How can gender & policy studies contribute more to an inclusive society?
Emanuela Lombardo and Petra Meier
In our recent article in Policy & Politics on Challenging boundaries to expand frontiers in gender and policy studies, we explore how gender & policy studies can contribute more to an inclusive society. Continue reading
Policy & Politics: Serving and Enhancing our Metacommunities
Oscar Berglund, Claire Dunlop and Christopher M. Weible
In the study of ecological systems, there is a concept called metacommunities. The idea is that a species might be dispersed in different yet interconnected communities. These metacommunities might emerge and grow for reasons of fit, space, survival, or chance. These metacommunities interconnect through some species traversing between them either rarely or habitually. Over time metacommunities might also evolve and adapt to their particular niches. For those who care about supporting ecological systems that might be dispersed in interconnected niches, metacommunities provide a broad language and perspective to help visualize, understand, and govern.
As editors for Policy & Politics, we view this metaphor of metacommunities apt for describing the broadly defined field of public policy, which is dispersed in many communities, each with their own research approaches, lexicons, and traditions. We also see that some scholars navigate between communities more than others. In describing academia, we often refer to these metacommunities as silos where some silos are more isolated or connected than others as well as some silos existing within other silos. Similar to metacommunities, silos might emerge and grow as scholars search for space to develop their ideas, self-sort with others of similar orientations, and more. Continue reading
FORTHCOMING SPECIAL ISSUE BLOG SERIES: Blog 1 – Why Nudge Sometimes Fails: Fatalism and the Problem of Behaviour Change
FORTHCOMING SPECIAL ISSUE BLOG SERIES ON ‘Beyond Nudge: advancing the state-of-the-art of Behavioural Public Policy & Administration’
Nudge is frequently in the news at the moment. Thaler and Sunstein coined the term to describe the way in which governments could use small policy interventions (like an advert, a sign, or a letter) to ‘nudge’ people into changing their behaviour for the better, both for themselves and for society at large. Experts in nudge (so called behavioural scientists) have been busy during the current pandemic advising the government on the best way of getting people to follow coronavirus health advice whether it be washing your hands while singing happy birthday or staying at home to save the NHS.
We already know however that many people do not do what they are told. In my recent article in Policy & Politics, I describe how scholars working in public health draw on the notion of fatalism to explain the intractability of citizens who ignore their doctors’ advice. A fatalist mindset inclines some people to believe that their fortunes are, in the strongest sense of the word, predetermined or at least heavily constrained by forces beyond their control. People who believe their lives are characterised by luck, powerlessness and impenetrable complexity tend to respond poorly to authoritative advice. Three types of fatalism are of particular relevance to nudge. Continue reading
Policy & Politics Highlights collection on the role of politics in policymaking free to access from 1st May – 31st July 2020
Journal Manager, Policy & Politics
The intellectual aims of the journal Policy & Politics are varied, but if we could only choose one hallmark that signifies a ‘Policy & Politics article’, it would be to foreground the politics of the policy-making process and advance our understanding of that analytical field. Our three featured articles this quarter do precisely that, yet within significantly different theoretical and empirical contexts (pluralism being another hallmark of P&P). Continue reading
Thank you to all Policy & Politics reviewers in 2019!
Thank you to all our reviewers in 2019
On behalf of the authors and readers of Policy & Politics, the Co-Editors wish to wholeheartedly thank those who reviewed manuscripts for us in 2019.
With a high 2 year impact factor of 2.028, and a 50 year tradition of publishing high quality research that connects macro level politics with micro level policy issues, the journal could not exist without your investment of time and effort, lending your expertise to ensure that the papers published in this journal meet the standards that the research community expects for it. We sincerely appreciate the time spent reading and commenting on manuscripts, and we are very grateful for your willingness and readiness to serve in this role.
We look forward to a 2020 of exciting advances in the field and to our part in communicating those advances to our community and to the broader public.
Policy & Politics Co-Editors: Sarah Ayres, Steve Martin & Felicity Matthews
If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested to read:
Narratives as tools for influencing policy change [Open Access]
Three habits of successful policy entrepreneurs [Open Access]
Can experience be evidence? Craft knowledge and evidence-based policing [Free]
2018 Impact Factor announcement: Read our most highly cited articles
Sarah Ayres, Steve Martin, Felicity Matthews – Policy & Politics Editors
We are delighted to announce that Policy & Politics has achieved a fantastic result in this year’s Journal Citation Reports with its highest ever Impact Factor of 2.028. The journal is now in the top 20 of the Public Administration category and the top 50 for Political Science.
This impressive outcome is testimony to the outstanding quality of research produced by our authors, the meticulous scrutiny of our peer reviewers, and the hard work of the Policy & Politics and Policy Press team. We would like to offer our thanks and congratulations to all.
To celebrate this increase, we have made the most highly cited articles which contributed to the 2018 Impact Factor free to read until 31 July 2019: Continue reading
Understanding academic impact: fear and failure, stealth and seeds
This blog post was originally published on the Oxford University Press Blog on 8 August 2018.
Failure is an unavoidable element of any academic career. For all but a small number of ‘superstar über-scholars’ most of the research papers we submit will be rejected, our most innovative book proposals will be politely rebuffed, and our applications for grants, prizes and fellowships will fall foul of good fortune. There is, of course, a strong correlation between ambition and failure in the sense that the more innovative and risky you try to be, the bolder the claims you try to substantiate, and the ‘bigger’ the journal you try to publish in the higher your chances of rejection.
New virtual collection on Public Participation: free to download until 20 September
Journal Manager of Policy & Politics
Read our new free virtual collection on Public Participation while you’re at ECPR 2018. All the articles are free to download from 20 August – 20 September 2018.
Whatever your view on public participation, our new virtual collection brings you our most recent research on the topic from a range of different perspectives, all of which aim to enhance our understanding of its importance. Opening the collection is one of our most innovative articles that seeks to address the gap between evidence and policy on how population health outcomes are determined by health discourses. To explore understandings of the cause of ill health in two deindustrialised areas of Scotland, interviews with participants produced vivid articulations of the links between politics, policies, deindustrialisation, damage to community fabric and impacts on health, hence the title: Working-class discourses of politics, policy and health: ‘I don’t smoke; I don’t drink. The only thing wrong with me is my health’.
Majoritarianism reinterpreted: why Parliament is more influential than often thought
Felicity Matthews, co-editor of Policy & Politics
This blog post was originally published on the British Politics and Policy blog run by the London School of Economics and Political Science.
In the Hansard Society’s latest Audit of Political Engagement, a record 73% of respondents agree that Westminster’s Parliament is ‘essential to democracy’. Yet within the very same survey, only 32% are satisfied with the way Parliament works and only 28% believe that it encourages public involvement in politics. A number of academic commentators have also cast doubt upon Parliament’s credentials, with some regarding it as ‘either peripheral or totally irrelevant’; and within comparative scholarship, the House of Commons is frequently derided as lacking the clout of its continental counterparts.