This course focuses on the role of ideas in the policy process. Various types and forms of ideas are examined with an emphasis on beliefs, knowledge claims, and values. We consider the foundations of contemporary policy inquiry in American pragmatism, mainstream and discursive approaches to policy analysis, the impact and utilization of knowledge, decision theory, issue attention, misinformation, and policy think tanks, as well as central theories of the policy process. Policy research, policy analysis, and other forms of policy ideas interact with other forces and help shape policy output and hence political outcomes. They are thus central to the study of American politics and political inquiry generally. Readings encompass philosophical treatises, conceptual and theoretical pronouncements, methodological prescriptions, and empirical analyses. Thus, the course examines various perspectives on a salient and important dimension of policy inquiry, rather than provide a comprehensive survey of the public policy literature. I assume that students have already started their study of American politics and are somewhat familiar with the literature on public policy.

My objectives are to ground students in salient segments of the policy literature, to help them connect the area of public policy to the field of American politics and political science generally, and to prepare students to conduct research on the politics of policy ideas.

Class sessions will follow a typical graduate-seminar format that relies on scholarly debate, critique, and exchange of ideas. Thus, students are expected to complete readings and papers as assigned, come to class with relevant issues and questions in mind, and participate in classroom discussion.

Assessment will be based on class participation, four short papers linked to the readings, and a final exam. These components are weighted as follows:

Attendance/Participation

Reaction Papers 4

Final Exam

30%

40%

30%

All reading assignments are found in the following books, which are listed in the order that we take them up. They should be available at the Temple University Bookstore. Be advised that after midterm the bookstore returns all books not yet purchased to the publisher.

Dewey, John. 1954. The Public and Its Problems. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1927. Denver: Swallow Press.

Dunn, William N. 2004. Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Steinbruner, John D. 2002. The Cybernetic Theory of Decision: New Dimensions of Political Analysis. Second Edition. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Fischer, Frank. 2003. Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hird, John A. 2005. Power, Knowledge, and Politics: Policy Analysis in the States. Georgetown University Press.

Sabatier, Paul A., Editor. 2006. Theories of the Policy Process. Second Edition. Boulder: Westview Press.

Jones, Bryan D., and Frank R. Baumgartner. 2005. The Politics of Attention. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Edelman, Murray. 2001. The Politics of Misinformation. Cambridge University Press.

Rich, Andrew. 2005. Think Tanks, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise. Cambridge University Press.

i. Rogers, James. M. 1989. “Social Science Disciplines and Policy Research: The Case of Political Science.” Policy Studies Review, 9, 13-28.

i. Dewey, John. 1954. The Public and Its Problems. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1927. Denver: Swallow Press, entire.

i. Lasswell, Harold. D., & Lerner, Daniel. Eds. 1951. The Policy Sciences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

ii. Meehan, Eugene. J. 1971. The Foundations of Political Analysis: Empirical and Normative. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press.

i. Dunn, William N. 2004. Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, preface & chapters 1-5, exclusing chapter appendices.

i. Grumm, John G. 1975. “The Analysis of Policy Impact.” In Fred I. Greenstein & Nelson W. Polsby Eds., Policies and Policymaking Vol. 6. Handbook of Political Science. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

ii. Meehan, Eugene J. 1981. Reasoned Argument in Social Science: Linking Research to Policy. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.

iii. Ripley, Randall. B. 1985. Policy Analysis in Political Science. Chicago: Nelson Hall.

iv. Brewer, Garry. D., & de Leon, Peter. 1983. The Foundations of Policy Analysis. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press.

v. Bobrow, Davis. B. 1987. Policy Analysis by design. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

vi. Weimer, David. L., & Vining, Aidan. R. 2004. Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice 4th ed.. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

i. Steinbruner, John D. 2002. The Cybernetic Theory of Decision: New Dimensions of Political Analysis. Second Edition. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, pp. xi-xxiii and chapters 1–5.

ii. Lindblom, Charles E. 1959. The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19, 79-88.

iii. Braybooke, David, & Lindblom, Charles. E. 1963. A Strategy of Decision. New York: Free Press.

v. Lane, Robert E. 1973. Patterns of Political Belief. In Jeanne Knutson Ed., Handbook of Political Psychology pp. 83-116. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

vi. Axelrod, Robert Ed. 1976. Structure of Decision: The Cognitive Maps of Political Elites. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

vii. Jervis, Robert. 1976. Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

viii. Green, Donald P., & Shapiro, Ian 1994. Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

i. Fischer, Frank. 2003. Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. New York: Oxford University Press, preface & chapters 1–5.

i. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Doubleday.

ii. Steinberger, Peter J. 1980, September. “Typologies of public policy: Meaning construction and the policy process.” Social Science Quarterly, 61, 185-207.

iii. Litfin, Karen. T. 1994. Ozone Discourses: Science and Politics in Global Environmental Cooperation. New York: Columbia University Press.

iv. Schram, Sanford. F. 1995. Words of Welfare: The Poverty of Social Science and the Social Science of Poverty. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

v. Stone, Deborah. A. 1996. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. Norton.

vi. Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2001. Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Science Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed S. Sampson, Trans.. Cambridge University Press.

vii. Schram, Sanford. F., & Caterino, Brian. Eds. 2006. Making Political Science Matter: Debating Knowledge, Research, and Method. New York: NYU Press.

i. Hird, John A. 2005. Power, Knowledge, and Politics: Policy Analysis in the States. Georgetown University Press, entire.

i. King, Lauriston, & Melanson, Philip. 1972. “Knowledge and Politics: Some Lessons from the 60s.” Public Policy, 20, 83-101.

ii. Caplan, Nathan, Morrison, Andrea., & Stambaugh, R. 1975. The Use of Social Science Knowledge in Policy Decisions at the National Level. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute for Social Research.

iii. Nelkin, Dorothy 1975. “The Political Impact of Technical Expertise.” Social Studies of Science, 535-54.

iv. Beyer, Janice M., & Trice, Harrison M. 1982. “The Utilization Process: A Conceptual Framework and Synthesis of Empirical Findings.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 27591-622.

v. Rogers, James. M. 1988. The Impact of Policy Analysis. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

vi. Rogers, Everett. M. 1995. Diffusions of Innovations 4th ed.. New York: Free Press.

vii. Weir, Margaret 1992. “Ideas and the Politics of Bounded Innovation.” In S. Steinmo, K. Thelen & F. Longstreth Eds., Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in a Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

viii. Skolnikoff, Eugene B. 1999. “The Role of Science in Policy: The Climate Change Debate in the United States.” Environment, 415, 16-45

i. Sabatier, Paul A., Editor. 2006. Theories of the Policy Process. Second Edition. Boulder: Westview Press, chapters to be announced.

i. Kingdon, John. W. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Boston: Little Brown.

ii. Baumgartner, Frank. R., & Jones, Bryan. D. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

iii. Lindblom, Charles. E., & Woodhouse, Edward. J. 1993. The Policy-Making Process (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.

iv. Birkland, Thomas A. 2001. An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts and Models of Public Policy Making. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

i. Jones, Bryan D., and Frank R. Baumgartner. 2005. The Politics of Attention. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, preface & chapters 1–7.

i. Baumgartner, Frank. R., & Jones, Bryan. D. 2002. Policy Dynamics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

i. Edelman, Murray. The Politics of Misinformation. Cambridge University Press, 2001, entire.

i. Edelman, Murray. 1964. The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Urbana, Ill: University of Illinois Press.

ii. Edelman, Murray. 1977. Political Language: Words that Succeed and Policies that Fail. New York: Academic Press.

iii. Sarnoff, Susan. K. 2001. Sanctified Snake Oil: The Effect of Junk Science on Public Policy. Greenwood.

i. Rich, Andrew. 2005. Think Tanks, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise. Cambridge University Press, entire..

i. Brewer, Garry. D. 1973. Politicians, Bureaucrats, and the Consultant. New York: Basic Books.

ii. Knorr-Cetina, Karin D., & Mulkay, Michael Eds. 1983. Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science. London: Sage.

iii. Rogers, Jamess. M. 1994. “Organizational Context, Sponsorship, and Policy Research Output.” Knowledge and Policy, 7, 3-24.

iv. MacRae Jr., Duncan, & Whittington, Dale. 1997. Expert Advice for Policy Choice: Analysis and Discourse. Georgetown University Press.

The policies and expectations described below are intended to promote a favorable learning environment in the classroom and fair treatment of all students. They draw upon and are supported by Temple University’s Student Code of Conduct, which can be found at http://www.temple.edu/assistance/udc/coc.htm. As the Code notes, instructors have responsibility for enforcement of the code and may report violations to the University Disciplinary Committee or sanction violators directly with a lowered grade. Please review the following policies carefully and let them guide your behavior.

Academic Honesty and Plagiarism. Academic honesty may be considered the glue that holds the educational and scholarly process together. Dishonesty and cheating, thus, will not be tolerated. Plagiarism is a particular form of dishonesty that presents the work, ideas, or words of another without attribution as if they were the author’s own. It applies to various tasks, including exams, assignments, and papers. Students caught cheating or plagiarizing will be given failing grades scores of zero on the task and may be referred to the University Disciplinary Committee. For answers to common questions about plagiarism, see Temple Writing Center’s “Plagiarism FAQ” at http://www.temple.edu/writingctr/student_resources/plagiarism.htm. For further guidance, see the Writing Center’s, “Using Source Material Effectively,” at http://www.temple.edu/writingctr/student_resources/incorporating_sources1.htm.

Arrivals and Departures. Students should make every effort to arrive for class on time so as to avoid disturbing the class. The same rationale applies to early departures: students should stay in class until dismissed by the instructor. If for some extraordinary reason a student must leave early, let the instructor know ahead of time so as to reduce the disruption.

Assignments. Course assignments, written or otherwise, are due as indicated by the instructor either verbally, on the syllabus, or on assignment handouts. Written assignments are to be provide in hard-copy, rather than email form, unless otherwise specified. It is the responsibility of the student to meet deadlines. Late assignments may be penalized. In no case will written assignments be accepted after the day and start time of the final exam unless an exception has been granted previously by the instructor.

Attendance. Class attendance is required and will determine a portion of your attendance/participation grade for the semester.

Disability Accommodations. The instructor will work with the Office of Disability Services to accommodate students with particular needs.

Exams. Students are expected to take exams on the scheduled date. If for some extraordinary reason a student needs to miss an exam, prior approval from the instructor must be obtained. If some extreme event results in the missing of an exam without prior approval the student must report in with a legitimate excuse no later than one day after the scheduled date of the exam to qualify for a makeup. Makeup exams may differ in format from the original exam and will be scheduled at the discretion of the instructor.

Grading. The instructor shall strive to assign grades that are reasonable, accurate reflections of student performance and that are fair to all students. He shall make himself available at least during office hours to discuss assignments, exams, grading criteria, and student performances. Appeals of grades are welcome if after careful reflection a student sincerely believes a grade is unreasonable or unfair but only if made in writing (no verbal appeals or arguments will be entertained). Appeals will trigger a process of regrading resulting either in confirmation or change of the original grade.

Participation. Students are encouraged to speak out in class to ask questions and present ideas and opinions. It usually helps moderate the flow of discussion for students to raise hands and wait to be called upon before addressing the class.

Private Conversations. Conversations during class time among two or more students, in contrast to the class as a whole, should be kept to an absolute minimum as they are disruptive to the attention of the class.

Respect of Others. While we will undoubtedly disagree with one another’s ideas from time to time, we should strive to respect those around us and appreciate our common bond of human dignity.

James M. Rogers, Associate Professor	Office Hours:
459 Gladfelter Hall	Tuesday, 2:45 – 3:45 p.m., MAIN
jrogers@temple.edu	Thursday, 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., MAIN
http://courses.temple.edu/jrogers/	Thursday, 4:00 – 5:00 p.m., TUCC
215-204-7785