1

PAF 7317 Social Inquiry & Public Policy University of Central Florida

Spring 215 Instructor: Dr. Naim Kapucu Room: HPA 207

Office: HPA II 238M Hours: T & Th.: 3:30-6:00 PM by appointment

Phone: (407) 823-6096 Fax: Fax: (407) 823-5651

E-:mail: kapucu@ucf.edu Thursdays: 6:00 - 8:50 PM

Required text(s):

Diesing, P. (1991). How does social science work? Reflections on practice. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Lindblom, C.E. (1990). Inquiry and change: The troubled attempt to understand and shape society. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Pearson, R.W. & Lawrence W. S. (eds.). (2005). The ANNALS (Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science). The use of Usefulness of the Social Sciences: Achievements, Disappointments, and Promise, 600.

Smith, K.B. & Larimer, C. W. (2013). The public policy theory primer (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

There is a long, rich tradition of theories of social science that have informed the field of public policy by providing “usable knowledge.” The course addresses the use and usefulness of social sciences in informing public policy. The course examines the philosophical foundations of social inquiry and the importance of theory in public policy and evaluation research. Topics include the epistemological, ontological, and methodological issues in development and use of social research, and the theoretical underpinnings of multiple paradigms in public policy with a foundation of a thorough understanding of the field’s intellectual traditions and resources. The course will help students gain a fundamental understanding of diverse theoretical approaches and the skills to appropriate and utilize theory to become effective scholars. Students will identify a theoretical framework (or develop their own perspective) in critically evaluating a current public policy problem.

Four main characteristics distinguish public policy from other disciplines. First, the field focuses on actual problems in the social, economic, and political environment, and uses reason to probe and explore those problems to discover a basis for informed action. Second, the field is necessarily interdisciplinary. The complex environment in which responsible public officials operate requires multiple perspectives essential to characterize and interpret this world of action. Third, the field focuses on the measurement of social conditions, economic processes, and political dynamics as an essential antidote to theoretical formulations that were offered without evidence or valid proof. Finally, the continual process of change that characterizes the policy environment and uncertainty that accompanies change is acknowledged. Policy development, consequently, is never complete; it is rather an on-going process of monitoring, measurement,

2

review, reflection, and redesign. These four perspectives underlie the framework of public policy as an analytical process intended to improve public policy making in complex, dynamic conditions.

Professional fields, such as public policy, draw upon a diverse ensemble of philosophical and social science theories to frame and organize their scholarship and practice. Future scholars of public policy must be conversant in the theoretical discourses that form the foundation for research, practice, and action. What constitutes valid knowledge? On what terms can theory and knowledge be used to inform practice and action? What is the proper relationship between researcher, practitioner, community, and subject? What are examples of scientific paradigm shifts and resulting theoretical and research implications? Related to these questions, the course also assumes that the development of knowledge necessarily occurs within paradigmatic frameworks and that the social and political conditions surrounding the arena, within which knowledge is generated, fundamentally conditions both its formulation and legitimation as knowledge. That is, intellectual and academic labor is dynamically and reflexively engaged in struggles with ideas, positions, and actors both within and outside the academic field.

This seminar is about big ideas that drive methodological debates in the public policy research. These debates are about the philosophy of methods, not the methods themselves, and this is why we use the term methodology. The aim of methodology is to examine critically the underlying philosophical, epistemological, and sociological arguments used to justify different methods of inquiry. By studying methodology we hope to expand the range of research methods and theories available to us as practicing social scientists, protecting us from the dogma that there is one set of “approved” methods and from the despair that comes from believing there are none. Students are encouraged to question what they know and how they know it in this seminar.

By studying methodology we will investigate some of the big questions posed by Paul Diesing in How Does Social Science Work? Reflections on Practice.

Logical Positivism and Public Policy Research. To what extent are or should the social sciences be based on the philosophy of science called logical positivism? Is logical positivism the same as “science” itself? What is positivism and how do we know it when we see it? What are its key doctrines and principles? What are its strengths and limitations as a way of generating knowledge? How is positivism related to specific methods of research, and theories about these methods, including quantitative modeling, case study analysis, game theoretic applications of rational choice theory, and so-called positive economics?

Challenges to Positivism in Public Policy Research. What are some of the major philosophical and epistemological challenges to logical positivism? Do some of these challenges—for example, falsificationism, hermeneutics, constructivism, pragmatism, critical theory—present methodological alternatives that significantly alter or even replace positivism? Are “qualitative” methods an alternative to “quantitative” methods and, if so, what are the key differences in their underlying philosophies? Must we choose between one and the other?

Sociology, Politics, and Psychology of Public Policy Research. Apart from philosophical and epistemological disputes, are there social, political, and psychological factors which shape research far more than methodology? For example, what would we have to do to create research organizations that promote

3

critical-reflective thinking rather than unconscious imitation of one or another method? Although there is much emphasis on methodological “rigor,” why the vast bulk of research is not communicated or used by others, including policymakers and other social scientists themselves? When the study of methodology includes social, political, and economic factors that affect the choice and application of methods, how does this affect our understanding of the social and policy sciences?

Improving Research Practice. Are the social sciences capable of producing knowledge or solving social problems? How can we improve the way we understand and conduct research? Would the adaptation or even abandonment of logical positivism improve the way we write dissertations, articles, and books? Should we use more quantitative analysis, more qualitative analysis, or perhaps both? What does “qualitative” analysis mean? Finally, can we use our knowledge of the effects of social, political, economic, and psychological factors on science to improve the practice of research in public policy?

