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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aberbach, J. D., & Rockman, B. A. (2002). Conducting and coding elite interviews. Political Science and Politics, 35(4), 673–676.
Altheide, D. L. (1996). Qualitative media analysis, qualitative research methods series. London: Sage.
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.
Bogner, A., Littig, B., & Menz, W. (2009). Interviewing experts. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brugha, R., & Varvasovszky, Z. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: A review. Health Policy and Planning, 15(3), 239–246.
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.
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.
Collins, R. (2008). Hierarchy to homeostasis? Hierarchy, markets and networks in UK media and communications governance. Media, Culture and Society, 30(3), 295–317.
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.
Dunn, W. N. (2004). Public policy analysis: An introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
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.
Freedman, D. (2008). The politics of media policy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Freeman, G. P. (1995). National styles and policy sectors: Explaining structured variation. Journal of Public Policy, 5(4), 467–496.
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.
Howlett, M. (2004). Administrative styles and regulatory reform: Institutional arrangements and their effects on administrative behaviour. International Public Management Journal, 7(3), 317–333.
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.
Kingdon, J. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little Brown.
Lasswell, H. (1956). The decision process. College Park, MD: University of Maryland Press.
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.
Murphy, J. T. (1980). Getting the facts: A fieldwork guide for evaluators & policy analysts. Santa Monica: Goodyear Publishing.
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.
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.
Pross, P. (1986). Group politics and public policy. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (2007). Understanding governance: Ten years on. Organization Studies, 28(8), 1243–1264.
Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Varvasovszky, Z., & McKee, M. (1999). An analysis of alcohol policy in Hungary. Addiction, 93(12), 1815–1825.
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.
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.
Further Reading
Brugha, R., & Varvasovszky, Z. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: A review. Health Policy and Planning, 15(3), 239–246.
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.
Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16065-4_26
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-16064-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-16065-4
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)