Ways to deal with Public Policymaking, Policy Analysis Evaluation Research

1464 days ago, 589 views
PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Research Paradigms. Not inflexible paradigmatic incommensurabilityA map for exploring uneven waters around strategy investigation and assessment methodological debatesPost-positivist

Presentation Transcript

Slide 1

Ways to deal with Public Policymaking, Policy Analysis & Evaluation Research Kathy Luckett University of Cape Town

Slide 2

Research Paradigms Not inflexible paradigmatic incommensurability A guide for exploring rough waters around arrangement examination and assessment methodological level headed discussions Post-positivist – test, sober minded Interpretative – constructionist, post-structuralist Critical – PAR, strengthening evaluation,CSH Critical Realism – hypothesis based assessment

Slide 3

Post-positivist: Quasi-trial Popper, Campbell & Stanley (1963, 1966), Lasswell, Rossi, Lipsey & Freeman Based on strategies for the normal sciences, factual estimation systems Social science can add to enhanced administration or administration Establish cause & impact relations wager approach/program destinations, inputs & intercessions - yields, results & affect Human execution can be equitably measured television. Productivity & viability criteria Evaluator: objective, unbiased, discerning Problem: to secure interior legitimacy of assessment results By 19702 disappoint set in, move to semi exploratory techniques (pre-& post tests, times arrangement, correlation bunch plans)

Slide 4

Critique: Quasi-trial models Uses a model created for shut frameworks for open social frameworks Adopts a level metaphysics – reality = regularities wager detectable, atomistic items & occasions (disregards the non-recognizable) Causality = regularities wager factors inside detail. sig. tests Claims about causation typically indistinct and unconvincing Can just give portrayals (for a couple of factors on huge populaces), rarely clarification

Slide 5

Post-positivist: Pragmatic (overwhelming model) Developed from 'new open administration' , the 'evaluative state' – needs down to earth, workable outcomes, helpful for basic leadership Takes approach/program objectives as center of assessment Methods: an) open-finished contextual analysis (change) e.g. Patton b) shut framework sets down criteria & execution markers to quantify execution & responsibility of people & foundations e.g. program accreditation Sets up criteria and execution pointers to quantify execution & responsibility by establishments and people – a shut framework

Slide 6

Critique: Pragmatic Models Assumes stable outer condition Difficult to set quantifiable destinations, criteria & markers for genuine execution Difficult to control factors in open soc frameworks - probability of opponent clarifications, hard to demonstrate cause & impact Ignores setting & partner implications, 'discovery' assessment – at times analytic Can be prescriptive, prompting to similarity

Slide 7

Interpretive: Constructionist 1970s – 80s 'phonetic turn', 1980s strategy social science: which means socially built, human activity socially and desultorily intervened – dismissal of naturalism Vickers (1995) policymaking as informative action for institutional direction, a procedure of standard setting Neo-institutional hypothesis stresses intellectual and standardizing elements in arrangement selection and usage Guba & Lincoln (1989), 4 th era assessment: concentrate on subjective partner implications, values & interests, evaluator as facilitator, truth as understanding, assessment helpful to insiders

Slide 8

Critique: of Constructionist Models O ver-mingled, accentuations subjectivity at cost of structure, truth situated in subjectivities of respondents Ignores systemic asymmetries of force Inability to transcend setting Relativist cosmology

Slide 9

Interpretive: Post-structuralist Foucault's 'geneaology', Ball (1993), Gale (2000) Discourse is socially constitutive, in argumentative connection to rehearse – sets up frameworks of force/learning, standards & values Policy as political antique – as content & talk – with unequal material & verbose impacts that ought to be uncovered Policy has a normalizing & administrative part, sets up subject positions that compel methods for talking & considering Technologization dialect for institutional finishes How do certain talks get to be distinctly predominant? What talks are grinding away when the individuals who represent, administer? How would they get to be distinctly regulated & upheld administratively, professionally & fiscally?

Slide 10

Critique: Post-structuralist Models Weak on technique, selectivity of information, strength of analyst as mediator, propensity to hop from information to (biased) account Quest to effectively interface the small scale and large scale levels of examination hard to accomplish All of social life gets diminished to discourse,(materiality of the social world gets lost) Knowledge lessened to states of its creation and interests of its makers (epistemological relativity)

Slide 11

Critical: Emancipatory Neo-Marxist bits of knowledge, Frankfurt School (Habermas empancipatory intrigue) Critical arrangement investigation (the 'pugnacious turn') strategy talks develop social issues & approach arrangements, policymaking a type of contention to induce & fabricate assent Challenge: how do talks get to be distinctly regulated & reflected in institutional practices? Ulrich (1994) Critical frameworks heuristics: arrangement to be normatively satisfactory to those influenced by it, esteem illumination – diff gatherings of partners

Slide 12

Critical: Emancipatory Developmental assessment (Patton) PAR Empowerment assessment (Fetterman 1996) Transformative assessment (Mertens 2005) Development of evaluees, offering voice to the hushed, incorporation of underestimated gatherings influenced by the outcomes

Slide 13

Critique: Emancipatory Models Utopian: the 'better contention' is delivered through influence not balanced exchange - all correspondence as of now entered by influence Why ought to the included (the capable) try to consider the perspectives and worries of the influenced (the weak)? Can't work under states of pressure requires a completely working open circle Needs to hold material conditions and structures as settings for vlaues & interests Post-structuralists: agreement is neither conceivable nor attractive

Slide 14

Critical Realist: Theory-based Bhaskar (1978, 1998), Sayer (1992, 2000) Reality is stratified – observational (encounters), genuine (occasions) & genuine (non-noticeable structures & causal forces) Holds tog ontological authenticity + epistemological relativism Both office & structure have causal forces – go to both (diagnostically particular) Openess of the social world, majority and possibility of causality Key to effective mediation = change of social practice

Slide 15

Critical Realist: Theory-based Pawson & Tilley (1997) Realist assessment: what works, how, for whom and under what conditions? (works in setting & subjectivity) Evaluator to make program hypothesis express & to look at it with partners: C + M = O tests presumptions about causal relations & change Tests objective acknowledgment, however puts in setting of more extensive social clarification Evaluation can be aggregate – center range speculations Critique : Demanding to operationalise, tedious

Slide 16

Conclusion Be mindful of convention & model you're working in - & of different conceivable outcomes Complex nature of approach investigation & assessment legitimizes methodological pluralism But don't utilize strategies entrepreneurially, select as indicated by qualities, motivation behind assessment, phase of the arrangement/program cycle & down to earth imperatives Think reason (teleology), metaphysics, epistemology 1 st – then philosophy!