The diversity of policy process theories and approaches regularly appearing in the Policy Studies Journal is substantial and is clearly reflected in the present issue. From policy entrepreneurship to discursive agency, from the ACF to the submerged state, and from incremental institutional change to the Comparative Agendas Project databases, the manuscripts appearing in this volume represent diverse approaches and methods for examining policy making processes. Each of the manuscripts further explores, critiques, develops, and extends theories of policy making processes. Two of the manuscripts examine the interplay between actors and policy contexts, but from very different epistemological and ontological approaches. Arnold, Long, and Gottlieb (2017) examine how the structure of social networks in which policy entrepreneurs are embedded shape their ability to achieve their policy goals. This manuscript is innovative in that it brings together two key concepts in the study of policymaking—entrepreneurship and networks—to further our understanding of both. Using cross sectional data, the authors analyze the structure of networks of actors engaged in high volume hydraulic fracturing policymaking in 56 municipalities in New York State. The authors find that network structure conditions the success of pro and antifracturing policy entrepreneurs. For instance, antifracturing policy entrepreneurs are more successful when they can link less connected actors into the policymaking process, thereby breaking up the status quo with new ideas and resources. In contrast, profracturing policy entrepreneurs are more successful when they are connected to already well connected actors, supporting the status quo and making policy change more difficult. As the authors note, in closing, examining policy entrepreneurs and the contexts in which they function represents a rich line of research that will further our understanding of policy entrepreneurs. Leipold and Winkel (2017) propose the Discursive Agency Approach (DAA) as a heuristic to more explicitly incorporate agency within poststructural analyses of policy and policymaking processes. As the authors note, existing forms of discourse analysis (e.g., Critical Discourse Analysis, Discursive Institutionalism, Argumentative Discourse Analysis, Laclauand Mouffe's Discourse Theory) recognize the importance of agency, but none adequately develop the concept. As Leipold and Winkel (2017, p.14) argue, “By neglecting agency, discourse analysis risks omitting one of its core achievements, the emphasis on the interrelation between discourse and agency in all social processes including research and the resulting necessity to embrace complexity through interpretation rather than reducing it through analytical simplification.” The authors seek to remedy this by proposing the DAA, which is composed of the interactions among four conceptual categories, two related to agency—discursive agents and strategic practices—and two related to structure—political institutions and policy discourses. In addition to carefully defining each category and providing specific typologies to assist scholars to engage systematically with complex policy settings, the authors also suggest different empirical approaches for developing discursive policy making explanations. Two of the manuscripts further develop and empirically test progressive extensions of policymaking theories. Ingold, Fischer, and Cairney (2017) use hydraulic fracturing as the substantive context for exploring nascent advocacy coalitions. ACF scholars have extensively examined well-established advocacy coalitions (Pierce, Peterson, Jones, Garrard, & Vu, 2017); however, little is known about advocacy coalition formation when a policy subsystem is beginning to form. Ingold et al. (2017) examine possible drivers of coalition formation, focusing on beliefs, leadership, and mutual knowledge. Comparing two cantons in Switzerland and the UK, the authors use ERGM, a type of network analysis, to examine actors’ agreement on the design of policy for hydraulic fracturing. They find weak support for belief homophily and leadership, but consistent support for mutual knowledge, which is defined as actors having encountered one another or worked with one another in other policy subsystems. Ingold et al. (2017) clearly demonstrate that much fertile research remains to be done around the ACF. Hackett (2017) introduces the PSJ audience to the concept of the submerged state, first developed by Mettler (2010) to examine the effects on political behavior of government policies that channel public monies and support through indirect mechanisms. Such policies attenuate the connection between governments and public programs, making it much more difficult for citizens to mount challenges. Hackett (2017) extends this argument by examining legal challenges and their outcomes. The manuscript's substantive focus is aid to children in private religious schools, specifically vouchers, tax credits, textbook loans, transportation, equipment, health services, food services, and tax exemption for private religious school property. Hackett (2017) develops impressive data sets on all such policies at the state or federal levels, and all legal challenges to such policies. The analysis supports the hypotheses; that is, more deeply submerged policies, such as tax credits and property tax exemptions are less likely to be challenged and challenges are less successful compared to more weakly submerged policies, such as vouchers, transportation, or textbooks. The submerged state is one of several approaches for studying policy feedback and feed forward processes which represent exciting lines of policy process research. Finally, two manuscripts focus on the incremental institutional change approach, particularly the work of Kathleen Thelen and colleagues. The manuscript by van der Heijden and Kuhlmann (2017) provides a literature review and critique of incremental institutional change theory. Using the PRISMA method to identify the set of empirical manuscripts used for the review, the authors identify 45 manuscripts that apply incremental institutional change theory to empirical settings. The applications center around the key theoretical concepts used to explain incremental institutional change—conversion and drift, plus layering, displacement, and exhaustion. van der Heijden and Kuhlmann (2017) find empirical evidence for several of the most common critiques of the theory, such as the modes of change lack conceptual clarity. Scholars use the modes alternatively as strategies, processes, and outcomes. van der Heijden and Kuhlmann (2017) suggest several research strategies for moving the incremental institutional change approach from being overly descriptive to more evaluative. For instance, the authors propose systematically exploring the sequencing of modes of change and whether and why particular sequences are more common. Shpaizman (2017) presents a promising methodology for aiding in the further development of the incremental institutional change approach: systematically identifying cases of two of the modes of change, conversion and drift, using the Comparative Agendas Project data sets. The Comparative Agendas Project and its associated data sets are typically used to test hypotheses derived from Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (Jones & Baumgartner, 2012). However, as Shpaizman (2017) notes, the Comparative Agendas Project databases present many rich opportunities for scholars using qualitative methods to more rigorously identify cases for analysis. Shpaizman (2017) suggests the use of the possibility principle, whereby scholars select cases on the presence and absence of theoretically relevant independent variables, as a means of identifying cases. The proper application of the possibility principle requires a larger set of cases and this is where the CAP databases become valuable. Shpaizman (2017) illustrates how to use the CAP databases to identify potentially relevant cases of conversion and drift. Shpaizman's (2017) manuscript demonstrates the potential of using the CAP as an important tool for qualitative methods researchers, hopefully, encouraging many more efforts in this vein. Theoretical work on policymaking processes is dynamic and the manuscripts in this issue illustrate new and promising approaches to pursue.