Policy Sci (2017) 50:339–350 DOI 10.1007/s11077-017-9291-3 EDITORIAL N OTE Douglas Torgerson Published online: 24 July 2017 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017 The public, well, the dear public can be bamboozled with phrases. –Harold D. Lasswell, 1924 The paradox of Policy Sciences Policy Sciences has, since the inception of the journal, been beset by an apparent paradox. Even though its keynote has been diversity, the journal has also been animated by a central theoretical orientation. The accent on diversity was already evident in E. S. Quade’s inaugural editorial, which promised ‘contributions reﬂecting all aspects of the policy sciences in all forms—think pieces, case studies, ideological essays, tirades, and historical surveys’ (1970: 2). Yet, how can such diversity be congruent with a central theoretical orientation? The paradox can be resolved if we recognize that the theoretical orientation which inspired the formation of the journal has a need for diversity at its core. This need for diversity—principally of perspectives and experiences—is notable in what Brunner and Willard have called, ‘central theory’ (2003: 4–8) in reference to the framework for the policy sciences conceived by Harold D. Lasswell. To reexamine here the relationship between policy sciences and democracy (cf. Dryzek and Torgerson 1993),
Policy Sciences – Springer Journals
Published: Jul 24, 2017
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud