Premium
EVALUATION RESEARCH AND POLITICAL SCIENCE: AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE DIVISION OF SCHOLARLY LABOR
Author(s) -
Schneider Anne L.
Publication year - 1986
Publication title -
review of policy research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.832
H-Index - 45
eISSN - 1541-1338
pISSN - 1541-132X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1541-1338.1986.tb00688.x
Subject(s) - normative , argument (complex analysis) , division of labour , politics , discipline , policy sciences , field (mathematics) , positive economics , democracy , political science , sociology , social science , public administration , economics , law , biochemistry , chemistry , mathematics , pure mathematics
Political science might have been the birthplace of evaluation research, but it has instead been unreceptive to it for a number of reasons. Hofferbert's suggestion that political scientists become involved by studying the impact of policy on democratic processes does not take into account the ferment that has been taking place in the field of evaluation. Political scientists should not conduct evaluation studies using the same methodology they normally use because these may not produce the kind of information needed for improving policies or programs. A disciplinary division of labor is impractical for a number of reasons. Instead, they should use a policy sciences framework, which contains normative elements and focuses on potentials for change, among other things.