Skip to main content
Log in

Policy ideas through the prism of knowledge regimes and framing

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Interest Groups & Advocacy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  • Baumgartner, F.R. and Jones, B.D. (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F.R. and Mahoney, C. (2008) The two faces of framing – Individual-level framing and collective issue definition in the European Union. European Union Politics 9 (3): 435–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boräng, F., Eising, R., Klüver, H., Mahoney, C.h., Naurin, D., Rasch, D. and Rozbicka, P. (2014) Measuring frames: A comparison of methodological alternatives. Interest Groups and Advocacy 3 (2): 188–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coghlan, D. and Brannick, T. (2014) Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization, 4th edn. London: Siege Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J.L. and Pedersen, O.K. (2014) The National Origins of Policy Ideas: Knowledge Regimes in the United States, France, Germany, and Denmark. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Daviter, F. (2009) Schattschneider in Brussels: How policy conflict reshaped the biotechnology agenda in the European Union. West European Politics 32 (6): 1118–1139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daviter, F. (2011) Policy Framing in the European Union. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eising, R., Rasch, D. and Rozbicka, P. (2015) Institutions, policies, and arguments: Context and strategy in EU policy framing. Journal of European Public Policy 22 (4): 516–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J.W. (1984) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Little Brown: The University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klüver, H. (2009) Measuring interest group influence using quantitative text analysis. European Union Politics 10 (4): 535–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krugman, P. (2007) On being partisan. The New York Times, 26 January: A21.

  • Mahoney, C. (2008) Brussels Versus the Beltway. Advocacy in the United States and the European Union. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCombs, M. and Shaw, D. (1972) The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly 36 (2): 176–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nay, O. (2012) How policy ideas spread among international administrations? Policy entrepreneurs and bureaucratic influence in the UN response to AIDS. Journal of Public Policy 32 (I): 53–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radaelli, C. (1995) The role of knowledge in the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy 2 (2): 159–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R.A. (1986) Power-dependence. Theories of central-local relations: A critical assessment. In: M. Goldsmith (ed.) New Research in Central-Local Relations. Aldershot, UK: Gower, pp. 1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riker, W. (1986) The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schattschneider, E. (1960) The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone Sweet, A., Sandholtz, W. and Fligstein, N. (2001) The Institutionalization of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Surel, Y. (2000) The role of cognitive and normative frames in policy-making. Journal of European Public Policy 7 (4): 495–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terry, S., Terry, P., Rauen, K., Uitto, J. and Bercovitch, L. (2007) Advocacy groups as research organizations: The PXE international example. Nature Reviews Genetics 8 (2): 157–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. (1991) Policy research as advocacy: Pro and con. Knowledge and Policy: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer 4 (1–2): 37–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahariadis, N. (2003) Ambiguity and Choice in Public Policy. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rozbicka, P. Policy ideas through the prism of knowledge regimes and framing. Int Groups Adv 5, 107–112 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/iga.2015.11

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/iga.2015.11

Navigation