Uncovering the Influencing Factors on the Policy
Formulation Process
An Explorative Study of the Extent in Which Policy Analytical Capacity Influence
the Policy Formulation Process of Integral Security Plans in the Netherlands
Program: Master Crisis and Security Management Author: Tom de Beer
Student Number: S2196611 Date of admission: March 3th, 2020
Word count: 23.043 (Excluding References and Appendices) 68.887 (Including References and Appendices)
Thesis supervisor: Dr. A.V. van der Vlies, Second reader: Dr. S.L. Kuipers
II
PREFACE
Before you lies the dissertation “Uncovering the Influencing Factors on the Policy Formulation Process”. It lays out the factors, as described by civil servants working for municipalities in the Netherlands, that influence the way in which integral security plans are formulated. This dissertation was written to complete the master degree of Crisis & Security Management at Leiden University.
Regardless of an unfortunate start of the dissertation process, in which I felt forced to change topic, I am glad that I have been able to join this capstone that focussed on integral security plans. Integral security plans can be considered to be a keystone in contemporary Dutch society to manage various topics within the field of security. I hope, that this dissertation can contribute to this highly relevant topic in any way, however small its significance.
It goes without saying that I could not have completed the dissertation process without the support of many people. While this list is long, I feel I need to give special attention to some in particular. First, to my supervisor, Vincent van der Vlies with who I enjoyed having
interesting discussions and of whom I appreciated his comments and input that challenged me more than once throughout the process. Vincent, thank you for your supervision during this sometimes challenging process in which I feel I have learned much. Then, I also want to thank the second reader, Sanneke Kuipers, who’s feedback helped me to improve my dissertation.
Another group of people, who I will not mention by name, are the civil servants who have been willing to see me on short notice for an interview. I have enjoyed talking to each one of you and to hear your experiences. Thank you for your openness. Without your input I would not have been able to do this study. Last, I want to thank my loving and supporting parents, my patient girlfriend and my dear friends, who were there for me when I needed them. I appreciate their motivational and kind words when I lost motivation. And I am grateful for their willingness to discuss my ideas when I got stuck and lend me their sympathetic ear when I encountered problems.
I wish those who read this dissertation a pleasant read.
Tom de Beer
III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE………... II TABLE OF CONTENS……….. III CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION………. 5
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK………. 9
2.1. Policy Cycle………...………… 9
2.2. Policy Formulation………. 11
2.2.1. Policy Formulation Process………...……….. 12
2.3. Policy Capacity and the Policy Cycle………...…. 14
2.3.1. Policy Capacity and Policy Formulation………...…….. 17
2.4. Policy Analytical Capacity………...……. 17
2.5. Conclusion………...…... 19
3. METHODOLOGY………...……. 21
3.1. Research Design………..….. 21
3.2. Unit of Analysis & Sampling………...….. 22
3.2.1. Context………. 23 3.2.2. Unit of Analysis……….………..…… 24 3.2.3. Unit of Observation………..……... 25 3.3. Data collection………..……. 26 3.4. Data analysis ………..…... 28 4. RESULTS………..…... 31
4.1. The Phases of the Policy Formulation Process………..……… 31
4.1.1. Assessment Phase………..…….. 31
4.1.1.1. Data Collection………..….. 32
4.1.1.2. Data Analysis………..……. 32
4.1.2. Coordination Phase……….………. 33
4.1.2.1. Enhancement of Data……….…….. 33
4.1.2.2. Coordination about Future Direction……….…….. 35
4.1.3. Feedback Phase……….…... 35
4.1.3.1. Asking Feedback from Executives……….. 35
4.1.3.2. Asking Feedback from Decision Makers……… 36
4.1.4. Writing Phase……….. 36
4.1.5. Discussion Phase………. 38
4.1.6. The Way in Which ISPs are Formulated……….……… 39
4.2. Factors Related to the Way in Which ISPs are Formulated……….……….. 39
4.2.1. Organisational Capabilities……….………. 39
4.2.1.1. Availability of Personnel………. 40
4.2.1.2. Budget……….. 45
4.2.2. Vision on Policy Making………. 47
4.2.3. External influences……….. 48
4.2.3.1. Regional Coordination………. 48
IV
4.2.4. Factors that Influence the Way in Which ISPs are Formulated……...…… 50
5. CONCLUSION……….……… 52
5.1. Conclusion of Findings……….. 52
5.2. Discussion of Findings……….….. 55
5.2.1. Implication of Findings………..………. 55
5.2.2. Strengths and Limitations……… 57
5.2.3. Future Research………60
REFERENCES……… 62
APPENDICES………. 65
Appendix A: Results of Analysis……… 65
5
Chapter 1: Introduction
In the Netherlands, municipalities are responsible for local security policy. The integral policy approach has become the core-strategy on local level to fulfil the local government’s
responsibility to manage local security (Schmidt, Prins & Devroe, 2015). This approach manifests in the local security policy type which is called the integral security plan (ISP). It is determined by law1 that a local council, at least once every four years, ought to set out new goals that will be pursued in relation to the security situation in a municipality. In most municipalities, the ISP is used to express what these goals are, and how a municipality wants to achieve this. Hence, at least once every four years, most municipalities in the Netherlands formulate a new ISP. Nevertheless, this task has proven to be not an easy task.
The integral security strategy consists of several aspects. Prins and Cachet (2011) have identified five factors based on government documents. First, integral policy ought to apply a wide vision on the numerous topics and aspects related to the comprehensive field of security (i.e. social and physical, internal and external, objective and subjective, risks and problems). Second, connections ought to be made between the various areas related to the policy plan. Third, measures for problems have to be identified in relation to the whole extent of the ‘security chain’ (i.e. proactive, preventive, preparation, repression and recovery). Fourth, to utilize the possibilities that lie in the cooperation with internal and external stakeholders. Fifth, measures should focus both on technical measures as well as administrative measures (Prins & Cachet, 2011). If one considers all these aspects that have to be taken into account while formulating an ISP, it is not hard to imagine this task might bring forth challenges.
The central problem related to the ISP is accurately captured by Prins & Cachet (2011) by concluding that it is more realistic to speak about ‘local security policy’ rather than ‘integral security policy’. This statement relates to their conclusion that the intentions of the integral security strategy have not fully been met since its introduction in 1995. Numerous studies have focussed their attention on the ‘directing role’ appointed to municipalities in relation to the ISP (e.g. Pröpper, Litjens & Weststeijn, 2004; Prins & Cachet, 2011; van Stokkom, 2011; Terpstra & Krommendijk, 2010; SGBO, 2000). This role is deemed as a central aspect to the integral security strategy in making the ISPs succeed. Nevertheless, little attention has been given to the actual formulation process of ISPs, while the importance of the formulation of an ISP is emphasised by multiple parties.
6
Both on legislative level as well as on an academic level the importance of the formulation process is emphasized. In 2010, the legislator proposed a new law that would have embedded the integral strategy within the legislative framework of the Netherlands. In this proposal, the legislator emphasizes the importance of the formulation process of an ISP in relation to the success of its implementation (Memorie van Toelichting, 2010). From an academic
perspective, Overkamp and Tollenaar (2013) argue that the value of ISPs lies in its formulation process and not in the outcome on paper. Hence, this study’s interest in the phenomenon of policy formulation. By studying the phenomenon of policy formulation of ISPs, this study adds to the understanding of the problems related to the demanding task that is the formulation of ISPs. As the ISP is the core strategy on local level to manage security, the results of this study might add to the improvement of the management of local security.
In a broader perspective, the formulation of public policy is part of a larger process that is the development of policy. Laswell (1956) has put forward the idea to explain the development of public policy in stages. His idea has been further developed to the contemporary policy cycle framework in a cyclic model. The policy cycle framework is a simplified model of the complex process in which public policy is created. While it has its limitations, this model is nowadays the most widely used framework to systemise research on public policy (Jann & Wegrich, 2007). The model consists of five stages; agenda-setting, policy formulation,
decision-making, implementation and evaluation. In the context of the policy cycle, policy
formulation is thus part of the larger policy process. Policy formulation involves government and other actors who ask and answer questions about societal problems and how to deal with these problems (Howlett and Mukherjee, 2017). The essence of policy formulation lies thus in selecting solutions to societal problems.
Out of the five stages in the policy cycle, the policy formulation stage is one of the most poorly understood stages of the policy cycle (Turnpenny, Jordan, Benson & Rayner, 2015). This could arguably explain the lack of academic attention to the policy formulation of ISPs. While the body of literature on policy formulation remains scarce, some areas have been explored more intensively. Howlett and Mukherjee (2017) explain that the studies of policy formulation have mainly been focussed on two areas. First, ‘what’ questions have been answered in the last decades in relation to policy instruments (Howlett & Mukherjee, 2017). Policy instruments are tools that can be used to deal with a policy problem. Second, ‘how’ questions have been answered in the field of policy design (Howlett & Mukherjee, 2017). Policy design focusses on the design of policies and how some options are selected over
7
others by for example using policy tools (i.e. certain types of analysis). Nevertheless, little academic attention has hitherto been devoted to the practical formulation process that occurs during policy formulation. Most of the academic contributions regarding the policy
formulation process are of normative nature, rather than based on practice. (Howlett, Tan, Migone, Wellstead & Evans, 2014). Research on the empirical reality of policy formulation process and its activities remains scarce.
Since a scarce amount of attention is given to the policy formulation process, it is not surprising that hitherto, no attention has been given to the factors that influence the way in which this process occurs. Academic literature cannot provide an exclusive answer that leads to the formulation of firm hypothesis. This study intends to fill this gap by exploring the factors that influence the way in which the policy formulation process occurs. Hence, the explorative nature of this study. Nevertheless, some theoretical indications have been found that provide an idea of what might influence the way in which policies are formulated. The concept that provided an indication of what influences this, is ‘policy capacity’. Policy capacity is defined as “the set of skills and resources – or competences and capabilities – necessary to perform policy functions” (Wu, Ramesh and Howlett, 2015 p.2). Wu et al. (2015) argue that it is widely accepted in the academic discourse that policy capacity relates to the success of a policy. The conceptual framework of Wu et al. (2015) shows that policy capacity consists of three types of capacities; analytical capacity, organisational capacity and
political capacity. While policy capacity influences the whole of the policy cycle, they argue
that not all capacities are equally relevant in each stage (Wu et al., 2015).
The analytical capacity, i.e. policy analytical capacity (PAC), is argued to be most relevant aspect during the early stages of the policy process (Nekola & Kohoutek, 2017). The
analytical capacities “help to ensure policy actions are technically sound in the sense they can contribute to attainment of policy goals if carried out” (Wu et al., 2015 p.3-4). As policy formulation revolves around the selection of solutions to societal problems, it makes sense that analytical capacities should be relevant to this stage as they arguable help to determine the best solutions. Nevertheless, it remains unclear if they also influence the way in which the policies are formulated.
The lack of theoretical foundation makes that this study starts from the beginning in exploring this unattended aspect of policy formulation. To study the factors that influence policy
formulation process, an explorative case study design is used. In this case study, the phenomenon of the policy formulation process is studied through the experience of civil
8
servants who have worked on formulating an ISP between 2016 and 2019. The aim of this study is to provide an insight in the factors that influence the way in which ISPs are
formulated based on empirical evidence gathered from civil servants, so that new theoretical insights can be formulated that can guide future research. This in turn, could lead to best practices and optimisation of the policy formulation process.
The question that guides this study is the following:
To what extent does policy analytical capacity influence the way in which integral security plans are formulated in different municipal settings located in the Netherlands?
To formulate an answer to this question, two sub questions will guide this study. First, in
which way are ISPs formulated?. The answer of this question provides insight in the process
of the formulation of ISPs. This is the context on which the hitherto unknown factors have an influence. The formulation process has to be identified for this study to determine the extent in which the factors influence the way in which ISPs are formulated. Second, which factors
influence the way in which ISPs are formulated? By identifying those factors that influence
the policy formulation process of ISPs it becomes possible to weight these factors to the extent in which they influence the way in which the policy is formulated. Hence, to see if the results of this study show comparison with PAC and to which extent they do influence the process.
Outline
This chapter has introduced the topic of this study and has elaborated upon the social as well as the academic relevance of this study. In the second chapter, the theoretical and conceptual guidance that has been used in this study is elaborated upon. It will discuss two main concepts of this study. First, it sets out the theoretical and conceptual implications for policy
formulation process. Second, the concept of policy capacity is conceptualised and linked with policy formulation. This chapter ends by conceptualising policy analytical capacity. In the third chapter, the methodological process of this study is explained. In the fourth chapter, the results of the analysis are presented. The fifth chapter concludes this study by answering the main question and discussing the results as well as the limitations of this study.
9
Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework
In this chapter, the theoretical and conceptual foundation of this study will be outlined. The two main concepts of this study are the ‘policy formulation process’ as well as ‘policy analytical capacity’(PAC). Both are part of a larger concept. Policy formulation is part of the policy cycle while policy analytical capacity is part of policy capacity. This chapter will first briefly elaborate on the policy cycle. After this, it zooms in on policy formulation. Then, a brief explanation of policy capacity is given and the link between policy capacity and policy formulation is made. Last, the concept of PAC is conceptualised and the chapter is wrapped up by providing a conclusion.
2.1 The Policy Cycle
This study is interested in the concept of policy formulation. Policy formulation is part of a larger policy development process called the policy cycle. This section provides a brief introduction to the concept of the policy cycle model as a framework with the function to analyse policy development. The policy formulation stage is discussed in more detail in the next section. To provide a brief introduction, this section will briefly touch upon the five stages and the overall idea of the policy cycle.
The policy cycle is based on the idea that the policy process can be seen as a cyclic model of decision making that consists of multiple steps. This idea was first introduced in the 1950s by Harold Laswell (1956). Splitting the whole policy process into smaller steps can be seen as a methodological step as this allows one to analyse the whole process (Laswell, 1956). It thus provides a framework that simplifies the complex policy process which makes it feasible to analyse (Howlett and Griest, 2015). The model that is most commonly used nowadays is the policy cycle model (Howlett & Giest, 2015; Jann and Wegrich, 2007). Laswell’s idea of the policy process has been developed to what is now called the policy cycle. Figure 1 shows the stages of the policy cycle. The next paragraphs will go into more detail about the
10 Figure 1: Stages of the policy cycle
Agenda setting & policy formulation
The policy cycle model is a framework that consists of five stages that explain the development of the overall policy process (Howlett & Griest, 2015; Howlet et al, 2009). These five stages are: agenda-setting, policy formulation, decision-making, implementation and policy-evaluation. Howlett et al. (2009) provide an explanation of each of the five stages. The first stage of the policy cycle is the agenda-setting stage. Howlett et al. (2009 p.92) catch the essence of agenda setting by asking the question: “why do some issues get addressed by governments while others are ignored?”. The answer to this question lies in the process of the agenda-setting stage. Howlett et al. (2009) explain that agenda-setting is the stage in which social problems are identified that require government attention. These problems are then brought to the attention of the government so that the government can, or cannot, place it on their agenda. Agenda setting is successful when the problem is placed on the government’s formal agenda (Howlett et al., 2009). It then can proceed to the policy formulation stage. However, policy formulation could start without agenda-setting taking place (Kingdon, 1984). In the policy formulation stage, the process is initiated of “generating options on what to do about a public problem” (Howlett et al., 2009 p.110). Thus, it consists of “the activity of finding, devising and defining problem solutions” (Howlett and Mukherjee, 2018 p.4). Howlett et al. (2009) describe that when solutions are numbered down to only the most feasible ones in the form of policy proposals, they are proposed to decision makers.
Decision making, Implementation and Evaluation
Howlett et al. (2009) explain that in the decision-making stage, decision makers then choose which policy proposal will be adopted, if any is adopted. It might occur that all proposals are
Agenda Setting Policy Formulation Decision Making Policy Implementation Policy Evaluation
11
rejected and the cycle returns to the policy formulation stage. When a policy is chosen, the chosen policy proposal must then be implemented and brought into practice during the implementation stage. The implementation stage consists of making choices that have not been made during previous stages. This relates, among other things, to allocation of goods and resources and developing processes. Then, once a policy is in place, it is being monitored based on its goals. Based on the evaluation, problems and/or solutions may be
reconceptualised. If this occurs, the policy cycle starts over in one of the prior stages, e.g. in the agenda-setting to (re)define a problem, or in the policy formulation stage to come up with new solutions. It can also be that a policy is terminated if is deemed a complete failure or is has been so successful that it is not necessary anymore (Howlett et al., 2009).
In sum, the distinction between policy formulation and agenda setting is that agenda-setting decides where to go, while policy formulation specifies how to get there (Turnpenny et al., 2015). Policy formulation provides feasible proposal(s) to decision makers, who in turn can accept one of them or reject all during the decision making stage. This policy is then
implemented and evaluated during the subsequent stages. The policy cycle is in theory a chronological model, but it acknowledges the possibility that the process starts in a different stage than agenda-setting (Howlett & Griest, 2015). It too acknowledges the possibility of going backwards in the policy cycle stages. Therefore, a conceptualisation of the policy formulation stage is required to deal with the complexities that this model brings forth.
2.2 Policy formulation
Policy formulation is a rather complex process. It might for example occur that policy formulation overlaps with either agenda-setting and/or decision making. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify specific characteristics that demarcate this stage. To find these
demarcations, this section will elaborate on the characteristics of the policy formulation stage. Then, the theoretical findings of the policy formulation process are presented.
The policy formulation stage is “the process of generating options on what to do about a public problem” (Howlett et al., 2009 p.110). Like the larger policy cycle, it seems that policy formulation too is not per se a linear process that always follows the same path. Howlett et. al. (2009 p. 111) describe the policy formulation process as “a highly diffuse and disjointed process that varies by case”. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify main aspects of this stage. Policy formulation involves government and other actors who ask and answer questions about societal problems and how to deal with these problems (Howlett & Mukherjee, 2017). Thus, two aspects of the policy formulation stage can be identified.
12
First, policy problems are explored and specified in this stage. Although the policy
formulation process can proceed without a clear definition of a problem (Jones, 1984 p.78 as cited in Howlett et al, 2009). This can be related to the fact that problems at times can be too complex to completely understand (Wolman, 1981; Rittel & Webber, 1973). A policy
problem is defined as “an unrealized value or opportunity for improvement attainable through public action” (Dunn, 2004 p.3). The second part of this involves “the activity of finding, devising and defining problem solutions” (Howlett, & Mukherjee, 2018 p.4). Then, these solutions are funnelled until a select set of solutions remains that is passed on to the decision makers (Howlett et al., 2009). Decision makers are those people who have the formal power to make decisions (Howlett et al., 2009). Thus, it is possible to identify the initiatory point of the policy formulation stage as well as the final point of this stage. These two points can serve as demarcations between the policy formulation stage and other stages. It’s initiatory point is when government and other actors start to explore and specify policy problems. The policy formulation stage ends when a final selection of policy options is passed onto decision makers.
Until now, it can be concluded that the policy formulation process generally consists of two parts. First, problems are explored and specified. In relation to the previous section, we can conclude that agenda-setting finishes when problems reach the governmental agenda and the government decides to do something about it. Policy formulation starts when a government starts to investigate problems recognized during the agenda-setting stage. Second, solutions to these problems are identified, weighted and then proposed. When a final set of policy
proposals is passed on to decision makers, the policy formulation stage ends. Now that it is clear what the policy formulation stage is about, the next section will elaborate on the process during this stage in more detail. The next section describes the academic findings regarding the policy formulation process so that it becomes more evident what the overall process might look like.
2.2.1 Policy formulation process
Now that both the start and the end of policy formulation have been identified, this section will elaborate on what is known about what happens in the process amid these two points. It will discuss the academic knowledge regarding the formulation process in terms of what is happening during this process.
In general, the policy process can be understood and interpreted along three different frames. Colebatch (2006) lays out the groundwork for understanding the policy process in terms of
13
frames. The first, and dominant, frame is the authoritative choice frame. This frame is based on the traditional view on policy making in which governments decide what to do. In this frame, the government is the central actor that prepares advice, decides upon the advice and finally implements policy. The policy formulation process is thus an instrumental one in which advice is prepared for decision makers. The second frame is the structured interaction frame. This frame implies the importance of stakeholders during the process. It acknowledges a process in which multiple actors within and outside the government exist. These actors strive to gain resources, attention and the opportunity to define questions. The (formulation) process is thus less focussed on giving advice to decision makers, and more about managing stakeholders in terms of constructing and maintaining relationships. The third frame is social
construction. In this frame the policy process picks up concerns worthy of collective attention
(e.g. environmental policy). During this process, concerns are generated throughout the policy process. In contrast with the previous frames, this account does not view the process as the choice of authoritative leaders nor as an interaction between stakeholders. Rather, it sees it as an collective (societal) effort that guides the process (Colebatch, 2006). The different
framings of policy, and thus the activities central to them, show that the policy formulation process might not be clear-cut as some authors propose.
While much has been written on how policy formulation ought to occur, studies on how it actually occurs in practice remain scarce (Hoogwerf, 2014; Noordegraaf, 2011; Howlett, et al., 2014). Academics have mainly described normative adaptions of the policy formulation process that ought to be followed by policy makers during policy formulation (e.g. Dunn, 2004; Hoogwerf, 2014; Wolman, 1981). While normative contributions are valuable, they provide little indication for the practical policy formulation reality. Colebatch (2006) shows that discrepancies exist between the ‘textbook’ accounts of the policy process, and the actual experience of policy workers. The dominant paradigm in the textbook accounts of the policy process is one of authoritative choice as described before. These textbook accounts do not match the experiential account (Colebatch, 2006). Therefore, normative contributions do not provide the guidance this study seeks to study the empirical reality.
Although empirical studies regarding the whole policy formulation process remain scare, a study by Harold Thomas (2001) regarding the policy formulation process is mentioned several times by prominent policy theorist Michael Howlett (see Howlett et al., 2009; Howlet & Murkarhee, 2018). In his study, Thomas (2001) presents an analysis of empirical data regarding the policy formulation process of a legislative proposal on higher education in
14
Lithuania. During the formulation of this policy, he has observed the process and analysed his findings which are presented in his article. By doing so, Thomas (2001) was able to identify four phases in the policy formulation process in which distinct activities occur. During the
appraisal phase, policy workers collect data to generate input to create understanding of the
problems and the possible solutions on the related policy topic (Thomas, 2001). During the
dialog phase, communication is facilitated between various actors. Problems and solutions are
discussed during this phase. Therefore, during the dialog phase actors try to reach consensus about the future direction of the policy (Thomas, 2001). The discussion that this brings forth continues in the next phase i.e. the formulation phase. Thomas (2001) finds that public officials and administrative employees deliberate on the prior identified evidence regarding various policy options. This results in a proposal that presents those options that are deemed suitable as solutions. After the formulation phase it becomes clear whose ideas have been accepted and whose ideas have been ignored. During the consolidation phase, actors have the opportunity to give feedback on the proposal (Thomas, 2001). Then, the policy proposal is passed on to decision makers and policy formulation ends.
While Thomas’s take on the policy formulation process might provide an indication of what it entails, it is discussable how his findings relate to other governmental levels than national level (e.g. local or regional level), different geographical contexts (e.g. other countries) or to other policy topics than a national school legislation. The context of Thomas’ (2001) study seems to differ in practically every aspects from the context of this study. ISPs are formulated on local level, involve security topics and is formulated in the Netherlands. No academic studies have been found that confirm the applicability of Thomas’ findings on other
geographical contexts, governmental levels or policy topics. Hence, an argument can be made that the policy formulation process in this study could be different from the process that Thomas has identified.
What can be learned from Thomas’ study, is that he deals with the complexity of the
formulation process by splitting in into different stages or phases, and activities. Splitting the process into separate steps or components is arguably the best way to deal with the
complexness of the process of policy formulation (Turnpenny et al., 2015). Therefore, this study will follow the approach of identifying the formulation process by splitting it in different stages and activities to identify the way in which ISPs are formulated.
2.3 Policy Capacity and the Policy Cycle
15
could influence the way in which policy formulation takes place. The academic literature cannot provide an exclusive answer to what factors influence the way in which policy formulation occurs. This is not surprising, given the fact that little academic attention has been given to the policy formulation process, as indicated in the previous section.
Nevertheless, to give some direction to this explorative study, this study has chosen to adopt a broader view on the matter in order to find guidance. This section elaborates on the concept of policy capacity and its link with the policy cycle.
As the literature could not provide an exclusive answer to what influences the way in which policy is formulated, this study has chosen to adopt a broader view on the matter in order to find guidance. Therefore, it has looked into what influences the broader policy cycle. The concept of policy capacity has provided an answer to this. Wu, Ramesh and Howlett (2015) (2015) argue that policy capacity influences all stages of the policy cycle. Hence, it influences the policy formulation stage too. The leading discourse is that policy capacity influences the success of a policy (Wu et al. 2015). If policy capacity influences the success of a policy, it could arguably also influence what can be done.
Even though policy capacity has gained academic attention, conceptual and definitional disagreement has hindered efforts to understand it (Wu et al., 2015). This in turn leads to the preliminary stage of the literature regarding policy capacity. Various vital questions are still in need of answering to further the discussion regarding this topic (e.g. how can policy capacity and its components be measured). Wu et al. (2015) bring together for the first time the leading ideas on policy capacity in one conceptual framework. This results in a comprehensive
framework that arguably provides a better understanding of the concept of policy capacity than the preliminary literature could provide. Therefore, this study will follow this conceptual framework to understand the concept of policy capacity and see what factors potentially have an effect on the way in which policy is formulated.
Policy capacity is “the set of skills and resources – or competences and capabilities –
necessary to perform policy functions” (Wu et al, 2015 p.2). The framework created by Wu et al. (2015), follows Moore’s (1995) analysis of what constitutes policy capacity. This resulted in a distinction between three types of key skills or competences. The first type is ‘analytical’. The capacities at analytical-level “help to ensure policy actions are technically sound in the sense they can contribute to attainment of policy goals if carried out” (Wu et al., 2015 p.3-4). The second type is ‘operational’. The operational capacities make it possible to match
16
2015). The third type is ‘political’. The capacities at political level help “to obtain and sustain
political support for policy action” (Wu et al., 2015 p.4). Thus, the conceptual framework
differentiates between analytical, operational and political skills and resources. Each type of skills and resources exists on a different level, namely on individual, organisational and
systemic level. Table 1 provides of all combinations of levels and skills within policy
capacity. While policy capacity thus consists of three types of capacities, it is argued that not all capacities are equally relevant for each individual stage of the policy cycle (Wu et al., 2015).
