Policy Analysis as Discourse

Abstract

The field of policy analysis encompasses a greater diversity of practices than is commonly appreciated. Many recent revisions agree with the postmodern dictum that analytic studies are socially constructed and propose some form of discourse for formulating policy. This article compares three theoretical perspectives on discourse: analytic discourse, which draws on multiple theories and data sources; critical discourse, which emphasizes critical reflection and links evidence to value discussions; and persuasive discourse, which focuses on the role of ideas and persuasion by policy entrepreneurs. Analytic discourse has had the most impact on the practice of analysis, but the other two literatures have had some influence and address important issues. Critical discourse is sensitive to the structural biases in policy research, and persuasive discourse links the practice of analysis to opportunities in the policy arena. The author seeks to make us more conscious of alternative theories, while emphasizing the role of discourse in all three models and the linkages between policy design and the policy process.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 90 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.