The New Policy Sciences: Combining the Cognitive Science of Choice, Multiple Theories of Context, and Basic and Applied Analysis

Cairney, Paul; Weible, Christopher; Vieira, Juan Guillermo; Olis, Jhoan Sebastián

DSpace Principal
→
Colección de los Centros Asociados
→
Colombia
→
Departamento de Ciencia Política - DCP/UNAL - Cosecha
→
Ver ítem

dc.creator	Cairney, Paul
dc.creator	Weible, Christopher
dc.creator	Vieira, Juan Guillermo
dc.creator	Olis, Jhoan Sebastián
dc.date	2018-07-01
dc.date.accessioned	2022-03-22T20:01:19Z
dc.date.available	2022-03-22T20:01:19Z
dc.identifier	https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/cienciapol/article/view/73461
dc.identifier	10.15446/cp.v13n26.73461
dc.identifier.uri	http://biblioteca-repositorio.clacso.edu.ar/handle/CLACSO/102849
dc.description	It is time to imagine a new policy sciences. The policymaking world has moved on since its first design. So too has our understanding of it. The original policy sciences were contextualized, problem oriented, multi-method, and focused on using scientific research towards the realization of greater human dignity. We introduce a new policy sciences that builds on such aims. We describe the need for realistic depictions of ‘rational’ and ‘irrational’ choice, multiple theories to portray the multifaceted nature of complex contexts, and the combination of applied and basic research. To set this new agenda, we build on two foundational strategies: identifying advances in the psychology of decisionmaking and describing how policy theories depict policymaking psychology in complex contexts.	en-US
dc.description	Es hora de imaginar unas nuevas ciencias de política pública. El mundo de la elaboración de políticas ha avanzado desde su primer diseño. Así también nuestra comprensión del mismo. Las ciencias de políticas públicas originales fueron contextualizadas, orientadas a la solución de problemas, multi-métodos y se centraron en la utilización de la investigación científica para lograr una mejora de la dignidad humana. En este texto introducimos unas nuevas ciencias de política pública basada en tales objetivos. Exponemos la necesidad de descripciones realistas de la elección “racional” e “irracional”, de múltiples teorías para interpretar la naturaleza multifacética de contextos complejos y de la combinación de investigación aplicada y básica. Para establecer esta nueva agenda, nos basamos en dos estrategias principales: identificar los avances en la psicología de la toma de decisiones y describir cómo las teorías de política pública ilustran la psicología de la elaboración de políticas en contextos complejos.	es-ES
dc.format	application/pdf
dc.format	application/xml
dc.language	spa
dc.publisher	Universidad Nacional de Colombia - Sede Bogotá - Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Políticas y Sociales - Departamento de Ciencias Políticas	es-ES
dc.relation	https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/cienciapol/article/view/73461/66960
dc.relation	https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/cienciapol/article/view/73461/69928
dc.relation	/ref/Alter, A., y Oppenheimer, D. (2009). Uniting the Tribes of Fluency to Form a Metacognitive Nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219–235.
dc.relation	/ref/Bardach, E., y Patashnik, E. (2015). A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
dc.relation	/ref/Baumgartner, F. (2017). Endogenous Disjoint Change. Cognitive Systems Research, (44), 69-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.04.001
dc.relation	/ref/Brewer, G. (1974). The Policy Sciences Emerge: To Nurture and Structure a Discipline. Policy Sciences, 5(3), 239-244.
dc.relation	/ref/Brewer, G. y DeLeon, P. (1983). The Foundations of Policy Analysis. Chicago, IL: The Dorsey Press.
dc.relation	/ref/Cairney, P. (2012a). Understanding Public Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
dc.relation	/ref/Cairney, P. (2012b). Complexity Theory in Political Science and Public Policy. Political Studies Review, (10), 346-358.
dc.relation	/ref/Cairney, P. (2015). How can Policy Theory have an Impact on Policy Making? Teaching Public Administration, 33(1), 22-39.
dc.relation	/ref/Cairney, P. (2016). The Politics of Evidence-based Policymaking. London: Palgrave Pivot.
dc.relation	/ref/Cairney, P. y Kwiatkowski, R. (2018). How to Communicate Effectively with Policymakers. Palgrave Communications (in press).
dc.relation	/ref/Cairney, P., Oliver, K. y Wellstead, A. (2016). To Bridge the Divide Between Evidence and Policy: Reduce Ambiguity as much as Uncertainty. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 399-402. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12555
dc.relation	/ref/Clark, T. (2002). The Policy Process: A Practical Guide for Natural Resources Professionals. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
dc.relation	/ref/DeLeon, P. (1997). Democracy and the Policy Sciences. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
dc.relation	/ref/DeLeon, P., y Weible, C. (2010). Policy Process Research for Democracy: A Commentary on Lasswell’s Vision. International Journal of Policy Studies, 1(2), 22-34.
dc.relation	/ref/Geyer, R., y Cairney, P. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of Complexity and Public Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
dc.relation	/ref/Haidt, J. (2001). The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tai. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814-834.
dc.relation	/ref/Haidt, J. (2007). The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology. Science, (316), 998-1000.
dc.relation	/ref/Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Pantheon.
dc.relation	/ref/Hay, C. (2004). Theory, Stylized Heuristic or Self-fulfilling Prophecy? Public Administration, 82(1), 39-62.
dc.relation	/ref/Heikkila, T., y Cairney, C. (2017). Comparison of Theories of the Policy Process. In C. Weible and P. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process (4th ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
dc.relation	/ref/Hindmoor, A. (2010). “Major Combat Operations Have Ended?” Arguing about Rational Choice, 1994–2009. British Journal of Political Science, 41(1), 191-210.
dc.relation	/ref/John, P. (2012). Analyzing Public Policy (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
dc.relation	/ref/Jones, B. (1999). Bounded Rationality. Annual Review of Political Science, (2), 297-321.
dc.relation	/ref/Jones, B. (2001). Politics and the Architecture of Choice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
dc.relation	/ref/Jones, B. (2017). Behavioral Rationality as a Foundation for Public Policy Studies. Cognitive Systems Research, (43), 63-75.
dc.relation	/ref/Jones, B., y Thomas, H. (2017). The Cognitive Underpinnings of Policy Process Studies. Cognitive Systems Research, (45), 48–51.
dc.relation	/ref/Jones, B., Thomas, H. y Wolfe, M. (2014). Policy Bubbles. Policy Studies Journal, 42(1), 146-171.
dc.relation	/ref/Kahneman, D. (2012). Thinking Fast and Slow. London: Penguin.
dc.relation	/ref/Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
dc.relation	/ref/Larrick, R. (2016). The Social Context of Decisions. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, (3), 441-467.
dc.relation	/ref/Lasswell, H. (1951). The Policy Orientation. In D. Lerner and H. Lasswell (Eds.), The Policy Sciences: Recent Developments in Scope and Methods. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
dc.relation	/ref/Lasswell, H. D. (1956). The Political Science of Science. American Political Science Review, 50(4), 961-979.
dc.relation	/ref/Lasswell, H. D. (1971). A Pre-view of the Policy Sciences. New York: American Elsevier Publishing.
dc.relation	/ref/Lewis, P. (2013). Policy Thinking, Fast and Slow. American Political Science Association 2013 Annual Meeting Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2300479
dc.relation	/ref/Lindblom, C. (1959). The Science of Muddling Through. Public Administration Review, (19), 79-88. McBeth, M., Jones, M. y Shanahan, E. (2014). The Narrative Policy Framework. In P. Sabatier and C. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process (3rd ed.). Chicago: Westview Press.
dc.relation	/ref/Menges, J. y Kilduff, M. (2015). Group Emotions: Cutting the Gordian Knots concerning Terms, Levels of Analysis, and Processes. The Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 845-928. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2015.1033148
dc.relation	/ref/Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
dc.relation	/ref/Ranney, A. (1968). The Study of Policy Content. In A. Ranney (Ed.), Political Science and Public Policy (pp. 3-21). Chicago, IL: Markham Publishing Company.
dc.relation	/ref/Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-oriented Learning Therein. Policy Sciences, 21(2), 129-168.
dc.relation	/ref/Sabatier, P. (1992). Political Science and Public Policy: An Assessment. In W. Dunn and R. Kelly (Eds.), Advances in Policy Studies (pp. 1950-1990). Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books.
dc.relation	/ref/Sanderson, I. (2009). Intelligent Policy Making for a Complex World. Political Studies, (57), 699-719.
dc.relation	/ref/Schneider, A., y Ingram, H. (1997). Policy Design for Democracy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
dc.relation	/ref/Shipan, C. y Volden, C. (2012). Policy Diffusion: Seven Lessons for Scholars and Practitioners. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 788-796.
dc.relation	/ref/Simon, H. (1957). Models of Man. New York, NY: Wiley.
dc.relation	/ref/Simon, H. (1976). Administrative Behavior (3rd ed.). London: Macmillan.
dc.relation	/ref/Simon, H. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
dc.relation	/ref/Teisman, G. y Klijn, E. (2008). Complexity Theory and Public Management. Public Management Review, 10(3), 287-297.
dc.relation	/ref/Weible, C. y Cairney, P. (2018). Practical Lessons from Policy Theories, Policy and Politics (in press).
dc.relation	/ref/Weible, C., Heikkila, T., DeLeon, P. y Sabatier, P. (2012). Understanding and Influencing the Policy Process. Policy Sciences, 45(1), 1–21.
dc.relation	/ref/Weimer, D. y Vining, A. (2017). Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice. London: Routledge.
dc.relation	/ref/Wildavsky, A. (1987). Choosing Preferences by Constructing Institutions: A Cultural Theory of Preference Formation. American Political Science Review, 81(1), 3-21.
dc.relation	/ref/Winne, P. y Nesbit, J. (2010). The Psychology of Academic Achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 61(1), 653-678. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100348
dc.rights	Derechos de autor 2018 Ciencia Política	es-ES
dc.rights	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/co/	es-ES
dc.source	Ciencia Política; Vol. 13 No. 26 (2018): Avatares de las expresiones políticas en América Latina; 321-338	en-US
dc.source	Ciencia Política; Vol. 13 Núm. 26 (2018): Avatares de las expresiones políticas en América Latina; 321-338	es-ES
dc.source	Ciencia Política; v. 13 n. 26 (2018): Avatares de las expresiones políticas en América Latina; 321-338	pt-BR
dc.source	2389-7481
dc.source	1909-230X
dc.subject	Bounded rationality	en-US
dc.subject	Complexity	en-US
dc.subject	Policy Sciences	en-US
dc.subject	Policy Process	en-US
dc.subject	Policy analysis	en-US
dc.subject	Public Policy	en-US
dc.subject	JF20-2112	en-US
dc.subject	Political Science	en-US
dc.subject	Análisis de políticas públicas	es-ES
dc.subject	Complejidad	es-ES
dc.subject	Ciencias de política pública	es-ES
dc.subject	Proceso de las políticas	es-ES
dc.subject	Políticas públicas	es-ES
dc.subject	Racionalidad limitada	es-ES
dc.subject	JF20-2112	es-ES
dc.subject	Ciencia Política	es-ES
dc.title	The New Policy Sciences: Combining the Cognitive Science of Choice, Multiple Theories of Context, and Basic and Applied Analysis	en-US
dc.title	Las nuevas ciencias de política pública: combinando la ciencia cognitiva de la decisión, las múltiples teorías del contexto y el análisis básico y aplicado	es-ES
dc.type	info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type	info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type	Traducción	es-ES
dc.type	Traducción	es-ES
dc.type	Translation	en-US