BETWEEN POSITIVISM AND POSTMODERNISM:

A growing body of scholarship has pointed to the problems of positivist assumptions that underlie policy analysis. Scholars have noted that neither the ends nor the methods by which judgments are derived are unambiguous or value-free. In the place of a positivist epistemology, some scholars have argued for a view of policy analysis as a rhetorical activity. In this view, the analyst becomes a participant in strategies of persuasion in-which the reasons for decisions are rhetorically constructed. Neither view, though, provides an adequate basis upon which the analyst is to form judgments that can claim public validity. In this essay, we draw on the work of Hannah Arendt whochallenges the distinction between “subjectivity” and “objectivity” upon which much of the contemporary debate hinges. Arendt argues for a notion of “impartiality” that arises from the imagining of other perspectives. In this way, the validity of judgments depends on a broadened perspective gained through a grasping of particulars. It is within this context that we can understand the importance of narratives in policy evaluation and judgment.