Here is the written synopsis for the lecture I gave to groups of both postgraduates and undergraduates this semester. The lecture also included an exercise where the students thought about the meanings different interested groups would place in a particular policy issue.
The bibiography is slightly updated from my initial post. Either read in the window above or click the link below the window to download.
As well as the case study lectures on climate policy, this year I’ve been asked to teach interpretive policy analysis methods to both undergraduates and postgraduates.
Thinking about the outline now, but am posting the reading list as an insight and (hopefully) a useful summary of at least some of the literature in this area.
A challenge for the lecture, and interpretive analysis as a whole, is to make it’s case without toppling down the post-modern plughole.
To place the lecture in the context of my PhD studies, I’m taking a decentred network approach which takes its cues from the wider interpretive tradition in the social sciences (as set out in the Bevir & Rhodes literature) to take a fresh look at the perennial topic of policy networks. While decentred networks will be a significant part of the lecture, I will be casting a wider net over the interpretive tradition.
Any comments on the topic and/or reading list are welcomed:
Bevir, M. & Rhodes, R.A.W. (2004). Interpretation as method, explanation, and critique: a reply. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 6, 156 – 161. UC Berkeley. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/9wb0g2tq on September 16, 2010.
Bevir, M. & Rhodes, R.A.W. (2006a). Interpretive approaches to British government and politics. British Politics, 29(1), 84-112.Bevir, M. & Rhodes, R.A.W. (2003). Interpreting British Governance. London: Routledge.
Bevir, M. & Rhodes, R.A.W. (2006b). Governance Stories. Abingdon: Routledge. Bevir, M. & Rhodes, R.A.W. (2008). The differentiated polity as narrative. British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 10(4), 729-734. Bevir, M. & Richards, D. (2009a). Decentring policy networks: a theoretical agenda. Public Administration, 87(1), 3-14. Bevir, M. & Richards, D. (2009b). Decentring policy networks: lessons and prospects. Public Administration, 87(1), 132-141. Davies, J.S. (2009). The limits of joined-up government: towards a political analysis. Public Administration, 87(1), 80-96. Dodge, J., Ospina, S.M. & Foldy, E.G. (2005). Integrating rigor and relevance in public administration scholarship: the contribution of narrative inquiry. Public Administration Review, 65(3), 286-300. Durose, C. (2007). Beyond ‘street-level’ bureaucrats: re-interpreting the role of front line public sector workers. Critical Policy Analysis, 1(2), 217-234. Durose, C. (2009). Front-line workers and ‘local knowledge’: neighbourhood stories in contemporary local governance. Public Administration, 87(1), 35-49.Finlayson, A., Dowding, K. Hay, C. Bevir, M. & Rhodes, R.A.W. (2004) The interpretive approach in political science: a symposium. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 6(1), 129-164.
Gains, F. (2009). Narratives and dilemmas of local bureaucratic elites: Whitehall at the coal face? Public Administration, 87(1), 50-64.
Gains, F. & Clarke, K. (2007). Constructing delivery: implementation as an interpreted process. Critical Policy Analysis, 1(2),133–8.
Gordon, R., Kornberger, M. & Clegg, S.R. (2009). Power, rationality and legitimacy in public organiszations. Public Administration, 87(1), 15-34.Hodgett, S. & Deneulin, S. (2009). On the use of narratives for assessing development policy. Public Administration, 87(1), 65-79.
Marsh, D. (2008). Understanding British government: analysing competing models. British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 10(2), 251-268.
Morgan, G. (1993). Imaginization. London: Sage.
Needham, C. (2009). Policing with a smile: narratives of consumerism in New Labour’s criminal justice policy. Public Administration, 87(1), 97-116. Ospina, S.M. & Dodge, J. (2005). It’s about time: catching method up to meaning—the usefulness of narrative inquiry in public administration research. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 143-157. Ospina, S.M. & Dodge, J. (2005). Narrative inquiry and the search for connectedness: practitioners and academics developing public administration scholarship. Public Administration Review, 65(4), 409-423. Rein, M. (1976). Social Science and Public Policy. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Roe, E.M. (1994). Narrative Policy Analysis: Theory and Practice. Durham, NC : Duke University Press Stivers, C. (2008). Governance’s new spectacles. Public Administration Review, 68(5), 941-3. Vickers, G. (1995). The Art of Judgement, Centenary Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Yanow, D. (1993). The communication of policy meanings: implementation as interpretation and text. Policy Sciences, 26(1), 41-61.
Yanow, D. (1996). How Does A Policy Mean? Interpreting Policy and Organizational Actions. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
