JOURNAL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS EDUCATION - Naspaa

Methods Taught In Public Policy ProgramsPolicy and Management Program. We also included programs that specializedin environmental policy, social policy, health policy/public health, internationalpolicy, education policy, and urban affairs/planning/policy. Examples of suchprograms are the Master’s of Arts (MA) in Energy and Environmental Analysisat Boston University, and the Sustainable International Development programat Brandeis University, as well as its programs for an MS in Health Policy andManagement and MA in Sustainable International Development.Our inclusion of these specialized programs is justified because, as Radin(2000) points out, after the 1960s and 1970s, the practice and education ofpolicy analysis became specialized in these areas. These specialized programsproliferated in recent years, along with core public policy programs like MPPs.Once we identified the universities and their programs, we searched theirWeb sites and downloaded titles and descriptions of courses on methods. Weidentified courses with clear methods components, and defined methods as toolsof empirical inquiry and tools of decision-making and planning. In searchingmethods courses, we used the specific names of methods that were listed in Table1. We also included courses that contained generic methods-related names, suchas microeconomics, macroeconomics, decision (making), analysis, analytic(al),research, design, method(s)/methodology, technique(s), inquiry, policy (orprogram) evaluation, data, statistics/statistical, and assessment. We thenchecked the descriptions of these courses for clear statements regarding methodscomponents; if there were none, we left them out.All of the programs we investigated had required methods courses; somealso offered elective methods courses. We included in our analyses the electivecourses that students were most likely to take because of the way correspondingprograms were structured.In our searches, we initially identified 332 master’s-level methods courses.We entered information on these courses into a Microsoft Office Access(MS Access) database. When we could not obtain descriptions for some ofthese courses, we did not exclude them if the course titles provided valuableinformation about their contents.We conducted three groups of analyses. First, we read the titles anddescriptions of both the master’s and Ph.D.-level courses, to determine whetherthey were quantitative, qualitative, or both. When a course title clearly statedthat it was quantitative or qualitative, we classified it as such. When the contentsof a course were not self-classified as quantitative or qualitative, we read the titlesand descriptions and made a determination using the conceptualization in Table1. The results of our analyses are presented in Table 2 (see next section).In the second group of analyses, we used the MS Access “query” function toidentify the specific methods mentioned in course titles and descriptions, basedon the names of methods listed in Table 1. After each query, we double-checkedall course title and description fields for possible errors. For instance, a description264 Journal of Public Affairs Education