Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Studying Policy Entrepreneurs: How Phenomenology can Help Researchers

  • Published:
Public Organization Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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?

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barua, A. (2007). “Husserl, Heidegger, and the transcendental dimension of phenomenology. ” Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology, 7(1), 1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. ” Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christopoulos, D. C. (2006). “Relational attributes of political entrepreneurs: a network perspective. ” Journal of European Public Policy, 13(5), 757–778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conklin, T. A. (2007). “Method or madness: Phenomenology as knowledge creator. ” Journal of Management Inquiry, 16(3), 275–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. A. (1961). Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias, V. M. (2020). “Phenomenology in public administration: Bridging the theory-practice gap. ” Administration & Society, 52(10), 1516–1537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gill, M. J. (2014). “The possibilities of phenomenology for organizational research. ” Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 118–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giorgi, A. (2006). “Difficulties encountered in the application of the phenomenological method in the social sciences. ” Análise Psicológica, 3(XXIV), 353–361

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, P. (1978). “The appeal of the political entrepreneur. ” British Journal of Political Science, 8(4), 498–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laverty, S. M. (2003). “Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: A comparison of historical and methodological considerations. ” International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(3), 21–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez, K. A., & Willis, D. G. (2004). “Descriptive versus interpretive phenomenology: their contributions to nursing knowledge. ” Qualitative Health Research, 14(5), 726–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCaffrey, M., & Salerno, J. T. (2011). “A theory of political entrepreneurship. ” Modern Economy, 2, 552–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintrom, M. (2020). Policy Entrepreneurs and Dynamic Change. Cambridge: CUP

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintrom, M. (2019). “So you want to be a policy entrepreneur? Policy Design and Practice, 2(4), 307–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintrom, M., & Vergari, S. (1996). “Advocacy coalitions, policy entrepreneurs, and policy change. ” Policy Studies Journal, 24(3), 420–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, N. C. (1992). “Public entrepreneurship and innovation. ” Policy Studies Review, 11(1), 55–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheingate, A. D. (2003). “Political entrepreneurship, institutional change, and American political development. ” Studies in American Political Development, 17(3), 185–203

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Thani, X. (2012). “Phenomenology as a research design in public administration: Fitness for purpose. ” Administratio Publica, 20(3), 26–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Waugh, W. L., & Waugh, W. W. (2003). “Phenomenology and public administration. ” International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 7(3), 405–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West, H3G 1M8, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Frank L.K. Ohemeng

  2. Threshold School, Hamilton, On, Canada

    John K. Grant

Authors
  1. Frank L.K. Ohemeng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John K. Grant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frank L.K. Ohemeng.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-022-00647-4

Search

Navigation