"Advocacy research" versus "management review": a comparative analysis.

Policy analysis Pub Date : 1979-01-01
K Siegel, P Doty
{"title":"\"Advocacy research\" versus \"management review\": a comparative analysis.","authors":"K Siegel,&nbsp;P Doty","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The authors compare two policy studies of the federally implemented Community Mental Health Centers program--one by a Ralph Nader study group and one by the U.S. General Accounting Office--in order to develop and illustrate two corresponding concepts or \"ideal types\" of policy research methodology, termed \"advocacy research\" and management review\". They give special attention to two analytic dimensions: the balance of \"extrinsic\" to \"intrinsic\" critisms, and the structural relationship between policy researchers and policymakers.</p>","PeriodicalId":76931,"journal":{"name":"Policy analysis","volume":"5 1","pages":"37-65"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1979-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The authors compare two policy studies of the federally implemented Community Mental Health Centers program--one by a Ralph Nader study group and one by the U.S. General Accounting Office--in order to develop and illustrate two corresponding concepts or "ideal types" of policy research methodology, termed "advocacy research" and management review". They give special attention to two analytic dimensions: the balance of "extrinsic" to "intrinsic" critisms, and the structural relationship between policy researchers and policymakers.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“倡导研究”与“管理评论”:比较分析。
作者比较了联邦实施的社区心理健康中心项目的两项政策研究——一项是由拉尔夫·纳德研究小组进行的,另一项是由美国总审计署进行的——以发展和说明两种相应的概念或“理想类型”的政策研究方法,称为“倡导研究”和“管理审查”。他们特别关注两个分析维度:“外在”与“内在”批评的平衡,以及政策研究者与决策者之间的结构性关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Substance vs. symbol in administrative reform: the case of human services coordination. Make costly physicians accountable. How demographers can help legislators. National health insurance: another alternative. "Advocacy research" versus "management review": a comparative analysis.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1