Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dvora Yanow
Visiting Professor
Communication Studies Department
Wageningen University
Dvora.Yanow@wur.nl
other forms that sought to evaluate policies in light of their planning objectives
and budgetary allocations might be said to have worked well enough for
that social values, whether or not they were translatable into assessable
measurements, could be separated out from the realm of facts, which were so
it was assumed capable of being easily established. But when public policies
entailed competing values that were not reconcilable with the passage of
and, even more significantly, when the conceptual ground shifted concerning the
possible separation of values from facts and the ghettoization of the former
outside of the realm of policy analysis,1 some researchers, both academic and
practice-based, began to see that these tools did not always work well for
1
Hawkesworth, M. E., Theoretical issues in policy analysis, Albany, NY, SUNY Press,
1988; Rein, Martin, Social science and public policy, New York, Penguin, 1976.
2
were experienced as inadequate, to what might one turn for a more adequate
intended and stated purposes? Moreover, might policy purposes include other
Here is where interpretive policy analysis began. It took its name from
the interpretive turn in social sciences more broadly,2 which had begun to
develop at around the same time and which drew on ideas from a range of
human action.3 It also incorporated elements from various other turns that
became central to social scientific thinking in the latter part of the 20th century:
the linguistic turn,4 the historical turn,5 the metaphoric turn,6 the practice turn,7
2
Geertz, Clifford, The interpretation of cultures, New York, Basic Books, 1973; Hiley,
David R., Bohman, James F., and Shusterman, Richard., eds., The interpretive turn:
Philosophy, science, culture, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1991; Rabinow, Paul,
and William M. Sullivan, eds., Interpretive social science, Berkeley, University of
California Press, 1979, 2nd ed. 1985.
3
See Hawkesworth, loc. cit., for a detailed critique.
4
Fraser, Nancy, Pragmatism, feminism, and the linguistic turn, in Seyla Benhabib,
Judith Butler, Drucilla Cornell, and Nancy Fraser, eds., Feminist contentions, New York,
Routledge, 1995, 157-72.
5
McDonald, Terrence J., ed., The historic turn in the human sciences, Ann Arbor, MI,
University of Michigan, 1996.
3
the pragmatist turn,8 and so forth. At the same time that it tak[es] language
media.
6
Lorenz, Chris, Can histories be true? Narrativism, positivism, and the metaphorical
turn, History and Theory, 37, 1998, 30930.
7
Schatzki, Theodore R., Karin Knorr-Cetina, Karin, and Eike von Savigny, Eike von, eds.,
The practice turn in contemporary theory, New York, Routledge, 2001.
8
White, Stephen K., The very idea of a critical social science: A pragmatist turn, in Fred
Rush, ed., The Cambridge companion to critical theory, New York, Cambridge University
Press, 2004, 31035.
9
White, Jay D., Taking language seriously: Toward a narrative theory of knowledge for
administrative research, American Review of Public Administration, 22, 1992, 7588.
10
Taylor, Charles, Interpretation and the sciences of man, Review of Metaphysics, 25,
1971, 351; see also Ricoeur, Paul, The model of the text, Social Research, 38, 1971,
52962.
11
Colebatch, Hal K., Organizational meanings of program evaluation, Policy Sciences,
1995, 18/2: 149-64.
12
Freeman, Richard, Learning by meeting, Critical Policy Analysis 2/1, 2008, 1-24;
Yanow, op. cit., 1996, chapter 7.
13
Yanow, Dvora, Built space as story: The policy stories that buildings tell, Policy
Studies Journal, 23/3, 1995, 407-22.
14
Dubois, Vincent, Towards a critical policy ethnography: Lessons from fieldwork on
welfare control in France, Critical Policy Studies, 3/2, 2009, 22139; van Hulst, Merlijn
J., Quite an experience: Using ethnography to study local governance, Critical Policy
Analysis, 2/2, 2008, 143-59.
4
legislatures and courts, began to use policies ever more actively as social change
instruments (consider, for example, the civil rights policies attacking entrenched,
academy, the policy sciences and policy analysis emerged out of a disciplinary
15
On the former, see Yanow, Dvora, Constructing race and ethnicity in America:
Category-making in public policy and administration, Armonk, NY, M E Sharpe, 2003; on
whaling, Epstein, Charlotte, Power of words in international relations: Birth of an anti-
whaling discourse, Cambridge, MIT Press, 2008.
16
Parts of this section were adapted from Narrative and practice in public policy
analysis, presented at the International Conference on Narrative & Metaphor across the
Disciplines, Auckland NZ, 8-10 July 1996.
5
making falling in the domain of the legislative branch17 initially restricted the
Redmans empirical case study of the crafting of the National Health Service
Department of Defense (DoD), which began in 1960, various analytic tools were
developed which later became central to the new field of policy analysis. Under
the heading of systems analysis, which saw its initial development in the US
modes of analyzing proposed policies. Such analytic tools entered the academic
uncommon, for instance, even into the 1980s (and later, following those works),
to find both policy developers and academics talking about people as the
targets of public policies.19 That unfortunate term suggests that the only
17
For a brilliant treatment of US legislative politics and processes of making policy,
including the role of the President, see Redman, Eric, The dance of legislation, Seattle,
University of Washington Press, 2001 [orig. 1973].
18
Idem.
19
Sapolsky, Harvey M., The Polaris system development: Bureaucratic and programmic
success in government, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1972; Schneider, Anne
and Ingram, Helen, Social construction of target populations, American Political Science
Review, 87, 1983, 334-47.
6
lobbyists, implementers, and the like. The metaphor positions those on the
receiving end of policy decisions as sitting ducks just waiting for policy solutions
to hit them, like the missiles of McNamaras DoD.20 Such a formulation denies
them agency over their own acts and the legitimacy of their local knowledge of
the circumstances and contexts of those acts. That top-down theoretical and
forerunners of the Great Society programmes, including the Peace Corps and its
domestic counterpart, VISTA). These, for all their social justice concerns and
good intentions, defined the good in ways that denied policy recipients
expertise in their own local knowledge and their own agency.21 Even the
knowledge into policy processes, was later critiqued for its frequent top-down
20
DeHaven-Smith also comments on the missile imagery of social policies; Error! Main
Document Only.DeHaven-Smith, Lance, Philosophical critiques of policy analysis.
Gainesville, University of Florida Press, 1988.
21
This pattern continues in some of the recent social constructionist treatments in policy
analysis which see policy targets themselves, rather than policy-makers and others
ideas about policy recipients, as socially constructed. For a critique of the widespread
inclination to treat objects as social constructions, rather than seeing that it is the ideas
about those things that are socially constructed that is, of substituting a noun for what
should be a verb and a process see Ian Hacking, The social construction of what?
Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1999.
22
E.g., Arnstein, Sherry R., A ladder of citizen participation, Journal of the American
Institute of Planners 35/4, 1969, 21624.
7
early 1970s to include agenda-setting on the front end of the process and
implementation on its back end. The policy process was still conceived of in a
on the actions through which policy ideas were put into practice, assessing the
analyses sought to account for the failures of public policies to do what they
were supposed to, largely out of a normative sense that those policies the
Great Society programs and their successors should be, and needed to be,
successful, given their social justice aims.24 Failures were seen as deriving from
poor policy design (either a logic of problem solution that was erroneous or
23
Pressman, Jeffrey L. and Wildavsky, Aaron, Implementation: How great expectations
in Washington are dashed in Oakland; Or, why it's amazing that federal programs work
at all, this being a saga of the Economic Development Administration as told by two sympathetic
observers who seek to build morals on a foundation of ruined hopes, Berkeley, University of
California Press, 1973. The literature in policy implementation is fairly extensive. For a
collection of essays that chart the development of thinking in the field, see Error! Main
Document Only.Palumbo, Dennis J. and Calista, Donald J., eds., Implementation and
the policy process, New York, Greenwood Press, 1990.
24
See, e.g., Robert S. Weiss and Martin Rein, The evaluation of broad-aim programs:
Experimental design, its difficulties, and an alternative, Administrative Science
Quarterly, 15/1, 1970, 97-109.
8
question, also from the US of the 1970s: If we can get a man on the moon,
implementation and rendering them invisible. The model of the policy process
that emerged, based on this separation of politics and power from organizational
assumed that legislative intent is (or should be) capable of being made clear and
known; that language itself is capable of being made transparent (with respect
25
Public policies are primarily implemented by organizations, and these analyses largely
reflected theoretical developments in organizational studies. Implementation failures
have been sourced to structural impediments (improper bureaucratic design); problems
in human relations (insufficient incentives to motivate personnel); systems constraints
(the structural problems of an intergovernmental system that bridges national and local
levels of government); and political dimensions (reflecting the exigencies of coalition-
building across stakeholders). See Error! Main Document Only.Yanow, Dvora,
Tackling the implementation problem: Epistemological issues in policy implementation
research, in Dennis J. Palumbo and Donald J. Calista, eds., Implementation and the
policy process, New York, Greenwood Press, 1990, 213-27.
26
See, e.g., Nelson, Richard R., Intellectualizing about the moon-ghetto metaphor: A
study of the current malaise of rational analysis of social problems, Policy Sciences 5/4,
1974, 375-414; Nelson, Richard R., The moon and the ghetto, New York, W. W. Norton,
1977. This concern has apparently not abated: while writing this article, I stumbled
upon a 2007 newspaper column reporting on Nelsons later research on the topic with
Daniel Sarewitz; see Caruso, Denise, Knowledge is power only if you know how to use
it, The New York Times (11 March 2007),
www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/business/yourmoney/11frame.html (accessed 6 April
2011).
27
Shore, Cris and Wright, Susan, Conceptualising policy, in Cris Shore, Susan Wright,
and Davide Per, eds., Policy worlds, Oxford, Berghahn, 2011, 1-25.
9
to its referent) and unambiguous; and that the policy process (meaning from
legislate policies that are incapable of being implemented, nor should they.
and other decision-makers, many of whom held positions in Washington, DC, the
practitioners themselves admitted that their worlds did not operate in such
point seems the same political, organizational, and conceptual innocence and
28
Redman, op cit., 304.
10
analyzing public policies. The added chapters in the 1984 third edition of
their political dimensions. Other work building on that critique, as well as other
and observed, rather than as theorized absent empirical input, policies that were
29
Lipsky, Michael, Street-level bureaucracy, New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 1980;
Prottas, Jeffrey M., People-processing, Lexington, MA, D.C. Heath, 1979; Weatherley,
Richard, Reforming special education, Cambridge, MIT Press, 1979. For two recent
studies that extend the theorizing, see Maynard-Moody, Steven and Musheno, Michael,
Cops, teachers, counselors: Stories from the front lines of public service, Ann Arbor,
University of Michigan Press, 2003, and Dubois, Vincent, La vie au guichet, Paris,
Economica, 1999 [English translation, The bureaucrat and the poor, London, Ashgate,
2010]. From a somewhat different angle, see Stein, Sandra J., The culture of education
policy, New York, Teachers College Press, 2004.
30
Lipsky, Michael, Standing the study of public policy implementation on its head, in
Walter Dean Burnham and Martha Weinberg, eds., American politics and public policy,
Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1978, 391-402.
11
(given particular structural constraints), and through these acts the latter were
with respect to what bureaucracy and other organizational theorists had argued
another source, the so-called interpretive turn across the social sciences:
conceptual and philosophical works developing along parallel lines at the same
31
In political theory, for instance, see Edelman, Murray, The symbolic uses of politics,
Urbana, University of Illinois, 1964; Edelman, Murray, Politics as symbolic action,
Chicago, Markham, 1971; Fay, Brian, Social theory and political practice, Boston, George
Allen & Unwin, 1975; Taylor, loc. cit.
32
Geertz, loc. cit.; Brown, Richard Harvey, Social theory as metaphor, Theory and
Society, 3, 1976, 16997; Gusfield, Joseph R., The culture of public problems: Drinking-
driving and the symbolic order, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1981; Rabinow and
Sullivan, loc. cit.
33
E.g., Bernstein, Richard J., The restructuring of social and political theory,
Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1976; Bernstein, Richard J., Beyond
objectivism and relativism, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983;
Polkinghorne, Donald, Methodology for the human sciences, Albany, SUNY Press, 1983;
Polkinghorne, Donald, Narrative knowing and the human sciences, Albany, SUNY Press,
1988; McCloskey, Donald, The rhetoric of economics, Madison, University of Wisconsin
Press, 1985; Fish, Stanley, Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive
communities, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1983. An account of this intellectual
genealogy would be remiss without mentioning two other works: Kuhn, Thomas S., The
structure of scientific revolutions, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2nd ed., 1970
[1962], which started many thinking about the ways in which scientific discoveries are
made and the role of epistemic communities in that ideas that encapsulate the two
meanings of paradigm in the work, parallel to understandings of the hermeneutic circle
as both a way of knowing and the interpretive community that follows that logic of
inquiry (see also Postscript1969 in the 2nd ed., 174-210, or Kuhn, Thomas S., Second
thoughts on paradigms, in The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition
and change, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1979); and Berger, Peter L. and
Luckmann, Thomas, The social construction of reality, New York, Doubleday, 1966,
which introduced phenomenological ideas and the notion of social constructionism (or
12
the potential for multiple possible interpretations of lived social realities, which
turn,35 which, among other things, counters the denial of agency to those on the
receiving end of policies. That move has, for several theorists, re-linked policy
constructivism; the terms are used differently in different disciplines) to the English-
reading academy.
34
In Policy Sciences: Ascher, William, Editorial, Policy Sciences 20, 1987, 3-9; Brunner,
Ronald D., The policy sciences as science, Policy Sciences 15, 1982, 115-35; Brunner,
Ronald D., Key political symbols, Policy Sciences 20, 1987, 53-76; Dryzek, John S.,
Policy analysis as a hermeneutic activity, Policy Sciences 14, 1982, 309-29; Healy, Paul,
Interpretive policy inquiry, Policy Sciences 19, 1986, 381-96; Torgerson, Douglas,
Contextual orientation in policy analysis, Policy Sciences 18, 1985, 241-61; Torgerson,
Douglas, Between knowledge and politics, Policy Sciences 19, 1986, 33-59; Torgerson,
Douglas, Interpretive policy inquiry, Policy Sciences 19, 1986, 307-405. Elsewhere, see
DeHaven-Smith, loc. cit.; Fox, Charles J., Biases in public policy implementation
evaluation, Policy Studies Review 7/1, 1987, 128-41; Fox, Charles J., Implementation
research, in Dennis J. Palumbo and Donald J. Calista, eds., Implementation and the
policy process, New York, Greenwood, 1990, 199-212; Goodsell, Charles T., The social
meaning of civic space, Lawrence, University Press of Kansas, 1988; Hawkesworth, loc.
cit.; Jennings, Bruce, Interpretive social science and policy analysis, in Daniel Callahan
and Bruce Jennings, eds., Ethics, the social sciences, and policy analysis, New York,
Plenum, 1983, 3-35; Jennings, Bruce, Interpretation and the practice of policy analysis,
in Frank Fischer and John Forester, eds., Confronting values in policy analysis, Newbury
Park, CA, Sage, 1987, 128-52; Maynard-Moody, Steven and Stull, Donald, The symbolic
side of policy analysis, in Frank Fischer and John Forester, eds., Confronting values in
policy analysis, Newbury Park, CA, Sage, 1987, 248-65; Rein, Martin and Schon, Donald
A., Problem setting in policy research, in Carol Weiss, ed., Using social research in
policy making, Lexington, MA, Lexington Books, 1977, 23551; Yanow, Dvora, Toward a
policy culture approach to implementation, Policy Studies Review, 7/1, 1987, 103-15.
35
See, e.g., Fischer, Frank and Forester, John, eds., The argumentative turn in policy
analysis and planning, Durham, NC, Duke University Press, 1993; Hajer, Maarten A. and
Wagenaar, Hendrik, eds., Deliberative policy analysis, New York, Cambridge University
Press, 2003.
36
Dryzek, John S., Discursive democracy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,
1990; Schneider, Anne Larason and Ingram, Helen. Policy design for democracy,
13
viewed as texts, with implementers, clients, potential clients, and other policy-
relevant publics, near and far, as readers of these texts. Still, policy analysis
strong desire on the part of most analysts to move beyond identification and
of practitioners and the specific practices that are entailed in the communication
theorists also want to establish grounds for intervention in order to improve the
both its expression and its communication. They seek to take into account the
38
Error! Main Document Only.Hajer, Maarten, Discourse coalitions and the
institutionalization of practice, in Frank Fischer and John Forester, eds., The
argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning, Durham, NC, Duke University Press,
1993, 43-76; Yanow, Dvora, ed., Practices of policy interpretation, Policy Sciences, 29,
1995, 111-26; Freeman, Richard, Griggs, Steven, and Boaz, Annette, eds., The practice
of policy-making, Special Issue, Evidence & policy, 7/2, 2011, 127-227.
39
Taylor, loc. cit.; Yanow, Dvora, The communication of policy meanings:
Implementation as interpretation and text, Policy Sciences, 26, 1993, 41-61.
40
For an extensive overview of this area, see Greenwood, Davydd and Levin, Morten,
Introduction to action research, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, 2006 [1998].
14
asks not only what a policy means a context-specific question about a specific
policy but also how policies mean questions about the processes by which
language, clearly, but also acts and the objects drawn on and/or referenced in
cognitive linguistics, we might say that this focus on how leads to a multimodal
have shifted attention from the search for (and belief in the promise of finding)
one correct policy formulation (correct in its definition of the policy problem, a
narrative which entails the seeds for problem resolution) to engage, instead, the
41
Polanyi, Michael, The tacit dimension, New York, Doubleday, 1966.
42
Yanow, loc. cit., 1993; Yanow, Dvora, How does a policy mean? Interpreting policy
and organizational actions, Washington, DC, Georgetown University Press, 1996.
43
On multimodality in cognitive linguistics, see Mller, Cornelia, Metaphors dead and
alive, sleeping and waking, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2008. And this leads
further to the mapping for exposure and intertextuality that characterizes interpretive
methodologies and methods more broadly; see Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine and Yanow,
Dvora, Interpretive research design: Concepts and processes, New York, Routledge,
2012.
15
Rein and Schon argued in respect of policy framing.44 Language, objects, and
acts that are symbolic that is, which represent underlying meanings (values,
legitimize local knowledge. Associated methods generate data through the close
44
Rein and Schon, loc. cit.; Schn, Donald A. and Rein, Martin, Frame reflection: Toward
the resolution of intractable policy controversies, New York, Basic Books, 1994.
45
For a suggestive, but not exhaustive list of some two dozen analytic methods, see
Yanow, Dvora and Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine, eds., Interpretation and method: Empirical
research methods and the interpretive turn, Armonk, NY, M E Sharpe, 2006, xx.
46
For a cognitive linguistics approach, see Error! Main Document Only.Lakoff, George
16
interpretive policy analysis, building on the work of Martin Rein and Donald
controversies are often so not because of failures in policy design, but instead
because of the particular way that the policy issue itself has been framed.48
and Johnson, Mark, Metaphors we live by, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1980;
Lakoff, George, The contemporary theory of metaphor, in Andrew Ortony, ed.,
Metaphor and thought, 2nd ed., New York, Cambridge University Press, 1993, 202-51.
More recent work in this area looks at conceptual blending and multimodal metaphor;
see Mller, loc. cit. For applications to policy, see Miller, Donald F., Social policy: An
exercise in metaphor, Knowledge 7, 1985, 191-215; Error! Main Document
Only.Schon, Donald A., Generative metaphor, in Andrew Ortony, ed., Metaphor and
thought, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1979, 254-83 (also in 2nd ed., 1993);
Yanow, Dvora, Supermarkets and culture clash: The epistemological role of metaphors
in administrative practice, American Review of Public Administration 22, 1992, 89-109;
see also Edelman, Murray, Political language, New York, Academic Press, 1977; Carver,
Terrell and Pikalo, Jernej, eds., Political language and metaphor, London, Routledge,
2008.
47
On categories, see Keeler, Rebecca, Analysis of logic: Categories of people in U.S.
HIV/AIDS policy, Administration & Society 39/5, 2007, 612-30; Lakoff, George, Women,
fire, and dangerous things, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1987; Yanow, loc.
cit., 2003. On stories, see Forester, John, Learning from practice stories: The priority of
practical judgment, in Fischer, Frank and John Forester, eds., The argumentative turn in
policy analysis and planning, Durham, NC, Duke University Press, 1993, 186-209; van
Hulst, Merlijn, Town hall tales: Culture as storytelling in local government, Delft, Eburon,
2008; Yanow, Dvora, Error! Main Document Only.Public policies as identity stories:
American race-ethnic discourse, in Tineke Abma, ed., Telling tales: On narrative and
evaluation, Stamford, CT, JAI Press, 1999, 29-52. On narrative, Error! Main
Document Only.Kaplan, Thomas J., Reading policy narratives, in Frank Fischer and
John Forester, eds., The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning, Durham,
NC, Duke University Press, 1993, 167-85; RoeError! Main Document Only., Emery,
Narrative policy analysis, Durham, NC, Duke University Press, 1994.
48
Rein and Schon, loc. cit.; Schn and Rein, loc. cit. See also Abolafia, Mitchel Y.,
Framing moves: Interpretive politics at the Federal Reserve, Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 14, 2004, 349-70; Linder, Steven H., Contending
discourses in the electromagnetic fields controversy, Policy Sciences 18/2, 1995, 209-
30; Schmidt, Ronald, Sr., Value-critical policy analysis: The case of language policy in
the United States, in Dvora Yanow and Peregrine Schwartz-Shea, eds., Interpretation
and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn, Armonk, NY, M.E.
Sharpe, 2006, 300-15; Swaffield, Simon, Contextual meanings in policy discourse: A
case study of language use concerning resource policy in the New Zealand high country,
Policy Sciences, 31, 1998, 199224.
17
various sorts.49
ethnographic analysis of the various groups involved might be drawn on, adding
built in to positivist modes of policy analysis: it highlights the social reality that
policy processes may also be an avenue for human expressiveness (of identity,
highways; and federal law, which regulates traffic on those roadways, takes
view, they can be understood as embodying stories each polity tells itself and
other publics, near and far, about its identity its values and beliefs, what is
49
See, e.g., Howarth, David J., Discourse, Buckingham, Open University Press, 2000;
Epstein, loc. cit., 2008.
50
There is nothing to suggest that expressive acts cannot also be instrumental (or vice
versa). Raymond Nairn (personal communication, July 1996) related the example of
how a campaign that included hanging anti-nuclear signs on numerous homes, streets,
schools, and offices across New Zealand influenced then-newly-elected Prime Minister
David Lange's decision to change his stance on the matter, with a subsequent change in
national policy.
18
Thirdly, language and acts also often refer to or use objects in the
For such data, analysis might focus on the ways in which programmatic activities
or built spaces communicate policy and wider societal meaning(s), and which
meanings are being communicated and to what audiences, near and far.51
All of these and other analytic devices would be used to try to elicit
artifacts are useful for heuristic purposes, even though they are not always, in
practice, distinct: language, acts, and objects are intertwined and mutually
one rather than another category may at times make sense only from the
51
See, e.g., Goodsell, loc. cit.; Goodsell, Charles T., ed., Architecture as a setting for
governance, Special issue, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 10/4, 1993;
Yanow, Dvora, loc. cit., 1995; Yanow, Dvora, Error! Main Document Only.How built
spaces mean: A semiotics of space, in Dvora Yanow and Peregrine Schwartz-Shea,
eds., Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn,
Armonk, NY, M E Sharpe, 2006, 349-66.
52
Yanow, Dvora, Conducting interpretive policy analysis, Newbury Park, CA, Sage, 2000;
Yanow, Dvora, Interpretation in policy analysis: On methods and practice, Critical
Policy Analysis 1, 2007, 109-21.
53
Pal, Leslie, Competing paradigms in policy discourse: The case of international
human rights, Policy Sciences, 18/2, 1995, 185-207.
19
events and times the what of a policy and hue closely to the meanings
made by policy-relevant actors although an analysis may be, and often is,
question and analysis speak. Any generalization relates to the how, and it is a
clients, and other publics make policy meanings in thus and such ways; how
some of these interpretations may conflict with each other; how analysts may
has been criticized, especially by critical theorists, for being so involved with the
cannot help but include power dimensions, including of organizations and other
institutions, especially when they consider voices that have been silent, by
Looking forward
20
academy, at least outside of the US: the 6th international conference, based in
Europe and the UK, takes place in June 2011 and draws attendance also from
North America, South Africa, India, and Oceania; its associated journal is in its
question to ask may be not, What is a policy? but instead, What work is a policy
particular time? That kind of question, the sort of focus found in science studies,
people and ideas in new ways.54 It shifts analytic attention to the constructed
54
Shore and Wright, loc. cit.
55
On integration, see Yanow, Dvora and van der Haar, Marleen, forthcoming, People out
of place: Allochthony and autochthony in Netherlands identity discourse B metaphors
and categories in action, Journal of International Relations and Development; on
housing decay, Schn, op. cit., 1979.
21
and the more it can engage and explore its own philosophical-theoretical
the abductive logic of inquiry that is increasingly being seen as lying at the heart
policy-specific lived realities, and looks for likely conditions that would
normalize it.56
matters, as well. One of these is the fields substantive policy domain. Public
policy studies, at least in the US, has long meant domestic legislative processes
and policies only welfare, housing, transportation, and so forth; foreign policy
has more commonly been left to international relations (IR). The establishment
of the European Union, along with environmental issues and terrorism, has made
other problems, after all, cross state lines, and policies and, hence, their
56
Schwartz-Shea and Yanow, op. cit., chapter 2; see also Agar, Michael, On the
ethnographic part of the mix: A multi-genre tale of the field, Organizational Research
Methods, 13/2, 2010, 286303; Locke, Karen, Golden-Biddle, Karen, and Feldman,
Martha S., Making doubt generative: Rethinking the role of doubt in the research
process, Organization Science, 19/6, 2008, 907-18; Van Maanen, John, Srensen,
Jesper B., and Mitchell, Terence R., The interplay between theory and method,
Academy of Management Review, 32/4, 2007, 114554. Cf. Glynos, Jason and Howarth,
David, Logics of critical explanation in social and political theory. NY, Routledge, 2007,
on retroduction, which they use in the same sense. In a parallel field of study, see
Friedrichs, Jorg and Kratochwil, Friedrich, On acting and knowing: How pragmatism can
advance international relations research and methodology, International Organization,
63, 2009, 701-31.
22
analytic theorizing and vice versa. Both policy and IR scholars stand to benefit
from crossing the hitherto existing disciplinary boundaries between domestic and
already more likely to do so,57 many departments and faculties are under
methods that have not been widely used in recent years, and these need to be
ethnography at the time that the field was developing (although it had been
fairly common in earlier policy and administrative research58), and studies have
been biased toward policy documents and elite or expert interviews. But
57
See, e.g., Rowell, Jay, Campana, Aurlie, and Henry, Emmanuel, eds., La construction
des problmes publics en Europe, Strasbourg, PUS, 2007.
58
E.g., Blau, Peter, The dynamics of bureaucracy, Chicago, University of Chicago Press,
1963 [orig. 1953]; Crozier, Michel, The bureaucratic phenomenon, Chicago, University of
Chicago Press, 1964; Gouldner, Alvin W., Patterns of industrial bureaucracy, Glencoe, IL,
Free Press, 1954; Kaufman, Herbert, The forest ranger, Baltimore, MD, Published for
Resources for the Future by Johns Hopkins University Press, 1954; Selznick, Philip, TVA
and the grass roots, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1949; Selznick, Philip,
Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation, New York, Harper & Row,
1957.
23
For a field that wants at least to know about, if not also to include, those
living out others policy decisions, methods that enable studying-up, such as
with nearly all political science, has largely engaged its subject matter at the
top. That is where power, the leitmotif of the disciplines work, is widely
with policies on the ground. Beyond this, Cris Shore has argued that policies
require not so much studying up as studying across and every which way in a
network sort of fashion. This is what following a policy and its relevant actors,
objects, acts, and language promises, teasing out connections and observing
how policies bring together individuals, discourses and institutions ... and the
in interpretive policy analysis or, perhaps, a new way to talk about an older
making, and other sources of power and of silent and/or silenced voices without
Tracing how a policy issue might be framed at one moment and reframed at
another can transcend both physical boundaries and those of time. The policy
59
See, e.g., Dubois, loc. cit.; van Hulst, loc. cit. On political ethnography more broadly,
see Schatz, Edward, Political ethnography: The difference immersion makes, Chicago,
University of Chicago Press, 2009.
60
Cris Shore, Espionage, policy and the art of government: The British Secret Services
and the war on Iraq, in Shore, Wright, and Per, op. cit., chapter 9.
24
itself is the site, not some geographically bounded entity, as is amply evident
concern for situated meaning, most similar or most different logics of case
the policy analyst would follow policy issues to additional settings relevant to the
policy element being tracked, which might shed further light on the initial
surprise.
Such following also brings physical artifacts back into analytic focus,
approaches such as these, which rematerialize the world of policy analysis, are
research, call for a different sort of attention. For one, researchers need to be
clear about which among the several forms of discourse analysis they are
engaging. Additionally, to the extent that treating language as the sole carrier
artifacts and acts, analysis runs the risk of further removal from the world of
61
See, e.g., van Marrewijk, Alfons and Yanow, Dvora, eds., Organizational spaces:
Rematerializing the workaday world, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2010.
25
practice. If our initial question was what and/or how policies mean, we must
analytic room must be created for acts and objects as well. As noted above,
Taylor provides the philosophical grounds for considering not only literal texts
but text analogues in his case, acts as vehicles for the communication of
meaning; the point holds as well for objects. Both have a place in interpretive
policy analysis.
aesthetic and emotive responses, and of the fullest reality of tacit knowledge. It
verbal language. But in the world of practice, such reflection and conversion
often halts, if not stymies, action, much like the centipede in response to being
asked, "What is your 37th leg doing when your 83rd is up?" Even more, in the
world of practice there are many times when meanings are made, conveyed, and
stories, and so on, much that we know only tacitly. The emphasis on explicit
understandings over tacitly known ones.62 Despite the fact that narrative and
other language-focused turns create a space for tacit knowledge, they seem not
to accord it the fullest weight and attention that it merits. An interpretive policy
without abandoning observed acts and/or material artifacts can enhance its
analytic purchase.
knowledge and its power dimensions, they are going to have to take on board
researchers are much more likely to consider the positionalities, without using
that term, of those researched than to explicitly engage their own. Reflexivity
links directly to issues of power in this case, with respect to researchers and
62
See, e.g., Cook, Scott D. N. and Yanow, Dvora, Culture and organizational learning,
Journal of Management Inquiry, 2, 1993, 373-90 (reprinted in Error! Main Document
Only.Barbara Czarniawska, ed., Organization theory, Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar,
2006, v. 1, 259-76); Davide Nicolini, Silvia Gherardi, and Dvora Yanow, Error! Main
Document Only.Introduction: Toward a practice-based view of knowing and learning
in organizations, in Davide Nicolini, Silvia Gherardi, Dvora Yanow, eds., Knowing in
organizations: A practice-based approach, Armonk, NY, M E Sharpe, 2003, 3-31;
Yanow, Dvora and Tsoukas, Haridimos, What is reflection-in-action? A phenomenological
account, Journal of Management Studies 46/8, 2009, 1339-64.
27
public policy is similarly interpretive, and it will be interesting to see how the
Congressional Research Service analysts and staff at one of the Forest Service
domain.