final foundations syllabus_fall 2014

Foundations of Public Policy Analysis II

University of Massachusetts Boston

Professor: Erin O'Brien, Ph.D. PPOL 612.01

Course Date and Time: T 9-11:30 Spring 2014, M03-0415

Office Hours: T, Th 3:30-4:30 and by appointment Office Phone: 617.287.6939

Office: Wheatley, 5th floor, 69 e-mail: [email protected]

Course Description and Objectives. This course surveys the major epistemological approaches and

theoretical foundations used by scholars of public policy as well as defining and emerging research areas

in this interdisciplinary field. It is broken up into four sections: (1) epistemological foundations; (2)

theoretical approaches; (3) defining and emerging debates/considerations within the field [that are ripe

for dissertation ideas!]; and, (4) a short section on how you conceptualize your role as policy scholar,

define your epistemological and ontological commitments, and practical tips on writing a dissertation.

This division exposes students to the multiple orientations operating within the interdisciplinary field of

public policy. Seminar participants who fully engage should leave this course with a solid grasp of the

variety of theoretical and epistemological approaches available to policy researchers, an ability to

recognize and critique them in empirical work, and a sense of how the field is currently developing.

Course Requirements and Expectations. This is a graduate seminar. By definition, this means that a

substantial amount of material is covered each week. Critical and complete reading is a necessity.

Beyond these general expectations, you must complete each of the following assignments to receive

course credit:

Paper 1: This paper demands that you apply the epistemological foundations covered in the first portion of the course to an existing piece of empirical scholarship. Each seminar participant will

select an empirical policy-oriented article from a peer-reviewed journal that is of interest to them and

analyze its epistemological foundations. Papers must use course themes to detect the articles epistemological foundations, explain why this is the case, and whether the article succeeds according

to the foundational commitments of that epistemological approach. From there, papers must turn to

the epistemological approach(es) that the article does not make use of and discuss how the topic could

have been approached from this perspective. How would scholars who employ the epistemological

tradition(s) not used in the piece you selected critique it? Finally, offer your reasoned conclusion as

to who is right. Said differently, were the epistemological choices appropriate in the piece you

selected and why? Papers should be between 5 and 7 pages, 12 point times new roman font, double-

spaced, with one-inch margins. They are due February 25th

at the beginning of class. Close,

analytic reading and application is required, as is conversation across readings. A diversity of

citations and themes is expected. Good papers do not summarize the readingsthey accurately and succinctly apply them to build an argument. The paper accounts for 22.5% of your final grade.

Paper 2: This paper demands that you apply the theoretical approaches covered in the course to an existing piece of empirical scholarship. Each seminar participant will select an empirical policy-

oriented article from a peer-reviewed journal that is of interest to them and analyze its theoretical

foundations. Papers will first identify the theoretical tradition(s) operating in the piece. From there,

papers must consider how scholars working from two of the other theoretical approaches we have

covered would address the same issue. Your discussion must assess the strengths and weaknesses of

the approach employed in the piece as well as the relative efficacy of alternative approaches for

analyzing the research question(s). Papers should be between 5 and 7 pages, 12 point times new

roman font, double-spaced, with one-inch margins. They are due April 15th

at the beginning of

2

class. Close, analytic reading and application is required as is conversation across readings. A

diversity of citations and themes is expected. The paper accounts for 22.5% of your final grade.

Final Exam: This exam follows a take-home format and will consist of essay questions that cover the major themes addressed in our seminar. There will be choices on the exam but all seminar

participants will be required to answer at least one question that draws most heavily on the themes

from the third section of the course. Successful exams demonstrate an analytic engagement with the

key issues and debates addressed and an ability to synthesize these into convincing essays.

Examinations will be distributed by May 6th and hardcopies are due in my office on Thursday, May

15th by 12pm.

Critical Essay, Discussion Leader, and Bulleted Responses: At the beginning of the semester, each seminar participant will select a week of interest (February 25 May 6). You are responsible for two tasks during this week:

- One, prepare and electronically distribute a 1-2 page single-spaced critical essay to myself and your colleagues no later than noon Saturday. Do not send your essay solely as an attachmentplace it in the e-mail as well. Essays should follow all the norms of academic writingclear thesis, citations, no typos etc. Your essay should conclude with 3-5 bulleted discussion

questions for our next class session. These questions should require that your colleagues apply

course themes and bring the readings into conversation with one another. The bulleted

questions do not count towards the page total for the essay.

- Two, prepare and lead a 30 minute student discussion that highlights and engages the main issues and points of contention from the weeks readings as you see them. Your presentation should relate to your essay and use your discussion questions. 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 the policy sciences.

Seminar participants must respond before class to the bulleted questions your colleagues post each

week. This will help facilitate discussion and analytic engagement with the material. I will collect

the bulleted responses over the course of the semester. Your critical essay, turn as discussion leader,

and bulleted responses account for 15% of your final grade.

Professionalism and Participation: Learning is an interactive exercise that requires more than just your physical presence. Thus, barring extraordinary circumstances, you are expected to attend each

seminar in full. It also means that what individual seminar participants put into our class sessions

determines what each of us gets out of it. All of you have unique perspectives and substantive areas

of interest and expertise. Please share them! Professionalism and participation require that you come

to class prepared, ready to share your views, and willing to engage and learn from fellow seminar

participants. I suggest coming to class each week with questions you want to pose, comments you

think need to be made, or places you simply did not get it. Know that some of the best participation can be of the I feel ambivalent variety. Sharing your views will be invaluable to seminar participants. Graduate learning is truly an empowering and fascinating process. I am excited about

embarking on it with you. Professionalism and participation accounts for 10% of your final grade.

Grading and Coursework:

Paper 1 22.5%

Paper 2 22.5%

Analytic Discussion Leader 15%

Final Exam 30%

Professionalism and Participation 10%

3

OTHER ISSUES AND CONSIDERATIONS

Individual Advising: I am available during office hours, via e-mail, and by appointment. Please do not

hesitate to contact me. I hold office hours because I want to help you learn and to get to know my

students. I got into this profession because I truly enjoy working with graduate students, collaborating,

and talking about research. This is difficult when you do not come by my office! If you are challenged

by a particular concept, have some ideas you would like to run by me, want to talk more about something

we have discussed, have some time to kill, have an idea we might work on or want to go over something

else, come on by. If I am in my office, I am generally willing to meet unless under my own loopy

deadline, so never hesitate to knock! I look forward to working with each of you!!

On e-mail: Do no send me anything over e-mail that you would not discuss with me in class or office

hours. If you are unsure whether the issue is appropriate for e-mail, err on the side of coming by my

office. I consider an issue broached over e-mail when I read it, not when it is originally sent. Do not be

surprised to see e-mail from me in your inbox. If I think you contributed something really important in class, or if I think we need to meet, I will e-mail you. I am also likely to e-mail the class as a whole when

I come across something of interest to us. You are thus responsible for checking your umb e-mail

accounts. Do note that you can have your umb mail forwarded to your preferred account. I hope that you

will find the readings so engaging that you simply cannot wait for class to begin discussing. E-mailing

myself and the class is perfectly appropriate at these junctures. I hope we get into some interesting e-mail

debates/discussions over the course of the semester.

Also, if you use your UMB account to send me e-mail, do NOT type in my name and use the address finder function. There are two Erin OBriens who teach at UMB (dont I feel original.) and your e-mail will be sent to her. You are responsible for using my correct e-mail address: [email protected]

Course Readings: The books listed below have been ordered for this class and are available at the

bookstore. All other readings are available either through e-reserves, the librarys database systems, or in class. I have made a demarcation following most readings signaling where it is/will be available. To

access the reserve readings (designated as e-reserves on the syllabus), go to www.lib.umb.edu and click on course reserves, then electronic reserves (e-reserves). Select course materials by department (PPOL) or instructor (OBrien). Click on our course (612). The password for this course is policy (you do not need to use quotation marks around the word). You are responsible for accessing the e-reserves

readings, internet linked readings, and required purchase readings and for bringing hardcopies of all

readings to our sessions. For the some sections of the course, it is possible that seminar participants will

be responsible for getting a few of the articles for your colleagues in advance.

Scott Allard. 2008. Out of Reach: Place, Poverty, and the New American Welfare State. Yale

University Press. 0300120354

Jacob Hacker. 2007. The Great Risk Shift: The New Economic Insecurity and the Decline of the

American Dream. 0195335341

Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson. 2010. Winner-Take-All Politics. New York: Simon and

Schuster. 978141658870

Gary King, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific

Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 0691034710

4

Eric Klinenberg. 2002. Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago: A Social Autopsy of

Disaster in Chicago. University of Chicago Press. 0226443221

David Marsh and Gerry Stoker, eds. 2002. Theory and Methods in Political Science. New

York: Palgrave. 0333948556

Suzanne Mettler. 2011. The Submerged State: How Invisible Government Policies Undermine

American Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 0226521656

Erin E. O'Brien. 2008. The Politics of Identity: Solidarity Building among America's Working

Poor. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 0791475026

Paul Sabatier. 2007. Theories of the Policy Process. Second Edition. Westview Press.

0813343593

Joe Soss, Richard Fording, and Sanford Schram. 2011. Disciplining the Poor: Neoliberal

Paternalism and the Persistent Power of Race. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

0226768775

Dvora Yanow. 2003. Constructing Race and Ethnicity: Category Making in Public Policy and Administration. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. 0765608014

Plagiarism and Late Papers: The usual expectations for class work apply to this course. Late

assignments will be penalized three points a day for each day they are late. If your work is late, it is your

responsibility to deliver a hardcopy to me in person. Extensions will be granted only under extraordinary

circumstances and only if notice is given in advance. Cases of plagiarism or cheating will be pursued

according to University rules. If you have any questions about what is appropriate, please feel free to

consult with me in advance.

Student Conduct: Students are required to adhere to the University Policy on Academic Standards and

Cheating, to the University Statement on Plagiarism and the Documentation of Written Work, and to the

Code of Student Conduct as delineated in the University Catalog and Student Handbook. The Code is

available online at: http://www.umb.edu/student_services/student_rights/code_conduct.html

Accommodations: Section 504 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 offers guidelines for

curriculum modifications and adaptations for students with documented disabilities. If applicable,

students may obtain adaptation recommendations from the Ross Center for Disability Services, M-1-401,

(617-287-7430). The student must present these recommendations and discuss them with each professor

within a reasonable period, preferably by the end of Drop/Add period.

Class Structure: Classes will be run in a seminar fashion. The success of this format depends on

seminar participants coming to class prepared and ready to discuss the readings. A willingness to share

and think critically is a necessity. Out of courtesy to seminar participants, please arrive to class

punctually and turn off all cell phones. At most of our meetings, I will provide an initial lecture designed

to draw out points of coherence in the readings, place them in the context of a broader intellectual and

political history, and highlight some of the main theoretical issues and conceptual problems associated

with the topic under consideration. During these lectures, I encourage you to ask for clarification, and to

raise questions or alternative perspectives that you feel we should discuss at greater length. Beyond these

brief lectures, our sessions will be open-ended discussion of the weeks topic. These discussions will rely heavily on the interests, viewpoints, and preparation of class members.

5

Syllabus Alternations: I reserve the right to alter the syllabus over the course of the semester.

SCHEDULE OF READINGS AND ASSIGNMENTS

January 28. Introduction to the Course

I. Current Epistemology Orientations Operating in Policy Sciences: Goals, Notions of Causality, and Standards for Inference

February 4. Positivist

Foundational Commitments

Paul Diesing. 1991. Popper and His Followers. How Does Social Science Work? Reflections on Practice. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. (in class)

Gary King, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton University Press. 3-12, 34-114.

(purchase)

Example:

Joe Soss, Sanford Schram, Thomas Vartanian, Erin O'Brien. 2001. Setting the Terms of Relief: Explaining State Policy Choices in the Devolution Revolution. American Journal of Political Science. 45(2): 378-395. (JSTOR)

February 11. Interpretivist


Dvora Yanow. 2000. Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 1-26. (e-reserves)

David Meyer. 2005. Social Movements and Public Policy: Eggs, Chickens, and Theory. In Routing Opposition: Social Movements, Public Policy, and Democracy. University of Minnesota Press. (e-reserves)

Example:

Dvora Yanow. 2003. Constructing Race and Ethnicity: Category Making in Public Policy and Administration. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Chapters 1-4. (purchase)

Erin OBrien. 2008. In The Politics of Identity: Solidarity among Americas Working Poor. State University of New York Press. Chapters 1-3, Appendix D. (purchase)

February 18. Critical


Frances Fox Piven. 2004. The Politics of Policy Science. In I. Shapiro, R.M. Smith, and T.E. Masoud, eds. Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press. 83-105. (e-reserves)

Dennis K. Mumby. 2004. Discourse, Power, and Ideology: Unpacking the Critical Approach. In D. Grant et al., eds. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 237-58. (e-reserves)

Example:

Erin O'Brien. 2004. The Double-Edged Sword of Womens Organizing: Poverty and the Emergence of Racial and Class Differences in Womens Policy Priorities. Women and Politics. 26(3/4): 25-56. (e-reserves)

6

II. Foundational Theoretical Approaches to Examining and Conceptualizing Public Policy

February 25. Stages Model

Theoretical Commitments

Stella Theodoulou. 1995. How Public Policy is Made. In Public Policy: The Essential Readings. Stella Theodoulou and Matthew Cahn, eds. Prentice Hall. 86-96. (e-reserves)

Peter deLeon. 1999. The Stages Approach to the Policy Process: What Has It Done? Where Is It Going? In Theories of the Policy Process. Paul Sabatier, ed. Westview. 19-32 (e-reserves)

Issue(s) and Approach(es) in Empirical Action

John Portz. 1994. Plant Closings, Community Definitions, and the Local Response. In The Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda. Lawrence, Kansas:

University of Kansas Press. 32-49. (e-reserves)

Kristin Luker. 1996. Constructing an Epidemic. Dubious Conceptions: The Politics of Teenage Pregnancy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 81-109. (e-reserves)

***Paper 1 Due***

March 4. Structure and Public Policy: Institutionalism and Path Dependencyand Potentially Complicating Considerations

Theoretical Grounding

Marsh and Stoker. Institutionalism. (purchase)

Paul Pierson. 2000. Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics. American Political Science Review. 94(2): 251-268. (JSTOR)

John L. Campbell. 1998. Institutional Analysis and the Role of Ideas in Political Economy, Theory and Society 27(3): 377-409. http://laisumedu.org/DESIN_Ibarra/desin/imagenescampbell/dos-a.pdf

Approach(es) in Empirical Action and a Potential Challenge in Culture: The Case of Healthcare

Sven Steinmo and Jon Watts. 1995. Its the Institutions Stupid! Why Comprehensive National Health Insurance Always Fails in America. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law. 20 (2): 329-72. http://jhppl.dukejournals.org/cgi/reprint/20/2/329

Lawrence R. Jacobs. 1992. Institutions and Culture: Health Policy and Public Opinion in the U.S. and Britain. World Politics. 44(2): 179-209. (JSTOR)

Jonathan Oberlander. 2010. Long Time Coming: Why Health Reform Finally Passed. Health Affairs. 29(6): 1112-1116. http://igs.berkeley.edu/programs/healthcarereform/resources/Oberlander-

long_time_coming.pdf

7

March 11: Explaining Policy Change and Stability: Streams and Punctuated Equilibriums


John W. Kingdon. 2002. The Policy Window, and Joining the Streams. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. 2

nd ed. Addison-Wesley. 165-95. (e-reserves)

James True, Bryan Jones, and Frank Baumgartner. 2007. Punctuated-Equilibrium Theory: Explaining Stability and Change in Policy Making. In Theories of the Policy Process. Paul Sabatier, ed. Westview Press. 155-188. (purchase)


Karen Evans Stout and Byron Stevens. 2000. The Case of the Failed Diversity Rule: A Multiple Streams Analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(4):341-355. (JSTOR)

Christian Breunig and Chris Koski. 2006. Punctuated Equilibria and Budgets in the American States. The Policy Studies Journal. (EBSCO)

March 16 23. Spring Break!!

March 25. Social Constructivism, Target Populations, and Policy Feedback Theoretical Commitments

Anne Schneider and Helen Ingram. 1993. Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy. American Political Science Review. 87: 334-47. (JSTOR)


Joe Soss. 2005. Making Clients and Citizens: Welfare Policy as a Source of Status, Belief, and Action. In Deserving and Entitled: Social Constructions and Public Policy. Anne Schneider and Helen Ingram, eds. State University of New York Press. 291-328.

(e-reserves)

Joe Soss and Sanford F. Schram. 2007. A Public Transformed? Welfare Reform as Policy Feedback. American Political Science Review. 101(1): 111-27 (EBSCO)

April 1. Discourse, Public Facts, and Symbolic Politics in Public Policy


Deborah Stone. 2002. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 1-14. (have from Foundations I)

Murray Edelman. 1988. The Construction and Uses of Social Problems. Constructing the Political Spectacle. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 12-36. (e-reserves)

Approach(es) in Empirical Action:

Craig Reinarman and Harry Leving. 1997. The Crack Attack: Politics and Media in the Crack Scare. In Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice. Berkeley: University of California Press. 18-51. (e-reserves)

Christine Day and Charles Hadley. 2001. Feminist Diversity: The Policy Preferences of Womens PAC Contributors. Political Research Quarterly. 54(3): 673-86. (JSTOR)

George Lakoff. 2003. Metaphor and War Again. (3 webpages) http://www.alternet.org/story/15414?page=3

8

April 8. Power and Social Control in Public Policy with a Participatory Flair! Power Straight-Up

John Gaventa. 1980. Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 3-32 (e-reserves)

Power and Differential Social Control in Public Policy

Joe Soss, Richard Fording, and Sanford Schram. 2011. Disciplining the Poor: Neoliberal Paternalism and the Persistent Power of Race. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Chapters 4 and 5. (purchase)

Gwendolyn Mink. 2002. Violating Women: Rights Abuses in the Welfare Police State. In Lost Ground: Welfare Reform, Poverty, and Beyond. R. Albelda and A. Withorn, eds.

Boston, MA: South End Press. 95-112. (e-reserves)

Sources of Power?: Participation, Power, and Social Control

Frances Fox Piven. 2006. The Nature of Disruptive Power. Challenging Authority: How Ordinary People Change America. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 19-35. (e-

reserves)

James Avery and Mark Peffley. 2005. Voter Registration Requirements, Voter Turnout, and Welfare Eligibility Policy: Class Bias Matters. State Politics and & Policy Quarterly. (EBSCO)

III. Defining and Emerging Debates and Considerations Ripe for Dissertations Folks!!

April 15. Public Policy and Various Considerations of Place

Keith Bentele and Erin OBrien. 2013. Jim Crow 2.0? Why States Consider and Adopt Restrictive Voter Access Policies. Perspectives on Politics. 11(4): 1088-1116. (e-reserves)

Eric Klinenberg. 2002. Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1-35, 79-128. (purchase)

Scott Allard. 2009. Out of Reach: Place, Poverty, and the New American Welfare State. New Haven: Yale University Press. Chapters 1-3. (purchase)

***Paper 2 Due***

April 22. Parallel Policy, Insecurity, the Social Welfare State

Jacob Hacker. 2006. The Great Risk Shift. Oxford University Press. 1-34. (purchase)


Chapters 1, 2, 3. (purchase)

Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson. 2011. Winner-Take-All Politics. New York: Simon and Schuster. 41-72, 289-306.

April 29. Metaphors the Matter: Conceptualizing the Role of Government and the Citizen

(Consumer?) in Public Policy

Eric Klinenberg. 2002. Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chapters 4 and 5. (purchase)


Chapters 8, 9, 10. (purchase)

9

May 6. Help! I Cant See It: Policy Design, the Social Welfare State, and Capabilities

Suzanne Mettler. 2011. The Submerged State: How Invisible Government Policies Undermine American Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. entire.

(purchase)

Michael Schudson. 2000. Americas Ignorant Voters. The Wilson Quarterly. 24(2): 16-22. http://www.princeton.edu/~ccameron/KoreaIIE/IIE337/Schudson.America.pdf

Samuel Popkin. 1994. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 1-21. (e-reserves)

IV. Thinking and Doing Policy Research

May 13. Conceptualizing Yourself as a Policy Scholar

**Final session brunch held at my house, near campus. Directions and details to follow**

D. Marsh and P. Furlong. 2002. A Skin not a Sweater: Ontology and Epistemology in Political Science. In Marsh and Stoker. 17-41 (purchase)

Frances Fox Piven. 2007. From Public Sociology to Politicized Sociologists. In Public Sociology. Dan Clawson et al. eds. Berkeley: University of California Press. 158-166.

(e-reserves)

May 15. Final exam due in my office no later than 12pm.

final foundations syllabus_fall 2014

Documents