building better judgement amongst policymakers using the

Copyright © University of Oxford 2020. Professor Karthik Ramanna and Case Writer Dr Oenone Kubie prepared this document. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, whether by photocopying or storing in any medium by electronic means or otherwise, except as permitted by law, without permission in writing from the University of Oxford.

Building better judgement amongst policymakers using the case-study method 3 June 2020 On the day before US President John F Kennedy’s inauguration in January 1961, the incumbent President Dwight ‘Ike’ Eisenhower offered Kennedy some advice: ‘There are no easy matters that will come to you as President. If they are easy, they will be settled at a lower level.’1 As President, Kennedy saw his fair share of difficult matters, but the issue that would later prompt his memory of Eisenhower’s words was the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962.2 After detecting new Soviet missile installations on Cuba, just over 100 miles off the coast of Florida, Kennedy ordered a naval ‘quarantine’ of the island. 3 When Soviet ships neared the quarantine, the two Cold War superpowers came to the brink of nuclear war. Kennedy’s advisers offered a range of suggestions from diplomacy to launching a pre-emptive strike, but as Kennedy would later put it, ‘no matter how many advisers you have, frequently they are divided, and the President must finally choose.’4 In the atmosphere of uncertainty and under considerable pressure to act quickly, Kennedy ultimately had to make a judgement call. Not all decisions public leaders make have the same dramatic stakes as the Cuban Missile Crisis, but uncertainty and time pressure force public leaders to use judgement on a daily basis. In such situations, decision-makers tend to rely on instinct rather than careful scientific or ethical reasoning to make decisions. In fact, research suggests we all often make decisions instinctively, and use reasoning to rationalise the choice afterwards.5 It seems, therefore, that if we want good government, we must hope that our public leaders have good instincts. For those of us who want to go beyond simply hoping for good instincts in our leaders, we must educate our future decision-makers with the reflexes for better judgement. Judgement can be learnt. With practice working through difficult decisions, exposure to diverse competencies, characters, and commitments, and the opportunity to reflect on choices, individuals can develop the skills of good decision-making. The challenge lies in providing students with such opportunities. Traditional teaching methods such as lecturing, where knowledge flows from instructor to student, can build reasoning abilities but are less well-suited to teach judgement. For those schools that wish to hone students’ judgement in preparation for the hardest decisions of public policy, the case method offers a promising pedagogical opportunity. Also known as ‘participant-centred learning’, the case method was first developed in law schools in the nineteenth century as a means to educate lawyers in the application of common-law principles. From there, business schools and other professional schools began adopting the case method for the explicit purpose of building skills of judgement.6 As it is now understood, the case method is a discussion-based system of learning with case studies forming the basis for each class. Case studies typically have two features: (1) a difficult decision and (2) a protagonist who must make that decision. Cases are usually descriptive in nature, laying out the facts and context around the decision, as experienced by the protagonist. The case does not provide any analysis or judgement. Instead, students must put themselves in the shoes of the protagonist, consider the alternatives, make a decision, and be prepared to defend that choice to fellow participants. The case method thus builds skills of judgement by allowing students to practice decision-making, hear diverse views from their learning community, and reflect on the feedback they receive from peers and the instructor.

This document is exclusively authorised for use in the Blavatnik School of Government’s Case Method for Public Policy workshop, June 2020.

Building better judgement amongst policymakers using the case-study method

2

Instructors play a vital role in orchestrating the classroom to create an effective learning experience. A successful case discussion relies on a good teaching plan and a well-nurtured learning community. Instructors can design a case study’s teaching plan to elucidate a particular theory or tool, or to explore some uncharted empirical phenomenon. They must also manage the case discussion, ensuring that students learn to understand differences in judgement and to collaborate where appropriate to solve the problems raised by the case study. Historically, schools of government have only occasionally employed the case method. In such schools, the primary objective has typically been ensuring students acquire a body of knowledge of public policy theories and tools, rather than teaching for high pressure decision-making, in which the case method excels. But, if the Cuban Missile Crisis is anything to go by, the skills of good judgement are just as, if not more, important to public leaders as they are to CEOs and lawyers. To prepare students for such difficult decision-making, schools of government need to go beyond teaching science and values. Using the case method, they can provide an education in judgement. Science, values, and the need for judgement in public policy In a model environment, where outcomes are certain and time unlimited, policymakers would decide on a course of action from a thorough evaluation of both evidence and ethics. Understanding cause and effect as well as the ability to locate, process, and evaluate evidence helps policymakers to assess options and engineer outcomes. At the same time, values determine what outcomes societies want, what interventions are acceptable, and how to prioritise the application of limited resources. So even when scientific evidence provides a clear course of action, the data must be balanced against other ethical considerations. Ideally, the evidentiary and ethical analyses would align, and the decision for the policymaker would be clear. But conditions in the real world are seldom so ideal. Science can rarely provide certainty. Even the ‘gold standard’ of evidence-based policy, the use of randomised control trials, faces criticism.7 For example, an article published in Futures in 2017 suggested ‘evidence based policy may result in a dramatic simplification of the available perceptions, in flawed policy prescriptions and in the neglect of other relevant world views of legitimate stakeholders.’8 Furthermore, even a policymaker well versed in the scientific method can have difficulty extrapolating from the results of trials on a small sample of the population to a large-scale policy intervention. So despite advances in data collection and evidence-based methods, uncertainty over outcomes remains a considerable problem in public policy decision-making. Of course, supposing for a moment that science could provide a dispositive answer, there are questions where values complicate an otherwise straightforward problem. For example, while a consensus of scientific evidence proves that measles vaccines are highly effective at preventing measles fatalities, ethical concerns may prevent a public leader from making vaccines compulsory among healthy citizens. 9 A policymaker would have to consider questions of bodily autonomy, parental and children’s rights, religious objections, and the extent of a state’s right to intervene in matters of public health, among other issues. Even after a thorough ethical evaluation, this decision would likely involve a trade-off between competing values. The combination of science and values may therefore prove insufficient for many decisions policymakers face. Sometimes public leaders have limited evidence to draw on; other times, they must choose between moral rights versus rights or moral wrongs versus wrongs. And supposing a ‘correct’ answer existed to a policy dilemma, developing a complete evaluation of options and outcomes to determine it would likely require an untenable investment of resources from time-harried policymakers. These questions compel leaders to use their judgement.



3

Consider, for example, the policymakers around the world deciding whether to implement quarantine measures in the first three months of 2020, following the rapid spread of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. Time was of the essence and randomised control trials of quarantines impossible. Under these conditions, leaders likely consulted experts on quarantine effectiveness from the 2003 SARS outbreak, but would have faced much uncertainty regarding the extent to which the two viruses could be compared. Any quarantine also has ethical dimensions. Following the 2003 SARS epidemic, epidemiological research found that ‘mass quarantine can inflict significant social, psychological, and economic costs without resulting in the detection of many infected individuals.’10 Imposing quarantine measures may also involve suspending the liberties and rights of citizens such as habeas corpus, the right to assembly, and the right to privacy. Yet any choice not to implement quarantine measures might result in the epidemic spiralling out of control and severely jeopardise public health. When faced with a potential epidemic, public leaders have extremely limited time to collect all the relevant research, evaluate conflicting or inconclusive evidence, or spend time philosophising and working through moral and legal ramifications of quarantine measures. Even stalling is a costly decision, as every passing moment an outbreak might worsen. Certainty over outcomes is impossible and advice from experts is likely to be diverse and conflicting. In this high-pressure environment, policymakers must make a judgement call. Time pressure and uncertainty – factors common to both the example of COVID-19 quarantines and the Cuban Missile Crisis – force leaders to make judgements but also affect decision-making processes. As time pressure and uncertainty increase, decision-makers replace complex mental calculations and empathetic considerations with simple or familiar decision rules. In these situations, decision-makers tend to resort to implicit mental shortcuts known as heuristics.11 Heuristics have always formed part of decision-making, but the use of heuristics in public policy looks likely to rise in the coming decades as the unpredictability of climate change and other such phenomena increases uncertainty, and as “influencers” use social-media platforms to pressure decision-makers into quicker reactions. Making an educated guess, trial and error, or employing a rule of thumb are all examples of heuristics. The use of these mental shortcuts is not necessarily detrimental to judgement. In fact, according to recent research, the use of heuristics can outperform so-called ‘rational’ methods of decision-making, especially under adverse conditions.12 If a decision-maker has good instincts, using heuristics can be both fast and frugal. Unfortunately, using heuristics can prove dangerous if a policymaker employs them poorly. For example, scholars have linked the availability heuristic – when one estimates the likelihood of an event happening based on how easy it is to recall instances of such an event – to racial profiling in the United States. This study concluded that individuals overestimated crime rates among racial minorities due to disproportional coverage of criminals of colour in the media.13 In such a case, the use of heuristics to make policy decisions would suggest poor judgement; considering evidence and values would most likely lead to better policy outcomes than relying on mental shortcuts. Considering that we cannot expect decision-makers to make complex calculations and complete ethical evaluations each time they are faced with a decision, how can we ensure that the reflexes they rely on instead are good? Traditional university teaching approaches, where knowledge is transmitted from teacher to student, are only partly helpful in educating for judgement. In the lecture model, for example, the student learns to look to the authority (the instructor) for the ‘right’ frameworks. Students absorb explicit knowledge about how to solve problems. However, beyond such knowledge, students need to develop the instinct to identify and structure problems. And then, once they have recognised the problem, students need to practice applying both conceptual knowledge and values to generate good decisions.14 This is where the case method becomes useful.



