SCIENTIFIC FACT AND VALUE IN U.S. OCEAN DUMPING POLICY

Controversy among scientists over appropriate use of the ocean for waste disposal impedes U.S. policy in this area. The problem arises in part because scientific uncertainty over the fate and effects of wastes released into the ocean requires a large element of judgment, and hence value, when the uncertain science is applied to policy. Scientists often supply that judgment and so impose their values, though seldom explicitly, on policy. Further, science often determines policy because many perceive it as an objective basis for decisionmaking and so less subject to the debate that arises from weighing public preferences in policymaking. Thus, scientists' values rather than the public's come to set policy. The resulting policy may elevate one expert's values over another's. Then as values and so interpretation of science shift, policy changes. Or, as in the case now with arguments over the ocean's ability to assimilate many anthropogenic wastes, conflicting science, really conflicting values, results in an agreement and policy inertia. These problems are partially circumvented when scientists make the nonscientific factors behind their reasoning clear. These factors may then be evaluated by the public along with the supporting scientific evidence. Thus, weighing the welfare of society rather than resolving conflicts among scientists becomes the focus of policy.     

The policy science of democracy: The issues of methodology and citizen participation

There are continuing debates on methodological issues of policy science. On the one hand, the unprecedented advancement in research methods and technology has made it possible to formulate more precise, empirically driven models of scientific inquiries and thus has added credibility on positivist approach of policy science. On the other hand, social systems and subjective values have increasingly been emphasized in policy analyses and have served as impetus to postpositivist approach of policy science. In this essay, I discuss the role of democratization and citizen participation in policy science. While citizen participation is important to ensure democratization of the process of policymaking and to improve the quality of information provided to make appropriate policy decisions, how such citizen participation can be acquired has become another pressing issue. I explore community participation in light of assessing its effectiveness in policymaking and its coherence with the role of policy experts.     

Science is not value-free

The scientific attitude involves a willingness to be objective. But many falsely assume additionally that such willingness implies being completely value-free. Actually, scientific research is value-saturated. At every step one faces the question, “Which is the best way?” Not only is it better to be than not to be scientific, scientists believe, but one ought to seek what is best relative to all aspects of science. Exploration is limited to (1) problems, (2) attitude and (3) methods. Even prejudice, which is evil when bias prevents or produces false results, may also be good when it helps produce true conclusions. Do policy scientists have special obligations regarding this issue?     

A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE ROLE OF ANTHROPOLOGY IN PUBLIC POLICY

In comparison with the other social and behavioral sciences, there has been a general lack of anthropological input or interest in public policy.
This absence from the public policy arena has been the result of both historical developments and theoretical biases within the field. Nevertheless, there have been certain periods when significant numbers of anthropologists have worked in policy areas-the 1930s. World War Il-but even then their influence was not great. However, in recent years we have witnessed a rapidly growing emphasis on public policy in applied anthropology which promises to give the discipline the opportunity to become atruly holistic policy science.
In addition to the discussion of the factors which have impeded and, more recently, contributed to anthropological involvement with public policy, each of the symposium papers is briefly introduced.     

POLICY RESEARCH AS SOCIAL SCIENCE: OUTFLANKING THE VALUE DILEMMA

Social scientists fear that policy research compromises their objectivity. As a result, policy science is becoming a separate discipline which is accorded lower status that other fields of social inquiry. However, the history, sociology and psychology of science show that the elaboration of robust social theory would be aided by a more intimate relation between policy research and academic social science than currently obtains. The traditional canons of value freedom, which have been invoked to justify the independence of social science from policy, misrepresent the relation between facts and values in science. Objective knowledge is consequent on dispute and triangulation by a many-valued community of fallible social scientists; but it does not eventuate from consensual value neutralism. Social knowledge interacts with social values to change phenomena our theories represent. This self-restructuring characteristic of social events warrants singular attention by social scientists. Policy researchers are in a particularly opportune position to provide that attention.     

Strategic Ignorance and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence: Critiquing the Discursive Segregation of UFOs from Scientific Inquiry

Since the late 1940s, a tenacious disconnect between popular interest and professional disinterest in unidentified flying objects (UFOs) has typified the controversy surrounding the subject. Numerous high-profile scientists have seen the topic of UFOs as an opportunity to denounce and rectify a popular, yet allegedly misguided, conviction—that some UFOs are physical anomalies indicating the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence—and thus to advance the explanatory authority of science. Rather than constituting rigorous, informed, and effective assessments, however, the ways in which many prominent scientists publicly address the UFO question often exemplify both the problematic “boundary-work” of scientific discourse in this area and, more specifically, the role that logical fallacies can play in the rhetorical construction of scientific authority in public domains. Through a critical discourse analysis, this article argues that ignorance of UFO phenomena is socially and discursively constructed in ways that are conducive to the public faces of individuals and institutions. More broadly, it suggests that the rudimentary standard of science communication attending to the extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) hypothesis for UFOs inhibits public understanding of science, dissuades academic inquiry within the physical and social sciences, and undermines progressive space policy initiatives.     

EVALUATION RESEARCH AND POLITICAL SCIENCE: AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE DIVISION OF SCHOLARLY LABOR

Political science might have been the birthplace of evaluation research, but it has instead been unreceptive to it for a number of reasons. Hofferbert's suggestion that political scientists become involved by studying the impact of policy on democratic processes does not take into account the ferment that has been taking place in the field of evaluation. Political scientists should not conduct evaluation studies using the same methodology they normally use because these may not produce the kind of information needed for improving policies or programs. A disciplinary division of labor is impractical for a number of reasons. Instead, they should use a policy sciences framework, which contains normative elements and focuses on potentials for change, among other things.     

PUBLIC POLICY AS THE CONTINUATION OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY BY OTHER MEANS

The paper suggests that the oldest and newest glsubfieldslg of political science—political philosophy and public policy analysis–share important features lacking in those areas of the discipline that have modeled themselves after the natural sciences. Both are incompatible with the belief social sciences can be "value-free" and both are legitimate academic pur- suits that aspire to systematic and rigorous analysis of significant questions or problems. Fundamental considerations link the two enterprises. (1) Public policy analysis as currently practiced i s based largely on economics which i s the instantiation of a particular moral philosophy. (2) Logical problems in the basic assumptions of applied economics and policy analysis require the kind of fundamental reexamination to which moral philosophy can contribute.
The second section uses three health policy examples–tax expenditures that promote the purchase of health insurance, euthanasia, and long-term institutional care for the elderly–to show how moral philosophy can help in policy analysis.
The third section, an examination of Graham Allison's three epistemological models for understanding public policy, demonstrates that work in public policy also should stimulate philosophical inquiry.     

Creating Broader Research Impacts through Boundary Organizations

Climate science research documents and predicts changes in the physical environment. This information informs policy decisions and public programs through the design of human interventions that promote adaptive management. Since the early 2000s, federal funding has led to the creation of transdisciplinary regional climate workgroups to facilitate integrative knowledge coproduction and promote shared use of research results by scientific and nonscientific stakeholders. Labeled “boundary organizations,” these workgroups are tasked with facilitating partnerships between climate science researchers and practitioners with expertise in multiple physical and social science disciplines. When these organizations are successful, scientific findings and practitioner experiences are integrated to synergistically create usable knowledge about adaptive management that provides direct public value and creates broader societal impacts. This article explores the broader impacts provided by these boundary organizations through the establishment of regional research agendas and the communication of research results in ways that influence regional public policy and promote adaptive management.     

ANTHROPOLOGY AND POLICY STUDIES: A NEW DELEGATION ENTERS THE U.N. OF ACADEME

Like all participating academic disciplines, anthropologists entering the policy studies field face a series of “unsolvable” problems that deal with intellectual values about how to ply one's trade. For example, what are one's obligations to agencies, and to the intended clienteles of public policies, especially when the citizens are “havenots” up against well-organized economic interests? Such questions raised by anthropologists in this volume allow one to assess the options available to applied social scientists studying public policy issues. They also lead us to recognize the existing biases of doing policy studies research. While weighing the propriety of doing applied research, anthropologists do possess critical concepts and research methods essential to the policy sciences. With a grounding in process or temporally-based concepts like “culture, context, and symbol,” applied anthropologists will strengthen the study of policy implementation. Further, with qualitative methods gaining a strong foothold in the policy sciences, anthropologists are contributing to the refinement of methods for studying the organizational behavior of actors charged with the implementation of public policy. Moreover, anthropologists in this volume demonstrate their discipline's potential to break new ground in the policy sciences. Specifically, the world view of anthropologists is likely to add a comparative, crosscultural perspective to existing areas of concentration like public health, and to increase the range of issues of interest to the policy sciences. Also, anthropologists are already developing new units of analysis different from the aggregation of individual scores, and adding new social indicators that are group or culturally grounded. In short, the policy sciences will be enhanced by anthropologists as they bring the strengths of their discipline to bear on the field.     

政策科学的演进逻辑与范式变迁

政策科学作为一门应用性跨学科研究的新兴学科,在世界各国和各领域因其能解决社会现实问题而蓬勃发展。随着中国改革开放的不断深入,外部环境复杂多变,政策科学势必面临各种新的挑战。文章以政策科学的发展过程为研究对象,系统梳理国内外文献,归纳总结政策科学发展的三个阶段及其演进逻辑,提炼出政策科学研究范式的转换路径。同时,文章针对现阶段政策科学研究存在的问题——对民主性或科学性的盲目追求,提出今后政策科学应当促进民主与科学的融合以及跨学科研究,紧密结合中国的实际情况,创新政策科学理论与方法,推动中国政策科学的繁荣发展。     

A New Era for Think Tanks in Public Policy? International Trends,Australian Realities

Although the powerful have always sought advice from the knowledgeable, it took the appeal of the policy sciences movement of the late 1940s and onward to build and consolidate a veritable industry of policy analysis and advice. ¹ One of the hallmarks of this development was the advent of institutes that were exclusively devoted to produce research‐based policy arguments and to inject these into the policy‐making process. These organisations were referred to as ‘think tanks’. Half a century later, the project of the policy sciences movement has been amply criticised, and has mutated into various philosophies of policy analysis, each harbouring distinct and often conflicting perspectives on the nature and role of (scientific) knowledge in the battle of arguments that is public policy‐making. The first wave of the policy sciences movement's privileging of science‐based policy has not disappeared. In fact it is currently experiencing a revival under the banner of ‘evidence‐based policy’. But it has to compete with other views of public policy‐making which deconstruct the authority claim of scientific knowledge, emphasising instead its contestability. Yet there are now more organisations that refer to themselves, or can be labelled, as ‘think tanks’ than ever before. Why? And what does it mean to be a ‘think tank’ in the post‐positivist era and in the increasingly boundary‐less, highly networked societies of today? This article first surveys recent developments in the world of think tanks as reported by the international literature on the subject, and then examines the implications for understanding the nature and role of Australian think tanks.     

Interpretation in the Analysis of Policy

Interpretation is a critical element in both the analysis and the accomplishment of governing, and taking an interpretive approach to policy should not be seen as a methodological option for consenting adults, but as an integral element of political analysis. Understanding governing (whether by practitioners or analysts) raises questions about the shared meaning which makes action valid, and makes a reality of ‘the government’. This calls for attention to the ways in which this is done, and how this interpretive construction has been recognised in political science (and other social sciences) in Australia and elsewhere, and for a consideration of what this means for political scientists’ agenda of inquiry.     

Consulting critics: A new role for academic policy analysts

It is by now widely accepted that social science research has only an indirect and general impact on public policymaking. Academic social science research, it is often argued, is antithetical to policy research: the former is animated by traditional scientific canons while the latter is specific and problem-oriented. Moreover, modern bureaucracies are now understood as political environments within which pure research will be routinely ignored if it does not serve someone's interests. For these and other reasons, social scientists are being encouraged either to eschew policy research or not to expect much influence. This article provides an alternative model of social scientists in the policy process, as consulting critics reviewing, analyzing and commenting upon substantive policy research. This model holds benefits for both scholars and clients, turns the canons of scientific inquiry into assets instead of liabilities, and responds to some of the concerns recently raised in the literature concerning the role of social science in the policy process.     

Astrosociology as the Missing Perspective

Astrosociology represents a distinctive emergent field within the sociological discipline and outside of it, inclusive of the other social sciences and a strong connection to the natural sciences. It provides a heretofore absent focus that partly serves to complement the work of space scientists and engineers, including the space policy issues that guide the direction of their work. By adopting astrosociology, this missing perspective increases the current scope of attention by adding its focus on the societal implications of human developments related to space generally and space exploration specifically. This relationship between space and society, viewed in both causal directions, influences social change within any particular society and possesses implications for future projects and missions. Astrosociology adds a sociocultural dimension to the conventional approach of space sciences that currently devalues a social science orientation. With the addition of astrosociology, practitioners of space will become exposed to decision-making criteria normally unavailable to them under current circumstances.     

Welfare Reform and Models of Public Policy: Why Policy Sciences Are Required

Policy could be studied on the basis of three different models: ideological, social science, and policy sciences. Policy in accordance with ideology may not necessarily rely on solid rigorous research to back it up. Policy made solely in accordance with a rigorous social science model might be able to demonstrate a causal relationship between a given policy and desired outcomes, and in the process establish a clear role for good research in the policy process. But it often fails to account for the larger social and political context in which policy is formulated. Good policy should be based on rigorous social science research, while also factoring in the values of the broader society, that is, ideology. This would imply that in order to bridge the gap, that good policy should be formulated in accordance with the policy sciences model because it connects the rigorous methodology of the social sciences with the larger social policy context, that is, the broader policy process. When analyzing the reform of 1996 within the framework of these models, it becomes clear that while the legislation is highly ideological, it is not based on any serious research that would satisfy the criteria of the social science model. It fails the policy sciences model, in part, because its absence of clearly defined objectives, or a single objective, makes the task of measurement difficult. On the contrary, this legislation is a good example of why the policy community would do better to rely more on the policy sciences.     

A doctoral program in the policy sciences

The complex nature of policy problems requires innovative approaches to problem analysis and a new social science interdiscipline focused on policy processes. The Policy Science Program at SUNY Buffalo is designed to advance this field and to train hybrid Ph.D.'s as research-scientists/practitioners. These new policy science professionals will augment policymaking organizations as policy analysts, evaluation researchers, knowledge brokers, research feedback disseminators, process monitors, and consultants. Their training must include research methodology, analytic approaches, orienting conceptual schemes from systems theory, social sciences, and specific problem domains, and operating skills. The curriculum includes both academic and field-training aspects.Though the program is oriented toward the applied sciences, it is an attempt to mold a version of the new combination of revised social science paradigms and analytic approaches identified by Dror as the Policy Sciences.     

Practice and research in managing human systems—Four problems of relationship

Academic disciplines, it is argued, have structural reasons for remaining separate from each other. Professional schools, on the other hand, having a built-in test of relevance, draw what they need from different disciplines and are better equipped for inter-disciplinary work, even though they have problems in bridging professional boundaries. But the professions which manage human systems (management, government, planning, policy making) have no such support from the social sciences as, for example, medicine and engineering draw from the natural sciences. They have evolved powerful means of modelling complex human systems but they lack any adequate source of the assumptions needed for such models, since these are culture-determined and historically determined variables, far more dependent on specific time and place.The paper raises for discussion questions related to (a) the inter-relation of the social sciences; (b) their relation to the professional fields in which they might be applied; (c) their relation to the management sciences; and (d) the scope for an all-embracing general systems theory.