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

Area of Science:

• Health Services Research
• Policy Analysis
• Public Administration

Background:

• The Community Mental Health Centers program faced scrutiny from various policy research groups.
• Understanding different policy research methodologies is crucial for evaluating public programs.
• The Ralph Nader study group and the U.S. General Accounting Office offered contrasting analyses of the program.

Purpose of the Study:

• To develop and illustrate two ideal types of policy research methodology: advocacy research and management review.
• To analyze the differences between these two methodologies using case studies of the Community Mental Health Centers program.
• To examine the role of extrinsic versus intrinsic criticism and researcher-policymaker relationships in policy studies.

Main Methods:

• Comparative analysis of two distinct policy studies.
• Development of conceptual "ideal types" for policy research methodology.
• Examination of analytic dimensions: criticism balance and researcher-policymaker structural relationships.

Main Results:

• Advocacy research, exemplified by the Nader group, tends to focus on intrinsic criticisms and maintains a more independent researcher-policymaker relationship.
• Management review, exemplified by the GAO, often emphasizes extrinsic criticisms and has a more integrated researcher-policymaker structure.
• The study illustrates how methodological approaches influence the findings and recommendations of policy research.

Conclusions:

• The distinction between advocacy research and management review provides a valuable framework for understanding policy analysis.
• Recognizing these methodological differences is essential for policymakers to critically assess research findings.
• Future policy research can benefit from explicitly considering the chosen methodology and its implications.