Levels of resources and
capabilities Skills and competences
Analytical Operational Political
Individual Individual analytical capacity Individual operational capacity
Individual political capacity
Organisational Organisational analytical capacity Organisational operational capacity
Organisational political capacity
Systemic Systemic analytical capacity Systemic operational capacity
Systemic political capacity
Table 1: Policy capacity: Skills and resources, adopted from Wu et al, 2015 p.3
Thus, until now it can be concluded that policy capacity influences the policy cycle in terms of its success. It influences the policy cycle on based on three different competences and skills on individual, organisational and systemic level. Moreover, it influences all stages of the policy cycle and thus also the policy formulation stage which is the stages of interest in this study. This in turn leads to the conceptual assumption, visualised in figure 2. Since not all capacities might be equally relevant for each stage, the next section will explore the link between policy formulation and the capacities of which policy capacity consist.
17
2.3.1 Policy capacity and policy formulation
In this section, the link between policy capacity and the policy cycle is further examined. The conceptual model provided by Wu et al. (2015) starts from the assumption that policy
capacity influences the whole policy process. This implies that policy capacity influences the formulation stage as well. Assuming the premises of this assumption are sound, policy capacity should in turn, effect the success of this stage and possibly the way in which the policy is formulated. Not all capacities (i.e. analytical, political, operational) have an equal influence on each stage (Wu et al., 2015). Therefore, this section will examine the link between the formulation stage and policy capacity.
In their article, Nekola and Kohoutek (2017) shine a light on which approaches of policy work exist. They focus on the policy work that is done during the formulation stage of the policy formulation process (Howlett & Mukherjee, 2017). The formulation stage is one of the four stages identified by Thomas (2001). In their article, Nekola and Kohoutek (2017), argue that in contrast with the broader concept of policy capacity, analytical capacity is relevant for policy formulation. The analytical capacity is relevant for activities early on in the policy cycle, such as advising and research (Nekola & Kohoutek, 2017).
The analytical capacities within policy capacity are called policy analytical capacity (PAC). Since PAC is linked to the policy formulation stage, this study will use this concept as guidance to explore those factors that influence the way in which ISPs are influenced. The following section will therefore elaborate on what PAC is.
2.4 Policy Analytical Capacity
In a broad sense, capacities at analytical-level “help to ensure policy actions are technically
sound in the sense they can contribute to attainment of policy goals if carried out” (Wu et al.,
2015 p.3-4). Although Wu et al. (2015) emphasise the term ‘technically sound’, they do not specify its exact meaning. It seems that the term ‘technically sound’ refers to technically sound argumentation. When an argument is technically sound, its conclusion follows logically from its premises and all of its premises have to be true (Sinnot-Armstrong, 2018). It is then, that policy actions could help to achieve policy goals. In the policy formulation process, it would mean that the identification of problems, and therefore the goals, has to be based on technically sound arguments. If then the proposed solutions (policy actions) too are
technically sound, it can be said that both help to achieve to reach the desired policy goals when carried out. As indicated before in section 2.2, it might be that problems are complex in nature and a clear definition is not possible. In this case, it would be impossible to reach
18
technically sound argumentation, both related to problems and solutions. Nevertheless, analytical capacities help to come closer to sound argumentation. Thus, capacities at
analytical level help to create technically sound policy actions that help to reach policy goals.
Before a more specific definition is sought, it is required to first explore the levels on which PAC occurs and determine what might be most relevant in this study. As indicated before, policy capacity can be determined on individual level, organisational level and systemic level. For PAC, these levels translate towards their analytical components. Some examples are provided to create an idea of what these levels consist of. First, PAC on individual level relates to the analytical skills of policy workers. Second, on an organisational level the availability of individuals with analytical skills is relevant. Third, on systemic level the general state of educational, statistical and scientific facilities are of relevance. Wu et al. (2015) argue that all three levels are interdependent. Thus, three different levels determine the total PAC that in turn should influence the success of a policy.
Although the total capability to produce technically sound research and analysis is thus determined on three levels, this study will apply a focus on organisational level. The analytical capacity on organisational level should allow, or hinder, individual policy
analysts/workers to perform policy work (Wu et al, 2015; Angel, 2015). It would be strange to start to investigate individual analytical capacity while one could thus argue that the
individual capabilities are highly influenced by capacities at organisational level. Even though factors on individual level (e.g. decision making) might be of influence on the way in which ISPs are formulated, organisational factors are arguably a more relevant point to start with. Therefore, this study will start to explore the factors which influence the way in which policy is formulated on organisational level and not at the other two levels.
So, how is it that PAC on organisational level might influence the way in which ISPs are formulated? The concept of PAC ‘is related to knowledge acquisition and utilization in policy processes’ (Howlett, 2009 p.162). This description of PAC indicates that technically sound policy actions can be obtained through knowledge acquisition and through knowledge utilization. These terms are still relatively vague and thus a more specific description of knowledge acquisition and utilization is required to understand how PAC ensures technically sound policy actions. A more specific description of what PAC consists of is given by
Oliphant and Howlett. Oliphant and Howlett (2010 p.439) define PAC as “the ability of organizations to produce valuable research and analysis on topics of their choosing”. The term ‘research’ in this definition can be explained as knowledge acquisition while analysis can be
19
explained as knowledge utilisation. The term ‘valuable’ can then be related to the technically soundness that helps to ensure policy actions. Thus, technically sound policy actions
(solutions) can be obtained when an organisation produces valuable research and analysis on a topic of their choosing. One could argue that this ability could also influence the way in which policy is formulated. If the organisation is not able to produce valuable research and analysis, it might not be able to engage in certain aspects of the policy formulation process while others can.
To be able to compare the results of this inductive study with the existing literature on PAC a brief description is required of the indicators of PAC. The following indicators have been identified that determine PAC at organisational level. These indicators can be described as resources available at organisational level. These resources consist of availability of employees with analytical skills (Riddle, 2007 as cited in Howlett, 2009; Elgin & Weible, 2013; Wu et al., 2015), financial resources (Elgin & Weible, 2013; Riddle, 2007, as cited in Howlett, 2009), the availability of information (Elgin & Weible, 2013; Riddle, 2007 as cited in Howlett, 2009).
