IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/cejopp/v18y2024i2p35-51n1003.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

More than Semantics? Navigating the “Policy * Design” Concepts’ Landscape

Author

Listed:
  • Villa-Alvarez Diana Pamela

    (Faculty of International, Political and Urban Studies, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia)

  • Wellstead Adam M.

    (Department of Social Sciences, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan, USA)

Abstract

Scholarship from the design discipline and policy sciences has produced rich empirical and theoretical knowledge on the intersection of policy and design. However, using concepts that pair “policy” and “design” in various ways, often with different meanings, can confuse practitioners and scholars alike. This confusion is further exacerbated by the sheer variety of online information, including peer-reviewed articles, books, reports, blogs, courses, and the websites of prominent scholars, practitioners, and policy actors. To address this, we analyze “Policy * Design” concepts from a Google Search Engine scraping tool and, in doing so, identify four distinct approaches: “policy design,” “design for policy,” “design in policy,” and “design policy.” The results are presented through issue mapping, and the content of these results is discussed. Finally, we suggest strategies for bridging the gap between “Policy * Design” definitions and then provide a preliminary description of these concepts.

Suggested Citation

  • Villa-Alvarez Diana Pamela & Wellstead Adam M., 2024. "More than Semantics? Navigating the “Policy * Design” Concepts’ Landscape," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 18(2), pages 35-51.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:cejopp:v:18:y:2024:i:2:p:35-51:n:1003
    DOI: 10.2478/cejpp-2024-0008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/cejpp-2024-0008
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/cejpp-2024-0008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leonore Haelg & Sebastian Sewerin & Tobias S. Schmidt, 2020. "The role of actors in the policy design process: introducing design coalitions to explain policy output," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 309-347, June.
    2. Diana Pamela Villa Alvarez & Valentina Auricchio & Marzia Mortati, 2022. "Mapping design activities and methods of public sector innovation units through the policy cycle model," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(1), pages 89-136, March.
    3. Michael McGann & Emma Blomkamp & Jenny M. Lewis, 2018. "The rise of public sector innovation labs: experiments in design thinking for policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 249-267, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sojeong Kim & Adam M. Wellstead & Tanya Heikkila, 2023. "Policy capacity and rise of data‐based policy innovation labs," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(3), pages 341-362, May.
    2. Jonathan Craft & Reut Marciano, 2024. "Low-fidelity policy design, within-design feedback, and the Universal Credit case," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(1), pages 83-99, March.
    3. Helen Ngozi ELEMS-IKWEGBU, Ph.D, 2024. "Comparative Analysis of Educational Policy Formulation and Implementation Strategies in Developed and Developing Countries," International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation, International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI), vol. 11(7), pages 922-941, July.
    4. Ryan Anders Whitney & David López-García, 2023. "Fast-track institutionalization: The opening of urban planning best practice agencies in Mexico City," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 41(3), pages 600-616, May.
    5. Alfonso Unceta & Xabier Barandiaran & Natalia Restrepo, 2019. "The Role of Public Innovation Labs in Collaborative Governance—The Case of the Gipuzkoa Lab in the Basque Country, Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-16, November.
    6. Kasper Ampe & Erik Paredis & Lotte Asveld & Patricia Osseweijer & Thomas Block, 2021. "Power struggles in policy feedback processes: incremental steps towards a circular economy within Dutch wastewater policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 579-607, September.
    7. Makoza, Frank, 2023. "Analyzing policy change of Malawi ICT and Digitalization policy: Policy Assemblage Perspective," EconStor Preprints 273309, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    8. Oana Pricopoaia & Andreea Valentina Busila & Nicoleta Cristache & Irina Susanu & Cosmin Matis, 2024. "Challenges for entrepreneurial innovation: Startups as tools for a better knowledge-based economy," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 969-1010, June.
    9. Jakob T. Pruess, 2023. "Unraveling the complexity of extended producer responsibility policy mix design, implementation, and transfer dynamics in the European Union," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 27(6), pages 1500-1520, December.
    10. Vasiliki Geropanta & Elia Margarita Cornelio-Marí, 2022. "Inclusiveness and Participation in the Design of Public Spaces: Her City and the Challenge of the Post-Pandemic Scenario," International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), IGI Global, vol. 11(1), pages 1-15, January.
    11. Simon Hull & Jennifer Whittal, 2021. "Do Design Science Research and Design Thinking Processes Improve the ‘Fit’ of the Fit-For-Purpose Approach to Securing Land Tenure for All in South Africa?," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-26, May.
    12. Brendan Moore & Andrew Jordan, 2020. "Disaggregating the dependent variable in policy feedback research: an analysis of the EU Emissions Trading System," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 291-307, June.
    13. Lars Fuglsang & Anne Vorre Hansen & Ines Mergel & Maria Taivalsaari Røhnebæk, 2021. "Living Labs for Public Sector Innovation: An Integrative Literature Review," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, June.
    14. Arnošt Veselý, 2021. "Autonomy of policy instrument attitudes: concept, theory and evidence," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(2), pages 441-455, June.
    15. Omri Carmon & Itay Fischhendler, 2021. "A friction perspective for negotiating renewable energy targets: the Israeli case," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(2), pages 313-344, June.
    16. Lana Ollier & Florence Metz & Alejandro Nuñez-Jimenez & Leonhard Späth & Johan Lilliestam, 2022. "The European 2030 climate and energy package: do domestic strategy adaptations precede EU policy change?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(1), pages 161-184, March.
    17. Triyuth Promsiri & Krisakorn Sukavejworakit & Vasu Keerativutisest & Thanaphol Virasa & Krischanan Kampanthong, 2022. "Sustaining Thai Government Agency Innovation through Design Thinking Learning Effectiveness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-13, June.
    18. Joshua B Cohen, 2022. "Institutionalizing public engagement in research and innovation: Toward the construction of institutional entrepreneurial collectives [Limits of Decentered Governance in Science-society Policies]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 673-685.
    19. Víctor Gómez-Valenzuela, 2023. "Stated preference methods and STI policy studies: a foreground approach," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 171-187.
    20. John, Laura, 2022. "Rethinking digital governance - How collaborative innovation strategies advance the development of digital innovations in public organisations," Junior Management Science (JUMS), Junior Management Science e. V., vol. 7(5), pages 1400-1418.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vrs:cejopp:v:18:y:2024:i:2:p:35-51:n:1003. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.