EpistEmic pluralism in public policy
Epistemic Pluralism in Public Policy:
The Critical Theory and Neuroscience
Perspectives
Gilbert Michaud
Abstract
gilbert.l.michaud
@gmail.com
In this paper, it is argued that public policy theory and practice
require both variety and versatility in order to adapt to the maniVirginia
fold situations that public sector work can pose. Currently, several
Commonwealth
academics and professionals reduce public policy to some amalUniversity
Wilder School of gamation of the disciplines of economics, political science, and
Government and business. However, additional outlying perspectives, such as the
Public Affairs
critical, neuroscience, psychoanalytic, post-structural, feminist,
Ph.D. Candidate and post-traditional theories (among others), can also offer much
benefit to the comprehension of public policy. Looking at public
policy analysis and action through this larger group of disciplines
can be phrased as epistemic pluralism. In this realm, the term
epistemic concerns knowledge or ways of knowing, while pluralism concerns an approach that considers a variety of perspectives.
This epistemic pluralism approach, though often unsung, offers
considerable relevance and utility to public policy theory and practice. For instance, scholars and practitioners alike can utilize such
a tactic to better understand political arrangements and human
behavior. This paper will consider the lack of epistemic pluralism in academia and policymaking processes, and analyze practical
implications through the critical theory and neuroscience perspectives. The critical theory perspective is deliberated as a way to
challenge the obviousness of policy systems, as well as uncover the
limitations in how human beings operate within particular structures and relations with each other. The neuroscience perspective focuses on the brain and behavior and is considered as it has
prominent established truths concerning human nature that have
not yet been connected with public policymaking.
Introduction
It is perplexing that public policy, despite positing itself as an
integrative discipline, suffers from a lack of perspectives in theory
and practice. Most orthodox texts of the policy sciences describe
76 THE EVANS SCHOOL REVIEW
Michaud
a system of agenda-setting, policy implementation, and evaluation, often acting
within the political status quo and considering behavior through a rational or public
choice lens. Why such one-dimensionality? Should students and policymakers
not employ alternative perspectives to better comprehend how systems work and
people act?
Epistemic pluralism is an exemplary method that employs multiple approaches to
knowing. Working in direct opposition to reductionism, it is inherently apprehensive of an over-reliance on a single theory or lone approach, and, thus, stresses that
numerous approaches to knowledge are needed to seek an enhanced truth.
Consider an example from the economics discipline. Decades ago, the neoclassical approach attained dominance in the minds of scholars in explaining social and
economic phenomena. More recently, however, economists have considered alternative approaches such as those seen in the development of behavioral economics.
Notably, Kahneman and Tversky (1979) confront assumptions of human rationality
by incorporating psychology concepts into the economics discipline via prospect
theory, which claims that decision-making is more largely based on risk-aversion
than rationality or expected utility. Such promotion of pluralism in economics has
allowed specialists to think critically of reliance upon any one approach to economic knowledge.
Despite progress in multidisciplinary research, several academic subjects remain
apprehensive to evolve beyond their disciplinary walls. In public policy, using epistemic pluralism to consider alternative approaches can be momentous in pushing
the discipline to new places.
Background
The applicative aims of the epistemic pluralism approach center on putting
public policy in perspective, both in academia and in policymaking practice. Not
only does this approach enhance disciplinary vocabulary, measures, and models, but
it also provides imperative practitioner and research-oriented benefits by increasing
the realm of knowledge.
While university-level public policy programs frequently claim to encompass a
multidisciplinary approach, this remains largely unfulfilled, particularly considering the discipline’s historical identity struggles for distinction and independence
(Vigoda, 2003). Similarly, some government entities have partnered with multidisciplinary organizations to improve policymaking processes via nudge theory, or
VOL 5, SPRING 2015 77
EpistEmic pluralism in public policy
indirect suggestions toward behavioral alternatives (e.g., UK’s Behavioural Insights
Team; US’s Social and Behavioral Sciences Initiative); however, such an approach
remains unconventional (John, 2014). Accordingly, public policy scholars and practitioners should encourage various ways of harvesting knowledge and be tentative
of placing full support in one, sole method.
Literature Review
Public policy is often construed as governmental activities to mitigate societal
problems. Mainstream policy texts habitually describe an agenda-setting process
(Gandy Jr., 1982) that is clouded by value conflicts and power struggles (Birkland,
2011; Moran, Rein, & Goodin, 2006). Policymakers must consider what resources
are available to achieve a solution (Fischer, 1995) and determine which agency or
organization is accountable for policy enactment (Peters, 1999). Evaluation measures help conclude if a policy was justified, considering its expenses and remunerations (Nagel, 2002).
While these generalized steps help discern the overall policy process, there is
limited literature that advocates a more encompassing, multidisciplinary method.
Scholars have noted the hindrance of an entirely multidisciplinary approach due
to the structure of disciplinary knowledge (e.g., Cartwright, 1999), as values and
uncertainties are unexpressed, and foundational issues are disregarded (Funtowicz
& Ravetz, 1993). However, some have been successful in delineating the epistemic
pluralism technique and the utility it offers to their respective disciplines (e.g.,
Spender, 1998; Teffo, 2011; Turkle & Papert, 1992). In public policy, epistemic
pluralism is a rarely found methodology, though Dryzek and Niemeyer (2006),
Farmer (2008, 2010, 2012), Waldo (1984), and Whetsell (2012) have advocated
such approaches. Further, Cors (2014) suggests a cloud-based tool to organize the
multiple public policy perspectives for students and practitioners to use.
One outlying perspective to consider is critical theory. Critical theory aims “to
liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them” (Horkheimer,
1982, p. 244) and contest the simplicity of the world. Marcuse (1964, p. 16)
suggests that human life is moving toward a “pacification of existence” as critical
thought becomes continuously ignored to yield way to the status quo. This brings
forth an annihilation of discourse, imagination, and culture into what Marcuse
(1964) terms the dominant order. Against this environment, Marcuse endorses the
“great refusal” (Marcuse, 1964, p. xxxvi) as a suitable process of a critical-thought
rebellion against socially accepted standards. The critical theory approach has often
been used in research (e.g., Causevic & Lynch, 2011; Holmes & Warelow, 2008;
78 THE EVANS SCHOOL REVIEW
Michaud
Lunn, 2009).
The neuroscience perspective is another intriguing approach, looking at all aspects
of the nervous system, particularly the brain. It is concerned with emotions, behaving, thinking, moving, and feeling (Kandel & Squire, 2001). It is through neuroscience that investigators seek to interpret how the brain influences behavior, as its
100 billion neurons form more than 100 trillion connections with other neurons
(Farmer, 2010). Since each of these connections can be either active or inactive at
any moment in time (Adams, 1990), the intricacy of the brain is truly incomprehensible. Further, neuroplasticity describes how brain functions are neither confined to a set location nor do they remain fixed (Shaw & McEachern, 2001). The
neuroscience approach has also been used in literature, particularly in law (e.g.,
Goodenough & Prehn, 2004; Müller, 2010).
Practical Implications
Critical Theory Perspective
Public policy scholars and practitioners ought to consider critical theory as a way
to uncover the assumptions that hinder a full awareness of how policy processes
work. Consider the example of the consumer. Consumers are thought of as having
a wide-ranging scope in decision-making, but is this true? Should consumers not
use critical theory to question the social structure of corporatism and consumerism, and how they fulfill their needs for goods and services?
Ultimately, critical theory aims to guide humans toward emancipation from dominating principles about policymaking systems. Scholars and practitioners need
to get beyond constraining ideologies and false consciousness. They should use
creativity and imagination to be analytical of common beliefs and develop critical
actions. Critical theory needs to be involved in public policy as a way “to free citizens and administrators from reified, theoretical preconceptions and institutional
constraints, allowing them to recreate themselves and the institutional arrangements” (Box, 2005, p. 91).
The critical theory approach empowers persons to think critically and question the
status quo that pervades the public policy discipline. This can be done via a reflective evaluation of society and policymaking norms, identifying means of change,
and developing attainable goals toward meaningful transformation. Within this
process, critical theory allows the discovery of alternative approaches. The perspective of critical theory can help society advance beyond archetypical policymaking activities.
VOL 5, SPRING 2015 79
EpistEmic pluralism in public policy
Neuroscience Perspective
The neuroscience perspective shows how our brains play a fundamental role in reasoning, speaking, and logical processes. Researchers study the chemical substances
that carry messages in the nervous system from one neuron to another and how
this dictates behavior. Certainly, an understanding of human behavior is crucial
in shaping public policy. Would a deeper understanding of the many drivers that
guide behaviors (e.g., cognitive, motivational, emotional, etc.) not assist in policymaking decisions?
Adding depth beyond timeworn ways of thinking about the behavior of a citizenry
can influence public policy for societal progress. Though costly and not universally
available (Marik, Rakusin, & Sandhu, 1997), brain scans and imaging could help
evaluate the appropriateness of persons for certain jobs, predict voting likelihoods
and consumer purchases, and explain humans’ inclinations and distastes. Why are
policymakers and school districts not pushing music in younger levels of school,
when it is shown to enhance brain functions, learning, and attitude (Vitale, 2011)?
Why are 18 year-olds tried under the law as adults, despite the fact that their frontal cortex is not completely developed until their early twenties (Steinberg, 2009)?
These education policy and law examples merely provide a glimpse of neuroscience’s serious implications for public policy.
Though we have just scratched the surface of this fascinatingly complex subject,
we should continue to promote further brain-related examination of how people
are driven. This will almost certainly show that human behavior diverges from
what academics assume in models. Considering the neuroscience perspective on
this quest for epistemic pluralism can have a powerful effect on policy theory and
practice.
Conclusion
Is it clear that public policy is simply a combination of economics, politics, and
business? Why not consider alternative perspectives? What about other viewpoints
not even discussed here? Utilizing epistemic pluralism, public policy is a unique
interconnection between a seemingly never-ending variety of disciplines. It has
been argued that the utilization of the critical theory and neuroscience perspectives
offer a viable approach for superior public policy comprehension by emancipating
one-dimensionality and considering the role of the brain. However, only considering these two alternate perspectives is a lamentable oversight. Public policy is
not a system that relies solely on one approach, nor should it be reduced to one
simplistic method. Employing epistemic pluralism is an intriguing method to fully
grasp public policy theory and implement it in the real world.
80 THE EVANS SCHOOL REVIEW
Michaud
Author Affiliations
Gilbert Michaud is a Ph.D. student at Virginia Commonwealth University, pursuing a degree in Public Policy & Administration. Gilbert’s research interests include
public policy theory, renewable energy policy, and economic development.
VOL 5, SPRING 2015 81
EpistEmic pluralism in public policy
References
Adams, J. L. (1990). A complementarity mechanism for enhanced pattern processing. Neural Computation, 2(1), 58–70.
Birkland, T. (2011). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and
models of public policy making. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Box, R. C. (2005). Critical social theory in public administration. Armonk, NY:
M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Cartwright, N. (1999). The dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Causevic, S., & Lynch, P. (2011). Phoenix tourism: Post-conflict tourism role. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 780–800.
Cors, C. (2014). Expanding understanding of public policy as a complex and pluridisciplinary system: Illustrating possibilities of epistemic pluralism. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd/3574/.
Dryzek, J. S., & Niemeyer, S. (2006). Reconciling pluralism and consensus as political ideals. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 634–649.
Farmer, D. J. (2008). Epistemic pluralism and neuroscience. Administrative Theory
& Praxis, 30(3), 285–295.
Farmer, D. J. (2010). Public administration in perspective: Theory and practice
through multiple lenses. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Farmer, D. J. (2012). Theorizing in perspective. Administrative Theory & Praxis,
34(2), 180–190.
Fischer, F. (1995). Evaluating public policy. Mason, OH: Thompson-Wadsworth.
Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures,
25(7), 735–755.
Gandy Jr., O. (1982). Beyond agenda setting: Information subsidies and public
policy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
82 THE EVANS SCHOOL REVIEW
Michaud
Goodenough, O. R., & Prehn, K. (2004). A neuroscientific approach to normative judgment in law and justice. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, 359(1451), 1709–1726.
Holmes, C. A., & Warelow, P. J. (2008). Culture, needs and nursing: A critical
theory approach. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25(3), 463–470.
Horkheimer, M. (1982). Critical theory. New York, NY: Seabury Press.
John, P. (2014). Policy entrepreneurship in UK central government: The Behavioral
Insights Team and the use of randomized controlled trials. Public Policy and Administration, 29(3), 257–267.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.
Kandel, E. R., & Squire, L. R. (2001). Neuroscience: Breaking down scientific barriers to the study of brain and mind. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
935, 118–135.
Lunn, J. (2009). The role of religion, spirituality and faith in development: A critical theory approach. Third World Quarterly, 30(5), 937–951.
Marcuse, H. (1964). One-dimensional man. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Marik, P. E., Rakusin, A., & Sandhu, S. S. (1997). The impact of the accessibility of
cranial CT scans on patient evaluation and management decisions. Journal of Internal Medicine, 241(3), 237–243.
Moran, M., Rein, M., & Goodin, R. E. (2006). The Oxford handbook of public
policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Müller, J. L. (2010). Psychopathy—An approach to neuroscientific research in
forensic psychiatry. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28(2), 129–147.
Nagel, S. S. (2002). Handbook of public policy evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
VOL 5, SPRING 2015 83
EpistEmic pluralism in public policy
Peters, B. G. (1999). American public policy: Promise and performance. Chappaqua, NY: Chatham House.
Shaw, C. A., & McEachern, J. C. (2001). Toward a theory of neuroplasticity. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Spender, J. C. (1998). Pluralist epistemology and the knowledge-based theory of
the firm. Organization, 5(2), 233–256.
Steinberg, L. (2009). Adolescent development and juvenile justice. Annual Review
of Clinical Psychology, 5, 47–73.
Teffo, L. (2011). Epistemic pluralism for knowledge transformation. International
Journal of African Renaissance Studies, 6(1), 24–34.
Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1992). Epistemological pluralism and the revaluation of
the concrete. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 11(1), 3–33.
Vigoda, E. (2003). Rethinking the identity of public administration: Interdisciplinary reflections and thoughts on managerial reconstruction. Public Administration &
Management, 8(1), 1–22.
Vitale, J. L. (2011). Music makes you smarter: A new paradigm for music education? Perceptions and perspectives from four groups of elementary education
stakeholders. Canadian Journal of Education, 34(3), 317–343.
Waldo, D. (1984). The administrative state: A study of the political theory of
American public administration. New York, NY: Holmes & Meier.
Whetsell, T. A. (2012). Theory-pluralism in public administration: Epistemology,
legitimacy, and method. The American Review of Public Administration, 43(5),
602–618.
84 THE EVANS SCHOOL REVIEW