Thinking Outside the Box ? Applying Design Theory to Public Policy

Design involves an account of expertise which foregrounds implicit, heuristic skills. Most models of policy making have a stronger interest in structural and exogenous pressures on decision making. Research suggests that high-level experts develop unique capacities to process data, read a situation, and see imaginative solutions. By linking some of the key attributes of a design model of decision making to an account of expertise, it is possible to formulate a stronger model of public policy design expertise. While other approaches often concern themselves with constraints and structural imperatives, a design approach has a focus upon the capacities of individual actors such as policy experts. Such an approach rests upon central propositions in regard to goal emergence, pattern recognition, anticipation, emotions engagement, fabulation, playfulness, and risk protection. These provide a starting point for further research and for the professional development of policy specialists.

[1]  Fernand Gobet A computer model of chess memory , 1993 .

[2]  Guido Fioretti The Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice (Version 1) , 2013 .

[3]  Michael J. Shapiro,et al.  Cognitive Process and Foreign Policy Decision-Making , 1973 .

[4]  Bryan D. Jones,et al.  Politics and the Architecture of Choice: Bounded Rationality and Governance , 2001 .

[5]  C. Dorst Design research: a revolution-waiting-to-happen☆ , 2008 .

[6]  Sandra Braman,et al.  The Policy Orientation , 2003 .

[7]  Davis B. Bobrow,et al.  Policy Design: Ubiquitous, Necessary and Difficult , 2006 .

[8]  J. Bruner,et al.  Play: Its Role in Development and Evolution , 1976 .

[9]  Barbara Means,et al.  The influence of positive affect on decision-making strategy. , 1983 .

[10]  David P. Redlawsk,et al.  Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making , 2001 .

[11]  F. Bailey,et al.  Stratagems And Spoils: A Social Anthropology Of Politics , 1969 .

[12]  R. Caillois,et al.  Man, Play and Games , 1958 .

[13]  Alexandre Linhares,et al.  An Active Symbols Theory of Chess Intuition , 2005, Minds and Machines.

[14]  A. Isen,et al.  Positive affect and decision making. , 1993 .

[15]  Robert E. Goodin,et al.  The Theory of Institutional Design , 1998 .

[16]  Philip N. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Mental Models in Cognitive Science , 1980, Cogn. Sci..

[17]  J. Oakland From good to great to ACE , 2007 .

[18]  Ernest R. Alexander,et al.  Design in the decision-making process , 1982 .

[19]  E. Erikson,et al.  Childhood and Society , 1951 .

[20]  Alexandre Linhares,et al.  Understanding Our Understanding of Strategic Scenarios: What Role Do Chunks Play? , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[21]  William D. Berry,et al.  Innovation and Diffusion Models in Policy Research , 2019, Theories of the Policy Process.

[22]  Erik Dane,et al.  Exploring Intuition and its Role in Managerial Decision Making , 2007 .

[23]  H. Simon,et al.  Perception in chess , 1973 .

[24]  G. Hodgkinson,et al.  Troubling futures: Scenarios and scenario planning for organizational decision making , 2008 .

[25]  Neil Charness,et al.  Expertise in chess and bridge. , 1989 .

[26]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Shortcomings of generic retrieval structures with slots of the type that Gobet (1993) proposed and modelled. , 2000, British journal of psychology.

[27]  Carl R. Hausman,et al.  A discourse on novelty and creation , 1975 .

[28]  J. Edwards,et al.  Rethinking Expertise , 2008 .

[29]  S. Gould Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin , 1996 .

[30]  O. Sacks,et al.  An anthropologist on Mars , 1994 .

[31]  Thomas A. Dutton,et al.  The Design Studio: An Exploration of its Traditions and Potential , 1989 .

[32]  F. Gobet Expert memory: a comparison of four theories , 1998, Cognition.

[33]  M. Sharpe,et al.  Human Development Report 1998 , 1999 .

[34]  B. Sutton-Smith,et al.  The Ambiguity of Play , 2000 .

[35]  James G. March,et al.  Model Bias in Social Action , 1972 .

[36]  Matt Statler,et al.  Towards a Technology of Foolishness Developing Scenarios through Serious Play Working Paper 54 , 2004 .

[37]  Steven A. Sloman,et al.  Feature Centrality and Conceptual Coherence , 1998, Cogn. Sci..

[38]  C. Barnard The Functions of the Executive , 1939 .

[39]  D Kahneman,et al.  On the reality of cognitive illusions. , 1996, Psychological review.

[40]  T. Dye Understanding Public Policy , 1972 .

[41]  J. Mercer,et al.  PROSPECT THEORY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE , 2005 .

[42]  C. Geertz,et al.  The Interpretation of Cultures , 1973 .

[43]  F. Damanpour Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analysis Of Effects Of Determinants and Moderators , 1991 .

[44]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Templates in Chess Memory: A Mechanism for Recalling Several Boards , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

[45]  William N. Dunn,et al.  METHODS OF THE SECOND TYPE: COPING WITH THE WILDERNESS OF CONVENTIONAL POLICY ANALYSIS , 1988 .

[46]  George Wright,et al.  Confronting Strategic Inertia in a Top Management Team: Learning from Failure , 2002 .

[47]  C. Falaster Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis , 2014 .

[48]  A. D. D. Groot Thought and Choice in Chess , 1978 .

[49]  Jan Erk,et al.  Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis , 2007 .

[50]  M. Considine Making Public Policy: Institutions, Actors, Strategies , 2004 .

[51]  Wei Li,et al.  Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance , 2009, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[52]  Organizations , 1992, Restoration & Management Notes.

[53]  H. Simon,et al.  A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice , 1955 .

[54]  Ac Rianne Valkenburg,et al.  The reflective practice of design teams , 1998 .

[55]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[56]  C. Lindblom THE SCIENCE OF MUDDLING THROUGH , 1959 .

[57]  G. Brady Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action , 1993 .

[58]  Ronald D. Brunner Case-wise policy information systems: redefining poverty , 1986 .