Perspectives on policy analyses: a framework for understanding and design

Mayer, Igor; Daalen, C. Els van; Bots, Pieter W. G.

doi:10.1504/ijtpm.2004.004819

Cited by 139 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Maps that deliberatively 'stretch reality' for rhetoric purposes are denoted as 'propaganda maps' by Monmonnier (1993), but who decides what is propaganda and what is 'legitimate' rhetoric remains a grey area made up by subjective opinions, which can change over time. We have found this frame best represented by Stone's (1988) description of 'political reason', or the strategic logic involved in policy analysis as explained by Wildavsky (1979), De Bruijn et al (2002) and Mayer et al (2004).…”

Section: Three Archetypical Frames: Analysis Design and Negotiationmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Wildavsky (1979), Stone (1988, Schön (1983), Ching (1990), De Jong and Van der Voort (2002), De Bruijn et al (2002), Mayer et al (2004) and Carton (2007).…”

Section: Discussion and Recommendationsunclassified

“…Publications about the building and use of models in policy contexts have pointed to the importance of the social role of models and actor perspectives towards models (see for instance Wildavsky, 1979;Majone and Quade, 1980;Dunn, 1982;Stone, 1988;Fischer and Forester, 1993;Rouwette, Vennix and Thijssen, 2000;Daalen et al, 2002;Mayer et al, 2004). …”

Section: Frames In Maps and Frames On Mapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Emerging conflict in collaborative mapping: Towards a deeper understanding?

Carton¹,

Thissen²

2009

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In spatial planning and environmental management, maps are found very helpful in many situations, but in other situations they may also deepen conflicts or be ignored. This paper addresses the question what explains such phenomena, with particular emphasis on, and reference to, collaborative policymaking settings in the Netherlands.We have elaborated the concept of 'frames' and 'framing' to structure and analyze the function of maps in the context of deliberative policymaking. With help of discourse analysis, a method adopted from the policy sciences, we have observed ongoing multi-actor processes and focused on discussions around maps in several case-studies. From the observations of both the maps themselves and the discussions and actions with the maps, we have interpreted the meaning and frames represented 'in' the map images, as well as the various perspectives of actors 'on' the collaborative use of the map. We have 1 Present address: School of Management, Spatial Planning group, Radboud University Nijmegen, Thomas van Aquinostraat 3, P.O. Box 9108, 6500 HK Nijmegen, the Netherlands. tel: ++31 24 3612724. email address: L.Carton@fm.ru.nl 1 conceptualized three fundamentally different perspectives or frames on the function of maps in the decision-making process. The cross-frame debate over maps is illustrated with the recollection of one particular map-making example. We conclude that the conflicts observed in a number of case studies can be adequately explained with help of the three identified frames, and provide some recommendations for the profession of mapping.

show abstract

Section: Three Archetypical Frames: Analysis Design and Negotiationmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Wildavsky (1979), Stone (1988, Schön (1983), Ching (1990), De Jong and Van der Voort (2002), De Bruijn et al (2002), Mayer et al (2004) and Carton (2007).…”

Section: Discussion and Recommendationsunclassified

Section: Frames In Maps and Frames On Mapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Emerging conflict in collaborative mapping: Towards a deeper understanding?

Carton¹,

Thissen²

2009

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Walker (2009), drawing on Mayer et al (2004), suggests that six styles of policy analysis can be identified (see Figure 1). The top half of the hexagon is described as primarily object-orientated, focussing on systems, policy, measures, and models; the bottom half is subject-orientated, focussing on people (policymakers, stakeholders, experts) and their interactions in a policy process.…”

Section: Things That Mattermentioning

confidence: 99%

Logic and rationality in OR interventions: an examination in the light of the ‘critical rationalist’ approach

Ormerod

2013

Journal of the Operational Research Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Historically OR has conceived of itself as a professional practice giving rational, objective advice rooted in the ethos of science. However, the claim of science to rationality and objectivity has wilted under the onslaught of relativist and post-modern attack. One proposed philosophy of science seeks to avoid such problems by adopting a strictly objectivist approach. Critical rationalism (CR), the philosophy originated by Karl Popper, attempts to eliminate all inductive, justificatory and merely subjective claims by the ruthless application of deductive logic. The philosophical development of the CR approach to practice is currently a work-in-progress; however, it is an approach that should on the face of it find favour with OR, particularly for those who want to claim that OR is logically rational. The paper, drawing on the work of David Miller, explores how such an approach can be applied in the OR context. It concludes that although as CR suggests it may be possible to drive out inductive and justificatory claims in OR, subjective choice is an essential element of managerial decision-making and cannot be ignored or assumed away. The paper identifies some of the challenges that confront philosophers of practice if OR is to take the insights of CR to heart, suggests some possible responses, and identifies areas for future research.

show abstract

“…As such a field, policy analysis offers valuable reflections on the relationship between applied research and the use and development of methods in relation to policy or decision-making processes. As policy analysis is a multi-faced field in which a variety of different activities, approaches and methods have found a place, we draw on a conceptual framework developed by Mayer et al 41 This framework offers an overview of the activities and styles that claim to make up policy analysis and has been developed as a contribution to the development of interactive or participatory methods and guidance for evaluating such methods. Their analysis covers 20 exemplary cases related to technological decision-and policy-making in the Netherlands.…”

Section: Towards Two-way Communication In Pharmacogenomicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interactive Communication in Pharmacogenomics Innovations: User-producer interaction from an innovation and science communication perspective

Verhoeff

Moors

Osseweijer

2008

Life Sci Soc Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pharmacogenomics is a quickly evolving field of research that increasingly impacts individuals and society. As some innovations in biotechnology have experienced strong public opposition during the 1990s, interaction between producers and users of these innovations may help in increasing their success in social and economic terms. However, conditions for effective interaction have so far remained under-explored. This paper explores user-producer interactions in pharmacogenomics from an innovation and science communication perspective in the Netherlands. To find possible ways of engaging stakeholders in an early stage of technology development, ie, when science policy is in the making, we present communication activities derived from the field of policy analysis. To articulate motives for two-way public participation in genomics innovation processes, we describe two levels at which pharmacogenomics developments will have an input:1) at the meso-level of medical practice with already established medical technologies, values and routines, suppliers and health professionals (general practitioners, pharmacists), and 2) at the macro-level of society at large, with established institutions, infrastructures, and broadly shared values and beliefs among citizens in general. Thereby we offer a starting point for optimising decision-making processes in the field of pharmacogenomics innovations, including important aims to be reached, stakeholders to be involved, and some criteria for designing interactive communication activities.

show abstract

Perspectives on policy analyses: a framework for understanding and design

Cited by 139 publications

References 0 publications

Emerging conflict in collaborative mapping: Towards a deeper understanding?

Emerging conflict in collaborative mapping: Towards a deeper understanding?

Logic and rationality in OR interventions: an examination in the light of the ‘critical rationalist’ approach

Interactive Communication in Pharmacogenomics Innovations: User-producer interaction from an innovation and science communication perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About