>> From the Library of Congress in Washington DC.
[ Silence ]   >> Well, good afternoon everybody.

I am Carolyn Brown, Director of the Office of Scholarly Programs
in the John W. Kluge Center here at the library.
And it gives me great pleasure to welcome you here this afternoon
for a lecture by Dr. Roger White, scholar and resident
at the Kluge Center on the subject, Professional Help for Public Policy.
Roger looks at public policy analysis as a field
of intellectual inquiry, a little different approach
and offers a framework for enhancing the effectiveness
of the field informing policymaking.
So, I'm gonna ask you that before we begin
to please turn off any cellphones or other electronic devices
that not only might interrupt the speaker
but can interfere with the recording.
The event is sponsored by the Kluge Center.
It was established through a generous endowment by John W. Kluge,
who you may know just a-- I think it was last week--
the week before last.
A really wonderful visionary and extremely generous to the library.
The center supports the world's most accomplished senior scholars
and the most promising rising generation of new scholars,
all to conduct advanced research in the library's collections.
It further promotes small conferences, symposia,
and lectures such as this one today.
If you're interested in knowing more about the center
on an ongoing basis, you can go to the library's web page,
unmysteriously at www dot L-O-C, Library of Congress dot gov.
And you can also sign up for e-mail notification.
And because of the nature of today's audience,
before I introduce Dan Mulhollan who will introduce the speaker,
I just wanna make note of a new opportunity in the Kluge Center
for senior scholars and this is the Kemp Scholar in Political Economy
and I left on the table in the back just the printout
from the web page announcement.
So if you're interested or you have friends who are interested,
you might wanna take a look at that.
And the deadline is November 15th, application deadline
so you got plenty of time.   As I noted, Daniel Mulhollan,

Director of the Congressional Research Service will be introducing
our speaker.
Dan has responsibility for an agency that works exclusively and directly
for members of Congress and committees of the Congress
to support the legislative oversight and representative functions.
CRS maintains closed ties with Congress
and provides research analysis and a wide variety of information services
with a goal of contributing to an informed national legislature.
Dan joined the library in September 1969 as an analyst
in American national government.
He's held several management positions in CRS including chief
of its government division.
He also served as deputy librarian for 2 years before being appointed
in 1994 as director of the Congressional Research Service.
You can see from even that brief bio
that Dan is extremely well positioned and qualified
to introduce our speaker.   So, Dan?

>> Thank you.   >> Yes.

>> I'm extremely well qualified
to introduce our speaker 'cause we've hanged
around for years together.
As Caroline spoke, I think one of the major challenges
that we're looking and I'm looking forward today in Roger's discussion
and the passion we share is helping representative government function.
And one of the major challenges there is that the problems
that the Congress decides should be undertaken
at the national level are increasingly complex.
In fact-- public policy lecture is in fact infatuated
with the term used
by the information science industry these days which is called the--
those problems that are so complex that they are seemed
to be completely insoluble.
You know everything there is about it and at the same time,
you don't know what to do.
And it's in that context that I hope Roger help shed light
in that direction of what we should be doing.
Thank you, Caroline for inviting me to this--
the center's lecture and for giving me the opportunity
to introduce the speaker who I whom quite dear,
my colleague Roger White.
Now, this lecture on policy analysis,
an outgrowth of 2 specialized worlds.
One is the world of practitioners who managed
and conduct policy analysis to inform policymakers
and the public in real time.
The other world is the world of scholars who explore dimensions of
and prospects for policy analysis as a field of study.
For the last several months with the support from the library,
the Congressional Research Service, and the Kluge Center,
Roger has examined scholarship in this field
from the vantage point of a practitioner.
His focus is work on the practitioner's concern
about effectiveness in informing policymakers.
To guide his efforts, he's examined scholarly works for frameworks
that define the field and provide objectives against which
to consider effectiveness.
Roger's work as a Kluge scholar has allowed him to take off his CRS hat
and focus his time examining this interesting issue.
Now, I would argue he's eminently qualified
for the task he's undertaken.
As I was telling a colleague recently,
Roger probably has read more CRS reports than anyone living
and he's still walking to say about it.
He has devoted most of his professional life
in supporting public policy work of the United States Congress,
as a policy analyst and as a research manager
in the Congressional Research Service.
He has served with distinction as a senior researcher
and a senior research manager for nearly 30 years and most recently
as the service's associate director for research.
Among his significant accomplishments his work
in developing and administering approaches
for managing public policy research that anticipate
and meet especially critical policymaking needs of the Congress
across the full agenda with expertise from relevant disciplines
and disciples-- and practice disciplines and practices.
Disciples are there, too.
He also has provided effective intellectual leadership
and dedicated-- and I-- time and energy--
and dedicated time and energy as unanticipated,
it ends like Hurricane Katrina.
He was in our buildings across the street the weekend before Katrina
hit along with 50 other CRS researchers there at the front.
And one of our challenges always as an organization
and I think policy analysis is how you deal with unanticipated events.
The current oil spill is a good example.
As well as broadly-based initiatives as the work of the 9/11 Commission
and how to approach that
and received extensive attention from the Congress.
He has received numerous awards
for performance including the library's superior service award.
He's a Phi Beta Kappa graduate at Knox College, PhD in economics
in the University of Illinois and before joining CRS in his--
as a child in 1975, he was on the faculty
of the University of Connecticut.   I welcome, Roger White.

[ Applause ]
>> Let me get some light on the subject here.
Sorry, this wasn't-- thank you Dan
for your kind marks-- remarks of introduction.
I must begin with a note of gratitude
for the opportunity I've had to do research here at the Kluge Center,
research that be reflected in the presentation.
I thank the Librarian of Congress, Dr. James H. Billington
for granting me this research opportunity.
I thank Dan Mulhollan, Director of CRS
for supporting the recommendation for--
and for discussing research and progress with me.
I believe both of us recognize our discussion as an extension
of conversations we have had over a number of years about the nature
of policy analysis and challenges in conducting policy analysis.
>> I thank Carolyn Brown, Director of the Library's Office
of Scholarly Programs and the John W. Kluge Center
for her ongoing support
and for valuable periodic conversations we've had,
we've enjoyed.
I'm grateful for the continuing conscientious administrative support
from the Kluge Center as offered by Mary Lou Reker, Robert Saladini,
JoAnne Kitching, Denise Robinson,
Patrice [inaudible], and Alicia Robertson.
Conversations with other Kluge scholars have been very helpful
to me including our weekly informal gatherings.
In addition, I note special discussions with Klaus Larres,
Abdolkarim Soroush, James Childress, Jurgen Kocka and Karen Karbiener.
On an-- over an extended period of time, I have also benefitted
from rewarding productive interactions
with colleagues throughout CRS.
These experiences have been instrumental
in shaping my perspective on interactions
between policy analysis and public policy.
Finally, I am grateful for all of you
for taking the time to attend this lecture.

Please note that I make the standard disclaimer
that the remarks I am delivering in this lecture are my own
and are not intended to represent the views
of the Congressional Research Service or the Library of Congress.
Now, under the policy analysis and public policy.
We first set the stage in giving outline
for the presentation as a whole.
Many sources inform public policymaking.
People trained in a number of different practices
and disciplines representing a wide variety of groups
or playing very different roles in policymaking all examined
and critiqued public policy.
Among these are scholars who are anchored in
and oriented toward various academic fields and disciplines.
Those who work in and for the benefit of government bureaucracies,
members of the media, members of special interest groups
and a various political constituencies, the courts,
and even policymakers themselves.
In this mix of sources that inform public policymaking are scholars
and practitioners from the field
of intellectual inquiry called policy analysis.
Policy analysis evolved after World War 2 as an interdisciplinary field
of practice and has been formally recognized
through degree granting programs in a number of universities
with an early concentration of new programs established in the 1970s.
In this presentation, I will examine the field of policy analysis
to explore how contributions to policymaking from scholars
and practitioners in this field differ from the work
of the many others who participate in policymaking processes.
The motivation is not to join a long line of efforts
to define the broad field of policy analysis.
The immediate goals are first to explore central purposes
and aspirations of this field, aspects that make it distinctive.
And second, to offer an approach for identifying researcher attributes
that serve these central purposes and thereby play a role
in the effectiveness of policy analysts.
The importance of this line of inquiry stems from the fact
that as a society, we place very heavy reliance on public policy
with the result that the nature and quality of input
into policymaking processes including significantly the input
of policy analysts can have considerable and lasting effects
on the character and well being of the overall community.
Here is the outline for the lecture.
I will begin with an inquiry into the distinctiveness
of the field of policy analysis.
Next, I will examine special research challenges for the field
that arise from its distinctiveness.   And I will conclude by deriving

