Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T11:41:42.238Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Has Simeon's Vision Prevailed among Canadian Policy Scholars?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 January 2017

Éric Montpetit ,
Christine Rothmayr Allison  and
Isabelle Engeli
Éric Montpetit
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal
Christine Rothmayr Allison
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal
Isabelle Engeli
Affiliation:
University of Bath
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Concerned by the proliferation of idiosyncratic prescriptive case studies in the nascent subfield of policy studies, Richard Simeon, in his seminal 1976 article, asked scholars to produce more comparative policy research that aimed at explaining general events and contributing to theory building. The extent to which Simeon's vision materialized remains debated. With a view to informing this debate, we conducted a systematic content analysis of the articles published in five major generalist public policy journals from 1980 to 2015. The analysis reveals that Canadian policy scholars took a comparative turn, publishing more territorial, sector and time comparisons than in the past. We also found evidence that theoretical knowledge accumulation is more important today for Canadian authors than it was when Simeon wrote his article.

Résumé

Préoccupé par la prolifération d’études de cas prescriptives et idiosyncratiques, Richard Simeon, dans son article classique de 1976 appelait les chercheurs en politiques publiques à développer la recherche comparative dans le but d'expliquer des phénomènes généraux et de produire des théories. Jusqu’à quel point la vision de Simeon s'est elle matérialisée demeure sujet à débat. Dans le but de contribuer à ce débat, nous avons réalisé une analyse systématique du contenu des articles publiés entre 1980 et 2015 dans cinq revues majeures à caractère généraliste dans le domaine des politiques publiques. L'analyse révèle que les spécialistes canadiens des politiques publiques ont pris un tournant comparatif, publiant plus de comparaisons de territoires, de secteurs et de périodes que dans le passé. Des indicateurs nous permettent aussi de conclure que l'accumulation de connaissances théoriques est plus importante aujourd'hui pour les chercheurs canadiens qu'elle ne l’était à l’époque où Simeon a rédigé son article

Type
Simeon's “Studying Public Policy” 40 years on – A Symposium
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , December 2016 , pp. 763 - 785
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, William C., Infeld, Donna Lind, Minnichelli, Laura F. and Ruddell, Michael W.. 2014. “Policy Journal Trends and Tensions: JPAM and PSJ.” Policy Studies Journal 42 (April): S118–37. doi:10.1111/psj.12051.Google Scholar
Anderson, Charles W. 1971. “Comparative Policy Analysis: The Design of Measures.” Comparative Politics 4 (1): 117. doi:10.2307/421437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, Michael M. 2013. “Policy, Politics and Political Science.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 46 (04): 751–72. doi:10.1017/S000842391300084X.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank and Jones, Bryan. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R. 2016. “Creating an Infrastructure for Comparative Policy Analysis.” Governance, August. doi:10.1111/gove.12243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béland, Daniel and Waddan, Alex. 2015. “Breaking Down Ideas and Institutions: The Politics of Tax Policy in the USA and the UK.” Policy Studies 36 (2): 176–95. doi:10.1080/01442872.2014.1000845.Google Scholar
Bennett, Colin J. 1990. “The Formation of a Canadian Privacy Policy: The Art and Craft of Lesson-Drawing.” Canadian Public Administration 33 (4): 551–70. doi:10.1111/j.1754-7121.1990.tb01417.x.Google Scholar
Cairney, Paul. 2013. “Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: How Do We Combine the Insights of Multiple Theories in Public Policy Studies?” Policy Studies Journal 41 (1): 1–21. doi:10.1111/psj.12000.Google Scholar
Cairns, Alan C. 2008. “Conclusion: Are We on the Right Track?” In The Comparative Turn in Canadian Political Science, ed. White, Linda, Simeon, Richard, Vipond, Robert and Wallner, Jennifer. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Cashore, Benjamin and Howlett, Michael. 2007. “Punctuating Which Equilibrium? Understanding Thermostatic Policy Dynamics in Pacific Northwest Forestry.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (3): 532–51. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00266.x.Google Scholar
Collier, David. 2011. “Understanding Process Tracing.” PS: Political Science & Politics 44 (04): 823–30. doi:10.1017/S1049096511001429.Google Scholar
Cyr, Arthur, and deLeon, Peter. 1975. “Comparative Policy Analysis.” Policy Sciences 6 (4): 375–84. doi:10.1007/BF00142380.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S. 1990. Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy and Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elkins, David J. and Simeon, Richard E. B.. 1979. “A Cause in Search of Its Effect, or What Does Political Culture Explain?” Comparative Politics 11: 127–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeli, Isabelle and Allison, Christine Rothmayr, eds. 2014. Comparative Policy Studies: Conceptual and Methodological Challenges. Houndmills, Basingstoke; New York NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Feldman, Elliot J., Heidenheimer, Arnold J., Heclo, Hugh, Adams, Carolyn Teich, Smith, T. Alexander, Hayward, Jack and Watson, Michael. 1978. “Comparative Public Policy: Field or Method?” Comparative Politics 10 (2): 287. doi:10.2307/421650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Frank and Forester, John. 1993. The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, Frank. 2003. Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Frank, Douglas Torgerson, Anna Durnová, and Orsini, Michael, eds. 2016. Handbook of Critical Policy Studies. Handbooks of Research on Public Policy Series. Northampton MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2001. Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fourot, Aude-Claire, Sarrasin, Rachel and Holly, Grant. 2011. “Comparer le Québec: approches, enjeux, spécificités.” Politique et Sociétés 30 (1): 3. doi:10.7202/1006056ar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, Alexander L. and Bennett, Andrew. 2004. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gerring, John. 2007. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hajer, Maarten A. and Wagenaar, Hendrik, eds. 2003. Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter A. and Taylor, Rosemary C. R.. 1996. “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalism.” Political Studies 44: 936–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofferbert, Richard I. 1974. The Study of Public Policy. The Bobbs-Merrill Policy Analysis Series. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Kristof, Nicholas. 2014. “Professors, We Need You!” The New York Times, February 15.Google Scholar
Leichter, Howard. 1977. “Comparative Public Policy: Problems and Prospects.” Policy Studies Journal 5 (s1): 583–96. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.1977.tb01116.x.Google Scholar
Leichter, Howard M. 1979. A Comparative Approach to Policy Analysis: Health Care Policy in Four Nations. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lemieux, Vincent. 2002. L’étude Des Politiques Publiques: Les Acteurs et Leur Pouvoir. 2. éd. rev. et augm. Sainte-Foy PQ: Presses de l'Université Laval.Google Scholar
Levy, Jack. 2008. “Case Studies: Types, Designs, and Logics of Inference.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 25 (1): 1–18. doi:10.1080/07388940701860318.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1971. “Comparative Politics and the. Comparative Method.” The American Political Science Review 6 (3): 682–93.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Charles E. 1968. The Policy Making Proces. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Montpetit, Éric, Blais, André and Foucault, Martial. 2008. “What Does It Take for a Canadian Political Scientist to Be Cited?” Social Science Quarterly 89: 802–16.Google Scholar
Noël, Alain. 2014. “Studying Your Own Country: Social Scientific Knowledge for Our Times and Places.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 47 (04): 647–66. doi:10.1017/S0008423914001085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panitch, Leo, ed. 1977. The Canadian State: Political Economy and Political Power. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions and Social Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Richard. 1973a. “Concepts for Comparison.” Policy Studies Journal 1 (3): 122–27. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.1973.tb00083.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Richard. 1973b. “Comparing Public Policy: An Overview.” European Journal of Political Research 1 (1): 67–94. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.1973.tb01283.x.Google Scholar
Sabatier, Paul A. 1987. “Knowledge, Policy Oriented Learning, and Policy Change: An Advocacy Coalition Framework.” Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 8: 649–92.Google Scholar
Sabatier, Paul A., ed. 2007. Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder CO.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Schlager, Edella and Weible, Christopher M.. 2013. “New Theories of the Policy Process: Policy Process.” Policy Studies Journal 41 (3): 389–96. doi:10.1111/psj.12030.Google Scholar
Simeon, Richard. 1976. “Studying Public Policy.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 9: 548–80.Google Scholar
Simeon, Richard. 1989. “We Are All Smiley's People: Some Observations on Donald Smiley and the Study of Federalism.” In Federalism and Political Community: Essays in Honour of Donald Smiley, ed. Shugarman, David P and Whitaker, Reg. Perterborough: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Miriam Catherine and Orsini, Michael. 2007. Critical Policy Studies. Vancouver: UBC Press. http://www.deslibris.ca/ID/408591.Google Scholar
Sproule-Jones, Mark. 1993. Governments at Work: Canadian Parliamentary Federalism and Its Public Policy Effects. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Stone, Deborah A. 1989. “Causal Stories and the Formation of Policy Agendas.” Political Science Quarterly 104: 281–300.Google Scholar
Stone, Deborah A . 1997. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Stritch, Andrew. 2015. “The Advocacy Coalition Framework and Nascent Subsystems: Trade Union Disclosure Policy in Canada: ACF and Nascent Subsystems.” Policy Studies Journal 43 (4): 437–55. doi:10.1111/psj.12112.Google Scholar
Taylor, Zack and Eidelman, Gabriel. 2010. “Canadian Political Science and the City: A Limited Engagement.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 43 (04): 961–81. doi:10.1017/S0008423910000715.Google Scholar
Turgeon, Luc, Papillon, Martin, Wallner, Jennifer and White, Stephen, eds. 2014. Comparing Canada: Methods and Perspectives on Canadian Politics. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
White, Linda A., Simeon, Richard, Vipond, Robert and Wallner, Jennifer, eds. 2008. The Comparative Turn in Canadian Political Science. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Wilder, Matt, and Howlett, Michael. 2014. “The Politics of Policy Anomalies: Bricolage and the Hermeneutics of Paradigms.” Critical Policy Studies 8 (2): 183–202. doi:10.1080/19460171.2014.901175.Google Scholar
Yanow, Dvora. 2007. “Interpretation in Policy Analysis: On Methods and Practice.” Critical Policy Studies 1: 110–22.Google Scholar