Metagovernance Storytelling in Policymaking
A Case Study on the Alliance for Equal Opportunities
Isabelle Schulz
10608656
MA Political Science - Public Policy and Governance
Research Project: Who Cares? The Decline of the Welfare State
First Reader: Benno Netelenbos
Second Reader: Anne Loeber
22 June 2018
A Case Study on the Alliance for Equal Opportunities
Isabelle Schulz
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
III
ABSTRACT
V
1.
Introduction
1
1.1 The Dominance of Governance Networks and Metagovernance 1 1.2 The Interpretative Approach: The Power of Storytelling 2 1.3 Qualitative Case Study: The Alliance for Equal Opportunities 3 1.4 Readers Guide 4
PART I.
A RESEARCH ON METAGOVERNANCE STORYTELLING
2.
Three Generations of Research
72.1 Wicked Problems and the Emergence of Governance Networks 7 2.2 Dealing with Governance Networks: Metagovernance 9 2.3 Metagovernance in Practice 11 2.4 A New Orthodoxy? 12 2.5 The Role of Storytelling in the Policymaking Process 13 2.6 Conclusion 15
3.
Research Design and Methods
17
3.1 Research Strategy 17 3.2 Case Selection and Description 18 3.3 Respondent Selection and Data Collection 19 3.4 Data Analysis: A ReXlection on the Development of the Analysis 22
4.
It All Started with a Report: The History of the Alliance
23
4.1 The State of the Education 2014/2015 23 4.2 An Action Plan for Equal Opportunities 24 4.3 The Alliance for Equal Opportunities 25 4.4 The Future of the Alliance 26 4.5 Conclusion 27PART II.
THE ALLIANCE FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES ANALYSED
5.
A Problem Analysis of Unequal Educational Opportunities
31
5.1 Unequal Educational Opportunities as Wicked Problem 31 5.2 Resolving Unequal Educational Opportunities: The Need for Networks 33 5.3 Conclusion 35
6.
Metagovernance Storytelling: The Facilitating Government
37
6.1 Developing the Bottom-Up Approach 37 6.2 A New Way of Working 38 6.3 The Need for Believers 41 6.4 Conclusion 42
7.
Metagovernance in Practice
43
7.1 Network Designing Strategies 43 7.2 Network Management Strategies 45 7.3 Network Framing Startegies 46 7.4 Network Positioning Startegies 48 7.5 Conclusion 49
8.
Discussion and Conclusion
51
8.1 Concluding Remarks on Metagovernance Theories 52 8.2 Concluding Remarks on Using Metagovernance Stories in Practice 54
LITERATURE
57
APPENDIX
61
1. Topic List 61 2. Topic List (after the third interview) 62
PREFACE
So here I am, Xinishing my master thesis by writing this preface. The last few months have been an interesting time. I guess I have never ever felt so many emotions for something that I have produced myself before. Frustration, discomfort and disapproval, but also satisfaction, pleasure and even pride!
Scrolling through the pages document on my laptop, reminds me of all these nice people I have met these six months, my friends who have helped and supported me throughout the process and the University of Amsterdam that assisted me in writing on a subject I am extremely interested in. Writing a thesis a very lonely process, but having these people involved made it sometimes an itsy bitsy bit feel as if I was not on my own in this. Therefore, I would like to thank the following people.
First and foremost, Benno Netelenbos, my supervisor. I am seriously thankful for you being my supervisor, because I had the feeling that you were really involved in the process. Are there other supervisors who send you an email at 7:22 am about an idea that popped up into their heads that morning regarding your thesis? I know you have a newborn baby, but the idea that you were already thinking about my thesis before I even woke up kind of made me laugh - in a period I could not even imagine that I could laugh about thinking about my thesis. Your involvement kept me so motivated!
My personal team, who checked my English grammar and sentences, not only for this thesis, but actually throughout my whole master. Guusje Somer, Jonne Kamphorst, Sam Bakker, Tess de Jong and Pelle Koppen. You are the best and I owe you many dinners the coming years. And a special thanks to Salbiyah Abu for your everlasting support.
The people of the Education Departement of the municipality of Amsterdam and especially
Ellen Nusselder who have helped me to Xind my way through the world of educational policies and Merel van Wouden, who made my data analysis more easy by letting me work on Maxqda. I was very
privileged to have you by my side, as you were always there for me to answer all my questions.
And last but not least, my respondents: Bert Ouwens, Jacqueline Klein, Bas Derks, Ruben
van Waardhuizen, Nathalie van den Heuvel, Jeanet Pijfers, Rewan Jansen, Sandra ten Holter, Maarten Vollenbroek, Marcelis Boerenboom, but especially Monaïm Benrida, who helped me with
access to the right persons and information sources. For me as a student, it was very motivating to receive your enthusiast emails as respond to my request for an interview, see how you prepared for the interviews and really wanted to help me further with my project. Without you, I could never have written about this topic, that already had my interest from the beginning of my master. Also, I would like to thank you for the unique behind-the-scenes peek of how a policy programme develops.
Eventually, I must say that especially this last week, and even more now I am writing this preface as Xinal part, the positive emotions have by far overruled the negative ones. I hope that with similar feelings of pleasure, you will read my master thesis that lies in front of you.
ABSTRACT
This thesis concerns a qualitative single case study regarding a policy programme of the
Ministry of Education, Culture and Sciences (Ministry of ECS) called the Alliance for Equal
Opportunities. The main aim of the thesis is to show how metagovernance storytelling is used
by especially policymakers who worked or still work on the policy programme to make sense
of and, therefore, how to develop a vision on how to deal as national government with unequal
educational opportunities (UEO’s). In order to identify such processes I conducted
semi-structured interviews with 11 respondents, of which 9 worked or still work actively on the
Alliance. The focus during the interviews was on the respondents perspective on UEO’s and
the daily practices of their work. I will argue that meaning making processes through
metagovernance storytelling are strongly present in their stories and that, consequently, these
processes have inXluenced their perceptions, behaviour and decisions.
1.
Introduction
“After nourishment, shelter and companionship,
stories are the thing we need most in the world”.
- Philip Pullman
1.1
The Dominance of Governance Networks and Metagovernance
During the last decades, governance network and metagovernance approaches have become increasingly important in the Xield of public policy. Research focuses on the subject of governance and metagovernance has gained popularity in especially European countries. This started in the United Kingdom (for example Gamble, 1990; Marsh & Rhodes, 1992; Rhodes, 1997), but within a couple of years the theories also have reached the Netherlands (for example, Hajer and Wagenaar, 2003; Edelenbos et al., 2013; Klijn and Koppenjan, 2016) and the Scandinavian countries (for example Sehested, 2009; Sørensen and TorXing, 2007; 2009). Although it has not completely replaced Traditional Public Administration (TPA) and New Public Management (NPM), the Governance Networks Approach (GNA) has become the new paradigm in public policymaking processes (TorXing, 2005; Sørensen and TorXing, 2007). This is mostly due to an increase of social problems in society that are characterised by ‘wickedness’ (Agranoff and McGuire, 2001; Hajer, 2003). Uniform, top-down policies are no longer considered as appropriate in resolving them. Such problems are characterised by many interrelated causes, concern too many different actors, have too many various outcomes and, therefore, require particular solutions that can deal with the emerged complexities of such social problems (TorXing, 2007; Head and Afford, 2013). Moreover, actors of governance networks should be involved in creating policies, as they know best what is going on in their domain and how these matters should be resolved optimally (Rittel and Webber, 1973). Within such processes the role of the national government transforms into the role of a metagovernor: an actor that facilitates and manages the networks rather than controlling them (Klijn & Koppenjan, 2016). The perception of this new role comes along with a new state of mind and type of behaviour (Sørensen 2006; TorXing, 2007; Sørensen and TorXing, 2007; 2009; Edelenbos et al., 2010; Klijn and Koppenjan, 2016).
There is a grain of truth in this approach. Societies have become more individualised and therefore heterogeneous. Moreover, because of the changing position of science in society, it is hard to say which decisions are ‘the best’ ones. Nevertheless Marsh (2011: 32) argues the following about the claims made in the Xirst paragraph:
‘It neglects the point that facts do not speak for themselves; rather, they have to be interpreted within a conceptual or theoretical framework. Such theoretical frameworks are, for the most part, conspicuous by their absence in work’.
Although this statement concerns British politics, the same can be argued about governance networks in general . Marshs conclusion is that research that considers the GNA as a new orthodoxy, rather than 1
a perception on policymaking, overlooks an important aspect: that the GNA is an perspective than a instead of a new Xixed orthodoxy.
1.2
The Interpretive Approach: The Power of Storytelling
I believe that research with an interpretive focus may foster new insights regarding the metagovernance debate. Up until now, the debate on the GNA has mostly concerned their nature and how politics and policymakers should deal with these ‘new phenomena’. This is especially the case for researchers of the countries where the GNA has been established recently, for instance in the Netherlands (Kickert et al., 1997; Klijn, 2008; Koppenjan et al., 2011; Edelenbos et al., 2013; Klijn & Koppenjan, 2016). I believe that a more interpretative voice in this debate is necessary; a counterweight to the more positivist approach of the researchers (Kjaer, 2011), which have dominated the metagovernance debate so far. My argument is that more critical analyses should be done that question the thin line between reality and perceptions, the processes of sense making by actors and the statement that ‘networks are out there’ and that they ‘are here to stay’ (Sørensen & TorXing, 2007: 297).
Generally, interpretive scholars claim that in order to understand an actors behaviour and actions, one should study how the actors develop meaning making processes, as behaviour and actions are always based on speciXic perceptions of reality (for example Yanow, 1993; Rein & Schön, 1994; Hajer and Laws, 2006). In this thesis, I will analyse how stories play a role in meaning making of reality. Politicians and policymakers base their decisions and actions on information and facts. When studied closely, they often take ‘the form of a narrative: people tell facts in a story’ (Hajer, 2006: 69). These stories are ‘condensed statements’ (ibid) used to make sense of the complex reality.
I will combine these insights with the theories on metagovernance. Consequently, while also taking the case into consideration, the main question of the thesis will be: How has the story of
metagovernance been used by policymakers of the Alliance for Equal Opportunities to negotiate everyday practice? By relating the policymaking process to the way policymakers understand reality, I will argue
that their method (the metagovernance approach) is a particular way of policymaking, which should be considered as an outcome of a meaning making process through metagovernance storytelling. The focus is on understanding why certain decions have been made throughout the policymaking process.
Studies on governance networks have their roots in the British political system. However, research on
1
governance networks have also become relevant in other countries, such as the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries. Researchers from these countries that do research on governance networks often base their theories on their British colleagues, using a same line of arguing (for example Sørensen and TorXing, 2007; Edelenbos et. al., 2010; Klijn and Koppenjan, 2016)
In order to identify the metagovernance stories, I will use Foresters (2012A) methodology of conducting a ‘critical naturalistic discourse analysis’. This is a method for mainly analysing interviews by focusing on practices. The goal of such research is to analyse how the respondent perceives his or her environment. As Forester (ibid: 16) explains:
‘We may call it “critical” because we explore (…) those presenting “challenges” and “opportunities” [by the interviewees]. (…). We may call it “naturalistic” because we try (…) to develop, (…) our own practical judgment by listening closely through the embedded perceptions and critical insights, framings and descriptions, of our interviewees as they had to do their own critical discourse analyses in their ongoing work. Naturalistically, too, we try to (…) uncover the deceptively simple, more “ordinary” practice stories of our engaged interviewees, stories hardly pre-scripted and framed by a popular theory’.
Moreover, one last important note should be made here. This thesis is not disapproving metagovernance or questioning its legitimacy. My aim is to approach metagovernance differently in a theoretical sense, as I consider it more as an outcome of meaning making processes, rather than a reality policymakers have to deal with.
1.3
Qualitative Case Study: The Alliance for Equal Opportunities
To provide an answer on the main question, I have conducted a qualitative single case study. The case concerns the policy programme of the Alliance for Equal Opportunities (from now on ‘the Alliance’) of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sciences (ECS). I have conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 people who are linked to the Alliance. 9 of them were or still are working on the policy programme actively. They can be considered as the ‘metagovernors’ of the policy programme.
The policy programme of the Alliance was a response to a report called the State of Education 2014-2015 (2016), written by the Dutch Inspectorate of Education (from now on ‘the Inspectorate’). One of the most important conclusions of this report was that the inequality of education opportunities had increased in Dutch society. The Inspectorates conclusion was that not intellectual capacities, but socio-economic background was a decisive factor for the educational path of a pupil. Thereby, there was a close connection with the growing gap between children with highly educated parents (who mostly were also highly educated) and children with lower educated parents (who mostly were lower educated).
Except for resolving barriers in the educational system, that enhanced unequal educational opportunities (UEO’s), the Inspectorate (2016) also argued that there was a socio-economic dimension to deal with. Therefore, their conclusion was that, besides evaluating the current educational system, networks had to be activated and developed in order to stimulate equal educational opportunities (EEO’s); to empower those children who need it the most. This meant cooperations between different
types of actors. The actors in the networks could offer the best solutions and help for these children. In a letter to the parliament (Bussemaker & Dekker, 2016A; Bussemaker & Dekker, 2016B), the former Minister of ECS, Jet Bussemaker, and the former State Secretary for ECS, Sander Dekker, agreed with both conclusions. In favour of stimulating the networks, they developed the policy programme of the Alliance. The main purpose of the Alliance is to develop a sustainable movement, built on local networks that include actors of the educational Xield, but also from outside the Xield, or, to use the words of the Minister and State Secretary (2016B): ‘everyone who wants to make a difference’.
Because of its bottom-up network approach, which takes regions and municipalities as the starting point for self-steering governance networks, the Alliance is a good example of a policy programme with a clear vision on governance networks. Moreover, as will be shown in the analytical chapters, the national government deXines its own role as network partner who, to use a more theoretical concept, metagoverns the network.
1.4
Readers Guide
The thesis exists of two parts. The Xirst one concerns the framework of the research. In chapter 2, I will elaborate on theories of the wicked problems, the GNA and metagovernane, that have been used for the interviews and the analysis. Moreover, I will also argue in chapter 2 that there is a need for an interpretative perspective in the research Xield on metagovernance. In chapter 3, I will elaborate on my research design, that allowed me to conduct a research based on an interpretative approach. I will also justify why I have made some speciXic methodological choices. In chapter 4, I will explain what the policy programme of the Alliance is about. In doing so, I will also show how the Alliance can be considered as a case of metagovernance.
Part two concerns the analysis of the case. The main aim is to explain how metagovernance storytelling plays a role in the meaning making processes of the respondents and, therefore, will inXluence their perceptions, behaviour and decisions. In chapter 5 this will be done by showing how the respondents understand UEO’s. In chapter 6, I will explain how their problem analysis will eventually lead to the decision for a ‘facilitating government’, or, to stated differently, a metagovernance approach. Based on how the respondents consider the facilitating government, I will also analyse what consequences they identify for their role as national government. Chapter 7 will specify how these perceptions on the new role of the government will inXluence the methods they use in the policy programme. At last, I will summarise my Xindings in chapter 8, the conclusion, and provide insights regarding the literature on metagovernance and the use of metagovernance storytelling in practice.
PART I. A RESEARCH ON
METAGOVERNANCE
2.
Three Generations of Research
This chapter sets the theoretical framework of the thesis. On one hand, I will clarify the relevant concepts, such as wicked problems, governance networks and metagovernance, and, on the other hand, I will also discuss their (theoretical) development. In doing so, I will elaborate on the categorisation of different generations literature on the GNA. Research on governance network theories is a relatively new research Xield within political science, which emerged in the 1990s (Marin & Mayntz, 1991; Kooiman, 1993 and later on Rhodes, 1997). Nevertheless, one can already speak of three different generations of literature.
2.1
Wicked Problems and the Emergence of Governance Networks
The Xirst generation of literature on GNA, concerns the existence of governance networks and implies that a new area of policymaking had begun. TorXing (2005: 311) states the following: ‘[t]he Xirst generation did an excellent job in linking the rise of network governance to new societal trends; in analysing the formation and functioning of governance networks in different countries, policy areas and at different levels and in Xleshing out the distinctive features of governance networks vis-a-vis state and market’. Thus, the literature connects contemporary social trends to the GNA. But what are these social trends?
One of the most important social trends that have inXluenced the emergence of the GNA is the increase of so-called ‘wicked problems’ (Hajer, 2003) in society. Head and Alford (2013) provide three explanations for the emergence of problems with a wicked nature. The Xirst one is that contemporary social problems, or wicked problems, do not occur in an isolated environment. They have a cross-cutting character, meaning that they concern many different domains of society, and, therefore, also many different actors. Or, as Ackoff (1974: 21) explains: ‘[e]very problem interacts with other problems and is therefore part of a system of interrelated problems, a system of problems’. Secondly, the authority of scientiXic knowledge has diminished in society. Most of the current social issues depend rather on evaluation through personal values, such as equity and respect, than on scientiXic analyses. Moreover, the ‘boundary work of experts’ has been acknowledged by society. Most societal problems have become increasingly complex (Hajer: 2003), due to their interrelated and cross-cutting character. Consequently, it is impossible to thoroughly understand their nature. Thirdly, Rittel and Webber (1973) conclude that the ‘engineering approach’ has come to an end, which makes resolving such problems even more complicated. Societies have gradually become more pluralistic and individualistic. Social planning cannot be done in a uniform way, as contemporary social problems do not have one clear deXinition, outcome and solution.
As a result, the emergence of wicked problems has inXluenced the policymaking process. New Public Management (NPM) and Traditional Public Administration (TPA) were not considered as capable of dealing with the characteristics mentioned above. Especially the former could not offer
substantive and sustainable solutions for current social and economic inequality, due to the market failures it produces (TorXing, 2005). A new way of policymaking was required, one that was able to cope with the increasing ‘complexity, diversity and uncertainty’ (Head & Afford, 2013: 716). The GNA can be considered as a response to the deXiciencies of the former two paradigms.
In a nutshell, the GNA is based on the idea that governance - rather than its counterpart government, which is based on a more central, hierarchical top-down perspective - relies on horizontal steering mechanisms in networks of different actors. Thus, governance should be considered as the general policymaking process that takes place within governance networks. Generally, it was considered as a new process of governing; a changed condition of ordered rule; a ‘new method by which society is governed’ (italics added, Rhodes, 2007: 1246). Although ‘not all problems and tasks handled by government are complex and can be informed by network theory’ (Klijn & Koppenjan, 2012: 601), the overall conclusion is that networks are out there and that they ‘are here to stay’ (Sørensen & TorXing, 2007: 297). Consequently, ‘[l]eading politicians and entrepreneurial administrators have taken governance networks to their hearts’ (TorXing, 2007: 306).
Whenever using the terms governance networks or GNA, I follow Klijn & Koppenjan (2016: 11) who conceptualise policymaking processes through governance networks as ‘public policymaking, implementation, and service delivery through a web of relationships between autonomous yet interdependent government, business, and civil society actors’. Basically, governance networks, ‘should be understood as governance within governance networks’ (ibid: 8). Moreover, the concept of governance networks reXlects the shift from a unitary, central government process to more polycentric networks of governance (Hajer, 2003), ‘where governments operate in a multi-actor situation and use horizontal ways of steering/governance’ (Klijn et al., 2010: 1064). Consequently, policy outcomes ‘are no longer fully controlled by the government, but subject to negotiations between a wide range of public, semi-public and private actors’ (Sørensen & TorXing, 2007: 3-4). Moreover, governance networks include multiple types of networks, implying that different types of networks are important in policymaking.
Sørensen and TorXing (2007) sum up the characteristics of such networks. Firstly, within these networks, actors are interdependent on each other, as they are dependent on each others resources in order to resolve wicked problems (Mandell, 2001; Agranoff & McGuire, 2003). However, they also are ‘operationally autonomous’ (Sørensen & TorXing: 9), having their own perceptions and interests. Nevertheless, although they act independently, they interact constantly with each other, due to the high interdependency. As a result, there is a frequent interaction between the actors (Klijn et al, 2010). Secondly, although there is a decline of the traditional policymaking framework, these interactions still take place in an ‘institutionalized framework’ (Sørensen & TorXing, 2007: 10). The networks are ‘associated with new systems for public policy deliberation, decision and implementation (Klijn et al., 2010: 1064). The dependency results in the engagement of actors in a long-term relationship with each other, in which they cooperate to produce effective and favourable policy outcomes (Klijn & Koppenjan, 2016). Consequently, the existence of the governance network is relatively stable over time
(ibid), due to the fact that the actors are strongly interdependent on each other and that there still is a Xixed institutional framework. Thirdly, interaction between the actors often takes the form of negotiation. The positions of the actors within these negotiations are determined by the resources the actors posses. However, this does not necessarily mean that interdependency also enhances equity (Klijn et al., 2010).
2.2
Dealing with Governance Networks: Metagovernance
Where the Xirst generation on the GNA discussed the nature of governance networks, the second generation deals with how to cope with this new form of policymaking. The aim of second generation literature is to evaluate the nature and characteristics of governance networks as well as enriching and broadening the scope of the research agenda in order to make the new policymaking processes run more smoothly (TorXing, 2005; Sørensen & TorXing, 2007). The underlying assumption is that governance networks are out there and, as a result of this, we should think about how to deal with this new way of policymaking. For instance, this means taking into accountthe more difXicult sides of governance networks into consideration; such as difXiculties that may impede the public policymaking process within the governance networks.
For example, Klijn and Koppenjan (2016) made a distinction between different levels of complexities that may impede policymaking process of governance networks. The Xirst level of complexity is ‘substantive complexity’. This level of complexity emerges when actors ‘perceive a gap between an existing or expected situation and a desired situation’ (ibid: 45). The underlying assumption is that the way we make our information selection is value driven and, due to easy access to contemporary sources of information, we can shop our own reality together. The second level is based on ‘strategic complexity’. This is a form of complexity that appears during interaction processes between the actors within the governance network during the policymaking process. Resources are not equally divided among actors in the networks, creating unequal positions in negotiations. ‘This results in a high level of dynamics, uncertainty, and unpredictability that we deXine as strategic complexity’ (ibid: 66), which enhances ‘strategic’ games played by actors. Thirdly, the last level of complexity concerns the institutional context and is based on the fact that the actors within a network all act according to their respective institutional legacies. Institutions in this sense are ‘systems of rules that structure the course of actions that a set of actors may choose’ (Scharpf 1997: 38). This so-called institutional complexity emerges when rules, procedures and arrangements of one institutional framework of one actor conXlict or clash with the ones of the institutional framework of another one. As a result, the institutional framework of governance networks may be a ‘weakly developed institutional structure i.e. weakly developed patterns of interactions and perceptions and the absence of a clear set of mutually shared rules’ (Klijn & Koppenjan, 2016: 120).
Such levels of complexities may impede an efXicient policymaking process within governance networks. As a result of the identiXication of these complexities, some researchers have argued that a
minimum form of coordination and management is required in governance networks (Kickert et al., 1997, Agranoff & McGuire, 2001; Sørensen & TorXing, 2007; Klijn et al., 2010). Klijn et al. (2010: 1064) state that ‘[t]he basic argument is usually that without adequate network management strategies, it is very difXicult, or even impossible, to achieve interesting outcomes in these complex interaction processes’. Thus, there is ‘a need for relevant authorities in the government to steer the process through a sequence of developmental stages’ (Pollitt, 2003: 41). Some identify this form of management within governance networks as metagovernance . 2
A clear deXinition of metagovernance can be found in the article of Sehested (2006). Based on an article of Sørensen (2006), she (2009: 248) states the following on metagovernance:
‘The purpose of metagovernance is to create some form of coordination, coherence and integration in the fragmented structures of network governance without completely undermining the autonomy, engagement and self-regulation in governance networks. Through metagovernance, it becomes possible to regulate without using traditional governmental techniques.’
‘Without completely undermining the (…) governance networks’ refers to the fact that the concept of metagovernance is supervenient to governance networks (Jessop, 2010). It is a way of enhancing coordinated governance in a fragmented political system based on a high degree of autonomy for a plurality of self-governing networks and institutions’ (Sørensen, 2006: 100).
Although theory suggests that everyone could take this role, non-state actors have very little incentive to do so (Fawcett, 2009; Bell & Hindmoor, 2008). Therefore, the national governments mostly have taken the role as metagovernor in the changing policymaking process (Sørensen, 2005). Flinders and Matthews (2007: 196) describe this as a ‘revitalized role for the state in providing the context for the design of self-organization, ensuring the relative coherency of diverse aims and objectives, and setting the parameters within which governance transactions take place’. The core task is in essence an ‘inter-orginazational activity’ (Edelenbos et al., 2013: 133).
However, at this point, the critical reader might question whether the paradigm of metagovernance is contradictory to the GNA, as it reintroduces the power of the central state to the policymaking process. Is there a tension between metagovernance and the self-steering paradigm of the GNA? Klijn and Koppenjan have an answer to this question (italics added, 2007: 199):
In the literature both ‘network management’ (Kickert et al., 1997; Rhodes, 1997; Meier & O’Toole, 2001) and
2
‘metagovernance’ (Jessop, 2002; Sørensen & TorXing, 2007; Klijn & Koppenjan, 2016) are used to describe the regulation processes in and through networks. Following Klijn and Koppenjan (2012; 2016), I will use the term metagovernance. I consider metagovernance as the overall paradigm, while network management refers to different strategies. In other words, different forms of network management highlight different aspects of metagovernance.
‘Meta-governance (…) involves many control and steering activities. As networks are made up of many actors with different resources and are characterized by complex interaction processes, they cannot be easily controlled; this is why we prefer the word ‘guidance’ or ‘facilitation’ (…). Cooperation and the coordination of actors efforts requires more active and deliberate managerial strategies. There remains, however, some scope for self steering within interaction processes’.
In conclusion, metagovernance is about guiding and facilitating, or managing, interactions within governance networks, rather than controlling. It is an ‘indirect form of governing that is exercised by inXluencing various processes of self-governance’ (Sørensen, 2006: 100). In doing so, it mainly concerns managing the complexity and plurality. This is done through various network management strategies.
2.3
Metagovernance in Practice
As governance networks are very diverse in their existence because of for example the variety on actors, scope, problems and policies they have to deal with, metagovernance theories are as well. There is no blueprint on ‘good metagovernance’. Nevertheless, attempts have been made to develop a characterisation of relevant metagovernance strategies that can be used by the metagovernor in policymaking processes that involve governance networks. Sørensen and TorXing (2009) provide categorisation into four categories.
Firstly, network design ‘aims to inXluence the scope, character, composition and institutional procedures of the networks’ (Sørensen and TorXing, 2009: 246) and is especially relevant in the very Xirst phase of constructing the network. This mainly concerns the decision making proces on which actors should be involved, the primaire goals, deXining the core concepts, but also setting deadlines for for example events, reports and milestones (ibid: 246-247).
Secondly, network framing is the on-going process that ‘could take the form of regulation through political goals and visions, allocation of Xinancial and other resources to network activity, or framing through the building of common discourses and narratives in the governance situation (Sehested, 2009: 248). Framing processes are developed to create a sense of common ground for the actors, in order to align actors’ goals, so they feel the urge to work together on issues at stake. An often used way to do so is storytelling through ‘the dissemination of ‘best practices’ (Sørensen & TorXing, 2007: 249). The positive effects that are fostered through the process, should be shared with the other network actors in such a way that it stimulates for broader and further cooperation. The metagovernor may give this an extra incentive by, for example rewarding the network with extra Xinancial aid, prestige, inXluence other actors or giving them access to other arenas (ibid). Moreover, the alignment of goals can be achieved by deXining roles and activities that are suitable in the dominant framework.
Thirdly, network management strategies focus on dealing with strategic complexity (Klijn & 3
Koppenjan, 2016), as it concerns reducing tensions and resolving conXlicts between the actors, while taking into account the fact that resources are divided unequally amongst the network partners (Klijn & Edelenbos, 2007). In doing so, network management strategies operate within the borders of the institutional structure of the network itself. Moreover, such strategies are focused on the believe that actors have their own interests and, in order to achieve their own goals, play strategic games. Consequently, this may impede an effective policymaking process. Network management strategies anticipate to the strategic games. Therefore, the focus of network management strategies is on collective learning (Sørensen & TorXing, 2009). This is done during, for example seminars, congresses and round table meetings, that facilitate joint fact-Xinding and cross-frame learning (Klijn & Koppenjan, 2004).
Fourthly, network position strategies concerning network participation is centred around the idea that the metagovernor takes place in the network, taking the role of a network partner. This is done in order to inXluence the policy agenda, the decision making process of actors (Sørensen & TorXing, 2007). The role of network partner, however, is a very complicated one and should be taken very carefully and thoughtfully, as it concerns directly inXluencing the decision making process, making the line between network partner and metagovernor very thin (Sehested, 2011).
2.4
A New Orthodoxy?
To summarise, one can state that the GNA and metagovernance have emerged, as the result of the increase of social problems that are characterised by wickedness. GNA was able to cope with the different levels of complexity that characterise wicked problems. Metagovernance, thereby, can be considered as the paradigm that concerns the changing role of authorities, such as the national government, in a GNA. The national government has to manage the different networks by developing strategies that are suitable in order to let the policymaking processes within these polycentric networks run effectively and smoothly.
Nevertheless, an important feature has been neglected so far concerning the ontological and epistemological position of the authors of the Xirst and second generation. There have been many discussions on whether governance networks should be considered as an empirical claim about the nature of contemporary societies or as a particular narrative about the polity in these societies (Rhodes, 2007; Marsh, 2011; Kjaer, 2011). The former claim would be based on a positivist or modern empiricist notion on how to understand society and governance processes. Literature based on this particular position prescribes ‘explanatory’ models and ‘suitable’ strategies on metagovernance. Especially Sørensen and TorXing (2007; 2009) and Klijn and Koppenjan (2016), who have been cited
Not to confuse with network management as explained in note four. This concept of network management
3
many times so far, wrote solely, together or with other researcher articles and books in which they tend to make sense of governance networks through empirical claims.
However, these researchers never questions the nature of governance. Their assumption is that governance networks are just out there, that they are here to stay and that, therefore, we should learn how to deal with them. Thus, the Xirst and second generation of literature on GNA perceived policymaking in terms of governance networks. As a result of this perception, the role of the government also changes. Metagovernance is based on the perception that society exists of polycentric networks that produce policies and that, thereby, the national government should facilitate these networks in doing so.
However, a new ‘third’ generation (Skelcher et al., 2013) of literature on GNA emerged, sometimes also called ‘critical governance’ (Newman, 2014). Literature of this generation breaks with the idea of considering governance networks as a given reality and that, therefore, actors, such as politicians and policymakers, have to deal them . For instance, Marsh et al. (2003; later on also Marsh, 4
2011), but also Newman (2004) mainly focus on the dominance of governance networks in contemporary policymaking processes and argue that, because of the dominance, the Xirst and second generation overlooks and neglects feasible alternatives and important aspects.
2.5
Storytelling in Policymaking Processes
In order to develop a better understanding on why the GNA and therefore metagovernance has become dominant in especially decision making processes regarding social issues, I argue that analyses based on an interpretive perspective will deliver valuable insights. As Kjaer (2011: 309) already states, the interpretive approach should be considered as ‘an important counterweight to more positivist studies’. As has already been stated in chapter 1, interpretive approaches emphasise the analysis of different meaning making processes of actors in order to understand their behaviour and practices (for example Rein & Schön, 1993; Yanow, 1994; Hajer, 2006). Rhodes (2007; 2009), who was the Xirst one that brought the interpretive approach in studying governance networks , argues that in analysing 5
governance networks, one should take into account beliefs, practices, traditions and dilemmas. It is about understanding how these matters inXluence the way actors make sense of reality and eventually the decision making processes. From an interpretative perspective, one might create a better understanding on why government elites prefer and push particular policies (Kjaer, 2011: 109).
Interpretive analyses focus on different levels of meaning making processes (Hajer, 2006). In this thesis, I will mainly focus on storytelling, which refers to making sense of reality through stories. Such processes are especially used in policymaking processes (Wagemaker, 1997; 2011; Hajer, 2006;
Although they are not mentioned here, it should be said that the ‘third generation’ on the GNA contains more
4
theories than the theories in this subsection (for more information on other theories, see for example.
