Models of Policy Discourse: insights versus Prediction

Abstract

Policy researchers traditionally have adhered to the quantitative: (or positivist) approach. Recently, some policy analysts have emphasized a more qualitative (or postpositivist) approach. Little, if any, of the latter has been considered by proponents of the former as serious policy (i.e., “objective”) analysis. This tension has produced some conflicts as to which camp is more attuned to a policy version of “truth.” This essay attempts to demonstrate the strong and weak points of both paradigms, and argues that either by itself has serious debilitations. For instance, positivists deny the subjective nature of values that denigrate the putatively “objective” orientations of their analyses, perhaps even rendering it “undemocratic.” On the other hand, postpositivists have a difficult time operationalizing their preferred research methodologies with the necessary rigor. The essay concludes that the research problem—rather than a favorite methodology—should determine the research approach, and that both the quantitative and qualitative aspects can be used in a consonant manner.

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 — 58 citations exist upstream.

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