This article distinguishes two competing approaches to policy analysis: a credibility approach
and a truth approach. The credibility approach would define the role of the policy analyst as a
search for plausible argument instead of truth. After defining the basic assumptions of the truth
and credibility approaches, the implications for the conduct of policy analysis are explored.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bar-Hillel, M. and B. Fischoff (1981) "When do base rates affect predictions?" J. of Pers. Soc.4: 671-680.
2.
Bermant, G. and P. Brown ( 1975) Evaluating Forensic Social ScienceColumbus, OH: Academy for Contemporary Problems
3.
Bozeman, B. (1986) "Credibility and policy analysis, between method and use." Policy Studies J. (June): 519-539.
4.
Braskamp, L.A., R.D. Brown, and D.L. Newman (1982) "Studying evaluation utilization through simulation ." Evaluation Rev.6: 114-126.
5.
Braskamp, L.A. and D.L. Newman (1978) "Credibility of a local education program evaluation report: author, source and client characteristics." Amer. Educ. Research J.15: 441-450.
6.
Brickell, H.M. (1978) "The influence of external political factors on the role and methodology of evaluation" in T. D. Cook (ed.) Evaluation Studies Review AnnualBeverly Hills, CA: Sage.
7.
Brock, B.L., J.W. Cheseboro, J.F. Cragan, and J.F. Klumpp (1973) Public Policy Decision-Making: Systems Analysis and Comparative Advantage Debates. New York: Harper & Row.
8.
Brown, P.G. (1976) "Ethics and policy research." Policy Analysis2: 331-342
9.
Cain, G.G. and R.G. Hollister (1972) "The methodology of evaluating social programs," in P. Rossi and W. Williams (eds.) Evaluating Social Programs: Theory, Practice and Politics. New York: Seminar Press.
10.
Campbell, D.T. (1987) "Guidelines tor monitoring the scientific competence of preventive intervention centers: an exercise in the Sociology of scientific validity" Knowledge8: 389-430.
11.
Churchman, C.W. (1971) The Design of Inquiring Systems. New York: Basic Books.
12.
Churchman, C.W. and A.H. Schainblatt (1969) "PPB: how can it be implemented ?" Public Administration Rev.29: 178-189.
13.
Dunn, W.N. (1981) Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
14.
Dunn, W.N. (1982) "Reforms as arguments." Knowledge3: 293-326.
15.
Ehninger, D. and W. Brockriede (1978) Decision by Debate, New York : Harper & Row.
16.
Fischer, F. (1980) Politics, Values, and Public Policy: The Problem of MethodologyBoulder, CO: Westview .
17.
Fischoff, B. and D. MacGregor (1982) "Subjective confidence in forecasts." J. of Forecasting1: 155-172.
18.
Freeley, A.J. (1971) Argumentation and Debate: Rational Decision-Making , Belmont, CA. Wadsworth.
19.
Guba, E. (1975) Toward a Methodology of Naturalistic Inquiry in Education Evaluation. CSE Monograph B. Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
20.
Hambrick, R.S. (1974) "A guide for the analysis of policy arguments." Policy Sciences5: 469-478.
21.
Hempel, C. (1966) Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice Hall.
22.
Hesse, M. (1980) Revolutions and Reconstructions in Philosophy of Science. New York: Brighton.
Landsbergen, D. and B. Bozeman (1987) "Credibility logic and policy analysis." Knowledge8: 625-648.
25.
Leviton, L.C. and F.X. Hughes (1981) "Research on the utilization of evaluation." Evaluation Rev.5: 525-549.
26.
Lilly, G.C. (1978) An Introduction to the Law of Evidence. St. Paul, MN: West.
27.
MacRae, D. (1971) Managing the Public's Business. New York: Basic Books.
28.
Martin, M. (1971) "Referential variance and scientific objectivity ." British J. for the Philosophy of Sci.22: 17-26.
29.
Ravetz, J. (1971) Scientific Know ledge and its Social Problems. OxfordClarendon.
30.
Rivlin, A. (1973) Forensic Social Science: Perspective on Inequality. Harvard Educational Review Reprint Series, No. 8Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
31.
Rosenberg, A. (1976) Microeconomic Laws: A Philosophical AnalysisPittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
32.
Toulmin, S. (1958) The Uses of Argument. New York : Cambridge Univ. Press
33.
Toulmin, S., R. Rieke, and A. Janik (1979) An Introduction to Reasoning. New York: Macmillan.
34.
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 (April): 302-313.
35.
Weiss, C.H. and M.J. Bucuvalas (1980b) Social Science Research and Decision-Making. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.
36.
Weiss, J. (1982) "Coping with complexity: an experimental study of public policy." J of Policy Analysis and Management2: 66-87.
37.
Windle, C. and P. Bates (1974) "Evaluating program evaluation: a suggested approach ." Pp. 248-252 in P. O. Davidson (ed.), Evaluation of Behavioral Programs in School, Community and Residential Settings. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
