Panel84:NewDirectionsintheStudyofPublicPolicy

PublicPolicyasaFieldofResearch

DrLindaBotterill*
ProfessorinAustralianPublicPolicy
FacultyofBusiness,Government&Law
UniversityofCanberra
E:Linda.Botterill@canberra.edu.au

DrAlanFenna
ProfessorofPolitics
TheJohnCurtinInstituteofPublicPolicy
CurtinUniversity
Perth,WesternAustralia
a.fenna@curtin.edu.au

*Correspondingauthor

PublicPolicyasaFieldofResearch

Recentscholarshipandpracticehasreinforcedtheimageofpublicpolicyasanamorphous
fieldofresearch.Thispaperwillchallengethatcharacterisation,whichweargueisunfairly
dismissive of research and teaching that builds on the research traditions of Lasswell,
Lindblom, Wildavsky and others. The lack of recognition of the scholarly contribution of
publicpolicyisreinforcedbytheevidencebasedpolicydiscoursethatisparticularlystrong
inAustraliaandtheUKandwhichfocusesonresearchforpolicywhileignoringtheveryreal
contributions made in research about policy. This paper will explore what public policy
meansasafieldofresearch,howitmightbegivencoherence,andhowitshouldbesituated
visvisthecoredisciplinestowhichitismostcloselyrelated.Theobjectiveistoreinforce
thestatusofpublicpolicyasatheoreticallyinformed,researchbasedexercise,onethathas
important contributions to make both in practical terms to the policy process but also in
moreabstracttermstoourunderstandingofthefunctioningofliberaldemocraticsystems.

Arecentresearchevaluationexercise inAustraliasawawiderangeofscholarshipreportedunder
the Field of Research code designated Public Policy and Public Administration. In the Australian
classificationsystem,thiscodefitsunderStudiesinHumanSocietybutisseparatefromPolitical
Science. This categorisation caused some consternation among public policy scholars with
affiliationsandresearchfirmlybasedinpoliticalscience,andraisedsomequestionsaboutthestatus
of public policy scholarship, as the research reported emanated from a variety of disciplinary
traditions,manywithlittleconceptualunderstandingofthepolicyprocess.
Unfortunately,thisimageofpolicystudiesasaratherpromiscuousfieldhasbeenreinforced
by some guardians of the tradition themselves.In their introduction to the Oxford Handbook of
PublicPolicy,Goodin,ReinandMoran(2006,5)characterisethepublicpolicyfieldas:
amoodmorethanascience,alooselyorganizedbodyofpreceptsandpositionsratherthan
atightlyintegratedbodyofknowledge,moreartandcraftthangenuinescience.
The authors proceed to argue that public policy research is explicitly normative and
unapologetically prescriptive and has an action orientation (Goodin et al. 2006, 6). These latter
characterisations reflect the description of the policy sciences proposed by Lasswell (1951) and
reiteratedbyothers(forexampledeLeonandMartell2006).Theformerstronglyimplytheabsence
ofanydisciplinarycharacteroracademicrigourinpolicystudies.
Wetakeissuewiththisdecidedlydismissivecharacterisationofpublicpolicyscholarshipasa
moodorartandcraftandtheassumptionsnestedtherein.Whiletheartandcraftreferenceis
clearlyanodtoWildavsky(1979),thesuggestionthatpolicystudiesarefundamentallyunlikethose
disciplines with a body of precepts or with a tightly integrated body of knowledge begs the
obviousquestionsofquitewhichsocialsciencedisciplinesdisplayanythinglikethosequalities.The

~2~

comparator for public policy is not clear and we struggle to identify any area within the social
sciencesthatcanbehonestlydescribedasconstitutingatightlyintegratedbodyofknowledge.The
claimthatpolicystudieslackadisciplinarycharacterisatleastacoherentproposition.Bycontrast,it
isdifficulttomakeanysenseoutofthesuggestionthatthefieldismerelyamood;whatcanthis
possibly mean? Finally, while the accusation that public policy is unapologetically prescriptive is
accurate in respect of one component of public policy research, it is quite incorrect as a
generalisationacrossthefield.
Inrecentyearswehaveseentheriseoftheevidencebasedpolicymovementandgrowing
literaturesinareassuchasknowledgeutilisationinthepolicyprocess;theapparentgapbetween
researchandpolicy;theneedforboundaryridersandknowledgebrokers;andaspirationsfora
newdisciplineofIntegrationandImplementationSciences(Bammer2005).Theseresearchareas
appeartobeemergingoutofafrustrationonthepartofresearchersthattheyarespeakingtruthto
powerbutpower(forsomereasonunbeknownsttothosefrustratedresearchers)isnotlistening.
Equally,policymakersexpressconcernaboutthecommunicationgapbetweenresearchandpolicy
and the challenges of accessing sound research for the policy process (see for example Australian
Government 2012). These debates are a source of frustration for policy researchers but for a
completelydifferentreason.Thefrustrationarisesbecausetherealreadyexistsaresearchdiscipline
withahistoryofoversixdecadesthatcanexplainwhypowerissometimesselectivelydeaf,andyet
thisworkisapparentlybeingoverlooked.

TheGenealogyoftheField
ThefoundationalworkinpublicpolicyisHaroldLasswellsmanifestoThePolicyOrientation(1951).
WrittenintheaftermathoftheSecondWorldWar,thispiecereflectsadesireforacademicresearch
to be socially useful. The historical context of this work is important as it explains some of the
idealism in Lasswells vision: an increasingly democratic world that took full advantage of the
researchandcapacitiesofitsbestandbrightestandappliedthesetotherangeofcomplexhuman
problemsfacingpolicymakersoftheday.
As part of this vision, Lasswell (1951, 3) described the emergence of a policy orientation
amongresearchers.
The orientation is twofold. In part it is directed toward the policy process, and in part
towardtheintelligenceneedsofpolicy.Thefirsttask,whichisthedevelopmentofascience
ofpolicyformingandexecutionusesthemethodsofsocialandpsychologicalinquiry.The
second task, which is the improving of the concrete content of the information and the
interpretations available to policymakers, typically goes outside the boundaries of social
scienceandpsychology.

~3~

Hewentontopropose(1951,4)that
We may use the term policy sciences for the purpose of designating the content of the
policyorientationduringanygivenperiod.Thepolicysciencesincludes(1)themethodsby
which the policy process is investigated, (2) the results of the study of policy, and (3) the
findingsofthedisciplinesmakingthemostimportantcontributionstotheintelligenceneeds
ofthetime.
Since the articulation of Lasswells aspirations for policy research, the discipline has
experienced waves of vitality interspersed with periods of reduced activity and influence. These
fluctuations have been linked with similar fluctuations in the level of vigorous debate about the
rightfulroleofgovernment.Lasswellscontributionemergedinaperiodofpostwarreconstruction
and high hopes for democratisation and liberalisation across the globe values explicitly
acknowledged in The Policy Orientation. The arguably positivist assumptions that flowed from
Lasswells vision (which are being reprised in contemporary EBPM debates) were critiqued by
Lindblom and formed the basis of lively academic debate (for example Arrow 1964; Dror 1964;
Etzioni 1967) The Great Society programs of the 1960s in the US inspired the seminal work of
PressmanandWildavsky(1973).LikewiseinAustralia,policystudieswerereinvigoratedduringthe
Hawke and Keating governments. As a subdiscipline, do we need to wait for a change in the
politicalenvironmenttoonceagainberelevantandvigorous?

Ispublicpolicypoliticalscience?
Inordertoprovidepublicpolicywiththeanalyticalfocusitseemstobelacking,perhapsitneedsa
disciplinary home. Authors such as Pielke and Weller argue against such anchoring of research.
Pielke(2005,216)deploresmeaninglessdebatesastowhetherthepolicysciences...areasubsetof
thisorthatdiscipline,whileWeller(1980,500)statesthat
publicpolicyshouldbekeptoutofthehandsofanysinglediscipline.Neithereconomicsnor
law nor public administration nor political science has all the answers; the problems of
governmentaretoogreatforpublicpolicytobethesubjectofproprietorialfightsindistant
ivorytowers.
We disagree on both counts and believe that these conversations are necessary and far from
meaningless.Partofthereasonthatpublicpolicyisstrugglingwithitsidentity,andconsequently
losingouttoeconomicsinitsaccesstopolicydecisionmakers,isthatwehavenotbeensufficiently
assertiveinidentifyingitsdisciplinaryrootsanditsclaimstoaresearchtradition.
Itisourviewthatpublicpolicyispoliticalscience.Thepublicpolicyprocessisthebusiness
endofpolitics;itishowleadersachievetheirpoliticalobjectives,governmentsdotheirwork.When
Easton(1953)writesofpoliticsastheauthoritativeallocationofvalues,thereisadirectimplication
ofpolicyaction.Policyispoliticsinaction;itistheraisondtreofgovernment.Theelementsofthe

~4~

policyprocessthatwestudyarepolitical;forexample,weareinterestedintheimpactofinterest
groups,orinstitutionallegacies,orpublicopiniononpoliticsasreflectedinpolicyoutcomes.There
is also a very large degree of overlap between political science theory and the theoretical
frameworksemployedinpublicpolicyresearch.Boundedrationality,institutionalanalyses,rational
choicetheory,andsoonareallpartoftheanalyticaltoolkitofpoliticalscientistsandpublicpolicy
scholarsalike.Theodoulou(2013,1)notesthat
Reading the classical texts in political theory, it would not be hard to argue that theorists
havealwaysbeeninterestedinanalysingwhatgovernmentdoesandwhattheyshoulddoto
remedycertainproblemsfacingthepolity.Inshort,muchofthepoliticaltheorycanonisa
discussionofpolicyinsomeform.
HarkingbacktoLasswellsdreamofharnessingthefruitsofhumaningenuityandresearch
to address the problems facing human societies, we have no problem with the use of research
acrossawiderangeofdisciplinesandresearchtraditionsforpolicypurposes.Therecentworkon
public policy described above has resulted in two components to the body of research for policy:
processoriented research that is concerned with improving the policy process (for example,
introducingmorerationalprocesses);andcontentorientedresearch,orpolicyanalysisfocusedon
informingpolicy(betterqualityinputswillproducebetterpolicyoutcomes).Thesearebothevident
inLasswells1951chapter.Contemporarypublicpolicyscholarsdomorethanthisweundertake
bothresearchforpolicyandresearchaboutpolicy.Thelatterendeavourprovidesuswithadeep
andrichunderstandingofthepathologies,limitationsandchallengesoftheprocessofpolicymaking
and,inourview,requiresthetheoriesandmethodologiesofpoliticalscience.Theelementofpolicy
studies that we are characterising as research about policy is implicit in Lasswells work but not
addressedindetail.Itisthisworkthatiscurrentlythepoorcousininpublicpolicyresearch.Onthis
pointwedisagreewithEtzioni(1971,8)whoarguedthatresearchthatwewouldcharacteriseasfor
policyisthemostundernourished;inourviewitisthepublicpolicyresearchthathedescribesas
basicthatrequiresafeedandsomeattention.Withoutresearchaboutpolicy,researchforpolicy
canbehopelesslynaveandunrealistic.Thisisatthebasisofourconcernwiththeevidencebased
policymovement.Thefraughtrelationshipbetweentheresearchworldparticularlythatofthe
naturalsciencesandthepolicyworld,canbetracedinlargeparttotheidealistic,rationalviewof
thepolicyprocessheldbymanyintheresearchcommunity.Theearlyworkinthepolicysciences
and the unfortunate persistence of the stages heuristic have contributed to a positivism in policy
analysisthathasoutliveditsusefulnessinotherfieldsofsocialscience(Amy1984).
Peter John (1998, 12) argues that Public policy seeks to explain the operation of the
politicalsystemasawhole.Thatisitsmaincontributiontopoliticalscience.Hegoesontomake
the greater claim that Because of the depth of policy studies, the subject has the capability to

~5~

transformboththetopicsandthemethodsofpoliticalscience.Publicpolicyprovidestherealworld
laboratory in which political scientific and theoretic approaches can be tested, from practical
analytical frameworks to grand theory. The central theme of Johns book is that the insights of
politicalscienceneedtobebroughtmoretothecentreofthestudyofpolicy(John1998,11).
Politicalscienceprovidesthecontextandthetheoreticalapproachesforourstudyofpolicy
development. At the heart of the public policy endeavour is relevance, the so what? question,
whichtosomeextentdifferentiatesusfrommainstreampoliticalsciencebutshouldnotdivorceus
fromourrelationshipwithpoliticalscience.PetersandPierre(2006,8)posethequestionwhether
the [disciplinary] eclecticism that has characterized the development of this area of study in the
pastwillpersist,orwhethertherewillbethedevelopmentofaparadigmforpolicystudies.They
express a preference for continued eclecticism. We are inclined to disagree, suggesting that
anchoring research about policy in political science does not diminish the contribution of other
perspectivestoresearchforpolicy;butitmayservetoenhancethecoherenceandsignificanceof
our research efforts. While the need for different disciplinary perspectives is true of research for
policy,itisthetypeofambiguitywithrespectofresearchaboutpolicythathasledtothetendency
ofacademicswithlittleunderstandingofthepolicyprocessandnoappreciationoflargertheoretical
questionstoclaimthattheydopublicpolicyscholarship.
Wehaveexpressedourunderstandingoftherelationshipbetweenpoliticalscience,policy
studies and cognate disciplines in Figure One. In our view political science provides the analytical
anchorforpolicystudieswhileotherdisciplinaryperspectivesareclearlycriticaltotheprovisionof
adviceoncomplexsocialissues.

EVIDENCE FOR POLICY

Economics

Sociology
Anthropology

POLICY
STUDIES

POLITICAL SCIENCE
Theory
Methods

NaturalSciences
etc

FigureOne:Therelationshipbetweenpoliticalscience,policystudiesandcognatedisciplines.

~6~

Inadditiontothoseonthepublicpolicysideofthefencewhoseektodistancethefieldfrom
thedisciplineofpoliticalscience,oranydisciplineforthatmatter,therearethoseonthepolitical
sciencesidewhothinklikewise.WhenGoodinetal.expresstheviewthatpublicpolicyisamood
more than a science, a loosely organized body of precepts and positions rather than a tightly
integrated body of knowledge, more art and craft than genuine science, they are implying that
publicpolicy doesnotmeetthe methodologicalstandardsofthediscipline. Withrespecttowhat
passesforpublicpolicyworkinmanyinstances,thismaywellbetrue;however,wecannotaccept
thatitisinanywaynecessarilytrue.Thereasonforthisisthatitgrosslyinflatesthemethodological
status of political science and creates a false polarity between methodologically rigorous and
methodologicallyloosefieldsofstudy.Asanextensiveliteraturehasnoted,politicalscienceitself
doesnotandprobablycannotevermeetthestandardsofagenuinescience.
Whilethepracticeofpublicpolicyisclearlyaninterdisciplinaryactivity,wesuggestthatitis
an identifiable subdiscipline in two senses. First, public policy has a research tradition and classic
textswe,andourstudents,shouldacknowledge,engagewith, and buildon. Asoneexample,we
wouldsuggestthatitwouldbehardtoclaimtobeapublicpolicyscholarwithoutbeingawareofthe
debates around incrementalism and rational comprehensiveness; these are fundamental to our
understandingofthepolicyprocess.Second,byvirtueofbothitssubjectmaterial(theactivityof
government) and its theoretical understandings, public policy is embedded in the discipline of
politicalscience.Thisisareciprocalrelationshipinthesensethatpublicpolicyexploressomeofthe
main questions of political science, deploying some of the main assumptions and propositions of
politicalsciencebutalsoprovidesacrucialvehicleforelaboratingandtestingthosepropositions.As
EllenImmergut(2006,557)hasnoted,policystudieshaveledtoaninstitutionalistinterpretationof
politics, and new theories about democratic governance. This captures a crucial aspect of public
policystudynotthatitnecessarilypromotesaninstitutionalistapproach,butthatithasbeena
powerfullyimportantcontributortotheconversationabouttheoriesofthestateinpoliticalscience.
Ifweacceptpublicpolicyasbeingpart,ifnotall,ofpoliticalscience,thereareclearlysome
close cognate disciplines without which public policy research would founder. These include
economics,sociology,politicalpsychologyandenvironmentalscience.They,andotherdisciplines,
have a role that is essential to strong public policy development and are thus crucial as part of
research for policy. Our argument is that the work in these areas, however, does not constitute
publicpolicyresearchintheabsenceofaconnectiontoanunderstandingofhowthepolicyprocess
operatesinotherwordswithoutreferencetoresearchaboutpolicy.Otherwise,thisresearchis
evidenceonwhichpublicpolicydraws.

~7~

Ourcolleaguesineconomicshaveverysuccessfullyestablishedtheirdisciplineasthevoice
ofrationality,knowledgeandwisdomwithrespecttopublicpolicy;deLeon(1994,82)referstothis
aseconomicsimperialism.Thismaybeinpartbecausethepositivismevidentinmucheconomic
policyresearchappealstotherationaldream.However,itisalsobecauseeconomicshassomething
definite to offer: a consensusbased analytic framework for comprehending the single most
importantquestionfacinggovernments.Inpublicpolicydebate,politicalscientistsandindeedall
socialscientistshavebeengazumpedbyeconomists.AsColebatch(2002,8384)putsit:
Rather than a distinct, interdisciplinary policy science taking root, there was a struggle
betweenpoliticalscienceandeconomicsforthesoulofpolicystudies;itcouldbesaidthat
politicalsciencewononcampus,buteconomicswoninthecorridorsofpower.
This dominance of economics is a lost opportunity for those of us who have developed a sound,
theoreticallyinformed,understandingofthepolicyprocessaswellasdeepsubjectknowledge,and
whowishtoinformpolicy.AsdeLeon(2006,48)notes,withoutaccesstotheearofpolicymakers,
thepolicyscienceslosetheirsinequanon.Therealityisthatthetheoreticalunderpinningsofthe
economicsdisciplinesimplifyandassumeawaymuchoftheessentialmessinessandcomplexityof
thesocialworld,thusdisqualifyingthedisciplineasageneralguidetopolicymaking.
Anchoring policy studies in political science also reminds us that policy making is an
inherentlypolitical,valueladenactivity.Oneoftheflawsofevidencebasedpolicymakingwasthe
attempttotaketheideologyoutofpolicymakingandtolettheevidenceprovidetheanswersto
policyproblems.Callstotakethepoliticsoutofpolicyisacommonrefrainamongcommentators
andinsomecases,publicservants.AsTorgerson(1986,34)argues:
Imagesfromanolddreamtendtodominateprofessionalthinkingaboutpublicpolicy.Itisa
dreamoftheabolitionofpoliticsofputtinganendtothestrifeandconfusionofhuman
societyinfavourofanorderlyadministrationofthingsbaseduponobjectiveknowledge.
Inordertoredressthisdesireforapoliticalpolicy,wecanonlyagreewithPeterJohn(1998,11)that
theinsightsofpoliticalscienceneedtobebroughtmoretothecentreofpublicpolicy.

Lasswellredux?
While public policy practice is clearly interdisciplinary and research for policy can emerge from a
range of disciplinary traditions, it is our argument that scholarship claiming to be public policy
research should be analytically informed and, preferably, contain reference to and build upon
theoreticaltraditionsthataregenerallyrecognisedasbelongingtopublicpolicyasafieldofstudy
withinpoliticalscience.Publicpolicyresearchthatisnormativeandprescriptivebutisnotbasedin

~8~

an understanding of the policy process can quickly be reduced to advocacy and opinion or
occasionallylittlemorethanbadjournalism.
Wewouldalsoliketomakeadistinctionbetweenpolicyanalysisandpolicystudies.Policy
analysisisthetaskofundertakingpolicyworkandanalysingpolicyinactionwhereaspolicystudies
are a step removed, applying conceptual frameworks to the observed functioning of the policy
process. To us, the important part of policy studies is the theoretically informed nature of the
understanding of the policy process. It is more than experiential; while policy practitioners have
much to contribute to our understanding of the policy process, their perspective is necessarily
personal and particular, unless it is informed by the researchbased insights of public policy
scholarship.
In our view, this is an important distinction and a symptom of the recent emphasis on
evidencebased policy. The aspirations of evidencebased policy making (EBPM) appear to be a
misguidedattempttorevivetherationalistdream.Inanicecritique,Parsons(2002,45)describes
theEBPMmovementasnotsomuchastepforwardasastepbackwards;areturntothequestfora
positivist yellow brick road somewhere, over Charles Lindblom (see also Boaz et al. 2008; Head
2010;BotterillandHindmoor2012).EBPMisbasedonanassumptionthatimprovingtheinputsinto
policy will result in better policy. It does not recognise that the policy process itself is messy,
contested and essentially political. Of relevance to the present discussion, we suggest that EBPM
hasunderminedpublicpolicyasadisciplinebyfocusingattentionalmostexclusivelyonresearchfor
policyandignoringthepotentialandexistingcontributionofresearchaboutpolicy.Everyoneisa
publicpolicyresearcherinthisworld.Itisalsoapparentthattheexistingresearchonthenatureof
thepolicyprocesshasbeenignoredbytheadvocatesofEBPM.
AcaseinpointistheinsightstobegainedfromLindblomsarticleTheScienceofMuddling
Through (1959), and prior to that Simons work on bounded rationality, which introduced some
realism into research about policy by questioning the substantive rationality implicit in Lasswells
conception of the policy sciences. Debate over the relative merits of incrementalism and rational
modelssuchasthepolicycyclehascontinuedonandoffoverthepast50years(forexampleArrow
1964; Dror 1964; Weiss and Woodhouse 1992; Gregory 1993; Woodhouse and Collingridge 1993;
BridgmanandDavis2003;Howard2005).Thedebatehaslargelybeenaboutthenormativeelement
ofhisargument,asthereisgeneralacceptanceofhisdescriptionofthelimitationsonpolicymakers
that prevent true rationality. Lindblom drew together a wealth of ideas that have since been
expandeduponbyscholarsacrosspublicpolicyandpoliticalscience.Hisconceptofincrementalism
as a mechanism for dealing with values conflicts in policy development had a later incarnation in
Thacher and Reins work (2004) on cycling. His watchdogs concept was articulated long before

~9~

Sabatiers (1988) advocacy coalitions and the large literature on policy communities and issue
networks(forexampleHeclo1978;RichardsonandJordan1979;AtkinsonandColeman1992;Marsh
and Rhodes 1992). Familiarity with and understanding of these concepts can assist policy
researchers to avoid making unrealistic and unattainable policy recommendations and can ensure
that policy research is relevant to the real world of policy making. One of the ironies of the
aspirationsofevidencebasedpolicyisthedesireonthepartofpolicymakerstofollowtheevidence
indevelopingpolicyoptionswhileatthesame timedealingwiththefrustrationnotedabovethat
researchersdonotunderstandtherealitiesandconstraintsofthepolicymakersworld.
Thereareofcourseotherexamplesofgroundbreakingcontributionstoourunderstanding
of public policy processes (for example Lowi 1969, on interest groups; Allison 1971, on
decisionmaking; Pressman and Wildavsky 1973, on implementation). An exhaustive list is clearly
beyondthescopeofthispaper.Whatistroubling,though,isthenumberofpublicpolicytextsthat
barelytouchontheworkofthesewriters.Ifourargumentisacceptedthatpolicystudiesneedto
embrace our theoretical and research traditions, there are implications for the teaching of public
policy.
Herbert Simon (1985, 301) noted of political science that we sometimes, perhaps,
experienceamildmalaiseinthatourresearchdoesnotseemtobetakingusinthedirectionofa
fewsweepinggeneralizationsthatencompassthewholeofpoliticalbehaviour.Ourpurposeinthis
paperwastodrawattentiontoatendencywethinkhasemergedinpublicpolicytoignore,dismiss
or fail to recognise that public policy has a variety of intellectual traditions that do provide the
discipline with a theoreticallyinformed research history and these can, and we believe should,
informcurrentresearch.Wewillneverhaveageneraltheory,butwedohaveaconnectedbodyof
knowledge, insights and theoretical propositions that can provide the basis for current and future
public policy research and ensure that our work is, and is seen to be, rigorous and intellectually
robust.Policyadviceemanatingfromresearchinstitutionsshoulddrawonexistingresearchandbe
placed within some form of analytical framework. It needs to be distinct from the opinions and
advocacy that rightly come from interest groups and other active participants in the political
process.

Concludingremarks
The rise of the evidencebased policy movement and the increasing need for research input into
policy responses to the complex problems facing modern Western democracies appears to have
overwhelmedbothacademiaand policymakersin confusionabouthow,andhowmuch, research
caninformpolicy.Intherushtoprovideevidenceforpolicy,wehavelostsightoftheimportanceof

~10~

understanding the way policy is made and how evidence is mediated through essentially political
processes. Collectively, we have unlearnt many of the lessons of 60 years of public policy
scholarship. The frustrations evident among scientists who seek to advise policy and decision
makerswhowantaccesstosoundexpertadviceinadigestibleform,suggestthatthereisstillspace
in the policy debate for those of us who combine research for with research about policy. The
challenge is regaining our position as experts with a valuable contribution to make based on
methodologicallysound,theoreticallyinformedresearch.

References
Allison,GrahamT(1971)Essenceofdecision:explainingtheCubanmissilecrisisBoston,LittleBrown

Amy,DouglasJ(1984)'Towardapostpositivistpolicyanalysis'PolicyStudiesJournal13:207211

Arrow, Kenneth J (1964) 'Review: A Strategy of Decision: Policy Evaluation as a Social Process By
DavidBraybrookeandCharlesELindblom'PoliticalScienceQuarterly79(4):584588

Atkinson, Michael Mand WilliamDColeman (1992)'Policy Networks,PolicyCommunities andthe

ProblemsofGovernance'Governance5(2):154180

Australian Government (2012) APS200 Project: The Place of Science in Policy Development in the
Public Service I Department of Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education Canberra,
CommonwealthofAustralia
http://www.innovation.gov.au/Science/Pages/APS200ProjectScienceinPolicy.aspx

Bammer, Gabriele(2005)'Integration andImplementationSciences:Building aNewSpecialization'

EcologyandSociety10(2)

Boaz,Annette,LesleyGrayson,RuthLevittandWilliamSolesbury(2008)'Doesevidencebasedpolicy
work?LearningfromtheUKexperience'EvidenceandPolicy4(2):23353

Botterill, Linda Courtenay and Andrew Hindmoor (2012) 'Turtles all the way down: Bounded
rationalityinanevidencebasedage'PolicyStudies33(5):367379

Bridgman, Peter and Glyn Davis (2003) 'What Use is a Policy Cycle? Plenty, if the Aim is Clear'
AustralianJournalofPublicAdministration62(3):98102

Colebatch,HK(2002)Policy(SecondEdition)Buckingham,OpenUniversityPress

deLeon,Peter(1994)'Reinventingthepolicysciences:Threestepsbacktothefuture'PolicySciences
27:7795

deLeon, Peter (2006) 'The Historical Roots of the Field' in M Moran, M Rein and RE Goodin, The
OxfordHandbookofPublicPolicyOxford,OxfordUniversityPress:3957

deLeon,PeterandChristineRMartell(2006)'ThePolicySciences:Past,Present,andFuture'inBG
PetersandJPierre,HandbookofPublicPolicyLondon,SagePublications:3149

~11~

Dror,Yehezkel(1964)'GovernmentDecisionMakingMuddlingThrough"Science"orInertia'Public
AdministrationReviewXXIV(3):153157

Easton, David (1953) The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science New York,
AlfredAKnopf

Etzioni, Amitai (1967) 'MixedScanning: A "Third" Approach to DecisionMaking' Public

AdministrationReviewXXVII(5):385392

Etzioni,Amitai(1971)'PolicyResearch'AmericanSociologist6(SupplementaryIssue)

Goodin,RobertE,MartinReinandMichaelMoran(2006)'ThePublicanditsPolicies'inMMoran,M
ReinandREGoodin,TheOxfordHandbookofPublicPolicyOxford,OxfordUniversityPress:335

Gregory,Robert(1993)'Politicalrationalityorincrementalism'inMHill,ThePolicyProcess:AReader
HemelHempstead,HarvesterWheatsheaf

Head, Brian (2010) 'Reconsidering EvidenceBased Policy: Key Issues and Challenges' Policy and
Society29:7794

Heclo,Hugh(1978)'IssueNetworksandtheExecutiveEstablishment'inAKing,TheNewAmerican
PoliticalSystemWashington,DC,AmericanEnterpriseInstituteforPublicPolicyResearch:87124

Howard,Cosmo(2005)'ThePolicyCycle:AModelofPostMachiavellianPolicyMaking?'Australian
JournalofPublicAdministration64(3):313

Immergut, Ellen M. (2006) 'Institutional Constraints on Policy' in M Moran, M Rein and R Goodin,
TheOxfordHandbookofPublicPolicyNewYork,OxfordUniversityPress:55771

John,Peter(1998)AnalysingPublicPolicyLondon,Pinter

Lasswell,HaroldD(1951)'ThePolicyOrientation'inDLernerandHDLasswell,ThePolicySciences
Stanford,StanfordUniversityPress:315

Lindblom,CharlesE(1959)'TheScienceof"MuddlingThrough"'PublicAdministrationReview19:79
88

Lowi,TheodoreJ(1969)Theendofliberalism;ideology,policy,andthecrisisofpublicauthorityNew
York,Norton

Marsh, David and R A W Rhodes, (Eds). (1992) Policy Networks in British Government Oxford,
ClarendonPress

Parsons,Wayne(2002)'FromMuddlingThroughtoMuddlingUpEvidenceBasedPolicyMakingand
theModernisationofBritishGovernment'PublicPolicyandAdministration17:4360

Peters, B Guy and Jon Pierre (2006) 'Introduction' in BG Peters and J Pierre, Handbook of Public
PolicyLondon,SagePublications:19

Pielke,RogerA.(2005)'WhatFutureforthePolicySciences?'PolicySciences37(34)

~12~

Pressman, Jeffrey L and Aaron Wildavsky (1973) Implementation: How Great Expectations in
WashingtonaredashedinOaklandBerkeley,UniversityofCaliforniaPress

Richardson, J J and A G Jordan (1979) Governing under pressure: the policy process in a post
parliamentarydemocracyOxford,Robertson

Sabatier, Paul (1988) 'An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy
orientedlearningtherein'PolicySciences21:129168

Simon,HerbertA(1985)'HumanNatureinPolitics:ADialogueofPsychologywithPoliticalScience'
AmericanPoliticalScienceReview79(2):293304

Thacher,DavidandMartinRein(2004)'ManagingValueConflictinPublicPolicy'Governance17(4):
457486

Theodoulou,StellaZ(2013)'TheContemporaryLanguageofPublicPolicy:StartingtoUnderstand'in
SZTheodoulouandMACahn,PublicPolicy:TheEssentialReadingsBoston,Pearson:111

Torgerson, Douglas (1986) 'Between knowledge and politics: Three faces of policy analysis' Policy
Sciences19(1):3359

Weiss,AndrewandEdwardWoodhouse(1992)'Reframingincrementalism:Aconstructiveresponse
tothecritics'PolicySciences25:255273

Weller,Patrick(1980)'TheStudyofPublicPolicy'AustralianJournalofPublicAdministration39(34):
499507

Wildavsky,AaronB(1979)Speakingtruthtopower:theartandcraftofpolicyanalysisBoston,Little
Brown

Woodhouse,EdwardJandDavidCollingridge(1993)'Incrementalism,IntelligentTrialandError,and
theFutureofPoliticalDecisionTheory'inHRedner,AnHereticalHeiroftheEnlightenment:Politics,
PolicyandScienceintheWorkofCharlesE.LindblomBoulder,WestviewPress