Skip to main content

Deciding on the Advisory Role

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Virtue and Responsibility in Policy Research and Advice
  • 163 Accesses

Abstract

In the third and last phase of scientific study and advice, decisions must be made on transforming the research findings into a message for policymakers. Such decisions involve selection of material. They also involve choosing between possible frames and communicative and rhetorical instruments. The selective role of the scientific advisor is larger when he is confronted with policy problems that are unstructured.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aristotle. (1991). The art of rethoric. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijker, W., Bal, R., & Hendriks, R. (2009). The paradox of scientific authority. The role of scientific advice in democracies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dobel, J. P. (1999). Public integrity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, W. N. (2012). Public policy analysis. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupré, J. (2007). Fact and value. In H. Kincaid, J. Dupré, & A. Wylie (Eds.), Value-free science? Ideas and illusions (pp. 27–41). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, L. E. (1996). Public management as art, science and profession. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majone, G. (1989) Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (2006). The logic of appropriateness. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 689–708). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection. Towards the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tholen, B. (2016). Machiavelli’s lessons for public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 38(2), 101–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vickers, G. (1995). The art of judgment. A study of policy making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vining, A. R., & Weimer, D. (2017). Policy Analysis: A valuable skill for public administrators. In J. C. N. Raadschelders & R. J. Stillman II (Eds.), Foundations of public administration (pp. 162–176). Irvine, CA: Melvin & Leigh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky, A. (1987). Analysis as art. In A. Wildavsky (Ed.), Speaking truth to power. The art and craft of policy analysis. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Berry Tholen .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tholen, B. (2018). Deciding on the Advisory Role. In: Virtue and Responsibility in Policy Research and Advice. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65253-5_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics