多流框架作为公共政策问题分析的科学研究程序和工具

IF 1.1 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
František Ochrana, V. Novotný, Olga Angelovská
{"title":"多流框架作为公共政策问题分析的科学研究程序和工具","authors":"František Ochrana, V. Novotný, Olga Angelovská","doi":"10.2478/nispa-2022-0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) is currently one of the most widely used frameworks in policy process research. It explains how policy agenda develops in the policy process with emphasis on policy adoption. This article examines MSF from the perspective of the history of science and Lakatos’ methodology of scientific research programs. In this respect, we consider MSF a “semi-strong theory” that uses a form of subsumption under theory for scientific explanation. This differs from a “strong” explanatory theory (e.g., physics), which uses explanations in the form of subsumption under scientific law. From the point of view of Lakatos’ methodology, MSF represents a scientific research program. The basic element is a hard core given mainly by the MSF hypothesis for the framework as a whole and MSF assumptions and key structural elements. Around the hard core there is a protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses. They correspond to hypotheses related to the framework’s key elements and to the hypothesis for the framework as a whole. MSF has negative heuristics (prohibition of the use of the modus tollens rule) and positive heuristics, which are represented by a set of theoretically and empirically progressive theories that further develop the MSF research program. An analysis of studies on MSF reveals that single hypotheses are only exceptionally tested using “hard” data and quantitative methods. Qualitative analysis (case studies) predominates, which contributes to the development of MSF theory. Therefore, we can consider a progressive shift in theory. In this respect, MSF can be considered a successful research program. However, in terms of the methodology of scientific research programs, MSF has a number of other opportunities to develop hypothesis testing further and use various modelling methods with data sets. Thus, MSF represents an interesting scientific research program, which needs to be further developed and specified in the spirit of the methodology of scientific research programs, It is a challenge for interdisciplinary research in the field of social sciences.","PeriodicalId":43378,"journal":{"name":"NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy","volume":"15 1","pages":"141 - 165"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multiple Streams Framework as Scientific Research Program and Tool for the Analysis of Public Policy Issues\",\"authors\":\"František Ochrana, V. Novotný, Olga Angelovská\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/nispa-2022-0007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) is currently one of the most widely used frameworks in policy process research. It explains how policy agenda develops in the policy process with emphasis on policy adoption. This article examines MSF from the perspective of the history of science and Lakatos’ methodology of scientific research programs. In this respect, we consider MSF a “semi-strong theory” that uses a form of subsumption under theory for scientific explanation. This differs from a “strong” explanatory theory (e.g., physics), which uses explanations in the form of subsumption under scientific law. From the point of view of Lakatos’ methodology, MSF represents a scientific research program. The basic element is a hard core given mainly by the MSF hypothesis for the framework as a whole and MSF assumptions and key structural elements. Around the hard core there is a protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses. They correspond to hypotheses related to the framework’s key elements and to the hypothesis for the framework as a whole. MSF has negative heuristics (prohibition of the use of the modus tollens rule) and positive heuristics, which are represented by a set of theoretically and empirically progressive theories that further develop the MSF research program. An analysis of studies on MSF reveals that single hypotheses are only exceptionally tested using “hard” data and quantitative methods. Qualitative analysis (case studies) predominates, which contributes to the development of MSF theory. Therefore, we can consider a progressive shift in theory. In this respect, MSF can be considered a successful research program. However, in terms of the methodology of scientific research programs, MSF has a number of other opportunities to develop hypothesis testing further and use various modelling methods with data sets. Thus, MSF represents an interesting scientific research program, which needs to be further developed and specified in the spirit of the methodology of scientific research programs, It is a challenge for interdisciplinary research in the field of social sciences.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43378,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"141 - 165\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/nispa-2022-0007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/nispa-2022-0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

摘要多流框架(MSF)是目前政策过程研究中使用最广泛的框架之一。它解释了政策议程如何在政策过程中发展,重点是政策的通过。本文从科学史和拉卡托斯的科学研究计划方法论的角度来考察MSF。在这方面,我们认为MSF是一种“半强理论”,它使用理论下的一种包容形式进行科学解释。这与“强”解释理论(如物理学)不同,后者使用科学定律下的包容形式的解释。从拉卡托斯方法论的角度来看,无国界医生代表了一个科学研究计划。基本要素是核心要素,主要由MSF假设给出,用于整个框架以及MSF假设和关键结构要素。围绕着核心的是一条辅助假设的保护带。它们对应于与框架的关键要素相关的假设,也对应于整个框架的假设。MSF有消极启发法(禁止使用modus tollens规则)和积极启发法,这两种启发法由一组理论和经验上的进步理论代表,这些理论进一步发展了MSF的研究计划。对MSF研究的分析表明,单一假设只有在特殊情况下才能使用“硬”数据和定量方法进行检验。定性分析(案例研究)占主导地位,这有助于MSF理论的发展。因此,我们可以考虑理论上的渐进式转变。在这方面,无国界医生可以被认为是一个成功的研究项目。然而,就科学研究项目的方法论而言,MSF还有许多其他机会进一步发展假设检验,并使用各种建模方法和数据集。因此,MSF代表了一个有趣的科学研究项目,需要进一步发展和具体化科学研究项目的方法论精神,这是社会科学领域跨学科研究的一个挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Multiple Streams Framework as Scientific Research Program and Tool for the Analysis of Public Policy Issues
Abstract The Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) is currently one of the most widely used frameworks in policy process research. It explains how policy agenda develops in the policy process with emphasis on policy adoption. This article examines MSF from the perspective of the history of science and Lakatos’ methodology of scientific research programs. In this respect, we consider MSF a “semi-strong theory” that uses a form of subsumption under theory for scientific explanation. This differs from a “strong” explanatory theory (e.g., physics), which uses explanations in the form of subsumption under scientific law. From the point of view of Lakatos’ methodology, MSF represents a scientific research program. The basic element is a hard core given mainly by the MSF hypothesis for the framework as a whole and MSF assumptions and key structural elements. Around the hard core there is a protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses. They correspond to hypotheses related to the framework’s key elements and to the hypothesis for the framework as a whole. MSF has negative heuristics (prohibition of the use of the modus tollens rule) and positive heuristics, which are represented by a set of theoretically and empirically progressive theories that further develop the MSF research program. An analysis of studies on MSF reveals that single hypotheses are only exceptionally tested using “hard” data and quantitative methods. Qualitative analysis (case studies) predominates, which contributes to the development of MSF theory. Therefore, we can consider a progressive shift in theory. In this respect, MSF can be considered a successful research program. However, in terms of the methodology of scientific research programs, MSF has a number of other opportunities to develop hypothesis testing further and use various modelling methods with data sets. Thus, MSF represents an interesting scientific research program, which needs to be further developed and specified in the spirit of the methodology of scientific research programs, It is a challenge for interdisciplinary research in the field of social sciences.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
18.20%
发文量
10
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信