However, Rhodes’ interpretive approach has been questioned, as some state that there are contradictions in his
5
Forester, 2012). Stories function to simplify reality and tell complex processes through. Policy 6
storytelling is the process of artiXicial creations by, for example, the public authorities. They make facts match with a speciXic story’ (Hajer, 2006). Such stories have a clear beginning, a middle part and an end, consist of events and has multiple players (ibid). However, as we know, reality is not organised in structured stories at all. Nevertheless, storytelling is used to describe the highly complex dynamics that are still developing in an understandable way and to base the development of policies on. Or, as Hajer (ibid: 69) explains: ‘I employ the concept of story line to refer to a condensed statement summarising complex narratives, used by people as 'short hand' in discussions’. In this conceptualisation of stories, they speciXically refer to their function regarding human affairs, such as policymaking (Wagenaar, 2011). ‘By telling a story, a situation, initially vague and confused, becomes meaningful because it resembles a situation we recognize and are familiar with’ (Wagenaar, 2011: 210).
According to Wagenaar (ibid) reports and policy programmes become stories ‘when [they possess] certain structural features’. He (1997; 2011) has provided an overview of the structures. In the Xirst place, they are undetermined and open-ended. Stories enhance different options, rather than certainties and facts. Although reality is complex and unpredictable, public authorities have to act. Stories show their reXlections on their choices within the decision making process. In the second place, they are subjective and therefore reXlect the values at play. Stories reXlect how people perceive reality and also show which values they regard important, as storytelling implicitly is a process of making judgements about reality. Highlighting one part of reality in a story, means believing that that part is important to tell, while leaving aspects that are regarded as less important out. In the third place, they are about undertaking action. Although theories on policymaking, such as metagovernance, are most of the times highly abstract, policymaking itself is not. It is about acting and decisions made in reality, with clear consequences and products, for instance writing a letter for parliament, organising a congres and providing a subsidy.
Storytelling in policymaking processes create a speciXic reality for the politicians and policymakers. They function as an explanation, justiXication and road map for the policymaking process (Wagemaker, 1997). Therefore, when studying a policymaking process, one will almost always notice that there always is one or a few particular stories that fulXil an important role (Hajer, 2006). As a result, there are great similarities between how policies are structured and the relevant stories at play (ibid). Trained and skilled policymakers are aware of the fact that they organise reality in stories and that each story has its limits. However, a bad story is better than no story at all (ibid).
Moreover, good stories lead to and inspire good theory (Forester, 2011). Forester (see for example Laws & Forester, 2007; Forester et al., 2011; Forester, 2012; Forester, 2013) Xirmly believes that we, policymakers and researchers, can learn from the stories told by practitioners (Forester, 2011; 2012A). According to Forester, there should be more awareness in the research Xield to the
There are different concepts of what stories are and how they relate to narratives. In this thesis I will explicitly
6
use the concepts story and storytelling. In doing so, I use Wagenaar (1997; 2011) who uses both the concept of stories and narratives, without explicitly elaborating on their differences, to refer to tool that function as processes of meaning making in policymaking processes.
contribution of stories told by policymakers about their day-to-day practice, for example in interviews. Such stories reXlect which perceptions are dominant in that speciXic case. It is about those stories that
seem to be ordinary and commonplace, but that are essential in dealing with the policymaking process.
Moreover, the focus on stories in doing analysis allows researchers to take into account the complex reality actors have to deal with. When conducting interviews, respodents tell facts through a story, but at the same time, they also explain why some events or decisions turned out a certain way.
2.6
Conclusion
The role of storytelling has not yet been taken seriously into account in the debate on governance networks, because a positivist perspective on the GNA has overshadowed the debate. As a result, an important aspect of the GNA has been overlooked: the recognition of the power of stories within the policymaking process. Hajer (2006) and Wagenaar (1997; 2011) argue that storytelling especially plays an important role in the policymaking process. A realistic and convincing story on policies structures reality and creates stability for the public and the public authorities themselves, while reality is actually unpredictable and inconsistent. Metagovernance can also be a story itself to understand the policymaking process through. However, the acknowledgement of the power of stories in the policymaking proces, has not been applied and fully developed yet in literature on metagovernance. The Xirst generation on governance networks mainly discusses the emergence of governance networks, whereas the second generation, focuses on how actors should deal with governance networks. Both generations take governance networks for granted. At least, the third generation is indeed more critical, but has not yet concerned the power of stories.
In the analysis of part II of this thesis, I will argue that theories on metagovernance can be considered as stories that can be used by public authorities to make sense of reality. Based on this meaning making process, the stories they develop inXluence public authorities’ decisions, actions and beliefs. Metagovernance can also be considered as an example of such a story. A metagovernor will only emerge if an actor (mostly public authorities) believe that this is necessary for a certain situation. For the analysis, based on the insights of this chapter, I have formulated the following research question: how has the story of metagovernance been used by policymakers of the Alliance for Equal
3.
Research Design and Methods
As stated in the former chapter, the aim of this thesis is to explain how perspectives on metagovernance function as stories used by policymakers in the policymaking process. In this chapter I will elaborate on my research strategy, which I used to provide an answer on the research question. The Xirst subsection explains the choice for a qualitative single case study based on semi-structured interviews. The second clariXies the case selection and description, while the third does the same for the selected respondents. The third subsection also elaborates on the interviews. The last subsection concerns the data analysis. Except for elaborating on the different aspects of my research design, at the same time I will reXlect on the choices that I made regarding the development of the research design and the consequences they may have had on the data.
3.1 Research Strategy
The aim of the research design is to enhance a detailed in-depth understanding of how stories about metagovernance function as a tool to make sense of reality, formulate guidelines and justify the decisions of the metagovernors in the policymaking process. Therefore, I have chosen to conduct a qualitative single case study based on 11 semi-structured interviews in the speciXic case of the policy programme of the Alliance for Equal Opportunities. The methods and the strategies used for the research design are related to what Forester (2012) calls a critical, naturalistic, discourse analysis 7
(NDA). There are two important aspects regarding such research. Firstly, the research is primarily actor-focused. Central in the analysis are those things that are regarded as important by the actors. Secondly, in making an analysis, the researcher should always take into account how actors perceive reality: how did they make sense of reality and how can this be identiXied in the stories they told?
