Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Professional knowledge for policy discourse: Argumentation versus reasoned selection of proposals

  • Articles
  • Published:
Knowledge in Society

Abstract

Public policy analysis, a profession aimed at knowledge transfer, gives advice concerning public decisions. It can also recommend styles of reasoning, for citizens as well as analysts, to decrease the likelihood of misutilization of knowledge. These recommendations are more appropriate for an early stage of discourse reasoned proposal selection, than for the later stage of persuasion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allison, G. T. (1971).Essence of decision. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. W. (1987). Political philosophy, practical reason, and policy analysis. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.),Confronting values in policy analysis (pp. 22–44). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apel, K. O. (1979): Types of rationality today: The continuum of reason between science and ethics. In T. F. Geraets (Ed.),Rationality today (pp. 307–340). Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle (1954).The rhetoric and poetics of Aristotle (Trans. W. R. Roberts and I. Bywater). New York: Modern Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baram, M. S. (1980). Cost-benefit analysis: An inadequate basis for health, safety, and environmental regulatory decisionmaking.Ecology Law Quarterly, 8(3), 473–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braybrooke, D., & Lindblom, C. E. (1963).A strategy of decision. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunn, K. (1987, June). Memorandum: Anti-phosphate ban argument. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, J. E. (1983). Toward a model of effective public argumentation. In D. Zaretzky, M. O. Sillars, & J. Rhodes (Eds.),Argument in transition (pp. 500–515). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, P., Sen, A. K., & Marglin, S. (1972).Guidelines for project evaluation. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dearin, R. D. (1982). Perelman's concept of ‘quasi-logical’ argumentation: A critical elaboration. In J. R. Cox & C. A. Willard (Eds.),Advances in argumentation research (pp. 78–94). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dery, D. (1984).Problem definition in policy analysis. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, W. N. (1981).Public policy analysis: An introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, W.N. (1988a). Methods of the second type: Coping with the wilderness of conventional policy analysis.Policy Studies Review (in press).

  • Dunn, W. N. (1988b). Reconstructing policy inquiry: The logics of policy discourse.Evaluation and Program Planning (in press).

  • Dunn, W. N., & Holzner, B. (1988). Knowledge in society: Anatomy of an emergent field.Knowledge in Society: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer, 1 (1), 3–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, W. N., Basom, R. E., & Frantz, C. D. (1988).Educational policy analysis: A guide to applications (Draft report). Pittsburgh PA: University of Pittsburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enos, R. L. (1981). Heuristic and eristic rhetoric in small group interaction: An examination of quasi-logical argument. In G. Ziegelmuller & J. Rhodes (Eds.),Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the second summer conference on argumentation (pp. 719–727). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. (1985). Critical evaluation of public policy: A case study. In J. Forester (Ed.),Critical theory and public life (pp. 231–257). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981).Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, W. R. (1978). Toward a logic of good reasons.Quarterly Journal of Speech, 64(4), 376–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, W. R. (1984). Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public moral argument.Communication Monographs, 51(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeley, A. J. (1981).Argumentation and debate (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, H. A. (1984). Planning as argumentation.Environment and Planning, 11(3), 297–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottlieb, G. (1968).The logic of choice. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1973).Legitimation crisis. (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, R. S., Jr., & Snyder, W. P. (1976).The analysis of policy arguments. Crotonon-Hudson, NY: Policy Studies Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, B. (1981). Policy-making, programming, and design. In J. P. Crecine (Ed.),Research in public policy and management (Vol. 1),Basic Theory, Methods and Perspectives (pp. 279–288). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hynes, T. J., Jr. (1983). Can we save policy making. In D. Zarefsky, M. O. Sillars, & J. Rhodes, (Eds.),Argument in transition: proceedings of the third summer conference on argumentation (pp. 756–771). Annandale, Va: Speech Communication Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, T. J. (1986). The narrative structure of policy analysis.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 5(4), 761–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krieger, M. (1981).Advice and planning. Philadelphia Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacRae, D., Jr. (1985).Policy indicators Links between social science and public debate. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacRae, D., Jr. (1987). Building policy-related technical communities.Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 8(3), 431–462.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacRae, D., Jr., & Wilde, J. A. (1979).Policy analysis for public decisions. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. (Republished by University Press of America).

    Google Scholar 

  • Majone, G. (1988). Policy analysis and public deliberation. In R. Reich (Ed.)The power of public ideas (pp. 157–178). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. L. (1973). Experts in policy processes.Polity, 6(2), 149–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. I. (1980–81). Policy analysis as argument.Policy Studies Journal, 9(4), 579–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meehan, E. J. (1988).The thinking game. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meltsner, A. J. (1976).Policy analysts in the bureaucracy. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mood, A. M. (1983).Introduction to policy analysis. New York: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. H. (1987). The economics profession and the making of public policy.Journal of Economic Literature, 25(1), 49–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, R. P. (1982). Foreign policy: Decision and argument. In J. R. Cox & C. A. Willard (Eds.),Advances in argumentation theory and research. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Operations Research Society of America. (1971). Guidelines for the practice of operations research.Operations Research, 19(5), 1123–1158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozawa, C. P., & L. Susskind (1985). Mediating science-intensive policy disputes.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 5(1), 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, C. V., & Sawicki, D. S. (1986).Basic methods of policy analysis and planning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, C. (1984). The new rhetoric and the rhetoricians: Remembrances and comments.Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(2), 188–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, C., & Albrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969).The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (Trans. J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver). Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quade, E. S. (1975, 1982).Analysis for public decisions (1st ed., 2d ed.). New York: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlesinger, J. R. (1975; orig. 1968). Uses and abuses of analysis In R. T. Golembiewski & J. Rabin (Eds.),Public budgeting and finance (2nd ed.). Itasca, NY: Peacock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultze, C. L. (1968).The politics and economics of public spending. Washington, D.C.: Brookings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P. W. (1961).Normative discourse. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin S. E. (1958).The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. E., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1979).An introduction to reasoning. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tribe, L. H. (1985).Constitutional choices. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wales, C. E. (1978).The guided design approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weimer, D. L., & Vining, A. R. (1989).Policy analysis: Concepts and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. H. (1988). Evaluation for decisions: Is anybody there? Does anybody care?Evaluation Practice, 9(1), 5–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. H., & Bucuvalas, M. J. (1980).Social science research and decision making. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whiteman, D. (1985). The fate of policy analysis in congressional decision making: Three types of use in committees.Western Political Quarterly, 38(2), 294–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky, A. (1979).Speaking truth to power. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Duncan MacRae
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Duncan MacRae, Jr. is William Rand Kenan, Jr. Professor of Political Science and Sociology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27514. He has written extensively on the foundations of public policy analysis, includingThe Social Function of Social Science (1976),Policy Analysis for Public Decisions (1979), with James A. Wilde, andPolicy Indicators (1985).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

MacRae, D. Professional knowledge for policy discourse: Argumentation versus reasoned selection of proposals. Knowledge in Society 1, 6–24 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02736980

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02736980

Keywords

Search

Navigation