Public Policy

Introduction & Overview
Technical communicators act as advocates for the general population through investigating and reflecting on how individuals and groups interact with and experience the world in order to move society towards positive change. [13] One way technical communicators can advocate for the general population is through the creation of public policies, or unique documents that "present a discursive act tied to concrete action." [13]

These documents draw attention to the socio-cultural and political effects technical communication can have on public policy action and enactment. [13] Technical communicators are essential to the design and creation process of policies as an advocate for users, "not as a voice for them in their absence, but as a voice for their presence." [12]

User-Centered Policy Design
Technical communicators function as authors and translators within the policymaking process through conveying information in a clear, articulate, and accessible way to meet the needs of multiple communities and users. [21][26] The use of user-centered design when creating a policy allows for addressing societal problems where they occur and solve them for those they impact most, thus accelerating social progress. [12][26]

User-centered policies are policies that are designed and implemented with the end-users, or those who are impacted by the policy, as co-designers and allows technical communicators to "[fill] in the gaps" where policies can be reformed. [12][27] Policymakers using this design process utilizes users' knowledge of their "everyday situations" and lived experiences. [12] This can allow for technical communicators writing policy to focus on including both comprehensiveness and comprehension within policies to aid in clarity for end-users, such as workers or organizations. [12] Technical communicators can consider the following two questions when crafting policies to help assess the impact and accessibility of a policy and/or policy reform: [26]


 * Who does this policy benefit?


 * Who does this policy put at a disadvantage?

Environments
Policymaking is influenced by the environment it occurs in. [6][13] Each environment requires the integration of issues, expertise, viewpoints, practices, and ethics when policies are being created and enacted. [13] These environments can include the following:


 * Administrative [6]: Administrative environments are concerned with who will create, implement, and/or take responsibility for a policy.


 * Economic [6]: Economic environments influence how money, along with the health of local and global economies, play a role within policymaking. When an economy is healthy and performing well, society and politicians are more likely to pursue and prioritize policies that would improve the "quality of life" of citizens, such as policies on healthcare and education. When an economy is unhealthy and performing poorly, society and politicians are more likely to prioritize and pursue policies that would improve the economy's health, such as bailouts and stimulus bills.


 * Sociocultural [6]: A social and cultural, or sociocultural, environment can influence the policymaking process due to its ties to stakeholders, or the individuals, groups, or communities that would be directly affected by a policy and are present and involved throughout the policymaking process. The norms, values, majority ideology, and boundaries of a society and/or culture inform policymakers and politicians of what is and isn't acceptable.


 * Political [6]: Political environments are influenced by the sociocultural environment and climate. A political environment can shape what policies are proposed, move forward, and enacted due to who is elected to office, the priorities and ideologies of elected officials, and the priorities and ideologies of constituents.

Theories, Models, and Approaches
The field of public policy approaches policymaking using a variety of theories, models, and frameworks. Using these frameworks, technical communicators can understand what influences policymaking, analyze different policies and their effectiveness, find solutions to problems within current policies, and craft policies using one or more frameworks as a general guide. [25]

Advocacy Coalition Framework
The Advocacy Coalition Framework is a subsystem-based theory framework developed by Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith to serve as an alternative to the Stages Heuristic model (See Figure 2). [2] It focuses on simplifying the complexity of policy problems involving goal conflicts, technical disputes, and multiple actors within several levels of government. [2][4]

This framework illustrates four paths to policy change:


 * External Subsystem Events [6]: External subsystem events occur when there is a shift in a policy subsystem's core attributes. These external events, also known as shocks, can shift resources, beliefs, and power structures within subsystems. Examples of external subsystem events include socioeconomic conditions and public opinion.


 * Policy-Oriented Learning [6]: Policy-oriented learning occurs when an individual's views and opinions change with new experiences or information relating to policy objectives. Policy-oriented learning typically affects secondary beliefs or secondary aspects within policy subsystems.


 * Internal Subsystem Events [6]: Internal subsystem events occur when there are failures within current policy subsystems.


 * Cross-Coalition Learning [6]: Cross-coalition learning occurs when there is an institutional setting created by professional forums for coalitions to "safely negotiate, agree, and implement agreements."

Design Thinking
Design thinking is a user-centered approach to document creation. [9] This approach can change how technical communicators approach policymaking due to its focus on defining problems and involving stakeholders throughout the policymaking process in order to best address problems and create services that improve user experiences. [9] Design thinking uses five main strategies within policy creation to strengthen the development and implementation of policy:


 * Environmental Scanning [9]: Environmental scanning is a strategy that focuses on the behaviors and perspectives of individual and group stakeholders in order to "fill knowledge gaps and develop holistic understandings of systems."


 * Participant Observation [9]: Participant observation is a strategy that focuses on understanding stakeholders, their behaviors, and their viewpoints.


 * Open-to-Learning Conversations [9]: Open-to-learning conversations are a strategy that focuses on the "creation of new options and questioning the fundamental basis of existing structures" through encouraging "divergent thinking" from users.


 * Mapping [9]: Mapping is a strategy that focuses on understanding the relationships between different ideas in order to visualize connections and highlight patterns within user experiences.


 * Sensemaking [9]: Sensemaking is an action-oriented process that focuses on identity construction through dialogue and grouping.

Multiple Streams Framework
The Multiple Streams Framework "focuses on how ideas become solutions to policy problems." [8] This framework highlights the disorganized reality of policymaking by identifying three "problem streams" within policymaking: [6][8]


 * Problem Stream [8]: In this stream, "attention lurches to a policy problem." This could be due to "focusing events" (see Key Terms).


 * Policy Stream [8]: In this stream, "a solution to the problem is available." Solutions evolve as actors propose, reconsider, and modify them in order to meet the needs of coalitions. Actors attempt to "develop solutions in anticipation of future problems" and wait for these issues to arise in order to direct attention to their solution.


 * Politics Stream [8]: In this stream, "policymakers have the motive and opportunity to turn a solution into policy." Policymakers gauge the sociocultural boundaries and values. They then weigh these with their own beliefs and values, along with any feedback from parties, coalitions, and other interested groups.

Linear Model
The Linear model, also known as the mainstream, common-sense, or rational model, assumes policymakers will approach issues rationally and carefully consider all relevant information. [3][25] This model divides the policy reform process into four main phases (see Figure 3): [3][20]


 * Acknowledgement Phase [3][20]: The acknowledgment phase is where policymakers recognize and acknowledge an issue that needs reform.


 * Agenda Phase [3][20]: The agenda phase is where this issue is defined and potential solutions are identified.


 * Decision Phase [3][20]: The decision phase is where potential solutions are discussed and analyzed according to the advantages and disadvantages they may bring to society. Policymakers use this phase to decide the best option among each potential solution.


 * Implementation Phase [3][20]: The final phase, implementation, focuses on enacting and executing the new solution through official policy and evaluating the outcome over time as necessary.

Stages Heuristic Model
The Stages Heuristic model illustrates critical moments within policy creation and the history of a policy subsystem through the use of a linear and methodical approach. [2][6] This model defines six steps within the policymaking process:


 * Step 1 - Problem Identification [6]: Step 1 involves identifying and defining a problem that impacts the public.


 * Step 2 - Agenda Setting [6]: Step 2 involves approaching a government with the problem.


 * Step 3 - Policy Formulation [6]: Step 3 involves brainstorming solutions for the problem. These solutions must be "specific, concrete actions about how to address an issue."


 * Step 4 - Policy Legitimation [6]: Step 4 involves discussing, deciding upon, and either enacting or rejecting a policy.


 * Step 5 - Policy Implementation [6]: Step 5 involves carrying out the "specific, concrete actions" to solve the problem.


 * Step 6 - Policy Evaluation [6]: Step 6 involves critically analyzing the policy based on its success or failure to address and/or solve the problem. This involves viewing data on the policy and its level of success at both the systematic and front-line levels. The evaluator(s) review what the policy has done over time, who it works best for, what cases it has been applicable to, and what all it has affected.

Political Opportunity Theory
Political Opportunity theory, also known as the Window of Opportunity theory, attempts to "predict variance in the periodicity, style, and content of activist claims over time and... across institutional contexts." [10][25] It seeks to discover the impact of political movements on policymaking, how political opportunities function, and for whom and what political opportunities are for. [10] This framework uses three critical variables that can lead to political opportunities, or events that have the potential to ignite societal change. [10][11] These three variables are used to demonstrate how the actions of activists can alter and inform the political landscape:


 * Variable 1 [11]: "Changing political alignments, public policy, and mainstream culture."


 * Variable 2 [11]: Opportunities are capable of varying across a variety of issues and over time.


 * Variable 3 [11]: Opportunity analyses are used more to analyze the origins of a movement, while the analyses of how political movements are treated are used to measure and explain the decline of a movement.

Punctuated Equilibrium Theory
Punctuated Equilibrium Theory focuses on paying equal attention to political forces within political change that create stability and forces that allow dramatic changes in policy. [1][6] Stability is characterized by two different periods:


 * Instability [1][6]: Instability is referred to as "punctuations," where policymaking is "characterized by high-profile and dramatic action" at the macro-political level.


 * Stability [1][6]: Stability is referred to as "equilibria," where policymaking occurs beneath the surface-level of policy subsystems.

This theory also suggests studying two types of feedback processes - positive and negative - to measure the presence of stability within a policy:


 * Positive-Feedback Processes [1]: Positive-feedback processes are characterized by patterns that can "create rapid self-reinforcing changes."


 * Negative-Feedback Processes [1]: Negative-feedback processes are characterized by self-correcting patterns that lead to "steady equilibrium-type behaviors over time."

Interactive Policy Implementation Model
The Interactive Policy Implementation Model "builds on a political economy approach to understanding policy reform" by viewing policy reform as an interactive process full of informal and formal stages (see Figure 4). [20] This model assumes that a policy is in a state of equilibrium due to societal acceptance of an already established set of policies.[20] When this equilibrium is upset, a reaction will occur, leading to a response from those the policy affects either positively or negatively. [20] Political, financial, managerial, and technical resources are considered when implementing the reformed policy and can contribute to whether a policy is reformed or not. [20]

Resources
Baumgartner, Frank R. Chapter 2: "Punctuated Equilibrium Theory and Environmental Policy." Robert Repetto (ed.), Punctuated Equilibrium and the Dynamics of U.S. Environmental Policy (2006): 24-46.

Weible, Christopher M., Paul A. Sabatier, and Kelly McQueen. "Themes and Variations: Taking Stock of the Advocacy Coalition Framework." Policy Studies Journal, no. 37 (2009): 121-140. DOI: 10.111/j.1541-0072.2008.00299.x

Sutton, R. "The Policy Process: An Overview" (1999). ODI Working Paper, no. 118. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Sabatier, Paul A. and Christopher M. Weible. Chapter 7: The Advocacy Coalition Framework - Innovations and Clarifications. In P. Sabatier (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd Ed. (2007): pp. 189-220.

Geurts, Thei. "Public Policy Making: The 21st Century Perspective" (2010).

Rinfret, Sara R., Denise Scheberie, and Michelle C. Pautz. "Chapter 2: The Policy Process and Policy Theories." Public Policy: A Concise Introduction (2018): pp. 19-44.