Ethical Principles and Values: The Public Affairs (PAF) Doctoral Program is governed by ethical principles and values that direct professional behavior and guide the curriculum to align with the UCF Golden Rule. Each doctoral student is expected to uphold these principles and values. (See Pg. 21)

Domains, Competencies, and Course Objectives: Faculty members in the College of Health and Public Affairs have identified four domains and core competencies for each domain necessary for comprehensive preparation in Public Affairs. This course is integral to the overall curriculum and designed to address certain domains and meet specific core competencies identified below, along with the specific course objectives and the tools to measure those competencies.

Domain Core Competencies Course Objectives Measures Critical & Analytical Thinking

Pose innovative and important research questions, informed by systematic and critical reviews of the literature, by stakeholder needs, and by relevant theoretical and conceptual models

Develop a theoretical framework for interdisciplinary policy research and apply it to an actual policy problem in a critical way

Apply theory in the process of developing research questions and formulating conceptual models for hypothesis testing

Research Paper

Situate individual research endeavors within a larger context, considering impacts on competing stakeholders and identifying ethical implications

Identify the intellectual history, paradigmatic structure, and contemporary debates in the use of theory in public policy research and evaluation

Examine the philosophy and epistemology of methods used in public policy-relevant social sciences (not merely the technical aspects of different quantitative and qualitative methods)

Critical Synthesis Paper

Research, Method, Statistics, Theory

Integrate and apply interdisciplinary theories and research findings to solve community problems

Develop a theoretical framework for interdisciplinary policy research and apply it to an actual policy problem in a critical way

Cultivate students’ capacity for critical analysis, the ability to understand and synthesize complex ideas, and, on the basis of that analysis and synthesis, locate opportunities for future research and scholarly contribution

Research Paper

4

Leadership& Engagement

Demonstrate an understanding of translational community-based research and how it guides the assessment of, and solutions to, complex public problems and issues

Articulate a personal research philosophy reflecting both the student’s professional objectives for his/her own research as well as the expectations and standards he/she would apply to the work of others.

Assess and synthesize information from a variety of sources to inform evidence-based decisions

Examine the philosophy and epistemology of methods used in public policy-relevant social sciences (not merely the technical aspects of different quantitative and qualitative methods)

Philosophy of Science Evaluation

Communication & Dissemination

Translate scientific knowledge into meaningful programs and policies

Develop skills of critical thinking and analysis, probing the assumptions, on which existing policies are based

Conceptual Paper

Course Format: The course will be conducted in seminar fashion with discussion focused on a common set of readings that we will all thoroughly read and critique. Students in a seminar are expected to provide the major set of intellectual stimuli for consideration, with the instructors guiding and assisting students and, during discussions, assisting in the synthesis of diverse student input. The seminar will be collegial in the sense that there is a genuine search for answers to some of the more vexing intellectual problems associated with the study of public policy. Ultimately, however, the success of the seminar as a learning experience for all participants will depend on the commitment and participation of each class member. The course covers a variety of topics related both to the substance and methods of public policy. We will examine theoretical frameworks from a variety of disciplines. We will also emphasize the role of theory in empirical policy research. The class will read and discuss some of the important recent materials as well as relevant classics. Timely completion of the readings and full class participation is expected even during the weeks, in which you do not submit a paper.

Requirements

(1) Participation: Everyone is expected to read and reflect on all assigned readings prior to class. All students are expected to contribute to the discussion, and, therefore, “cold calls” may sometimes be employed. This is an important requirement. Students who repeatedly come to class unprepared do not belong in graduate school. As doctoral students, you are substantively responsible for much of your own learning. Indeed, a primary educational objective of doctoral study is to learn how to conduct independent research and to arrive at considered and informed assessments of questions, problems, and conclusions independent of professorial authority.

(2) Critical synthesis paper: Students are expected to prepare five critical synthesis papers (700-1000 words, 2 single-spaced pages in length) that critically review the two selected resources assigned for a given week. You also have the option of writing six papers to be graded with the option of dropping the lowest from your record. These papers should include:

Fundamental objective of the reading, and how it fits into a broader stream of theories in social science and public policy research;

The theories drawn upon, and the rationale for propositions/hypotheses if any; Research questions; Methodology used; Results and conclusions – In the case of conceptual papers, please expand the discussion

of major points of the paper.

5

Although a brief summary of key points may be necessary for the critique, this paper is not to be a summary of the week’s readings, but a critical assessment of themes and claims within the readings, such as a critique of an argument made by the author, or a synthesis of a method or line of reasoning made in the readings, or the application of the theory in an empirical article (either using qualitative or quantitative analysis). While you can and should point out limitations, absences, flaws in argumentation or research design etc. in the work, you can also comment on something you found to be especially powerful, illuminating, important, or compelling about the work and, importantly, explain why. You are asked to post your write-up using Webcourses discussion topic of the week at least one day before the class meeting no later than 5 pm on the day preceding the seminar.

(3) Conceptual paper and leading class discussion: Each student will be assigned one class based on his/her interest where he/she is responsible for conceptualizing and leading discussion (about 30 minutes) on how the readings for the class date relate to each other, as well as to earlier readings in the course. This assignment is intended to cultivate ongoing critical reflection of the readings and to develop your ability to synthesize complex scholarship. You are asked to read thoroughly the assigned readings; select an idea, concept, or theme that carries across the various readings and to write a brief essay that discusses the similarities and differences in how each author considers your selected topic. A 2- to 3-page written synthesis of this discussion with a conceptual map should be distributed to all seminar members at least one day before the class meeting using Webcourses discussion topic of the week. PPTs will be used for presentations. You are responsible for coming up with a brief introduction (likely using your essay as a guide), moving into your discussion questions/material, and starting and ending on time. I will follow each presentation with comments placing the material and discussion in the larger context of public policy research.

(4) Philosophy of science evaluation: Each seminar participant will select an empirical article from a peer-reviewed journal that is of interest to him/her and analyze its theoretical foundations. Students must use the standards discussed in the philosophy of science literature and theoretical approaches covered in the course to critically evaluate any empirically-oriented scholarly article (or book) in public policy/affairs published within the last year. Choose an empirical piece, rather than a purely theoretical analysis or literature review. Place the work in context so as to enter into a dialogue with the research community of which it is a part; then critically assess the quality of the author’s work. Criticism is more than summary: indicate the work’s strengths and weaknesses and suggest areas of improvement. Show how your comments derive from the philosophy of science literature. The philosophy of science evaluation should be approximately five double-spaced pages long, or 1500 words.

(5) Research Paper: Each student will write a paper on a public policy using a theoretical framework. The paper will be 20-25 double-spaced pages in length, including references and appendices. This paper should review and interpret relevant literature and propose a theoretical framework in analyzing a public policy problem. The purpose of the paper is to enable students to apply a theoretical perspective to a policy problem of special concern to him or her. A 1-2 page prospectus (proposal) for this paper needs to be discussed with the professor and approved. This paper is due one week before our last session and papers will be presented on the final day of class.

6

Required Readings: The course readings are limited and selective and should be viewed as a general introduction to the field and not as a comprehensive mapping of its complexity and diversity. Additional readings are placed in the course schedule below.

Evaluation, Grading, and Feedback: Grading for the class will be allocated in the following manner: 10 percent of the final grade for class participation; 25 percent for the critical synthesis papers (5 points each), 15 percent for the conceptual paper and leading class discussion, 15 percent for the philosophy of science evaluation; 25 percent for the final research paper, and 10 percent for the presentation of the research paper.

All class-related work will count toward your final grade. Written work will receive comments via the assignment function of Webcourses. If the comments are not informative, please, request clarification. All grades will be available through the myUCF portal under myUCF grades.

Grades: Points Class participation 10 Critical synthesis papers (5 each) 25 Conceptual paper & lead 15 Philosophy of science evaluation 15 Research paper 25 Presentation 10 Total 100 Final grades will be earned as follows:

If students receive grades of "C+" or lower in a required interdisciplinary core or research methods & statistics course, they may be dismissed from the program. Also, all students who receive a grade of "C+" or lower in an interdisciplinary or research methods & statistics course must repeat the course and obtain a grade of "B-" or better prior to taking the qualifying examination. A minimum of a 3.0 GPA in the specified graduate program of study is required to maintain graduate student status and for graduation. Students with a GPA of less than 3.0 may be dismissed from the program.

Writing Ability: Successful graduate-level work requires an ability to write clearly using correct grammar and spelling. Be sure to check all your written assignments before submitting them, as points will be taken off for improper spelling and poorly-worded sentences. Please use APA style consistently in your assignments. UCF Writing Center peer tutors are available to assist students

Points Grade 100 93 = A 92 90 = A- 89 87 = B+ 86 83 = B 82 80 = B- 79 77 = C+ 76 73 = C 72 70 = C- 69 67 = D+ 66 63 = D 62 60 = D- 59 0 = F

7

with writing for any UCF course, as well as personal and professional writing. Consultations are available for individuals and small groups, both face-to-face and online. Students may schedule appointments from the UWC website (http://uwc.ucf.edu/).

Communications: E-mail is a very efficient way to contact the instructor. Office hours are as posted or by appointment. I highly encourage the use of WebCourses mail for the course. Students also need access to their Knights e-mail account and should check it regularly.

Academic Integrity: The PAF program holds students to high standards of integrity. Every student is expected to do his or her own work, and all of the work produced will be expected to be completed in its entirety by the student who turns it in. Cheating and plagiarism will not be tolerated. Acts of cheating include, but are not limited to, copying another student’s paper or answers, using a "cheat sheet", handing in another’s paper as your own, or copying a paper or any other information on an exam or assignment.

Students may not submit a paper to this class that has been previously submitted to another class or that is being submitted to a class in the same semester. It might be appropriate for a paper to address the same issue, use the same theories, etc., but the writing must be original for each class submission. If a student wants to use some or all of another assignment, they must obtain written approval from the professor.

Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to, not acknowledging sources of information appropriately and in accordance with APA guidelines, "copying and pasting" without putting into your own words (even if a citation is used), and any other instance where one person utilizes the words or ideas of another without giving proper credit. Note that plagiarism does not have to be intentional in order to be penalized—even inadvertent instances will subject a student to punishment. You must cite often in each paragraph. Citing once at the end of a paragraph is not acceptable. Students who observe others violate this policy are expected to report this to the instructor.

PAF program and University policies on academic integrity will be strictly enforced (see the UCF Golden Rule for further information). Cheating or plagiarism may result in a failing grade for the assignment and/or a failing grade in the class and potential removal from the program. In all cases, a report will be filed with the Office of Student Conduct.

Your professor may use Turnitin.com for course assignments. Turnitin.com is an online system which determines if work has been copied from another source. For a more detailed look at this process, please visit http://www.turnitin.com. The university’s policy statement can be found at www.goldenrule.sdes.ucf.edu (Golden Rule).

Disabilities: The University of Central Florida is committed to providing reasonable accommodations for all persons with disabilities. This syllabus is available in alternate formats upon request. Students who need accommodations must be registered with Student Disability Services, Ferrell Commons Room 185, phone (407) 823-2371, TTY/TDD only phone (407) 823-2116, before requesting accommodations from the professor. Faculty are not required to retroactively provide accommodations unless notified by Student Disability Services regarding an extenuating circumstance. It is therefore strongly encouraged that students provide the Accommodation Letters to faculty at the beginning of the semester. As a student you are able to register for classes in upcoming semesters in advance, and once you register the accommodation letters are sent out to the instructors by Student Disability Services.

8

UCF Library: Students who are logged into Webcourses@UCF and click on a Library link will automatically have access – they will no longer need to login to online Library services, if they are already logged into an online course. For students outside of online courses, they can now login to the Library using their PID and PID password instead of their library number.

9

Class Topics and Schedule

Week 1 (January 15) Introduction

Organizational Meeting: Bowling alone or Bowling together? Aims, definitions, ground rules, guidelines, readings, theory and method, theory or Theory? Read syllabus and the assignment requirements

Week 2 (January 22) Perspectives from Philosophy of Science

Required readings:

Diesing, Introduction (ix-xi), Ch. 3: Kuhn and Stegmuller

Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Lindblom, 1990, Ch. 1

Smith and Larimer, 2013, Ch. 1

Recommended readings:

Biernacki, R. (2012). Reinventing evidence in social inquiry: Decoding facts and variables. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan

Craib, I. & Benton, T. (2010). Philosophy of social science: The philosophical foundations of social thought. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. (Chapters 1, 2, and 3)

Crotty, M.J. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Introduction & Chapter 1

Beetham, D. (1989). Max weber and the liberal political tradition. European Journal of Sociology, 30, 311–23.

Bruun, H. H. (1972). Science, values and politics in max weber's methodology, Copenhagen: Munksgaard.

Feyerabend, P. (1988). Against method. Rev. Ed. London: Verso.

Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of science. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press

Morton, A. (1997). A Guide through the theory of knowledge. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc.

Riccucci, N.M. (2010). Public administration: Traditions of inquiry and philosophies of knowledge. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. (chapter 6)

Soss, J., Sanford S., Thomas V. & O’Brien, E. (2001). Setting the terms of relief: Explaining state policy choices in the devolution revolution. American Journal of Political Science, 45(2): 378-395.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2009 Ed.). This authoritative source covers in article form many of the most important methodological issues in the social sciences. You can use it on-line at http://plato.stanford.edu/. (You also may purchase a student membership for $10. This

10

enables you to download and print high-quality PDF copies of articles.) When citing this source use the following form:

Barker-Plummer, D. (2009). Turing machines. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Zalta, E.N. (ed.). URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/turing-machine

Discussion Leader: Dr. Kapucu

Week 3 (January 29) Logical Positivism and Scientific Inference

Required readings:

Diesing, Ch. 1: Logical Empiricism, 1922-1970

Friedman, M. (1966). The methodology of positive economics. Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 3-16, 30-43.

Shapiro, I. (2000). A model that pretends to explain everything. The New York Times (February 26).

Rescher, N. (2006). The berlin school of logical empiricism and its legacy. Erkenntnis, 64, 281–304.

Sen, A. K. (1977). Rational fools: A critique of the behavioral foundations of economic theory. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 6(4), 317-44.

Recommended readings:

Ayer, A. J. (1952). Language, truth, and logic. New York, NY: Dover Publications.

Cook, T. D. (1985). Postpositivist critical multiplism. Shortland, R.L. & Mark, M. M. (eds.) Social Science and Social Policy, 129–46. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Dion, D. (1998). Evidence and inference in the comparative case study, Comparative Politics, 127–45.

Green, D. & Shapiro, I. (1994). Pathologies of rational choice theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Habermas, J. (1968). Knowledge and human interests. Boston, MA: Beacon, 301-17

Hardie, C. D. (1938). Logical positivism and scientific theory. Mind, 47(186), 214-25.

Heckathorn, D. & Broadhead, R. (1996). Rational choice, public policy, and AIDS. Rationality and Society, 8(3), 235-60.

Kuhn, T.S. (1970). Logic of discovery or psychology of research. Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A. (eds.) Criticisms and the Growth of Knowledge. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1-23

Moe, T. (2009). Collective bargaining and the performance of the public schools. American Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 156-174.

Richardson, A. & Übel, T. (eds.). (2007). The Cambridge companion to logical empiricism. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Discussion Leader:

11

Week 4 (February 5) Falsificationism, Policy Experimentation, and Evidence-based Policy

Required readings:

Diesing, Ch. 2: Popper and His Followers, 29-54.

Campbell, D. T. (1998). The experimenting society. Dunn, W. N. The Experimenting Society: Essays in Honor of Donald T. Campbell. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 35-68

Dunn, W. N. (1998). Campbell’s experimenting society: Prospect and retrospect. Dunn, W.N. The Experimenting Society: Essays in Honor of Donald T. Campbell. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1-34.

Petrosino, A. et al., (2001). Meeting the challenges of evidence-based policy: The Campbell collaboration. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578. What Works in Preventing Crime? Systematic Reviews of Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Research, 14-34.

Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39(5), 426-431.

Recommended readings:

Campbell, D.T. (1969). Reforms as experiments. American Psychologist, 24(4), 409-29.

____ (1989). Evolutionary epistemology. Methodology and Epistemology for Social Science: Selected Papers. Overman, E.S. (ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Fischer, F. (1995). Evaluating public policy. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall Publishers.

Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A. (eds.). (1970). Criticisms and the growth of knowledge. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. (Chapter on Kuhn's varies paradigm by M. Matherson)

Lewis-beck, M. & Alford, J. R. (1980). Can government regulate safety? American Political Science Review, 74(3), 745-56.

Merton, R. K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review, 1(6), 894-904.

