The early promise of positivistic-based policy analysis was based on the authority of “science.” A “scientific approach” could bring rationality and rigor to public policy-making. But with all this promise and confidence, the actual utilization of policy analysis by decision makers within the last decade has been dismal. The purpose of this article is to suggest that policy analysts need not cling to scientific pretensions to bring some rationality and rigor to policymaking. This article introduces a “credibility model” in which policy analysts bring to the policymaker insights not available from the fund of ordinary knowledge, experience, and intuition that policymakers themselves contribute.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BARBER, B.
(1961) “Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery.”Science134: 596-602.
2.
BOZEMAN, B.
(1985) “The credibility of policy analysis: between method and use.” Prepared for presentation at the Annual Research Conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Washington, DC, October 24-45.
3.
BOZEMAN, B.
(1985b) “Epistemology and prediction: comparing the claims of scientists, forecaster, and wizards.” Technology and Information Policy Program Working Paper 86-014.
4.
BRASKAMP, L. A.
, R. D. BROWN, and D. L. NEWMAN (1982) “Studying evaluation utilization through simulation.”Evaluation Rev.6, 1: 114-126.
5.
BRICKELL, H. M.
(1978) “The influence of external political factors on the role and methodology of evaluation,” in D. T. Campbell (ed.) Evaluation Studies Review Annual. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
6.
BROWN, R. D.
, L. A. BRASKAMP, and D. L. NEWMAN (1978) “Evaluator credibility as a function of report style: do jargon and data make a difference?”Evaluation Q.2: 331-341.
7.
CAMPBELL, D. T.
(1987) “Guiding preventive intervention research centers for research validity.”Knowledge8, 3.
8.
CAMPBELL, D. T.
(1982) “Experiments as arguments.”Knowledge3, 3: 327-337.
9.
CRANE, D.
(1969) “Fashions in science.”Social Problems16: 433-440.
10.
DROR, Y.
(1968) Public Policy Making Re-Examined. San Francisco: Chandler.
11.
DROR, Y.
(1971) Design for Policy Sciences. New York: Elsevier.
12.
DROR, Y.
(1984) “On becoming more of a policy scientist.”Policy Studies Rev.14: 13-21.
13.
DRYZEK, J.
(1982) Policy Analysis as Hermeneutic Activity. Policy Sciences14: 309-329.
14.
DUNN, W. N.
(1982) “Reforms as arguments.”Knowledge3, 3: 293-326.
15.
DUNN, W. N.
(1981) Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. Englewood, Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
16.
DUNN, W. N.
(1986) “Evaluating the effects of policy analysis: toward a theory of applications” in S. Nagel (ed.) Research in Policy Analysis and Management. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
17.
EMMERT, M.
(1985) “Ordinary knowledge and policy science: making ends meet.”Knowledge7, 1: 97-112.
18.
FISCHER, F.
(1980) Politics, Values, and Public Policy; The Problem of Methodology. Boulder, CO: Westview.
19.
FREELEY, A.
(1971) Argumentation and Debate. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
20.
GUBA, E.
and Y. LINCOLN (1982) Naturalistic Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21.
KRIMSKY, S.
(1984) “Epistemic consideration on the value of folk-wisdom in science and technology.”Policy Studies Rev.3, 2: 246-261.
22.
LANDSBERGEN, D.
(1986) “The credibility of policy arguments: effects of computer media and advocacy.” Technology and Information Policy Program Working Paper 86-27.
23.
LARSEN, J.
(1986) “Effect of time on information utilization.”Knowledge7, 2: 143-159.
24.
LASSWELL, H. D.
and A. KAPLAN (1950) Power and Society: A Framework for Political Inquiry. New Haven: Yale University Press.
25.
LERNER, D.
and H. LASSWELL [eds] (1951) The Policy Sciences. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.
26.
LINDBLOOM, C. E.
and D. K. COHEN (1978) “Comparative influences of political cost/benefit and statistical evaluation information on administrative decision making.”Evaluation Rev.1: 235-238.
27.
MAJCHRZAK, A.
(1986) “Information focus and data sources: when will they lead to use?”Evaluation Review10, 2: 193-215.
28.
MANDELL, M. D.
and V. L. SAUTER (1984) “Approaches to the study of information utilization in public agencies.”Knowledge6, 2: 145-164.
29.
MARTIN, M.
(1971) “Referential variance and scientific objectivity.”British J. for the Philosophy of Sci.22: 17-26.
30.
MITROFF, I.
(1974) The Subjective Side of Science. New York: Elsevier.
31.
MITROFF, I.
and R. O. MASON (1981) Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions. New York: John Wiley.
32.
RAVETZ, J. R.
(1971) Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems. Oxford: Clarendon.
33.
REIN, M.
and W. H. WHITE (1977) “Policy research: belief and doubt.”Policy Analysis3: 239-271.
34.
SCHNEIDER, J.
, N. J. STEVENS, and L. G. TORNATZKY (1982) “Policy research and analysis: an empirical profile, 1975-1980.”Policy Sciences, 15: 99-114.
35.
TORGERSON, D.
(1986) “Between knowledge and politics: three faces of policy analysis.”Policy Sciences19: 33-59.
36.
TOULMIN, S.
(1958) The Uses of Argument. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
37.
TOULMIN, S.
, R. RIEKE, and A. JANKI (1979) An Introduction to Reasoning. New York: Macmillan.
38.
VOSS, J.
, S. TYLER, and L. YENGO (1983) “Individual differences in solving social science problems,” in R. F. Dillon and R. R. Schneck (eds.) Individual Differences in Cognition. New York: Academic.
39.
WEISS, C. H.
and M. J. BUCUVALAS (1980a) “Truth tests and utility tests: decision makers” frames of reference for social science research.”Amer. Soc. Rev.45: 302-312.
40.
WEISS, C. H.
and M. J. BUCUVALAS (1980b) Social Research and Decision Making. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.
