The method of understanding the problematics in the study of public policy: concepts and application

Document Type : علمی - پژوهشی

Authors

1 Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

2 Professor, Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Problem-oriented approach, known as one of the bases of policy sciences, caused the policy problem to become a significant object of study in these sciences. This concept, like other concepts in policy sciences, has been contested by different epistemological approaches. Discourse analysis, as one of these approaches, has presented a different perspective to the study of the policy issue by proposing the idea of Problem-oriented approach. The literature review of discourse analysis in public policy studies shows that the ruling discourse makes things problematic by introducing objects into the game of right and wrong. This view to the policy problem is not only different from the competing approaches of discourse analysis, but also has subtle differences with the similar approaches of discourse analysis. In the present research, firstly, the position of the problem in policy studies has been examined, and then, with an outline of the concepts of discourse analysis, the problematic nature of the policy has been explained from the point of view of the discourse approach. Finally, by adopting a critical approach, steps are presented to understand the problematic nature of the policy. The result of these steps is the understanding of what is considered as a problem, the presuppositions, the lineage of the problem and the non-problems that have been rejected, and the determination of the factors involved in taking the problem for granted.

Keywords

References

  1. فوکو، میشل (1381)، تاریخ جنون، ترجمه فاطمه ولیانی، تهران: نشر هرمس.
  2. کسرایی، محمدسالار و علی پوزش‎شیرازی (1388)، «نظریه گفتمان لاکلا و موفه ابزاری کارآمد در فهم و تبیین پدیده‏های سیاسی»، سیاست، س11، ش1، ص339−360.
  3. Veselý (2007), Problem Delimitation in Public Policy Analysis, Undefined.
  4. Veselý (2008), Problem Tree: A Problem Structuring Heuristic, Undefined.
  5. Anderson, J. E. (2015), Public Policymaking (8th edition), Cengage Learning.
  6. Anderson, K. T. & Holloway, J. (2020), Discourse Analysis as Theory, Method and Epistemology in Studies of Education Policy, Journal of Education Policy, 35(2), 188–221.
  7. Bacchi, C. (2010), Poststructuralism, Discourse and Problematization: Implications for Gender Mainstreaming, Kvinder, Køn & Forskning(4).
  8. Bacchi, C. (2015), The Turn to Problematization: Political Implications of Contrasting Interpretive and Poststructural Adaptations, Open Journal of Political Science, 05(01), 1–12.
  9. Bacchi, C. (2020), Problem−Solving as a Governing Knowledge: “Skills”−Testing in PISA and PIAAC, Open Journal of Political Science, 10(01), 82–105.
  10. Bacchi, C. L. & Goodwin, S. (2016), Poststructural Policy Analysis: A Guide to Practice. Palgrave Pivot, Palgrave Macmillan.
  11. Bacchi, C. L. (1999), Women, Policy and Politics: The Construction of Policy Problems / Carol Lee Bacchi, SAGE.
  12. Bacchi, C. L. (2009), Analysing Policy: What's the Problem Represented to Be? / Carol Bacchi. Pearson Australia.
  13. Ball, S. J. (1993), What is Policy? Texts, Trajectories and Toolboxes. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 13(2), 10–17.
  14. Ball, S. J. (2006), Education Policy and Social Class: The Selected Works of Stephen J. Ball. World Library of Educationalists Series, Routledge.
  15. Baumgartner, F. R., Bryan, D. Jones & Peter B. Mortensen. (2018), Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: Explaining Stability and Change in Public Policymaking, In Theories of the Policy Process (pp.55–101), Routledge.
  16. Bevir, M. & Rhodes, R. A. W. (2003), Interpreting British Governance, Routledge.
  17. Birkland, T. A. (2020), An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy making (Fifth edition), Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
  18. Carol Bacchi & Jennifer Bonham (2014), Reclaiming Discursive Practices as an Analytic Focus: Political Implications. Foucault Studies, 179–192.
  19. Dean, H. (2008), Social policy and human rights: Re-thinking the engagement. Social Policy and Society, 7(1), 1–12.
  20. Dery, D. (1984), Problem Definition in Policy Analysis, Studies in Government and Public Policy, University Press of Kansas.
  21. Dewey, J. (1991), The Public and Its Problems, Swallow Press.
  22. Dewey, J. (1997), How We Think, Courier Corporation.
  23. Doty, R. L. (1993), Foreign Policy as Social Construction: A Post−Positivist Analysis of U.S. Counterinsurgency Policy in the Philippines, International Studies Quarterly, 37(3), 297–320.
  24. Dryzek, J. (1982), Policy Analysis as a Hermeneutic Activity, Policy Sciences, 14(4), 309–329.
  25. Dunn, W. N. (2016), Public Policy Analysis (Fifth edition), Routledge.
  26. Durnova, A., Zittoun, P. & Cooper, J. (2013), Discursive Approaches to Public Policy: Introduction, Revue Française De Science Politique (English Edition), 63(3−4), 85–93.
  27. Easton, D. (1965), Systems analysis of political life. Wiley.
  28. Edelman, M. (1988). Constructing the political spectacle. University of Chicago Press.
  29. Fischer, F. & Forester, J. (1993), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, Duke University Press.
  30. Fischer, F. (1980), Politics, Values and Public Policy: The Problem of Methodology / Frank Fischer, Westview.
  31. Foucault, M. (1971), Orders of Discourse, Social Science Information, 10(2), 7–30.
  32. Foucault, M. (Ed.). (2009), History of Madness, Routledge.
  33. Glynos, J. & Howarth, D. R. (2007), Logics of Critical Explanation in Social and Political Theory, Routledge Innovations in Political Theory: Vol. 26. Routledge.
  34. Hajer, M. & Versteeg, W. (2005), A Decade of Discourse Analysis of Environmental Politics: Achievements, Challenges, Perspectives, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7(3), 175–184.
  35. Hajer, M. A. (2002), Discourse Analysis and the Study of Policy Making.
  36. Hayes, A. F. & Coutts, J. J. (2020b), Use Omega Rather than Cronbach’s Alpha for Estimating Reliability, But…. Communication Methods and Measures, 00(00), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629.
  37. Hoekstra, R., Vugteveen, J., Warrens, M. J. & Kruyen, P. M. (2019), An empirical analysis of alleged misunderstandings of coefficient alpha. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(4), 351–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1547523.
  38. Hoornbeek, J. A. & Peters, B. G. (2017), Understanding Policy Problems: a Refinement of Past Work, Policy and Society, 36(3), 365–384.
  39. Howarth, D. (2005), Applying Discourse Theory: the Method of Articulation, In D. R. Howarth & J. Torfing (Eds.), Discourse Theory in European Politics: Identity, Policy and Governance / Edited by David Howarth and Jacob Torfing (pp. 316–349), Palgrave Macmillan.
  40. Howarth, D. R. (2000), Discourse, Concepts in the Social Sciences, Open University Press.
  41. Howlett, M. & Cashore, B. (2009), The Dependent Variable Problem in the Study of Policy Change: Understanding Policy Change as a Methodological Problem, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 11(1), 33–46.
  42. Huysamen, G. K. (2006), Coefficient alpha: unnecessarily ambiguous; unduly ubiquitous, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 32(4), 34–40.
  43. Johnson Burke., R. & Christensen, L. (2014), Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches (5th ed., Vol.4).
  44. Jørgensen, M. & Phillips, L. (2002), Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method, SAGE.
  45. Kaushik, V. & Walsh, C. A. (2019), Pragmatism as a research paradigm and its implications for Social Work research, Social Sciences, 8(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8090255.
  46. Kingdon, J. W. & Stano, E. (2011), Agendas, alternatives and public policies (Updated 2nd ed. / [Editor−in−Chief, Eric Stano] with a new foreword by James A. Thurber), Longman Classics in Political Science, Longman.
  47. Kline, R. B. (2016), Principles and practices of structural equation modelling, Methodology in the social sciences.
  48. Kraft, M. E. & Furlong, S. R. (2021), Public Policy: Politics, Analysis, and Alternatives (Seventh edition), CQ Press, an imprint of SAGE Publications, Inc.
  49. Laclau, E. & Mouffe, C. (2001), Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics / Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe (2nd ed.), Verso.
  50. Lasswell, H. D. (1971), A Pre−view of Policy Sciences (Policy Sciences Book series), American Elsevier Publishing Co.
  51. Lester, J. N., Lochmiller, C. R. & Gabriel, R. E. (2017), Discursive Perspectives on Education Policy and Implementation, Palgrave Macmillan.
  52. Lindblom, C. E. & Cohen, D. K. (1979), Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving / Charles E. Lindblom and David K. Cohen, Yale University Press.
  53. Lopata, H. Z. (1984), Social Construction of Social Problems Over Time, Social Problems, 31(3), 249–272.
  54. Maarten Hajer (2002), Discourse Analysis and the Study of Policy Making, European Political Science, 2(1), 61–65.
  55. Marier, P. (2018), Policy Problems, In W. N. Dunn (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, Oxford University Press.
  56. McCain, K. (2016), The Nature of Scientific Knowledge, The Nature of Scientific Knowledge, Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33405-9.
  57. McDonald, R. P. (1999), Test theory: A unified treatment. Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  58. McHoul, A. W. & Grace, W. (1995, 1993), A Foucault Primer: Discourse, Power and the Subject / Alec McHoul and Wendy Grace, UCL Press.
  59. Meltzer, R. & Schwartz, A. F. (2018), Policy Analysis as Problem Solving: A Flexible and Evidence−Based Framework / Rachel Meltzer, Alex Schwartz (1st), Routledge.
  60. Miller, M. B. (1995), Coefficient alpha: A basic introduction from the perspectives of classical test theory and structural equation modeling.
  61. Moradi, M. & Miralmasi, A. (2020), Pragmatic research method (F. Seydi, Ed.) (1st ed.), Tehran: School of quantitative and qualitative research, Retrieved from https://analysisacademy.com/
  62. Naik, C. N. K., Gantasala, S. B. & Prabhakar, G. V. (2010), Service quality (SERVQUAL) and its effect on customer satisfaction in retailing, European Journal of Social Sciences, 16(2), 231–243.
  63. Neufville, J. I. de, & Barton, S. E. (1987), Myths and the Definition of Policy Problems, Policy Sciences, 20(3), 181–206.
  64. Neuman, W. L. (2014), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Pearson Education Limited (7th ed.), Printed in the United States of America. https://doi.org/10.2307/3211488.
  65. Nudzor, H. (2009), What Is “Policy”, A Problem−Solving Definition or a Process Conceptualisation? BESA | British Education Studies Association.
  66. Paul, K. T. (2009), Discourse Analysis: An Exploration of Methodological Issues and a Call for Methodological Courage in the Field of Policy Analysis, Critical Policy Studies, 3(2), 240–253.
  67. Peters, B. G. & Zittoun, P. (2016), Contemporary Approaches to Public Policy: Theories, Controversies and Perspectives; B. Guy Peters, Philippe Zittoun, editors. International Series on Public Policy, Palgrave Macmillan.
  68. Rein, M. (1976), Social Science and Public Policy, Penguin.
  69. Revelle, W. & Zinbarg, R. E. (2008), Coefficients Alpha, Beta, Omega and the glb: Comments on Sijtsma, Psychometrika, 74(1), 145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9102-z.
  70. Rochefort, D. A. & Cobb, R. W. (1993), Problem Definition, Agenda Access, and Policy Choice, Policy Studies Journal, 21(1), 56–71.
  71. Roe, E. (1994), Narrative Policy Analysis, Duke University Press.
  72. Salzberger, T., Sarstedt, M. & Diamantopoulos, A. (2016), Measurement in the social sciences: where C-OAR-SE delivers and where it does not, European Journal of Marketing, 50(11), 1942–1952. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-10-2016-0547.
  73. Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. (2013), Constructing research questions: Doing interesting research. Constructing Research Questions, 1–152.
  74. Sarstedt, M, Diamantopoulos, A. & Salzberger, T. (2016), Should we use single items? Better notF_. Journal of Business Research, 69, 3199–3203.
  75. Sarstedt, Marko, Bengart, P., Shaltoni, A. M. & Lehmann, S. (2018), The use of sampling methods in advertising research: a gap between theory and practice, International Journal of Advertising, 37(4), 650–663. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2017.1348329.
  76. Schneider, A. & Ingram, H. (1993), Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy, American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334–347.
  77. Schneider, J. W. (Ed.) (1987), Modern Sociology, Studies in the Sociology of Social Problems (2. print), Ablex Publ, Corp.
  78. Schon, D. A. (1995), Frame Reflection: Toward The Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies, Basic Books.
  79. Sijtsma, K. (2009), On the use, the misuse and the very limited usefulness of cronbach’s alpha, Psychometrika, 74(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0.
  80. Singh, D. (2019), Understanding philosophical underpinnings of research with respect to various paradigms: Perspective of a research scholar, (April).
  81. Smith, K. B. & Larimer, C. W. (2017), The Public Policy Theory Primer (Third Edition), Westview Press.
  82. Smith, S. M. & Albaum, G. S. (2013), Basic Marketing Research Building Your Survey, Published by Qualtrics Labs, Inc.
  83. Spector, M. & Kitsuse, J. I. (1973), Social Problems: A Re−Formulation. Social Problems, 21(2), 145–159.
  84. Spector, M. & Kitsuse, J. I. (2017), Constructing Social Problems. Routledge.
  85. Starkweather, J. (2012), Step out of the past: Stop using coefficient alpha; there are better ways to calculate reliability, Research and Statistical Support.
  86. Stone, D. A. (1997), Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making (Vol. 13), New York: ww Norton.
  87. Taylor, S. (1997), Critical Policy Analysis: Exploring Contexts, Texts and Consequences. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 18(1), 23–35.
  88. Teo, T. & Fan, X. (2013), Coefficient alpha and beyond: Issues and alternatives for educational research, The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(2), 209–213.
  89. Trizano-Hermosilla, I. & Alvarado, J. M. (2016), Best Alternatives to Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability in Realistic Conditions: Congeneric and Asymmetrical Measurements. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 769. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00769.
  90. van Aswegen, J., Hyatt, D. & Goodley, D. A Critical Discourse Problematization Framework for (disability) Policy Analysis: “Good Cop/Bad Cop” Strategy, Qualitative Research Journal, 19(2), 185–198.
  91. Warriner, D. & Anderson, K. T. (2017), Discourse Analysis in Educational Research, In K. A. King (Ed.), Research methods in language and education (pp.297–309), Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  92. Webb, P. T. (2014), Policy problematization. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(3), 364–376.
  93. Weiss, J. A. (1989), The Powers of Problem Definition: The Case of Government Paperwork. Policy Sciences, 22(2), 97–121.
  94. Wertz, F. J., Charmaz, K., McMullen, L. M., Josselson, R., Anderson, R. & McSpadden, E. (2011), Five Ways of Doing Qualtative Analysis, The Guilford Press, New York (1st ed.).
  95. Wilkinson, L. & Raykov, T. (1998), Coefficient alpha and composite reliability with interrelated nonhomogeneous items, Applied Psychological Measurement, 22(4), 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.8.594.
  96. Wilkinson, L. (1999), Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations, American Psychologist, 54(8), 594–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.8.594.
  97. Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (2009), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (2nd ed.), Introducing Qualitative Methods, SAGE.
  98. Yang, Y. & Green, S. B. (2011), Coefficient alpha: A reliability coefficient for the 21st century? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 377–392.
  99. Zimmerman, D. W., Zumbo, B. D. & Lalonde, C. (1993), Coefficient alpha as an estimate of test reliability under violation of two assumptions, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(1), 33−
  100. Zinbarg, R. E., Revelle, W., Yovel, I. & Li, W. (2005), Cronbach’s, α Revelle’s β and McDonald’s ω H: Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability, Psychometrika, 70(1), 123–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-003-0974-7.
  101. Zittoun, P. (2009), Understanding Policy Change as a Discursive Problem, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 11(1),
    65–82.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics