Interpretive policy inquiry: A response to the limitations of the received view

Healy, Paul

doi:10.1007/bf00139522

Cited by 40 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Others (e.g., Amy, 1984, and) find Fischer's assumption that analysts can be truly disinterested to be at odds with the practical politics of institutions. Rejecting the idea that advising decision makers is a desirable way to explore the nature and implications of competing values and problem definitions, or of assessing the desirability of fundamental institutional change, other critical analysts (e.g., Healy, 1986;Graham, 1986;Bellah, 1983;Bellah, et al, 1985;and Jacoby, 1987) recommend communicating directly with the public through the popular press. Graham, for example, argues that proper evaluation of public policy consequences, and the continued legitimacy of American political institutions, depends on use of a rhetoric that -by appealing to visions of moral purposeaddresses and stimulates the development of a public.…”

Section: Neither Native Nor Visitor: the Tensions Of 'Fused Horizons'mentioning

confidence: 99%

The rhetorics of policy analysis

Throgmorton

1991

Policy Sci

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 1 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.

show abstract

Section: Neither Native Nor Visitor: the Tensions Of 'Fused Horizons'mentioning

confidence: 99%

The rhetorics of policy analysis

Throgmorton

1991

Policy Sci

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Inversely, if societal realities are complex, ambiguous and multi-dimensional, then planning or control become futile exercises (Masuch, 1986). Having recognized this problem, several authors have noted, and in some cases contributed to, a trend toward interpretive strategies -strategies that obviously would no longer lend credence to technocratic practices (Feldman, 1989;Forrester, 1989;Jennings, 1983Jennings, , 1987Kelly, 1986, Gregware and Kelly, 1990Healy, 1986). As for the practitioners, they have not always fully endorsed this trend.…”

Section: Control: a Contestable Metaphormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other words, organizational closure points toward methodological prescriptions rather similar to hermeneutics. But does it contribute conceptions that were not already implicit in the interpretivist methods advocated by several policy studies scholars (e.g., Healy, 1986;Jennings, 1987)? The answer can only be tentative insofar as organizational closure is an approach that is still in its early stage of development.…”

Section: Autonomy and Reflexive Understandingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Linkages of this sort have indeed been explored in the policy studies literature (Jennings, 1983;Healy, 1986;Bobrow and Dryzek, 1987;Dryzek, 1989). 17 Moreover, even governments that do not subscribe to a 'progressive' ideology are moving toward participatory democratic solutions in certain policy areas, most notably policies directed toward native groups or 'nations' (e.g., Alaska natives [Dryzek, 1989] or Canada aboriginal peoples who, in 1992, came very close to achieving constitutional recognition of their 'inherent right to self-government' and will probably make further gains in the foreseeable future).…”

Section: Autonomy and Reflexive Understandingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Modernist and postmodernist metaphors of the policy process: Control and stability vs. chaos and reflexive understanding

Dobuzinskis

1992

Policy Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The complexity of the policy process is such that analysts often resort to metaphorical representations of its most salient aspects. Sometimes these metaphors are used deliberately but, in most cases, they are implicitly built into their theoretical frameworks. This article argues that commonly used metaphors based on the paradigmatic notion of 'control' have ceased to be relevant to the analysis of contemporary policy dilemmas. Two new conceptions of the policy process have emerged from the new sciences of complexity. Both chaos theory and models based on the concept of ,organizational closure' clearly reveal the self-organizing logic inherent in the problems confronting managers and policy-makers today. The main focus here is on examining the rationales for, and the potentials of, metaphors derived from these paradigmatic innovations -innovations which can be situated within an emerging postmodern culture insofar as they emphasize indeterminacy and the role played by social actors in constructing the social situations in which they find themselves. It is also argued, however, that within very specific contexts the notion of control may still be valid.Neither policy analysts, nor social theorists, nor ordinary mortals can avoid using metaphors -sometimes called 'models' -when talking about public affairs. Metaphors are more than superficial analogies used merely for stylistic purposes; they serve to transfer certain relationships from one level to another where such relationships rev.eal logical connections that had remained unnoticed (Black, 1979). This intrusion of rhetoric in the policy sciences is sometimes viewed as an unfortunate obstacle to the articulation of a truly 'scientific' language. But, as it is becoming more widely recognized, rhetoric and policy analysis are inseparable (Majone, 1989;Throgmorton, 1991).This being granted, two problems arise: First, how do we know the metaphors we are using are adequate. Second, how do we guard against the risk of confusing images of an elusive reality with that reality itself; in other words, how can we avoid what A. N. Whitehead called 'the fallacy of misplaced concreteness?' This paper examines the development and relevance of metaphorical construction in systems-theoretic approaches to policy analysis and draws several inferences from this particular case for the use of metaphors in the policy sciences as a whole.During the last two to three decades, systems theory and cybernetics have proven to be a fertile source of ideas for the many disciplines that are constitutive of the policy sciences, e.g., organization theory and information management, institutional design, strategic planning, budgeting and policy * The author wishes to thank Michael Howlett for his helpful comments on an earlier draft.

show abstract

“…By the late twentieth century, there is no doubt that the rational model for policy making (as well as for scientific endeavors) was being actively debated (Lindblom 1979;Healy 1986;deLeon 1994;Stone 2002). Weiss (1991) wrote of social scientists, ''If they no longer claim to find 'truth' about 'reality', what is their role in the policy process?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%