The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much of it?

Abstract

These further readings on the subject are selected and suggested by the editors of this issue and are published here with kind permissons of the owners of the respective copyrights.

Kamusal Karar Alma Süreçlerinde Sosyal Tercih Duyarlılığı ve Sürece İlişkin Yapısal Çözümlemeler

“…Bununla birlikte kamusal duyarlılıklara ilişkin yaklaşımlar çerçevesinde merkezi normatif nitelikler ile kamusal tercih ve beklentiler ikileminin aşılmasına yönelik metodolojik bir kamusal duyarlılıklar sürecinin sağlanmasının gereğine de vurgu yapılmıştır 3 (Ogden, 2006: 62). Kamusal karar sürecinde kamusal beklenti ve tercihlerin kamusal duyarlılık zemininde değerlendirildiği süreci, Shulock (1999) ve Creighton'ın (2005) çalışmaları ışığında, şekil (1)'de izlemek olanaklıdır (Shulock, 1999: 229;Creighton, 2005: 9 ve 18). 2 Martin ve Richards'ın (1995) yanı sıra, Moravcsik'in de (1997), kamusal karar alma sürecinde merkezi kamusal kararlardaki nitelik arayışının toplumsal tercihlerin sürece yansıtılması ve niteliktercih ikileminin aşılmasına yönelik karar süreci dinamiklerinin saptanmasına yönelik yaptıkları çalışmalarında sürece ilişkin dinamiklerin söz konusu şu oluşumlar çerçevesinde ele alındığını sıralamak olanaklıdır: (1) Karar süreçlerinde nitelik ve tercihler ikileminde tutarlılık ve bilimsel verilerin değerlendirilmesindeki öncelikler.…”

Wicked Problems and Applied Economics

“…Advocates for the rational analytical approach, following the linear model, defend its use in policy making as a systematic and rational way for decision makers to decide between competing ends (Shulock 1999;Stephenson 2000). That is, research can be placed in a reservoir to be drawn out by policy and decision makers as needed.…”

“…Also, the assumption of the linear model that all research will ultimately add value to decision making is flawed with wicked problems. Failure to recognize its inappropriate nature for wicked problems may account for much of the limited acceptance of such policy research (Batie 2005;Bromley 2008b;Shulock 1999). The assumption of "build it and they will come" is not appropriate; there is no assurance that the supply of knowledge about wicked problems (e.g., nature-human interactions) will have demanders.…”

Deliberative Research for Deliberative Policy Making: Creating and Recreating Evidence in Transport Policy

“…There is a joint construction of social knowledge based on dialogue between social science and the social world, so that the process should include two-way communication between researchers, policy makers and citizens; examine the contexts in which research is to be implemented; and continue to interpret and recontextualise the research within the implementation context. These models recognise the nature of the research process in maintaining its political impartiality and creativity, whilst acknowledging the messiness (Shulock, 1999) of policy making, with research becoming 'an instrument of the democratic process' (Young et al, 2002: 218) and narrow instrumentalism replaced with more deliberative processes. The question of how research can be democratised in this way, however, remains.…”