Tempest in a teapot? Toward new collaborations between mainstream policy process studies and interpretive policy studies

Anna P Durnová,Christopher M Weible

doi:10.1007/s11077-020-09387-y

Abstract

“Tempest in a teapot” is an idiom that refers to a problem that has been blown out of proportion, which is how we see the supposedly divisive relationship between two research traditions: mainstream policy process studies and interpretive policy studies. In this commentary, we explore both research traditions, comparing and contrasting their views of public policy and policy processes, uses of theories, and approaches to research. Our aim is not to unite them or reject points of debate. Instead, we offer strategies for more productive collaborations, including side-by-side research, integrative research, engagement in constructive discussions of research techniques, and applied research.

Highlights

A “tempest in a teapot” is a problem that has been blown out of proportion
We provide brief descriptions of these traditions below
As we usually find them in mainstream policy process studies, exist in interpretive policy studies and can be understood both as associations to confirm or to refute and as guideposts to organize the analysis

Summary

Introduction

A “tempest in a teapot” is a problem that has been blown out of proportion. This idiom encapsulates ongoing miscommunications and animosities between mainstream and interpretivist policy scholars. The difference between these traditions has generated conflict in policy studies for decades, with some of the divisions passed down through generations. Conflict can fuel learning and, if properly handled, resulting in more robust and productive relations. We compare and contrast both research traditions. While we see differences in their orientations and methodologies, we see goal similarities given their distinct foci and emphases

Objectives

Discussion

Conclusion