oT, Qualitative-Interpretive Methods in Policy Research Dvora Yanow “The use of qualitative methods in policy research is not new. Academie seholars and policy analysts have for some years been venturing out ino the “field” as ethnographers or paticipant-obsevers to study frstchand the experiences of legislators, implementors agency clients, community mem bers, and other policy-relevant stakeholders, Others have based qualitative studies on indepth interviews with various policy actors; and stil other studies draw on legislative, ageney, andother documents. ‘What is new, however in methodological icles is a greater attention to making the stops of such analyses mor transparent. On the one hand, his makes it easier for students and others to learn how such studies are carried out. A the same time, such transparency enables citics and sheptics Of the scientific standing of soch research to see that they are not impressionistic, that ther have ‘egularized procedures, and that they can yield tustworthy analyses, although these procedurs and Standards may be—-indeed, are—dfferent from those used in other forms of research, Part ofthis transparency involves making clear that qualitative methods have longstanding history of pilo- oplifal exploration and argumentation dt supports their procedures and evidentiary clas at a ‘Conceptual evel. thas become increasingly important tobe explicit about what these philosophical {roundings are, ands this chapter includes a brief summary f several ofthe central presuppositions ‘ind their ideational soures. Another part of this transparency involves attending quite carefily to the language used in talking about methodological concems and methods procedures. Tis kas led to ashift in many ctcles from talking about “qualitative” methods ta discourse of “interpretive” inethods. This shift has tien place because ofthe so-called “interpretive tun” in the social sci= tenes quite broadly (See, €.» Rabinow and Sullivan 1979, 1985), but also because ofthe greater “twarenest ofthe philosophical presuppositions undergirdng all esearch methods and an increased ‘esie to ground methods discussions in their attendant methodologies. “The approach I sketch out here ress, then, on “taking language seriously (to draw on Jay ‘White's article and book titles; White 1992, 1999) and also onthe very philosophical prestppost- tions that undergir these methods and methodologies, I begin with an explanation and defense of the interpretive turn not only in conceptual terms but in methodological ones as well 3s 4 more fitting name fr this form of research. As this rests on philosophical argumentation, inthe second fection I summarize some ofthe main points from interpretive philosophies that inform iferpre tive methods. These suggest some ofthe central characteristics and themes of interpretive methods, including some of the central issues raised today in methodological discussions. Entie chapters ‘and volumes have been written about these several interpretive methods. Her, 1 wil sketchout the tntalments of interpretive methods for accessing or generating data. The chapter concludes with ‘ety brie notes on some of the interpretive methods used in analyzing such data inthe context of policy research, There are many more than [have space for here, and the reader i encouraged to 405406 Handbook of Public Policy Analysis WHAT'S IN A NAME? INTERPRETIVE METHODS. Researchers in many fields who we those methods trtionally called “ualttive"—feld research methods such as participant-observation and analytic methods such as frame analysis or ethno. smethodology—are increasingly using afferent umbyella erm to eft to them: “interpretive.” The reasons are both histrieal and contemporary, having to do with the origins of the term qualitative and current issves in the philosophy of science, including social scence. ‘The language of qualitative methods came into being to distinguish field research methods, such as those developed prominently in Chicago Schoo! sociology and anthropology from the 1930 to 1960s, from the survey research design and statistical methods being developed atthe same time, notably at Columbia University and ater atthe University of Michigan's Institue for Social Research As te latter were designated “quantitative” methods, the former must, by the logic of Tanguage and category construction, be “qualitative” Qualitative research, then, was tha research that drew on one or more of three methods for gathering, accessing or generating data: observing, ‘with whatever degre of participating: interviewing ina conversational mode; andthe close reading ‘of topic-relevant document. ‘One difficulty withthe qualtative-quantitative nomenclature is thatthe category structure sets ‘up an opposition that does not hol, “Qualitative” researchers count things although what they do with numbers, how they treat them analytically, is characteristcally quite different from the ways that quantitative researches treat them; See, eg, Gusfield 1976, 1981); “quantitative” researchers interpret their data And so the distinction i both erroneous and misleading. ‘Two othe differences further complicate the two-part category structure. First, ts focus on numeracy diverts attention from underlying ontological and epistemological differences thatare far ‘more significant. Different methods presume diferent “reality statuses” forthe topic of research. A simplistic example would be that tables, chars, and oter office Furniture, which one can physically ‘touch, havea diferent ontological standing than say the organization