Obviously, the choice for this speciXic research design has its pros and cons. In the Xirst place, one can reXlect on the choice for a single case study (SCS). Yin (2009: 14) deXines the SCS as an ‘empirical enquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context’. One of the most heard criticisms about single case studies is that it has a great lack of external validity (Flyvbjerg, 2006). This is because it is hard to say which variables matter for the mechanism that is studied, as the context of the case cannot be Xiltered away. It might be that the mechanism only works in that speciXic way in that speciXic case, because of the belonging context.
Nevertheless, in the case of the NDA, I think the SCS will deliver the required rich and detailed data. In NDA the researcher focuses on the day-to-day practices of the policymakers in their original context, as the context inXluences their meaning making proces and the way they perceive this inXluences their job. SCSs generate these more detailed, nuanced and ‘human’ insights. The underlying thought of SCSs are that human behaviour can only be understood in the context it takes place in
See Chapter 1 (introduction) for Foresters deXinition of the naturalistic critical discourse analysis. 7
(Flyvbjerg, 2006). However, Flyvbjerg (2006: 229) argues that ‘generalizability of case studies can be increased by the strategic selection of cases’. I will elaborate on this in the next subsection.
Furthermore, it is also needed to reXlect on the pros and cons of qualitative research. Similar to the SCS, research based on qualitative semi-structured interviews produces rich and detailed data that would be hard to retrieve from other sources. Instead of an analysis on, for example, policy documents or media content, the interviews allowed me to develop an actor-focused study. Due to the semi-structured interviews, I was able to extensively ask them questions about their daily experiences regarding their work: where did they see challenges and opportunities? Why did they make certain decisions ? This kind of personal information is needed to reveal the stories that are used in 8
policymaking (Wagenaar, 1997; Hajer, 2009) and that are hard to retrieve from only policy documents. An important note to make, is that the retrieved data had to be interpreted and categorised in order to tell my own story in the analysis. One should always take into account that interpreting qualitative data is a way of sense making of reality as well (Bryman, 2008). Therefore, the analysis itself should also be considered as a perspective on the data rather than the perspective.
3.2
Case Selection and Description
For the research design, I have chosen to analyse the practices of the national government in the policy programme of the Alliance. The case should be considered as a ‘typical case’ of metagovernance. A typical case is ‘representative, given the speciXied relationship’ (Seawright & Gerring, 2008: 297). In doing such research, researchers want ‘to Xind a typical case of some phenomenon so that he or she can better explore the causal mechanisms at work in a general, cross-case relationship’ (ibid: 299). This is also the case for this research. The aim is to develop an understanding of how metagovernance stories are used in policymaking by metagovernors.
The case of the Alliance is representative for a case of metagovernance, because the national government has a clear metagovernor role within the policy programme of the Alliance. The main aim of the policy programme is to develop a big network that exists of different local and regional Alliances (Bussemaker & Dekker, 2017). For example, the Alliance subsidises 28 different projects of collaborations between actors from different kinds of sectors, such as teachers and school leaders, but also actors the private sector and the local government (ibid). The emphasis in the policy documents focuses on a local bottom-up approach (Bussemaker & Dekker, 2016B; 2017; Slob & Van Engelshoven, 2018). Although they do not elaborate on their own role, after analysing the policy documents, one can conclude that the role of the national governments in the Alliance mainly concerns coordinating and facilitating, while respecting the self-steering capacities of the local networks. The following quote
Forester (2015: 15) argues that there are four aspects that should be taken into account during interviews: 1) 1.
8
to inquire about work in real cases revealing both messy challenges and practical opportunities as well, 2. to ask, crucially, “How did you come to [do X]?” rather than “Why did you [do X]?”, 3. to ask, persistently actor-focused (“How did you work on that committee?” not “How did that committee work?”), 4. to ask persistently, whenever possible, “How did you respond to… instead of, “What did you think about . . .
illustrates this point: ‘[w]e explore possibilities together with the local governments. To achieve this goal, we have made available Xinancial aid and capacities for the local actors that are involved. It is up to
the local parties to formulate their ambitions and to develop action-oriented programmes’ (Slob & Van
Engelshoven, 2018).
Moreover, the Alliance is an interesting case to analyse, as it is a relatively new policy programme. The programme has not yet been fully developed and completely crystallised. Therefore, the stories of metagovernance may still play an important role for the policymakers in the decision making process of the programme.
Because I was interested in how the metagovernor uses stories of metagovernance in day-to-day practice, I interviewed the policymakers of the Ministry of ECS who worked on the Alliance. The institutional structure of the policy programme is visualised in Xigure 1. The Alliance exists of two phases. The Xirst one started in October 2016 (Bussemaker & Dekker, 2016B). The second one wil start this year. Moreover, the executive team of the Alliance is also supported by a campaigning company (BKB - Het Campagnebureau) in the implementation of their communication policies.
Figure 1. Organisation Chart of the Executive team of the Alliance
3.3
Respondent Selection and Data Collection
In total 11 people have been interviewed. An overview of the respondents with additional information is provided in Xigure 1. One might consider that 11 interviews might not seem a sufXicient amount for a decent research. Due to practical and time reasons it was not possible to do more interviews. Moreover, for this research this amount is considered as adequate. In total 12 policymakers have worked and/or still work on the Alliance. I have interviewed 8 of them (Benrida, Klein, Derks, Van
Directeur-Generaal
Coordinating Managing Director
Programme Manager
Programme Secretary
Team Coordinator
Team of Region Coordinators
Communication
Project Leader
Works at Ministry of ECS Commercial Company (BKB)Waardhuizen, Van den Heuvel, Pijfers, Boerenboom and Ten Holter), plus the communication project leader of the campaigning company (Jansen), who also works intensively on the programme.
For the respondent selection, I Xirstly did research on which policymakers of the Ministry of ECS were and are recently involved in the policy programme via the website of the Alliance and LinkedIn. Afterwards I contacted them. Subsequently, the respondents have helped me in contacting other colleagues who were or are involved. Some of them also advised me to talk with other people for additional information (Ouwens and Vollenbroek). In total, there were four non-responses: three former region coordinators and the future coordinating managing director. Therefore, there might be a self selection bias. Nevertheless, although the analysis will not elaborate on their speciXic experiences, four other region coordinators and the former coordinating managing director were interviewed.
Almost all of the interviews were conducted face-to-face, took approximately one hour and were conducted in a space where no one else was present, except for the respondent and the interviewer. Rather than Xixed questions, a topic list was used during the interviews (see appendix). The format allowed to discuss topics that were not necessarily on the topic list before. Subsequently, new information could be used in the following interviews. Especially the Xirst Xive interviews generated new data and insights regarding storytelling. After the eighth interview a point of saturation was reached. Moreover, the interview with the directeur-generaal deviates from the others, as this one was conducted by telephone. Obviously, the dynamic of such an interview is different from face-to-face interviews. Nevertheless, given the point of saturation, this was not very problematic, as this interview was the last interview I conducted. At last, there was a follow-up face-to-face interview with Benrida, after all interviews had been conducted.
