herweg, Zahariadis, and Zohlnhöfer 2017), and social identities (Hornung, Bandelow, and Vogeler 2019) to theoretical propositions of how policy actors’ preferences and motivation impact collective action and coalition formation and of the specific link between actors and policy-making. In doing so, each framework presents a unique view on actors and their role in policy processes.
 
The proposed panel seeks to refine and elaborate on these actor-centered foundations, with the aim of theoretically and empirically advancing insights into the preferences, motivations, and perceptions of individual and collective actors in policy processes. What are the drivers of their preferences and motivations? How do these influence their behavior? Which challenges and opportunities do group dynamics and cognitive constraints provide for changing policies? In what way are processes on the individual and group level of actor constellations linked to policy processes and policy change? Answers to such questions can be given with reference to individual actors as policy entrepreneurs (Petridou and Mintrom 2020), boundary spanners (Brandenberger et al. 2020), or members of policy networks subject to policy learning (Howlett, Mukherjee, and Koppenjan 2017; Heikkila, Weible, and Gerlak 2020). They can likewise focus on collective actors, such as advocacy coalitions (Weible et al. 2019) or programmatic groups (Hassenteufel and Genieys 2020; Bandelow, Hornung, and Smyrl 2020). Both theoretical and empirical contributions with an explicit actor focus are welcome.
 
Bandelow, N.C., Hornung, J., and Smyrl, M. (2020) Theoretical Foundations of the Programmatic Action Framework (PAF). European Policy Analysis.
Brandenberger, L., Ingold, K., Fischer, M., Schläpfer, I., and Leifeld, P. (2020) Boundary Spanning Through Engagement of Policy Actors in Multiple Issues. Policy Studies Journal.
Hassenteufel, P. and Genieys, W. (2020) The Programmatic Action Framework: An Empirical Assessment.European Policy Analysis.
Heikkila, T., Weible, C., and Gerlak, A.K. (2020) When Does Science Persuade (or Not Persuade) in High Conflict Policy Contexts?. Public Administration.
Herweg, N., Zahariadis, N., and Zohlnhöfer, R. (2017) The Multiple Streams Framework: Foundations, Refinements, and Empirical Applications, in C.M. Weible and P.A. Sabatier (eds.), Theories of the Policy Process.
Hornung, J., Bandelow, N.C., and Vogeler, C.S. (2019) 'Social Identities in the Policy Process'. Policy Sciences.
Howlett, M., Mukherjee, I., and Koppenjan, J. (2017) Policy Learning and Policy Networks in Theory and Practice: the Role of Policy Brokers in the Indonesian Biodiesel Policy Network. Policy and Society.
Jenkins-Smith, H.C., Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C.M., and Ingold, K. (2017) The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Overview of the Research Program, in C.M. Weible and P.A. Sabatier (eds.), Theories of the Policy Process.
Petridou, E. and Mintrom, M. (2020) A Research Agenda for the Study of Policy Entrepreneurs. Policy Studies Journal.
Weible, C.M., Ingold, K., Nohrstedt, D., Henry, A.D., and Jenkins-Smith, H.C. (2019) Sharpening Advocacy Coalitions. Policy Studies Journal.