Robert Hoppe

University of Twente
Science, Technology & Policy Studies

7524DV |  Visit Personal Website

Search Google Scholar
Search for Google Scholar Profile

My research focus is on the institutional and epistemic possibilities and constraints of deliberative and participatory policymaking; policy process theories; comparative public policy, esp. comparison of governance systems; the governance of expertise or science-politics boundary work; the governance of risks; and the application of Q Method.

R. Hoppe (2016) Towards the Comparative Study of Policy Work. A Rejoinder to Radin’s Views on Policy Analysis as “Advice to a Client”, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 18:3, 302-306,
DOI: DOI: 10.1080/13876988.2016.1175192
R. Hoppe (and A. Wesselink, and R. Lemmens) 2015. Not just a tool. Taking context into account in the development
of a mobile App for rural water supply in Tanzania.
Water Alternatives 8(2): 57-76
Abstract: The 'eGovernance' hype around the potential of mobile phone and geoweb technologies for enhancing 'good governance' is soaring. In East Africa, the extensive use of mobile telephony adds to theimagined promises of ICT. We reflect on the assumptions made by the proponents of such tools, using our own action research project as an example. We took great care to consider context in the development of software for enhancing empowerment and accountability in rural water supply in Tanzania. However, we found that the rural water supply context in Tanzania is much more complex than the contexts for which successful mApps have been developed previously. Institutional analysis and public administration theory help to understand why. Rural water supply shows institutional hybridity, with water being at the same time a private, public and common-pool good. In addition, in accountability relations, many informal mechanisms prevail where explicit reporting is not relevant. Finally, our proposal sat uneasily with other ongoing iGovernment initiatives. We conclude that we need to consider eGovernance tools as political Apps that can be expected to trigger political responses.
A. Pelizza and R. Hoppe, 2015. Birth of a failure. Media debates and digital infrastructures and the organization of governance, Administration & Society 1–30
Abstract: Government information systems failures are filling not only newspapers, but also parliamentary and administrative reports. This paper deals with a case in which information and communication technologies (ICT)-related failure claims introduced by the media influenced the parliamentary agenda, and intra-governmental relations. Drawing on a narrative analysis of a Dutch parliamentary commission’s hearings, it argues that the way the issue was initially framed by the media and then adopted, unproblematized, by Parliament steered the direction of action toward specific administrative solutions, thus shaping the landscape of possible organizational alliances. The paper recommends a proactive role of parliaments in framing if ICT projects.
DOI: DOI: 10.1177/0095399715598343
R. Hoppe (and K. Lancaster, A. Ritter and C. Hughes), 2016. A critical examination of the introduction of drug detection dogs for policing of illicit drugs in New South Wales, Australia using Kingdon's 'multiple streams' heuristic, in Evidence and Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice
Abstract: This paper critically analyses the introduction of drug detection dogs as a tool for policing of illicit drugs in New South Wales, Australia. Using Kingdon’s ‘multiple streams’ heuristic as a lens for analysis, we identify how the issue of drugs policing became prominent on the policy agenda, and the conditions under which the alternative of drug detection dogs for illicit drugs policing came to be endorsed by decision makers. By applying Kingdon’s heuristic, we also consider how this approach may be used to illuminate the limitations of the evidence-based policy paradigm in the context of policing policy. keywords: Kingdon • multiple streams • policing • drug detection dogs
R. Hoppe and H. Colebatch, 2016. The Role of Theories in Policy Studies and Policy Work: Selective Affinities between Representation and Performation?, in European Policy Analysis, Vol. 2, Nr. 1, 121-149
Abstract: In this article, we intend to take a few steps to mending the disconnect between the academic study of policy processes and the many practices of professional and not-so-professional policy work. We argue, first, that the “toolkit” of academically warranted approaches to the policy process used in the representative mode may be ordered in a family tree with three major branches: policy as reasoned authoritative choice, policy as association in policy networks, and policy as problematization and joint meaning making. But, and this is our second argument, such approaches are not just representations to reflect and understand “reality”. They are also mental maps and discursive vehicles for shaping and sometimes changing policy practices. In other words, they also serve performative functions. The purpose of this article is to contribute to policy theorists’ and policy workers’ awareness of these often tacit and “underground” selective affinities between the representative and performative roles of policy process theorizing. Keywords: governing, policy, policymaking process, policy analysis, policy work, representation, performation
DOI: doi: 10.18278/epa.2.1.8
Hoppe, R., 2011. The Governance of Problems. Puzzling, Powering, and Participation. Policy Press, Bristol (soft cover edition) Hisschemöller, M., R. Hoppe, W.N. Dunn, and J.R. Ravetz., Eds. 2001. Knowledge, Power, and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis. Policy Studies Review Annual 12. New Brunswick, NJ, Transaction Publishers. R. Hoppe (and Hal Colebatch, and Mirko Noordegraaf (eds.) 2010, Working for Policy, Chicago University Press and Amsterdam University Press. R. Hoppe and Hal Colebatch (eds.), to be published in 2016, Handbook of Policy Process Theories, Edward Elgar Hoppe, R. 2005. "Rethinking the science-policy nexus: from knowledge utilization and science technology studies to types of boundary arrangements." Poiesis and Praxis:International Journal of Technology Assessment and Ethics of Science 3(3): 199-215. Hoppe, R. 2008 Scientific advice and public policy: expert advisers’ and policymakers’ discourses on boundary work, Poièsis & Praxis, 6, 3-4, 235-263 (on-line doi 10.1007/s10202_008-0053-3) R. Hoppe and A. Wesselink 2010/11. If Post-normal Science is the Solution, What Is the Problem? Science, Technology and Human Values, Vol. 36, Nr. 3, 389-412 (on-line November 7, 2010, DOI: 10.1177/01622439103885786) R. Hoppe 2010/11., Institutional constraints and practical problems in deliberative and participatory policy making, in Policy & Politics, Vol. 39, Nr. 2, 163-183 (on-line 19 August 2010, DOI: 10.1332/030557310X519650)

Substantive Focus:
Governance PRIMARY
Comparative Public Policy SECONDARY

Theoretical Focus:
Policy Process Theory PRIMARY
Agenda-Setting, Adoption, and Implementation
Policy Analysis and Evaluation SECONDARY