Talk:Policy analysis

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Table 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Steps

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article evaluation 

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

message: 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.Morestin, F. and Castonguay, J. (2013). Constructing a logic model for a healthy public policy: why and how? Montréal, Québec: National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy.
The ten steps are:https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/eRepository/At_A_Glance_Evaluation_2015.pdf
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
-- Also I doubt anybody knows what "NCCHPP" is. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-sourced section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  03:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So none of them, really. Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  20:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  ELs 

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

message: 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. 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)
thread_title:  Clarity on policy approaches 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Major unsourced rewriting