4

Building judgement through the case method According to research in decision-making, ‘With repeated experience using [decision] rules in real situations, individuals gradually learn to get to the essence of the problem quickly without the apparent effort of calling up rules, weighing options, and sorting through facts.’15 Master chess players, for example, often learn in training to detect patterns in game-play and then in competitions choose suitable moves at seemingly impossible speeds.16 If it is not too ambitious to compare students of public policy to chess players, students likewise develop their own instincts when given the opportunity to practice making difficult judgement calls that others have had to make in the past. This can serve them well when their leadership skills are tested on the fly. Equally important is that this practice takes place in the context of a diverse learning community where students draw on a range of experiences, backgrounds, and values. In this community, students can learn how others approach difficult decisions and see how their choices are received. Finally, in order to progress, students must reflect on the learning process and the feedback they are given. These three factors – decision-making practice, learning in a community, and individual reflection – form the basis of case method pedagogy. Practice ‘What should the protagonist do?’ This question lies at the heart of the case method in public policy education. During case teaching at the Blavatnik School, the question appears in a variety of forms. For example, one Oxford case study about regulating Uber in London asks, ‘Should the London transport regulator issue Uber a license?’.17 Another case study on the construction of Berlin’s new airport instead centres on the question, ‘Should the public leaders planning a new airport for Berlin accept the solitary bid in their attempt to privatise the project?’.18 Although the form of the question varies, the invitation remains the same: evaluate the evidence, consider the ethics, apply all your knowledge, and make a decision for yourself. In short, practice all your judgement skills. The cases students encounter in the classroom are not likely to be the same ‘cases’ they will encounter as leaders in the world after university. But examining historical situations equips students to deal with uncertainty by providing real-world examples where choices are opaque, outcomes difficult to determine, and advice often contradictory. Through such discussions, students learn and practice skills for making decisions under uncertainty. One of the judgement skills needed to deal with uncertainty, which students practice through the case method, is problem-framing. The conceit of the case study ensures that students understand that an important decision is at hand, but neither the case nor the instructor typically prejudges for students what the most salient problem in the case study is. It is up to each student to decide how to frame the problem, and thus how to develop a policy solution. This dynamic is apparent in a Blavatnik School case study on the use of Huawei equipment in 5G networks in India. The case study provides students with a range of advice from experts and concerned parties about the potential risks and benefits of using Huawei. The advice is all backed by logical reasoning but varies dramatically depending on how the expert or individual has framed the problem. For a businessperson keen to preserve relationships with both China and the USA, for instance, choosing whether or not to use Huawei equipment is a very different problem than for an expert on telecommunications security or on national security. To explore how problem-framing can create blind spots, the teaching plan for this case discussion begins with the question ‘Is this a difficult decision and why?’. Students who think this is not a difficult decision often discover that they have framed the problem quite



5

narrowly. By broadening their perspectives, students can then re-evaluate their own decisions and judgements. Unlike a typical lecture, a case study and discussion do not drive towards one right decision; there is neither a correct way to frame nor to solve the problem at hand. The case method builds students’ independent thinking. It requires students to apply their own knowledge and make their own choices with the instructor providing guidance rather than ‘the answer’. This is not to suggest that anything goes in the case discussion. The case method does not jettison either science or ethics but rather builds on the foundation of theories and knowledge imparted in traditional teaching formats. Furthermore, the case method enables instructors to probe or correct shoddy thinking and poor analyses, and it gives students the opportunity to make, and thus learn from, mistakes and bad judgement. Although an instructor should provide students with feedback, the instructor’s view of a case decision-point should not overshadow students’ judgements. An instructor choreographs the discussion, but students are far from passive. The most productive moments may be ones neither the case writer nor the instructor foresaw. Thus, far from the transmission of knowledge in a typical lecture setting, during a case discussion the construction of knowledge is a group endeavour. The practice of problem-framing, decision-making, and thinking for oneself that is required to build judgement must, therefore, take place within a learning community. Community The learning community is an integral part of the case method. To build judgement, students need to hear other ideas and test their own. In a case discussion class, students must listen to each other, give and receive feedback, and learn to collaborate. At the Blavatnik School, participants in case discussions have included civil servants from both India and Pakistan, those engaged with political offices in Israel and the Arab world, those from both political sides of the Colombian peace process, and of course those from across the political spectrum in the US, the UK, and numerous other democracies together with students from China and Russia, among many other countries. Far from something to overcome, such diversity is a strength we try to nurture. In this setting, among the most important things students learn through the case method is how to work across differences. Although much of academic life encourages students to compete rather than to collaborate, collaboration will be vital as students leave university and prepare to tackle the great global challenges of the future, such as climate change and mass migration. As students work with peers to solve the problems posed by case studies, they are required to co-operate. Furthermore, by immersing students in complex situations, case studies enable students to rehearse difficult conversations and build their active-listening, critiquing, and persuasion abilities. After all, judgement in public policy is not just about making the ‘right’ decision; it is about learning to communicate, to build the consensus that will make such a decision a success in practice. In a case discussion, students also learn from each other. Their diverse ideas, experiences, and values give range and substance to the conversation. Where once a decision may have seemed straightforward, students discover an array of potential approaches to a problem. Students hear and respond to alternative viewpoints, occasionally change their minds and, if not, strengthen their ability to justify or defend a position. And throughout the class, they receive feedback, directly and indirectly, from their peers and the discussion leader. Peer feedback is the backbone of the learning community. By its very nature, peer feedback is the investment a community makes in itself. Because the feedback is received as well as given, participants implicitly think more carefully about how they frame what they say to



6

others. But for feedback to be effective, students require the third element of the case method: reflection. Reflection The case method gives students the opportunity to practice their communication skills. In this context, students may misunderstand each other, make poor judgements, or misread and misuse evidence. Often students fail to persuade others of their choices or may be persuaded themselves to change their stance. At other times, students raise points which are well received by the community. All of these examples offer moments for reflection and growth. After a discussion a student may ask themselves such questions as: Why did Tania misunderstand me? Why was Maria’s point so well received? How can I better incorporate evidence and my values to support my view? Was my judgement sound? Instructors can prompt student reflection in the classroom through follow-ups. For instance, instructors can ask (or direct fellow students to ask) individuals to rephrase their comment, to back-up their statements with further reasoning, to link to a broader concept, or to offer an alternative view.19 Instructors may also assign explicit reflection tasks or encourage students to continue discussions following the end of a class. After reflection, the student has an opportunity to implement changes in the next case discussion where the process of making a decision, receiving feedback, and reflecting begins again. These three elements – decision-making practice, a learning community, and individual reflection – form the foundations of a successful case discussion. To curate an effective class that meets the learning objectives, an instructor must build on these foundations through careful teaching-plan design and good management of the case session. Designing the case session There are two broad ways to design a case discussion, depending on whether the instructor wants students to understand how to apply a specific theory, or to explore some uncharted phenomenon that is unexplained by current theory. In either scenario, although the design differs, the case discussion builds judgement and gives students the opportunity to practice their skills and apply knowledge.a Explicating a theory or tool In the first scenario – to explicate a specific theory or tool – the instructor typically assigns students a case study alongside an article illuminating the theory at hand. In class, students discuss the problem through the shared theoretical framework. Rather than simply learning the particulars of the given theory or tool, students also develop the ability to apply that theory or tool in a real-world scenario. Sample case study: In a class at the Blavatnik School, an instructor wished to introduce the legal concept of judicial review of executive action, both in terms of jurisprudence theory and the application of the principle. Having identified the theory, the instructor assigned students an article on the jurisprudence of judicial review alongside an Oxford case study that showcased the concept. The case study focuses on US federal court judge Jed Rakoff’s review of a settlement between the executive branch of the US government and Bank of America following the 2008-09 financial crisis. Students then came to class ready to discuss what options Rakoff had and the principles at stake. By examining Rakoff’s decision, students gained a better understanding of both the benefits and potential demerits of judicial review of executive action, while learning how to apply a legal principle in conditions of uncertainty.

