Abstract
This paper claims that policy analysis is inherently rhetorical, that it cannot be fully understood apart from the audiences to which it is directed and the styles in which it is communicated. Defining rhetoric as persuasive discourse within and between interpretive communities, I argue that policy analysts are embedded in a complex rhetorical situation created by the interaction of three primary audiences (scientists, politicians, and lay advocates), each of which has its own normal discourse and agreed-upon conventions of persuasion, and that failure to persuade any one of these audiences will cause analysts to appear incompetent, impractical or illegitimate. To support and illustrate this claim I reconstruct the theoretical literature about policy analysis in rhetorical terms, then review events that occurred at Love Canal, New York, in the late 1970s. I conclude by suggesting that policy analysts need to ‘actively mediate’ the policy discourse between scientists, politicians, and advocates.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amy, D. J. (1984). ‘Why Policy Analysis and Ethics Are Incompatible,’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 3: 573–591.
Amy, D. J. (1987). ‘Can Policy Analysis Be Ethical?,’ in F. Fischer and J. Forester, eds., Confronting Values in Policy Analysis: The Politics of Criteria, Beverly Hills: SAGE, pp. 45–67.
Anderson, D. D. (1981). Regulatory Policies and Electric Utilities: A Case Study in Political Economy, Boston: Auburn House.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science, Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Bellah, R. N. (1983). ‘Social Science as Practical Reason,’ in D. Callahan and B. Jennings, eds., Ethics, The Social Sciences, and Policy Analysis, New York: Plenum Press, pp. 37–64.
Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swindler, A., and Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the Heart, New York: Harper and Row.
Bernstein, R. (1983). Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Brown, M. H. (1989). ‘A Toxic Ghost Town,’ Atlantic Monthly : 23–28.
Callon, M. (1986). ‘Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay,’ in J. Law, ed., Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 196–233.
Callon M., Law, J. and A. Rip, eds. (1986). Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World, London: Macmillan Press.
Clark, T. and Westrum, R. (1987). ‘Paradigms and Ferrets,’ Social Studies of Science, 17: 3–33, Beverly Hills: SAGE.
Collingridge, D. and Reeve, C. (1986). Science Speaks to Power: The Role of Experts in Policy Making, London: Frances Pinter.
Czubaroff, J. (1989). ‘The Deliberative Character of Strategic Scientific Debates,’ in H. W. Simons, ed., Rhetoric in the Human Sciences, London: SAGE, pp. 28–47.
Davidoff, P. (1965). ‘Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning,’ Journal of the American Institute of Planners 31: 331–337.
Dery, D. (1984). Problem Definition in Policy Analysis, Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Dryzek, J. (1982). ‘Policy Analysis as a Hermeneutic Activity,’ Policy Sciences 14: 309–329.
Edelman, M. (1988). Constructing the Political Spectacle, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fenno Jr., R. (1978). Home Style: House Members in Their Districts, Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Fischer, F. (1980). Politics, Values, and Public Policy, Boulder: Westview Press.
Fish, S. (1979). Is There a Text in This Class?: The Authority of Interpretive Communities, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the Face of Power, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Galbraith, J. K. (1989). ‘The Grammar of Political Economy,’ in A. Klamer, D. N. McCloskey and R. M. Solow, eds., The Consequences of Economic Rhetoric, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 221–239.
Geertz, G. (1983). Local Knowledge, New York: Basic Books.
Gilbert, G. N. and Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, C. D. (1989). ‘The Heterogeneity of the Economists Discourse: Philosopher, Priest, and Hired Gun,’ in A. Klamer, D. N. McCloskey and R. M. Solow, eds., The Consequences of Economic Rhetoric, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 207–220.
Graham Jr., G. J. (1986). ‘Ethics, Rhetoric, and the Evaluation of Public Policy Consequences,’ in W. M. Dunn, ed., Policy Analysis: Perspectives, Concepts, and Methods, Greenwich: JAI Press, pp. 301–314.
Greider, W. (1981). The Education of David Stockman and Other Americans, New York: Signet Books.
Habermas, J. (1987). The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, tr. by F. Lawrence, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hawkesworth, M. E. (1988). Theoretical Issues in Policy Analysis, Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hays, S. P. (1959, 1980). Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency, New York: Atheneum.
Healy, P. (1986). ‘Interpretive Policy Inquiry: A Response to the Limitations of the Received View,’ Policy Sciences 19: 381–396.
Hynes, H. P. (1989). The Recurring Silent Spring, New York: Pergamon Press.
Jacoby, R. (1987). The Last Intellectuals: American Culture in the Age of Academe, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Jay, M. (1973). The Dialectical Imagination, Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1982). ‘Professional Roles for Policy Analysts,’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2: 86–99.
Kasperson, R. E., et al. (1988). ‘The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework,’ Risk Analysis 8: 177–187.
Kolata, G.B. (1980). ‘Love Canal: False Alarm Caused by Botched Study,’ Science 209: 1239–1243.
Klamer, A. (1983). Conversations with Economists, Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanheld.
Klamer, A. and Colander, D. (1990). The Making of an Economist, Boulder: Westview Press.
Klamer, A., McCloskey, D. N. and Solow, R. M., eds. (1988). The Consequences of Economic Rhetoric, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Law, J. and Whittaker, J. (1988). ‘On the Art of Representation: Notes on the Politics of Visualisation’, in G. Fyfe and J. Law, eds., Picturing Power: Visual Depiction and Social Relations, London: Routledge.
Levine, A. G. (1982). Love Canal: Science, Politics, and People, Toronto: D. C. Heath.
Lindblom, C. E. (1980). The Policy-Making Process, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Lindblom, C. E. and Cohen, D. K. (1979). Usable Knowledge, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Matthews, C. (1988). Hardball: How Politics Is Played, Told by One Who Knows the Game, New York: Harper & Row.
Mazur, A. (1984). ‘The Journalists and Technology: Reporting about Love Canal and Three Mile Island,’ Minerva 22: 45–66.
McCloskey, D. N. (1985). The Rhetoric of Economics, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
McGee, M. C. and Lyne, J. R. (1987). ‘What are Nice Folks Like You Doing in a Place Like This? Some Entailments of Treating Knowledge Claims Rhetorically,’ in J. S. Nelson, A. Megill and D. N. McCloskey, eds., The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences: Language and Argument in Scholarship and Public Affairs, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 381–406.
MacIntyre, A. (1988). Whose Justice? Which Rationality? Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Megill, A. (1985). Prophets of Extremity: Nietzche, Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Meltsner, A.J. (1976, 1985). Policy Analysts in the Bureaucracy, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Mollenkopf, J. H. (1983). The Contested City, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Naismith, N. C. and Proctor, M. E. (1985). ‘Policy Analysis for Congress: Producing Useful Knowledge,’ Presented at the 81st Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans.
Nelson, J. S., Megill, A. and McCloskey, D. N., eds. (1987). The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences: Language and Argument in Scholarship and Public Affairs, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Perrow, C. (1984). Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies, New York: Basic Books.
Prelli, L. J. (1989). ‘The Rhetorical Construction of Scientific Ethos,’ in H. W. Simons, ed., Rhetoric in the Human Sciences, London: SAGE.
Quade, E. S. (1975). Analysis for Public Decisions, New York: Elsevier.
Rabinovitz, F. (1969). City Politics and Planning, New York: Atherton Press.
Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner, New York: Basic Books.
Shapiro, M. J. (1987). ‘The Rhetoric of Social Science: The Political Responsibilities of the Scholar,’ in J. S. Nelson, A. Megill and D. N. McCloskey, eds., The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences: Language and Argument in Scholarship and Public Affairs, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Shrader-Frechette, K. (1988). ‘Producer Risk, Consumer Risk, and Assessing Technological Impacts,’ Policy Studies Review 8: 155–164.
Shribman, D. (1987). ‘Even After 10 Years, Victims of Love Canal Can't Quite Escape It,’ Wall Street Journal, March 9.
Simons, H. W., ed. (1989). Rhetoric in the Human Sciences, London: SAGE.
Slovic, P. (1987). ‘Perception of Risk,’ Science 236: 280–285.
Smith, H. (1988). The Power Game: How Washington Works, New York: Random House.
Stewart, C., Smith, C. and Denton Jr., R. (1984). Persuasion and Social Movements, Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Stockman, D.A. (1986). The Triumph of Politics, New York: Harper & Row.
Stokey, E. and Zeckhauser, R. (1978). A Primer for Policy Analysis. New York: W. W. Norton.
Throgmorton, J. A. (1989). ‘Synthesizing Politics, Rationality, and Advocacy: Energy Policy Analysis for Minority Groups,’ Policy Studies Review 8, 300–321.
Throgmorton, J. A. (1990). ‘Passion, Reason and Power: The Rhetorics of Electric Power Planning in Chicago,’ Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, forthcoming.
Torgerson, D. (1985). ‘Contextual Orientation in Policy Analysis: The Contribution of Harold D. Lasswell,’ Policy Sciences 18: 241–261.
Torgerson, D. (1986). ‘Between Knowledge and Politics: Three Faces of Policy Analysis,’ Policy Sciences 19: 33–59.
Verdier, J. M. (1984). ‘Advising Congressional Decision-makers: Guidelines for Economists,’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 3: 421–438.
Weiss, C. H. (1978). ‘Improving the Linkage Between Social Research and Public Policy,’ in L. E. Lynn Jr., ed., Knowledge and Policy: The Uncertain Connection, Washington: National Academy of Sciences, pp. 23–81.
White, J. B. (1985). Heracles' Bow: Essays on the Rhetorics and Poetics of the Law, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Whitley, R. (1985). ‘Knowledge Producers and Knowledge Acquirers: Popularisation as a Relation Between Scientific Fields and Their Publics,’ in T. Shinn and R. Whitley, eds., Expository Science: Forms and Functions of Popularization. Sociology of the Sciences, Volume IX, Boston: D. Reidel, pp. 3–28.
Wildavsky, A. (1979, 1987). Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis, New Brunswick: Transaction Books.
Ziman, J. (1984). An Introduction to Science Studies: The Philosophical and Social Aspects of Science and Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Throgmorton, J.A. The rhetorics of policy analysis. Policy Sci 24, 153–179 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138058
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138058