• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
8/30/09 11:07 AMMinimizing Politicization in Public Service Decision-MakingPage 1 of 23http://www.newfoundations.com/EGR/PluralCrit.html
See, also,Model Cases for Analysis
Pluralism and Criteria:Minimizing Politicization in Public Service Decision-Making
©2000 Edward G. Rozycki
RETURN
edited 1/24/09 
Contents:
IntroductionThe approachGeneral notesi. Describing versusdefining: focus, criteria,rangeii a. A condition(criterion) defines aclass(set)ii. b. Conversely, anyclass (set) can beunderstoodto specify acriterion.iii.a. Measure of membership (MM) iii.b. The MM scalereiteratediv.a. Using the MMwith agroupiv.b. Expandingadescription to achieveconsensus on paradigmsv.a. Paradigmsv.b. PossibleRestrictions onthe analysis of paradigmsv. c. Using Case Narrativeto Identify Paradigms.vi. Restricting negativeparadigmsvii. Definitionsviii. A metaphor fordefinition: a netix. Counterexamplesx. Differences betweenparadigms and counterexamplesxi. Developing adefinitionxii. Definiens anddefiniendum.xiii.Necessary andsuff icientconditionsconstitute one kind of defintionxiv. Varieties of definitionxv. Concept familiesxvi. Mitigatorsxvii. Defeasorsxviii. How toConstruct adefinition: aprocedurexix. ConcludingcommentsBibliography
Introduction
As the day-to-day practices of various public services become more heavily influenced by judicial decisionas well as by legislation and bureaucratization, public service professionals are increasingly forced to defineexplicitly what were formerly casual, seldom questioned, traditional concepts that had vague, thoughgenerally understood, meanings.If leadership in developing critical practical distinctions does not come from within the professional ranks of educators, social workers, health maintenance professionals, non-profit managers, librarians, and the like,then the governing norms that determine practice in public service fields are conceded to imposition fromwithout.
 
8/30/09 11:07 AMMinimizing Politicization in Public Service Decision-MakingPage 2 of 23http://www.newfoundations.com/EGR/PluralCrit.html
Concerns for accountability and equity produce pressure for specific criteria to support public servicedecision-making and to open it up to general scrutiny. For public service professionals to sit back and allowthe courts, the legislature or other special interests to specify criteria is to give up on the traditions andknowledge base of their own professions.But the task of developing critical practical distinctions in consonance with the best traditions andknowledge bases that inform one's field of practice is made formidable by both the pluralism and dynamismof our society. Many different interests struggle for resources; change is an inescapable factor in publicservice. This article -- with its accompanying exercises -- aims at developing skills pertinent to the task of formulating a justifiable base of criteria for professional decision.
The Approach
The method developed below derives from a philosophical school of the late 20
th
century known aslinguistic analysis. (See, for example,Austin, 1965;Ryle, 1949) It has been adapted here from the methods of its early proponents to deal with problems of consensus in a pluralistic society. This adaptation helpsavoid the major pitfall of developing criteria in a pluralistic context: the politicization of criteria selection.The basic assumption of this method -- contrary to some prominent opinions (seeStone, 1997, orSusskind & Cruikshank, 1987) -- is that decisions need not
always
be political: neutrality with respect to specificinterest group alignments is not only possible, but generally achievable. The words
dispassionate
,
disinterested 
,
 fair
,
balanced 
,
neutral 
, and
equitable
still have practical meaning.Many of us have had the experience of committee meetings interminably lengthened by disputes overcriteria. This can be expected in any pluralistic context, because politically astute participants look tonegotiate criteria they perceive to support their interests.But, not infrequently, the result of such early machinations is a set of criteria that violates or, at least,ignores established practice. In addition, broad understandings that support public confidence in theorganization are undermined by neologistic usage. Political rhetoric -- which easily infects the deliberationsof uncautious practitioners --gives us many examples of these:
health care reform
,
school reform
,
accountability
,
ownership
,
no-tolerance
,
minority, mandatory sentencing
,
discrimination, inclusion,
and thelike. The implementation following from these specially defined words seldom conforms to the expectationsthe terms conjure up in their normal usage.The method found herein helps ward off such politicization in the following way:1. It
begins
by having participants specify "paradigms", i.e. commonly recognized "clear" examplesmerely acknowledged as such, without requiring justification or elaboration from the participant,and, particularly, without examining or debating each individual's criteria of choice. Nothingcontroversial for the group engaged in criteria specification will be designated a paradigm.2. Criteria will be more or less "mechanically" extracted from the paradigms afterwards.3. Tentative sets of criteria -- proposed "definitions" -- will be tested for accuracy using particularparadigms, called "positive counterexamples" or "negative counterexamples."Disagreement, if it comes up, can be dealt with early on, during the selection of paradigms. By the time
 
8/30/09 11:07 AMMinimizing Politicization in Public Service Decision-MakingPage 3 of 23http://www.newfoundations.com/EGR/PluralCrit.html
criteria are to be articulated, there is little political maneuvering to be done. What this method preserves arethe deeply embedded theoretical and normative traditions which are highly vulnerable to being underminedby special interests when exigencies prompt the articulation of criteria. Yet, it is these traditions of meaningthat promote acceptance among a broad public and support the discourse necessary to making fair decisions.
General Notes
We begin each section below by mentioning the strategy intended to keep the process as apolitical aspossible, and the possible counter-strategy we believe an astute partisan might use to bias the technique inhis or her favor. Then a description of the technique is given with examples. Finally exercises are providedto strengthen the skills proposed in the section.
I. Describing versus DefiningStrategy
: Using the commonplace activity of describing, to train participants into a moresystematic process of definition. The major concern here is pedagogical, bringing newcomersin on a basis that they will find comfortable, i.e. "if you can describe, you can learn to define."
Counterstrategy
: Reject the distinction between describing and defining.
Comment
: This would not be a likely move, since there is no clear political threat from thedistinction, which is quite commonsensical (seeSearle, 1969), and every reason to avoidprovoking the suspicion that one is trying to bias the method so early on.a. Suppose Harry is someone we all know. It is an everyday kind of question to ask, "Could youdescribe Harry?" It is somehow odd to ask them, "Could you define Harry?" This contrastbetween what it is not unusual and what it is strange to ask points out an important differencebetween the activities of describing and defining.It is easier for people to describe things narratively, than to break the descriptions down intosets of conditions that make up a formal definition. It is feels more natural to say, "A cormorantis a kind of diving bird which is often domesticated in Japan to catch fish for its master," than,to say," A cormorant is1. a bird;2. that dives;3. is often domesticated in Japan; and4. catches fish for its master."
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...