Abstract
It is argued that the conceptual and practical differences of intent and application that characterize politics and science - as professions and processes - are so great as to render interaction between them problematic. In fact, analysis is postulated as a third distinct alternative, having its own imperatives, purposes, and uses; furthermore, the relationships between science, analysis, and politics are identified and found to be of potentially greater significance to those concerned with the policy process than is normally imagined.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brown, Harold (1977). “Speech on the occasion of the dedication of the Stennis Center, Starkville, Mississippi State University, October 21, 1977,” Department of Defense Press Release.
Goldhamer, Herbert (1978). The Adviser. New York: Elsevier.
Holton, G. (1973). Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Lasswell, Harold D. (1947). The Analysis of Political Behavior. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, Ltd.
Lasswell, Harold D. (1960, revised edition). Psychopathology and Politics. New York: Viking Press.
Shulsky, Abram (1979). “Social Science and Public Policy: The Case of Micro-Economics.” Unpublished manuscript.
Sullivan, Harry Stack (1964). The Fusion of Psychiatry and Social Science. New York: Norton.
Vickers, Geoffrey (1972). “Commonly ignored elements in policymaking,” Policy Sciences, Vol. 3, No. 2 (June): 265–66.
Wilks, S. S. (1961). “Some aspects of quantification in science,” pp. 5–11 in Harry Woolf, (ed.), Quantification. Indianapolis, Indiana: Bobbs-Merrill.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brewer, G.D. Where the twain meet: Reconciling science and politics in analysis. Policy Sci 13, 269–279 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138486
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138486