↓ 跳过正文

Advocacy Coalition Framework

Running With Scissors? Integrating GPT Models Into Public Policy Research

·627 字·2 分钟
Polihot 公共政策 研究方法 LLM相关 Large Language Models GPT Public Policy Text Annotation Advocacy Coalition Framework
PSJ — 2026-06-23 Original Running With Scissors? Integrating GPT Models Into Public Policy Research Giulia Mariani, Allegra H. Fullerton Abstract ABSTRACT The integration of large language models (LLMs) into public policy research presents both exciting opportunities and methodological challenges. This research note explores how OpenAI's GPT can be used to semi‐automate the annotation of legislative testimony within the Advocacy Coalition Framework, focusing on emotion‐belief dyads. Building on Emotion‐Belief Analysis, we demonstrate how GPT can assist in identifying these complex constructs under human supervision. Our contributions are threefold: (1) we provide practical guidance for applying LLMs to publicly available textual data, (2) we propose a semiautomated workflow that strengthens conceptual clarity, transparency, consistency, replicability, and accessibility, and (3) we reflect on the ethical and methodological implications of LLM‐assisted research. As LLMs continue to advance, this research note aims to help scholars balance innovation with rigor and integrate these tools responsibly into policy research, offering lessons that extend to the study of frames, discourses, narratives, and other ideational dimensions of policymaking.

Polarization Entrepreneurs: Dividing to Conquer in the Trump Era

·738 字·2 分钟
Polihot 公共政策 美国政治 Policy Entrepreneurs Polarization Multiple Streams Framework Advocacy Coalition Framework Trump
PSJ — 2026-05-27 Original Polarization Entrepreneurs: Dividing to Conquer in the Trump Era Christoph H. Stefes, Kayla M. Gabehart, Kristin Olofsson Abstract ABSTRACT The policy process literature has long theorized about the role of policy entrepreneurs, whom Paul Cairney calls the “hero... who knows that the pursuit of ambitious aims such as ‘evidence‐based policymaking’ requires framing a problem, having a solution ready, and exploiting the motive and opportunity of policymakers to select it” (2018, 199). The research agenda on policy entrepreneurs also holds great potential for another type of policy actor that we aim to introduce into the policy process lexicon: the polarization entrepreneur. These polarization entrepreneurs aim not to resolve the specific policy conflict at hand, but to advance broader strategic goals, such as solidifying their ideological base, expanding their influence across several policy subsystems, or gaining electoral advantage. We introduce the polarization entrepreneur as a policy actor who strategizes within policy spaces in ways we have not yet fully comprehended or theorized. We thus draw on the Multiple Streams Literature (MSF), the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) literature, as well as the political rise of Donald Trump to theorize about how these polarization entrepreneurs operate. We suggest a research agenda that presents a wealth of opportunity for policy scholars to better understand the policy system of our day.

Coalition Breakdown and Subsystem Exit

·631 字·2 分钟
Polihot 公共政策 Advocacy Coalition Framework Coalition Breakdown Subsystem Exit Policy Process Democratic Backsliding
PSJ — 2026-03-30 Original Coalition Breakdown and Subsystem Exit Charlie F. Thompson Abstract ABSTRACT Why actors choose to work together (or not) to advance policy has been the central area of inquiry within the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). Existing research has mainly emphasized the pathway towards coalition formation and evolution, underscoring the stable patterns of allies and opponents observable in policy processes over a decade or so. Why coalitions fracture, splinter or dissolve has seldom been theoretically articulated or empirically investigated, which leaves policy process research in the dark on the unstable factors of coalition evolution. This perspectives stresses three modes of coalition breakdown—the process by which an established advocacy coalition (i) fractures—a mode of enhanced internal conflict producing differentiated coordination patterns, (ii) splinters into competing coalitions—where previous allies stop working together entirely, and (iii) dissolves—the subsystem exit of an existing coalition. Focusing on internal threats, but also the external shocks provided by democratic backsliding, the article advances foundational theory on why coalitions fissure, become dormant and collapse—policy dynamics that are expected to continue to persist in an increasingly polarized society.