SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2008 / Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 1

Kamu Politikası Analizinde Çoklu Yaklaşımlar: Positivist Yaklaşımın Bir Eleştirisi

Multiple Approaches in Public Policy Analysis: A Critique of Positivist Approach

Süleyman ÇELİK
Sıtkı ÇORBACIOĞLU
Pages
17–27
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Moreover, the paper concludes that multiple perspectives, methods, measures, and data sources in form of critical multiplism can be employed together in public policy analysis.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This paper criticizes the positivist approach by drawing on major approaches in policy analysis literature.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The article argues that positivist approach in the form of costbenefit analysis and comprehensive rational analysis is insufficient and likely to fail since it does not account for complexity.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Moreover, the paper concludes that multiple perspectives, methods, measures, and data sources in form of critical multiplism can be employed together in public policy analysis.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This paper criticizes the positivist approach by drawing on major approaches in policy analysis literature. The article argues that positivist approach in the form of costbenefit analysis and comprehensive rational analysis is insufficient and likely to fail since it does not account for complexity. The research indicates the importance of normative and valuative approaches in addressing policy problems. Moreover, the paper concludes that multiple perspectives, methods, measures, and data sources in form of critical multiplism can be employed together in public policy analysis.

Özet

Bu çalışma, kamu politikası literatüründeki alternatif yaklaşımlardan yola çıkarak pozitivist yaklaşımı eleştirerek değerlendirmektedir. Çalışmanın temel argümanı, maliyet-fayda analizi ve kapsamlı rasyonel analiz şeklinde uygulamaları görülen pozitivist yaklaşımın, kamu politikası problemlerinin karmaşıklığını hesaba katmaması dolayısıyla başarısız olduğudur. Araştırma bulguları, kamu politikası problemlerinin çözümünde normatif ve değerci yaklaşımların da politika analizcilerince kullanılması gerektiğini belirtmektedir. Çalışma, farklı perspektif, yöntem, ölçü ve veri kaynaklarının, kritik çokçuluk (multiplism) anlayışı içerisinde kamu politikası analizinde kullanılması gerektiği sonucuna varmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇELİK, S., ÇORBACIOĞLU, S. (2022). Kamu Politikası Analizinde Çoklu Yaklaşımlar: Positivist Yaklaşımın Bir Eleştirisi. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 1, 17–27. https://ajindex.com/articles/480233

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. ACKOFF, L. Russell. (1974), Redesigning the Future: A Systems Approach to Societal Problems. New York: John Wiley and Sons. ARİFF, Mohamed. (2007), Comment on "Asian Currency Crisis and the International Monetary Fund, 10 Years Later: Overview" Asian Economic Policy Review Vol.:2, No:1, p. 50–51
  2. ALLİSON, T. Graham. (1971), Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, Boston MA: Little Brown BRAYBROOKE, David and Charles, E. Lindblom. (1963), A Strategy of Decision: Policy Evaluation and Social Process. Toronto: Collier- Macmaian Company, Ltd. BOBROW, B. Davis. and John S.Dryzek. (2000),
  3. Policy Analysis by Design, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  4. CAMPBELL, T. Donald. and Stanley C. Julian. (1963), Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research, Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company. CAMPBELL, T. Donald, William R. Shadish, and Thomas D. Cook, (2002), Experimental and Quasi-Experimentation for Generalized Casual Inference, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Chicago, IL: Rand Mc Nally College Publishing Company. COLDWELL, David A. L. (2007) “Is Research that is both Causally Adequate and Adequate on the Level of Meaning Possible or Necessary in Business Research? A Critical Analysis of Some Methodological Alternatives”, The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 5(1):1-10
  5. COOK, D. Thomas, Donald T. Campbell. (1979), Quasi-experimentation:Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. COOK, D. Thomas and Charles S. Reichardt. (1979) “Beyond Qualitative Versus Quantitative Methods, in Thomas D. Cook and Charles S. Reichardt” (ed.), Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage), Vol. 1. COOK, D. Thomas (1985), “Postpositivist Critical Multiplism”, in R. L. Shotland and M. M. Mark (ed.), Social Science and Social Policy, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. DATTA, Louis, E.(2001). “Chalenges and Strategie for Successfully Carrying Out Mixed Method Evaluations”, Evaluation Journal of Australasia 1(2) (new series): 33-40
  6. DİESİNG, Paul. (1991), How Does Social Sciences Work? Reflections on Practice, Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  7. DRYZEK, J.S. (1983), “Don't Toss Coins in Garbage Cans: A Prologue to Policy Design”, Journal of Public Policy”, Vol.:3, No: 4, 345-368
  8. DUNN, N. Willam. (1995), “Testing Rival Hypotheses with Pragmatic Eliminative Induction: The Case of National Maximum Speed Limits”, Working paper, Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Gradu