1. In this essay, I will list the various approaches of policy analysis, and briefly describe the 'analysis policy parts' approach. I will attempt to identify its strengths and weaknesses, and in the process, propose a more ideal approach to analysing policy.
Types of Policy Analysis
2. The literature indicates that policy analysis provides insights into the discourse, ideology, genre and settlement of a particular policy. It uncovers answers to the 'what', 'how', 'why' (Kenway, 1990, p.24), 'why now' and 'what are the consequences' (Taylor, Rizvi, Lingard & Henry, 1997, p.40) of a policy.
3. By understanding policy in this way, we are more able to appreciate the complexity of the policy, able to communicate its intent, motivate to bring the resources together to create its outcomes, and accurately refine the policy.
4. There are five different ways of analysing policy:
a. Analysing its parts
b. Focusing on particular contexts
c. Asking basic questions
d. Identifying its discourses
e. Looking through different lenses
Analysis Policy Parts
5. In this approach, policy is the target to which a set of questions are aimed at. These questions can be organised into five main areas:
a. Policy production. This is the 'springboard' to 'policy parts' analysis. Here, we uncover the actors behind the creation of the policy (Young, 1982), and unveil the processes (Hall, Land, Parker & Webb, 1975) and influences these actors and their stakeholders assert in rationalising it (Hogwood & Gunn, 1984). These actions leave a mark on the character (Hogwood & Gunn, 1984) as well as the type (Offe, 1975 & 1985) of policy created, which by themselves deserve their own set of questions and investigations.
b. Context. We can also examine a policy from it political, economical, ideological, historical, and contemporary context. Context is always paramount. Policies come into existence because their context calls for them (Rein, 1983). In execution, context continues to invoke constraints (Smith, 1982) on its approaches and methods. Without context, policy has no meaning, which renders the analysis improbable and meaningless. So, we are looking for the contextual drivers that bring the actors together who brought the policy into existence.
c. Content. In exploring the policy content, we take to deconstructing the policy document to understand its overarching principles, demonstrative power through its styles and language structures (Rizvi & Kemmis, 1987), and saliency of its goals, and reconstructing the policy discourses to discover the logic and interrelationships between context and discourses (Thompson, 1984). We may as well say that we are looking for the invisible hands exercised to enforce the policy.
d. Implementation. In analysing implementation, we look at the key success factors of proper policy implementation; we basically asking 'what caused the success or failure of the policy?' These include the exercise of political will, choice of implementation strategies (Wilenski, 1986), realistic time frame and number of stages in the adopted strategy (Rein, 1983), deployment of resources, and cultivation of supportive institutionalised structures.
e. Evaluation. Finally, in evaluation, we either try to predict the success of a policy or assess its success after implementation. The policy is assessed through pre-policy and/or post-policy research for its consistency and coherence throughout its formulation to implementation process, and by making evaluative comparisons to other contemporary policies and social realities, and ideal policy.
Strengths
6. Looking at the policy analysis framework described above, I can see two key strengths:
a. It is relatively structured with five distinct areas, which seems to trace a linear path from the birth of the policy to its implementation and eventual evaluations. Given these, we can examine the policy according to it distinct segments and understand the specifics of 'what', 'how', 'why' 'why now' and 'what are the consequences' of a policy with greater clarity. The eventual story about the policy does come across uncluttered and unambiguous.
b. As the stages and parts of this analysis framework is clear, it is also easy to determine and generate the questions to ask policy. We will be able to concentrate questions only about the originality of the policy during 'policy production' stage, and questions only about political will at the 'policy implementation' stage. This makes the investigation direct, distinct and uncompromising.
Weaknesses
7. However, it is the strengths of the mentioned approach that give rise to three obvious weaknesses:
a. It is not necessarily the case that the path of policy process follows the one shown in the 'analysis of policy parts' framework. Colebatch (2002, p.50, figure 5.1) shows a more comprehensive version of the 'stage' model of the policy process. Even if the framework truncates some of the stages, it does not seems to incorporate questions about 'problem recognition' in the analysis.
b. It cannot be assumed that the sum of the parts is a good indication of the total. In this case, we cannot make it mean that we understand the policy because we comprehend the parts. We cannot ignore the intra-actions within the parts and interactions between the parts for something as dynamic as policy creation, development and implementation.
c. Analysis by it parts is just one approach of policy analysis. There are four other approaches, which have their distinctive benefits. It is desirable to adopt a more inclusive approach by absorbing the flavours of approaches like 'identifying its discourses' and 'looking through different lenses' into the exercise. Also, according to Colebatch (2002, p.92), there are social sciences of structuration, institutional organisational theory and governmentality are useful and could add new insights into understanding of the policy, which are not addressed the described approach.
Conclusion
8. In this article, I have explained the reasons for analysing policy and the approaches to do so. I have also briefly described the 'analysis policy parts' approach and expounded on its strengths and weaknesses of the approach. Finally, towards the end of this write-up, I indicated the importance of being inclusive by allowing other approaches into the framework so that the weakness of one approach can be strengthen by another approach.
This article was first completed on 10 Mar 2007
Copyright 2007. Anthony Mok. All Rights Reserved.
0 comments:
Post a Comment