Previewing Policy Sciences: Multiple Lenses and Segmented Visions

Abstract

In setting an agenda for policy sciences, Harold Lasswell argued that the field would be shaped by its contextuality, problem orientation, and methodological diversity. The review of developments in the field in this article shows that scholars have divided into positivist and post‐positivist orientations that employ multiple frameworks and models. I argue that theoretical diversity should be expected and welcomed given the complexity of policy processes and phenomena. The article encourages positivists and post‐positivists alike to allow the problem being studied to drive analysis and to seek ways to integrate different theoretical and methodological approaches.

Evidence for physical activity guidelines as a public health intervention: efficacy, effectiveness, and harm – a critical policy sciences approach

“…The methods for this paper draw on a critical policy sciences approach. The policy sciences originate in the work of Lasswell (1951) and are simultaneously concerned with evidence of how and for what purpose policy is developed, and what evidence is drawn upon to develop policy (Lewin & Shakun, 1976;Sinclair, 2006). In the case of developing guideline recommendations with an explicit goal to be evidence-based, these two elements of a critical policy sciences approach are almost inseparable.…”

Expanding the Frontiers of Population Nutrition Research: New Questions, New Methods, and New Approaches

“…The various elements of transdisciplinarity shown in Figure 1 are fundamental features of the PSF that further distinguish it from the more discipline-based tendencies in mainstream policy analysis and political science (202). The application of these elements is made possible by the use of the generic framework described above (axes 4 and 7) in particular social contexts, which, together with the engagement of social actors, permits the problem to be examined and understood in its full complexity without the distortion of disciplinary boundaries.…”

“…Although the name appears to denote formalized and governmental policy it actually is applicable to the full range of social situations, from global to community and organizational levels. It originated with Harold Lasswell (201,202) and has since been reintroduced and applied primarily in natural resource policy (103,(203)(204)(205)(206)(207).…”

“…One of the features of the PSF that distinguishes it from mainstream tendencies in policy analysis and political science is the attention given to any and all features of the social change process in a given context (axis 7) that may influence the problem-solving process (axis 4). Discipline-based approaches provide more detailed examination of certain aspects (e.g., agenda setting, advocacy coalitions, policy choices), but a broader perspective is needed when there is a concern for ultimate outcomes and effects and not simply these dynamics per se (202,208).…”

Models and methods to analyse the interaction of evidence and policy in the first 100 days of the UK government's response to COVID-19 (v1.1)

“…Critics have argued that, despite EBP's best intentions, ideology remains a factor in policy-making (15) (16), while others suggest that ideology cannot be separated from evidence (17) and that the production of evidence is an inherently value-driven process (18). A further view, drawing on the tradition of the policy sciences (19), which is concerned with evidence in and of policyi.e., how evidence is used in the policy process, and evidence of how policy is developed (20) -suggests that a complete understanding of decisions is achieved only when all inputs to the policy process are considered (21) (22), and that all inputs, including ideology, should be considered as evidence.…”