Why Should Health Researchers Use Policy Theories?; Comment on “Modelling the Health Policy Process: One Size Fits All or Horses for Courses?”

Document Type : Commentary

Author

Division of History, Heritage, and Politics, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK

Abstract

Powell and Mannion suggest that ‘health policy process’ research should draw more lessons from ‘the wider policy process literature.’ While health research could continue with sector specific models, the wider literature is ‘conceptually stronger.’ In that context, I clarify how and why health researchers should use policy theories. I describe a review of the use of policy theories in public health research to show that many researchers use them to not only understand policy-making but also influence policy and policy-making. Most policy theories are not designed for that purpose, but it is still possible to produce practical lessons. I outline the issues that arise when repurposing theory-informed insights, such as that policy change takes a long time, and the scale of policy-making is potentially overwhelming. I then highlight the valuable role of theories in raising dilemmas in relation to modes of governance and evidence production.

Keywords

References

  1. Powell M, Mannion R. Modelling the health policy process: one size fits all or horses for courses? Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12:7580. doi:34172/ijhpm.2022.7580
  2. Cairney P, St Denny E, Mitchell H. The future of public health policymaking after COVID-19: a qualitative systematic review of lessons from health in all policies. Open Res Eur. 2021;1:23. doi:12688/openreseurope.13178.1
  3. Walt G, Gilson L. Reforming the health sector in developing countries: the central role of policy analysis. Health Policy Plan. 1994;9(4):353-370. doi:1093/heapol/9.4.353
  4. Lasswell HD. The policy orientation. In: Lerner D, Lasswell HD, eds. The Policy Sciences: Recent Developments in Scope and Methods. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1951.
  5. Cairney P. The Politics of Policy Analysis. London: Palgrave; 2021.
  6. Cairney P, Weible CM. The new policy sciences: combining the cognitive science of choice, multiple theories of context, and basic and applied analysis. Policy Sci. 2017;50(4):619-627. doi:1007/s11077-017-9304-2
  7. Simon HA. Models of Man; Social and Rational. New York, NY: Wiley; 1957.
  8. Cairney P, Kwiatkowski R. How to communicate effectively with policymakers: combine insights from psychology and policy studies. Palgrave Commun. 2017;3(1):37. doi:10.1057/s41599-017-0046-8
  9. Cairney P. The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making. London: Palgrave; 2016.
  10. Cairney P. Understanding Public Policy. 2nd ed. London: Red Globe; 2010.
  11. Townsend B, Friel S, Baker P, Baum F, Strazdins L. How can multiple frames enable action on social determinants? Lessons from Australia’s paid parental leave. Health Promot Int. 2019;35(5):973-983. doi:1093/heapro/daz086
  12. Harris P, Kent J, Sainsbury P, et al. Creating ‘healthy built environment’ legislation in Australia; a policy analysis. Health Promot Int. 2017;33(6):1090-1100. doi:1093/heapro/dax055
  13. Kingdon J. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. New York, NY: Harper Collins; 1984.
  14. Baumgartner FR, Jones BD. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1993.
  15. Jenkins-Smith HC, Nohrstedt D, Weible CM, Ingold K. The advocacy coalition framework: an overview of the research program. In: Theories of the Policy Process. London: Routledge; 2018:135-171.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 16 February 2023
  • Revise Date: 04 July 2023
  • Accept Date: 11 July 2023
  • First Publish Date: 12 July 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics