In this article, we describe and evaluate a teaching project embedded within a core policy analysis course that allows students to engage with a major public policy issue—in our case, environmental policy—without a corresponding cost in terms of reducing curricular space for developing general policy analysis skills. We think that a win-win arrangement is attainable: a fairly intense immersion into a key thematic area of public policy and a correspondingly more vivid, realistic, and integrated treatment of general policy analysis. The project has the potential to allow teachers and students to explore in depth and develop the skills and appreciation required for practice in any major policy area, even in tightly packed graduate policy programs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ApthorpeR.GasperD. (Eds.). (1996). Arguing development policy. London: Frank Cass.
2.
BallantyneR.BainJ. (1995). Enhancing environmental conceptions: An evaluation of cognitive conflict and structured controversy learning units.Studies in Higher Education, 20(3), 293–303.
3.
BreenG.MatusitzJ.WanT. T. H. (2009). Applying student-centered learning concepts to a doctoral, introductory, interdisciplinary public affairs course.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 15(1), 107–116.
4.
CorneyG. (1998). Learning to teach environmental issues.International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 7(2), 90–105.
5.
de BonoE. (1995). Parallel thinking.London: Penguin.
6.
DunnW. N. (2008). Public policy analysis: An introduction (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Longman.
7.
EllermanD. (2004). Autonomy-respecting assistance: Toward an alternative theory of development assistance.Review of Social Economy, 62(2), 149–168.
8.
EllermanD. (2005). Helping people to help themselves.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
9.
EtzioniA. (1991). The moral dimension in policy analysis. In CoughlinR. (Ed.), Morality, rationality, and efficiency (pp. 375–386). New York: M. E. Sharpe.
10.
FischerF.ForesterJ. (Eds.). (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
11.
GasperD. (1996). Analysing policy arguments. In ApthorpeR.GasperD. (Eds.), European Journal of Development Research (pp. 36–62). London: Frank Cass.
12.
GasperD. (2000). Structures and meanings—A way to introduce argumentation analysis in policy studies education.Africanus, 30(1), 49–72.
13.
GasperD. (2002). Fashion, learning, and values in public management: Reflections on South African and international experience, Africa Development, 27(3), 17–47.
14.
GasperD. (2004). The ethics of development. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
15.
GasperD. (2006). Policy evaluation—From managerialism and econocracy to a governance perspective. In HuqueA. S.ZafarullahH. (Eds.), International development governance (pp. 655–670). New York: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis.
16.
GasperD.GeorgeR. V. (1998). Analyzing argumentation in planning and public policy: Assessing, improving and transcending the Toulmin model.Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 25(3), 367–390.
17.
GobertsJ. D.ClementJ. J. (1999). Effect of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36 (1), 39–53.
18.
GoodmanD. (2008). Problem-based learning in the MPA curriculum.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 14(2), 253–270.
19.
GreadyP.EnsorJ. (Eds.). (2005). Reinventing development—Translating rights-based approaches from theory into practice. London: Zed.
20.
HambrickR. S. (1974). A guide for the analysis of policy arguments.Policy Sciences, 5(4), 469–478.
21.
HartleyR. E. (2009). Putting yourself in their shoes: The analysis of real-world disputes through group field projects.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 15(4), 535–552.
22.
HoksbergenR. (1986). Approaches to evaluation of development interventions—The importance of world and life views.World Development, 14(2), 283–300.
23.
KramerR. (2007). How might action learning be used to develop the emotional intelligence and leadership capacity of public administrators?Journal of Public Affairs Education, 13(2), 205–242.
24.
LipseyM. (2008). Discussion report: Pedagogy for policy analysis and management, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(4), 1045–1049.
25.
O’HareM. (2008). Pedagogy for policy analysis and management.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(4), 1030–1044.
26.
PortmannM.EasterbrookS. (1992). PMI: Knowledge elicitation and De Bono’s thinking tools. In Current developments in knowledge acquisition—EKAW ’92.Berlin: Springer, 264–282.
27.
SchweizerD.KellyGregory. (2005). An investigation of student engagement in a global warming debate.Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(1), 75–84.
28.
ShueH. (2006). Ethical dimensions of public policy. In MoranM.et al. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (chap. 35).
29.
ToulminS. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
30.
VerweijM.ThompsonM. (Eds.). (2006). Clumsy solutions for a complex world: Governance, politics and plural perceptions. Basingstoke/New York: Macmillan.
31.
WhiteL. (1990). Implementing policy reforms in LDCs—A strategy for designing and effecting change. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
