This paper presents the results of a content analysis of the titles and descriptions of methods courses offered in 44 graduate programs in public policy at universities and colleges in the U. S., and compares the results to those of an earlier survey on the methodological preferences of policy professionals. The rationale for classifying methods courses as quantitative and qualitative and the results of the past research on methods courses are discussed. The results of the analyses show that quantitative methods are used in a large majority of the courses studied and that they are prevalent in the practice of policy professionals. The authors question whether the prevalence of a quantitative/positivist methodological approach in public policy programs and practice is a good match for the demands of today’s complex world of governance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmyD. J. (1984). Toward a post-positivist policy analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 13, 210–211.
2.
AscherW. (1987). Editorial: Policy sciences and the economic approach in a post-positivist era. Policy Sciences, 20, 3–9.
3.
Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management. (1996). APPAM membership directory. Washington, D.C.: APPAM.
4.
BennettA.BarthA.RutherfordK. R. (2003). Do we preach what we practice? A survey of methods in political science journals and curricula. PS: Political Science and Politics, 36, 373–378.
5.
BergB. L. (1998). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
6.
BrunnerR. D. (1991). The policy movement as a policy problem. Policy Sciences, 24, 65–98.
7.
CreswellJ. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
8.
CzajaR.BlairJ. (2005). Designing surveys: A guide to decisions and procedures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
DeLeonP. (1994). Democracy and the policy sciences: Aspirations and operations. Policy Studies Journal, 22, 200–212.
10.
DryzekJ. S. (1993). Policy analysis and planning: From science to argument. In FischerF.ForesterJ. (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp. 213–232). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
11.
DunnW. N. (2008). Public policy analysis: An introduction (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
12.
DurningD. (1999). The transition from traditional to post-positivist policy analysis: A role for Q-Methodology. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18, 389–410.
13.
FischerF. (1995). Evaluating public policy. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
14.
FischerF. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. New York: Oxford University Press.
15.
FischerF. (2009). Democracy and expertise: Reorienting policy inquiry. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
HajerM. A.WagenaarH. (Eds.). (2003). Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20.
HeinemanR. A.BluhmW. T.PetersonS. A.KearnyE. N. (1990). The world of the policy analyst. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
21.
HellebustL., (Ed.). (1996). Think tank directory: A guide to nonprofit public policy research organizations. Topeka, KS: Government Research Service.
22.
HyR. J.NelsonP. B.WaughW. L. (1981). Statistical backgrounds and computing needs of graduate students in political science and public administration. Teaching Political Science, 8, 201–212.
23.
HyR. J.WaughW. L.NelsonP. B. (1987). The future of public administration and quantitative skills. Public Administration Quarterly, 11, 134–149.
24.
KingG.KeohaneR. OVerbaS. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
KvaleS.BrinkmannS. (2008). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
Jenkins-SmithH.MitchellN.SilvaC. (1999). The state of public policy graduate education in leading American political science departments. Policy Currents: Newsletter of the Public Policy Section of the American Political Science Association, 9(3-4), 7–10.
27.
LaPlanteJ. M. (1989). Research methods education for public sector careers: The challenge of utilization. Policy Studies Review, 8, 845–851.
28.
LasswellH. D. (1971). A preview of policy sciences. New York: American Elsevier.
29.
LasswellH. D.KaplanA. (1950). Power and society: A framework for political inquiry. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
30.
LewinsA.SilverC. (2007). Using software in qualitative research: A step-by-step guide. Los Angeles: Sage.
31.
LynnL. E. (1999). A place at the table: Policy analysis, its postpositive critics, and the future of practice. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18, 411–424.
32.
MacRaeD.WhittingtonD. (1997). Expert advice for policy choice: Analysis and discourse. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
33.
MorçölG. (2001). Positivist beliefs among policy professionals: An empirical investigation. Policy Sciences, 34, 381–401.
PattonC.SawickiD. S. (1993). Basic methods of policy analysis and planning (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
36.
PattonM. Q. (1975). Alternative evaluation research paradigm. Grand Forks, ND: The University of North Dakota Press.
37.
PorterT. M. (1995). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38.
QuadeE. S. (1989). Analysis for public decisions (3rd ed.). New York: North Holland.
39.
RadinB. (2000). Beyond Machiavelli: Policy analysis comes of age. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
40.
ReichardtC. S.CookT. D. (1979). Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods. In CookT. D.ReichardtC. S. (Eds.), Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research (pp. 32–56). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
41.
Rice University (n.d.). Online statistics: An interactive multimedia course of study. Retrieved July 6, 2009, from http://onlinestatbook.com
42.
RubinH. J.RubinI. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43.
Schwartz-SheaP. (2003). Is this the curriculum we want? Doctoral requirements and offerings in methods and methodology. PS: Political Science and Politics, 36, 379–386.
44.
Schwartz-SheaP.YanowD. (2002). “Reading” “methods” “texts”: How research methods texts construct political science. Political Science Quarterly, 55(2), 457–486.
45.
SilvermanD. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
46.
StoneD. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (rev. ed.). New York:W.W. Norton.
47.
TorgersonD. (1986). Interpretive policy inquiry: A response to its limitations. Policy Sciences, 19, 397–405.
48.
WaughW. L.HyR. JBrudneyJ. (1994). Quantitative analysis and skill building in public administration graduate education. Public Administration Quarterly, 18(2), 204–222.
49.
WeimerD. L. (1999). Comment: Q-method and the isms. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18, 426–429.
50.
WeimerD. L.ViningA. R. (1992). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
51.
YangK. (2007). Quantitative methods for policy analysis. In FischerF.MillerG. J.SidneyM. S. (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods. (pp. 349–368). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
YanowD. (2007). Qualitative-interpretive methods in policy research. In FischerF.MillerG. J.SidneyM. S. (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 405–416). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
54.
YanowDSchwartz-SheaP. (Eds.). (2006). Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
