Tag Archives: policy networks

Lecturing in interpretive policy analysis

Posted on by

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.

Considering the implications of storytelling and decentred networks

Posted on by

My academic writing has become influenced by my non-academic reading. The literature around giving presentations has had an effect, with the focus on the effectiveness of 'story' proving very persuasive.

This has two significant impacts on my research. It should influence the way I write (more of this in a later post) and on the project's theoretical framework. Bevir and Richards (2009, p.132) describe "networks as the product of individuals acting on their beliefs and the stories they tell one another". If stories are to be a major research subject this suggests an emphasis on qualitative methods to gain a deep understanding of them.

As well as providing a method for investigating actors? behaviour, network stories can also act as useful outputs for policy practitioners. Public policy often has 'toolkits' with which a network manager can attempt to reach the optimum outcome. However, in a system where there is great uncertainty, this technocratic approach gives a specious sense of precision to the consequences of actions prompted by following a toolkit approach.

Bevir and Richards (2009, p.138) use this to justify storytelling as an alternative method of network management, focusing on the creation of meaning by individuals as a way of discovering possible courses of action. Psychology literature has identified that humans gain a better understanding of situations through storytelling, this could prove to be a more effective way of engaging those within a network than a more abstract empirical approach.

A familiar challenge arises from these arguments: how to avoid anything other than a series of deep but unrelated case studies which cannot be replicated. Can there be a 'recentred' account providing generalisations without relying on structures or exogenous factors for explanation? Bevir and Richards (p.140) highlight traditions, beliefs and power as explanatory concepts which can facilitate this task.

At this point, I?m still working through the implications of the decentred approach. Here?s one possible way to think about it: a positivist account would use the experience of? case study to generate generalised laws of network behaviour. A decentred account still takes a detailed case study as its basis, but uses this to tell stories about network behaviour. These add to the accumulated knowledge of policy makers without assuming the status of a general model or theory. Policy makers are then able to use this knowledge in making decisions in their own particular circumstances.