Stakeholder Analysis

Refer to Review Question 8 located at the end of Chapter 3 for criteria 1-3. Select two (2) editorials / essays / columns (by staff or freelance writers) on a current issue of public policy from two (2) different publications (large metropolitan or national newspaper such as Washington Post or the New York Times or national magazines such as Newsweek, Time, and The New Republic.)
1. Apply the procedures for argumentation analysis (located in Chapter 8) to display contending positions and underlying assumptions for the content of Review Question 8.
2. Rate the assumptions and plot them according to their plausibility and importance. (Refer to Figure 3.16, “Distribution of warrant by plausibility and importance.”)
3. Determine which arguments are the most plausible. Provide a rationale for your views.
(Note: Refer to Demonstration Exercise 1 located at the end of Chapter 3 for criteria 4-6. Examine Box 3.0 – Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis. Choose one of the following policy issues in the U.S. gun control, illegal drugs, medical insurance fraud, and environmental protection of waterways, job creation, affordable health care, or Medicare.)
4. Apply the procedures for stakeholder analysis presented in Box 3.0 “Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis” to generate a list of at least five to ten (5-10) stakeholders who affect or are affected by problems in the issue area chosen for analysis. (Note: Refer to page 111 of the textbook for a step-by-step process on stakeholder analysis.)
5. After creating a cumulative frequency distribution from the list, discuss new ideas generated by each stakeholder. (Note: The ideas may be objectives, alternatives, outcomes causes, etc.; ideas should not be duplicates.)
6. Write an analysis of the results of the frequency distribution that answers the following questions: (a) Does the line graph flatten out? (b) If so, after how many stakeholders? (c) What conclusions can be drawn about the policy problems in the issue area? (Note: Compare your work with Case Study 3.1 at the end of the chapter.)
7. Include at least two (2) peer-reviewed references (no more than five [5] years old) from material outside the textbook to support your views. Note: Appropriate peer-reviewed references include scholarly articles and governmental Websites. Do not use open source Websites such as Wikipedia, Sparknotes.com, Ask.com, and similar Websites are not acceptable resources.
Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:
· Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and rAssignment 2: Stakeholder Analysis
Due Week 5 and worth 150 points
Write a five to six (5-6) page paper in which you:
(Note: Refer to Review Question 8 located at the end of Chapter 3 for criteria 1-3. Select two (2) editorials / essays / columns (by staff or freelance writers) on a current issue of public policy from two (2) different publications (large metropolitan or national newspaper such as Washington Post or the New York Times or national magazines such as Newsweek, Time, and The New Republic.)
1. Apply the procedures for argumentation analysis (located in Chapter 8) to display contending positions and underlying assumptions for the content of Review Question 8.
2. Rate the assumptions and plot them according to their plausibility and importance. (Refer to Figure 3.16, “Distribution of warrant by plausibility and importance.”)
3. Determine which arguments are the most plausible. Provide a rationale for your views.
(Note: Refer to Demonstration Exercise 1 located at the end of Chapter 3 for criteria 4-6. Examine Box 3.0 – Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis. Choose one of the following policy issues in the U.S. gun control, illegal drugs, medical insurance fraud, and environmental protection of waterways, job creation, affordable health care, or Medicare.)
4. Apply the procedures for stakeholder analysis presented in Box 3.0 “Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis” to generate a list of at least five to ten (5-10) stakeholders who affect or are affected by problems in the issue area chosen for analysis. (Note: Refer to page 111 of the textbook for a step-by-step process on stakeholder analysis.)
5. After creating a cumulative frequency distribution from the list, discuss new ideas generated by each stakeholder. (Note: The ideas may be objectives, alternatives, outcomes causes, etc.; ideas should not be duplicates.)
6. Write an analysis of the results of the frequency distribution that answers the following questions: (a) Does the line graph flatten out? (b) If so, after how many stakeholders? (c) What conclusions can be drawn about the policy problems in the issue area? (Note: Compare your work with Case Study 3.1 at the end of the chapter.)
7. Include at least two (2) peer-reviewed references (no more than five [5] years old) from material outside the textbook to support your views. Note: Appropriate peer-reviewed references include scholarly articles and governmental Websites. Do not use open source Websites such as Wikipedia, Sparknotes.com, Ask.com, and similar Websites are not acceptable resources.
Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:
· Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
· Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.
The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:
· Examine the nature, characteristics, models, and / or methods pertinent to the structuring of policy problems.
· Use technology and information resources to research issues in policy analysis and program evaluation.
· Write clearly and concisely about policy analysis and program evaluation using proper writing mechanics.
Click here to view the grading rubric for this assignment.
eferences must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
· Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.
The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:
· Examine the nature, characteristics, models, and / or methods pertinent to the structuring of policy problems.
· Use technology and information resources to research issues in policy analysis and program evaluation.
· Write clearly and concisely about policy analysis and program evaluation using proper writing mechanics.
Review question 8.Select two editorials on a current issue of public policy from two newspapers (e.g., New York Times, Washington Post, The Economist, Le Monde) or news magazine (e.g., Newsweek, The New Republic, National Review). After reading the editorial:
a.Use the procedures for argumentation analysis (Chapter 8) to display contending positions and underlying assumptions.
Modes of Policy Argumentation with Reasoning Patterns
Mode Reasoning Pattern
Authority Reasoning from authority is based on warrants having to do with the achieved or ascribed statuses of producers of policy-relevant information, for example, experts, insiders, scientists, specialists, gurus, power brokers. Footnotes and references are disguised authoritative arguments.
Method Reasoning from method is based on warrants about the approved status of methods or techniques used to produce information. The focus is on the achieved or ascribed status or “power” of procedures. Examples include approved statistical, econometric, qualitative, ethnographic, and hermeneutic methods.
Generalization Reasoning from generalization is based on similarities between samples and populations from which samples are selected. Although samples can be random, generalizations can also be based on qualitative comparisons. In either case, the assumption is that what is true of members of a sample is also true of members of the population not included in the sample. For example, random samples of n ⩾ 30 are taken to be representative of the (unobserved and often unobservable) population of elements from which the sample is drawn.
Classification Reasoning from classification has to do with membership in a defined class. The reasoning is that what is true of the class of persons or events described in the warrant is also true of individuals or groups described in the information. An example is the untenable ideological argument that because a country has a socialist economy it must be undemocratic, because all socialist systems are undemocratic.
Cause Reasoning from cause is about generative powers (“causes”) and their consequences (“effects”). A claim may be made based on general propositions, or laws, that state invariant relations between cause and effect for example, the law of diminishing utility of money. Other kinds of causal claims are based on observing the effects of some policy intervention on one or more policy outcomes. Almost all argumentation in the social and natural sciences is based on reasoning from cause.
Sign Reasoning from sign is based on signs, or indicators, and their referents. The presence of a sign or indicator is believed to justify the expectation that some other sign or indicator will occur as well. Examples are indicators of institutional performance such as “organizational report cards” and “benchmarks” or indicators of economic performance such as “leading economic indicators.” Signs are not causes, because causality must satisfy temporal precedence and other requirements not expected of signs.
Motivation Reasoning from motivation is based on the motivating power of goals, values, and intentions in shaping individual and collective behavior. For example, a claim that citizens will support the strict enforcement of pollution standards might be based on reasoning that since citizens are motivated by the desire to achieve the goal of clean air and water, they will support strict enforcement.
Intuition Reasoning from intuition is based on the conscious or preconscious cognitive, emotional, or spiritual states of producers of policy-relevant information. For example, the belief that an advisor has some special insight, feeling, or “tacit knowledge” may serve as a reason to accept his or her judgment.
Analogy Reasoning from analogies is based on similarities between relations found in a given case and relations characteristic of a metaphor or analogy. For example, the claim that government should “quarantine” a country by interdicting illegal drugs — with the illegal drugs seen as an “infectious disease” — is based on reasoning that since quarantine has been effective in cases of infectious diseases, interdiction will be effective in the case of illegal drugs.
Parallel Case Reasoning from parallel case is based on similarities among two or more cases of policy making. For example, the claim that a local government will be successful in enforcing pollution standards is based on information that a parallel policy was successfully implemented in a similar local government elsewhere.
Ethics Reasoning from ethics is based on judgments about the rightness or wrongness, goodness or badness, of policies or their consequences. For example, policy claims are frequently based on moral principles stating the conditions of a “just” or “good” society, or on ethical norms prohibiting lying in public life. Moral principles and ethical norms go beyond the values and norms of particular individuals or groups. In public policy, many arguments about economic benefits and costs involve unstated or implicit moral and ethical reasoning.
b.Rate the assumptions and plot them according to their plausibility and importance (Figure 3.16).
c.Which arguments are the most plausible?
BOX 3.0 Choose a policy issue area such as crime control, national securiy, environmental protection, or economic development. Use the procedures for stakeholder analysis presented in Procedural Guide 3 to generate a list of stakeholders who affect or are affected by problems in the issue area you have chosen for analysis.
After generating the list, create a cumulative frequency distribution. Place stakeholders on the horizontal axis, numbering them from 1 … n. On the vertical axis, place the number of new (nonduplicate) ideas generated by each stakeholder (the ideas can be objectives, alternatives, outcomes, causes, etc.). Connect the total new ideas of each stakeholder with a line graph.
■Does the line graph flatten out?
■If so, after how many stakeholders?
■What conclusions can you draw about the policy problem(s) in the issue area?
order essay now!

 
"Is this qustion part of your assignmentt? We will write the assignment for you. click order now and get up to 40% Discount"