Policy Sciences

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 357–369 | Cite as

Consulting critics: A new role for academic policy analysts

  • Leslie A. Pal
Article

Abstract

It is by now widely accepted that social science research has only an indirect and general impact on public policymaking. Academic social science research, it is often argued, is antithetical to policy research: the former is animated by traditional scientific canons while the latter is specific and problem-oriented. Moreover, modern bureaucracies are now understood as political environments within which “pure research” will be routinely ignored if it does not serve someone's interests. For these and other reasons, social scientists are being encouraged either to eschew policy research or not to expect much influence. This article provides an alternative model of social scientists in the policy process, as “consulting critics” reviewing, analyzing and commenting upon substantive policy research. This model holds benefits for both scholars and clients, turns the canons of scientific inquiry into assets instead of liabilities, and responds to some of the concerns recently raised in the literature concerning the role of social science in the policy process.

Keywords

Social Science Science Research Economic Policy Alternative Model Policy Research 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bernstein, Ilene Nagel and Howard E. Freeman (1975). Academic and Entrepreneurial Research: The Consequences of Diversity in Fedral Evaluation Studies. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  2. Campbell, Colin (1983). Governments Under Stress: Political Executives and Key Bureaucrats in Washington, London and Ottawa. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  3. Campbell, Donald T. (1984). “Can we be scientific in applied social science?” in Ross F. Connoret al. (eds), Evaluation Studies Review Annual vol. 9. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 26–48.Google Scholar
  4. Charlesworth, James C. (ed.) (1972). Integration of the Social Sciences Through Policy Analysis. Philadelphia: The American Academy of Political and Social Science.Google Scholar
  5. Coleman, James S. (1972). Policy Research in the Social Sciences. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
  6. Downs, Anthony (1967). Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  7. Feldman, Elliot J. (1976). “An antidote for apology, service and witchcraft in policy analysis,” in Philip M. Gregg (ed.), Problems of Theory in Policy Analysis. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, pp. 19–27.Google Scholar
  8. Forester, John, (1983). “What analysts do,” in William N. Dunn (ed.), Values, Ethics and the Practice of Policy Analysis. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, pp. 47–62.Google Scholar
  9. Glaser, Edward M.et al. (1983). Putting Knowledge to Use: Facilitating the Diffusion of Knowledge and the Implementation of Planned Change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  10. House, Peter and Joseph Coleman (1980). “Realities of public policy analysis,” in Stuart S. Nagel (ed.), Improving Policy Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 183–199.Google Scholar
  11. Kramer, F. A. (1977). “Policy analysis as ideology,” in F. A. Kramer (ed.), Perspectives on Public Bureaucracy 2nd ed. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, pp. 203–220.Google Scholar
  12. LaPalombara, J. (1982). “Assessing the political environment for business: a new role for political scientists,” PS 15: 180–186.Google Scholar
  13. Lehman, Edward W. (1980). “Policy research: industry or social movement?” in Stuart S. Nagel (ed.), Improving Policy Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 201–218.Google Scholar
  14. Lindblom, Charles E. and David K. Cohen (1979). Usable Knowledge. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Moore, Mark H. (1983). “Social science and policy analysis: some fundamental differences,” in Daniel Callahan and Bruce Jennings (eds.), Ethics, the Social Sciences, and Policy Analysis. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 271–291.Google Scholar
  16. NiskanenJr., W. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and Representative Government. New York: Aldine/Atherton.Google Scholar
  17. Patton, Michael Quinn (1978). Utilization-Focused Evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Prewitt, Kenneth (1983). “Subverting policy premises,” in Daniel Callahan and Bruce Jennings (eds.), Ethics, the Social Sciences, and Policy Analysis. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 293–304.Google Scholar
  19. Self, Peter (1972). Administrative Theories and Politics: An Inquiry into the Structure and Processes of Modern Government. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  20. Sharpe, L. J. (1977). “The social scientist and policymaking: some cautionary thoughts and transatlantic reflections,” in Carol H. Weiss (ed.), Using Social Research in Public Policy Making. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, pp. 37–53.Google Scholar
  21. Tribe, Laurence H. (1972). “Policy science: analysis or ideology?” Philosophy and Public Affairs 2: 66–110.Google Scholar
  22. Tullock, Gordon (1965). The Politics of Bureaucracy. Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press.Google Scholar
  23. Weiss, Carol H. (1983). “Ideology, interests, and information: the basis of policy positions,” in Daniel Callahan and Bruce Jennings (eds.), Ethics, the Social Sciences, and Policy Analysis. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 213–245.Google Scholar
  24. Wildavsky, Aaron (1979). Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Elsevier Science Publishers B.V 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leslie A. Pal
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations