Abstract
The idea of policy entrepreneurs continues to gain traction in public policy studies. Yet, scholarly attention seems to ignore the “why” PEs adopt certain strategies over others. This is due to the prevailing use of quantitative method, which does not help in answering the question. In this paper, we examine why and how scholars interested in studying PEs can, and should, use phenomenology. We argue that phenomenology can help researchers to better understand who PEs are, the context they operate, and the strategies and processes they adopt to achieve their goals, why and when do use them, and to what effect?
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen-Collinson, J., & Evans, A. B. (2019). “To be or not to be phenomenology: that is the question. ” European Journal for Sport and Society, 16(4), 295–300
Arnold, G. (2020). “Does entrepreneurship work? Understanding what policy entrepreneurs do and whether it matters,”Policy Studies Journal
Bakir, C., Akgunay, S., & Coban, K. (2021). “Why does the combination of policy entrepreneur and institutional entrepreneur roles matter for the institutionalization of policy ideas? Policy Sciences, 54(2), 397–422
Barua, A. (2007). “Husserl, Heidegger, and the transcendental dimension of phenomenology. ” Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology, 7(1), 1–10
Callaghan, K., & Schnell, F. (2009). ‘Who says what to whom: Why messengers and citizen beliefs matter in social policy framing,’. The Social Science Journal, 46(1), 12–28
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. ” Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126
Christopoulos, D. C. (2006). “Relational attributes of political entrepreneurs: a network perspective. ” Journal of European Public Policy, 13(5), 757–778
Conklin, T. A. (2007). “Method or madness: Phenomenology as knowledge creator. ” Journal of Management Inquiry, 16(3), 275–287
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Dahl, R. A. (1961). Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
Elias, V. M. (2020). “Phenomenology in public administration: Bridging the theory-practice gap. ” Administration & Society, 52(10), 1516–1537
Frisch-Aviram, N., Cohen, N., & Beeri, I. (2019). “Wind(ow) of change: A systematic review of policy entrepreneurship characteristics and strategies. ” Policy Studies Journal, 48(3), 612–644
Gill, M. J. (2014). “The possibilities of phenomenology for organizational research. ” Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 118–137
Giorgi, A. (2006). “Difficulties encountered in the application of the phenomenological method in the social sciences. ” Análise Psicológica, 3(XXIV), 353–361
Giorgi, A. (1997). “The theory, practice and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a qualitative research procedure. ” Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 28(2), 235–260
Giorgi, A., Giorgi, B., & Morley, J. (2017). “The descriptive phenomenological psychological method. In C. Willig, & W. S. Rogers (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Hartmann, A., & Linn, J. F. (2007). “Scaling up: A path to effective development,” https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/200710_scaling_up_linn.pdf
Holcombe, R. G. (2002). “Political entrepreneurship and the democratic allocation of economic resources. ” The Review of Austrian Economics, 15(2/3), 143–159
Hwang, H., & Powell, W. (2005). “Institutions and entrepreneurship”. In S. A. Alvarez, R. R. Agarwal, & O. Sorenson (Eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: Disciplinary Perspectives (pp. 201–232). New York: Springer
Jones, P. (1978). “The appeal of the political entrepreneur. ” British Journal of Political Science, 8(4), 498–504
Laverty, S. M. (2003). “Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: A comparison of historical and methodological considerations. ” International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(3), 21–35
Lopez, K. A., & Willis, D. G. (2004). “Descriptive versus interpretive phenomenology: their contributions to nursing knowledge. ” Qualitative Health Research, 14(5), 726–735
Luetjens, J. (2017). A primer on policy entrepreneurs. https://www.anzsog.edu.au/resource-library/news-media/a-primer-on-policy-entrepreneurs
Matti, S., & Sandström, A. (2013). “The defining elements of advocacy coalitions: Continuing the search for explanations for coordination and coalition structures. ” Review of Policy Research, 30(2), 240–257
McCaffrey, M., & Salerno, J. T. (2011). “A theory of political entrepreneurship. ” Modern Economy, 2, 552–560
Mintrom, M. (2020). Policy Entrepreneurs and Dynamic Change. Cambridge: CUP
Mintrom, M. (2019). “So you want to be a policy entrepreneur? Policy Design and Practice, 2(4), 307–323
Mintrom, M., & Luetjens, J. (2017a). Policy entrepreneurs and problem framing: The case of climate change. ” Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 35(8), 1362–1377
Mintrom, M., & Vergari, S. (1996). “Advocacy coalitions, policy entrepreneurs, and policy change. ” Policy Studies Journal, 24(3), 420–434
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Neubauer, B. E., Witkop, C. T., & Varpio, L. (2019). “How phenomenology can help us learn from the experiences of others. ” Perspective in Medical Education, 8, 90–97
Petridou, E., & Mintrom, M. (2020). “A research agenda for the study of policy entrepreneurs. ” Policy Studies Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12405. Online First, 05 July 2020
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1989). “Phenomenological research methods. In R. S. Valle, & S. Halling (Eds.), Existential-Phenomenological Perspectives in Psychology (pp. 41–60). NY: NY: Plenum
Roberts, N. C. (1992). “Public entrepreneurship and innovation. ” Policy Studies Review, 11(1), 55–74
Sheingate, A. D. (2003). “Political entrepreneurship, institutional change, and American political development. ” Studies in American Political Development, 17(3), 185–203
Sinari, R. (1972). “The phenomenological attitude in the Samkara Vedanta
Sundler, A. J., Lindberg, E., Nilsson, C., & Palmér, L. (2018). “Qualitative thematic analysis based on descriptive phenomenology. ” NursingOpen, 6(3), 733–739
Thani, X. (2012). “Phenomenology as a research design in public administration: Fitness for purpose. ” Administratio Publica, 20(3), 26–39
Waugh, W. L., & Waugh, W. W. (2003). “Phenomenology and public administration. ” International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 7(3), 405–431
Willis, D. G., Sullivan-Bolyai, S., Knafl, K., & Cohen, M. Z. (2016). Distinguishing features and similarities between descriptive phenomenological and qualitative description research. ” Western Journal of Nursing Research, 38(9), 1185–1204
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
None.
Informed Consent
None.
Ethical approval
None.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ohemeng, F.L., Grant, J.K. Studying Policy Entrepreneurs: How Phenomenology can Help Researchers. Public Organiz Rev 23, 1213–1228 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-022-00647-4
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-022-00647-4