THE ANALYSIS OF DESIGN OR THE DESIGN OF ANALYSIS?

The policy sciences have advanced in the past by introspection, and there appears to be a need for a return to such self-conscious examination of the field of inquiry. A design orientation offers a useful framework for such an examination. It requires reconsideration of some of the fundamental premises of policy inquiry. This article explores what impact design might have on the conventional process framework and then proceeds to discuss the development of a design perspective.     

U.S. Customs Service User Fees: A Variety of Charges and Counter-Charges

User charges, which have become an important revenue enhancement device during the 1980s, have also raised a variety of counter-charges. This study examines three new mandatory Customs Service fees—for processing passengers, conveyances, and merchandise entering the United States and for special services at small airports—along with their differences and changes over time (in rate structure, exemptions, dedicated accounts, and disposition of funds). Despite support for the charges, opposition to some has arisen because of their cost to the private sector, violation of certain assumptions behind user fees, competing international obligations and policies, rival institutional interests and powers of Congress and the presidency, and changing fiscal conditions.     

Coming to Terms with Intramural Differences Over Policy Frameworks: How Policy Researchers Accommodate Rival Claims Among their Peers

Although we readily scrutinize conflicts among political stakeholders, similar attention is seldom paid to how we deal with contestable understandings within our own field of inquiry. Debates over competing scholarly perspectives and contested models are rarely subject to any systematic postmortem or attempts to account for differential survival. Given the indeterminacy of many of our conceptual schemes, empirical data seldom carry the day to a resolution all can accept. Accordingly, there are eventually many different versions of any given dispute, each offering a different path to resolution or equanimity. Disputants retire and conflicts fade, providing a demographic resolution of sorts, but not a scientific or a conceptual one. The work presented here claims that there is much to be gained from systematic scrutiny of our conceptual disputes, especially as a means to access the different perspectives we assume to handle them. We argue that there is an internal logic to the different perspectives on any given dispute. It is not the dispute per se that draws our interest; but rather, how any given dispute generates multiple interpretations and reconstructed versions. We propose and illustrate an approach to analyzing disputes that makes their internal logic more transparent and attends to the pathways that emerge for resolution. We will find, in the process, that there are some reliable routes to conciliation and some fault lines that remain unstable.