Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:17:36.203Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Educating Policy Analysts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2020

Hindy Lauer Schacter
Hindy Lauer Schacter*
Affiliation:
New Jersey Institute of Technology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article explores the role of political science in educating people who perform policy analysis in public bureaucracies. Policy analysts are defined as applied scientists who study the nature, causes and effects for alternative public policies, using relevant academic disciplines, theories and methodologies to choose optimal policies to achieve a given aim. Typically, analysts evaluate enacted policies but occasionally they compare hypothetical alternatives.

The education of policy analysts is similar to the education of engineers. Both draw on several basic sciences for information to solve real-world problems. However, greater consensus exists on which sciences are important for engineers. Their key science is physics although engineering education also uses insights from chemistry, geology and biology.

Type
Educating Public Service Executives
Information
News for Teachers of Political Science , Volume 44 , Winter 1985 , pp. 1 - 3
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Nagel, Stuart “The Policy Studies Perspective,” Public Administration Review, 40 (July/August, 1980) 391–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Meltsner, Arnold, Policy Analysts in the Bureaucracy (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1976)Google Scholar, Chaps, 1 and 4. See also Mead, Lawrence, “The Interaction Problem in Policy Analysis,” Unpublished paper, January 20, 1983.Google Scholar

3. Gene Maeroff, “Government Complexity Spurs Public-Policy Courses,” New York Times (August 4, 1976), 17. See also, Carl Van Horn and Stephen Salmore, “Designing an M.A. Program in Public Policy and Survey Research,” DEA News (1980), 21.

4. Wildavsky, Aaron, Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis (Boston: Little Brown, 1979), p. 413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Ibid.

6. For example, Frederickson, H. GeorgeReagan, Michael and Diamant, Alfred, “Administering Public Policy,” in Policy Studies in America and Elsewhere, ed. by Nagel, Stuart (Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath, 1975), 69–80Google Scholar and Hill, Larry and Ted Hebert, F., Essentials of Public Administration (North Scituate, Massachusetts: Duxbury Press, 1979), p. 53.Google Scholar

7. Warner, Kenneth, “The Need for Some Innovative Concepts of Innovation,” Policy Sciences, 5 (1974), 433–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. Ibid. p. 448.

9. Bozeman, Barry and Massey, Jane, “Investing in Policy Evaluation: Some Guidelines for Skeptical Public Managers,” Public Administration Review, 42 (May/June, 1982), 264–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. For a discussion of the multiple meanings of “use,” see Weiss, Carol, “The Many Meanings of Research Utilization,” Public Administration Review, 39 (September/ October, 1979), 426–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Mulvey, John and Blount, Sally, “Modelling and Policy Design.” Paper presented at the 1982 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, p.9.Google Scholar

12. Ziegler, L. HarmonJennings, M.K. and Peak, J. Wayne, Governing American Schools (North Scituate, Mass.: Duxbury Press, 1974), p.6.Google Scholar

13. MacRae, Duncan Jr., “Concepts and Methods of Policy Analysis,” in Current Issues in Public Administration, 2nd. ed., edited by Lane, Frederick (New York: St. Martin's Press), 379-389.Google Scholar

14. For example, Behn, Robert and Vaupel, James, “Teaching Analytical Thinking,“ Policy Analysis, 2 (Fall, 1976), 663–692Google Scholar; Hitch, Charles, Decision Making for Defense (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1965), p. 54Google Scholar; and Strauch, Ralph, “A Critical Look at Quantitative Methodology.“ Policy Analysis, 2 (Winter, 1976), 121–144.Google Scholar

15. For example, see, Allison, Graham, “Public and Private Management: Are They Fundamentally Alike in All Unimportant Respects?“ in Current Issues in Public Administration, pp. 12–33.Google Scholar

16. Schick, Allen, “The Supply and Demand for Analysis on Capitol Hill,” Policy Analysis, 2 (Spring, 1976), 215–234.Google Scholar

17. See, for example, Jones, Charles O., “Why Congress Can't Do Policy Analysis (or Words to that Effect),” Policy Analysis, 2 (Spring, 1976), 251–264.Google Scholar

18. Melanson, Philip, Political Science and Political Knowledge (Washington, D.C: Public Affairs Press, 1975), pp. 123–124.Google Scholar

19. See, Cook, Thomas, et. al. “Empirical Research Methods,” in Policy Studies in America and Elsewhere, pp. 17–35.Google Scholar

20. The subsection on structure leans heavily on Mead, Lawrence, “Institutional Analysis for State and Local Governments,” Public Administration Review, 39 (January/February, 1979), 26–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21. MacRae, pp. 387-388.

22. Hammond, Thomas, “The Political Consequences of Organizational Structures,” Paper presented at the 1982 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, p. 40.Google Scholar

23. Riker, William, “The Two-Party System and Duverger's Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science,” American Political Science Review, 76 (December, 1982), 753–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24. Rycroft, Robert, “Setting Policy Evaluation Criteria: Towards a Rediscovery of Public Administration,” Midwest Review of Public Administration, 12 (June, 1978), 87–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Wilson, James Q., “The Bureaucracy Problem,” in Urban Politics and Public Policy: The City in Crisis, ed. by David, Stephen and Peterson, Paul (New York: Praeger, 1973), pp. 27–33Google Scholar. For a discussion of the need for greater attention to accountability, see Lowi, Theodore, The End of Liberalism (New York: W.W. Norton, 1969)Google Scholar. Concerns of responsiveness and equity are paramount in Frank Marini (ed.), Towards a New Public Administration: The Minnowbrook Perspective and Waldo, Dwight (ed.), Public Administration in a Time of Turbulence both (Scranton: Chandler, 1971).Google Scholar

25. Frederickson, H. George, “Towards a New Public Administration,” in Towards a New Public Administration, pp. 309–331.Google Scholar

26. See the analysis in Willie, Charles Vert, Desegregation Plans that Work (Westport, Ct.: Greenwood Press, 1984).Google Scholar

27. Anderson, Charles, “The Place of Principles in Policy Analysis,” American Political Science Review, 73, (September, 1979), 720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28. Hart, David, “The Virtuous Citizen, the Honorable Bureaucrat and “Public Administration,“ Public Administration Review (March, 1984) Special Issue, pp. 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29. Hoos, Ida, Systems Analysis in Public Policy: A Critique (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1972), p. 181.Google Scholar

30. For example, see the attempt to define responsiveness operationally in Tucker, Harvey and Zeigler, Harmon, Professionals Versus the Public: Attitudes, Communication and Response in School Districts (New York: Longman, 1980).Google Scholar

31. Lindblom, Charles and Cohen, David, Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979), p. 11.Google Scholar

32. Examples of well-known works from the two literatures would be Truman, David, The Governmental Process (New York: Knopf, 1951)Google Scholar and Bailey, Stephen and Mosher, Edith, ESEA: The Office of Education Administers a Law (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1968)Google Scholar, respectively. Public policy textbooks written by political scientists tend to focus on process; see, for example, Jones, Charles, An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy, 2nd ed. (North Scituate, Massachusetts: Duxbury Press, 1977).Google Scholar

33. For an interesting discussion about economists doing policy analysis with natural scientists, see Koopman, Tjallings, “Economics Among the Sciences,” American Economic Review, 69 (March, 1979), 1–13.Google Scholar

34. Wildavsky, p. 411.