Abstract:
As policy landscapes grow increasingly complex, understanding the strengths and weaknesses of Kingdon’s (1984) Multiple Streams Model (MSM) is crucial for advancing education policy analysis. The MSM explains how issues gain attention and rise on policy agendas, suggesting that policy entrepreneurs must ensure the convergence of three streams (problem, policy, politics) to create a window of opportunity for introducing a new policy or a policy change. With the aim to identify adaptations across contexts, and highlight key limitations, this systematic review examines MSM applications in education policy research from 2013 to 2023. We conducted a systematic literature search across four databases (Google Scholar, EBSCO, ProQuest, JSTOR) following PRISMA guidelines, selecting 51 articles for thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022). The review reveals MSM’s flexibility in application across various educational contexts. For instance, Angervil (2021) utilized all MSM components to analyze US education equity policy, while Kippin and Cairney (2021) focused on specific streams for COVID-19 exam policies in the UK. However, the review also identified several key limitations of the MSM: a limited applicability in non-Western contexts (as noted by Li & Lu, 2018), unclear operational definitions of key components (see Zahariadis & Exadaktylos, 2016), challenged assumptions of stream independence (Yuxin, 2020), insufficient attention to policy implementation and evaluation stages (Gearin et al., 2020), and the overlooked role of external factors such as media and transnational influences (Chow, 2014). Our analysis indicates a strong prevalence of qualitative methods (96%) suggesting a need for methodological diversification.
Based on these findings, we propose a further exploration of the role of media and social movements in the policy process. We also note a need for more quantitative research applying the model, more cross-cultural comparisons, and to consider integrating complementary frameworks like the Advocacy Coalition Framework (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2018). These findings contribute to the ongoing refinement of the MSM, offering a foundation for enhancing its utility in analyzing contemporary education policy processes across diverse global contexts. By addressing the identified limitations and expanding the model’s scope, future research can develop a more robust and comprehensive framework for understanding the complexities of education policymaking. This research aligns with the conference theme by offering critical insights into policy analysis frameworks crucial for understanding change and reform processes in the education domain in an increasingly complex and interconnected world.
Based on these findings, we propose a further exploration of the role of media and social movements in the policy process. We also note a need for more quantitative research applying the model, more cross-cultural comparisons, and to consider integrating complementary frameworks like the Advocacy Coalition Framework (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2018). These findings contribute to the ongoing refinement of the MSM, offering a foundation for enhancing its utility in analyzing contemporary education policy processes across diverse global contexts. By addressing the identified limitations and expanding the model’s scope, future research can develop a more robust and comprehensive framework for understanding the complexities of education policymaking. This research aligns with the conference theme by offering critical insights into policy analysis frameworks crucial for understanding change and reform processes in the education domain in an increasingly complex and interconnected world.