Policy Scientist Research Articles

Soviet Science and Technology

Essay| October 01 1978 Soviet Science and Technology Jeanne P. Taylor Jeanne P. Taylor Specialist on Soviet Technology Jeanne P. Taylor is a consultive policy scientist doing contract research, specializing in the analysis of science and technology policies and programs throughout the world. With John P. Young, she coauthored “Science and Technology Policy in the U.S.S.R.: Impact of the Changing Character of Soviet Science and Technology on Its Administration,” in Science and Technology Policy: Perspectives and Developments (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1977). Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Current History (1978) 75 (440): 104–108. https://doi.org/10.1525/curh.1978.75.440.104 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Jeanne P. Taylor; Soviet Science and Technology. Current History 1 October 1978; 75 (440): 104–108. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/curh.1978.75.440.104 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentCurrent History Search This content is only available via PDF. © 1978 by The Regents of the University of California1978 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

The policy science movement (an outsider's view)

An assessment is made of the expanding policy sciences movement—the proliferation of policy science centers, the existence of a specialized journal, and the large number of programmatic books being published. This paper focuses on the role that policy scientists assign to themselves in the whole decision process, i.e., their strategy. Four characteristics of the policy scientist's self-image are discussed: his work should include reassessment of a problem's goals; he represents a new type of professional; he cannot be expected to contribute to the general knowledge of specific academic disciplines; he is concerned with making recommendations that are acceptable to his sponsor. The research style of the policy scientist is examined, and four basic characteristics of this style are identified: a tendency to bypass microsociological data; an interest in futurism; an emphasis on a so-called systems approach; and an identification with interdisciplinarity.

Policy science: A conceptual and methodological analysis

In the first section policy science is differentiated from policy analysis, the notion of policy is defined, and an analysis of the concept of policy science is offered which gives emphasis to what is unique in this intellectual endeavor when it is conceived as a general method of problem solving. Section II provides a discussion of the criteria of rationality for the conduct of policy science. Attention is focused upon the methodological differences between science and policy science and upon certain methodological difficulties which are peculiar to policy science. The third section gives consideration to one important relationship between facts and values in the policy science process. While it is generally well recognized that values enter into policy science in a way they do not enter into science, it is also widely held that they do not operate in such a way as to frustrate the central objective of the policy scientist (i.e., the solution or alleviation of a policy problem). It is argued that the relation between values and facts in policy science is frequently such as to have this undesired frustrative effect.

“Toward A More Responsible Two-Party System”: Political Science, Policy Science, or Pseudo-Science?

The 1950 Report of the APSA Committee on Political Parties, “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System,” is relevant today to current problems of public policy and party reform and to the efforts of political scientists, as political scientists, to contribute to the resolution of these problems. This essay examines the Report from a policy science perspective.The Report was explicitly therapeutic in aim. It defined health, diagnosed ills, and prescribed remedies for the American party system; through the remedies prescribed, the whole American political system was to be restored to health. The healthy democratic system was asserted to be one in which the two national parties were cohesive, disciplined, programmatic, and responsible; internally responsible to their members through primaries, caucuses and conventions, and externally responsible to the whole electorate for carrying out their programs. The programs of the two parties were to be clearly differentiated so as to provide the electorate a real choice. The ills of the Ameican system were said to be due to the failure of parties to have these characteristics. The prescription was recommendation for comprehensive reform.Despite the special expertise of political scientists on such “constitutional” questions and the work of such distinguished predecessors as Wilson, Goodnow, Lowell, Ford, and Herring, the Report was both normatively and empirically deficient. Little attempt was made to clarify or justify norms or goals. Repeatedly, instrumental propositions linking proposed reforms to goals were based on inadequate evidence or no evidence at all. Even in 1950, evidence (not mentioned in the Report) was available that cast doubt on the Committee's description of the political world. Subsequent research has produced a rich body of literature making clear that much of the substance of the Report is simply mistaken.The errors of the Report do not vitiate its goals; democratic potential is not revealed by democratic practices. But the errors drastically affect the utility of the Report as policy science. The failure of the Report as policy science is due, in part, to failures of the discipline to clarify the roles of political scientist as policy scientist, to explore adequately the problems of relating knowledge to goals, to pay appropriate attention to the development of political theory, and to develop intellectual tools more specifically suited to the tasks of policy science. The last half of the essay is devoted to an examination of these problems, concluding that the political scientist will succeed in being effective in the policy field just to the extent he succeeds at his own distinctive tasks, in sharpening his own tools, and in thoughtfully applying his special knowledge and skills.

Professional styles in government: Touchstones for the new policy scientist

New kinds of policy analysts and policy scientists are being trained in university graduate programs but the outlines of this new profession remain fuzzy. A comparative analysis of other professionals in government advisory roles may provide touchstones by which to develop the new profession. The article reports interviews with urban planners, lawyers, economists and political scientists about their experience in government. Propositions are developed about characteristic modes of thought and problem-solving styles of each profession and conclusions drawn about the relative “effectiveness” of each set of professional skills in a policymaking process. It is then suggested that the new policy scientist profession should develop some of the positive skills of the other fields in order to enhance effectiveness.