Jones, Natasha, Justin McDavid, Katie Derthick, Randy Dowell, and Jan Spyridakis. "Plain Language in Environmental Policy Documents: An Assessment of Reader Comprehension and Perceptions." Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 42, no. 4 (October 2012): 331-371. DOI: 10.2190/TW.42.4.b

Cairney, Paul and Michael Jones. "Kingdon's Multiple Streams Approach: What is the Empirical Impact of This Universal Theory?". Policy Studies Journal 44, no. 1 (2016): 37-58. DOI: 10.1111/PSJ.12111

Mintrom, Michael and Joannah Luetjens. "Design Thinking in Policymaking Processes: Opportunities and Challenges." Australian Journal of Public Administration 75, no. 3 (2016): 391-402. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8500.12211

Meyer, David S., and Debra C. Minkoff. "Conceptualizing Political Opportunity." Social Forces 82, no. 4 (2004): 1457-1492. DOI: 10.1353/sof.2004.0082

Gornick, Janet C., and David S. Meyer. "Changing Political Opportunity: The Anti-Rape Movement and Public Policy." Journal of Public Policy History 10, no 4 (1998): 367-398. DOI: 10.1017/S0898030600007132.

Ranney, Frances J. "Beyond Foucault: Toward a User-Centered Approach to Sexual Harassment Policy." Technical Communication Quarterly 9, no 1 (2000): 9-28. DOI: 10.1080/10572250009364683

Jones, Natasha N. "The Technical Communicator as Advocate: Integrating a Social Justice Approach in Technical Communication." Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 46, no. 3 (July 2016): 342-361. DOI: 10.1177/0047281616639472.

Moore, Kristen. "Exposing Hidden Relations: Storytelling, Pedagogy, and the Study of Policy." Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 43, no. 1 (January 2013): 63-78. DOI: 10.2190/TW.43.1.d.

Longo, Justin. "Communication in the Policy Process." The eBriefings.ca White Paper Series, no. 07-08-002 (August 2007).

Innovation Webinar Featured Image [Digital image]. (2020) Retrieved from https://www.aib.world/event/aib-journals-webinar-public-policy-and-innovation/

What is plain language? (2017). Retrieved October 19, 2020, from https://www.plainlanguage.gov/about/definitions/

PolicyNL Newfoundland Labrador Canada. "Policy Models" (N/A). Retrieved from https://www.policynl.ca/policydevelopment/pages/policymodels.html

Lasswell, Harold D. "The Emerging Conception of the Policy Sciences." Policy Sciences 1, no.1 (1970): 3-14. DOI: 10.1007/BF00145189

Grindle, Merilee S. and John W. Thomas. "After The Decision: Implementing Policy Reforms in Developing Countries." World Development 18, no. 8 (August 1990): 1163-1181. DOI: 10.1016/0305-750X(90)90096-G

Slack, Jennifer D., David J, Miller, and Jeffrey Doak. "The Technical Communicator as Author: Meaning, Power, Authority." Journal of Business and Technical Communication 7, no. 1 (January 1993): 12-36. DOI: 10.1177/1050651993007001002

Leahy, Bart. "The Technical Writer as Advocate" [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://heroictechwriting.com/2012/01/16/technical-writer-advocate/

Mitchell, Ronald K., Bradley R. Agle, and Donna J. Wood. "Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts." The Academy of Management Review 22, no. 4 (October 1997): 853-886. DOI: 10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105

Freeman, R. Edward. "The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions." Business Ethics Quarterly 4, no. 4 (October 1994): 409-421. DOI: 10.2307/3857340

Segal, Elizabeth A. Social Welfare Policy and Social Programs: A Values Perspective, 4th edition (2016).

Moilanen, Stephen. "When to Use User-Centered Design for Public Policy." Stanford Social Innovation Review (May 2019). https://ssir.org/articles/entry/when_to_use_user_centered_design_for_public_policy#

Alvarez, Alberto R., Dana Chisnell, and Vivian Graubard. "Helping Policy Makers Put People First: A Step-by-Step Tool for User-Centered Policy Making." Georgetown University: The Beeck Center for Social Impact and Innovation (May 2020). https://beeckcenter.georgetown.edu/helping-policy-makers-put-people-first-a-step-by-step-tool-for-user-centered-policy-making/

Last updated by Lauryn Maher on November 7, 2020.