2.5 Conclusion
To conclude this chapter, in this section the theoretical and conceptual findings will be concluded. These findings form the input for the research design as described in the next chapter. In this section, the theoretical and conceptual findings regarding the way in which policy is formulated will be concluded. Then, the theoretical and conceptual findings
regarding the factors that influence the way in which policy is formulated will be concluded.
The conceptual findings regarding the policy formulation stage allow demarcation between the different stages. Hence, a starting point and an ending point of the policy formulation stage, and thus process, have been identified. Policy formulation starts when policy problems have reached the government’s agenda and the government starts to investigate the problem. At this point, policy formulation starts. The government then starts to match problems and solutions until a select set of policy solutions remains in a final policy proposal that is passed on to decision makers. At this point, policy formulation ends. These two points will be used to study the policy formulation process.
Academic works that have focussed on the process amid the begin point and end point of policy formulation are mostly normative. Studies regarding the practical situation and what work is actually being done during the policy formulation process remain scarce. Colebatch
20
(2006) shows that textbook contributions do not necessarily represent the real experience of policy workers. A lack of information exists about the practical account of the policy formulation process. One valuable contribution is one of Thomas (2001), who has observed and analysed the policy formulation process. Even though his findings are mentioned several times by prominent policy writer Michael Howlett to describe the policy formulation process, his contribution arguably lacks generalisability. Therefore, this study will not test his findings. Rather, it will provide a novel contribution.
In relation to the factors that influence the way in which policy is formulated the following can be concluded. No clear-cut theoretical indications have been found that indicate factors that influence the policy formulation process, and thus the way in which policy is formulated. This could be explained by the lack of academic attention to the policy formulation process. This study has therefore sought a broader perspective and found the concept of policy
capacity. Policy capacity influences the whole policy cycle, and thus also policy formulation. Policy capacity consists of three types of capacities, namely analytical, political and
operational. Out of these three types of capacities, analytical capacity is deemed to be relevant for the policy formulation stage. These capacities exist on individual, organisational and systemic level. Arguably, the capacities at organisational level are the most relevant point to start studying. Therefore, this study will use the concept of policy analytical capacity (PAC) at organisational level to guide its search to find factors that influence the way in which ISPs are formulated. The next chapter will further elaborate on the methodology used to find an answer to the research question and how theoretical and conceptual findings from this chapter have been used in this study’s research design.
21
Chapter 3: Methodology
In this chapter, the research design of this study that has been used to find the answer to its main question is explained. This study intends to identify factors that influence the way in which policy is formulated and answer the question to which extent PAC might influences this. The nature of this study’s research question is thus explorative. This chapter will start by elaborating on the overall research design of this study, which is a qualitative case study design. Then, the unit of analysis and sampling is elaborated upon. Finally, the
methodological choices regarding data-collection and data-analysis within the research design will be discussed.
3.1 Research design
This study follows the explorative research approach. “Exploratory research is a
methodological approach that is primarily concerned with discovery and with generating or building theory” (Jupp, 2006 p.111). Exploratory research is used when little research is available regarding the phenomenon in question and no clear hypothesis can be formulated yet. Chapter two has shown that both the policy formulation process as well as the factors that influence the policy formulation process remains hitherto largely unexplored. As indicated by Jupp (2006), exploratory research can be used to generate or build theory. Therefore, this study will follow an inductive approach in which data will be leading to formulate new hypothesis that can guide future research. It is not the aim of this study to produce
generalisable results, but rather to provide new insights that might be tested in future research that should aim at forming a research design that is capable of producing generalisable results. In sum, this research design is constructed in such a way to optimise the exploration of the phenomenon of the policy formulation process.
With the explorative nature, and thus aim, of this study in mind as well as the inductive approach that has been chosen to fulfil this aim, a qualitative case study design has been chosen as its research strategy. Case study designs can be used for three distinct roles. Robert Yin (2003) describes three types of case studies; explorative, explanatory and descriptive. The phenomenon of policy formulation lacks strong theoretical foundations and is arguably mostly present in the minds of policy workers who formulate policy. Therefore, a research strategy is required through which the empirical reality can be studied and does not mainly rely on testing hypothesis. An exploratory case study design is deemed most suitable “in a research context that is not clearly specified and still requires data for the formulation of valid
22
hypotheses” (Sterb, 2010 p.372). In other words, this research design is useful to study the empirical reality without a clear theoretical background. Hence, an exploratory case study design can be useful to explore the phenomenon of policy formulation, and subsequently, suitable to answer the main question of this study.
An exploratory research design brings much freedom in relation to the selection of methods and its design (Sterb, 2010). For this study, a single case study, bounded by time, space and action was used to study the phenomenon of policy formulation through the experience of policy workers. The single case study allows for a deeper exploration of one specific context. While this would normally be called a holistic case study, this study does not make claims that the case study is completely holistic since it involves an exploratory case study which aims to provide guidance to future research.
In relation to the data analysis, this research applies the methodology logic of grounded theory. It is common in qualitative studies to follow a form of grounded theory (Neuman, 2004). Grounded theory is a manner of inductive theory building and is therefore suitable for this research’s explorative case study design to inductively analyse the data and generate an answer to the research question of this study. The data analysis is thus conducted through coding which applies the funnelling principle (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Grounded theory logic follows the inductive logic of theory building that starts building from specific observations in the data towards more generalised concepts or categories (Neuman, 2014). This study has, in line with Corbin & Strauss (2008), thus made constant comparisons in the data to form categories. These categories have been used to interpret the data and generate theory. The grounded theory methodology has the advantage that it stays closer to reality we observe and tends to be less abstract (Neuman, 2014). In section 3.4, this chapter will further elaborate on the data analysis method of this study. The next section will elaborate further on the case selection (unit of analysis) and sampling method for the unit of observation.
3.2 Unit of analysis & Sampling
Robert Yin (2015 p.194), defines a case study as ‘an empirical inquiry that closely examines a contemporary phenomenon (the case) within its real-world context’. The contemporary
phenomenon that is under scrutiny in this study is the phenomenon ‘policy formulation process of ISPs’. The formulation process of ISPs occurs at local level in municipal organisations. Before this section starts to elaborate on the criteria to determine the unit of analysis and the unit of observation, it will briefly elaborate on the context.
23
3.2.1 Context
This research scrutinises the policy formulation process of ISPs in municipal organisations at local level in the Netherlands. The municipal organisation is called a municipality, or in Dutch ‘de gemeente’. In this section, a brief explanation will be given regarding the role of the municipality in the overall domestic administration of the Netherlands.
To explain the role of municipalities in the Dutch domestic administration, it is required to briefly introduce the overall domestic administration in the Netherlands. The domestic administration (algemeen bestuur in Dutch) in the Netherlands is divided in three bodies; municipal or local, provincial and central government. This is a form of territorial
decentralisation in which tasks and authorisations are transferred from central government to provinces and municipalities (Derksen & Schaap, 2007).
Municipalities execute the tasks and responsibilities within two dimensions; autonomy and co-rule (or medebewind in Dutch). Municipal autonomy implies that municipalities are able to implement their own rules and develop their own policy within the territorial borders of the municipality (Derksen & Schaap, 2007). The areas in which municipalities enjoy autonomy are often derived from the municipal regulation (or gemeentewet in Dutch) in Dutch law. Of course, this autonomy is restricted by the ‘higher’ laws and rules (e.g. the constitution) within the sovereign state, which almost always restricts the policy freedom of municipalities. Moreover, municipalities sometimes merge or cooperate. By doing so, they lose their complete autonomy. The tasks and responsibilities that are not derived from municipal regulation, fall under the other dimension.
The other dimension in which the tasks and responsibilities fall is when municipalities
execute policy made by central government in co-rule. This means that a municipality directly executes central government policy within varying degrees of freedom (Derksen & Schaap, 2007). The idea behind this is that municipalities ought to be able to execute central
government policy locally in a more effective way and with a higher efficiency. Mainly, because of the freedom to adapt and shape the central policy to the local circumstances and preferences (Derksen & Schaap, 2007). Municipalities ought to be suitable for this, since they maintain a closer relationship to the citizens.
Thus, the role of municipalities in the Netherlands is to execute tasks and responsibilities within their own territorial limits. On one hand, they execute tasks and responsibilities they
24
create within the reach of their autonomous possibilities. On the other hand, municipalities function as an executor of central government policy in co-rule.
3.2.2 Unit of analysis
The first criterion for selecting the unit of analysis was that the ISP was formulated in a municipality in the Netherlands. The context of the ISP in the Netherlands seems more firmly established than its context in other countries where the ISP concept is applied. Belgium too uses the ISP strategy, but the ISP in Dutch context has been embedded in law and institutional frameworks, while in Belgium this concept remains an endeavour (Schmidt et al, 2015). Therefore, this concept is best studied in the context of the Netherlands. One could argue that the establishment of ISPs in organisational frameworks provides a more solid base to study the phenomenon of policy formulation of ISPs. Moreover, it reduced the chance of selecting cases that are unable to provide rich information.
The second criterion relates to the action that is under scrutiny in this study. It should be obvious that only municipalities that have an ISP in place are part of the unit of analysis. As determined in the previous chapter, policy formulation is part of the policy cycle, and if a policy is in place, it should be that this policy has passed through the policy formulation process.
The third criterion related to the timeframe in which the formulation has taken place. Only municipalities that had an ISP in place since 2017, and not earlier, could be selected. This boundary in time has been set for two reason. First, since 2013, at least one policy cycle should have been completed, as local councils are obligated by law to determine goals regarding the security situation in a municipality at least once every 4 years. In 2013 it was concluded that 90% of the municipalities in the Netherlands had formulated an ISP and thus used this to comply with law (Opstelten, 2013). It was hoped that this fact resulted in more structured formulation due to the repetition of the formulation process. It should thus have become more accessible for an academic study. Second, an ISP that has been introduced in 2017 has, most likely, undergone its formulation in 2016. At the moment of conducting this study, it is 2019. This means that a maximum of two to three years have passed since its formulation. The more time passes, the harder it might be for the civil servants to remember what exactly happened during the formulation and what was relevant for its formulation. This could influence the reliability of the data collection. Both of these arguments have made it so that the limit of 2017 has been set.
25
In sum, the unit of analysis of this study consists of municipalities in the Netherlands that have an ISP in place since 2017 till 2019. This study does not aim to make claims regarding this whole population, but rather to provide a first insight in the policy formulation process and what factors influence it, so that consecutive studies can conduct a study that aims to generalise.
3.2.3 Unit of observation & Sampling
To study the unit of analysis, this study has interviewed civil servants working in
municipalities to collect information about the policy formulation process in a municipality. Several criteria have been set for the civil servants to ensure rich data. This section will elaborate on the criteria and the sampling method to select civil servants.
First, the civil servant should have worked on the formulation of the ISP in question. This criteria should ensure that the civil servant who has been interviewed was knowledgeable and could thus provide rich information. Second, the civil servant who has worked on the
formulation of the ISP in question, should still be working for the same municipality. If he or she has switched jobs to another organisation, that person will not be selected. If the person still works within the same framework set out by the ISP, one could argue they are more likely to remember its formulation in more detail. Third, the person in question had to be willing to participate in this study.
Since the group of civil servants, set out by the previously identified criteria, is arguably hard to identify and to reach, this study used snowball sampling technique to gain access to this group. This has been done by selecting municipalities from within a database created by an organisation called ‘centre for prevention of criminality and security2 in which ISP plans are
made available of municipalities who upload their plan. It was hoped that municipalities that had uploaded their ISP into the database, also have had contact with this organisation. Eventually, through the help of someone within this organisation, it was made possible to make a first connection with municipalities. Then the right people were approached through snowballing. By using this sampling technique, this study has been able to identify and to approach civil servants working for municipalities that would confirm with the pre-set criteria. This resulted in seven interview in which one or two civil servants were interviewed. Only for two out of the seven interviews it was possible to interview two people
simultaneously.
26
3.3 Data collection
To collect data of the policy formulation process that occurs within municipalities, this study has used the data collection method of interviews. In this section, insight in choices regarding the interview approach, the formulation of interview questions and the overall interview process will be provided.
The interview approach that has been applied during this study is semi-structured. While an completely open approach would also have been useful to collect data, the semi-structured approach was favoured for three reasons. First, the researcher has limited experience with conducting interviews and thus some structure would arguably improve the quality of the interviews. Second, if one set of (open ended) questions is asked in every interview, this allows for an easier comparison during the analysis. Third, to ensure the most optimal data collection within the number of interviews possible during the limited timeframe of this study. An open interview structure might provide useful answers, but at the same time risks that too many topics are addressed that are irrelevant for the study. By formulating pre-set questions, it is ensured that certain aspects are always discussed during the interviews. Thus, to explore the experience of the interviewees a semi-structured approach has been used in which a list of pre-established questions. These questions were open and thus were formulated in such a way that the interviewees could explain their experience to the fullest. The next paragraph will elaborate on the theoretical/conceptual implications that guided these questions.
The conceptual findings in chapter two have guided the formulation of the interview questions in this study. The theoretical and conceptual framework for this study, set out in chapter two, has influenced formulation of questions asked during the interview, while still keeping in mind the explorative nature of this study. First, the conceptual findings of the policy
formulation stage have been implemented in these questions. On one hand, chapter two shows that policy formulation starts when government starts to explore policy problems. Policy formulation ends when a select set of solutions to these problems is passed on to decision makers in the form of a policy proposal. On the other hand, chapter two shows that there are no clear-cut theories of what influences the policy formulation process. Nevertheless, PAC at organisational level has been identified as a potential answer to the question what might influence the policy formulation process. While indicators exist for PAC at organisational level, these indicators have been directly implemented in the interview questions. This has been a crucial point of this study and therefore the next paragraph will further elaborate on this choice.
