Comparative Study of University-Based Policy Labs: Insights for Public Policy and Governance

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Assistant Professor, Department of Public Administration, Shahid Beheshti University

Abstract

This article aims to conduct a comparative analysis of university-based policy labs across different countries and to extract lessons for designing and establishing an effective, contextually adapted policy lab in Iran, with a focus on enhancing governance and policy development. The study is qualitative and employs a documentary content analysis approach. To organize the analysis and enable systematic comparison, the four-step Bereday model (description, interpretation, comparison, and juxtaposition) was applied. Data were collected from the official websites and documents of ten university-based policy labs in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and the Netherlands, and analyzed based on a framework including geographic location, design objectives, governance structure, scope of activity, and funding mechanisms. Findings indicate that although the labs operate within prestigious universities and adopt an interdisciplinary approach, they differ significantly in design objectives, governance structure, level of involvement in the policy cycle, dominant approach (technocratic or participatory), and interaction with government. The final typology was developed along two dimensions: “problem level” (local or national) and “dominant approach” (technocratic or social). The main limitation of the study is its reliance on secondary data, which may not fully capture operational aspects and practical challenges. Nevertheless, the findings can assist policymakers, universities, and executive institutions in enhancing governance and policy development, providing an inspiring model for strengthening the university-government linkage. The study’s novelty lies in offering a new typology of policy labs and applying it to institutional design in the context of public policy in Iran.

References

  1. منابع فارسی:

    1- الوانی، سید مهدی و شریف‌زاده، فتاح. (۱۳۹۸). فرآیند خط‌مشی‌گذاری عمومی (چاپ هشتم). تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی.

    2- اصغری، حرمت و خداپرست، عباس. (۱۴۰۳). الزامات راه‌اندازی آزمایشگاه‌های خط‌مشی به‌مثابه ابزاری برای ارتقاء کیفیت خدمات عمومی. فصلنامه مطالعات خدمات عمومی، ۲(۴)، ۱۵۵-۱۸۰.

    3- برهانی، تهمینه، پورعزت، علی اصغر و منوریان، عباس. (۱۴۰۱). به کارگیری رویکرد کیفی فراترکیب به منظور ارائه الگوی طراحی آزمایشگاه خط‌مشی. فصلنامه چشم‌انداز مدیریت دولتی، ۱۳(۱)، ۹۷-۱۱۵.

    4- قربانی‌زاده، وجه­الله، معتضدیان، رسول، حسین‌پور، داود و رهبر، عباسعلی. (۱۴۰۰). سناریوهای آینده‌ مشارکت عمومی در خط‌مشی‌گذاری ایران. فصلنامه مطالعات مدیریت راهبردی، ۱۲(۴۵)، ۱۸۱-۲۰۴.

    5- ایزدپرست، محمدحسین، پورعزت، علی اصغر و امیرکبیری، علیرضا. (۱۴۰۲). شناسایی و به گزینی ویژگی‌های آزمایشگاه‎ خط‌مشی مناسب برای قوه مجریه جمهوری اسلامی ایران. فصلنامه مطالعات راهبردی سیاست‌گذاری عمومی، ۱۳(۴۶)، ۱۲۴-۱۴۱.

    References:

    1. Adick, C. (2018). Bereday and Hilker: origins of the ‘four steps of comparison’model. Comparative Education, 54(1), 35-48.
    2. Anderson, J. E. (2014). Public policymaking. Cengage Learning.
    3. Bourgon, Jocelyne (2007). Responsive, responsible and respected government: towards a New Public Administration theory, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(1), PP 7-26.
    4. Brock, K. L. (2021). Policy labs, partners and policy effectiveness in Canada. Policy Design and Practice, 4(2), 228-241.
    5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
    6. Cairney, Paul; Heikkila, Tanya and Wood, Matthew (2019). Making Policy in a Complex World, Cambridge University Press.
    7. Chung, S. Y. (2011). Fostering Citizen Participation Though Innovative Mechanisms In Governance, Policy, And Decision Making: Comparing Washington, DC And Seoul(Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University).
    8. DeLeon, P., & Martell, C. R. (2006). The policy sciences: past, present, and future. Handbook of public policy, 31-47.
    9. Driessen, P. P., Glasbergen, P., & Verdaas, C. (2001). Interactive policy-making–a model of management for public works. European Journal of Operational Research, 128(2), 322-337.
    10. Dror, Y. (1967). Policy analysts: A new professional role in government service. Public Administration Review, 197-203.
    11. Fuglsang, L., Hansen, A. V., Mergel, I., & Røhnebæk, M. T. (2021). Living labs for public sector innovation: an integrative literature review. Administrative Sciences, 11(2), 58.
    12. Hazlehurst, David (2001). Networks and policy making: from theory to practice in Australian social policy, Master Thesis in Public Policy, Australian national University.
    13. Howlett, M. 2014. From the ‘Old’ to the ‘New’ Policy Design: design Thinking beyond Markets and Collaborative Governance. Policy Sciences 47 (3): 187–207.
    14. Komatsu, T., Salgado, M., Deserti, A., & Rizzo, F. (2021). Policy labs challenges in the public sector: the value of design for more responsive organizations. Policy design and practice, 4(2), 271-291.
    15. Lee, C., & Ma, L. (2020). The role of policy labs in policy experiment and knowledge transfer: A comparison across the UK, Denmark, and Singapore. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 22(4), 281-297.
    16. Lewis, J. M. (2021). The limits of policy labs: characteristics, opportunities and constraints. Policy Design and Practice, 4(2), 242-251.
    17. Lewis, J. M. (2025). Policy design labs and uncertainty: can they innovate, and retain and circulate learning? Policy Design and Practice, 8(3), 338-350.
    18. McGann, M., Blomkamp, E., & Lewis, J. M. (2018). The rise of public sector innovation labs: experiments in design thinking for policy. Policy Sciences, 51(3), 249-267.
    19. Olejniczak, K., Borkowska-Waszak, S., Domaradzka-Widła, A., & Park, Y. (2020). Policy labs: the next frontier of policy design and evaluation? Policy & Politics, 48(1), 89-110.
    20. Rosenhead, J., & Mingers, J. (2001). Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
    21. Whicher, A. (2021). Evolution of policy labs and use of design for policy in UK Policy Design and Practice, 4(2), 252-270.
    22. Wellstead, A. M., Ottenhof, N., Evans, B., & Gofen, A. (2023). What's going on in there? Canadian government policy labs and public value management. Canadian Public Administration, 66(4), 514-532.
    23. Yang, F., & Wang, L. (2023). Design Thinking in Public Policy Design: A Typological Study. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Global Politics and Socio-Humanities DOI(Vol. 10, pp. 2753-7048).
Governance and Development
Volume 6, Issue 2
August 2026
Pages 84-61

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics