VALUE-CRITICAL POLICY ANALYSIS 311Although I am aware of few public administrative agencies or policy advocacy organizations
employing individuals to conduct this type of analysis (the former would be criticized for usurp-
ing the role of elected officials in typical U.S. understandings of democracy; the latter probably
do not wish to pay for critiques of their own understandings of their policy commitments), there
exists at least one prominent public occupation that can and should play such a role in a complex
society. University professors in political science and public affairs are ideally situated to engage
in such forms of policy analysis. University professors, after all, are employed to do research with
their students on the cutting edge of the “truth” in many fields and to share the fruits of that
research both with the public and with other students of the subject. Why not engage in systematic
scholarship that might actually help citizens and policy makers improve their understanding of
the central values at stake in a highly controversial public policy issue? This does not mean, of
course, that professors and their students—like citizens and public officials—do not have their
own biases and personal interests that might affect their judgment on the issues under study. But
they are in a social and political role that typically provides a greater opportunity for rigorous
value-critical analysis than do other roles: that is, relative freedom from the pressures of profit
seeking and/or political decision making (partisan ties and loyalties, previous commitments), and
a community of other scholars willing and ready to critique their work.
Within this context and throughout the analytical process, the value-critical analyst attempts to
understand and keep clear her own preexisting value commitments in relation to the policy issues
under study, but also attempts to reexamine her understanding of those values and their policy
implications in the light of critical analysis and reflection. This requires a strong commitment and
an openness to continued learning on the part of the analyst. That is, the underlying assumption of
this stance is that whatever understanding the analyst has of the values at stake in the policy issue
under study, her own policy values and their implications for the development and implementa-
tion of public policy might be improved through critical (and self-critical) reflection and analysis.
The whole point here is to seek ways to help public policy do its work “better” by having a better
understanding of the values at stake in public policy conflict. To the extent that the policy analyst’s
own value interpretations stand in the way by biasing her analysis, or by blinding or distorting her
view on some important aspect of the policy issues in contention, the analyst must work toward a
better understanding of what is really at stake and why it is important.
How can this important work be done? One of the ways this can be done is through critical self-
reflection, subjecting one’s own value understandings to the same critical analysis as those of the
partisans in the policy conflict under study (see below for several examples). Another important
method of doing this is through frequent and ongoing discussions with policy advocates in the field of
study (e.g., as participant-observer or simply as an “outside” observer committed to the public good),
as well as with other interested parties (e.g., colleagues, friends, public officials, fellow citizens).
Within this role context and intellectual frame of reference, then, the policy analyst turns
finally to a critical analysis of the value positions being espoused by policy advocates in the
public policy conflict under study. What sorts of criteria for evaluation are valid and/or helpful in
doing this sort of critical analysis? How is the analyst to discern between a “weak” and a “strong”
understanding of the value stakes involved in a given public policy conflict? It is not possible to
adequately summarize the wide range of helpful approaches here. The following, therefore, are
given as illustrative examples and are not meant to be exhaustive in any sense.
Examining the Context of the Argument for Accuracy and Comprehensiveness
Nearly all policy arguments involve an implicit or explicit contextual frame of reference from
which they derive part of their rhetorical power of persuasion. As Yanow has shown, policy disputes