Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Policy analysis is a term that is applied to a wide variety of practices and intellectual approaches and that cannot be reduced to a neat definition. The relationship between intellectual approaches and practice is not clear. Certainly, there is a dominant paradigm that sees policy analysis as an exercise in applied social science, in which the analytic method of the social sciences is mobilized to enable governments to make the optimal choice, and graduate programs in policy (particularly in North America) elaborate and refine the knowledge and skills required for policy analysis in this sense. But even those who are trained and employed as policy analysts find a disjunction between the methodology in which they have been trained and the demands of the job, and there is an undercurrent of anxiety among analysts about the extent to which their analysis is used and uncertainty about whether, and in what way, they should involve themselves in policy practice. So it is difficult to give an unambiguous definition of policy analysis as a field of study or of practice. It is conventional to distinguish between analysis for policy and the analysis of policy, and we will begin with this distinction. But it will become clear that the diversity of perceptions of policy analysis reflects the different ways in which we think about policy, mobilizing multiple and overlapping frameworks of meaning to make sense of what we see and what we do, so we will need to dig deeper to get a fuller understanding of policy analysis. Working through these various usages of the term will be like peeling an onion, though we hope to do it without too many tears.

Analysis of Policy or for Policy?

The distinction between analysis of and analysis for reflects an attempt to separate observation from practice and, in particular, to distinguish policy analysis as a specific form of applied social science from the broader field of the study of government. Analysis of has tended to be the less significant branch, perhaps because its focus on the analysis of process made it hard to distinguish from traditional political science. At one point, there was a tendency for the study of government to be renamed “public policy,” with the work of government being seen as the production of policy and the study of the process being “policy analysis.” This rested on a perception of policy as a process of official problem solving, which was widely shared but which later came under scrutiny from what was called the critical or interpretive approach to policy analysis (which is discussed further in this entry). It was also challenged (less directly) by the governmentality approach deriving from the work of Michel Foucault, which looked beyond the implied question of “what is the best way for the government to solve this problem” to ask how situations became problems, who could or should address them, what modes of practice are seen as appropriate responses, and in what way these situations recede from the ranks of problems that claim public attention.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading