David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Integral Review 6 (1):153-160 (2010)
The current state of the world suggests we have some difficulty in developing effective policy. This paper demonstrates two methods for the objective analysis of logic models within policy documents. By comparing policy models, we will be better able to compare policies and so determine which policy is best. Our ability to develop effective policy is reflected across the social sciences where our ability to create effective theoretical models is being called into question. The broad scope of this issue suggests a source as deep as our unconscious ways of thinking. Specifically, our reliance on modern and postmodern thinking has limited our ability to develop more effective policy, and more particularly, logic models. The move in some quarters toward “integral” thinking may provide insights that support the creation of more useful policy models. However, some versions of that thinking seem to be unwittingly mired in modern and postmodern thinking. This paper identifies how integral thought may be clarified, allowing us to advance beyond postmodern thinking. Usefully, this “neo-integral” form of thinking supports the creation of more mature policy models by encompassing greater complexity and a careful understanding of interrelationships that may be identified within the logic models that are commonly found in policy analyses. Neo-integral thinking is related to more complex forms of systems thinking and both are found in recent conversations within the nascent field of metatheory. And, to some extent, a logic model within a policy operates as a kind of theoretical model because both may be used to inform understanding and decision-making. Therefore, it seems reasonable to apply neo-integral thinking and metatheoretical methodologies to conduct critical comparisons of logic models. In the present paper, these methodologies are applied to critically compare two logic models. The structure of each model is analyzed to objectively determine its complexity and formal robustness. The complexity is determined by quantifying the concepts and connections within each model. The robustness of a model is a measure of its internal integrity, based on the ratio between the total number of aspects and the number of concatenated aspects. In this analysis, one policy model is found to have a robustness of 0.08, while another is found to have a robustness of 0.67. The more robust policy is expected to be much more effective in application. Implications for policy development and policy application are discussed.
|Keywords||metapolicy metaphilosophy critical metatheory|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Steven E. Wallis (2011). Avoiding Policy Failure. Emergent Publications.
Andrew M. Yuengert (2006). Model Selection and Multiple Research Goals: The Case of Rational Addiction. Journal of Economic Methodology 13 (1):77-96.
Paul Croll, Dorothy Abbott, Patrica Broadfoot, Marilyn Osborn & Andrew Pollard (1994). Teachers and Education Policy: Roles and Models. British Journal of Educational Studies 42 (4):333-347.
Veljko Dubljević (2013). Cognitive Enhancement, Rational Choice and Justification. Neuroethics 6 (1):179-187.
Stan du Plessis (2010). Implications for Models in Monetary Policy. Journal of Economic Methodology 17 (4):429-444.
Neelke Doorn (2013). Wide Reflective Equilibrium as a Normative Model for Responsible Governance. NanoEthics 7 (1):29-43.
S. N. Durlauf (2012). Complexity, Economics, and Public Policy. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 11 (1):45-75.
Bennett T. McCallum (1999). Recent Developments in Monetary Policy Analysis: The Roles of Theory and Evidence. Journal of Economic Methodology 6 (2):171-198.
Mark L. Taper, David F. Staples & Bradley B. Shepard (2008). Model Structure Adequacy Analysis: Selecting Models on the Basis of Their Ability to Answer Scientific Questions. Synthese 163 (3):357 - 370.
L. Taper Mark, F. Staples David & B. Shepard Bradley (2008). Model Structure Adequacy Analysis: Selecting Models on the Basis of Their Ability to Answer Scientific Questions. Synthese 163 (3).
Angus Dawson (2005). Risk Perceptions and Ethical Public Health Policy: MMR Vaccination in the UK. Poiesis and Praxis 3 (4):229-241.
Elisabeth A. Lloyd (2010). Conﬁrmation and Robustness of Climate Models. Philosophy of Science 77 (5):971–984.
David Bridges & Michael Watts (2008). Educational Research and Policy: Epistemological Considerations. Journal of Philosophy of Education 42 (s1):41-62.
Added to index2011-10-22
Total downloads18 ( #174,036 of 1,781,016 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #107,296 of 1,781,016 )
How can I increase my downloads?