Responding to policy buzzwords

This Research Brief was written as part of ANZSOG’s The Bridge research translation project and summarises a piece of academic research relevant to the public sector.

Many policy buzzwords seem to catch fire then fizzle out before their value is clear in practice.  

These words or phrases become popular because they are pithy and sum up a policy idea like ‘prevention is better than cure’ or ‘place-based approaches’ or ‘collaborative policy design’.  

An article in Policy Sciences discusses the fickle and ambiguous nature of these buzzwords and whether they have any impact. It also uses the lens of buzzwords to examine how policymakers navigate ambiguity in the real-world and how they can respond effectively. 

The buzzword phenomenon 

Focusing on buzzwords helps explain why ideas about better policymaking come and go in cycles. An idea doesn’t just succeed just because of its value but also how it relates to the dominant beliefs or practices of potential audiences. In complex policy environments, attention shifts quickly, enthusiasm rises and falls, and different parts of the system take turns shaping the agenda. The same buzzword can be interpreted in multiple ways and have a different meaning for different people, or the same solution may be implemented in different ways. 

Buzzwords can be appealing partly because they’re vague. That vagueness makes it easier for different people to support the same idea, even if they interpret it in different ways—especially in complex policy areas that cut across sectors and levels of government. But that shared understanding doesn’t last. As people start putting ideas into practice, they bring their own interests, values, and influence to the table.  

Three practical responses to buzzword ambiguity 

The buzzword cycle of enthusiasm and confusion creates ambiguity. In turn, ambiguity creates choices and dilemmas for policymakers responding to the latest policy fad or fashion. The article outlines three ways to respond to buzzword ambiguity: define, deliberate, do. 

1. Define 

The first option is for an authoritative policymaker to reduce ambiguity through definition. There may be multiple ways to interpret a buzzword, but only one interpretation would count, such as from a government department or regulator. A definitional approach establishes a policy’s rationale and intended benefits as well as assigning responsibility for its delivery. 

It can be tough for, say, national central government policymakers to get on board with something if they are not clear what it is, how it could help them, or what the wider implications are.  

2. Deliberate 

The second option is deliberation and involving a wide range of actors committed to working out the meaning and implications of an idea. The deliberative model does not privilege the interpretations of those at the centre of any policymaking system. Instead, it aims to surface the experiences of all actors engaged across a system to reach a shared understanding. Deliberation also offers the opportunity of buy-in. 

However, in practice, deliberation—whether informal or structured—rarely solves the challenge of getting everyone on board and turning a vague idea into real action. There may also be power dynamics that cannot be resolved simply by agreeing to deliberate. Additionally, there could be a risk of stirring up hidden conflicts. Many policy ideas involve “turf wars” between different agencies or sectors, and discussions can sometimes make these tensions worse instead of resolving them. 

3. Do 

The third option is to act regardless of ambiguity. Policymakers and practitioners may feel that they need to simply ‘get on with it’ and work out the relevance and meaning of a new policy idea during their own practice.  

There are many reasons for acting despite ambiguity, including: 

• a perceived lack of time or opportunity to clarify, given an environment of high demand and resource constraint.

• fatigue in engaging with yet another new idea to the extent that engagement isn’t seen as worthwhile.

• a tendency to be fuelled by more important or motivators for action, such as to challenge social and economic inequalities or respond to crises in public services. 

This response may be seen as inevitable and even helpful as a way of making a new idea meaningful. Different groups—academics, policymakers, and practitioners—use ideas in their own ways. Over time, the meaning of an idea develops through this use, as people apply it in different contexts and give it their own interpretation. This helps the idea gain traction and credibility. 

The bottom line 

Policy buzzwords seem to catch fire then fizzle like a hot/cold cycle of enthusiasm followed by disinterest. Given repeated cycles, how should policymakers respond to new policy ideas?  

There is not one best way to resolve ambiguity. Instead, the article proposes three distinct approaches: defining, deliberating and doing. Ambiguity is either worked out and minimised (defining); worked through and navigated (deliberating); or worked with and accommodated (doing).  

These approaches take place in a continuous cycle of action and no approach is likely to fully resolve the meaning of any given buzzword. Different actors will pursue different strategies, at different times, in different settings, all with a view to enable change in some form while managing the everyday demands of policy work.  

Want to read more? 

How should policy actors respond to buzzwords? Three ways to deal with policy ambiguity - Liz Richardson, Catherine Durose, Paul Cairney and John Boswell - Policy Sciences, November 2025