Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analyzing Policy-Making I: Stakeholder and Advocacy Coalition Framework Analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Methods for Media Policy Research

Abstract

As policymaking with regards to media and communication has become a multilayered, multilevel and multi-stakeholder affair, scholars need to pay attention to the who and the how of policymaking. This chapter provides a framework for policy process and decision-making analysis that focuses on stakeholders: their position, views, visibility, power and relationships. It provides a definition of both stakeholder analysis and the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), followed by a critical evaluation of the pros and cons of these complementary frameworks. Next, it introduces a step-by-step guide to identify, in a systematic fashion, all relevant actors, their arguments and logic, their visibility and prominence in the policy process. This is complemented by a guide to Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith’s ACF, a model to understand the relationships between stakeholders expressive of the specifics of media policymaking structures and mechanisms and of power in the policy process. This is illustrated making reference to two cases: a case of Net neutrality and a case of Public Service Media policymaking, showing how the combination of these approaches allows for an understanding of the role of various actors as well as the relevance of beliefs and values in the struggle to find alliances and to influence policymakers into reaching a particular policy outcome. As stakeholder analysis and ACF are analytical models rather than methods, we add a note on the methods that are most appropriate for this type of analysis. The chapter concludes with reflections on the use of stakeholder and ACF analysis in media and communication policy research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aberbach, J. D., & Rockman, B. A. (2002). Conducting and coding elite interviews. Political Science and Politics, 35(4), 673–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altheide, D. L. (1996). Qualitative media analysis, qualitative research methods series. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bandelow, N. C. (2006). Advocacy coalitions, policy-oriented learning and long-term change in genetic engineering policy: An interpretist view. German Policy Studies, 3(4), 747–805.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogner, A., Littig, B., & Menz, W. (2009). Interviewing experts. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brugha, R., & Varvasovszky, Z. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: A review. Health Policy and Planning, 15(3), 239–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, A.-S., Fleischmann, K. R., Wang, P., Ishita, E., & Oard, D. W. (2010). Values of stakeholders in the net neutrality debate: Applying content analysis to telecommunications policy. In Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–10). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, A.-S., Fleischmann, K. R., Wang, P., Ishita, E., & Oard, D. W. (2012). The role of innovation and wealth in the net neutrality debate: A content analysis of human values in congressional and FCC hearings. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(7), 1360–1373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, R. (2008). Hierarchy to homeostasis? Hierarchy, markets and networks in UK media and communications governance. Media, Culture and Society, 30(3), 295–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donders, K., & Raats, T. (2012). Analyzing national practices after European state aid control: Are multi-stakeholder negotiations beneficial for public service broadcasting? Media, Culture and Society, 34(2), 162–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, W. N. (2004). Public policy analysis: An introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, D. (2005). How level is the playing field? An analysis of the UK media policymaking process. Report on research into media policy-making in the UK funded by the Economic and Social Research Council. London: Goldsmith.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, D. (2008). The politics of media policy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, G. P. (1995). National styles and policy sectors: Explaining structured variation. Journal of Public Policy, 5(4), 467–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilroy, A. A. (2007). Net neutrality: Background and issues (CRS Report RS22444). Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22444.pdf.

  • Hamelink, C., & Nordenstreng, K. (2007). Towards democratic media governance. In E. De Bens, C. Hamelink, & K. Jakubowicz (Eds.), Media between culture and commerce: An introduction (pp. 225–240). London: Intellect.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M. (2004). Administrative styles and regulatory reform: Institutional arrangements and their effects on administrative behaviour. International Public Management Journal, 7(3), 317–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • John, P. (2003). Is there life after policy streams, advocacy coalitions, and punctuations: Using evolutionary theory to explain policy change? The Policy Studies Journal, 31(4), 481–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. (1956). The decision process. College Park, MD: University of Maryland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindquist, E. A. (2001). Discerning policy influence: Framework for a strategic evaluation of IDRC-supported research. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria [Online]. Available at http://www.idrc.ca/uploads/user-S/10359907080discerning_policy.pdf.

  • Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Towards a theory of stakeholder identification: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, J. T. (1980). Getting the facts: A fieldwork guide for evaluators & policy analysts. Santa Monica: Goodyear Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, R., & Parenta, O. (2008). Explaining contradictions in film and television policy: Ideas and incremental policy change through layering and drift. Media, Culture and Society, 30(5), 609–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prell, C., Hubacek, K., & Reed, M. (2009). Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 22(6), 501–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pross, P. (1986). Group politics and public policy. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. A. W. (2007). Understanding governance: Ten years on. Organization Studies, 28(8), 1243–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117–166). Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (2007). Value orientations: measurement, antecedents and consequences across nations. In R. Jowell, C. Roberts, R. Fitzgerald, & G. Eva (Eds.), Measuring attitudes cross-nationally: Lessons from the European social survey (pp. 169–203). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bulck, H. (2002). Tools for studying the media. In C. Newbold, O. Boyd-Barrett, & H. Van den Bulck (Eds.), The media book (pp. 55–100). London: Edward Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bulck, H. (2008). Can PSB stake its claim in a media world of digital convergence? The case of the Flemish PSB management contract renewal from an international perspective. Convergence, 14(3), 335–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bulck, H., & Donders, K. (2014a). Of discourses, stakeholders and advocacy coalitions in media policy: Tracing negotiations towards the new management contract of Flemish public broadcaster VRT. European Journal of Communication, 29(1), 83–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bulck, H., & Donders, K. (2014b). Analyzing European media policies: Stakeholders and advocacy coalitions. In K. Donders, J. Loysen, & C. Pauwels (Eds.), Handbook of European media policy (pp. 19–35). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Varvasovszky, Z., & McKee, M. (1999). An analysis of alcohol policy in Hungary. Addiction, 93(12), 1815–1825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weible, C. M. (2007). An advocacy coalition framework approach to stakeholder analysis: Understanding the political context of California Marine Protected Area policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(1), 95–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., & McQueen, K. (2009). Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 121–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Further Reading

  • Brugha, R., & Varvasovszky, Z. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: A review. Health Policy and Planning, 15(3), 239–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, A.-S., Fleischmann, K. R., Wang, P., Ishita, E., & Oard, D. W. (2012). The role of innovation and wealth in the net neutrality debate: A content analysis of human values in congressional and FCC hearings. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(7), 1360–1373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117–166). Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bulck, H., & Donders, K. (2014). Of discourses, stakeholders and advocacy coalitions in media policy: Tracing negotiations towards the new management contract of Flemish public broadcaster VRT. European Journal of Communication, 29(1), 83–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication, Drexel University, Philadelphia, USA

    Hilde Van den Bulck

Authors
  1. Hilde Van den Bulck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication, Drexel University, Philadelphia, USA

    Hilde Van den Bulck

  2. Department of Communication and Media Research, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland

    Manuel Puppis

  3. Department of Communication Studies, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

    Karen Donders

  4. Department of Communication Studies, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

    Leo Van Audenhove

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Van den Bulck, H. (2019). Analyzing Policy-Making I: Stakeholder and Advocacy Coalition Framework Analysis. In: Van den Bulck, H., Puppis, M., Donders, K., Van Audenhove, L. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Methods for Media Policy Research. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16065-4_26

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation