The two‐community model in the New Zealand housing policy community – A bottom‐up perspective

Abstract

The barriers and tensions between the world of academic research and the policy world have been a recurrent theme in policy research since the 1970s and has gained renewed interest in the light of the evidence‐based policymaking movement. Although there seem to be many good arguments to not exaggerate the gulf between what has been called ‘the two communities’, we will in this article demonstrate the persistence of the model from an inductive, bottom‐up perspective. Based on an empirical and bottom‐up qualitative study with various organised interests (both inside and outside the government) involved in New Zealand housing policy, we demonstrate that although the two‐community model prevails, the actual relationship between academia and policy professionals is more complex once you begin to probe into the minds of the policy professionals and cannot be reduced to two separate tribes. The study is based on focus groups with 15 different organisations representing both central and local government organisations, housing associations, and professional associations within the policy field of housing in New Zealand.

Speaking Truth to Power and Power to Truth: Reflections from the Pandemic

“…Similarly, science and policymaking can be seen as two distinct 'communities', separated by different languages, values and reward systems (Caplan, 1979;Amara et al, 2004;Newman et al, 2016.;Lofgren and Bickerton, 2021). According to this view several barriers of communication, priorities, time horizons and language would prevent the worlds of academic research and public policymaking from successfully interacting and learning from each other.…”

Policy preferences of experts seeking to raise and stabilise farm incomes in the Eastern Gangetic Plains

“…Arguably, those within government agencies, who have been charged with crafting policy, could also be expected to hold different beliefs to those from an academic background; after all, the two would usually have ‘different goals, attitudes toward information, languages, perception of time, and career paths’ (Choi et al, 2005, p. 632). In contrast, Löfgren and Bickerton (2021) argue that the distinction between academic and policy groupings is less clear and Pal (2014) also contends that a policy community is itself defined more by shared reference points and language, even if opinions differ. Mockshell and Birner (2020) also show that policy narratives can be shaped by coalitions across different policy actors who share similar beliefs.…”