To support meaningful development and application of implementation theory, this paper will consider what needs to be better understood about three related, but distinct, elements: context of implementation; complexity of the system; and impact of knowledge creation. We bring them together suggesting that each offers nuanced explanations affecting the underpinning assumptions made about implementing a policy.
While some academics seek an overarching implementation theory, others have argued that the context in which policy-making takes place is too complex to be explained by any one theory (Nilsen et al., 2013; Winter, 2012). Considering that “Context is any information that can be used to characterize the situation of an entity” (Dey, 2001 in Zimmermann et al., 2007, p. 559), and that the transferability of a theory will be context-dependant we will consider what are the current contextual issues affecting implementation theory.
We will argue that different theoretical models are better suited to particular contexts; a system is characterised by a context of a lack of trust, top-down models might be more appropriate to understand how implementation happens (Rothstein, 1988). Knowing what assumptions were made about a system in the development of a theory could assist with understanding explanations of implementation success (Hawe et al., 2009). We will suggest that an improved understanding of policy implementation can be achieved by exploring how system properties interact and whether interventions will alter them. Emerging research on complex systems is starting to focus on elements of policy implementation and this will lead us to our third aspect: the implications of the types of knowledge being created and used. While the concept of constructivism can be interpreted as meaning that the social world is not ‘real’, as a philosophical position it is incredibly relevant to policy implementation. By adopting different epistemological approaches in understanding implementation, we can reveal different variables that explain processes as well as perceptions of success or failure.
The paper will discuss each of the elements and then reflect on their potential for reframing current implementation research.
Hawe, P., Bond, L., Butler, H., 2009. Knowledge Theories Can Inform Evaluation Practice: What Can a Complexity Lens Add? New Directions for Evaluation, 89-100.
Nilsen, P., Ståhl, C., Roback, K., Cairney, P., 2013. Never the twain shall meet? - a comparison of implementation science and policy implementation research. Implementation Science 8, 63.
O'Toole, L.J., 1986. Policy Recommendations for Multi-Actor Implementation: An Assessment of the Field. Journal of Public Policy 6, 181-210.
Rothstein, B., 1988. Just institutions matter. The moral and political logic of the universal welfare state. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Winter, S.C., 2012. Implementation perspectives: status and reconsideration, in: Peters, B.G., Pierre, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Public Administration, pp. 265-278.
Zimmermann, A., Lorenz, A., Oppermann, R., 2007. An Operational Definition of Context, in: Kokinov, B., Richardson, D.C., Roth-Berghofer, T.R., Vieu, L. (Eds.), Modeling and Using Context. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 558-571.
