Aiming to Explain offers a contradictory analysis of five theoretical frameworks in the realm of Canadian firearms policymaking. Rather than attempting to synthesize a singular “super-theory” of policymaking, the authors use a combination of qualitative and quantitative research to create a tailored evaluation of each theory's explanatory power. The book's methodological rigour provides a nuanced exploration of the interplay between theory and practice, underpinning its contribution to the literature on public policy development and Canadian gun control.
The authors’ self-imposed criteria for selecting theoretical frameworks required portability to Canadian policymaking, a prima facie chance of explaining Canadian firearms policy and a “scientific” basis that was “empirically based and causally orientated” (p. 13). This set of criteria yielded five theories: rational choice institutionalism (RCI), the social construction framework (SCF), the advocacy coalition framework (ACF), the multiple streams framework (MSF), and punctuated equilibrium theory (PET). The authors’ sidelining of the explanatory power of critical theories is curious (see pp. 13–14), particularly given the unique sensitivity of criminal justice policymaking to the social structures, power dynamics and ideologies captured by these theories (see Livingstone, Reference Livingstone2024). However, drawing on the book's own approach, I ground this review in what Aiming to Explain sets out to accomplish rather than dwelling on what it does not.
The authors’ choice of Canadian firearms policymaking as their analytical showground is commendable. Empirically, the book provides a welcome remit from the comparative neglect of criminal justice policy within studies of Canadian policymaking. Additionally, as the authors point out, Canadian firearms policy presents a natural sphere for a contradictory analysis of the selected theories: it is sufficiently entwined with Canada's societal values and political debate to make it fertile ground for fruitful examination, but it is not uniquely beholden to any of the five theories’ underlying rationale. Although the varied ontological assumptions and fundamental purposes of each theory ultimately limit the authors’ ability to directly compare the five theories, this “Goldilocks Zone” of case selection bolsters the authors’ ability to provide a fair and rigorous testing ground for each theory, affording an extremely effective side-by comparison of what each attempts to explain and how each succeeds and falters in its application.
In addition to its welcomed empirical contributions to the field of Canadian firearms policy, the book's greatest contribution is its clear and well-structured application of each theoretical framework. The authors provide comprehensive reviews of each theory's foundational premises, operational mechanisms, and scope of application. Through careful exposition, the authors test the explanatory power of the theories in a way that marks it as a valuable resource for students and practitioners of public policy while also remaining accessible to a wider audience. The findings, which reveal both the conditional success and limitations of each theory, emphasize the critical role of context, scope and methodological fit in the analysis of policy change. Additionally, the authors’ refusal to conform to a singular theoretical perspective provides a striking commentary on the multifaceted nature of policymaking. Overall, the authors’ framework demystifies complex theoretical concepts and invites readers to engage with the material in a way that is both informative and thought-provoking.
Aiming to Explain presents as a must-read for scholars and practitioners interested in policy processes, Canadian politics and the issue of Canadian gun control. The authors’ work is a testament to the value of rigorous, theory-driven analysis. While the book's broad scope occasionally challenges the reader's ability to maintain focused engagement with each theory's application, its overall contribution to the field is undeniable. Overall, their study advances our theoretical understanding of policy processes and contradictory analyses while also offering rich insights into the dynamics of Canadian firearms policy, making it a significant resource for both theorists and policymakers alike.
Competing interests
The authors declare none.
