Talk:Policy analysis

Evaluation vs. analysis

Someone should make the difference clear, if there is one, and back it up with citations. RedHouse18 18:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Article Evaluation**

I liked the article and the content it possessed. The thing I would change or add, would be to go more in depth on the type of policies that are being analyzed. If an elected official implemented a new policy for the state educational standards, how would policy analysts go about that? Something more along the lines of that. h_b80, 18 September 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by H b80 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Table 1

Resolved

 – No such content remains in the article.

Where is "Table 1" (mentioned section "Decision Methods for Policy Analysis — Step 5")? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.179.72.230 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

There are several gaps in information, such as missing Table 1. Son of Romulus (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Steps

Resolved

 – No such problem remains in the article.

Why are there steps 2 and 5 but not steps 1, 3, 4, 6, ... ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.179.72.230 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Article evaluation

I liked the article and the content it possessed. The thing I would change or add, would be to go more in depth on the type of policies that are being analyzed. If an elected official implemented a new policy for the state educational standards, how would policy analysts go about that? Something more along the lines of that. h_b80, 18 September 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by H b80 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@H b80: But this article isn't about any particular type of policy being analyzed; it's about policy analysis as a general practice. If there are specific types or processes of PA that only apply to particular kinds of policies, those could be covered in sections (and to an extent already are). Such differences (to the extent they exist) require reliable sources in order for us to write about them here; we can't just assert that they are real, nor make up examples to which to apply what we imagine are special cases. See the WP:No original research policy. In short, Wikipedia's editors not allowed to do our own policy analysis in the course of writing about policy analysis.  :-) See also the "WP:What Wikipedia is not" policy; this site doesn't exist as any kind of how-to guide, nor is it a textbook or other form of pedagogical material. It is strictly an encyclopedia.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Methodology

There is a problem with the links on the "a priori" and "a posteriori", probably because they are addressed in the same article, unless the "posteriori" author intended to point to the empirical evidence article. 68.207.123.27 (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done The mentioned "a posteriori" now links to Empirical evidence. Thanks for the input. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Self-sourced section

This section needs independent sourcing to demonstrate that it deserves any WEIGHT in this article

NCCHPP's 10 Steps for conducting a policy evaluation

Policy evaluation is used to examine content, implementation or impact of the policy, which helps to understand the merit, worth and the utility of the policy.

The ten steps are:

Planning

• Clarify the policy
• Engage stakeholders
• Assess resources and evaluability
• Determine your evaluation questions
• Determine methods and procedures
• Develop evaluation plan

Implementation

• Collect data
• Process data and analyze results

Utilization

• Interpret and disseminate the results
• Apply evaluation findings

References

-- Also I doubt anybody knows what "NCCHPP" is. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

For NCCHPP check http://www.ncchpp.ca/en/. I was just crosschecking about the facts displayed and I saw this sources, so added it. For independent sourcing publichealthontario.com reference is good because NCCHPP looks like a Quebec website. But there are other evaluation models too, this one from their national website by looks seems to be a simple (nonpromotional) and understandable model than the ones in textbooks. As a reader I would like to see some content and a model regarding this or summary with directions, simply for information. I don't know much about the wiki rules and tacts but as an Administrator I think this information might help you to update the article as you see fit with fair understanding. Happy Editing.117.215.194.175 (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't really see a WP:WEIGHT problem here; to the extent there might look like one, it's because so much of the article remains undeveloped, and is tagged all over the place as needing expansion. The solution is to add more info, not remove this info. As a former professional policy analyst, I don't see anything even faintly controversial about the NCCHPP outline. It would just of be great utility to add more material and sources. The article already identifies a boatload of sources; it's simply not using most them, just piling them up as a pair of lists at the end of the article, as if this is DMOZ.org. But WP:ISNOT a Web directory or a bibliography site; the real reason we have for identifying reliable books and sites on this topic is to use them as sources for the current and additional material.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

ELs

Which of these should stay, and which should go?

External links

• Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  • A Guide to Evaluation in Health Research
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health
• The California Endowment papers (The Challenge of Assessing Policy and Advocacy Activities)
  • Strategies for Prospective Evaluation Approach - Part I
  • Moving from Theory to Practice - Part II
• United States Government Accountability Office papers
  • Designing Evaluations
  • Quantitative data analysis
  • Program Evaluation and Performance Management
• World Bank: Impact Evaluation Toolkit

-- Jytdog (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

United States Government Accountability Office papers, could be removed. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention content seems to have the plain English approach than Canadian Institutes of Health Research links.174.4.185.9 (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for talking. The CDC thing is actually from 1999 and i was thinking that one should go. Jytdog (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The CIHR and CDC[P] materials don't seem particularly relevant; evaluating research and evaluating program[me]s are not the same thing as evaluating policy (laws, regulations, organizational policies). Research (we hope – rather than kneejerk reactions) leads to policies which lead to programs (and evaluation of their effects). They correlate but are not the same topic: 1) problem identification, impetus; 2) decision, rules; 3) actions, effects. The CE material (in two parts) does seem on-target. The first GAO item is also program evaluation; the second is quantitative data analysis (another form of research analysis); the third is back to program evaluation. The World Bank this is also off-target, and is about impact of programs again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  03:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

So none of them, really. Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, except "The CE material (in two parts) does seem on-target." Personally, I don't care much about ELs, and prefer to convert them into inline citations for something when possible.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Government

identify the fundamental concepts in governance; 105.112.234.129 (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Clarity on policy approaches

This is a great, informative article! However, adding a few more sources or information in the Approaches section might make it a bit easier to comprehend. I appreciate the clarification between analysis of and for policy, but since they are separate, I would not label one (or both?) as the "central approach," unless analysis for policy is indeed central.

Furthermore, the Policy Process section has great information, sources, and infographic, but I would suggest at least adding sources to the analysis-centric and meta-policy sections. I am linking a source about metapolicies that even just in the address helps define metapolicies and could be used as a citation/credential for that segment.[1] I have not found any other sources confirming analysis-centric or analycentric as a method, but I would suggest adding a citation if possible.

D0T1ro (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Major unsourced rewriting

See this set of sweeping changes. I'm not really sure whether to just revert this on the spot, since the original material was mostly unsourced, too. Of particular concern, though, are changes that significantly rewrite material that is cited to a source; it seems unlikey to me that the new editor who made these changes has that source and is resummarizing it, since all the rest of their changes appear to be personal editorializing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I've removed some of this, and flagged the rest for sourcing. If citations are not provided soon, I'm going to remove all the unsourced material in a clean sweep. We would be better off with a short article reader can rely on than a long one full of someone's personal opinion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)