The Role of Science in the Policy Subsystem: An Application of the Advocacy Coalition Framework to Nanotechnology Regulation Policies

References

• Abbott, K. W., Marchant, G. E., & Corley, E. A. (2012). Soft law oversight mechanisms for nanotechnology. Jurimetrics, 52(3), 279–312. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23240003
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, W. F., & MacLean, D. A. (2015). Public forest policy development in New Brunswick, Canada: Multiple streams approach, advocacy coalition framework, and the role of science. Ecology and Society, 20(4), 12 pp. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07795-200420
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, S. E., Edwards, R., & Doidge, M. (2012). How many qualitative interviews is enough?: Expert voices and early career reflections on sampling and cases in qualitative research.
   Google Scholar
• Beem, B. (2012). Learning the wrong lessons? Science and fisheries management in the chesapeake bay blue crab fishery. Public Understanding of Science, 21(4), 401–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510374177
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolsen, T., & Druckman, J. (2015). Counteracting the politicization of science. Journal of Communication, 65(5), 745–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12171
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradley, E. H., Curry, L. A., & Devers, K. J. (2007). Qualitative data analysis for health services research: Developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Services Research, 42(4), 1758–1772. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00684.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Budd, R. W., Thorp, R. K., & Donohew, L. (1967). Content analysis of communications. Collier-Mac.
   Google Scholar
• Bukowski, J. (2007). Spanish water policy and the national hydrological plan: An advocacy coalition approach to policy change. South European Society & Politics, 12(1), 39–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608740601151673
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cairney, P. (2014, April). Evidence based policy making: If you want to inject more science into policymaking you need to know the science of policymaking. Political Studies Association Annual Conference, Manchester.
   Google Scholar
• Carlstrom, P. (2005). Nanotech material toxicity debated. More oversight being urged by environmentalists. The Chronicle. http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Nanotech-material-toxicity-debated-More-2569987.php
   Google Scholar
• Curry, L. A., Nembhard, I. M., & Bradley, E. H. (2009). Qualitative and mixed methods provide unique contributions to outcomes research. Circulation, 119(10), 1442–1452. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.107.742775
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denison, R. A. (2007). Comments on EPA’s “Concept paper for the Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program under TSCA”.
   Google Scholar
• Duvall, M. N., & Wyatt, A. M. (2011). Regulation of nanotechnology and nanomaterials at EPA and around the world: Recent developments and context. 1350 I Street, N.W., Suite 700. Beveridge & Diamond, P.C.
   Google Scholar
• Ehrlich, P. R., & Ehrlich, A. H. (1996). Betrayal of science and reason: How anti-environmental rhetoric threatens our future. Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Environmental Defense. (2007). Press release: Environmental defense response to coalition’s open letter on the nano risk framework.
   Google Scholar
• EPA. (2007). EPA concept paper for nanoscale materials stewardship program under TSCA.
   Google Scholar
• EPA. (2009). Nanoscale materials stewardship program: Interim report: Environmental Protection Agency.
   Google Scholar
• ETC Group. (2007). Principles for the oversight of Nanotechnologies and Nanomaterials.
   Google Scholar
• Fafard, P. (2008). Evidence and healthy public policy: Insights from health and political sciences. Canadian Policy Research Networks.
   Google Scholar
• Falkner, R., & Jaspers, N. (2012). Regulating Nanotechnologies: Risk, uncertainty and the global governance gap. Global Environmental Politics, 12(1), 30–55. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00096
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2(6), 645–672.
   Google Scholar
• Freudenburg, W. R., Gramling, R., & Davidson, D. J. (2008). Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods (SCAMs): Science and the politics of doubt. Sociological Inquiry, 78(1), 2–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2008.00219.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., & Chadwick, B. (2008). Methods of data collection in qualitative research: Interviews and focus groups. British Dental Journal, 204(6), 291–295. https://doi.org/10.1038/bdj.2008.192
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffin, A., & Hauser, J. R. (1993). The voice of the customer. Marketing Science, 12(1), 1–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammersley, M. (2007). The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 30(3), 287–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437270701614782
   Google Scholar
• Han, H., Swedlow, B., & Unger, D. (2014). Policy advocacy coalitions as causes of policy change in China? Analyzing evidence from contemporary environmental politics. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 16(4), 313–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2013.857065
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hess, D. J. (2010). Environmental reform organizations and undone science in the United States: Exploring the environmental, health, and safety implications of nanotechnology. Science as Culture, 19(2), 181–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430903183697
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodge, G. A., Bowman, D., & Maynard, A. D. (2010). International handbook on regulating Nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (2002). Do networks matter? Linking policy network structure to policy outcomes: Evidence from four Canadian policy sectors 1990-2000. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de Science Politique, 35(2), 235–267. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423902778232
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingold, K., Fischer, M., & Cairney, P. (2016). Drivers for policy agreement in nascent subsystems: An application of the advocacy coalition framework to fracking policy in Switzerland and the UK. Policy Studies Journal, 45(3), 442–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingold, K., & Gschwend, M. (2014). Science in policy-making: Neutral experts or strategic policy-makers? West European Politics, 37(5), 993–1018. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2014.920983
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jang, S., Weible, C. M., & Park, K. (2016). Policy processes in South Korea through the lens of the advocacy coalition framework. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 9(3), 274–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2016.1201877
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. (2009). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jenkins-Smith, H., Silva, C. L., Gupta, K., & Ripberger, J. T. (2014). Belief system continuity and change in policy advocacy coalitions: Using cultural theory to specify belief systems, coalitions, and sources of change. Policy Studies Journal, 42(4), 484–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12071
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Nohrstedt, D. W., Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2014). The advocacy coalition framework: Foundations, evolution and ongoing research. In P. A. W. Sabatier & C. M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (3 ed., pp. 184–217). Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jenkins-Smith, H. C., & Sabatier, P. A. (1994). Evaluating the advocacy coalition framework. Journal of Public Policy, 14(2), 175–203. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00007431
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, E. E. V. (1983). Agency catpure: The revolving door between regulated industries and their regulating agencies. University of Richmond Law Review’s, 18(1), 95. https://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol18/iss1/5/?utm_source=scholarship.richmond.edu%2Flawreview%2Fvol18%2Fiss1%2F5&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
   Google Scholar
• Kienzler, H., & Pedersen, D. (2007). Using qualitative and quantitative research methods in the study of mental and trauma-related disorders. Francais. Mcgill. Ca, 1–48. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.515.7130&rep=rep1&type=pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kim, Y.-J., & Roh, C.-Y. (2008). Beyond the advocacy coalition framework in policy process. Intl Journal of Public Administration, 31(6), 668–689. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690701465384
   Google Scholar
• Kimmins, J., Welham, C., Seely, B., Meitner, M., Rempel, R., & Sullivan, T. (2005). Science in forestry: Why does it sometimes disappoint or even fail us? The Forestry Chronicle, 81(5), 723–734. https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc81723-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiser, L. L., & Ostrom, E. (2000). The three worlds of action: A metatheoretical synthesis of institutional approches. In M. D. McGinnis (Ed.), Polycentric games and institutions (pp. 56–88).Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Krabbenborg, L. (2013). DuPont and environmental defense fund co-constructing a risk framework for nanoscale materials: An occasion to reflect on interaction processes in a joint inquiry. NanoEthics, 7(1), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-013-0167-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, K. N. (1994). Compass and gyroscope: Integrating science and politics for the environment. Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leifeld, P., & Schneider, V. (2012). Information exchange in policy networks. American Journal of Political Science, 56(3), 731–744. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00580.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Likens, G. E. (2010). The role of science in decision making: Does evidence-based science drive environmental policy? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(6), e1–e9. https://doi.org/10.1890/090132
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindkvist, K. (1981). Approaches to textual analysis. Advances in Content Analysis, 9(1), 23–42.
   Google Scholar
• Litfin, K. T. (2000). Advocacy coalitions along the domestic‐foreign frontier: Globalization and Canadian climate change policy. Policy Studies Journal, 28(1), 236–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2000.tb02026.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macleod, C. K., Blackstock, K., & Haygarth, P. (2008). Mechanisms to improve integrative research at the science-policy interface for sustainable catchment management. Ecology and Society, 13(2), 17 pp. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02648-130248
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacLeod, R. (1989). Science Speaks to Power: The Role of Experts in Policymaking by David Collingridge and Colin Reeve (Francis Pinter, London, 1986), ISBN 0-86187-640-7. Prometheus, 7(1), 180–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/08109028908629057
   Google Scholar
• McDougall, L. (2016). Power and politics in the global health landscape: Beliefs, competition and negotiation among global advocacy coalitions in the policy-making process. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 5(5), 309. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2016.03
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McTavish, D. G., & Pirro, E. B. (1990). Contextual content analysis. Quality & Quantity, 24(3), 245–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00139259
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2000). Governing the hollow state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 359–380. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024273
   Google Scholar
• Montpetit, É. (2011). Scientific credibility, disagreement, and error costs in 17 biotechnology policy subsystems. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 513–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00419.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nohrstedt, D. (2009). Do advocacy coalitions matter? Crisis and change in Swedish nuclear energy policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(2), 309–333. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mun038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pielke, R. A. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge Univ Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pierce, J. J., Peterson, H. L., Jones, M. D., Garrard, S. P., & Vu, T. (2017). There and back again: A tale of the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Studies Journal, 45(S1), S13–S46. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12197
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potter, W. J., & Levine‐donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909889909365539
   Google Scholar
• Richardson, D. (2009, May 6). Nanotechnology: New risks but no rules. Pacific Standard.
   Google Scholar
• Romney, A. K., Weller, S. C., & Batchelder, W. H. (1986). Culture as consensus: A theory of culture and informant accuracy. American Anthropologist, 88(2), 313–338. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1986.88.2.02a00020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabatier, P., Hunter, S., & McLaughlin, S. (1987). The devil shift: Perceptions and misperceptions of opponents. The Western Political Quarterly, 40(3), 449–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591298704000306
   Google Scholar
• Sabatier, P., & Zafonte, M. (1999). Are bureaucrats and scientists members of advocacy coalitions? Evidence from an intergovernmental water policy subsystem. Economic Research and Policy Concerning Water Use and Watershed Management, 25–73. https://archive.epa.gov/ncer/publications/web/pdf/ee-0423-04.pdf#page=30
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Westview.
   Google Scholar
• Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117–166). Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M. (2007). The advocacy coalition framework: Innovation and clarifications. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2 ed., p. 32). Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sass, J. (2007). Nanotechnology’s invisible threat: Small science, big consequences. Natural Resources Defense Council.
   Google Scholar
• Sotirov, M., & Memmler, M. (2012). The advocacy coalition framework in natural resource policy studies—Recent experiences and further prospects. Forest Policy and Economics, 16, 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.06.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutherland, W. J., Bellingan, L., Bellingham, J. R., Blackstock, J. J., Bloomfield, R. M., Bravo, M., Cohen, A. S and Cope DR. (2012). A collaboratively-derived science-policy research agenda. PloS one, 7(3), e31824. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031824
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tesch, R. (2013). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Theodoulou, S. Z., & Kofinis, C. (2004). The art of the game: Understanding American public policy making. Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic.
   Google Scholar
• Trager, R. (2008). EPA rolls out nanomaterials safety drive. Chemistry World. http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2008/February/04020802.asp
   Google Scholar
• Warren, C. A. (2001). Qualitative interviewing. In Handbook of interview research: Context and method(pp. 103–116). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412973588.n7
   Google Scholar
• Weible, C. M. (2005). Beliefs and perceived influence in a natural resource conflict: An advocacy coalition approach to policy networks. Political Research Quarterly, 58(3), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290505800308
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muj015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weible, C. M., Pattison, A., & Sabatier, P. A. (2010). Harnessing expert-based information for learning and the sustainable management of complex socio-ecological systems. Environmental Science & Policy, 13(6), 522–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.05.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2005). Comparing policy networks: Marine protected areas in California. Policy Studies Journal, 33(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2005.00101.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2007). A guide to the advocacy coalition framework. In F. Fischer (Ed.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 123–136). CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Nohrstedt, D., Henry, A. D., & deLeon, P. (2011). A quarter century of the advocacy coalition framework: An introduction to the special issue. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00412.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00299.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weishaar, H., Amos, A., & Collin, J. (2015). Capturing complexity: Mixing methods in the analysis of a European tobacco control policy network. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(2), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2014.897851
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage publications.
   Google Scholar