Popper, K. (1968). The logic of scientific discovery. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Discussion Leader:

Week 5 (February 12) Pragmatism and Public Policy Research

Required readings:

Diesing, Ch. 4: Pragmatism, 75-104.

Ball, W. J. (1995). A pragmatic framework for the evaluation of policy arguments. Policy Studies Review, 14(1/2), 1-24.

Bromley, D. W. (2004). Reconsidering environmental policy: Prescriptive consequentialism and volitional pragmatism. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2(8), 73-99.

Churchman, C. W. & Mitroff, I.I. (1999). The management of science and the mismanagement of the world. Dunn, William N. The Experimenting Society: Essays in Honor of Donald T. Campbell (103-24). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

12

McGrath, J. (1981). Dilemmatics: The study of research choices and dilemmas. American Behavioral Scientist, 25(2), 179-210.

Recommended readings:

Ansell, C.K. (2011). Pragmatist democracy: Evolutionary learning as public philosophy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bartle, J. & Shields, P. M (2013). The practice of government finance. In M. Kelemen & K. Rumens (eds.). American pragmatism and organizations: Issues and controversies (175-190). Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing, Inc.

Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.

Dunn, W. N. (1997). Pragmatic eliminative induction: Proximal range and context validation in applied social experimentation. Philosophica, 60(2), 75-112.

Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 79-91.

Rumens, K. & Kelemen, M. (2013). American pragmatism and organization studies: Concepts, themes and possibilities. In M. Kelemen & K. Rumens (eds.). American pragmatism and organizations: Issues and controversies (3-24). Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing, Inc.

Shields, P.M. (2003). The community of inquiry: Classical pragmatism and public administration. Administration and Society, 35(5), 510-538.

Discussion Leader:

Week 6 (February 19) Hermeneutics and Constructivism

Required readings:

Diesing, Ch. 6: Hermeneutics: The Interpretation of Texts, 104-145 Abel, T. (1948). The operation called verstehen. The American Journal of Sociology, 54(3), 211-

18. Hummel, R. (2006). The triumph of numbers: Knowledges and the mismeasure of management.

Administration & Society, 38(1), 58-78.

Ventriss, C. (2012). The future (and challenge) of policy analysis in an era of analytical and theoretical ambivalence. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 34(2), 287-304.

Recommended readings:

Ashley, R. (1984). The poverty of neorealism. International Organization, 38, 225-86.

Beckett, K. & Western, B. (2001). Governing social marginality: Welfare, incarceration, and the transformation of state policy. Punishment & Society, 3(1), 43-59.

Bernstein, R. (1976). The restructuring of social and political theory. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Interpretive sociology. In Burrell, G. & G. Morgan. Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann (pp. 227-259).

13

Crotty, M.J. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. (Chapters 3, 4, 5)

Hummel, R. (2007). The bureaucratic experience: A critique of life in the modern organization. New York, NY: M.E.Sharpe.

Mertus, J. (2004). Raising expectations? Civil society’s influence on human rights and US foreign policy. Journal of Human Rights, 3(1), 21-40.

Riccucci, N. (2010). Public administration: Traditions of inquiry and philosophies of knowledge. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. (Chapter 5)

Schneider, A.L. & Ingram, H.M. (2005). Deserving and entitled: Social construction and public policy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Ventriss, C. (1995). Modern thought and bureaucracy. (Review of Hummel’s The Bureaucratic Experience). Public Administration Review, 55(6), 575-81.

Ventriss, C. (2013). Reexamining the foundations of public administration and policy. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 35(1), 154-62.

Wagenaar, H. (2011). Meaning in action: Interpretation and dialogue in policy analysis. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe. (Chapter 5)

Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1-26.

Discussion Leader:

Week 7 (February 26) Social, Economic, and Political Factors Shaping Research

Required readings:

Diesing, Ch. 6: Macrosociology of Social Science (149-80), Ch. 7: Microsociology of Social Science (181-206), and Ch. 8: Science Politics (207-42)

Dryzek, J. S. (1989). Policy sciences of democracy. Polity, 22(1), 97-118. Horowitz, I. L. (1967). Social science and public policy: An examination of the political

foundations of modern research. International Studies Quarterly, 11(1), 32-62. Miller, H.T., & Fox, C. (2001). The epistemic community. Administration and Society, 32(6),

668–85. Smith and Larimer, 2013, Ch. 2

Recommended readings:

Barrett, D. & Ong Tsui,A. (1999). Policy as symbolic statement: International response to national population policies. Social Forces, 78(1), 213-234.

Cress, D.M. & Snow, D. A. (2000). The outcome of homeless mobilization: The influence of organization, disruption, political mediation, and framing. American Journal of Sociology, 105(4), 1063–104.

Delbridge, R. & Fiss, P. C. (2013). Editor’s comments: Styles of theorizing and the social organization of knowledge. Academy Of Management Review, 38(3), 325-331.

DeLeon, P. (1994). Democracy and the Policy Sciences. Policy Studies Journal, 22(2), 200-112.

14

Jacobs, L.R. (1992). Institutions and culture: Health policy and public opinion in the U.S. and britain. World Politics, 44(2), 179-209.

Jackson, M.O. (2008). Social and economic networks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The policy orientation. In. D. Lerner & H. D. Lasswell. The policy sciences: Recent developments in scope and methods. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 3-15.

Lowi, T. (1964). American business, public policy, case studies and political theory. World Politics, 677-715. (A famous book review Lowi which he spends the first eleven pages critiquing pluralism and then develops an alternative approach in which policy determines politics rather than the reverse.)

Makse, T. & Volden, C. (2011). The role of policy attributes in the diffusion of innovations. Journal of Politics, 73(1), 108-24.

Mettler, S. & Soss, J. (2004). The consequences of public policy for democratic citizenship: Bridging policy studies and mass politics. Perspectives on Politics, 2(1), 55-74.

Stone, D. (2012). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. (3rded.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company. (Chapters 2-5)

Discussion Leader:

Week 8 (March 5) Cognitive and Personality Factors Shaping Research

Required readings:

Diesing, Ch. 9: Cognitive Processes in Social Science (242-72); Ch. 10: Personality Influences in Social Science (273-99) Mantere, S. & Ketokivi, M. (2013). Reasoning in organization science. Academy of Management

Review, 38(1), 70–89.

Recommended readings:

Cook, S. D. N. & Wagenaar, H. (2012). Navigating the eternally unfolding present: Toward an epistemology of practice. The American Review of Public Administration, 42(1), 3-38.

Fiore, S. M. (2008). Power and promise: Cognitive psychology and cognitive technology. Cognitive Technology, 13(1), 5-8.

Kilduff, M. & Krackhardt, D. (2008). Interpersonal networks in organizations: Cognition, personality, dynamics, and culture. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Ramos, A. G. (1981). The new science of organizations: A reconceptualization of the wealth of nations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. (Chapter 5 Cognitive Politics)

Toulmin, S. (1990). Cosmopolis: The hidden agenda of modernity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Young, I. M. (2007). Global challenges: War, self-determination and responsibility for justice. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Discussion Leader:

15

Spring break (March 9-14) No classes

Week 9 (March 19) How Should Public Policy Research Work?

Required readings:

Diesing, Ch. 11: How does social science produce knowledge? (303-326); Ch. 12: Problems and dangers on the road of knowledge

Nowlin, M. C. (2011). Theories of the policy process: State of the research and emerging trends. Policy Studies Journal, 40(S1), 41-60.

Smith and Larimer, 2013, Ch. 5 & 8

Recommended readings:

Brady, H. & Collier, D. (eds.). (2004). Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Campbell, D. T. (1987). Guidelines for monitoring the scientific competence of preventive intervention research centers: An exercise in the sociology of scientific validity. Special issue: National policies for improving validity in applied social research. Science Communication (Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization), 8(3), 389-430.

George, A. L. & Bennet, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Haverland, M., & Yanow, D. (2012). A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Public Administration Research Universe: Surviving Conversations on Methodologies and Methods. Public Administration Review, 72(3), 401-408.

Horowitz, I. L. (ed.) (1997). Readings in social science and public policy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Lynn, L. E., Heinrich, C.J., & Hill, C.J. (2001). Improving governance: A new logic for empirical research. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

King, G., Keohane, R., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

O’Connor, A. (2001). Poverty knowledge: Social science, social policy, and the poor in twentieth-century U.S. history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rihoux, B. (2006). Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related systematic comparative methods: Recent advances and remaining challenges for social science research. International Sociology September, 21(5), 679-706.

Discussion Leader:

Due: Philosophy of science evaluation

Withdrawal Deadline March 24 (ends at 11:59 p.m.)

Week 10 (March 26) Complex Social Problems: Reality of Public Policy Research

Required readings:

16

Cook, K.S., Hardin, R., & Levi,M. (2005). Cooperation without trust? Special section: Complex systems and networks, Science, 325, 405-32.

Kenis, P.N. & Schneider, V. (1991). Policy networks and public policy analysis: Scrutinizing a new analytical toolbox. In B. Marin & R. Mayntz (Eds.) Policy networks: Empirical evidence and theoretical considerations (pp. 25-59). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Ostrom, E. (1998). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. American Political Science Review, 22(1), 1-22.

Smith and Larimer, 2013, Ch. 3 & 4 Revisit : Diesing, pp. 149-241 (skim 75-103, 242-299).

Recommended readings:

Jackson, M.O. (2008). Social and economic networks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Lubienski, C. (2003). Innovation in education markets: Theory and evidence on the impact of competition and choice in charter schools. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 395-443.

Morcol, G. (2012). A complexity theory for public policy. New York, NY: Routledge.

Olson, M. Jr. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Xu, Z., Hannaway, J. & Taylor, C. (2011). Making a difference? The effects of teach for america in high school. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 447- 69.

Discussion Leader:

Week 11 (April 2) Interdisciplinary Inquiry into Complex Social Problems

Required readings:

Dobbin, F., Simmons, B., & Garret, G. (2007). The global diffusion of public policies: Social construction, coercion, competition, or learning? Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 449-72.

Fiore, S. M. (2008). Interdisciplinarity as teamwork: How the science of teams can inform team science. Small Group Research, 39, 251-77.

Miller, T.R., Baird, T.D., Littlefield, C.M., Kofinas, G., Chapin, F.S. III, & Redman, C.L. (2008). Epistemological pluralism: Reorganizing interdisciplinary research. Ecology & Society, 13(2), 46. Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art46/

National Academies (2005). Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Recommended readings:

Asencio, R., Carter, D. R., DeChurch, L. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Fiore, S. M. (2012). Charting a course for collaboration: A multiteam perspective. Translational Behavioral Medicine: Practice, Policy and Research, 4(2), 487-94.

17

Börner, K., Contractor, N., Falk-Krzesinski, H, J., Fiore, S. M., Hall, K. L., Keyton, J., Spring, B., Stokols, D., Trochim, W., & Uzzi, B. (2010). A multi-level systems perspective for the science of team science. Science Translational Medicine, 2(49), 1-5.

Catlaw, T. (2013). Beyond methodological taylorism? Pluralism and the study of public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.

Epstein J.M. and Axtell, R. (1996). Growing artificial societies: Social science from the bottom up. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution press.

Frodeman, R. S. (ed). (2010). The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Jacobs, J. A. (2013). In Defense of Disciplines: Interdisciplinarity and Specialization in the Research University. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Raadschelders, J. C. N. (2011). The future of the study of public administration: Embedding research object and methodology in epistemology and ontology. Public Administration Review 71(6), 916-24.

Raadschelders, J.C. N. (2011). Public administration: The interdisciplinary study of government. New York: Oxford University Press.

Repko, A. (2012). Interdisciplinary research: Process & theory (Second Edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Salazar, M. R., Lant, T. K., Fiore, S. M., & Salas, E. (2012). Facilitating innovation in diverse science teams through integrative capacity. Small Group Research, 43(5), 527-58.

Discussion Leader:

Week 12 (April 9) The Use and Usefulness of Social Sciences for Public Policy

Required readings:

National Research Council (NRC). (2012). Using science as evidence in public policy. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press.

Pearson, R.W. & Sherman, L.W. (eds.). (2005). The ANNALS (Annals of the American academy of political and social science. The use of usefulness of the social sciences: Achievements, disappointments, and Promise, 600. ISSN 0002-7162.

Smith and Larimer, 2013, Ch. 6, 7, 9, & 10

Recommended readings:

Anderson, L. (2003). Pursuing truth, exercising power: social science and public policy in the 21st century. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Carnea, M. (1997). Social science research and the crafting of policy on population resettlement. In M. Horowitz, Irving L. (ed.). Readings in Social Science and Public Policy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 87-111.

Demers, D. (2011). The ivory tower of babel: Why the social sciences are failing to live up to their promises. New York, NY: Algora.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

18

Foreign Policy. (2014, March). Does academy matter?

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (JPAM). (2012). Special issue: Special symposium on science policy and the science of science policy, 31(3).

Ravetz, J. R. (1990). The merger of knowledge with power. New York, NY: Mansell Publishing Limited.

Rivlin, Alice M. (1971). Systemic thinking for social action. Washington DC: Brookings Institution.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Schultz, D. (2012). American politics in the age of ignorance: Why lawmakers choose belief over research. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Weiss, C.H. (1995). The Haphazard Connection: Social Science and Public Policy. In T. Barone (Ed.), The Uses of Educational Research. International Journal of Educational Research, 23 (2), 113-124.

Wildavsky, A. (1979). Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.

Discussion Leader:

Week 13 (April 16) Usable Knowledge for the Betterment of Communities: Intellectuals and Society

Required readings: Contractor, S. N. & DeChurch, L. A. (2014). Integrating social networks and human social motives to achieve social influence at scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1401211111

Lindblom, 1990, Ch. 2-16

Gutting, G. (2012). How Reliable Are the Social Sciences? New York Times.

Recommended readings:

Adams, G. B. & White, J. D. (1994). Dissertation research in public administration and cognate fields: An assessment of methods and quality. Public Administration Review, 54(6), 565-576.

Fish, S. (2008). Save the world on your own time. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Gattone, C. (2012). The social scientist as public intellectual in an age of mass media. International journal of politics, culture and society, 25, 175-186.

Graffy, E. A. (2008). Meeting the challenges of policy-relevant science: Bridging theory and practice. Public Administration Review, 68(6), 1087 – 100.

Hess, C. & Ostrom, E. (eds.) (2007). Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hummel, R. (2007). The bureaucratic experience: A critique of life in the modern organization. New York, NY: M.E.Sharpe. (Chapter 6)

19

Kelly, R. M. & Gregware, P. (1998). The experimenting society: Toward an inclusive democratic community. In Dunn, William N. The Experimenting Society: Essays in Honor of Donald T. Campbell. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 189-210.

Lindblom, C. E. & Cohen, D.K. (1979). Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Miyoshi, M. (2000). Ivory tower in escrow. Boundary 2, 27(1), 7-50.

Said, E.W. (1996). Representations of the intellectual: The 1993 Reith lectures. New York, NY: Vintage.

Sowell, Th. (2009). Intellectuals and society. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Talbot, C. & Talbot, C. (2014). Sir Humphrey and the professors: What does Whitehall want from academics? A survey of senior civil servants’ views on the accessibility and utility of academic research and expertise. Manchester, UK: The University of Manchester.

Discussion Leader:

Week 14 (April 23) Community-Based Research (CBR) for Usable Knowledge

Required readings:

Kapucu, N. (2014). Community-based research (CBR) in generating usable knowledge for public policy and administration. Administration & Society. 46(1), doi:10.1177/0095399713519095

Israel, B. A., Schulz, A.J., Parker, E.A., & Becker, A.B. (1998). Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health 19, 173–202.

Koliba, C. J. & Lathrop, J. (2007). Inquiry as intervention: Employing action research to surface intersubjective theories-in-use and support and organization’s capacity to learn. Administration & Society, 39(1), 51-76.

Peterson, T. H. (2009). Engaged scholarship: Reflections and research on the pedagogy of social change. Teaching in Higher Education, 14, 541–52.

Ritas, C. (2003). Speaking truth, creating power: A guide to policy work for community- based participatory research practitioners. University of Washington, Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/ccph/pdf_files/ritas.pdf

Recommended readings:

Adelman, C. (1993). Kurt lewin and the origins of action research. Educational Action Research 1(1), 7-24.

Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2007). Introduction to action research: Social research for social change (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems, in G.W. Lewin (Ed.) Resolving Social Conflicts. New York: Harper & Row (1948).

Mischen, P. A., & Sinclair, T.A.P. (2007). Making implementation more democratic through action implementation research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 145-64.

20

Rickinson, M., Sebba, J., & Edwards,A. (2011). Improving research through user engagement. New York, NY: Routledge.

Stoecker, R. (2005). Research methods for community change: A project-based approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Discussion Leader:

Due: Research Paper

Week 15 (April 30) Conclusion and Presentations: Putting it all together

Class Presentations of Student Projects Assessments, Challenges, and Conclusions

Disclaimer Statement: Please note that this is a tentative syllabus, and the professor reserves the right to make any revisions that may be necessary to meet the objectives of the course. Students will be notified promptly of any revisions. While I believe that the course is informative and well-structured, improvements can always be made. Your ongoing feedback on the usability of the syllabus, intelligibility of class discussions, and other course materials is always welcomed. Please feel free to suggest new readings and other ideas about how to improve your learning experience and the content of the course.

Acknowledgement: Several colleagues have contributed to the syllabus: Frances Berry (Florida State University), Thomas J. Catlaw (Arizona State University), Louise K. Comfort (University of Pittsburgh), William N. Dunn (University of Pittsburgh), Richard C. Feiock (Florida State University), Christopher Koliba (University of Vermont), Gary S. Marshall (University of Nebraska, Omaha), Hugh T. Miller (Florida Atlantic University), Göktuğ Morçöl (Pennsylvania State University), James L. Perry (Indiana University, Bloomington), Jos C.N. Raadschelders (Ohio State University), Curtis Ventriss (John Hopkins University), Gary Wamsley (Virginia Tech)

ENJOY THE CLASS!

21

Ethical Principles, Values, and Curriculum Domains Guiding the Public Affairs Program

Ethical Principles

Beneficence or Doing Good: The program is dedicated to preparing scholars and practitioners who will “do good works” through practice and research that seeks to “strengthen communities and change lives” by ameliorating or resolving complex social issues.

Justice or Fairness: The program is dedicated to demonstrating and practicing fairness in all matters relating to teaching, research, and service. Addressing issues of social justice will be the guiding principle when conducting community-based research.

Integrity or Honesty: The program is committed to demonstrating honesty in actions with students, faculty members, and the greater community. This principle is the hallmark of the research conducted by students and faculty members associated with the program.

Respect or Inclusiveness: Representatives of the program are committed to demonstrating respect for all individuals and their right to have their belief systems. Through respect for others their ideas are considered or included in all discussions and decisions regarding teaching, research, or service.

Values

Creativity: The program values the ability to generate and critically evaluate new knowledge through rigorous research, scholarship, and practice that positively impacts people, institutions, and their communities while advancing the knowledge base within and across disciplines.

Interdisciplinary Approach: The program is committed to an interdisciplinary approach to learning, research, and the generation of translational and transformational knowledge.

Partnership: The program values research-practice collaborations that form links between the academic, policy, and professional communities.

Community: The program values scholars that will use these tools to address complex social issues to improve peoples’ lives locally and globally with honesty and integrity.

Scholarship: The program values scholarship that will use these tools to build the knowledge base with honesty and integrity.

Curriculum Domains

Critical & Analytical Thinking: Demonstrate an ability to critically analyze existing bodies of knowledge and core areas of public affairs practice, research, and theory.

Research, Method, Statistics, & Theory: Demonstrate an ability to develop theoretically-based research with appropriate design and rigorous methods and analysis to address community-based issues.

Leadership & Engagement: Demonstrate leadership capabilities in designing and implementing change strategies to collaboratively strengthen communities.

Communication & Dissemination: Demonstrate the ability to translate and communicate research to the specific audience targeted.

22

A Listing of Some Journals In and Relevant to Public Affairs & Policy

Academy of Management Journal Academy of Management Review Administration & Society Administrative Science Quarterly Administrative Theory & Praxis American Economic Review American Educational Research Journal American Journal of Evaluation American Journal of Political Science American Journal of Sociology American Political Science Review American Review of Public Administration American Sociological Review Australian Journal of Public Administration Complexity, Governance, and Networks Critical Policy Studies Critical Social Policy Cross Cultural Research Cultural Studies/Critical Methodologies

Demography Ecology & Society Econometrica Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis Evaluation Review GLQ—A Journal of Lesbian & Gay Studies Governance Government Finance Review Housing Policy Debate Human Relations Information Systems Management International Public Management Journal International Review of Administrative Sciences International Studies Quarterly International

Review of Public Administration JASSS—Journal of Artificial Societies and Social

Stimulation Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis Journal of Contingencies and Crisis

Management Journal of Democracy Journal of Development Studies Journal of Education Administration Journal of Education Policy Journal of Labor Economics Journal of Management Journal of Mixed Methods Research Journal of Policy Analysis & Management Journal of Poverty

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Journal of Public Affairs Education Journal of Public Economics Journal of Social Policy Journal of the American Planning Society Journal of Urban Affairs Local Government Finance Municipal Finance Journal National Civic Review National Tax Journal Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly Organization Organization Science Perspectives on Politics Philosophy of the Social Sciences Philosophy & Public Affairs Policy & Politics Public Administration (UK) Public Administration & Development Public Administration Review Public Budgeting & Finance Public Budgeting and Financial Management Public Finance Review Public Personnel Management Public Performance and Management Review Public Works, Policy, and Management Publius: Journal of Federalism Qualitative Inquiry Race & Class Research Evaluation Review of Policy Research Review of Public Personnel Administration Science & Society Science and Public Policy Simulation & Gaming Social Research Social Science Journal Social Science Computer Review Social Science Quarterly Sociological Theory State and Local Government Review Third World Quarterly Urban Affairs Review Urban Studies Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and

Nonprofit Organizations