Policy Sciences

, Volume 50, Issue 4, pp 527–537 | Cite as

A “review” of policy sciences: bibliometric analysis of authors, references, and topics during 1970–2017

Research Note

Abstract

Even as Policy Sciences celebrates its fiftieth anniversary, there is no systematic account of the research that has been published in the journal. This article reports the findings of a bibliometric analysis of 1027 publications in this journal during 1970–2017. It identifies the authors who have contributed to the journal, the works that have influenced them, and the topics they have studied.

Keywords

Bibliometric analysis Co-citation analysis Co-occurrence analysis Policy sciences Policy studies Public policy 

References

  1. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics (Vol. Book, Whole). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, C. J., & Howlett, M. (1992). The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change. Policy Sciences, 25(3), 275–294.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brewer, G. D., & DeLeon, P. (1983). The foundations of policy analysis (Vol. Book, Whole). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Brunner, R. D. (1991). The policy movement as a policy problem. Policy Sciences, 24(1), 65–98.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00146465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brunner, R. D. (2002). Finding common ground: Governance and natural resources in the American West. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brunner, R. D. (2006). A paradigm for practice. Policy Sciences, 39(2), 135–167.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-006-9012-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brunner, R. D., & Ascher, W. (1992). Science and social responsibility. Policy Sciences, 25(3), 295–331.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Craft, J., & Howlett, M. (2012). Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence: Location and content in policy advisory systems. Journal of Public Policy, 32(2), 79.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X12000049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Craft, J., & Howlett, M. (2013). The dual dynamics of policy advisory systems: The impact of externalization and politicization on policy advice. Policy and Society, 32(3), 187–197.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2013.07.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. deLeon, P. (1992). The democratization of the policy sciences. Public Administration Review, 52(2), 125–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeLeon, P. (1997). Democracy and the policy sciences (Vol. Book, Whole). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dror, Y. (1970). Prolegomena to policy sciences. Policy Sciences, 1(1), 135–150.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00145198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fischer, F. (1980). Politics, values, and public policy: The problem of methodology (Vol. Book, Whole). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices (Vol. Book, Whole). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9(2), 127–152.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hajer, M. (2003). Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sciences, 36(2), 175–195.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024834510939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Howlett, M. (2009). Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design. Policy Sciences, 42(1), 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems (Vol. Book, Whole). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lasswell, H. D. (1970a). The emerging conception of the policy sciences. Policy Sciences, 1(1), 3–14.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00145189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lasswell, H. D. (1970b). Must science serve political power? American Psychologist, 25(2), 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lasswell, H. D. (1971). A pre-view of policy sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  22. Lasswell, H. D., & Kaplan, A. (1950). Power and society: A framework for political inquiry (Vol. 2, Book, Whole). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  23. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations (Vol. Book, Whole). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action (Vol. Book, Whole). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity (Vol. Book, Whole). Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. B. (1973). How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  27. Quade, E. S. (1970). Why policy sciences? Policy Sciences, 1(1), 1–2.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00145188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21(2–3), 129–168.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00136406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Policy change and learning: an advocacy coalition approach (Vol. Book, Whole). Boulder, Colo: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  31. Simon, H. A. (1983). Reason in human affairs (Vol. Book, Whole). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  32. Simon, H. A. (1985). Human nature in politics: The dialogue of psychology with political science. The American Political Science Review, 79(2), 293–304.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1956650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tijssen, R. J. W. (1992). Cartography of science: Scientometric mapping with multidimensional scaling methods. Leiden, Netherlands: DSWO Press, Leiden University.Google Scholar
  34. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2007). VOS: A new method for visualizing similarities between objects. In: R. Decker, & H. J. Lenz (Eds.), Advances in data analysis: Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the Gesellschaft für Klassifikation e.V., Freie Universität Berlin, March 810, 2006, (pp. 299–306). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., Luwel, M., & Zimmermann, E. (2002). Measuring progress and evolution in science and technology–I: The multiple uses of bibliometric indicators. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(2), 179–211.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2370.00083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wildavsky, A. B. (1964). The politics of the budgetary process (Vol. Book, Whole). Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  38. Wildavsky, A. B. (1979). Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis (Vol. Book, Whole). Boston: Little, Brown.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lee Kuan Yew School of Public PolicySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations