IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jpamgt/v12y1993i2p297-322.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Participatory policy analysis in a social service agency: A case study

Author

Listed:
  • Dan Durning

Abstract

In this article, I identify four types of participatory policy analysis (PPA) that have been proposed to address two alleged failures of traditional policy analysis: that it is antidemocratic and that its positivist framework creates a mistaken view of the analytic task. Then I present a case study of one type of PPA that has received little research attention, organization-stakeholder policy analysis. In the case, I describe how the Georgia Division of Rehabilitation Services used an 11-member policy analysis team, all employees of the organization, to analyze its order of selection policy and present advice to its executive committee. Following the case description, I discuss the strengths and weaknesses of this type of PPA and suggest that it should be viewed as a “method of the second type” that may be well suited for addressing some messy or ill-structured policy issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Dan Durning, 1993. "Participatory policy analysis in a social service agency: A case study," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(2), pages 297-322.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jpamgt:v:12:y:1993:i:2:p:297-322
    DOI: 10.2307/3325237
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/3325237
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2307/3325237?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ayers, Toby Diane, 1987. "Stakeholders as partners in evaluation: A stakeholder-collaborative approach," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 263-271, January.
    2. Greene, Jennifer C., 1988. "Communication of results and utilization in participatory program evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 341-351, January.
    3. Hank Jenkins-Smith & David Leo Weimer, 1985. "Rescuing policy analysis from the civil service," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(1), pages 143-147.
    4. Jennifer G. Greene, 1988. "Stakeholder Participation and Utilization in Program Evaluation," Evaluation Review, , vol. 12(2), pages 91-116, April.
    5. William N. Dunn, 1988. "Methods Of The Second Type: Coping With The Wilderness Of Conventional Policy Analysis," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 7(4), pages 720-737, June.
    6. Egon G. Guba, 1985. "What Can Happen As A Result Of A Policy?," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 5(1), pages 11-16, August.
    7. John E.S. Lawrence, 1989. "Engaging Recipients in Development Evaluation," Evaluation Review, , vol. 13(3), pages 243-256, June.
    8. Garth Lipps & Peter R. Grant, 1990. "A Participatory Method of Assessing Program Implementation," Evaluation Review, , vol. 14(4), pages 427-434, August.
    9. John E. S. Lawrence & Thomas J. Cook, 1982. "Designing program evaluations with the help of stakeholders," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 2(1), pages 120-123.
    10. Judith A. Dawson & Joseph J. D'Amico, 1985. "Involving Program Staff in Evaluation Studies," Evaluation Review, , vol. 9(2), pages 173-188, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michel J.G. van Eeten, 2001. "Recasting Intractable Policy Issues: The Wider Implications of The Netherlands Civil Aviation Controversy," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 391-414.
    2. Peter Deleon & Toddi A. Steelman, 2001. "Making public policy programs effective and relevant: The role of the policy sciences," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 163-171.
    3. Carol L. McWilliam, 1997. "Using a Participatory Research Process to Make a Difference in Policy on Aging," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 23(s1), pages 70-89, Spring.
    4. Geurts, Jac. L. A. & Joldersma, Cisca, 2001. "Methodology for participatory policy analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(2), pages 300-310, January.
    5. Nancy Shulock, 1999. "The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much of it?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 226-244.
    6. Louise G. White, 1994. "Policy analysis as discourse," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(3), pages 506-525.
    7. David L. Weimer, 1999. "Comment: Q-method and the isms," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 426-429.
    8. Joldersma, Cisca & Roelofs, Ellie, 2004. "The impact of soft OR-methods on problem structuring," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(3), pages 696-708, February.
    9. Greg Hampton, 2009. "Narrative policy analysis and the integration of public involvement in decision making," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(3), pages 227-242, August.
    10. Ya Li, 2015. "Think tank 2.0 for deliberative policy analysis," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(1), pages 25-50, March.
    11. Geenhuizen, Marina van & Nijkamp, Peter, 1998. "Regional and urban policy beyond 2000 : new approaches with learning as device," Serie Research Memoranda 0053, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daigneault, Pierre-Marc, 2014. "Taking stock of four decades of quantitative research on stakeholder participation and evaluation use: A systematic map," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 171-181.
    2. Papineau, Danielle & Kiely, Margaret C., 1996. "Participatory evaluation in a community organization: Fostering stakeholder empowerment and utilization," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 79-93, February.
    3. Toal, Stacie A. & King, Jean A. & Johnson, Kelli & Lawrenz, Frances, 2009. "The unique character of involvement in multi-site evaluation settings," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 91-98, May.
    4. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    5. Olsen, Odd Einar & Lindoe, Preben, 2004. "Trailing research based evaluation; phases and roles," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 371-380, November.
    6. Mercier, Celine, 1997. "Participation in stakeholder-based evaluation: A case study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 467-475, November.
    7. Johansson, E. & Long, N. H. & Diwan, V. K. & Winkvist, A., 2000. "Gender and tuberculosis control: Perspectives on health seeking behaviour among men and women in Vietnam," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 33-51, May.
    8. Neuman, Ari & Shahor, Neria & Shina, Ilan & Sarid, Anat & Saar, Zehava, 2013. "Evaluation utilization research—Developing a theory and putting it to use," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 64-70.
    9. Anthony Perl & Michael Howlett & M. Ramesh, 2018. "Policy-making and truthiness: Can existing policy models cope with politicized evidence and willful ignorance in a “post-fact” world?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(4), pages 581-600, December.
    10. Dan Durning, 1999. "The transition from traditional to postpositivist policy analysis: A role for Q-methodology," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 389-410.
    11. Minnett, Ann M., 1999. "Internal evaluation in a self-reflective organization: one nonprofit agency's model," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 353-362, August.
    12. SHI, Jia & LEE, Ching-Hung & GUO, Xuesong & ZHU, Zhengwei, 2020. "Constructing an integrated stakeholder-based participatory policy evaluation model for urban traffic restriction," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    13. Goles, Tim & Hirschheim, Rudy, 2000. "The paradigm is dead, the paradigm is dead...long live the paradigm: the legacy of Burrell and Morgan," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 249-268, June.
    14. Ion Georgiou & Joaquim Heck, 2021. "The emergence of problem structuring methods, 1950s–1989: An atlas of the journal literature," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(6), pages 756-796, November.
    15. Valérie Pattyn & Marjolein Bouterse, 2020. "Explaining use and non-use of policy evaluations in a mature evaluation setting," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-9, December.
    16. Lindberg, Ulla & Salomonson, Nicklas & Sundström, Malin & Wendin, Karin, 2018. "Consumer perception and behavior in the retail foodscape–A study of chilled groceries," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 1-7.
    17. Dufour, Bryan, 2019. "Social impact measurement: What can impact investment practices and the policy evaluation paradigm learn from each other?," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 18-30.
    18. Geoffrey J. Syme & Brian S. Sadler, 1994. "Evaluation of Public Involvement in Water Resources Planning," Evaluation Review, , vol. 18(5), pages 523-542, October.
    19. Geurts, Jac. L. A. & Joldersma, Cisca, 2001. "Methodology for participatory policy analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(2), pages 300-310, January.
    20. Brousselle, Astrid & Petit, Geneviève & Giraud, Marie-Josée & Rietmann, Michèle & Boisvert, Krystel & Foley, Véronique, 2016. "Using the evaluation process as a lever for improving health and healthcare accessibility: The case of HCV services organization in Quebec," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 134-143.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jpamgt:v:12:y:1993:i:2:p:297-322. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/34787/home .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.