Theorizing policy-industry processes: A media policy field approach

Abstract

This article develops a theoretical perspective to study the conditions for media policy formation under the condition of digitalization – the Media Policy Field approach – building on an organizational field approach in combination with theories of policy development. The theory of strategic action fields offers a meso-level view of how actors in media fields interact and how their respective opportunities for influencing policy are structured by the state of the field and their respective positions. This theory is linked with the Multiple Streams Approach, which maintains that change occurs when policy entrepreneurs connect problem, policy and politics streams, and create policy windows. The Media Policy Field approach proposes three analytical foci for the study of current media policy processes: collective frames, incumbent and challenger roles and policy windows. Empirical strategies for pursuing this theoretical programme are discussed.

Global platforms and asymmetrical power: Industry dynamics and opportunities for policy change

“…The focus on collective frames emphasises that underlying any field is a set of commonly shared frames that defines the aims, relationships and rules, which, under the pressure of disruptive change, are expected to become increasingly contested (Fligstein and McAdam, 2011). Thus, to understand industry-policy relations, there is a need to investigate the different action logics and action frames that have currency in the field and trace their transformation and the emergence of new ones (Steen-Johnsen et al, 2019; see also Freedman, 2010). In our case, the focus on collective frames implies paying attention to how national industry players define the problems (and opportunities) of global platforms as well as the solutions these players promote.…”

Policy windows and converging frames: a longitudinal study of digitalization and media policy change

“…The study makes use of the Media Policy Field (MPF) approach (Steen-Johnsen et al, 2019), a framework for studying the conditions for media policy formation in times of change. The framework aims to provide a holistic understanding of the complex set of social, cultural, and political processes among public and non-public actors in a field, by combining lessons from organizational field approaches (the theory of strategic action fields; Fligstein and McAdam, 2011) with a theory of policy development (the multiple streams approach; Kingdon, 1995).…”

“…The framework aims to provide a holistic understanding of the complex set of social, cultural, and political processes among public and non-public actors in a field, by combining lessons from organizational field approaches (the theory of strategic action fields; Fligstein and McAdam, 2011) with a theory of policy development (the multiple streams approach; Kingdon, 1995). The MPF approach states that underlying any field is a set of collective frames that defines the aims, the relationships, and the rules, and it proposes three analytical foci points for the study of the forming of new media policy: collective frames, incumbent and challenger roles, and policy windows (Steen-Johnsen et al, 2019).…”

“…New forms of action might gradually gain legitimacy, and established ones may become illegitimate. Thus, to understand the formation of a media policy, there is a need to investigate the different action logics and action frames that have currency in the field and trace their transformation and the emergence of the new ones (Steen-Johnsen et al, 2019; see also Freedman, 2010). In our case, the focus on collective frames implies paying attention to how industry players have defined the problems of digitalization, as well as which solutions these players have promoted.…”

“…This idea is particularly important in relation to a term such as digitalization that has been linked to the notion of an ever-imminent crisis, and where the last version of the crisis risks defining the phenomenon as such (Alexander et al, 2016). On a theoretical level the article contributes to media policy studies by applying a holistic theoretical framework, that takes both the impact of existing institutional structures and cultures, as well as the potential power of new actors into account (Fligstein and McAdam, 2011; Steen- Johnsen et al, 2019). Thus, this empirical investigation provides the basis for discussing the general question of what key collective frames – and the players promoting them – can tell us about factors that provide continuity and change in the media policy field.…”