from these special research challenges key
researcher attributes.
These are attributes that support policy analysts' efforts
to inform public policymaking.
These 3 areas, distinctiveness, related research challenges
and key researcher attributes
for meeting those challenges deserve fuller treatment
than I will be giving them today also each requires much more
research effort than I have been able to commit to them to date.
Overall, however, and very importantly,
they combine to form an approach for examining
and addressing effectiveness of the field of policy analysis
in informing policymaking.
The task of establishing such a framework is an important steps
that supports more in depth work on the underlying component parts.
Let me begin with distinctiveness.
Discerning distinctiveness of the field
of policy analysis is challenging in large part because as a field
of practice, it builds on and incorporates work from a number
of disciplines and practices, policy areas,
work settings and policymaking venues.
It's very complicated and far reaching.
Importantly as well, both p policy analysts normal--
because policy analysts normally focus on specific policy areas,
their perspectives on the nature
of the field can be quite limited while the field itself is
quite expansive.
Some who have examined policy analysis as a field
of intellectual inquiry have constructed an overall sense
of the nature of the field by highlighting the vast range
of concepts, methods, strategies, and frameworks
that policy analysts use in their work.
This comprehensive approach suggest
that professionally committed policy analysts have command
or should strive to have command over a large range of skills,
knowledge, and practices.
Yehezkel Dror, professor at Hebrew University, for example,
states that it is incumbent upon us--
upon policy analysts to be workaholics as a moral duty
and as the only way to build up the expertise implied
by our desiring claim to be policy sciences professionals.
Because this kind of comprehensive approach is encompassing
with respect to studying policies--
public policy, it does not help to distinguish policy analysts
from others who participate in policymaking processes,
many of whom rely on many of the same methods
and skill sets used by policy analysts.
Using more selected sets of skills as a basis
for distinguishing the field of policy analysis also has weaknesses.
Many scholars, reporters, special interest representatives and others
who examine public policy adeptly employ a variety
of specialized methods and frameworks
that policy analysts also use.
Few of these other participants in policymaking processes, however,
consider themselves to be policy analysts and policymakers
who consult them do not necessarily consider their expertise to be based
in policy analysis but regard them as legal scholars, economists,
specialists on certain countries or regions, and so on.
In general, those who join in public policy processes,
how ever specialized their skills may be, are not ex post facto,
policy analysts in a professional sense.
Over a number of years, various of students
of policy analysis have declared that the field
of policy analysis is simply not sharply defined.
In fact, some have characterized it as a somewhat pragmatic approach
to the study of public policy.
Going back to 1977, Allen Schick, a former senior specialist at CRS
and now a professor at the University
of Maryland Public Policy School stated that it is ironic
that analysis which strives to be at the center of public policy
as policy analysis has no center of its own.
In his view, in policy areas such as housing, environment, and health,
he saw analysts from different social sciences feed
opportunistically on issues of the day without referenced
to fundamental directions.
In 1997, Iris Geva-May, professor of policy studies
at Simon Fraser University reviewed more than 20 definitions
of policy analysis representing a wide range focusing on practical
and conceptual aspects of the field and concluded
that the field is a practical client-oriented approach.
And a few years later, Beryl Radin inviting an assessment
of the field stated that policy analysis has not achieved agreement
on the attributes of expertise that make up the field.
>> She also stated that the field has supported a relativist
and eclectic approach to the practice.
Beryl Radin is currently a scholar and resident at the School
of Public Affairs at American University
and she is a former president of the Association
for Public Policy Analysis and Management or APPAM.
These comments and judgments suggest that the field has not achieved
for itself a sense of distinctiveness.
An alternative approach for looking at the field may help.
First, it is important to recognize explicitly that a number
of groups participate in public policy processes which is evident
from the fact that policy analysts routinely draw on
and integrate their efforts with work from other fields and practices
that also focus on public policy.   The situation suggests

that a comparative approach can help place the field of policy analysis
in focus and provide some insight into the distinctiveness
of contributions of policy analysts.
A useful basis for comparison, however, does not appear to rest
with differences in subject matter, methodologies,
or the fact of a focus on public policy.
One useful basis for comparison rests instead on differences
across groups in their purpose reflecting different types
of interest in public policy.   Let me explain.

Different sets of participants
in policymaking processes often examine, assess, and react to many
of the same aspects of specific policy matters
but they typically reach different conclusions
or provide different insights regarding such key considerations
as needs means feasibility, coherence, importance, impacts.
In fact, differences are generally expected are usually readily
discernible across various special interest groups,
government entities, policy analysts,
scholars from different disciplines and policymakers themselves.
Differences across groups and approaches to
and insights regarding the same policy questions can be explained
fairly reliably and usefully by reference to perspectives
that are peculiar to each group.
Perspectives in this setting are viewpoints or choices of context
that are tied to group objectives to their purposes.
Again, group perspectives are viewpoints or choices of context
that are tied to or reflect group objectives.
In addition to having its own perspective,
each group often also examines policy
from the vantage point of other groups.
Members of special interest groups and policy analysts alike
for example can be expected to consider particular perspectives
of policymakers and of the courts whether these can be discern
through existing sources or must be anticipated.
At the same time, however, each group can also be expected
to give highest consideration to its own concerns and interests.
For this reason, the viewpoint arising
from a group's own interest may be referred
to as its dominant perspective which is a viewpoint that conditions
and overrides other perspectives and considerations that members
of a group may take into account.
A dominant perspective constitutes the defining high level context
setting viewpoint for a group.
An example of perspective is the viewpoint of issue stakeholders
who by definition center on their own special interests,
a context which affects their assessments of policy needs,
trends, options and effects.
They certainly can be expected to be alert to perspectives
of others especially those who may either lend support to
or generate conflict with our own interests
but they can also be expected to filter contributions of others
by examining them in relation to their own views and objectives.
The dominant orienting perspective
that elected policymakers may be expected to exhibit
as a focus on political security.
This is not inconsistent with being aware of and sensitive
to other perspectives, such as adherence to particular ideologies,
sensitivity to concerns of various constituencies and relating to views
and interests of colleagues.
For example, when policymakers make decisions based on conscience rather
than constituency wishes, they can be expected to do
so with an awareness and consideration of implication
for their political security whether positive or adverse.

For policy analysts, the dominant perspective can be seen as a focus
on the well being of the general public.

The context of societal or social concerns is distinct
from centering attention on self-interest or on interest
of individual, groups, or sectors.
Policy analysts focus in identifying, understanding,
and ameliorating concerns relating to the public as a whole,
conditions how they view other concerns they necessarily consider
such as political implications and considerations relating
to stakeholder s or interest groups.   Policy analysts, exploration

of social well being may not be definitive
and at times may point only to direction or orders of magnitude
on absolute or comparative basis and their work may even be
under active debate within the field.
Knowing both what policy analysts say and the extent of agreement
and degree of certainty which with they are able
to represent their findings, however, are important inputs
in informing policymaking process
about policy implications for social well being.

