Reconsidering Policy – our Agenda Revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Analysis of public policy is a daunting task. The esteemed Canadian writer Richard Simeon acknowledged this some decades ago when he rejected the emphasis on narrow analytical policy skills (Simeon, 1976), and instead called for a broad analytic approach that is ‘holistic and contextually situated’ (Skogstad and White, 2017: 666). However, over the last 40 years, policy approaches have fractured and scattered rather than become holistic and integrated, with theorists attempting to make sense of this variety by identifying strands or families of theory, or proposing models for, or thematic approaches to, theoretical synthesis (Ayres and Marsh, 2013). Some are driven into narrow areas of specialisation where they build sub-fields that, in our view, lose efficacy and relevance for complex problem-solving solving insofar as they neglect broader political and systemic contexts. However, not all policy analysis is concerned to assist with problem-solving and improved policy, as we are in this book, nor concerned with our focus on the governance of wicked problems, crisis responses and the building of more resilient, effective policy contexts. Our book is inspired by the conviction that useful knowledge comes from building on various sources of policy analysis expertise, while also recognising the wider context of policymaking, and the value of policy theories anchored in evaluative, empirical and comparative case studies. We have also argued that policy studies should refocus on state capacity, and on the roles of politics, policy and institutions in building capacity to effect positive change. We are interested in policy change and policy improvement because of the persistence of challenging problems, like climate change, massive inequalities in health and housing, cyber security, urban congestion and the like – and the longstanding failure of states and policy processes to alleviate or resolve them. We are interested in resilience in the face of crises and in new forms of governance, often collaborative, and the reinvention of the state that is inspired by policy evaluation, learning and adaptation. We believe, as applied theorists, that policy studies should be relevant to problem-solving. We suggest that making policy analysis relevant requires an understanding of theory and practice, but also engagement with political and institutional structures, processes and systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".