Boyd Think Piece
ADMPS 3003
September 29, 1998
Dan Kennedy

________________________________________________________________________
 
 

    Several thoughts occur to me after reading this chapter. Primarily what comes to mind is that Policy Analysis is far from a mature field of study. Currently as it appears to borrow much of it's underlying tenets from economics, problems of suitability often arise in applying these to social problems arise. Some of these can be described as being related to intent, and some related to implementation. An other thought is that the current integration of various approaches provides for more robust alternatives. This combination of the technical with the reasonable ( or the objective with the rational subjective) hopefully will assist in clearer definition of the problem to be addressed along with the appropriate mechinism to collect as well as analyze data.

Prescriptive and Descriptive Approaches

Boyd provides interesting background material on the development of policy analysis and about the use (both initial as well as continuing) of policy analysis specifically regarding education. Boyd (1998) states:

        Because schools have generally been viewed as one of the United States
        chief means of solving social problems, policy analysis naturally has
        been heavily applied within the public education arena (p.501)

However, Boyd is quick to follow with the reaction that there are many in the field skeptical (p. 501). While programs developed as a result of policy analysis have provided some evidence of progress there are also other undesired outcomes. Examination of the cause of those undesired outcomes reach further than a simplistic definition that states that policy analysis is the act of collecting data to enable the best decision to reach an objective. I believe that it reaches to the 'data oriented' beginnings of analysis itself. While the working definition of policy analysis as provided in the article gives a rather broad focus, policy analysis still tends to be viewed by many as a "means of problem solving for data decisions" (Boyd, 1998, p. 502). During the course of article there are several other, possibly more important aspects of policy analysis and how it is developing which provide for what I believe is a broader more encompassing focus for defining the purpose of engaging in policy analysis and why it is important.

It is in the definition of the what, the who and the alternative hows that provide the core of the ingredients in policy analysis. During the 1960's, the premise was that proven economic formulas had portability to societal problems. More simply stated it was a prescriptive approach to solve the ills of society. The use of economic models, while providing insight in the cost effectiveness of how to provide the 'lowest cost' or' best cost' solution to a particular problem in the short run, do not lend themselves easily to including subjective criterion. Simply providing an education opportunity to a student does not ensure that a student will be educated.

The basic premise of cost benefit analysis is determining the best possible combination that limits the 'cost' to one group by providing a 'benefit' to another, or the 'break-even' point. The 'trick' is to accommodate affected groups (or processes) by using the 'best' set of numbers. The question to be asked is: when does that 'loss' or 'gain' get to the point where it is no longer palatable to the groups being serviced? What is occurring is a form of risk management or the discovery of a point of 'consensus of value'. At what point do the possible benefits possible costs provide the best balance? This gets to the central issue of defining the problem. What is the best balance and who defines it?

As the initial forays into large scale projects provided some dissapointing results the focus shifted to a more incremental method that purports to be more bottom-up oriented (Wildavsky in Boyd, 1998, p. 503) and more narrowly focused. This is also an area of concern simply because it may just be a smaller version of the large-scale approach. Guba (1984) addresses the issue of approach by suggesting that the analyst focus on the problem being addressed not only by looking at the problem but also the method of data collection as well as the desired outcomes or products and players in the process. The analyst must be aware of the enviroment that exists in and around the problem. Some factors that need to be addressed would be the affected parties, those who both are initiating as well as implementing and are to receive the benefit or the ultimate loss. The analysis process and the possible outcomes are shaped by the parties in the process and their desired outcomes or products.

Merging the Various Approaches

Boyd indicates that currently there is a belief by many in the field the policy analysis is more of an art than a science (1998). He indicates that others believe that policy analysis is comprised of three parts: science, engineering as well as craft (Elmore in Boyd, 1998, p.503). In my mind, using the working definition of policy analysis from this article, the definitions of the alternative outcomes appear to be developed in the 'craft' area. In proposing broad categories of approaches as objectivist or subjectivist it seems to me that we should also be concerned with attempts at delivering one full blown answer to a question (prescriptive) and focus more on the examination of the possible underlying issues that should be addressed (descriptive). By the provision of a descriptive analysis some adjustments to the problem being addressed could occur.

It is unsettling to consider that the motives of parties either directing or requesting an analysis are based on the failure of past policy. Partisanship not only politically but also intellectually ( one method of research exhorting that others have no relevance) as the reason for promoting a 'better method' continues in my opinion to be a problem in many intellectual areas. As each possible approach brings possibly different problems and biases as well as solutions, it is important to remember that the intent is the provision of the best alternatives available. Opening up the analysis process by looking at different ways to define the problem to be considered is one way to test for variables not previously considered, and to test if the underlying reasons the problem exists are accurate. Obviously, being able to take into consideration many different perspecitves would be a wonderful approach but not cost effective and it is not certain that consensus on the appropriate issue to be addressed could be reached. Often it appears that the driving force behind a policy analysis in education is really a search for a better allocation of limited resources. Our of our problems as a society seems to be an unwillingness to provide adequate resources to initially define a problem, thus ensuring additional cost in exploring how to reverse the innaccurate prior 'correct' course of action.

Toward a Collaborative Approach

There appears to be movement toward merging the various aspects of policy analysis to provide a more comprehensive set of solutions that focus on achieving results (Boyd, 1998). One outcome of this merging of approaches is the inclusion of a more diverse pool of thought from which to draw information to frame the approach . Remembering that the success of the policy depends largely on how it is implemented should pause the decision process long enough to allow questions about implementation plans and appropriateness to be addressed. This in my mind points directly to the need for policy analysts to provide not only alternative solution, but also to think and report about some implications associated with a particular solution. This collaboration should incorporate the positive aspects of prior policy (where possible) to enable more effective and robust long-term solutions. While time can prove a policy has some merit, often the time needed to assess the real impact is not available. Attempting to totally change society with a 5 or even a 10-year plan is a daunting task. As we look at society today, changes occur at such a rapid rate that decision makers are bombarded with an endless list of problems to address. This should not be seen as an open invitation by the analyst to shape outcomes, but should in fact really focus the analyst to be more thoughtful. Again, the changing political climate, as well as our desire for something different can spur us in a completely different direction our desired outcome is not immediate and does not meet our understood expectations.

From my perspective this last issue of collaboration is probably the most important.. While it is important to understand the shortcomings posed by 'historic' data driven-only policy analysis it is more important to understand that it is a tool to aid in the decision making process. But it is really the methods used to define the issue, to collect data (where needed) and the assessment and suggestion of alternative decisions to solve an issue that enable policy analysis to be effective. We still must continue to question and inquire about the validity of the alternatives being suggested. We need to continue this investigative process for ourselves as well as others in society.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

References

Boyd, William. (1998) "Policy Analysis, Education Policy, and Management: Through a

Glass Darkly?" pp.501-522 in (ed.) Boyan, N.J., Handbook of Research on

Educational Administration White Plains: Lonagman.

Guba, Egon. (1984). "The Effect of Definitions of Policy on the Nature and Outcomes

of Policy Analysis. Educational Leadership 42(2) 63-70.