Despite long-standing scholarly interest in the characteristics and work of “policy analysts”, actual empirical evidence was, until recently, very rare. This changed during the mid-2000s with qualitative case studies in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands (Page & Jenkins, 2005; Colebatch, 2006; Hoppe & Jeliazkova, 2006). Almost a decade later, series of large-scale quantitative studies of Canadian federal and provincial policy analysts were undertaken (Wellstead, Stedman & Lindquist, 2009; Wellstead & Stedman, 2010; Howlett & Newman, 2010; Howlett & Wellstead, 2011). It has been followed by surveys in other countries including Australia, the Czech Republic and Belgium. This research produced a lot of data and new information. However, it has been also criticized for being largely atheoretical and for adding little to what had been already known from qualitative surveys or practice.

The aim of the panel is to review the state of the art of the policy work research (both quantitative and qualitative) with special focus upon theoretical and methodological implications. We intend to bring together scholars from different countries and professional backgrounds, as well as using different methodologies to discuss together what we know about the world of policy analysts / workers.

Questions asked in the panel include: What have we learnt from the data in terms of theory building? How the empirical findings correspond with theoretical work on the topic (Colebatch, Hoppe, Mayer et al. and others)? What are the most significant research questions for future research on policy work? What are the implications for the refinements in methodology? Is mixed-method methodology a solution? Is there any generally applicable knowledge on the nature of current policy work across policy domains, countries, governance levels etc.? And last but not least, what are the implications for actual policy work practice?

http://www.icpublicpolicy.org/conference/article/article.php?conference=2&article=14