{WHEN WRITING POLICY PAPER ANALYSIS, YOU HAVE TO
ALWAYS BE MINDFUL OF “THE PURPOSE” – IMPACTING/ INFLUENCING
PUBLIC POLICY AT SOME LEVEL [[See Discussion Paper And Policy Paper Synopsis
– Section on “The Prospective Outcome”]]. THIS PURPOSE DICTATES THE FOCUS
LEVEL AND DIRECTION OF YOUR WORK =====> THE TENETS ARE: SPECIFICITY-DRIVEN,
DETAIL-ORIENTED AND PRACTICABLE.
WHAT DOES THIS LOOK LIKE?
1) INTRODUCTIONS: THE “SPIT IT OUT” RULE =è SPECIFY AND/OR ITEMIZE THE PRECISE CRYSTALIZED
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE READER WILL FIND IN THE PAPER.
[[EX: DO NOT USE THE INTRODUCTION AS A PROMISSORY
NOTE: ... THIS PAPER WILL EXPLAIN THE REASONS... ====> INSTEAD, THE INTRODUCTION
EXPLAINS THE ISSUE AND REASONS AND SPECIFIES THE “WHY” OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS]]
2) CONCLUSIONS: THE “SELL YOUR SONG” RULE ==è BY THE TIME THE READER GETS TO YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS
THEY HAVE TO NOT ONLY BE SOLD ON THEIR LOGIC BUT ALSO THEIR ADVANTAGES.
THEY HAVE TO SAY TO THEMSELVES “OF COURSE, LET’S DO THIS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!”
[[EX: POLICY PAPER ON ECONOMIC APARTHEID IN
ONTARIO ==è HOW DO
I GET THE GOV’T TO ALLOCATE FUNDS FOR THE “LORNE FOSTER INSTITUTE FOR THE
ELIMINATION OF RACIALIZATION AND DISCRIMINATION IN TORONTO?” {THE ANSWER IS
… THIS IS ONLY REMOTELY POSSIBLE IF MY WORK IS COMPELLINGLY FRAME IN A WAY THAT
SHOWS THE ADVANTAGE FOR THE DECISION-MAKERS AND/OR THE WHOLE NOT JUST A
PARTICULAR INTEREST ==è IN
OTHER WORDS, I (LORNE FOSTER) WOULD HAVE TO CONVINCE THE READER (DECISION
MAKER) THAT THIS ALLOCATION OF FUNDS IS CONSISTENT WITH THEIR ''DEMOCRATIC'
VALUES AND PRINCIPLES, AND IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND IS A PUBLIC POLICY
PRIORITY OVER AND ABOVE OTHER FISCAL INTERESTS}]].
{SOCIOLOGICAL ASIDE: CAN YOU SEE HOW THE
PURPOSE OF POLICY PAPER ANALYSIS FRAMES THE FOCUS AND DIRECTION OF THE
ANALYSIS?}
3) FIELDNOTES: THE “NGO USAGE” OR FORMAL FIELDNOTE
RULE ====> FRAME YOUR NGO CONTACTS AND CORRESPONDENCE AND INTERVIEWS AS
“FIELDNOTES” AS PROFESSIONAL AUTHORITIES, NOT UNLIKE SOCIOLOGY
RESEARCH TEXTBOOKS
{EX: NOT IN A CASUAL FORM “... I
TALKED TO JUDY WHO WORKS AS AN ASSISTANT DIRECTOR AT SAID NGO, AND SHE THINKS...”
RATHER THE PROPER FORM “ACCORDING TO SAID NGO, OR
ACCORDING TO SO-AND-SO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR AT SAID NGO; OR THE SAID NGO ARGUES
THAT; OR THE NGO'S OFFICIAL POSITION ON OR ABOUT POLICY, GOV'T REGS,
ETC.,===> AND THE ALIKE…
4) RESEARCH LITERATURE: THE LITERATURE REVIEW
“ONE-SOURCE” RULE ======> YOU CANNOT USE ONE AUTHOR OR ARTICLE TO
“EXPLAIN” THE HISTORY/BACKGROUND ETC., OF A PUBLIC ISSUE. THIS IS NOT CALLED
“THE BEST RESEARCH” THIS IS CALLED “A LACK OR PAUCITY OF RESEARCH” – {ON THE
VERY RARE OCASSION} YOU ARE CONFRONTED WITH A SITUATION WHERE ONE
AUTHOR/ARTICLE IS IDENTIFIED WITH A PARTICULAR ISSUE YOU ADDRESS, THE
AUTHOR/ARTICLE IS NOT A QUOTABLE RESOURCE, BUT RATHER, A SUBJECT OF CRITICAL
ANALYSIS}.
{EX: THE POLICY PAPER IS THE GATHERING PLACE FOR THE
BEST RESEARCH LITERATURE AVAILABLE ON A PARTICULAR PUBLIC ISSUE OR SOCIAL
PROBLEM. [BUT] WHENEVER A PAPER STRINGS QUOTES OR IDEAS OF A PARTICULAR
ARTICLE, BOOK OR AUTHOR TOGETHER [BELIEVED TO BE THE BEST INFORMATION
AVAILABLE], THE PAPER IS NOT ANALYZING IT IS PLAGARIZING; IT IS DOING
REGURGITATION NOT SOCIOLOGY. THAT MUCH ATTENTION TO ONE SOURCE OR SOURCES
DEMANDS ANALYTIC TENSION AND CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE SOUND-NESS OF THE
ARGUMENTS.}
5) RESEARCH DESIGN AND TOPIC SELECTION: THE “SAY-
ALOT-ABOUT-A-LITTLE” RULE ====> COMPREHENSIVE AS OPPOSED TO ABSTRACT
KNOWLEDGE IS BUILT UP IN SOCIAL SCIENCES BY NARROWING THE SCOPE
TOPIC ANALYSIS. IN A WORD, IN SOCIOLOGY IT IS BETTER TO SAY A LOT ABOUT A
LITTLE, THAN A LITTLE ABOUT A LOT – A LOT ABOUT LITTLE TOPICS RATHER THAN
LITTLE ABOUT BIG TOPICS.
[[EX: LET’S BREAK THE RULE DOWN TO COMPONENT PARTS:
SUPPOSE YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE PROBLEM OF ABORIGINAL
OVER-REPRESENTATION IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM?
{A} THE BIG TOPIC IS: ABORIGINAL JUSTICE OR WHAT HAS BEEN
CALLED “POST-COLONIAL JUSTICE” FOR ABORIGINAL PEOPLE
{B} THE SMALL ISSUES
: ALLOWING YOU TO PENETRATE BENEATH THE SURFACE OF THE BIG ISSUE COULD BE: ABORIGINAL
POLICING [IN 1992, THE FEDERAL GOV'T ANNOUNCED A POLICY OF TRANSFERRING ALL
ON-RESERVE POLICING TO BANDS BY YEAR 2000]; INDIGENIZATION [ATTEMPTS TO
MAKE CURRENT SYSTEM LESS ALIENATING WITHOUT CHANGING STRUCTURE AND CONTROL]; INDIAN
ACT PROVISIONS FOR ON-RESERVE JUSTICE INITIATIVES [ON-RESERVE COURTS, ETC];
DIVERSION PROGRAMS AND RELATED ACTIVITIES [ALTERNATIVES TO JUSTICE
SYSTEM PROCESS, SUCH AS, PRE- OR POST-CHARGE PRE-PLEAD; ABORIGINAL LEGAL
SERVICES OF TORONTO, ETC]; ELDERS PANELS AND SENTENCING CIRCLES
[REPLACING “FLY-IN SUITCASE” PUNITIVE JUSTICE].;YOUTH OFFENDER INITIATIVES.
[ALTERNATIVES TO INCARERATION FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS]; ABORIGINAL INITIATIVES
IN PRISON
{C} THE EFFICACY OR NON-EFFICACY OF ANY OF THESE ISSUE CAN TELL US
ABOUT, AND DIRECT US TOWARD, POSITIVE INITITATIVES THAT IMPACT THE BIG TOPIC,
ON THE BASIS OF “WHAT REALLY WORKS” OR BEST
PRACTICES]]
5) RECOMMENDATIONS: THE “CRAFTING OF
RECOMMENDATIONS TO REALITIES AND NOT ABSTRACT GENERALITIES” RULE =====>
IF YOU ARE AIMED AT “BEST PRACTICES” (AT THE INDIVIDUAL, COLLECTIVE,
INSTITUTIONAL, AND/OR POLICY LEVELS) FOR INITITATING POSITIVE SOCIAL CHANGE YOU
HAVE TO LOOK TO THE “DO-ABLE.”
{EX: IF YOU WANT TO BE A MILLIONAIRE AND YOU ONLY HAVE
TEN DOLLARS WHAT PRACTICAL FIRST STEPS COULD YOU INITIATE. WOULD YOU LOBBY THE
PROVINCIAL OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR FUNDING? OR WOULD YOU OPEN UP A BANK
ACCOUNT WITH $5 AND USE THE OTHER FIVE TO BUY A USED BOOK ON INVESTING?}
UPSHOT: REMEMBER THAT IF THERE WAS NOT RESISTANCE TO CHANGING THE CONDITIONS
THAT CAUSE A SOCIAL PROBLEM, THERE WOULD NOT BE A SOCIAL PROBLEM IN THE FIRST
PLACE.
THEREFORE, IN POLICY ANALYSIS, THE OVERRIDING QUESTION IS: WHAT CAN WE DO TO “GET THE BALL ROLLING” TOWARD PROGRESSIVE SOCIAL CHANGE?
IN POLICY ANALYSIS, THE “DO-ABLE” MAY ONLY BE AN
INCREMENTAL MOVE, OR AN INITATIVE DESIGNED TO PAVE THE WAY FOR POSITIVE CHANGE
IN THE REDRESS OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS, BUT IT IS ALWAYS “THE BEST PRACTICE”
AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME.