Afterword: Mainstreaming, Classification, and Language

  • Dvora Yanow


Can the idea of mainstreaming help resolve implementation problems and achieve integration goals? Can successful mainstreaming resolve the conundrum that population-naming categories created for social justice purposes in the end undermine those very purposes? This afterword first reflects on the metaphoric character of ‘mainstreaming’, which shifts the focus from ‘bad policy implementation’ to the problematic framing of the issue to begin with, requiring a conceptual stretching that undercuts the good conceptual work it promises. The discussion then turns to one of the central features of evaluating integration policies: the need for categories, and the conundrum entailed in using categories to achieve social justice goals which, in the end, undermine those very purposes.


  1. Bacchi, Carol. 2009. Analysing Policy: What’s the Problem Represented To Be? Frenchs Forest: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  2. Bardach, Eugene. 1977. The Implementation Game. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bliesemann de Guevara, Berit, ed. 2016. Myth and Narrative in International Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Bovens, Mark, Meike Bokhorst, Roel Jennissen, and Godfried Engbersen. 2016. Migratie en classificatie: naar een meervoudig migratie-idioom [Migration and Classification: Toward a Plural Migration-Idiom]. WRR Verkenning Report No. 34. Den Haag: Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid. Accessed November 1, 2016.
  5. Bracho, Gerardo. 2016. Emerging Donors: The Rise and Unravelling of the Development Aid System. Presented at the Käte Hamburger Kolleg/Centre for Global Cooperation Research Seminar, Duisburg, Germany, November 8.Google Scholar
  6. Brigham, John, and Don W. Brown. 1980. Policy Implementation: Penalties or Incentives? Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Bunker, D.R. 1972. Policy Sciences Perspectives on Implementation Processes. Policy Sciences 3: 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1991. Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review 43 (6): 1241–1299.Google Scholar
  9. Edwards, George C. III. 1980. Implementing Public Policy. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
  10. Elmore, Richard F. 1978. Organizational Models of Social Program Implementation. Public Policy 26 (2): 185–228.Google Scholar
  11. Goleman, Daniel. 1995. Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 2006. Social Intelligence. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
  13. Güell, Orion. 2009. Luz estadística sí, censo étnico no. El Pais, 1 April. Accessed January 26, 2017.
  14. Hawkesworth, Mary. 2012. Political Worlds of Women: Activism, Advocacy, and Governance in the Twenty-First Century. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ingram, Helen M., and Dean E. Mann, eds. 1980. Why Policies Succeed or Fail. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1987. The Metaphorical Logic of Rape. Metaphor and Symbol 2: 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lazin, Fred. 1980. The Effects of Administrative Linkages on Implementation. Policy Sciences 12: 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lipsky, Michael. 1978. Standing the Study of Public Policy Implementation on Its Head. In American Politics and Public Policy, ed. Walter Dean Burnham and Martha W. Weinberg, 391–402. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Nakamura, Robert T., and Frank Smallwood. 1980. The Politics of Policy Implementation. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  20. Palumbo, Dennis J., and Donald J. Calista, eds. 1990. Implementation and the Policy Process: Opening Up the Black Box. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  21. Pressman, Jeffery L. and Wildavsky, Aaron. 1984/1973. Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington are Dashed in Oakland; Or, Why It’s Amazing that Federal Programs Work At All, this Being a Saga of the Economic Development Administration as Told by Two Sympathetic Observers Who See to Build Morals on a Foundation of Ruined Hopes, 3rd ed. (expanded). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  22. Proctor, Alana, Anja Krumeich, and Agnes Meershoek. 2011. Making a Difference: The Construction of Ethnicity in HIV and STI Epidemiological Research by the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). Social Science & Medicine 72 (11): 1838–1845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Random House Dictionary. 2016. Accessed November 21, 2016.
  24. Rein, Martin, and Donald A. Schön. 1977. Problem Setting in Policy Research. In Using Social Research in Public Policy Making, ed. Carol H. Weiss, 235–251. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  25. Rosenthal, Robert, and Lenore Jacobson. 1968. Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  26. Schön, Donald A. 1993/1979. Generative Metaphor. In Metaphor and Thought, ed. Andrew Ortony, 2nd ed., 137–163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schuh, Russell G., and Laura C. Leviton. 1991. Evaluating Referral and Agency Coordination with a Computerized Client-Tracking System. Evaluation Review 15 (5): 533–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. van Hulst, Merlijn and Dvora, Yanow. 2016. From Policy ‘Frames’ to ‘Framing’: Theorizing a More Dynamic, Political Approach. American Review of Public Administration 46 (1): 92–112 (online May 2014).Google Scholar
  29. Wimmer, Andreas, and Nina Glick Schiller. 2003. Methodological Nationalism, the Social Sciences, and the Study of Migration. International Migration Review 37 (3): 576–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yanow, Dvora. 1992. Silences in Public Policy Discourse: Policy and Organizational Myths. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2 (4): 399–423.Google Scholar
  31. ———. 1996. How Does a Policy Mean? Interpreting Policy and Organizational Actions. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  32. ———. 2003. Constructing “Race” and “Ethnicity” in America: Category-making in Public Policy and Administration. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.Google Scholar
  33. ———. 2012/1992. Supermarkets and Culture Clash: The Epistemological Role of Metaphors in Administrative Practice. In Case Study Methods in Business Research, ed. Albert J. Mills and Gabrielle Durepos, vol. 3, 123–142. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. ———. Forthcoming. The Treachery of Categories: Counting, Immigrant Integration, and the State. Manuscript in progress.Google Scholar
  35. Yanow, Dvora, and Marleen van der Haar. 2013. People Out of Place: Allochthony and Autochthony in Netherlands Identity Discourse—Metaphors and Categories in Action. Journal of International Relations and Development 16 (2): 227–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yanow, Dvora, Marleen van der Haar, and Karlijn Völke. 2016. Troubled Taxonomies and the Calculating State: “Everyday” Categorizing and “Race-Ethnicity”—The Netherlands Case. Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics 1 (2): 187–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zelli, Fariborz, and Harro van Asselt. 2013. The Institutional Fragmentation of Global Environmental Governance: Causes, Consequences, and Responses. Global Environmental Politics 13 (3): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dvora Yanow
    • 1
  1. 1.Sub-department Communication, Philosophy, & TechnologyWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations