Mapping networks of critical policy studies

ABSTRACT

The emergence of critical policy studies networks is evident in the proliferation of network-building efforts. These coincide with the rise of epistemic communities and sub-communities through existing, active platforms and interactive exchanges. Based on participatory observations, content analysis, and discussions with key informants, this article seeks to map out the range of established networks that have been formed for critical and interpretive orientation in policy studies. The article unpacks the platforms, activities, and key focuses exhibited by these networks; and after that, analyzes both their common grounds and differences. Emerging with one another together, these networks encourage and produce critical and interpretive approaches, albeit with differing shades in how they approach knowledge. The significance of these networks will largely depend on which kinds, or shades, of knowledge become salient. There is a prospect of establishing connections among critical policy studies networks as they share among one another in developing these interconnections. The purpose of this article effort is to offer a map to inquirers in order to help them better orient themselves to their task, which is not simply further mapping, but also includes furthering the development of critical policy studies networks.

KEYWORDS:

• Critical policy studies
• interpretive policy analysis
• networks
• epistemic community
• discourse coalitions
• epistemological pluralism

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Frank Fischer for giving me an opportunity to take a role as a coordinator of the Critical Policy Studies Network for more than five years. Thanks also go to Koen Bartels for actively organizing online meetings among key coordinators of many relevant networks mentioned in this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Although some networks (not discussed above) are open to post-positivist policy work, they still largely accept positivist traditions. Such networks include editorial board members of Policy & Politics, the International Review of Public Policy, European Policy Analysis, and the Review of Policy Research. Others also tend to gravitate in a post-positivist direction, but they were not included in this analysis because their focus on public policy remains unclear. For example, the Public Administration Theory Network, which owns the Administrative Theory & Praxis journal, does not pay substantial attention to critical policy research. Many critical policy scholars, though, do not perceive their field to be a part of public administration.

2. Mapping networks can be seen as an aspect of ‘contextual mapping’, which is the key to ‘contextual orientation’ (see Lasswell 1971, 63–67, 155–156; Torgerson 1985).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Piyapong Boossabong

Piyapong Boossabong is an Assistant Professor at the School of Public Policy, Chiang Mai University, Thailand. His research interests include deliberative approaches, the practice of interpretive policy analysis, and an inclusive policy process in the weak democratic system. He has published in, amongst others, the following journals: Policy Studies, Critical Policy Studies, Comparative Policy Analysis, Asian Public Policy, Deliberative Democracy, and City, Culture and Society. He authored several book chapters, including Oxford Handbook, Routledge Handbook, and Elgar Handbook. He recently co-edited the book entitled “Policy Analysis in Thailand” (Bristol: Policy Press, 2023).