School of Public Affairs

SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER Doctoral Seminar in Public Policy PAD 8030, Fall Semester Mondays from August 22, 2016 – December 12, 2016 LSC Building, deLeon Classroom, 3:30pm to 6:15pm Version 8.16.16

Professor: Chris Weible Office: 525Y, 1380 Lawrence Street, Denver, CO 80217 Office hours: By appointment Email: [email protected] Phone: 303-315-2010

SEMINAR OVERVIEW This Doctoral Seminar in Public Policy seeks to provide students with an advanced introduction to policy processes. Policy process research is the study of the interactions that occur over time between public policies and surrounding actors, events, contexts, and outcomes. The study of policy processes provides a way of understanding a variety of enduring questions pertinent to the study of politics and governance. A sample of these questions include: What explains the adoption of policies over time? How do policy ideas diffuse across national governments, sub-governments (e.g., states), and cities? Why do people cooperate in coalitions to influence policy and how do they overcome challenges of collective action? How do actors tell stories and narratives to influence public opinion and policy? What factors contribute to the successful implementation of policy? What is the frequency of major and minor policy change over time? How can institutions (i.e., rules) be designed to be robust to ensure collective action and achieve desirable outcomes? How do social constructions of people affect the distribution of the benefits and burdens in a society? Why do some issues attract the attention of government agendas and others do not? To offer answers to these questions and many others, students will learn about the history of the field, explore contemporary topics, and develop an understanding of some of the major approaches for studying policy processes. SEMINAR LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES This seminar has the following learning objectives with the associated activities for achieving them. Learning Objectives Activities Toward Achieving Learning Objectives 1. Critique journal articles – Students will use the “Guidelines for Analyzing Journal of empirical Articles” to analyze empirical studies of policy processes applications of policy and to discuss the content in class. process research. – Students will write three seven-page analyses of empirical studies (see section on journal article analyses). 2. Design and Write – Students will complete one 12-page proposal (for details Proposals see proposal section). – Students will discuss proposal writing in class with a major focus on writing research questions, contributing to the

1 literature, crafting hypotheses, defining concepts, operationalizing concepts, and developing research designs. 3. Analyze frameworks, – Students will use the “Guidelines for Analyzing Theories” theories, and models to conduct in-class critiques of frameworks, theories, and models. – Students will lead an in-class discussion on one of the designated frameworks, theories, and models. 4. Develop a foundation – Students will read the foundational writings that helped for understanding the define the field of policy processes, the original pieces that field of public policy created the analytical approaches often used in policy with a particular process research, and the applications of the approaches emphasis on policy to various substantive areas (see reading schedule). processes – Students will synthesize this material through the comprehensive essay reviews. 5. Improve oral and – Students will strengthen their writing skills by writing one written communication 12-page proposal in three phases (a preliminary outline, skills. version 1, and final version), three 7-page article analyses, and three 7-page comprehensive reviews. – Students will strengthen their writing skills by providing peer feedback on version 1 of the proposal writing. – Students will strengthen their oral communication through class discussions that will feature in-class activities, small group discussions, and question & answer sessions. 6. Improve critical – Students will improve their critical thinking skills by thinking skills. applying multiple frameworks, theories, and models (see section on critical thinking skills) as well as by completing the written assignments. 7. Develop an initial – Students will be provided a Supplemental Research understanding of the Packet introducing them to scientific traditions, social sciences as frameworks, theories, and models, writing research conducted in the study questions and hypotheses, research design, and concept of policy processes. development. – Students will write one social science proposal.

EVALUATING STUDENT LEARNING AND PROGRESS Three methods will be used to evaluate student learning and progress as identified in the following table, which is then followed by a description of each method. Evaluation Method Contribution to Final Grade 1. Three Article Analyses (10% each) 30% 2. Research Proposal (30% each) 30% 3. Three Comprehensive Essay Reviews (10% 30% each) 4. Class Participation 10%

2 1. Three Article Analyses (10% each, 30% total) Students will be asked to analyze three articles in the course of the semester. The article analyses must not exceed seven double-spaced pages Times New Roman Font with one inch margins. Students must complete the analyses for any of the three articles marked by an asterisks (*) in the reading schedule. The due dates are flexible; the choice of articles to analyze is decided by the student. The analyses must be emailed in Word Doc form to the Professor prior to the start of the seminar class for which the article is discussed. Students must use the “Guidelines for Analyzing Journal Articles” to write their article critique. Students need not analyze the statistics used in the article. Students are encouraged to write their article analyses with sections that match the guidelines. Be sure to address all the questions in the guidelines as well when completing this assignment.

2. One Research Proposal (30% total) Students will complete one proposal that applies a given theory to a particular phenomenon. Detailed instructions for the proposal assignment can be found in separate handouts. Students are recommended to use the Supplemental Research Packet to help write the proposal. The emphasis will be on writing a research question, formulating hypotheses, synthesizing the literature, describing contributions to science, defining and operationalizing concepts. There will be three due dates: October 31, One-Page Outline (1% of grade); November 21 Version 1 (9% of grade); December 12 Final Version (20% of grade). Students are required to review their peers’ work on Version 1 of the proposal.

3. Three Comprehensive Essay Reviews (10% each, 30% total) Students will complete three 7-page comprehensive essay reviews. The essays provide an opportunity to synthesize the course material in response to a question or questions. The essay also provides a practice run for the preliminary exam taken after completing all core courses in the PhD Program. Students will have 24 hours to complete each essay. Students can also choose a day/time to complete each essay within a designated set of calendar days. Essay 1 must be completed between September 20 – September 25; essay 2 must be completed between October 18 – October 23; and essay 3 must be completed between December 13 – December 19.

4. Class Participation (10% of total grade) The class participation grade will be based on the quality of in-class participation, including class presentations, small-group activities, and discussions. The professor reserves the right to make the decision regarding the exact nature of weighting the different components of seminar participation and the participation grade. GUIDELINES FOR ANALYZING JOURNAL ARTICLES AND THEORIES This class involves a great deal of reading at a critical level. Students are asked to apply the “Guidelines for Analyzing Journal Articles”, which is a handout that will be given to students. Students will also critique some of the theoretical frameworks in the class using the “Guidelines for Analyzing Theories”, which is another handout. GRADING The grading criteria and the weight for each assignment for the final grade are included on the instructions for each individual assignment. For the final grade, a 100 point scale is used. Each

3 assignment is worth 100 points and will be weighted toward your total grade, for a possible 100 points. The grade equivalent for the scale is: 95-100 = A, 90-94 = A-, 87-89 = B+, 84-86 = B, 80-83 = B-, 77-79 = C+, 73-76 = C, 70-72 = C- …

LINKING CRITICAL THINKING TO THE USE OF MULTIPLE APPROACHES The learning of multiple analytical approaches (different frameworks, theories, and models) serves several purposes. One purpose is to enhance critical thinking skills. Figure 1 lists on the right column the dimensions of critical thinking (Tarvis, 2001) and on the left column the reasons for learning multiple analytical approaches. The arrows link the purpose for using multiple frameworks, theories, and models to the strategies for critical thinking. One of the learning objectives from the class is to improve the thinking skills of students.

COURSE TEXTS, READINGS, WEBSITES, & VIDEOS There are three required books that all students will read for the class. 1. Pressman, Jeffrey L. and Aaron B. Wildavsky. 1973. Implementation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 2. Sabatier, Paul A. and Christopher M. Weible. 2014. Theories of the Policy Process. 3rd Edition. Boulder CO: Westview Press. 3. Baumgartner Frank, R. and Bryan D. Jones. 2015. The Politics of Information. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Students will also be assigned one of the following three books to read near the end of the semester (purchase after the first day). 1. McConnell, Allan. 2010. Understanding Policy Success: Rethinking Public Policy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. 2. Howlett, Michael. 2011. Designing Public Policies: Principles and Instruments. New York, NY: Routledge. 3. Conlan, Timothy, Paul L. Posner, and David R. Beam. 2014. Pathways of Power: The Dynamics of National Policymaking. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

4 There are also several online videos and websites to learn from as well Downloadable Readings/Handouts/Videos Some students have requested a background textbook to supplement the course readings and to offer a different perspective. I recommend the following book: Cairney, Paul. 2011. Understanding Public Policy: Theories and Issues. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

SCHEDULE All dates and material are tentative in the reading schedule. All readings listed are required. Read the materials before the class for which they are assigned – including the required reading for the first class on August 22. The professor reserves the right to add, or remove, readings as the semester progresses. Readings marked by an asterisk (*) denote potential articles for fulfilling the Three Article Analyses assignment. August 22. Introducing the seminar Lasswell, Harold. 1951. “The Policy Orientation.” In Lerner, Daniel and Harold D. Lasswell. The Policy Sciences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Chapter 1. Sabatier, Paul A. 1991. “Toward Better Theories of the Policy Process.” PS: Political Science and Politics. 24(2):147-156. Lowi, Theodore, J. 2003. “Law vs. Public Policy: A Critical Exploration.” Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 12:493-501. Weible, Christopher M. 2014. “Introducing the Scope and Focus of Policy Process Research and Theory.” In P.A. Sabatier and C.M. Weible, Theories of the Policy Process. 3rd Edition. Boulder CO: Westview Press. Chapter 1. August 29. Agenda setting and multiple streams Background readings Cobb, Roger W. and Charles D. Elder. 1971. “The Politics of Agenda-Building: An Alternative Perspective for Modern Democratic Theory.” The Journal of Politics 33($): 892-915. Cohen, Michael D., James G. March, and Johan P. Olsen. 1974. “A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice.” Administrative Science Quarterly 17:1-25. -Read pages 1 to X-

Multiple Streams Zahariadis, Nikolaos. 2014. “Ambiguity and Multiple Streams.” In P.A. Sabatier and C.M. Weible, Theories of the Policy Process. 3rd Edition. Boulder CO: Westview Press. Chapter 2. Jones, Michael D., Holly L. Peterson, Jonathan J. Pierce, Nicole Herweg, Amiel Bernal, Holly Lamberta Raney, and Nikolaos Zahariadis. 2016. “A River Runs Through It: A Multiple Streams Meta-Review.” Policy Studies Journal. 44(1): 13-36 Cairney, Paul and Michael D. Jones. 2016. “Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Approach: What is the Empirical Impact of this Universal Theory?” Policy Studies Journal. 44(1): 37- 58. *Tunstall, Ashley M., Christopher M. Weible, Elizabeth A. Tomsich, and Angela R. Gover. 2015. “Understanding Policy Reform in Colorado’s Domestic Violence Offender Treatment Standards.” Social Policy & Administration. Early View. Related videos Johan Olsen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raTM7OSSQ8k

5 Nikos Zaharadis: http://www.frequency.com/video/on-bounded-rationality-nikos- zahariadis/138950810/-/5-13997073

September 5. Labor Day Holiday, no class September 12. Social construction & policy design and tools

Background readings Bachrach, Peter and Morton S. Baratz. 1962. “Two Faces of Power.” The American Political Science Review. 56(4):947-952. Lowi, Theodore J. 1972. “Four Systems of Policy, Politics, and Choice.” Public Administration Review. 32(4):298-310.

Social Construction & Policy Designs Schneider, Anne and Helen Ingram. 1993. “Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy.” American Political Science Review 87(2) 334-347. Pierce, Jonathan J., Saba Siddiki, Michael D. Jones, Kristin Schumacher, Andrew Pattison, and Holly Peterson. 2014. “Social Construction and Policy Design: A Review of Past Applications.” Policy Studies Journal. 42(1): 1-29. *Valcore, Jace L. and Mary Dodge. 2016. “How Hate Crime Legislation Shapes Gay and Lesbian Target Groups: An Analysis of Social Construction, Law, and Policy.” Criminal Justice Policy Review. Early View.

Tools Approaches Margetts, Helen and Christopher Hood. 2016 “Tools Approaches” In B. Guy Peters and Philippe Zittoun Contemporary Approaches to Public Policy. Palgrave Macmillan: London, U.K. Chapter 8, p. 133-154.

