310 ANALYZING DATA
policy analyst is likely to be biased by his commitments. Does this mean that such analysis is so
biased that it is not useful to the development of good public policy? Not necessarily. Within the
liberal political tradition, at least, so long as the various partisans to policy disputes have a fair
opportunity to make their “best case,” both citizens and public officials can draw upon their
partisan depictions of the situation or context, their proposed policy solutions, and their argu-
ments on behalf of their policy solutions to come to an optimal solution through the well-known
process of the “free marketplace of ideas.”
What, then, about the values of the value-critical policy analyst? Answering this question, I
think, can be illuminated by sketching out the presumed political role of the value-critical policy
analyst in this comparison. Who plays such a political role? Is the value-critical analyst an “ex-
pert” in values, just as the value-neutral analyst is presumed to be in relation to facts? Are there
organizations or institutions that employ such people? Is there a legitimate role for a value-critical
policy analyst in the “real” world? As I conceive the value-critical analyst’s role, it is akin to that
of the citizen and/or public official who ultimately must take a position and make the decision on
adopting public policy. That is, the value-critical analyst presumes to think like a public-spirited
citizen or public official whose aim should be to support and adopt public policies that enhance
the “public good.” This implies, of course, that the value-critical analyst/citizen/public official is
motivated by a fundamental commitment to the “public good” and therefore seeks to support and
adopt public policies that will make her political community “better off” than it would be in the
absence of such policies. In this sense, the assumption is that the policy analyst—like the “good”
citizen and public official—seeks to avoid being guided primarily by selfish and narrow interests
and genuinely seeks policies that enhance the common good. It further presumes that in trying to
discern the shape of such policies, the policy analyst—like the “good” citizen and public official—
seeks out the best possible information and is as clear as possible about her own values, interests,
biases, and policy-relevant value commitments in order to avoid prejudging the issue under study
and analysis.
My own approach to developing this narrative is to try to hear the “voice” of a policy advocate’s
likely critical response to my representations, then correcting them when I “hear” an inaccuracy
or misstatement pointed out. After going through this process, I have tried to check my narrative
with as many partisans and/or fellow citizens with some knowledge of the issue as possible. In the
end, the aim is to articulate the partisans’ positions as judiciously and comprehensively as pos-
sible before subjecting these positions to the analyst’s critique. The narrative aims to be “bal-
anced,” “accurate,” and “comprehensive” in the sense that the policy advocates involved in this
policy dispute would/do agree that their views have been treated with respect and have been
given a “fair hearing” by the policy analyst. Ultimately, the worth of the analyst’s efforts at this
sort of “balanced” and “comprehensive” analysis must be judged by her readers, including the
very advocates whose work has been critiqued, as well as by policy makers, citizens, and other
scholars of public policy.
In sum, then, I think that all policy analysts have, or should have, value commitments about
the policies they work on. But there is a key difference between value-critical and/or value-
committed policy analysis (intellectual and moral processes) and the policy analyst (the thinking/
acting/feeling subject). As I understand it, the (valuing) policy analyst should try to approach
all the values (those congruent with her own values and those at odds with her own values) in
a critical (and self-critical) way. The aim is to be as even-handed and fair as possible in under-
standing and articulating the strengths and weaknesses of the value aims and goals of all sides
in a policy controversy. The assumption is that we can learn from our opponents as well as
from our allies.