Method in Policy Inquiries

Framework for Inquiry

The method of inquiry chosen for developing public policy can have a major effect on the recommendations that emerge. However, deliberate bias or sabotage is always possible. See below.

THEE identifies distinctive approaches to inquiry based on sharply differing views on how certainty can be assured when testing knowledge. This field, called epistemology by philosophers, has been extensively studied but …Closed usually with a tendency to view one approach as superior. Academic disciplines vary greatly in the methods used to develop confidence in their knowledge (i.e. in their preferred epistemology); and this is one cause of discord and feelings of superiority amongst disciplines.

Inquiry (RHL2-PH2) is a large and complex THEE-Topic with its own Satellite in the TOP web-cluster. Key aspects of inquiry are shown in this graphic:

Core testing processes in the framework of inquiry and the inquiry systems that are derived from them.

Application to Sources of Policy

Public Inquiries (CG-44)

These are concerned to be open and comprehensive, so they accept input of many sorts, and unselfconsciously seek to generate a holistic-L'5 account of the situation.

Think-Tank Reports (CG-43)

Reports are offered as an analysis (analytic-L'2). Most tend to organize facts as evidence (empirical-L'2), sometimes applying statistical or other mathematical techniques (formal-L'6). Very few use system modeling-L'5, and the complex requirements of hypothesis-testing-L'3 (controls, randomization, blindness &c.) are difficult if not impossible to implement in the societal sphere. Some policy analysts seek to identify dilemmas or reconcile opposing positions (dialectic-L'4).

Departmental Papers (CG-42) &
Vested Interest Proposals (CG-41)

These usually draw on empirical-L'2 data and use formal-L'6 and analytic-L'2 techniques.Holistic-L'5 methods are usually viewed as too complicated. Dialectic-L'4 methods may be used to reconcile opposing positions of industry and advocacy groups.

Given immature political institutions, government will often commission papers to be written so as to recommend a course of action that has already been chosen on a political or self-interested basis.

Example:Closed The George W. Bush presidency sought to use the September 2001 terrorist attack as a reason for going to war with Iraq. All persons involved were Saudis, and Iraq had no connection to the event. It has been confirmed that both the US and UK governments were prepared to alter information and interpretations of intelligence in departmental papers-CG42 to justify going to war with Iraq. Vast expense and many deaths followed, anti-Western feeling was exacerbated, and the terrorist danger probably increased as a consequence.

Even when sabotage is not direct, recommendations are commonly slanted to the preferences of the funder. Sometimes details and mathematics are pseudo-science aiming to overwhelm or awe.

Because persuasiveness is given primacy in politics, understanding policy reports draws on the THEE Using Language-PH'5 framework rather than the Inquiry-PH'2 framework.

Originally posted: August-2009; Last updated: 12-Jul-2012