Challenging conventional theoretical and methodological perspectives, the critical approach to policy studies seeks to reshape the dominant empirical-analytic discourse while enhancing practice in a way that overcomes the manifest limitations of the conventional orientation. This necessitates considering the relation of political and policy theory to specific practices of governance, in particular as they pertain to democracy, participatory practices, social justice, and general public welfare. In moving beyond a narrow empirical fixation and its emphasis on ‘technical rationality’, critical policy studies also stress the dynamic interplay between qualitative and quantitative modes of inquiry while devoting special attention to interpretive, argumentative, and discursive approaches to studying and making policy.

In that respect, critical policy studies highlight language and its interpretation as constitutive devices of social relations. Arguments and/or discourses do not merely describe an underlying social reality, but shape the latter by bringing things and objects into being. Taking into account recent work in policy studies, on policy planning, and on democracy, participatory practices, social justice, and general public welfare, this section seeks to look at a range of research programmes related to argumentation, interpretation, and discourse with an eye toward both assessing the current state of the research — empirical, theoretical and methodological — and offering new ways forward.

In order to advance our understanding of these questions, we aim, first, to strengthen debates on argumentation and argumentative strategies that have become powerful in the “argumentative turn”. The central position of the argumentative turn can be attributed in significant part to Majone's book on evidence and argumentation, followed by Sabatier’s work on advocacy coalitions. Sabatier set out a rigorous empirical programme that exerts a substantial influence on policy studies. The discussion was also put into sharper focus with Hajer’s concept of discourse coalitions. In addition, the work by

Fischer and Gottweis assesses these themes in The Argumentative Turn Revisited: Public Policy as a Communicative Practice.

Second, we aim to revisit debates of methodological interest, particularly as they relate to language and communication. The critical approach inherently disavows the idea that policy inquiry can have direct, value-free access to ‘data’ that somehow occupy a space outside the sphere of social meanings. From a critical perspective, the very notion of a ‘neutral’ position represents an irresponsible form of bias that either impedes or entirely precludes attention to crucial questions. As policy analysts and/or “policy planners”, how do we deal with the fact of being inside that sphere of social meanings we analyse? Once we accept the postmodern condition that we are surrounded by multiple meanings, such analytical difficulties become inevitable.

Moreover, third, once we turn our focus to emotions – both as references to emotionally loaded policy issues and as the researcher’s analytical strategies – we embark on a reflection on a larger epistemological dimension through which we analyse policies. This reflection teases out the implications for policy analysis that the mainstream policy analysis considers a rational construct. In relation to that, the word “critical” in the phrase “critical policy studies” refers to the recognition that emotions do not build the counterpart to policies but rather are at their core.

We therefore welcome panels re-visiting central approaches of Critical Policy Studies, such as Argumentative Turn, Discourse Analysis, Interpretive Methods, Deliberative Policy Analysis, or Poststructuralist Policy Analysis along these three topic lines. Panels can undertake theoretical debates or they can present empirical applications of these concepts within specific policy fields. We are also interested in discussing other complementary concepts to the dominant strands within critical policy studies. Finally, panels can engage in methodological reflections of what is implied in critically studying policies.

Anna P. Durnová anna.durnova@univie.ac.at