whose offices they furxish— ‘something that might mater, for instance in analyses from different perspectives of space planing {or that organization (which, asa concept, denotes more than its material reality). Dflerentreality statuses in turn presume different ways of knowing and different rules of evidence (that supports ‘he “rth claims” of the analysis) or criteria for assessing its trustworthiness. An analysis ofthe allocation of office space and furnishings to members a various levels ofthe organization requires different kind of “know-abilty” than an assessment of the meanings of those allocations wo those ‘members and ther interpretations of the differences. The qualitative-quanstatve terminoloxy has bbocome a shorthand proxy for referring to philosophical differences between methods informed by imerpretive philosophies and those informed by logical positivism and its emendations. Tht mas ing, through the qua/quant language ofthe category structure, of ontological and epistemological presuppositions underginding methodological debates and methods procedures exacerbates the lack ‘of attention to philosophical presuppositions common in the way methods courses ae typically taught—thats, as set of tols divorced from any underlying assumpsions* ‘Second, under pressure to meet the evaluative standards of quantitative methods—the validity and reliability criteria that are grounded in the presuppositions of logical positivism—some qualita: tive researchers are increasingly doing work designed to resemble more closely the characteristics TT Biampies of sach qualitative sties include many that focused on bureaucracies, such as Blay 1953, Gouldoer 1954 Kaufman 1960, Selznick 1949, or on workers and work pasion, such a8 Becker ea 1961; Daton 1939 2. Not that “presuppositions are nt prior in vime but in ogc. Mos researchers donot ist decide what "he ideas bout realty and knowledge ae is fr more common to simply begin with research puzzle and proceed toa research desi. Whats “prio” precedes in the sense of logic: esearch designs resume certain ideas about o atitades toward ontological status and epistemological possibilities. These ae em bedded in esearch methodsQualtatve-Interpetive Methods in Policy Research 407 of large “n” research and to conform more tothe research processes associated with quantitative methods, “Qualitative” research looks ess and les like the traditional feld research methods as- sociated with that tem, Such efforts include, for example, the adoption of computer trograms (such as NUDIST or Atts-Ti to “process” words and phrases from interview and field notes or focus groups as well as highly structured interviews, Q-sort and other techniques, rather than the ‘thnographie, partiipant-obsever, cthnomethodologieal, semiotic, narative, and other approaches that ae the hallmarks of qualitative methods.? The socialsciences, including policy statis, are increasingly characterized by atripartite methods categorization: quantitative, qualitative positivist, and qualitative interpretive, The distinction is made clearer when ope considers the presuppostional ‘rounding that informs dhe methods used inthis latter category. INTERPRETIVE METHODOLOGICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS ‘The Continental philosophies of phenomenology, hermeneutics, and critical theory developed in Europe during the fis half ofthe twentieth century engaged some ofthe same questions tat nine- teen and erly twentieth-centy positivist philosophies dd: whats the character of human social reality as compared with the ontological talus ofthe physical or natural worl? And, nig ofthat realty satus, how can aspect ofthe human social world be known in “scientific” fashion —again, 4s compared with the ability to know something, with any degree of certainty, about the physical ‘or natural world? Barly nineteenth-century positivist philosophers advanced the argumen: thatthe soci orld should be know-able in the same way that planetary motion and physical nas, for example, could be knowin: though systematic application of human reason, restricted by the later Jogical positivist philosophers o sense-based observation alone. Such study should yield pineples cor “laws” of human behavior that were not only discoverable, but universal. Observation from a ‘vantage point external tothe subject of stady——an Archimedean point or "God'seye view” (ee, eg, Harding 1988)—was not only desirable; it was deemed possible. From the perspective ofthe interpretive philosophers, however—those Continental pilsophers and their American counterparts in symbolic interactionism, pragmatism, and the later ethnomet ‘odology-—the human social world is different in signiicant ways from the world of nature and physical objects and forces. One difference isthe centrality of meaning-making to hum life, A Seconds that that meaaing:-making of lived experience—the interpretive processes through which ‘one generates meaning and is able to understand another's meaning —is highly contextspecii From this perspective, the researcher eannot stand ouside the subject of study: more than just the five senses is involved in interpreting people's acs, the language they employ, and the objects they create and use; objectivity is not possible—from this perspective, general laws look mare like a “view from nowhere” (Naget 1986; se also Haraway 1988, Harding 1993, as situational sense making draws on prioe knowledge and builds on intersubjective understanding. Interpretive researchers then, dona fel the need to transform words into numbers for analysis “Thsisthe most immediately visible characteristic of interpretive methods: they are word-bated, fom ata “collection” instruments to data analysis tools to research report formats and contents. Inter preive researchers stick close tothe character ofthe data they ae encountering: as polic-relevant ‘actos deliberate trough words, whether written or oral (or, fr that matter, nonverbal) researchers tse those words as their data in Seeing meanings and sources of meanings. When those actors use ‘numbers, asin counting the numbers of drivers arested or driving drunk (Gustield 1981), research- ets ead those numbers as sources of meaning (for instance, to explore category-construction). This Tortie dasason of hese pois and frat of thes nd ae inerpetive mata eyo ‘what sisted inthis chap soe, Prasad 2008 ap Yano and Seat Sea 2006, 4. Ths has come to be one anenanding of “objectvig.” Fora rtique ofthat understanding, se. e3. Berscin 1983, Hawhesworth 200, Yanow 20a,408 Handbook of Public Plicy Analysis makes interpretive methods particularly suitable For argumentative, deliberative. and other sch fpproaches to policy research fg Fischer and Foreser 1993, Haj and Wayetsar 2005 ‘Because they are ontologically constractvist (rather than realist) and epistemological is texprtivst rather than objectvist, interpretive researchers are attuned tothe ways in which their fown presence might, in many ways, potentially affect what they are learning in their research, ‘Unlike survey researchers, however, who exert efforts in questionnaire design and administration to minimize these so-called “interviewer effects” interpretive researchers increasingly deny the possibilty that interviewers or participants or, in fact, readers can be nonimpactng in this Way. Tnstead—and here isa second hallmark of interpretive research—interpretive methodologist cll for heightened degrees of reflexivity onthe part of the researcher: explicit attention to the ways in ‘which family background, personality, education, taining, and other experience might well shape ‘who and what the researcher i able to access, as well asthe ways in which he makes sense ofthe ‘generated data. This isthe enactment of the phenomenological argument tat selves are taped by prior experiences, which in tr shape perception and understanding. Iis an argument thathas also been advanced in feminist theories and race-thnic studies concerning “standpoint” perpectives (Gee Harsock 1987), Contemporary research repors are increasingly expected to include efexive ceounts ofthese “standpoints” and their role i shaping interpretations. 'A related implication of taking a context-speciic view “rom somewhere” that denies the possibilty of “discovering” generalizable, universal laws in policy research isthe potential for tmuliplicity of meaning, depending on context and phenomenological experience. A hermeneutic freuen, this goes beyond the interpretation of biblical texts—is historical antecedent—to the interpretation of other sorts of texts (¢.g., policy documents) and other sorts of physical artifacts (ee, agency buildings) as well as to human acts (eg, legislating or implementing)—what Taylor (971) called "text analogues" (See also Ricoeur 1971), to which we might also add nonverbal behaviors. It posits a representational-—a symbolie—relationship between human artifactual ere- ations and the values, Beliefs, and sentiments that comprise their underlying meanings Central {o tis positon is an appreciation for the ambiguities that may, and often do, especially n policy ‘teas, arise from multiple integpretations ofthe same artfacts—especially as the reasonsfor such {nerpretational differences ae rarely made explicit in everyday policy discourse. This i, or can be the researcher's task? For this reason, ong others, interpretive researchers insist on grounding analytic irferences in the clear and detailed enumeration of acts of interview language, and of objets necessary for supporting inferences. Such grounding is one ofthe ways in which interpretive researchers argue forthe evidentiary bases fr their tut claims, It is why narrative repors often red like novels—a third hallmark: without such detailed grounding, reports could read lke imaginative lights fancy. ‘This is also why interpretive research data often cannot be condensed in tables, leading reports that are typically longer than those based on quantitative data that can be summarily presented in such a fashion, (This acceptance ofthe socal realities of multiple meanings i also the reason that interpretive poli analysis include the stady of underlying values in their research, negating the {5 Tevelop the argument about symbolic elationships futher in Yanow (2000, ch, 1). disagree with those ‘who claim that a hermensutie approach requires, pes, a reais approach o txts and text nalogues, {point discussed in Hendriks Q00Sb: 25) For those of us who follow a “eader-espons” proach 10 {extual meaning, meaning does not necestarly reside inte ext itself, nor does it reside necessarily in the authors intended meaning -enslogos inthe policy Word legislators inten. A phenomenologca) ‘permencuis the point {have sought to atiult in my work—see meaning al in readers responses torent anditcan be seen ae well as emerging out ofan nteraction among these thee (ex, auto, reader tes e, ne 1989), This postion is well uted forth analysis of policies Because ofits appreiton for the ambiguities ofived experience and is interpretation.Qualitative interpretive Methods in Policy Research 409 {ct-value dichotomy that has held sway in some other areas of policy analysis‘) “These charaetristes—word-based methods and writing, researcher reflexivity, and the explo- tion of moliple meanings and their ambiguities, especially in policy contexts in which contention lover the policy issue under stady is common—are thee ofthe central hallmarks of interpretive research, informed by a constructivist ontology, an interpreivist epistemology and other atendant Philosophical presuppositions, These presuppositions are enacted in methods of generating and snalyzing data METHODS OF GENERATING DATA ‘Terminology comes into play again in talking about what in methods texts has eustomaily been tenmed “cofleting” or “gathering” data, This language suggests thatthe data are jus ying around ‘waiting to be found and assembled and brought back for analysis, much lke a botanist migh collect ‘rgater specimens to mountinthe lb, Indeed eve te words" datun/data in their itera meanings ‘Genote things that are given, underscoring the positivist notion tha the researcher can standoutside the research setting and its details and discover (or uncover) their characteristics objectively. From a interpretive perspective, by contrast, the evidentiary material that the resarcher analyzes is constructed by participants in the event or setting being studied. To the extent that the researcher herself is seen a a participant, one might even speak of the co-constuction or co- [fencation of evidence. This language draws onthe social constructionist argument tat i central to phenomenology (se, e.g Schitz 1962; Berger and Luckmann 1966). Methods of generating data are threfold: observing, interviewing, reading. Inerpetive research typically drave on one ‘ormore ofthese three 1, Onseavine (Observing, with whatever degree of participation in the setting, acts, and evens being observed, is the heart of pareipant observer and ethnographic research. These methods entail more than just & sc of tools; they rest on what might be called, in bot cass, an “ethnographic sensibility” (Pader $3006) This means an intention to understand gets and ators as much as possible fom within their ‘own frame of reference, their own sense-making of the situation. In ways similar to thos atew- Tated by Erving Goffman (1959) concerning symbolic inteactionism and Harold Garfinkel (1977) concerning elinomethodology, the researcher seeks to understand the everyday, commen sense, Targely unartiulated, ye tacitly known “rues” that members ofthe situation have mastered and ‘which enable them to navigate the interactions and setings that comprise their dil lives. Tate context of housing policy, for example, and specifically of occupancy rats, Ellen Pader’s ‘experience st a guest in the home of a Mexican family opened her eyes tothe fat that ie ved experience of “crowding™—the number of bodies occupying a given square footage of domestic Space is not universal. Yet United Staes housing policy sets occupancy rates that disllow the person:space ratios common in oter parts ofthe world even when immigrants to the United States from those places would themselves be more comfortable atthe higher ratios familiar fiom their counties of origin. Enforcement of lower ratios mandated bylaw can, in er view, be discrimins- tory Te was ber first-hand observation of diffrent ways of constricting space and its earings that Ted tice to her analyses of these policies (see, eg, Pade 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006) 6. For acligue oF th ictal dichotomy. see Rein (8TH. For eine henge see Hawhestonh 988),a0 Handbook of Public Policy Analysis Herbert Gans (1976) makes the important point tha participant-abservation can entail arying deqross of pardsipation. Ranging these along a continuum, we have at one end What most woul probably consider the typial participantobserver role: mach like Pader participating inthe Mexiean household, sleeping in the same bed withthe daughters, the researcher assumes situation «pectic ‘ole and acts out ofthe requirements of that role. One might take on the role, for instance, of com- munity organizer or agency department head (Yanow 1996) to study policy implementation a the local level. Gans noes, however, tht ti also possible tobe a perticipant-observerin the explicit. ‘public role of researeher, rather than in an “insider” ole. Here, the emphasis is more on “observer than on participant” although the researchers presenton site, accompanying policy-relevan actors as they atend to daily tasks and so on, according to the needs ofthe stady. Whe called upos to act, the researcher does so in keeping with her research ol, rather than her member roe. Ingersoll and ‘Adams’ (1992) study of the Washington State Ferry system isan example of extended observation where the researchers mingled their observational roles as researchers with participation assystem, ‘ders, Lin's 2000) comparative analysis of state prisons and criminal justice policy is another ‘example ofa stud that drew on on-site observation, in which she was clearly in aresearche’s ole rather than that of ether guard o prisoner ‘All along this continuum, the researcher is ever-mindful of his researcher role, even ina situ- tonal role, as Gans stresses, even when constrained from acting as a researcher by the demands ‘of his member role. This casts the researcher in an “undercover” role, which rises the classic questions of ethical esearch prctice connected to dispuised identity (tat is, i it ethical forthe researcher to disguise the fat that she is conducting research’). Different researchers take different positions on this question” 2. Inrenviewine Interpretive interviewing bears family resemblance to common conversation although th inter viewer typically takes a more ative role in directing the trajectory ofthe conversation than, say, a friend or family member might. As with partiipant-observation or ethnographic research, the Jmerpretve interviewer s interested in understanding how those he stalking to make sense of their lived experiences. This enacts a phenomenological position. Unlike the survey researcher, whose ttsning stipulates that she not depart from the text of te written questions —neiher i one cf voice nor delivery nor in wording or question order—the interpretive researcher ypically seeks draw the speaker out, much as one woulda conversational partner, n order to gain further understanding ofthe terms being used or the perspective being articulated. Frederic Schaffer's “ordinary language imterviewing” (2006) isan example, He sought to understand how those he spoke with in Senegal ‘made sense ofthe concept of “democracy” (Schaffer 1998): wi intheir eyes and in their =xperi- ‘ences, the same thing that Americans call democracy, or did it havea paticula, local coloration? He shapes his follow-up questions to respond to what he has just been told ora times, to catty @ ‘point made earlier in the conversation (see Schafer 2006). Policy-related research often draws on interviews, especially of legislators or agency execu: tives. Yet interviewing need not be restricted to “elites” (see, 8 Soss 2006, Walsh 2004). From an interpretive esearch perspective, especially one informed by critieal theory, non-elite actors are also seen as playing a rle in shaping policies, especially in rejecting top-down acts euch as {npolicy implementation; ad the researcher would want to understand their perspectives 2 wel “eanette Hoffman (1995), for instance, found that technology policy was determined not cay by [Tomson based research in the United Stats where the investigator is requied to comply witha tional review boss" IRB) interpretation of protection of human subjects regulations, this question might leo aris in the contet of weer lick of such dislosire might potently harm research “sbjecs” ‘Tere ate many more questions sbout ethical prictces and about IRB procedures tan can aaess a this chapter. See, eg. Retz 200,Qualitave-Interpetive Methods in Policy Research an policy-makers, but also in a complex imeration that included members of technology firms and university researchers. Tnerviewing can be the sole source of data for an interpretive study. It canals be the “talk” part ofa participant observer or ethnographic study. However, ithe researcher observes, ay office ‘ctivties before, during, and after conducting interviews, that would not commonly be considered ‘generating ethnographic observational data. The latter requires more systematicityt» provide Itustworthy evidence: “being there” through prolonged observation overtime and space, i various circumstances (e.g times of day, days of the week, time of yea, level or part ofthe organization), ‘depending on how these bear on the research question. 3. Reabinc Documents The third souree of interpretive data is documents of various kinds, depending onthe research topic ‘These can be legislative records, bills and their marked-up drafts, notes on meetings, pesoral diaries, daily calendars, agency memos, annual reports, correspondence, and so on. For historical data, the researcher might also read back issues of newspapers; depending onthe research question, editorial columns might constitute data alongside reportage. Rather than reading these as eventevidence, they might be read for a sense of the times—of how people responded at that time to particular ‘events oF ideas. The focus is on mesning-making. One is, n way, interrogating the writen record ‘when ene was not or could not be present oneself, Phyllis Chock's (1995) study of Congressional “alk during debates on immigration policy is an example of such usage of lepslatv> records. By examining the written record of spoken language, she was abe to analyze the ways in which legislators’ and expert witossos" embedded ideas about immigrants reflected and shaped immigra- tion reform and policy contentions. ‘Document reading can also be part of an observational study or an interview-based project. Documents can provide background information prio to designing the research project, orexample, ‘or prior to conducting interviews. They may corroborate observational and interview dats—or they ‘may refute them, in which case the reseazcher is “armed” with evidence that can be wsedto clarify or, pethaps, to challenge what he is being told, a role that observational data may aso pay METHODS OF ANALYZING DATA ‘Once one has data in hand, so to spesk; how might one analyze them interpretvely? Analysis and ata generation are not so clearly sepaable—analysis begins, in fact, withthe very design ofthe research project, and fieldwork, deskwork, and textwork (the “writing up") ar interwireds bt in ‘short chapter, itis easier fo treat them as if they were temporally distinct. “There is avast array of interpretive methods of analysis, among them action research (or pa tiipatory action research), case study analysis (iter single or explicitly comparative) category analysis, content analysis (word-based, not incidence rate counts), conversational analysis, dis ‘course analysis, dramaturgcal analysis, ethnomethodology, frame (reflective) analysis, genealogy ‘rounded theory, life histories, metaphor analysis, myth analysis, narrative analysis (of various sot), Poststructural analysis, science studies, semiotics, space analysis, story-telling analysis, and value- ‘tical analysis. Some af these have been drawn on in policy research more than others, perhaps for reasons of familiarity athe than anything els although one might argue thatthe subject of policy ds are marked by a deere of contention that lends themselves to some methods sivas frame fon fw af hese as exerplars ‘or valus-ciial analysis, more than ethers). Haze 1 willa Handbook of Public Policy Analysis 11. Fraste or VaLU-Chrvicat ANALYSIS Interviewing, sometimes together with observing (e.2., meetings, public hearings) and decument analysis, lends itself to frame analysis or value-criical analysis (see, e., Linder 1995; Schmidt 2000, 2006; Schon and Rein 1994; Swaffield 1998; see also Luker 1984). Here, the reearcher ‘denies two of more interpretive communities (also called communities of meaning, communi- ties of practice, speech or discourse communities, ete) and the language each uses to “irae” the policy iste, typically in conflicting ways. Analysis consists of identifying the values underlying the respective frames. Undertaken in an action research mode, this analysis might also sugges in- terveations to enable each interpretive community to understand why the other reasons in ine way that it does and possibly to broker a mediated resolution tothe conflict. Graham Allison’: (1971) ‘ltiple-lens study of the Cuban missile criss was an earlier version of thi kind of research tis ‘an approach that has been taken up in organizational stdies at theoretical level see e.., Morgan 1986 or Bolman and Deal 1991) Thave extended the interventionist implications ofthis approach so to implementation analysis (Yanow 1987), 2, Srony-Teune ANALYSIS Drawing on an interesting combination of interviewing with directed diary writing, Steven May- nard-Moody and Michael Musheno (2003) and their colleagues have developed a method of ac- ‘cessing stories told by front-line workers concetning their actions in implementing publi policies. Michael Lipsky's (1980), Jeffrey Protas” (1979), and Richaed Weatherly’ (1979) frst-gezeration studies of workers at the front lines themselves rested on intimate familiarity with what teachers, Social workers, police officers, and others actually doin the feld—how they interact with clients, stagents, and so on—genersted through some combination of observing people in action and talk” ing with workers and others. 3. Nanpave ANALYSIS ‘Other researchers see naraive analysis as distinct from story analysis. Carolyn Hendriks 2005s), {or example, teats narratives asthe overal development of a line of argument ater than a stores inthe way used by Maynard: Moody and Musheno—narratives with plotlines that have beginnings, ‘miles, nd ends. Emery Roe's (1993) theory of narrative policy analysis draws on a steam of teary theory that uses “counter-naratves” as ways of making the line of argument clearer, through juxtaposing the narrative argument witha contrasting hypothetical Tineke Abma (1999) has treated ‘narrative analysis in a number of ways inthe context of program evaluations. What all of these have in common is focus onthe importance of attending to policy-relevant actors’ language in discerning the character of disputes and the potentials for interpretation, 4, DrawatUuncicaL ANALS'S Moarten Hajer (2005) draws on the approach developed by the Itrary theorist Kenneth Burke for analyzing dramas. His analytic penta situates dramatic action in the context of its setting, looking also atthe actos in question, her cs, and their agency and purpose (Burke 1945). This rovides ‘systematic framework forthe analysis of policy "acts," which Hajec has extended most recently tothe analysis of evens surrounding the murder ofthe Dutch public figure Theo van Gogh. Burke'sQualitative tnterpretive Methods in Policy Research a3 theory also suggests systematic approach tothe analysis of policy and organizational settings and their spatial meanings (Yanow 2000, 2006). 5. CaTEGony ANALYSIS ‘One ofthe analyte steps that characterizes the work of interpretive researcher the impulse fo, in the words of some, “destabilize” received or commonplace meanings. Others talk about this ting the language of “deconstruction”: accepted policy meanings are deconstructed inthe sense thatthe typically unspoken, commonsense assumptions built into them are named and subjected {o inquiry. One ofthe most common sets of assumptions ae those embeded in policy ise cat tories, such as classifications of welfare recipients or prisoners, or of schoo! children and thei Tearing levels Analyzing the language and structure of these categories along with practices of ‘category-making is another area of interpretive method, As creating categories for administrative purposes through policy-making is a common state activity, category analysis is especially weful fh poly research, [have developed one approach to category analysis and used it in the context of race-lhnie policy and administrative peactices, such as those used in hospitals, censustaking, ‘and employment (Yanow 2003), “There are many more forms of interpretive (qualitative) approaches to policy research than there is space to discus here. The references pont fo some ofthese a8 wel as to primary and sec- ‘ondary soutees for their theoretical and philosophical background, Adaitiona forms will continue to be developed as more and more policy researchers discover the uility of analyses grounded in the actual lived experiences of plicy-relevant ators and in the meanings they make ofthe policies that engage and affect their lives [REFERENCES [Abma, Tineke, el 1999. Telling Tales: On Narrative ond Evaluation. Advances in Program Evan 6 ‘Stamfond, CT: JAK Pres. Allison, Gran. 1971. Essence of Decision Boston: Lite, Brown. ‘ecker Howard Gest, Blanche, Hughes, Everett C.,and Stans, Ansel L 1961 Boys in White Chicago: University of Chicago Pes berger, Peter L- tad Lachmann, Thomas, 1966 The Social Construction af Reality. New York: Anchor Books. Bernstein, Richard J. 1983, Beyond Objection and Relaivism. Pilaepbia: Universty of Pemsy!ania Press. Blas, ete 1963 [1953]. The Dynamics of Bureaeray. Chicago: University of Chicago Pres. lina, Lee G. and Dea, Terrence E. 1991, Refroming Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Burke, Kencth, 1945, A Grammar of Mrives. New York: Prentice Hal ‘Chock Phyl Pease. 1995 "Ambiguity in Policy Discourse: Congressional Tak About migration” Poicy ‘Sciences 28 165-64 Dalton, Melville, 1959, Men Who Manage, New York: Wily. thoy, rank ad Fores, John, es 1993. The Argentine Tum in Polley Analysis and Planing. Dt hm, NC: Duke Urivesty Pres. ‘Gans, Herter 1976 "Personal ourel:B, On the Methods Used in This Study.” In The Research Espevence, fl M. Patricia Golden, 49-89. tase TL: FE. Peacock Sav, Hark 1977 "What is Datlayand-Fhonan A. MeCouhy, 210-64: Noire Dans, N:tnivesity of ot: Dame Pres. Gita Erving, 1989. The Presentation of Sef in Every Life. New York: Dovbleay (Govldnt, alvin Wad. 1954, rer of dura! Bureaucracy. Glenece,IL Fee ressa Handbook of Public Policy Analysis CGiic,Jseph 1976. "The Literary Rhetoric of Science” Ameria Sociological Review Al 1634 ‘Gant Joseph A981 Tie Cane Pals Pens, rik vad he Sle Ones Sieg Unversity of Chicago Pres, ‘sje, Maarten 2008 "Seng te tage: A Dramaturgy of Policy Deliberation" Administration and Society 136: 624-647 "isjer Maarten A. ad Wagenas, Hendrik, es, 2003. Deliberative Policy Analysis. NY: Cambridge University Press Haraway, Donna, 1988, “Situated Kaowledges: The Science Question in Feminism andthe Privilege of the arial Pexspoctive” Feminist Studies 14: 575-98, Handing, Sanden 1993, “Rethinkng Stndpoint Epistemology: What is “Strong Objectivity" In Femins pisemologes ed. Linda Alcoff an Elizabeth Poster, 49-82. New York: Rouledge. artsock, Nancy CM. 1987, “The Feminist Sandpoint” In Feminism & Methodology, ed Sandra Kardog 157-80. Bloomington: Indiana University Pres. awheswort, M-E. 1988, TeortcalIsues in Policy Anais Albany, NY: SUNY Press whesworth, Mary. 2006. Feminist Inuiy: From Potcal Conviction to Methodological Inovaten, New ‘Branswick, Ni: Rutgers Univesity ress. ‘endriks, Carolyn M, 20058, "Participatory Stones and Ther Influence on Deliberative Forums? Ply ‘Science 38: 1-20, “Hendiks, Carolyn M. 2005 "Stres from Policy Praxis: The Case of Deliberative Governance.” Prsented atthe Earopeta Consrim for Poa! Rsearch Conference, Budapest (September). Hofman, Feanelt 1995, Init Theories in Plicy Discourse: An ingoiy int the Interpretations of Reality in Geman Technology Policy” Policy Seences 28: 127-48, Ingersoll Virginia Hil and Adams, Guy, 1992. The Tacit Organization. Greenwich, CT JAI Press ue, Wolfgang. 1989, Prospecting: From Reader Response To Literary Anthropology. Bakimere: Joos Hop ine University Press. ‘Katz, Jock 2004 “Subterranean Feldworkers’Blves: Scratching Toward a Common Law of Social Research hes” Presented tothe Cntr forthe Stualy of Law and Society, Balt Hall School of Law, Usiverity of California, Berkeley February 1). Kaufinan, Roger 1960. The Forest Range, Bale, MD: Published for Resouces fer the Future ky Joos Hopkin Press Lin, Amn Chih 2000, Reform in the Makin, Princeton, NI: Princeton University Press. Linger Steven, 1995, “Contending Discourses inthe Electric and Magnetic Fields Controversy” Poy Se fencer 28 209-30. Lipsy, Mice. 1980, Stet Level Bureaerocy. New Yor: Russell Sage Foundation. [Eke Kristin. 1988, Abortion and the Pole of Motherhood. Berkey: University of California Pass. Maynal Moody, Steven and Musheno, Mice. 2003. Cops, Teachers, Counselors: Stois fromthe Front “Lines of Public Service. Aaa Atbor, MI: Univers of Michigan Pes. “Mayna- Moody, Steven and Musheno, Michael. 206. “Stais fo Research In Interpretation and Method ‘Empirical Rescorck Methods and the Interpretive Tur, ed. Dvora Yanow and Peregrine Shwar- Shea, ch 18, Armonk, NY: ME. Sharpe. Monga, Gath 1986, ager of Organization. Bevel Hills, CA: Sage Publications ‘Nagel, Thomas. 186, The View fom Nowhere. NewYork: Onfor University Press, Pader Ellen J 1994. "Spatial Relations and Housing Policy: Repulatios that Discriminate Against Mexican ‘Origin Households” Journal of Planning Education and Research 13: 119-3. Pade, Ellen. 1998. "Housing Occupancy Codes” In The Eneylopedia of Housing, Willem vin Vit, 288-90, Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Pater Ellen J. 200. "Housing Oceupncy Standards Inscibing Ethnicity and Family Relations on th Land.” Journal of Architects and Planning Research 19: 300-18. Pade, Elen 2006, “Sesing with an Etinographic Sensibility: Explorations Beneath the Surface f Public Policies" In Inerreaton and Method: Empirical Reseach Methods andthe nerpreive Tare ‘DyoraYanow and Peeyine Sehvata-Shen,ch 8. Aemonk, NY: MLE, Sharpe ‘Prasad, Pusha, 2005, Crafing Qualtarve Research: Working Inthe Postposivst Traditions. Armonk, NY/ME. Sharpe.Qualitative interpretive Method in Policy Research as Protas, eey Manditch 179, People Processing The Smet Lee! Burcauerat i Publi Service Bursawera ‘ies Lexington, MA: Lexington Books Rabinow: Pao and Salivan, Wiliam Meds. 1979, Interpretive Socal Selence, Berkeley: Universty of California Press -Rahinow: Dnt and Suva, Wiliam Mos 1985. nerve Socal Scene, 2nd ed, Berkley: Univesity of California Pres. Rein, Matin, 1976 Soctl Science and Public Policy. New York: Penguin Books. [River Pal 197. "The Model ofthe Text” Svil Research 38: $29-62. Fo Ene 1998, aratve Pley Analysis: Theory and Practice. Duar, NC: Duke Univesity Pras Series Feder Cares. 1998, Democracy in Tronlaion: Understanding Poicsinan Unfair Cale, Ithaca, N¥: Comal! University Press Sohatec redone Cares 2008. “Ordinary Language Interviewing.” In Interpretation and Method: Enpiical “Fessuh Methods andthe Interpretive Turn, e. BvoraYanow and PererineSchwat-Shes ch. 7 ‘Armonk NY MLE, Sharpe. ‘schmidt Rend. Sr 3000. Language Policy and Identity Politics Inthe United Stats. Pile, PA “Temple University Press. Schmid Rot $1 2006 “Nadas! Policy Analysis: The Cas of Language Policy inthe United States” in uerpettion ou Method: Empire! Research Methods nd the iuerretive Tar, Dvora eco td Petevin Schwarta-Shes,ch 7. Anonk, NY: MLE, Share. Schon, Donald A and Rein, Matin. 1994 Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Pley ‘Conroverses, Nes York: Basi Books. chit, Alfcd. 1960. "On Maple Realiien” Collected Papers e Maurice Natanso, 3 vos, 207-9, The Hague: Martins Niftot. “Selanih Pen 1949. TVA and he Gras Roots: A Study nthe Sociology ofPomal Organon Bakley University of Califia Pres Soss, Jo, 2006" Tkng Out Way toMeaningfl Explanation: A Practice-Centered View offntervienng for Tiare Reseach" Ia ertaton nd Method: Empirical Research Methods the Iter Tur cd, DroeaYanow and Peregrine Schwartz Shea, ch, 6. Armonk, NY: MLE, Shape wate Stgen 1098, “Contextal Meanings in Policy Discourse: A Case Sty of Language Use Concert ag Reswure Policy in the New Zealnd High Country Policy Selences 3: 199-224 ‘taylor Chaos 171. Tnerpetation andthe Sciences of Mat” Review of Metaphysics 25:38 Weak Katine Cramer 2004 Tiling About Polite: Irformal Groups and Socal Identity in American Lif Chicago: Universi of Chicago Press ‘Weatherly, Richard A 1979. Reforming Special Education: Policy Implementation frm State Level Steet evel Cambeige, MA: MIT Pres. ie," Taking Language Seriously: Towarda Narative Teory of Kowleie forAdminstatve Research American Review of Public Adminstration 22: 75-88 “Whit sy. 199. Ting Laue Seriously The Narrative Foundations of Publ Administration Research ‘Washington, DC: Georgetown University Pres ‘Yanow, Doors, BET, “Toward Policy Cutie Approach to Implementation Analysis” Pole Shues Review 7. 108-115 ‘Yanow, Dera 1996, How Does Plicy Mean? Interpreting Ply and Organizational Actions, asiagion, ‘DC; Georgetown University Pres. “Yano, Dvr, 200, Conducting Interpretive Plicy Analysts. Newbury Pak CA: Seas. rare ons 2003, Constructing America “Race” and “EBniciy": Categry-making in Public Plcy and ‘Administration, Arta, NY: ME. Sharpe Yanow, ote 06a Neither Rigorous Nor Objective? Inieopsing Citra fr Knowledge Cain io I~ ‘eve Stone In erpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the ntepetive Son ed DvorsYanow snd Peregrine Schwartz-Shea, ch. 4. Armonk, NY: MLE, Sharps ‘Yanow, Deo, 2006). "How Built Spaces Mest A Sensis of Space” In Iverprettion and Medd: Em a ena ers od the Iderpetive Ture Dvera Yanow an Peregrine Schwate-She he, Aron NY: ME Shape Yau Dror ant Swart Shs. Peregrine 2008 feet tad he ferpetve Tre Aron, NY: ME Sharpe nl Ath: Bmpr! RewurtMethadsHandbook of Public Policy Analysis Theory, Politics, and Methods Edited by Frank Fi: Mara S. Si Fuigers Universi Newark, Nex @) CRC Pressxcs “aya Franc Group ‘6000 rake Sound Prknay NW, Suite 300 Boca Raton FL 334672082 (© 2007 by Tylor Francs Group, LLC (CRC Prensa imprint of Tylor Francis Group a nforna business ‘No claim torial US. Government works Printed inthe United Soe of American -ee paper 10987698321 nceroational Standard Book Nunber 10: 1574445618 (Hardores) International Standard Hook Number 13.5781 50445-8619 (arove) ‘his Book conas Information obnned from authentic and highly regaeded sources. Repent materi i veh permiston andaourcer ee inieated. A wide aia reference aired. Resmble ffrts ave Doon Ma Pulls relnbledata and intrmaton, butte author andthe publisher cannot sume epost fo the ai ‘lmaoo forthe consequence fhe. "Nopart ofthis ook may be reprinted, produce ranamited, orld nay frm byny atone mecha her means now knew or hereafter ave, including photocopying. irofming, nd cording or nan no Ain tragecr eter sytem, that writen permission from tepals Fe permiaion to photocopy of us atc eectonialy fom tis work, plese aces wwr.opyightcom (hi ynwcopyightcoms) cnc the Copyright Clarane Centr ne (CCC) 22 Rosewond Drive Danvers MA Ol ‘573-750-6400, CCC rant fr profitorennsthon tat provides licenses and repro ovary a ers Fo ‘Alain that have been granted a photcapy bens bythe CCC, a saprnte sytem of payment Rar been arranged. “Trademark Notices Proctor corporate names maybe tadematis of rpssered tess, sar sed only ‘entiation and explanation without intent ilinge Library of Congress Cataloging Publication Data Handa of pac palicyanlyis theory plc, pd mets / ited by Frank Fiche, Gerald) Nilay sara Sidney. Pct (Pubic dministraon and public pole: 125) Inclaes bblographiel efeences and inde ISan-as or--see Seat pape) ISBNI0. 1574445618 lk pape 1 Policy scencesHandbookr mana t.2.Fablie adminiseton-Hanbooks, mana te, |. Plsthe Pant, 19-11 Mller Gv Sidney, Mara 1964 1. Tle VS siaae-ccan 2006001906 ‘Vis the Tayo France Web ste at Ingpsivwetaporandeanciscom and he CRC Press Web sitet Ittpslwwenepress.com