In this paper, it is argued that public policy theory and practice require both variety and versa... more In this paper, it is argued that public policy theory and practice require both variety and versatility in order to adapt to the mani-fold situations that public sector work can pose. Currently, several academics and professionals reduce public policy to some amalgamation of the disciplines of economics, political science, and business. However, additional outlying perspectives, such as the critical, neuroscience, psychoanalytic, post-structural, feminist, and post-traditional theories (among others), can also offer much benefit to the comprehension of public policy. Looking at public policy analysis and action through this larger group of disciplines can be phrased as epistemic pluralism. In this realm, the term epistemic concerns knowledge or ways of knowing, while pluralism concerns an approach that considers a variety of perspectives. This epistemic pluralism approach, though often unsung, offers considerable relevance and utility to public policy theory and practice. For instance, scholars and practitioners alike can utilize such a tactic to better understand political arrangements and human behavior. This paper will consider the lack of epistemic pluralism in academia and policymaking processes, and analyze practical implications through the critical theory and neuroscience perspectives. The critical theory perspective is deliberated as a way to challenge the obviousness of policy systems, as well as uncover the limitations in how human beings operate within particular structures and relations with each other. The neuroscience perspective focuses on the brain and behavior and is considered as it has prominent established truths concerning human nature that have not yet been connected with public policymaking.
In this paper, it is argued that public policy theory and practice require both variety and versa... more In this paper, it is argued that public policy theory and practice require both variety and versatility in order to adapt to the mani-fold situations that public sector work can pose. Currently, several academics and professionals reduce public policy to some amalgamation of the disciplines of economics, political science, and business. However, additional outlying perspectives, such as the critical, neuroscience, psychoanalytic, post-structural, feminist, and post-traditional theories (among others), can also offer much benefit to the comprehension of public policy. Looking at public policy analysis and action through this larger group of disciplines can be phrased as epistemic pluralism. In this realm, the term epistemic concerns knowledge or ways of knowing, while pluralism concerns an approach that considers a variety of perspectives. This epistemic pluralism approach, though often unsung, offers considerable relevance and utility to public policy theory and practice. For instance, scholars and practitioners alike can utilize such a tactic to better understand political arrangements and human behavior. This paper will consider the lack of epistemic pluralism in academia and policymaking processes, and analyze practical implications through the critical theory and neuroscience perspectives. The critical theory perspective is deliberated as a way to challenge the obviousness of policy systems, as well as uncover the limitations in how human beings operate within particular structures and relations with each other. The neuroscience perspective focuses on the brain and behavior and is considered as it has prominent established truths concerning human nature that have not yet been connected with public policymaking.
Uploads
Papers by boto kerikil