This study uses content analysis of recent Multiple Streams Approach (MSA) research to determine the scope of MSA applications, examining the consistency, and coherence with which concepts of MSA are applied. Our analysis examines peer‐reviewed articles testing MSA concepts available in English published from 2000 through 2013 (N = 311). Among other findings, we observe that MSA is applied to study 65 different countries, at multiple levels of governance, across 22 different policy areas, and by researchers spanning the globe. Our findings suggest that while MSA is prolific, consistency across applications—in terms of operationalization of MSA core concepts—is needed to facilitate theoretical development of the approach.

One of the leading theories for understanding the policy process is the theory of social construction and policy design developed by Anne Schneider and Helen Ingram. The theory incorporates the social construction and power of target populations to understand the development and implications of policy design. In order to better understand its empirical breadth, depth, and general utility, our analysis reviews all past publications of the theory, focusing specifically on empirical applications (N = 111), from 1993 to 2013. Based on this review, we find: a recent increase in the number of applications of this theory; that these applications appear across a wide range of outlets, relate to numerous policy domains, and are conducted by a diverse group of domestic and international scholars; that the target population proposition has been applied with greater frequency than the theory's feed-forward proposition; and that scholars have a notable interest in understanding causal mechanisms leading to changes in the positioning of target populations among advantaged, contender, dependent, and deviant target population categories. Following a descriptive review of past publications, we offer specific suggestions for theoretical development and future research.KEY WORDS: public policy, policy process, meta-analysis, literature review, social construction, policy design, feedback IntroductionIn 1999, Paul Sabatier edited a volume entitled Theories of the Policy Process (Sabatier, 1999a). Within this now near canonical tome are emergent theories of the policy process from the previous 15 years deemed by Sabatier to sufficiently adhere to scientific standards at the time. Through this effort, he charted a path forward for future policy process scholarship. Explicitly omitted from the edited volume was the work of what Sabatier termed constructivists. At the time, constructivists were a minority of policy process scholars (e.g., Fischer & Forrester, 1993) that focused on the socially constructed nature of policy as well as reality, in which perceptions and intersubjective meaning-making processes were considered central to understanding and explaining the policy process. Among his criticisms, Sabatier described constructivist methods as "nonfalsifiable" and their ideas as "free-floating and unconnected to specific individuals, institutions, or socio-economic conditions" bs_bs_banner The Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 42, No. (Sabatier, 1999b, p. 11). Of course Sabatier was challenged for his decision to exclude this body of work, especially by European scholars (e.g., Parsons, 2000;Radaelli, 2000), but was unyielding in his position to exclude constructivist approaches in the edited volume.One of the most notable constructivist approaches included in Sabatier's "omitted frameworks" list was the theory of social construction and policy design that was first articulated by Schneider and Ingram in 1993 (Sabatier, 1999b, p. 11). However, by the second edition of Theories of the Policy Process, Sabatier (2007a) changed his mind. ...

To better understand how the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is applied, this article catalogues and analyzes 161 applications of the ACF from 2007 to 2014. Building on a previous review of 80 applications of the ACF (1987–2006) conducted by Weible, Sabatier, and McQueen in 2009, this review examines both the breadth and depth of the framework. In terms of breadth, there are over 130 unique first authors from 25 countries, in almost 100 journals applying the framework, including a majority outside of the United States. In terms of depth, a plurality of applications analyzes environment and energy, subsystems at the national level, and utilizes qualitative methods of data collection and analyses. This review also explores how the three theoretical foci of the framework—advocacy coalitions, policy change, and policy‐oriented learning—are applied. Our findings suggest that the ACF balances common approaches for applying the framework with the specificity of particular contexts.

This article examines the role of evidence in the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violences firearm policy debate proximate to the December 14, 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting. The groups member-directed policy narratives are operationalized with The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF), and new categories of evidence for the framework are developed. Analysis of 2,535 paragraphs of member newsletters indicates the groups display different patterns of narrative components. Evidence is associated with narrative elements, and that narrative strategy has a significant, but mixed relationship with evidence. Most importantly, findings indicate that evidence frequently co-occurs with characters, leading us to conclude that evidence has a buttressing, or supportive, role in policy narrative closely associated with character attributions. The findings expand the understanding of evidence in contentious policy debates and offer a new component for NPF theory.Este art ıculo examina el papel de la evidencia emp ırica en el debate de pol ıtica p ublica entre la Asociaci on Nacional de Rifles de los Estados Unidos y la "Campaña de Brady para Prevenir la Violencia por Armas de Fuego" poco tiempo despu es de los tiroteos del 14 de diciembre de 2012 en la escuela secundaria Sandy Hook. La narrativa de pol ıtica dirigida por los miembros de cada grupo es analizada bajo el Marco Te orico de Narrativa de Pol ıtica (NPF por sus siglas en ingl es), y nuevas categor ıas de evidencia son desarrolladas para el marco te orico. Analizando 2,535 p arrafos de los boletines enviados a miembros se encuentra que cada grupo exhibe usos diferentes en sus patrones de narrativa. La evidencia es asociada con elementos narrativos y la estrategia de narrativa tiene una relaci on significativa, aunque a veces mixta, con la evidencia. A un m as importante, los resultados muestran que la evidencia es frecuentemente usada con personajes, llev andonos a la conclusi on que la evidencia tiene un papel de refuerzo, o apoyo, en la narrativa pol ıtica que se asocia de forma estrecha con los atributos de un personaje. Estos resultados expanden el entendimiento de la evidencia en debates pol emicos y ofrecen un nuevo componente para el Marco Te orico de Narrativa de Pol ıtica.

One purpose of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is to explain policy change. Previous holistic reviews of the ACF by Weible, Sabatier, and McQueen (2009) and Pierce, Peterson, Jones, Garrard, and Vu (2017) of the framework have not explicitly analyzed all the concepts and their interactions in a systematic manner. To address this gap and inform scholars and practitioners about past findings, strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for future research, this article analyzes how the ACF's theory of policy change is applied to 148 policy processes among 67 journal articles from 2007 to 2014. Similar to Weible et al. (2009), this research finds the frequent use of multiple primary pathways to policy change, infrequent use of many of the ACF's concepts, a plurality of applications in the environment and energy domain, comparison of subsystems, and a need for greater clarity and transparency among applications. Unlike Weible et al. (2009), this article explores associations between primary pathways and policy domains, the frequency of associations between primary pathways and secondary components, policy change and stasis, and identifies threats to internal validity of key ACF concepts.