In this paper, we present and approach to policy and program implementation informed by pragmatist institutionalism (Ansell, 2011).  Specifically, while we follow the lead of governance scholars and conceptualize implementation as occurring in multi-level systems (Kiser & Ostrom, 1982; Hill and Hupe 2008; Robichau and Lynn Jr. 2009), we explore implementation as a process of social learning.  In our conception, implementation systems are nested strategic action fields (Fligstein and McAdams, 2012), each comprised of actors (individuals and institutions) engaged in enacting and learning about particular implementation. 

In a strategic action field, actors start with diffuse understanding of what is going on, of how they are to take policy ideals and operationalize them in programs, organizational operations, frontline practices.  Yet, inevitably, differences in resource endowments and resulting power create dynamics in which incumbents and challengers vie for influence.  A significant way this influence is felt is through the operative rules and interpretative frames that arise in the field from events. In this way, our theoretical approach departs from the path pursued by others to develop models that predict implementation effectiveness.  Instead, we turn to theory to develop an analytical generalizable approach for understanding the social processes shaping activities within various settings found in implementation systems.  

In laying out this conceptual and theoretical orientation, we integrate past pubic affairs studies of policy processes and public management. We present our framework in light of a systematic review of the literature (Sandfort, Roll, and Moulton, 2014).  Although policy and program implementation research is thriving (over 1,500 articles were published in scholarly journals over the last ten years), our in-depth examination of randomly selected 100 articles included in this paper reveals a scattershot, atheoretical trajectory.  In this paper, we look at this evidence and establish the intellectual foundation for an alternative path.  We also lay out theoretical propositions for further refinement and testing, suggesting an array of viable research designs and methods.  Like other pragmatist theorists, we are explicitly attempting to overcome the dualistic thinking that has limited scholars’ abilities to theorize in order to inform more skillful practice. Through this systematic approach, we hope this paper will reinvigorate the study of policy and program implementation within public affairs as well as build its relevance to helping practitioners grapple with persistent implementation quandaries.