EDMP: Formation and Analysis of Social Policy
Spring 2006
Jeffrey L. Longhofer, Ph.D., LISW
Email: Jx102@po.cwru.edu
Phone: 216 368-0160
Course Overview: The purpose of this course is to introduce students to social policy development and analysis: social policy problem-definition and agenda setting, legislation, implementation, and evaluation. This course, like others in the EDM program, is designed to critically examine the complex relationships among practice, theory, and research; it is based on the premise that effective practice requires thorough understanding of social policy across disciplinary and practice perspectives.
Course Objectives: Although we will consider the fundamentals of public policy-making and analysis, our principle purpose is to consider the substance of the major policy controversies. Special attention will be given to the broader cultural and social policy contexts, the history of policy debates, and the cultural and political dynamics of policy implementation. Most often, policy decisions are made in changing and politically volatile environments.
We will focus especially on the institutional and ideological forces along the continuum of the policy process: agenda setting, legislative process, implementation, and evaluation. We will look closely at the influence of public, private, and nonprofit sectors in policy formulation. Although this is not strictly a policy analysis course, we will endeavor to understand the methods of policy analysis and the political and administrative environments within which analysis takes place. We will also consider the political dynamics of communicating policy to different consituencies.
Required Readings:
See course schedule
Course Requirements:
There are two requirements for this course: reading summaries/seminar discussion and a policy brief.
Readings Summaries: You are required to write four summaries of articles from the list below (see attached instructions) and prepare seminar discussions. Everyone will summarize the first two readings: “US Social Policy in Comparative and Historical Perspective: Concepts, Images, Arguments, and Research Strategies.” They are to be typed, single-spaced, and address the following: key concepts and outline of the central elements of the argument and the strengths and limitations of the arguments. Each residency, selected participants will (see attached schedule for your residency) prepare a critical review of the readings (about 300-500 words). These reviews should not be summaries; nor should they be short essays with extended commentaries. The point is to pose focused questions that will serve as the basis for discussion. It is also entirely appropriate for questions to focus on ideas, arguments, or passages which you do not understand; clarifying questions (e.g., probing obscure passages) provoke especially good discussion. Please avoid lists of unelaborated questions. Those assigned to prepare these summaries will also be responsible for leading a seminar discussion of the reading (approximately one hour).
Policy Brief: In this policy brief (8-10 pages) you will analyze social policy related to your proposed or ongoing EDMP research. This will require that you consider literature not used in your proposed or ongoing research or other EDM courses. The policy brief should include but not be limited to the following: the social dynamics of the problem; population(s) affected by the problem; current policies related to the problem; shortcomings of current policy; costs to the society; and forces that affect solutions. As an alternative you may propose a policy that will have a favorable affect on the problem. Or you may want to research the proposed policy to fully explain the process of implementing the policy and the cost benefit of each to the society, the victims, etc. Do not limit the research to monetary cost and benefit; include social, political and other costs. In discussing implementation provide a rationale for why it is the best of the possible policy choices.
February 9
Part I
Morning
Policy and Practice: A Practitioner Scholar Approach
The Policy Framework
The Social Context for Agenda Setting
Reading and Seminar Discussion
Edwin Amenta et al., “US Social Policy in Comparative and Historical Perspective: Concepts, Images, Arguments, and Research Strategies.” See attached guidelines for seminar discussion.
Part II
Afternoon
The Policy Making Process
Reading and Seminar Discussion
John Campbell’s, “Ideas, Politics, and Public Policy.” Annual Review of Sociology. 2002. 28: 21-38.
Implementation
O’Connor, Alice. 2000. Poverty Research and Policy for the Post-Welfare Era. Annual Review of Sociology. 26: 547-62.
Friday, March 2
Part I
Morning
Public Opinion, the Media, and Policies
American Public Policy Making and the Role of Race in American Politics Does Race Shape the Structure of the Policy making Process?
Does Race Shape the Content of Policy Choices?
Reading and Seminar Discussion
Krysan, Maria. 2000. Prejudice, Politics, and Public Opinion: Understanding the Sources of Racial Policy Attitudes. Annual Review of Sociology, 26: 135-68.
Part II
Afternoon
Advocacy Organizations and Policy
Can Citizens' Organizations Affect Policy making?
Andrews, Kenneth, T. & Bob Edwards. 2004. Advocacy Organizations in the U.S. Political Process. Annual Review of Sociology, 30: 479-506.
Seminar Discussion Guidelines
EDMP 637
Spring 2005
Jeff Longhofer
The following guidelines, developed by Erik Olin Wright for his seminars at the University of Wisconsin, are intended to facilitate seminar discussions.
1. READINGS. At least for the first part of each seminar session the discussions should revolve around the weeks readings rather than simply the topic. There is a strong tendency in seminars, particularly among articulate graduate students, to turn every seminar into a general “bull session” in which participation need not be informed by the reading material in the course. The injunction to discuss the readings does not mean, of course, that other material is excluded from the discussion, but it does mean that the issues raised and problems analyzed should focus on around the actual texts assigned for the week.
2. LISTEN. In a good seminar, interventions by different participants are linked one to another. A given point is followed up and the discussion therefore has some continuity. In many seminar discussions, however, each intervention is unconnected to what has been said before. Participants are more concerned with figuring out what brilliant comment they can make rather than listening to each other and reflecting on what is actually being said. In general, therefore, participants should add to what has just been said rather than launch a new train of thought, unless a particular line of discussion has reached some sort of closure.
3. TYPES OF INTERVENTIONS. Not every seminar intervention has to be an earthshattering comment or brilliant insight. One of the reasons why some students feel intimidated in seminars is that it seems that the stakes are so high, that the only legitimate comment is one that reveals complete mastery of the material. There are several general rules about comments that should facilitate broader participation:
interventions short and to the point. One can always add elaborations if they are needed. This is not an absolute prohibition on long statements, but it does suggest that longer statements are generally too long.
5. EQUITY. While acknowledging that different personalities and different prior exposures to the material will necessarily lead to different levels of active participation in the seminar discussion, it should be our collective self-conscious goal to have as equitable participation as possible. This means that the chair of the discussion has the right to curtail the speeches by people who have dominated the discussion, if this seems necessary.
6. SPONTANEITY vs. ORDER. One of the traps of trying to have guidelines, rules, etc. in a discussion is that it can squelch the spontaneous flow of debate and interchange in a seminar. Sustained debate, sharpening of differences, etc., is desirable and it is important that the chair not prevent such debate from developing.
7. ARGUMENTS, COMPETITIVENESS, CONSENSUS. A perennial problem in seminars revolves around styles of discussion. Feminists have often criticized discussions dominated by men as being aggressive, argumentative, competitive (although there are always plenty of men who find such styles of interaction intimidating). Some people, on the other hand, have at times been critical of what they see as the “feminist” model of discussion: searching for consensus and common positions rather highlighting differences, too much emphasis on process and not enough on content, and so on. Whether or not one regards such differences in approaches to discussion as gender-based, the differences are real and they cause problems in seminars. My own view is
the following: I think that it is important in seminar discussions to try to sharpen differences, to understand where the real disagreements lie, and to accomplish this is it generally necessary that participants “argue” with each other, in the sense of voicing disagreements and not always seeking consensus. On the other hand, there is no reason why argument, even heated argument, need by marked by aggressiveness, competitiveness, put-downs and the other tricks in the repertoire of male verbal domination. What I hope we can pursue is “cooperative conflict”: theoretical advance comes out of conflict, but hopefully our conflicts can avoid being antagonistic.
8.CHAIRING DISCUSSIONS. In order for the discussions to have the kind of continuity, equity and dynamics mentioned above, it is necessary that the discussion be lead by a “strong chair.” That is, the chair has to have the capacity to tell someone to hold off on a point if it seems unrelated to what is being discussed, to tell someone to cut a comment short if an intervention is rambling on and on, and so on. The difficulty, of course, is that such a chair may become heavyhanded and authoritarian, and therefore it is important that seminar participants take responsibility of letting the chair know when too much monitoring is going on.
9. PREPARATION FOR SEMINAR DISCUSSIONS. Good seminars depend to a great extent on the seriousness of preparation by students.
The following generally helps:
11. SELF-CRITICISM. The success of a seminar is a collective responsibility of all participants. Professors cannot waive magic wands to promote intellectually productive settings. It is essential, therefore, that we treat the process of the seminar itself as something under our collective control, as something which can be challenged and transformed. Issues of competitiveness, male domination, elitism, bullshit, diffuseness, and other sins should be dealt with through open discussion. We will therefore have periodic self-criticism discussions(not “trash the professor” sessions, but self-evaluation discussions, hopefully) to try to improve the process of the seminar itself.