Making Policy Analysis More Effective- Critiques on Traditional Policy Analysis -

Abstract

The basic assumptions of comprehensive and synoptic methods of traditional policy research and analysis have been criticized in many policy analysis literatures. The fundamental problem of traditional policy research is rooted in positivistic epistemology. Due to the value-neutral epistemology, the conventional methods of traditional policy analysis are likely to produce Type III error. Furthermore, the empirical analysis based on the reductionism and scientific fragmentation not only ignore the contextuality but also commit errors of omitting unintended effects. Consequently knowledge produced through a process of rational analysis is not as useful as is often supposed. To make policy analysis and research more effective, this paper suggests the following directions: first, minimize Type III error through applying the principle of the methodological congruence; second, solve the environmental uncertainty through reasoning called erotetic rationality; third, synthesize quantitative and qualitative perspectives; fourth, escape out of the dilemma of a single best framework perspective and reductionism through multiple-model and multiple-perspective approaches; and finally, overcome the gap between policy researchers and analysts community and policy makers community.