27
The indicators found for PAC at organisational level have not been implemented in the data-collection for one reason. This study did not intend to test theory, but rather build theory due to the lack of theoretical indications regarding the phenomenon of policy formulation process. The theoretical connection between PAC and the way in which policy is formulated is not yet evident. This means that this study is not testing a hypothesis indicated by theory. Asking questions regarding specific indicators might therefore influence the answers of the
interviewees. This would be contradictory with the explorative nature of this study. Instead of guiding their answers, this study intended to explore their experiences and leave room for the interviewees to express their experience. Therefore, the choice to ask a more abstract question and allow interviewees to elaborate on their experience and ideas was deemed more valuable to explore this phenomenon.
The interview questions that have been asked during the interviews can be found in appendix two. Here, a brief explanation of the formulation of the questions is given. The first three questions aimed to explore the experience of the interviewee regarding the way in which the ISP was formulated. The interview started by asking a broad open question for the
interviewee to express their experience. It was intended to both explore the way in which an ISP is formulated as well as the factors that influence it. Then, two more specific questions were asked regarding how problems were identified and how solutions were determined. These questions were influenced by the findings in chapter two, ensuring that all conceptual aspects of policy formulation were discussed.
The following questions were focussed on exploring the interviewees experience regarding the influencing factors. The first question asked was aimed at possible factors at
organisational level, based on the indication found in the literature of PAC. If organisational factors had been relevant in the interviewees experience, the interviewee had the chance to express this. This question was focussed on manifest ideas of the interviewee. Then, a question was asked regarding the latent ideas of the participant regarding the organisational factors. Finally, a broader open question was asked to identify latent ideas about influencing factors in general. By asking if there were any parts of the process that could not be executed, while they wanted to, it was hoped that participants would elaborate on latent ideas of what influences the way in which policy is formulated.
The process as a whole has consisted of multiple steps. First, connections have been made with participants, interviews had to be scheduled, eventually interviews were held and then data had to be transcribed to be analysed and shared. As the whole interview process is
time-28
consuming, this study has only conducted one interview per case. If possible, with two interviewees. The intent to interview multiple interviewees simultaneously was applied to prevent one-sided visions on the formulation process and the influencing factors.
Nevertheless, this was not possible for all interviews for varying reasons.
3.4 Data analysis
To analyse the data that has been collected through semi-structured interviews, a method is required that fits within the grounded theory methodology logic as explained in section 3.1. This study has chosen to use the method of content analysis. It used this method for its
applications in inductive reasoning to answer the main question of this study. This study aims to generate new findings that lead to hypothesis that can be tested in future research. It is useful to find patterns that emerge from the data systematically. This section will elaborate on why the method of content analysis is used and how it has been used to analyse the data.
The choice for the method of content analysis lays in its higher degree of trustworthiness in comparison to other methods due to its systematic approach. Inductive content analysis is similar to the method of ‘grounded theory’ (see Corbin and Strauss, 2008). Content analysis is a method that allows to make sense of the data and to formulate categories in an inductive manner. But in comparison to grounded theory, which has developed much rule of thumb for the formation of categories, the method of inductive content analysis is more systemically (Mayring, 2014). This increases the trustworthiness. This study has adopted the suggestions made by Mayring (2014) regarding the transparency of inductive content analysis to increase its external validity.
Mayring (2014) has suggested different aspects that have to be decided before conducting the analysis. In line with his suggestions, this study has determined the code unit (meaning unit) and the context unit. Moreover, the level of abstraction and the definitions of categories were defined, if possible, based on theoretical/conceptual indications. Defining these aspects provides an insight in the way in which the researcher has analysed the text. By doing so, the chance that other researchers reach the same conclusions based on the dataset, is increased. Therefore, it increases the reliability of this study. These aspects have been included in appendix 1 together with the results of the analysis. For the overall process of the analysis, this study has followed the stages as identified in the content analysis process by Bengtsson (2016).
29
Bengtsson (2016) has identified four stages in the data analysis process: the
decontextualization stage, the recontextualization stage, the categorisation stage and the compilation stage. Figure 3 shows a general overview of the content analysis process. Before
engaging in the content analysis process, this study has chosen to use a manifest analysis. In this type of analysis “the researcher describes what the informants actually say, stays very close to the text, uses the words themselves and describes the visible and obvious in the text.” (Bengtsson, 2016 p.10). This increases the reliability of this study as it could be argued that if one stays close to the text, the subjectivity involved during the analysis process decreases. The followings paragraphs will elaborate on the process that this study has used to analyse the data.
Figure 3: Content analysis process (Bengtsson, 2016 p.9)
During the decontextualization stage, the researcher has become familiar with the written data that he was going to analyse. Becoming familiar with the text means that he has gone through the text and while doing so, he has identified ‘meaning units’. Meaning units are those parts of the text that reveal meaningful data through which the researcher is able to answer the research question (Bengtsson, 2016). This could be words, sentences or paragraphs. The meaning unit for this study is a “semantic” part of the text. This could be at smallest, a part of a sentence and the sequence of two or three consecutive sentences. Then, while reading through the text another time, all meaning units in the text have been labelled with a code.
30
The codes represent what is being said in the text as closely as possible. As this study is of exploratory, and therefore inductive nature, codes have been derived from the text.
Then, during the second stage (i.e. recontextualization), the researcher has read through the transcripts once more to determine if all meaning unites have been identified. This includes the valuation of those parts of the transcript that have been regarded as ‘dross’ during the first stage. Thus both the text that has been coded and text that has not been coded has been critically judged of its worth in relation to the main question of the study.
During the third stage (i.e. categorisation), categories have been formed based on the previously identified codes. It is important that a code only can belong to a single category. Hence, codes that could be placed in multiple categories have been placed only in the one category that seemed most suitable. The formation of categories is likely to change
throughout the process. There is not a clear ‘end’ to this stage. The researcher has to decide when it is sufficient to provide an answer to the research question.
It is in the last stage (i.e. compilation) that the researcher starts the analysis and writes the results down on paper. It is important to find the essence of the data (Bengtsson, 2016). This study will follow an manifest analysis of the data, i.e. look what has literally been said and analyse this. A manifest analysis consists of “working through” all identified categories. These categories form the result of the analysis of all interviews. This leads to the
presentation of the categories and sub categories based on the findings. The results of this analysis are presented in the next chapter.
