ABSTRACT
There is a classic distinction made in the policy analysis literature between analysis for policy (i.e. contributing more or less directly to the policy process) and analysis of policy (critical analysis of what governments do or do not do in a given policy area). Chapters 4 and 6 of this hook (representing Types I and II approaches) are more closely associated with analysis for policy (indeed both draw on commissioned work) while Chapters 5, 7 and 8 are more clearly characterised as examples of analysis of policy (and represent Types II-IV)- This distribution across Types I-IV is no surprise of course since analysis for policy reflects the kinds of research commissioned by policy makers and tends to be more often associated with empirical if not empiricist/positivist approaches and, though less often, with ideational, rich description, with the use of ideal types as models and (if any) with explicit reference to the theoretical context, tending to focus on a middle range theoretical frame. Much has been made in policy rhetoric in recent years of the injunction for 'evidence-based practice', and this has probably intensified the emphasis on Types I and II approaches in analysis for policy, and in particular empiricist, positivist evidence.
