Hello,
In the mentioned article, Durning has summarized the Post-Positivist critique on Policy Analysts as "at best purveyors of ineffectual advice, and at worst, tools of tyranny". Although, the article goes on to call this criticism a "decontextualized caricature", but rejecting a point of view out of hand labeling it such has raised questions. The article goes on to say that Policy Analysts had come to be viewed as legitimate actors with defacto and dejure influences over political decisions.
1. How can they be "viewed" as legitimate with such powers and influence when there is no constitutional view about their legality?
2. Are we concerned about the Post-Positivist view? If we are, which we obviously are, why a detailed analysis of their view point has yet remained out of discussion?
3. Rivlen believed that Policy Analysts have probably done more to reveal how difficult the problem and choices were, rather than making decisions easy for the decision makers, if this is true for Policy Analysts, what is to be done to change that view?
hmm what exactly is post postivistic? what i understood from the article was that policy analysts only seem to be as put by Durning best purveyors
ReplyDeleteof ineffectual advice, and at worst, tools of tyranny.
This is what wikipedia says.
ReplyDeletePostpositivists believe that human knowledge is based not on unchallengeable, rock-solid foundations, but rather upon human conjectures. As human knowledge is thus unavoidably conjectural, the assertion of these conjectures is warranted, or more specifically, justified by a set of warrants, which can be modified or withdrawn in the light of further investigation. However, postpositivism is not a form of relativism, and generally retains the idea of objective truth.
Post Positivism is a meta-theoretical amendment to the philosophical view of Positivism, which is basically empiricism. That all knowledge is testable, and the unity of scientific knowledge.
ReplyDeletePost Positivism on the other hand, in addition to positivism, states that even though knowledge is based on surmises and not absolute truths, it is impossible to verify the truth in a belief (put forward by Karl Popper).
On the other hand, Kuhn talks about the paradigm shifts that we talked about in class, critiquing positivism, that the whole paradigm shifts if there is ample evidence.
A more detailed and informative response from Sir Moazzam would be better.
And I agree to Durning to quite a degree.
Kuhn did as pointed out weakened the conventional school of thought on positivism by facilitating the skepticism flowing towards it that realied rather heavily on scientific research. He argued that sciencific inquiry does not progress by a linear accumulation of new knowledge but is subject to expediant transformation phases which he called 'paradigm shifts'.Following this argument phiosophers and post positivistics like Kuhn and others declared the search for knowledge to be dependant on other methodologies such as the premis eof logic rather than scientific inquire in isolation.It was not labelled as an adversary but just one of many branches that could prompt breakthroughs.
ReplyDeleteIt was rather interesting to read Aaron Wildavsky ( founder of school of public policy at Berkely) to say that "Policy analysis must create problems that decision-makers are able to handle with
ReplyDeletethe variables under their control and in the time available". This kind of is one answer to the third question posed by you. We are not making their life hard by complicating the situation we are telling ' alienating'( which he calls creating I believe) the problem that needs utmost attention no?
Bit of a downer to know that I would be 'creating problems'for a career no :S
I agree. But Kuhn, being a Physicist, relayed his theory more towards the natural sciences. In his view, when a paradigm shift takes place in these sciences, it is a permanent shift, and a view towards a view held before is almost always rejected. Whereas, in social sciences, the possibility of the previous 'paradigm' and other such views, remain a realistic possibility.
ReplyDeletePolicy Analysis must 'create problems'? :S Are we not addressing problems that do exist already? Yes, the people in power might not be aware, or the problem might be given less attention than it deserves, but the problem is there.
ReplyDeleteAnd as per Rivlen, we are, in our rhetorical outburst, making the decision-making process more difficult by stating the complications in the process. Whether for good or bad.
No?
Humbly stating its not me labelling analysts as problem creators but the founder of berkely school of public policy:D I dont think i agree with him but then I dont with most, my apologies.However i do not agree that we are making the process more complicated either. Complications exist you could either jump into a situation with your eyes closed praying to God to let the force be with you or youc ould use your intellect to be totally aware of the situation before taking the leap.I believe the analyst is preparing and informing you before you make that leap.Sounds reasonable doesnt it?the ditches and the dead ends will be still be there , it is just that now you know what to avoid and where to go.
ReplyDeleteno?
and yes solid differentiation of Kuhns theories on positivism i didnt consider both the aspects thank you
ReplyDeleteHumbly stating, policy analysts making things complex is not my view either, rather of Alice Rivlin. A former Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve, currently on the BoD of the NY Exchange. :D
ReplyDeleteYes, policy analysts tell about the pitfalls present, but in their need of boldness that is required to be noticed (as per Rivlin again) they perhaps make things more complex. That is what I understood from what the former Cabinet official said.
Obviously, there is the other view of Policy Analysts helping the decision-making process and we all know that. But, no one ever talked about the dissenting voice here? Hence the question.
No?
And ofcourse, Mr. Wildavsky's view of Policy Analysts 'creating problems' is a rather interesting notion from the article.
ReplyDeleteYes the article seems to be leaning on the critique side of it frowning with all the muscles it can use and intellectually lethal deluge it could muster. Need some positives here about an analyst.Anyone?
ReplyDeleteRefer to que 3:
ReplyDeletePolicy analysis concentrates at first stage for problem definitaion because most of the times decision makers do not know what exactly the problem is, for which they are to decide. Policy analysis divides the problematic situation into tiny segments to have better understanding of their specifications. Then these segments are studied in an analytical way. Decision makers can say that this is time consuming or worthless activity but they do not know the actual root cause of problem. For decision makers it is more complicated than solving the problem at first sight but for policy analysts this process ease them to come to suitable solution with recommendations.
Social needs are always greater than resources, if decision makers make wrong deals on problems with out proper diagnosis than this can deprive many potential groups of society. I do not agree that policy analysis made decisions and choices more complex. In fact policy analysis facilatates decision makers to erupt the core problem with most suitable solution.
It will not be wrong to say that policy analysis is just like the labortary tests for the diagnosis of the disease and then recommendations.