Perspectives from a number of other fields
and disciplines also contribute to policymaking processes.
Many such fields are closely related to and supportive
of the field of policy analysis.
Important distinctions, however, do exist.
For example, a focus of economists
on economic efficiency contributes significantly to analyzing,
informing, and even resolving many situations that underlie
or contribute to many social concerns especially situations
related to resource allocation.
Even in matters of resource allocation, however,
actual policymakin'-- policymaking often focuses on social concerns
that are broader or more encompassing
than maintaining efficient markets or compensating for market failures.
For example, a broader focus is reflected
in many existing disincentives found in regulation taxes
and the criminal code and in numerous other efforts such as those
that address discrimination, attempt to control unwanted activities
or promote specific socially-preferred outcomes in place


Each set of participants
in policymaking processes may attempt independently to understand
and reconcile differences across the various groups
that participate in policymaking.
It is the policymaking processes, however,
that play the important role of eliciting
and bringing together considerations offered by--
or from various distinct policy perspectives including contributions
from policy analysts.
In these processes, policymakers take into account not only conflicts
and tradeoffs across immediate stakeholders
but such other considerations as integrity of the legal institutions,
broad societal interests informed in part by policy analysts


Examinations of the field of policy analysis generally do not explicitly
explore social concerns as a class of objectives
that motivate or define the field.
They do, however, demonstrate widespread connections of the field
to social concerns, social well being, public interests,
public problems and improving the whole human conditions.
They do so on a limited basis through references
that indicate a social concern context and a commonly understood--
as a commonly understood perspective for the field.
>> For example, in formative contributions to the field
of policy analysis, Harold Lasswell, frequently incorporated references
to a focus on social concerns.
He said, "As a professional man, the policy scientist is searching
for an optimum synthesis of the diverse skills that contribute
to a dependable theory and practice
of problems solving in the public interest."
He also said, "To be professionally concern with public policy is
to search for ways of discovering and clarifying repercussions
of collective action or inaction for the human condition,"
always includes that context.
Lasswell was a professor of law and social sciences at Yale University
in 1946 to 1970 and for those of you who know of Lasswell,
you may be interested to know that during World War 2,
he worked from an office in this building, the Jefferson Building
of the Library of Congress where he headed a division for the study
of war time communications.
Another window on the role of social concerns as an orienting concept
for the field policy analysis is found in annual assessments
of the field presented in addresses by presidents of the association
for public policy and-- public policy analysis and management.
These addresses typically focus on specific policy areas but do
so in a manner designed to report on accomplishments and challenges
for the field as a whole.
Those have mostly directly mentioned the social concern perspective
of the field acknowledge its importance and typically also call
for improving attention to social concern contexts.
An example is the 1998 presentation by Lee Friedman,
professor of public policy
at the Berkeley Graduate School of Public Policy.
He underscored the importance of social concerns as follows.
"As a member of this profession, you believe your objective is to further
that amorphous something we call the public interest.
I make a point of this because in browsing through a number
of textbooks in the field of public policy,
I found little reference to public interest.
As public interest ethic, however,
is the glue that joins our technical tools in training
and explains the strength of our professional bond.
In 2007, in critiquing efforts to measure economic disadvantage
or property, Rebecca Blank, who's the current undersecretary
of Commerce for Economic Affairs recognize program agency political
and ideological perspectives in her talk
but she highlighted the importance
of long term social concerns focused on poverty.
Calling for consistent broad ranging measurements
that would support the ability to monitor and address poverty in part
by reflecting policy impacts as well as effects of the economy.
In 2009, in November of last year, Katherine Swartz,
professor of health policy and economics at Harvard,
focused on social concerns related
to enhancing productivity and standards of living.
She did so by calling for more explicit attention
to interconnected policy goals.
She expressed the view that policy analysts could do better
in highlighting the importance of a fuller range of social concerns
and in using that broad social concern context
for assessing policy.
These examples illustrate attention to social concerns
in providing context and motivation for the field of policy analysis.
At the same time, none of these examples includes a systematic
examination of social concerns as a concept for orienting the field
and on references other works that do so.

If we accept a focus on social well being
as a widely understood orienting perspective for the field
of policy analysis, we can proceed to explore the nature
of social concerns in policy settings
and then examine associated research challenges for policy analysts.
First, to look at the nature of social concerns.
Social concerns of interest to policy analysts are conditions
that if addressed, may significantly improve the immediate
or longer term well being of the public.
They are also conditions that may not be adequately pursued
independently if at all through private
or nongovernmental activities.
Social concerns of interest to policy analysts include concerns
that are active as reflected in current political agendas
of policymakers or the public but they may also extend
to potential opportunities for improving social well being
that may be laden with respect to current political agendas.
The nature or social concerns as they relate
to policy analysis can be best understood
when those concerns are restated in problem formulations.
This entails stating prevailing conditions in a policy area
and then relating them to long term objectives which are expressed
in the form of preferred conditions.
The gap between prevailing conditions
and preferred conditions motivates developing incremental solutions
or policy initiatives that can be judged for their effectiveness
in closing that gap between what exists and what is desired.
Problem formulations that focus
on social concerns highlight public consequences of policy.
And they provide high level frameworks
for systematically examining policy needs and policy implications.
The function of broad social concerns as major orienting context
for policy analysis has not been recognized
in widely referenced literature in formulating policy problems.
This literature instead has emphasized more immediate practical
policy objectives.
Aaron Wildavsky, founding dean of the Graduate School of Public Policy
at Berkeley characterized public policy analysis as an activity
of creating or defining problems that can be solved.
He tied specific decisions not to addressing broad social concerns
but to immediate policy objectives and available resources.
Wildavsky of course recognized linkages
to broader social objectives but consideration
of context setting social concerns is not securely integrated
into the approach he developed.
Another important example of reliance on a narrow context
for policy problems is found in David Dery's widely cited book,
"Problem Definitions in Policy Analysis."
Dery states that a useful problem definition is one
that proposes methods or directions for solving the problem.
It does not see the role of policy analysts extending
into broad context such as exploring the nature and extent
of social concerns or informing decisions regarding
political agendas.
Narrowed-problem context also appear in a standard textbook approach
to policy analysis that presents policy analysis
as undertaking discrete efforts
to meet specific concerns of individual clients.
In these presentations, the context
of broad social concerns is not integral
and is certainly not the motivating element of the process.
In contrast with these preceding examples, William Dunn,
professor of Graduate School of Public and International Affairs
at University of Pittsburgh explicitly recognizes the need
for integrating broader context into policy analysis.
He offers a 2-level problem hierarchy.
This includes a high level metaproblem that provides context
for a lower level more specific problem.
Although Dunn does not mention social concerns as a basis
for constructing broad metaproblems, doing so would seem
to be a logical extension of the approach
that he recognizes and outlines.
In general, however, Dunn emphasizes the importance
of broad orienting context for policy analysis and the nature
of being captive of immediate objectives by stating that we,
policy analysts, seem to fail more often
because we solve the wrong problem
and because we get the wrong solution to the right problem.

Actually articulating social concerns
and formulating broad long term policy objectives derived
from them are extremely difficult undertakings.
>> Even with the benefit of structuring that can be gained
by using problem formulations
that reflect the context of social concerns.
Social concerns are expansive.
Their boundaries are amorphous and relationships
between broad objectives and actions taken
to address them are often indirect and complex.
As challenging as it may be, to capture
and address extent intensity significance and other dimensions
of social concerns and to evolve and address ways
to address these concerns, social well being remains prominent
as a useful orienting context for the work of policy analysts
and a focus on the well being of the public
as a whole contributes rather directly both to implied
and expressed ultimate purposes of public policies
and to actual policy formulations and implementation.
It simply is with us.
Now, for a look at researcher attributes in relation
to the challenges of working with social concerns.
Promising responses to research challenges encountered in working
with social concerns and with associated broad long term policy
objectives do exist.
They can be identified to some extent
by examining the sources of research challenges.
Significant research challenges policy analysts face are closely
tied to structural and relational characteristics
of the high level policy problems that reflect context--
the context of social concerns.
Thus, the qualities or attributes of policy analysts that allow them
to recognize in work with these policy problem characteristics may
be important determinants of the quality and effectiveness of work
in the field of policy analysis.
Among particularly significant policy problem characteristics
with important implications for research quality are 4
that I will identify now and discuss
in more detail in just a few moments.
These policy problem characteristics are the presence
of hierarchical structures for public policy problems,
broad objectives and narrowly focused policy initiatives,
long problem durations namely the persistence
of evolving long term objectives or preferred conditions
as motivating forces for policy actions and policy analysis.
Third, breadths, the prevalence
of vast loosely defined scopes of policy problems.
And fourth, political settings, the ongoing need to work in the context
of political processes to explore and refine ways
to address policy problems.
As a consequence of focusing your work broadly in the context
of social concerns, policy analysts encounter these kinds
of policy problem characteristics continuously,
independent of the various disciplines they draw
on the organizational settings in which they are employed
or the specific policy areas in which they work.
I will now briefly discuss researcher attributes in relation
to the 4 specific policy problem characteristics I just mentioned.
The first problem characteristic I listed was the existence
of hierarchical problem structures, structures consisting
of broad policy objectives and more narrowly-focused policy initiatives.
Explicit recognition of and conscientious attention
to hierarchical structures
for policy problems is a researcher attribute that can help
to ensure an orientation of research efforts
to significant enduring purposes,
addressing the right problem for example.
Broad policy objectives form a strong and explicit context
that can ensure a highly relevant focus for exploring
and assessing specific policy actions similarly in working
from narrow context to broad context, awareness of strengths
and limitations gained
in formulating individual policy actions
to achieve desired outcomes help to inform


For example, research that is intended
to characterize prevailing social conditions in a policy area,
a high level concern can be expected to be more widely applicable
and useful if that research adequately anticipates data needs
arising from specific underlying policy efforts,
a task that might require familiarity with such details
as measures of performance, recent or expected changes
in current policy efforts
and factors affecting operational effectiveness
of specific policy initiatives.
Similarly, efforts to assess specific policy options are more
likely to recognize interactions with other relevant policy measures
if those efforts include assessments of implications
for broad objectives, both targeted and collateral.
Explicit recognition of hierarchical policy problem structures can
enhance the quality of policy analysis.
Another important attribute for policy analysts is an appreciation
for the long duration of high level policy problems,
a phenomenon that is common to most if not all policy areas.
Social conditions that motivate public policy efforts are seemingly
inherent aspects of our society where policy successes occur,
there are often only steps whether incremental
or more substantial toward ultimate high level objectives
that require yet additional efforts.
And as gains toward meeting social objectives are made,
rising aspirations unanticipated responses,
unexpected events often lead to refinements in long term objectives.
To be effective in the context of enduring
and evolving high level policy objectives,
analysts must acquire knowledge of a policy area
that goes well beyond the focus of immediate concerns
of specific situations and specific policy responses.
They must gain command over the legacy of historical
but still relevant policy actions and missed opportunities.
They must be familiar with accompanying context
of changing conditions and advances in policy thought.
They must also be conversant with a full array
of current social concerns and policy actions relevant
to areas in which they work.   Continuing in widespread interests

and evolving long term policy problems ensures
that policy analysts encounter continuing demands
for their services.
In this setting, policy analysts can afford to develop and nurture areas
of specialization and to build professional identities defined
by broad public policy problems.
Overtime in such areas, special-- in such areas of specialization,
policy analysts can increase their capabilities
for competently recognizing and assessing changing conditions
and responding to policy situations as they arise.
Policy analysts also face the expectation
that they become policy area experts.
Thus, job titles in careers are reflected in such commonly-
appearing phrases as analysts in environmental policy,
specialists in foreign policy, analysts in disability policy,
specialist in immigration policy.
In some, an explicit appreciation for the long duration
of policy problems can promote developing
and continually enhancing areas of expertise which can be expected
to be beneficial to the quality of policy analysis.
Breadth of policy problems.
Breadth of scope is a policy problem characteristic that strongly suggest
that policy analysts should see themselves as part
of a large somewhat desperate community on whose work they draw
and whose work they attempt to inform.
The scope of work in any policy area is invariably large.
It includes interactions among a range of related programs,
regulatory constructs, treaties, and other policy tools with strengths,
weaknesses and opportunities for improvement in relation to targeted
and collateral objectives.
Oversight funding formulating new approaches are important dimensions
and they in turn require familiarity with policymaking processes.
Social concerns underpinning each policy area are the focus
of additional substantive research interest.
>> And overlay is that broad--
the broad scope of inquiry in each policy area necessarily is informed
by expertise from a range of disciplines, fields, and practices.
Because relevant research considerations
in any policy area are vast, policy analysts must be able to locate
and benefit from the work of others.
This means that they must be able to identify researchers
and their pertinent works from across a number
of disciplines and perspectives.
They must be sufficiently conversant with other disciplines and practices
to be able to discern strengths and weaknesses in the design
and execution of methodologies and the significance of research focus
and resulting contributions.
Practices of policy analysts that support working
in a broader community
of researchers include preparing syntheses of research,
explicitly identifying how the focus, methods,
and findings of one's work relates to contributions from other research
and consulting broadly on actual conditions
and irrelevant policy area on policy responses
and on research on progress.
Policy analysts and others who contribute
to policy-related research have many venues for their work
and enjoy some freedom in how they orient and conduct the research.
As a result, policy analysts meet considerable challenges
in locating the full range of research relevant
to specific policy areas and in extrapolating the nature
and importance of contributions made by that research.
Thus, the attribute a strong sensitivities
to research communities rises in importance
in this field relative to many others.
I now turn to attributes tied to working in a political setting.
Public policy problems are addressed through political responses.
The needs of policymakers for being informed
in the deliberative processes they use
to formulate political responses have significance
for the way policy analysts work
and for the attributes that support their work.
A greater range of policymakers needs is incorporated
in a broad social concern-oriented policy problem framework
than in a more limited focus
on immediate objectives of specific options.
Needs arise from the social concern context
that include added levels of complexity.
They extend across a large array
of related policymaking activities including agenda setting,
formulating proposals, reconciling political and substantive difference
and overseeing implementation of policy decisions.
An expanded view of policymakers needs also highlights the fact
that those needs are quite dynamic.
In formulating and adapting policy responses for example,
policymakers operate in processes that are driven by change.
They need to examine specific new concerns
as they are voiced by interested parties.
They need to as understandings of policy--
of problems evolved as proposals are being crafted
and as political sensitivities develop, policymakers may need
to reexamine the scope of policy responses,
focus on areas requiring special attention or reassess use
of various policy instruments.
They need to change focus to assess new options
or to examine refinements to earlier proposals as they are introduced.
And during various stages of deliberation, they must contemplate
and sometimes formulate amendments
to address substantive and political concerns.
In the context of a rich variety of continuing policymaker needs,
the classic model of assessments of policy options written
at a particular point in time sometimes at a late
or at final stages of decision making simply does not go very far.
For effectiveness in meeting the far ranging dynamic needs
of policymakers in the evolving context in which they work,
an important policy analyst attributes is the ability to develop
and maintain ongoing consultative relationships with policymakers.
These relationships entail anticipating
and maintaining substantive usefulness
and ensuring personal accessibility through--
throughout extended policymaking processes.
It requires using channels of communication that support assisting
and informing policymakers as they face changes in specific areas
of focus, as they explore policy concerns, as they develop refine
and oversee implementation of actual proposals in relation to immediate
and broad policy objectives.
The kinds of researcher attributes I have just discussed are relatively
specific to the field of policy analysis when it is viewed in terms
of a long term focus on public well being.

These attributes do not of course represent a full set
of attributes expected and needed to be effective
in the field of policy analysis.   Some other important aspects of work

in this field require attributes supporting the kinds
of expertise expected in many other fields and disciplines
such as abilities related to selecting and using a range
of appropriate research methods.   [ Pause ]

>> In this presentation, I have explored distinctive contributions
of the field of policy analysis to informing public policymaking.
I have suggested that a focus on the general public well being
or social concerns is a distinctive orienting perspective for the field.
I have examined implications of that perspective for research challenges
that are especially significant for the field.
And I have demonstrated the use of those research challenges
for identifying research approaches and researcher attributes
that support the work of policy analysts in their central role
of informing policymaking processes.
This approach or framework for characterizing
and examining the field of policy analysis builds
from intellectual purposes and functions of the field and it builds
in the direction of enhancing effectiveness
in informing public policymaking.
I hope that this line of thinking provokes policy analysts and those
who take part in their professional development including those
who employ them to think about researcher attributes in terms
of qualities that enhance the distinctive
and significant contributions policy analysts make
in informing policymakers throughout the extended array
of policymaking processes.
Once again, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to be able
to conduct research that is reflected in this lecture.
I am honored to be able to share my work and my thinking with you
and I am grateful for your attendance and your kind attention.


[ Applause ]
>> I have met my meant my watch to my son who doesn't own one.
He uses one of these.   So I'm checking the time.

I think we have time to take just a few questions here.
Carolyn?   [ Inaudible Remarks ]

>> A quick comment, the thing I like about--
one of the things I like about Roger's presentation is
that when I look at the library and how we hire people,
we hire people based on subject expertise and we often don't think
about the qualities of mind that are required and I think that's--
was one of the key things that I really liked about that.
Two questions, what happens when the context
that the analyst sees is not the context that the client sees?
And I ask this as someone who is outside of the analyst field--
analysis field but reads the newspapers
and I'm often seeing a different context from what it appears.
And then a question about--
you focused on perspectives which seems appropriate
but I wondered what happens to-- how do you deal with facts
and what do you think about facts.
The fact is not always a fact and the logic of facts and how
that gets played out in terms of perspective when you're actually,
you know, doing something practical, so.

>> I think I can respond to the first question.



This is a-- looking after the difference
between what an analysis delivers
and what a client sees or wants to see.
And this is really pretty fundamental.
Someone who is trained in-- trained as a policy analyst
and has experienced a career serving as a policy analyst,
looking at public well being can be employed in say a government agency
and be used very much for that kind of expertise and valued
for that kind of expertise.
Or because a person has that expertise, they may be asked to use
that and then put another different filet on top and say
and what does it mean for us.
And if an individual moves in that direction, the individual has put
on a different hat, and maybe on an occasion
by occasion basis, that can happen.   It is about purpose.

It is about function.
It's not about the degree that a person holds.
It's what a person does.   It's the purpose.

It's the orientation.
It is the perceptive that a person is following and exhibits
that fills the distinction that I've raised here.
A policy analyst who works for a special interest group may be hired
and may be very attractive to a special interest group
and very valuable serving a role there
as an advocate knowing a great deal about policy
and about how policy analysts think, how they do their work
and in a position to critique that body of effort.
But taking the filter-- the final step in saying,
and what does it mean to a particular interest group means
that the person is in that capacity is serving
in a different role still participating
in public policymaking, still making a very good contribu--
and perhaps an enhanced contribution because of experience
in policy analysis and training in the area
but serving a different role in the mix of all of those people
who participate in a policymaking process.
Is that?   >> [Inaudible].

To what extent can-- to what extent can an analyst maintain his
credibility-- his or her credibility when confronted with a situation
where the opinion has changed-- can analyst say [inaudible] said once
when someone complained about you've changed your opinion,
the facts have changes and still be credible
or once you've spoken, are you kind of stuck?
>> I think you're getting to sort of a core competence
that any researcher faces.
You take-- Dan mentioned the oil well disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
The facts evolved.
If you choose to look in as facts, somebody who develops an area
of expertise relating to deep water oil sources or oil sources generally
but extended into this area, knows that the facts are going to evolve
and has less of a likelihood to have to deal with a change in facts.
Still facts can change.
And this is true for anyone whether it's a policy analyst,
somebody working in-- squarely in a discipline that is not connected
with policy and the best advice of course
in all these instances is just to say, okay the world is different
and what I have said in the past needs to be restated
in a certain way or even to say--
even though some conditions have changed here,
the fundamentals remain the same and that can be
and very often is very important for policymakers to understand.
[ Pause]   >> Thanks.

Roger, in your talk, you laid a very heavy instances on concerns
about social concerns that interests of society as a whole
where some people might aggregate social welfare something like that
and it seems to be that this is a-- obviously a very important thing
and something that has to be pretty central to any policy analysts.
But I'm wondering if you have any--
what attitude you think policy analysts are to take toward policies
that may be have an equivalent effect on aggregate social welfare
but that have different distributive effects on society.
The most obvious example might be a tax policy
that 2 alternative policies that raise the same amount of money
but in one case the burden falls heavily on one sector of society
and another in another and you can imagine similar kinds
of tradeoffs like that.
Let's say a counterterrorism policy that reduces the probability
of a terrorist attack overall by the same amount
as another alterative policy but that inconvenience
of different groups of people.
Are these distributive issues things that public policy analysts ought
to be concerned about or are they things that they have to pass off
to other sectors of society of something.
>> Thank you.
The purview of policy analysts in term s of social well being,
I have deliberately sidestepped, instead using a few references
to areas such as analysts in foreign policy--
getting into areas where there is a very-- the notion is that there's--
should be and there is a very broad range
of what constitute social concerns.
So breaking it down into a well-defined social welfare function
is restrictive and it is-- for the policy analysts to think broadly
to be able to identify a range of matters
that can affect social well being including distributive--

including social preferences where those can be identified though data

and to be able to present those as matters
for policymakers to consider.
But a very broad range is what I certainly have in mind here.
I did not spell that out.
I did make some effort by way of example to try to indicate a--
just a broad tolerance for and focus range.



>> Roger, I wanna push you a little bit on the public intersect thesis.
Why? Do you have to-- why would there have
to be a public interest or social welfare focus.
You can imagine a public policy analysts explaining--
trying to explain why the healthcare reform legislation passed
at this particular moment in time and what processes
and what patterns contributed in--
you know, historically to the passage of healthcare reform
at this particular point in time that would have nothing to do
with inattention to social welfare or an evaluation
or the policy per se but would be a very critical evaluation
of the history and processes that led
to its passage at this moment in time.
So why focus on social welfare and why not open it
up to other inquiries that might be also very illuminating
for public policy analysis.
>> The focus on social well being is in part a deference
to the existence of other disciplines.
And why something passed maybe more squarely
in the purview of political science.
No, I'm talking to a political science
and I've got one dead setter her in the audience.
>> What matters most centrally to a policy analyst still is
and there certainly is more to it than this
but central what is really distinctive is getting to what is it
that ales our society, what it is that we're striving to do to improve
and on finding the solutions-- the incremental steps to get there,
how that gets done whether it is done in one Congress
versus another is-- I think has just a little bit of a draw on
and it is again closely related as I hope that I indicated in my example
of economist, very supportive, very integrated, very much a part
of an underlying what goes on in policy analysis.
These constructs are-- they may come across as being unduly finite
and the real world as we all know is a little bit messier than that
and what I really sought to do is to keep a discipline and keep a focus
on what really distinguishes and looking for the value
that can be gained from that
and certainly there's a 2-way street here where between policy analysis
and political scientist in dealing with exactly the kinds
of questions that you have raised.   [ Pause ]

>> Thank you.
That last question and your answer to it which is really good,
raises a question for me which is the whole question of the field
of policy analysis, 'cause normally
when a field is generally accepted as a separate field.
The field has specifically generally accepted ways
of formulating a situation and methodologies and tools
for analyzing the situation.
Does the field of policy analysis have
such standard formulations, methodologies and tools?
>> No. [Laughter] And that's party why I have focused on it.
I-- there are different schools who taught within field.
It is a field that is a field of practice as opposed to being a field
that is a part of a larger discipline
and it draws then upon a lot of disciplines
to focus on the area of practice.
So, economist join in and depending upon what they're doing,
they may be wearing the policy analysis hat.
Political scientists may join in
and depending upon what the political scientist is doing may
wear the policy analysis hat.
So there are different theories-- bodies of theory.
There are different methodologies.
There are different kinds of research questions that get used
in the field from a lot of different sources
and the field also is complicated by the that fact that is it called upon
to address a huge array of subject areas.
We have energy policy and you have US relations with China
and you have matters of civil liberties and you have matters
of housing policy and they all get addressed by policymakers
who are informed in part by policy analysts and that makes it difficult
to come up with saying there are certain techniques,
certain approaches that are unique.   It is the purpose.

It is the interest in-- the kind of interest in policy
that the policy analysts exhibits that I have found to be distinctive.
Thank you.   [ Silence ]

>> I'm having trouble articulating this in my own head but one
of the many themes you touched on is the importance of subject expertise
but on the other hand, the virtues of what used
to be called liberal education, which is to say the capacity
to see one subject in terms of other subjects and all subjects in terms
of different value frameworks.
And I'm wondering as someone who's been in this field for decades,
how is the American educational system doing?
[Laughter] You know, losing the kind of people who are good for this
and where would you look to find those people as-- ?
>> I am very-- thank you for that question.
I am very optimistic.
I-- the Congressional Research Service which is my place
of employment, I underwent a major expansion in the 1970s
and I was a member of that expansion effort.

A number of us have retired or were getting real close
and newer people are coming in and they are sharp.
One of the things that-- one of the attributes that stands
out among these people who are fresh to the world of policymaking,
policy analysis are relatively new from school and other work settings,
one of the attributes that I think is really distinctive is
that they do have a proclivity to consult with others.
It's a very natural kind of thing.   They group-- they will talk with--

they'll work very naturally with one another and share in examining just
about anything that is put on their plates and that
to me is a very promising attri-- in addition to which what is being done
in the universities, I think is very commendable.
I think that in the area of policy analysis,
there are very strong programs.
I'd like to think that the kinds of inquiries that I'm engaged
in could get out and may be even strengthen some
of what happens even further.
There's room-- it's a complicated very difficult field
and work does need to be done and I think most people
in the field certainly agree with that.
But where we stand right now, I think we're doing okay.
Thank you.   Carolyn?


[ Silence ]   >> We are at 5:20.

That doesn't mean the discussion is over.
We can continue it over a reception in the back of the room
but before we do that, I just want to say
to Roger how much we've enjoyed having you at the Kluge Center
and how much you've taught me
and I think how much you've taught many others
of the fellows and scholars.
So thank you very much for you time and thanks for the lecture.
[ Applause ]
>> This has been a presentation of the Library of Congress.