European Policy Analysis Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2016 | Page 211

European Policy Analysis

that the analytical linearity of the stages
heuristic clouds the symbolic nature of
policymaking in society as a sense-making
activity rather than a purely methodical
enterprise.

We sought an alternative to the
linearity or cyclical nature of the policy
process, and found that the best visual
metaphor is that of juggling. The juggling
metaphor appears to ring true to policy
entrepreneurs and activists at the coal
face of policy development and change.
It recognizes that, although keeping all
balls in the air virtually simultaneously
creates an apparently hugely chaotic
scene, systematic and disciplined action is
required at all times. We contend that the
mastery of perspi cacious language (either
by rigorous application of the Frame
Theory and standard rhetorical repertoire,
or purely grounded in a charismatic talent
for words) is one of the most critical tools
in this process.

Juggling is decidedly not the same
as the idea of policy making as a garbage–
can process (most profoundly professed by
March and Olsen 1984)—the application
of theories highlighted above would aim
at structuring and making sense of the
logic, diligence and structure of managing
a chaotic process. Theory-led discussions
between academics and practitioners have
been suggested to work towards this end
(Cairney 2014).

Policy entrepreneurs who want
to make an impact in the art of juggling
should consider:

• The potential for further, bespoke,
“alternative specifications” for bringing
in actor–stakeholders from the
periphery to the center of, particularly,
the problem stream network;
• Considerations for the development,
deployment and necessary morphing
of rhetorical tools that resonate with
different (cliques of) stakeholders,
for example, compelling narratives,
synecdoche, metaphor, and ambiguous
statements (Stone 2002)
• The identification and empowerment
of as yet disconnected actor–
stakeholders to connect to the policy
discourse (de Leeuw and Clavier
2011);
• The identification (and we would
speculate that strategies of “naming
and shaming” might have utility)
of actor–stakeholders who sustain
policies and politics streams inertia,
thereby pointing to issues of trust,
network membership and joint
purpose;
• The analysis and description of critical
agents in network governance; and
• The identification and enabling of new
skills and competencies required for
network governance.

It will be clear that such roles,
objectives, and techniques require
a certain degree of mastery of the
theoretical foundations for network
mapping, management, and operations
as quite tentatively outlined above. The
professionals and activists engaging in
• The complexity of the policy domain these entrepreneurial roles will also have to
at hand, in terms of problems, policies possess great skills and knowledge around
and politics streams;
issues of knowledge utilisation (de Leeuw et
• The
identification
of
actor– al. 2008). Mostly, throughout our analyses
stakeholders, their relations and we have seen the importance of mastery of
perceptions in these streams;
language, and rhetorical tools to mobilise
211