LIST OF WORKSHOPS

To understand public policy and the policy process, many authors from different perspectives have drawn on the metaphor of dramaturgy. Story of the Policy Field (Peters & Zittoun, 2026) documents how dramaturgy has collectively inspired the field of policy studies. Scholars have mobilized concepts such as drama, storyline, narrative, actors, agents, roles, spectacle, script, performance, rules, and staging. This inspiration began early, with Kenneth Burke, who analyzed the vote on a law proposal as an “act” and studied the rhetorical strategies used by members of parliament to persuade others (Burke 1975). Cobb and Elder (1973) used dramaturgical metaphors to describe agenda-setting as a staged drama (Cobb and Elder 1972). Merelman explored the “dramatic nature of ideology,” while Edelman famously evoked the “political spectacle” ((Merelman 1969; Edelman 1985)).

The success of dramaturgical metaphors continued to shape policy studies after the 1980s, through two main approaches. Joseph Gusfield was among the first to analyze the policy process through a dramaturgical lens, identifying two levels of social life: one in which society is spoken about and defined, and another consisting of social activities themselves ((Gusfield 1981, 18). This dual approach gave rise to two major traditions.

The first tradition views public policy as a drama—through the stories it conveys and the frames it produces—which affect a broader audience, the public. Klapp ((Klapp 2017)1962) suggested that policy could be read as a theatrical monologue, with dramaturgy helping us to interpret “heroes, villains, and fools.” Edelman developed this idea, showing how politicians construct problems to justify solutions and legitimize themselves as “incredible leaders.” (Edelman 1988) For Gusfield, policy discourse appears as a fictional or illusory narrative in which society is presented as definable, predictable, and under government control (Gusfield 1989). Following Goffman, public policy is thus understood through its capacity to frame meaning for its audience. These perspectives inspired important concepts such as Deborah Stone’s “causal stories,” Emery Roe’s “narratives,” Frank Fischer’s Framing Public Policy, Maarten Hajer’s “policy drama,” the “narrative policy framework” (Jones), and Zittoun’s “policy statement.” and the narrative policy framework belong to this tradition, with its structured approach to explore narrative form through categories and plots (Fischer 2003; Stone 1989; Hajer and Oomen 2025; Jones and McBeth 2010; Zittoun 2014; Kuenzler et al. 2025)

In this perspective, public policy is seen as a drama/story/narrative that not only defines the society where problems are solved and order restored, but also legitimizes certain actors or coalitions that intervene to ‘solve’ the problem.

The second tradition considers the policy process itself as a performance, analyzing policymakers as actors playing roles, and their interactions as a succession of staged scenes. Inspired by Goffman’s analysis of everyday life and Durkheim’s notion of ritual, this approach emphasizes the role as a “pre-established model of action developed during a performance,” and the “social façade” as a “collective representation” of the role—even when individuals distance themselves from it (Goffman 1990). From this micro-perspective, policymaking can be studied as a plurality of scenes in which actors display their skills and adapt their roles to different contexts. While Goffman did not study policy processes directly, he examined meetings and conferences, highlighting their performative dimensions (Goffman 1981). Edelman also depicted politicians as actors performing in spectacles (Edelman 1998). More recently, Jeffrey Alexander applied dramaturgy to presidential elections; Hajer spoke of “deliberative dramaturgy,” where the process sets its own rules(Alexander 2010); and Hendriks emphasized the role of media in shaping political performance (Hendriks et al. 2016). This tradition ties in with the recent work on rituals, ritualistic visual narratives and the vast array of studies on emotions and policy processes (Baele and Balzacq 2022; Durnová 2019; Pierce 2021; Salgó 2017).

Yet, one key enigma concerns the relationship between these two dimensions. Goffman addressed it through his concept of framing, which emerges from individual interactions and evolves into collective frames guiding behavior (Goffman 1974). Edelman, by contrast, used the metaphors of “frontstage” and “backstage.” On the frontstage, politicians and policymakers perform public policy as an illusion—an ordered and predictable society where problems are solved. In the backstage, however, they negotiate, bargain, and tinker, far from the staged drama. This opposition inspired many studies, but it also creates difficulties: it risks reducing politicians to mere illusionists or schemers, underestimating that the backstage itself is also a performance. Moreover, it reinforces a division between the symbolic and instrumental dimensions of policy, thereby narrowing our understanding. Furthermore, the emotional embeddedness of this relationship deserves closer attention to better understand how power, values, and beliefs interact in shaping the performance and influencing its interpretation. The emerging concept of “political emotions”(Durnova, Hilmar et al. 2025) strengthens this interpretive lens by foregrounding the staging of emotions and their reception, thereby offering an analytical framework to clarify how emotions signify and operate within these performances.

In this workshop, we propose to revisit the relationship between these dramaturgical perspectives. Rather than separating public policy as narrative drama from political communication as performance, or opposing the hidden backstage to the public frontstage, we aim to interrogate their entanglement. How can we simultaneously account for the multiple interactions of policymakers as a drama performance and the symbolic effects of public policy as drama? How can we extend the metaphor not only to the public arena but also to hidden spaces of discussion, including the fragmented and complex bureaucracy?

To explore this issue, we suggest four possible pathways:

The Metadrama, or the “drama of drama-making.” Here policymaking is seen as a “behind-the-scenes” performance where actors script the public policy drama. Benford and Hunt’s notion of “scripting” describes “the development of a set of directions that define the scene, identify actors, and outline expected behavior (…) while framing provides actable ideas, scripting moves these ideas one step closer to enactment” ((Benford and Hunt 1992, 38). The question is whether this metaphor helps us to describe policymaking more precisely—capturing both the roles and scenes in which actors interact, and the unexpected storylines of policy drama-making. Can we, for example, analyze how the symbolic dimension of policy drama is already being shaped during the writing of the script?
The Policy Dramaturgical Loop. This refers to the complex relationship between public policy as a dramatic story and government performance as both author and actor. In dramaturgy, a loop occurs when a drama reflects on itself, when a performance refers to itself as performance. Trump provides a caricatured example: in commenting on his executive orders, he not only presented policies but also performed his own role as president and showman. Edelman also pointed to this complex relationship between the leader as both writer of the script and performer of the drama.
Dramaturgies of change. If we analyse policy in terms of its (implicit) dramaturgy we may also see where and why certain policy processes fail. Alternatively, we can think of new ways of constructing policy and politics that may overcome faulty routines. Taking deliberative policy analysis a step further we might think of new ways of weaving policy making, knowledge development and citizen engagement in new dramaturgies.  
The Policy Tragedy. This highlights the tension between policy as script and policy as performance. Public policy defines roles, expectations, and outcomes, yet its implementation is always a specific interpretation that never perfectly corresponds to the original script. If policy can be read as a drama promising to solve problems and restore order, its enactment is a performance in which actors reinterpret roles and test expectations. The “policy tragedy” thus interrogates policy both as a fictional dramaturgy and as a messy, interpretive performance. It also opens the inquiry toward the emotional dimensions that are involved in this process.
These four pathways are not exclusive; rather, they open new perspectives on the relationship between public policy as drama and the policy process as dramaturgy.

This workshop proposes to discuss the multiple uses of dramaturgy in public policy research and to revisit this metaphor as a way of grasping both public policy and the policy process. We invite empirical, theoretical, and methodological contributions that interrogate how dramaturgical perspectives help us to better understand the dynamics of policymaking, across different theoretical paradigms.

We particularly welcome papers that move beyond the classic distinction between backstage negotiations and frontstage performances, in order to take seriously their entanglement and co-constitution. By doing so, we aim to foster a more nuanced understanding of how dramaturgy illuminates the interplay between symbolic and instrumental dimensions of public policy.

We also encourage participants to engage with three pathways for advancing dramaturgical analysis: the Metadrama, which explores policymaking as the scripting of drama; the Dramaturgical Loop, where leaders simultaneously write and perform the drama; the dramaturgies of change where we examine policy failure and policy success in terms of the combination of its theory of change and the way in which policy is staged; and the Policy Tragedy, which highlights the gap between policy as script and implementation as performance. Together, these perspectives invite us to reconsider the symbolic power and practical complexity of public policy.

The metaphor of dramaturgy has long inspired the study of public policy and the policy process. From Kenneth Burke’s analysis of parliamentary debate as an “act,” to Cobb and Elder’s agenda-setting as staged drama, and Edelman’s notion of the “political spectacle,” dramaturgical perspectives have offered powerful tools to interpret how policies are constructed, communicated, and legitimized. Joseph Gusfield deepened this contribution by highlighting two levels of social life—defining society and performing social activity—which in turn informed two major traditions in policy studies.

The first tradition views public policy as drama, emphasizing the stories and frames that shape public meaning and legitimize governmental authority. Concepts such as Stone’s “causal stories,” Roe’s “narratives,” Hajer’s “policy drama,” and the “narrative policy framework” illustrate how policies operate symbolically to define problems, restore order, and construct leadership. The second tradition approaches the policy process as performance, analyzing policymakers as actors who play roles across multiple scenes. Building on Goffman and Durkheim, this perspective highlights rituals, façades, and the staging of interactions in policymaking, from meetings and conferences to large-scale public events.

Yet a persistent enigma concerns the relationship between these two traditions. Goffman addressed it through framing, while Edelman distinguished between frontstage performances and backstage negotiations. This dualism, however, risks oversimplifying the entanglement of symbolic and instrumental dimensions of policy.

This workshop proposes to move beyond such oppositions and to examine the interdependence of dramaturgical perspectives. We outline three pathways for doing so: the Metadrama, which explores policymaking as the scripting of drama; the Dramaturgical Loop, where leaders simultaneously write and perform the drama; and the Policy Tragedy, which highlights the gap between policy as script and implementation as performance. These approaches invite us to reconsider how dramaturgy can illuminate both the symbolic power and practical complexity of public policy.

Philippe Zittoun is Research Professor of Political Science at LAET-ENTPE, University of Lyon and Secretary General of the International Public Policy Association. He works on the political dimension of the policymaking process by developing a pragmatist and constructivist perspective. His last books were about “The political formulation of Policy Solutions” (2021 with Frank Fischer and Nikolaos Zahariadis), “The Politics of Meaning Struggles” (2022 with Sebastien Chailleux), “Handbook of Teaching Public Policy” (2024 with Emily Saint-Denis), “Contemporary approaches of Public Policy” (2026, 2nde edition, with Guy Peters). He co-edited with B. Guy Peters the “international series of Public Policy” (Palgrave) and be member of the scientific/editorial Committee of several international journals.

Chris Ansell is Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley.  His research focuses on understanding how public institutions handle risk, uncertainty, and turbulence. He is an author or editor of more than ten books, including The Protective State (Cambridge Element, 2019), Pragmatism and Political Crisis Management: Principle and Practical Rationality during the Financial Crisis (with Martin Bartenberger; Edward Elgar, 2019) and Governance in Turbulent Times (with Jarle Trondal and Morten Øgård; Oxford University Press, 2017). He has published in the fields of organization studies, public administration, governance and policy studies and his current interests include risk regulation, crisis management, public health, and environmental protection. He is currently the Director of Berkeley’s Center for Catastrophic Risk Management.

Anna Durnová is Professor of Political Sociology at the University of Vienna and Faculty Fellow at the Yale Center for Cultural Sociology. Her research explores the role of emotions in democratic societies, with a particular focus on their relevance to expertise, inequality, and public policy. She leads the Horizon Europe project CIDAPE (Climate, Inequality and Democratic Action: The Force of Political Emotions, 2024–2027) and is PI of the ERC Advanced Grant LONERS. She received her habilitation from Sciences Po Paris and serves on the editorial boards of Policy & Politics and Critical Policy Studies. In 2024, she was awarded the Mattei Dogan Foundation Prize for European Political Sociology. Her recent books include The Politics of Intimacy (2018) and Understanding Emotions in Post-Factual Politics (2019).

Maarten Hajer is distinguished professor and director of the Urban Futures Studio (UFS) at Utrecht University since 2015. Hajer is the author of seventeen books and many articles and contributions to books. Best known are The Politics of Environmental Discourse (Oxford UP, 1995) and Authoritative Governance: Policy Making in the Age of Mediatization (Oxford UP, 2009); His most recent book is Captured Futures – Rethinking the Drama of Environmental Politics (co-authored by Jeroen Oomen, Oxford UP, 2025). Hajer has held the top civil service position of Director General of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency PBL (2008-2015), acting as the chief science advisor to the Dutch Cabinet and is also a frequent curator of exhibitions such as Chief Curator of the 2016 International Architecture Biennale Rotterdam (IABR) and curator of the public exhibition and manifestation Places of Hope which was part of the official programme of Leeuwarden/Fryslan, Cultural Capital of Europe 2018. He is now preparing a major manifestation of possible futures for The Netherlands, entitled ‘Nederland Verbeeld(t).

Mike D. Jones is the Thurmond Professor of Political Science at Clemson University. He received his PhD in Political Science in 2010 from the University of Oklahoma and holds an MA and BS in Political Science, both granted by Idaho State University; from 2010 to 2013, Dr. Jones was a postdoctoral fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University. His primary research interest is policy theory, where he has devoted most of his attention to developing the Narrative Policy Framework.

Claudio M Radaelli is Professor of Comparative Public Policy at the Florence School of Transnational Governance, European University Institute, EUI, Florence. He is currently involved in two Horizon Projects, MORES - on moral emotions in the policy process and politics -  and RADAR, on the democratic anchorage of administrative reforms in Europe. He was the recipient of two ERC Advanced Awards on policy learning and policy design. Claudio published 90 peer-reviewed articles, co-authored Designing Rulemaking (Oxford University Press, Dec 2024) and is co-editor of The Elgar Companion to the OECD (2023, with Fabrizio De Francesco) and The Research Handbook of Policy Learning (2026, with Bishoy L Zaki). He is the chief editor of the International Review of Public Policy and is on the editorial committee of several political science journals.