“倡导研究”与“管理评论”:比较分析。

Policy analysis Pub Date : 1979-01-01

K Siegel, P Doty

{"title":"“倡导研究”与“管理评论”:比较分析。","authors":"K Siegel, P Doty","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","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":"{\"title\":\"\\\"Advocacy research\\\" versus \\\"management review\\\": a comparative analysis.\",\"authors\":\"K Siegel, P Doty\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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.\",\"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}","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

摘要

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。

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

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

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.

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

Policy analysis

自引率

0.00%

发文量

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.