Projects
Methodology
The project methodology involves three overlapping modules of research, each of which provides feedback to guide further research in the other two modules.
MODULE 1- Historical and empirical research
The primary method to be utilised for this module of the project is that of stakeholder analysis (for reviews, see Varvasovszky and Brugha 2000, Montgomery and Little 2001), which is an established methodology in public policy analysis with which the CIs have experience. Stakeholder analysis is a formalised methodology for analysing the participants in policy processes to produce an explanatory framework for examining the outcomes of such processes. It focuses on how the characteristics of stakeholders (including individuals, groups, and organisations) influence decision-making processes.
Following this initial analysis, we will identify key stakeholders who can provide further input and data regarding their experiences in the policy-making process. Among those who could be appropriate participants for interviews are legislators, office holders in the Australian Department of Health and Ageing and members of AHEC, representatives of client and lay voices in each policy process, ethicists and health law and medical experts. These informants will provide indicators of the ways in which different kinds of stakeholders have differing degrees of participation and influence in each of the policy development processes.
Parts of the project which already have Module 1 underway:
MODULE 2- Conceptual and philosophical analysis of policies
This module involves assessment of both the policy-making processes and outcomes. The methodology for this analysis has three main components: identifying the bioethical values reflected in the policy processes and outcomes; internal evaluation of the policy processes and outcomes in terms of each of their expressed policy aims; and social and political evaluation of the processes and outcomes in terms of the normative ideals of liberal democracy.
First, we will identify the aspects of each area of policy that are recognised within bioethics to be ethically salient and assess the ways that the policy-making processes and resulting policies address those features. Bioethical approaches are effective at identifying features including: tensions between different rights holders; tensions between concern for individual autonomy and social justice; effects of health care policy on a range of relationships; and effects of health and medical research policy on individual welfare, opportunities, and autonomy. Having identified these features, we will be able to characterise the range of bioethical values that are reflected in the policy processes. This process will serve as a basis for articulating what is characteristic of policy that is recognised as ethically contentious and the ways in which different policy-making processes address or respond to those bioethical features.
Second, we will evaluate each of the policy processes and outcomes relative to the explicitly stated goals or mandate for each policy development process. This evaluation will be based on the normative goals of those who initiated the process, and will allow assessment of the instrumental value of different policy-making approaches in realising their intended ends.
Third, we will evaluate the policy in terms of the normative goals of liberal democracy framing the policy-making process. These normative goals include impartiality, democratic participation and decision-making, and respect and recognition of difference and disadvantage. During this component, a number of questions will be addressed including:
- Was this an appropriate area for policy development at this time and in this manner?
- Was the process democratic, participatory, and fair?
- Did the policy process give due regard to the plurality of values held by those likely to be affected by the policy?
- Was the policy process framed so as to contribute to the elimination of oppression of relevant socio-cultural groups?
MODULE 3- Comparative analysis
In order to test our approach in terms of its practical and broader applicability, we will compare Australian and Canadian policy processes relating to our three case studies.
|