At the beginning of the research proces, the main aim was to focus on the frameworks of the Xirst and second generation of literature on metagovernance, such as the articles of Klijn and Koppenjan, as I was inspired by their ideas on a new way of policymaking. The research had to be a case study of metagovernance in practice (what kind of strategies could be developed by a metagovernor in order to deal with complexities of governance networks), rather than a study on the
concept of metagovernance itself. Following Klijn and Koppenjan (2016), the focus in the Xirst
interviews was mainly on what kind of strategies the metagovernor (the national government) develops in dealing with governance network complexities. However, this strategy did not work, as the complexities were not always present, as suggested in the literature. I will elaborate on this in subsection 3.4.
The respondents reacted very enthusiast on the topic of the thesis. Via email I informed them brieXly about the research topic, explaining that my research was about governance networks and the role of the national government within these networks. It must be said that they were very helpful and pleasant to interview and, some of them even prepared themselves for the interview, bringing tables and Xigures to show me what this new way of policymaking was about. Especially the executive team of the Alliance did not discuss the topics reservedly and often took more time than we had planned
beforehand for the interview. Consequently, I did not experience any difXiculties in conducting the interviews.
List of Respondents*
1. Bas Derks (coordinating managing director of the Alliance) - Derks was responsible for the Alliance
on the management level. Basically he was the ‘link’ to the higher levels in the hierarchy of the Ministry of ECS, but also to the policy programmes. Besides his speciXic responsibilities, he also functioned as a network partner for the local networks. During the interview, Derks was not anymore involved in the Alliance.
2. Monaïm Benrida (programme manager of the Alliance) - Benrida is main responsible for (further)
developing and implementing the policymaking process of the Alliance. He has been involved in the policy programme from the start and will also be involved in phase two of the Alliance. The Alliance was mainly created and developed by him. Also, he sometimes did the same work as the region coordinators, as he maintains contact with the network partners. All the respondents pointed him out as the man who knows everything about the policy programme.
3. Jacqueline Klein (team coordinator of the region coordinators) - Klein was responsible for the
coordination and facilitation of the team of region coordinators. She also assisted Benrida in his tasks. During the interview, Klein was not anymore involved in the Alliance.
4. Sandra ten Holter (region coordinator) - Ten Holter had been involved from the start of the Alliance.
The function of region coordinator has especially been developed for the Alliance. Each region coordinator has his or her own area for in which they are responsible. These areas are spread throughout the country. The region coordinators starts the dialogue with and between municipalities, activates the municipalities , keeps warm contacts with the networks and assist them in their policymaking process. During the interview, Ten Holter was not anymore involved in the Alliance.
5. Ruben van Waardhuizen (region coordinator) - Van Waardhuizen is a region coordinator who just
started at the position. When the interviews were conducted, Van Waardhuizen was the only one who still had the job as region coordinator.
6. Jeanet Pijfers (region coordinator) - Pijfers was also a region coordinator. She was involved since the
foundation of the Alliance. During the interview, Pijfers was not anymore involved in the Alliance.
7. Nathalie van den Heuvel (programme secretary and region coordinator) - Van den Heuvel started as
programme secretary of the Alliance. In this position she assisted Derks as coordinating managing director. A couple of months after the programme started, Van den Heuvel also became a part time region coordinator. During the interview, Van den Heuvel was not anymore involved in the Alliance.
8. Rewan Jansen** (communication project leader) - Jansen is the only respondent who does not work
for the national government. The company he works for, BKB - Het Campagnebureau, has ben employed to assist the Ministry of ECS in the development and implementation of the communication strategy of the Alliance. He still works for the Alliance.
9. Marcelis Boerenboom (directeur-generaal) - Marcelis Boereboom will be responsible for the Alliance
Boerenboom will be responsible for safeguarding the policymaking process of the Alliance in the future. During the interview, Boerenboom was already active for the Alliance.
10. Bert Ouwens (coordinator equal opportunities) - Ouwens does not work on the Alliance. However, he
should be considered as an expert on UEO’s, as at the Ministry of ECS, he mainly works on the theme. I was advised to talk with Ouwens about UEO’s to develop a broader picture of the problem.
11. Maarten Vollenbroek (strategic advisor at the Ministry of ECS) - Within the Ministry of ECS,
Vollenbroek is occupied with strategies on dealing with (governance) networks in the policymaking process. I was advised to talk with Vollenbroek about governance networks and the role of the national government.
* The numbers in front of the names will also be used in the analysis to refer to the respondents, when citing or paraphrasing them.
** Respondents 1 to 8 are the executive team of the Alliance. Although Boerenboom also has responsibilities concerning the Alliance, his responsibilities are more related to internal matters within the Ministry of ECS.
Box 1. List of Respondents
3.4
Data Analysis: A Reelection on the Development of the Analysis
After all the interviews had been conducted, they were transcribed and analysed thoroughly. Because of the dynamics of the interviews, as explained above, I decided to focus my analysis on how the story of metagovernance inXluenced their day-to-day practice, rather than, as was my original focus, the other way around, which was focusing on how they anticipated on a metagovernance reality. From this point of view the interviews were labelled. This was done in Maxqda, a programme that allows researchers to organise data retrieved from interviews by labelling techniques. The Xirst step was labelling the general subjects that were discussed during the interviews. This type of labelling was based on the topic list, but also on themes that were mentioned by the respondents themselves. Afterwards, the different subjects were categorised into three different themes, which are now the three analytical chapters.
Up until that moment the original research strategy was followed. However, as has already been explained in the previous subsection, the literature that was studied did not match with the data that was retrieved. Especially some, as literature calls them (see 2.2 Dealing with Complexities: Metagovernance), complexities were not identiXied in the data. Therefore, new literature had to be consulted. Eventually, the third generation of literature allowed me to continue with a new round of labelling: identifying how these themes relate to stories of metagovernance. The focus was on how storytelling functioned as meaning making for the respondents in order to deXine roles and required actions and to formulate a vision. Thus, to state it differently, the goal is to analyse how the way policymakers describe their work and how they fulXil the job in practice is linked to perceptions on and stories about metagovernance. Moreover, one last note I want to make is that especially the region coordinators requested not to call the regions and municipalities by their name in the thesis. For this reason, I will refer to them as Municipality A, Municipality B, et cetera in the analysis.
