As media policy research and the methods used for conducting such research (for this see Chapters 1 and 2 by Puppis and Van den Bulck) develop further, the question ‘What is next?’ arises near-spontaneously. Media sectors seem to be in a continuous turmoil. This can make one wonder whether the challenges that issues such as fake news, data protection, the further integration of media ownership, the pressure on press freedom, the limited accountability and liability of intermediaries, … create for policy makers, can be studied if one does not innovate at the methodological level too. That is one of the elements motivating this handbook on methods for conducting media policy research. The aim is to devote attention to those methods, techniques and approaches that have demonstrated their robustness, while at the same time exploring the value of genuinely innovative methods. In media policy research, two main fields of innovative activity can be observed. Firstly, not only the subject of our analysis, but also the meansto perform that analysis are becoming more digital. That applies to both data collection and data analysis and allows for the inclusion of an enormous amount of data in research, for example, algorithm-based content analysis of policy documents. It also allows existing types of analysis, such as network analysis, to become more solidly based in a vast amount of empirical data and less anecdotal in nature. Second, and at the metalevel, research endeavors are looking more at what those affected by policies think, complementary to how scientists and policy-makers themselves evaluate policies. This move can be regarded as a move from top-down to inclusive, bottom-up approaches. For example, analyzing the effectiveness of media literacy policies on the basis of documents and without including the recipients of certain initiatives seems a suboptimal approach. To some extent it can be argued that whereas digital methods of data collection and analysis can be part of both administrative and critical policy research, a genuine inclusive and bottom-up methodological approach fits within critical research only. The difference between administrative and critical policy research has been discussed by Just and Puppis (2012, p. 17) and is also discussed in the introductory chapters by Puppis and Van den Bulck in this book. These scholars argue that specifically critical, often normative and evaluative research on media policy is dominant within the field whereas purely descriptive, client-oriented research has become less important, certainly in a European context. Whereas one can indeed argue that participative approaches can be part of administrative research in so far they concern a basic consultation of consumers’ preferences, the participative approach discussed below sets out from an iterative and dialogical relationship between citizen and researcher. The chapter consists of the following parts. The first part contains a discussion of the focus in media policy research on the difference between ‘old’ and ‘new’ media policies, on formal government policies and on the reliance on traditional methods such as document analysis and expert interviews. On the basis of that analysis, some pitfalls and shortcomings of media policy research are addressed. The neglect of bottom-up aspects of media policy, for example, requires a more ethnographic approach. The second part in this chapter elaborates on the emerging practice of digital methods. Part three discusses the rise of ‘participatory action research for policy development’ methodologies. We conclude with some lessons for those interested in developing methods for media policy research in the twenty-first century.