a For an in-depth look at the process of developing new cases for either scenario see Karthik Ramanna and Sarah McAra, ‘How to write case studies for public policy education’, Blavatnik School of Government, 2020.



7

Exploring an uncharted phenomenon In the second scenario, instructors may wish to have students delve into an unexplored problem and build their own frameworks for decision-making. The case usually still has a decision point but it is not necessarily tied to a specific theory or tool. Rather, the instructor asks students to explore potentially relevant theories or tools that could aid in making the decision at hand, and then to develop their own principles for navigating a route forward. By forging through the uncharted terrain, students implicitly build on their prior knowledge of related subjects. A good case discussion probes students to make explicit any implicit decision heuristics and share them with the class. In the process, students collectively build a framework for how to navigate the decision-point. Even if students are unlikely to encounter that specific phenomenon in their professional lives, they have built some skills in confronting uncharted phenomena more generally. Sample case study: At the Blavatnik School, this method informed the design of a case session on a complex situation concerning change management in the Vatican Bank. Assuming the role of a new director of the Vatican Bank’s supervisory body, students must consider how best to address a range of embarrassing scandals within the financial institution. There is no single theoretical framework to be illustrated here. Rather, students apply knowledge from a range of disciplines and prior personal experience. Learning objectives include problem-framing, selecting appropriate theories or tools, and applying knowledge in conditions of uncertainty. Generalist or specialist education? Cases of the types described above demonstrate the flexibility of the case study as a tool in both generalist and specialist education. At the Blavatnik School, the Vatican case is taught in a generalist course on policy challenges. In this context, the case develops generalist skills in recognising patterns, applying concepts in uncertainty, and making connections across bodies of knowledge. The Rakoff case, by contrast, is taught in a specialist course on law and public policy, and it might be equally useful in specialist legal classes on judicial review, on the separations of power, or on the history of the global financial crisis. While these latter classes could be taught through traditional teaching methods, the case method allows students to deepen their learning through application. With current pedagogical research stressing that effective learning occurs when a student is actively involved in the primary construction of knowledge, educators in either specialist or generalist classes can ensure students gain a deep and thorough understanding of a theory or tool by using the case method.20 Managing the case discussion To ensure students experience a productive learning environment, instructors must carefully manage the discussion as well as the session design. During the discussion, the instructor leads the class through different phases, often called “pastures.” Typically pastures have one of four aims: (1) exploration, where the class delves into the key tension of the case study; (2) analysis, where the class seeks to understand why the tension exists; (3) creativity, where students respond to the problem; and (4) reflection, where students connect the discussion to past and future experiences. In each pasture, the instructor should build upon student comments to draw out broader insights, to make connections between responses, and to transition between pastures. For students and instructors alike, therefore, listening is the default mode in the classroom. Instructors should seek to foster an active listening culture by encouraging students to connect their comments to what their classmates have previously said and by impressing upon the class that the instructor is looking for quality not quantity of engagement.



8

If the instructor successfully creates a classroom where students listen to and engage with each other, vehement disagreements are likely to ensue. With public policy case studies reflecting some of the most contentious and difficult decisions public leaders will face, students recognise the high stakes involved and often react passionately. Managing a case discussion is thus a delicate process. The learning community necessary for productive case discussions is unlikely to develop organically in the classroom. In the words of the celebrated case-method professor C Roland Christensen, if instructors want effective discussions, they must work hard to create a learning ‘safe space’ with an atmosphere of intellectual hospitality where students can take risks.21 Framing a classroom contract or shared commitments may help an instructor foster that sort of safe space.22 At the Blavatnik School, we establish three ground rules for all participants: first, be authentic and passionate; second, let others be so as well; and third, how you say something is as important as what you say. Regardless of the particulars, these shared commitments should seek to establish an atmosphere of mutual respect while allowing students to voice, discuss, and disagree with diverse opinions. Simply stating these rules is not enough to get students to buy in; members of the community need to experience a contract in practice to internalise it. 23 An instructor can provide guidance during discussions to ensure students stick to the ground rules. Additionally, at the Blavatnik School, we have used short mini-case studies concerning aspects of disruptive classroom behaviour, from accidental plagiarism to unintended misogyny. Students discuss the scenarios and envision for themselves the learning community they want to build. In any case discussion, a classroom leader should frame cases as problems to be solved together. Group problem-solving can be embedded in the structure of a discussion class. For instance, in a case session at the Blavatnik School about the future of taxation, students work in small groups to design a new tax policy which their peers then vote whether to pass or not. Students practice working within groups to generate and negotiate ideas, and must then come together to persuade a broader audience to accept their proposal.24 In such a setting, students learn to see their community as potential allies rather than rivals. Learning judgement is not a zero-sum game and, through the case method, students work together towards building their own and each other’s instincts and skills. Conclusion With deliberate planning and careful management, case discussions can be among the most fulfilling classes for students and teachers alike. A Blavatnik School alumna reflected that the case discussions were ‘one of the most valuable parts’ of her degree, while others have expressed that case studies allow them to be creative about problem solving.25 The case method builds on the education in science and values that students receive through traditional teaching methods. But it then requires students to go beyond evidence and ethics to develop skills in problem framing and recognising patterns, so that they get to the heart of a difficult issue and learn to apply their knowledge in uncertain and time-constrained scenarios. Students develop both the good reflexes needed for difficult decision-making and the collaboration and communication skills required for navigating politics in a fractured world. The diverse community in which this transformation takes place nurtures shared learning. The instinct and inductive skills developed in the case method will help students, our future public leaders, to navigate situations that are truly distinctive and non-routine – the sort of difficult decisions that Ike wanted JFK to save his time for. Whether confronting pandemics, climate change, digital security, change management, or as yet unimagined crises, public leaders at all levels need the capacity to deal with difficult and uncertain matters. Through the case method, we believe, schools of government can build a cohort of public leaders equipped to face a challenging world with well-practised judgement.



9

1 John F. Kennedy extracted in ‘551: Television and Radio Interview: “After Two Years---a Conversation With the President.”’, 17 December 1962, in Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, John F. Kennedy: Containing the Public Messages, Speeches, and Statements of the President, January 1 to December 31, 1962, United States Government Printing Office: Washington, 1963, available online at https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kbA3MUsJS-cC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false, accessed March 2020. 2 Ibid. 3 ‘John F Kennedy: Key Events’, Miller Center website, https://millercenter.org/president/john-f-kennedy/key-events, accessed April 2020; For an introduction to the mythology of the Cuban missile crisis see Simon Reid-Henry, ‘The Cuban missile crisis through the prism of self-serving myths’, The Guardian, 23 October 2012, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/23/cuban-missile-crisis-prism-selfserving-myths, accessed April 2020. 4 John F. Kennedy extracted in ‘551: Television and Radio Interview’. 5 On rationalization and decision-making see Johanna M Marco, et al., ‘The neural basis of rationalization: cognitive dissonance reduction during decision-making’, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, vol. 6, no. 4, September 2011, pp. 460-467. 6 For a brief history of the case method see David A Garvin, ‘Making the Case: Professional education for the world of practice’, Harvard Magazine, September-October 2003, https://harvardmagazine.com/2003/09/making-the-case-html, accessed March 2020. 7 Nick Cowan, et al., ‘Randomized Control Trials: How Can We Know “What Works?”’, Critical Review, vol. 29, no. 3, 2017, pp. 265-292. 8 Andrea Saltelli and Mario Giampietro, ‘What is wrong with evidence based policy, and how can it be improved?’, Futures, vol. 91, 2017, pp. 62-71, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328717300472, accessed March 2020. 9 ‘Herd Immunity: How does it work?’, Oxford Vaccine Group, 26 April 2016, https://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/news/herd-immunity-how-does-it-work, accessed 26 February 2020. 10 Troy Day, et al., ‘When Is Quarantine a Useful Control Strategy for Emerging Infectious Diseases?’, American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 163, no. 5, 1 March 2006, pp. 479-485 11 Dennis J Moberg, ‘Time Pressure and Ethical Decision-Making: The Case for Moral Readiness’, Business & Professional Ethics Journal, vol. 19, no. 2, Summer 2000, pp. 41-67. 12 Marco R. Steenbergen and Céline Colombo, ‘Heuristics in Political Behavior’, in Alex Mintz and Lesley Terris, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Behavioral Political Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press, published online: 2018, https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190634131.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780190634131, accessed March 2020. 13 Key Sun, ‘Examining Racial Profiling from a Cognitive Perspective’, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, vol. 1, no. 13, September 2011, pp. 65-69, http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_1_No_13_Special_Issue_September_2011/9.pdf, accessed March 2020. 14 James Wilkinson and Heather Dubrow, ‘Encouraging Independent Thinking’, in C Roland Christensen, David A Garvin, and Ann Sweet, eds., Education for Judgement: The Artistry of Discussion Leadership, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1991, pp. 249-261. 15 Dennis J Moberg, ‘Time Pressure and Ethical Decision-Making: The Case for Moral Readiness’, Business & Professional Ethics Journal, vol. 19, no. 2, Summer 2000, pp. 41-67. 16 Ibid. 17 Pepper Culpepper, Adam Webster, and Sarah McAra, ‘Driving change: regulation, reform and Uber’s future in London’, Blavatnik School Case Studies, January 2020. 18 Vidhya Muthuram, Greg Hodkinson, and Karthik Ramanna, ‘Berlin Brandenburg International Airport: A symbol of unity and growth?’, Blavatnik School Case Studies, January 2020. 19 C Roland Christensen, ‘The Discussion Teacher in Action: Questioning, Listening, and Response’, in C Roland Christensen, David A Garvin, and Ann Sweet, eds., Education for Judgement: The Artistry of Discussion Leadership, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1991, pp. 153-172. 20 M Stewart, ‘Understanding Learning: theories and critiques’, in L Hunt and D Chalmers, eds., University Teaching in Focus: A Learning-Centred Approach, London: Routledge, 2012, pp. 3-20. 21 C Roland Christensen, ‘Every Student Teaches and Every Teacher Learns: The Reciprocal Gift of Discussion Teaching’, in C Roland Christensen, David A Garvin, and Ann Sweet, eds., Education for Judgement: The Artistry of Discussion Leadership, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1991, pp. 99-119. 22 Abby J Hansen, ‘Establishing a Teaching/Learning Contract’, in C Roland Christensen, David A Garvin, and Ann Sweet, eds., Education for Judgement: The Artistry of Discussion Leadership, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1991, pp. 123-135. 23 Ibid. 24 Sarah McAra and Vidhya Muthuram, ‘The future of taxation: Opportunities for the 2020s’, February 2019. 25 Zuzana Hlavkova, ‘Case studies put you in the shoes of real policymakers – and they’ve been one of the most valuable parts of the MPP’, Blavatnik School of Government blog, September 2019, https://blogs.bsg.ox.ac.uk/2019/09/04/case-studies-put-you-in-the-shoes-of-real-policymakers/, accessed March 2020.

Notes


https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kbA3MUsJS-cC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kbA3MUsJS-cC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://millercenter.org/president/john-f-kennedy/key-events

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/23/cuban-missile-crisis-prism-selfserving-myths

https://harvardmagazine.com/2003/09/making-the-case-html

https://harvardmagazine.com/2003/09/making-the-case-html

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328717300472

https://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/news/herd-immunity-how-does-it-work

https://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/news/herd-immunity-how-does-it-work

https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190634131.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780190634131

http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_1_No_13_Special_Issue_September_2011/9.pdf

https://blogs.bsg.ox.ac.uk/2019/09/04/case-studies-put-you-in-the-shoes-of-real-policymakers/

building better judgement amongst policymakers using the

Documents