In Policy, Practice, Pseudo-Academic, Theory on March 1, 2010 at 11:53 am
This post discusses two journal articles:
Hird, J.A. (2005). Policy analysis for what? The effectiveness of nonpartisan policy research organizations. The policy studies journal, 33 (1), pp. 83-105.
Shulock, N. (1999). The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much of it? Journal of policy analysis and management, 18 (2), pp. 226-244.
Both Shulock and Hird discuss the use of the knowledge generated by policy analysis in policymaking. Both scholars argue that policy analysis is primarily used in the policy process, and has a smaller effect on the policies themselves.
Shulock discusses two views of policymaking in her article. The first, she calls the traditional view. The traditional view comes out of a rationalist perspective of policymaking and argues that policy analysis should be and is used to solve problems. Policy analysis is, in this view, a tool to reduce uncertainty, maximize utility, and maximize the benefits relative to costs. Thus, policy analysis should have a direct impact on policy, and legislation should be based directly on policy analysis. In this view of policymaking, the public is both irrelevant, uneducated, and unimportant. In contrast, the interpretive perspective argues that the role of policy analysis is and should be to influence the debate around policy. This perspective sees policy analysis not so much as a tool but as another factor influencing democratic participation and discourse. This view sees the public as important and attentive. In this view, policy analysis is part of the complex policy process. Shulock is proposing that the interpretive view is the proper understanding of the role of policy analysis in the United States. Read the rest of this entry »
Bartels, book review, inequality, Policy, politics
In General, Policy, Pseudo-Academic, Quantitative Research on March 1, 2010 at 9:05 am
I recently read and presented on Larry M. Bartels’ 2008 book, Unequal Democracy in a class that I’m taking this semester. I really enjoyed the book and would recommend it to anyone interested in policy, political science, or inequality. I was particularly struck by Bartels’ ability to translate complex quantitative models into a story about partisan differences in economic policy that anyone can understand.
Bartels uses concrete data and advanced statistical methods to show that there has been a consistent trend in the United States where low and middle-income individuals fared better economically under Democratic administrations, while only the affluent benefited under Republican administrations. He shows that this is not a coincidence; the income disparity under Republicans and Democrats is larger than what would be observed by chance, or due to exogenous events. He uses time-series data, multiple regression, probits, and other methods familiar only to those who have taken a course in advanced quantitative methods, but he uses those methods to tell an artful story that seems to engage the reader, regardless of his or her training in statistical models. Read the rest of this entry »
change, jaworski, organization, regrowth, theory of learning
In Book Reviews, Pseudo-Academic on April 2, 2009 at 8:57 am
Senge, P., Scharmer, O.,C., Jaworski, J., Flowers, B.,S. (2005). Presence: An exploration of profound change in people, organizations and society. Double Day, New York, NY.
ISBN: 0-385-51624-x $27.95
In their text, Presence, Senge, Scharmer, Jaworski, and Flowers present an incredibly thorough and thought provoking theory of change based on awareness and understanding of relationships in living systems. The theory is supported by and illustrated through robust and rich qualitative data comprised of the experiences and events in the lives of the authors, influential, business, spiritual and political leaders globally. Read the rest of this entry »
collectivism, cultural differences, cultures, Hofstede, individualism, organization, power distance
In Book Reviews, Pseudo-Academic on April 2, 2009 at 8:53 am
Brandon Ching
3/17/09
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Hofstede, G. (2004). Cultures and Organizations: Software of
the Mind. McGraw-Hill.
Geert and Gert Hofstedeʼs book, Cultures and Organization: Software of the Mind, is an incredibly thorough and thought provoking analysis of cultural differences
and behavior within the contexts of organizations and groups. Based on original and associated research in a number of countries around the world, the Hofstedeʼs
addresses the impact of five core measures of cultural dimensions and uses them as explanatory means of national behavior and relations. Read the rest of this entry »
Argyris, defensive reasoning, organization, rationalization, transparency
In Book Reviews, Pseudo-Academic on April 2, 2009 at 8:43 am
Margaretha Warnicke
PAF 603 (Spring 2009)
Argyris, C. (2004). Reasons and rationalizations: The limits to organizational knowledge. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Chris Argyris’ (2004) most recent book builds on his prior scholarship in organizational learning and change. He unites several different theories with which he has worked over the years in this concise volume to explain two key issues: why individuals in organizations do not learn effectively and why scholars have not been very successful at helping organizations reverse this trend. He identifies defensive reasoning as the chief factor that prohibits individuals and groups within organizations from learning because they: protect one another from embarrassment or harm; employ self-referential logic; avoid transparency in order to ensure self-protection; deny and cover up their self-protective efforts; and then deny the cover up. In order to escape the cycle of defensive reasoning, Argyris proposes that organizations employ double-loop learning and action theory. Read the rest of this entry »
1920, Introduction, Mary Parker Follett, progressivism, the new state
In General, Pseudo-Academic on February 19, 2009 at 11:17 am
INTRODUCTION
to the 1920 edition of The New State by Mary Parker Follett
BY
VISCOUNT HALDANE
I HAVE ventured to ask the authoress of what Professor Bosanquet has recently called “the most sane and brilliant of recent works on political theory,” to let me write a few pages introductory to the next issue of her book. Read the rest of this entry »