September 19. Policy Feedback Theory Policy Feedback Theory Pierson, Paul. 1993. “When Effect Becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Policy Change.” World Politics. 45(4):595-628. Andrea Campbell. 2012. “Policy Makes Mass Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science. 15(1): 333–51. Mettler, Suzanne and Mallory SoRelle. 2014. “Policy Feedback Theory.” In P.A. Sabatier and C.M. Weible, Theories of the Policy Process. 3rd Edition. Boulder CO: Westview Press. Chapter 6. Hacker, Jacob S. and Paul Pierson. 2014. “After the “Master Theory”: Downs, Schattschneider, and the Rebirth of Policy-Focused Analysis.” Perspectives on Politics. 12(3): 643-662. *Mettler, Suzanne. 2002. “Bringing the State Back in to Civic Engagement: Policy Feedback Effects of the GI Bill for World War II Veterans.” The American Political Science Review. 96(2): 351-365. --DUE Comprehensive Essay Review 1 between Sept 20 – 25-- September 26. An array of policy implementation approaches

6 Pressman, Jeffrey L. and Aaron B. Wildavsky. 1973. Implementation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Mazmanian, Daniel A. and Paul A. Sabatier. 1989. Implementation and Public Policy. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Chapters 1 and 2. Moulton, Stephanie and Jodi R. Sandfort. 2016. “The Strategic Action Field Framework for Policy Implementation Research.” Policy Studies Journal. Early View. *Koontz, Tomas M. and Jens Newig. 2014. “From Planning to Implementation: Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches for Collaborative Watershed Management.” Policy Studies Journal. 42(3): 416-442.

October 3. Networks/coalitions, learning, and policy change, the Advocacy Coalition Framework Background readings Schattschneider, E.E. 1960. The Semisovereign People: A Realists View of Democracy in America. Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press. pp 1-45. Weiss, Carol. 1977. “Research for Policy’s Sake: The Enlightenment Function of Social Research.” Policy Analysis, 3: 531–545. Heclo, Hugh. 1978. “Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment”. In Anthony King (ed.) The New American Political System. Washington, D.C: American Enterprise Institute.

Advocacy Coalition Framework Jenkins-Smith, Hank C., Daniel Nohrstedt, Christopher M. Weible, and Paul A. Sabatier. 2014. “Advocacy Coalition Framework: Foundations, Evolution, and Ongoing Research.” In P.A. Sabatier and C.M. Weible, Theories of the Policy Process. 3rd Edition. Boulder CO: Westview Press. Pp 183-225. *Nohrstedt, Daniel and Kristin Olofsson. 2016. “Advocacy Coalition Politics and Strategies on Hydraulic Fracturing in Sweden.” In Weible, Christopher M., Tanya Heikkila, Karin Ingold, and Manuel Fischer. Policy Debates on Hydraulic Fracturing: Comparing Coalition Politics in North America and Europe. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Chapter 6. October 10. Stories & the Narrative Policy Framework Background readings Stone, Deborah. 1989. “Causal Stories and the Formation of Policy Agendas.” Political Science Quarterly. 104(2): 281-300.

Narrative Policy Framework McBeth, Mark K., Michael D. Jones, and Elizabeth A. Shanahan. 2014. “The Narrative Policy Framework.” In P.A. Sabatier and C.M. Weible, Theories of the Policy Process. 3rd Edition. Boulder CO: Westview Press. Chapter 7. Weible, Christopher M. and Edella Schlager. 2014. “Narrative Policy Framework: Contributions, Limitations, and Recommendations.” In Jones, Michael D., Elizabeth A. Shanahan, and Mark K. McBeth (eds) The Science of Stories. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Chapter 9. Jones, Michael D. and Claudio M. Radaelli. 2015. “The Narrative Policy Framework: Child or Monster?” Critical Policy Studies. 9(3): 339-355.

7 Dodge, Jennifer. 2015. “Indication and Inference: Reflections on the Challenge of Mixing Paradigms in the Narrative Policy Framework.” Critical Policy Studies 9(3): 361-367. *Merry, Melissa K. 2015. “Constructing Policy Narratives in 140 Characters or Less: The Case of Gun Policy Organizations.” Policy Studies Journal. Early View. Related Video Ted Talk on Stories: http://www.ted.com/talks/tyler_cowen_be_suspicious_of_stories.html October 17. Institutional Analysis and Development Framework, Common Pool Resource Theory, & Social-Ecological Systems Framework Institutional Analysis and Development Framework Ostrom, Elinor. 2010. “Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems.” American Economic Review 100: 641-672. Aligica, Paul Dragos and Peter Boettke. 2012. “The Two Social Philosophies of Ostroms’ Institutionalism.” Policy Studies Journal. 39(1): 29-49. Ostrom, Elinor with Michael Cox and Edella Schlager. 2014. “An Assessment of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework and Introduction of the Social-Ecological Systems Framework.” In P.A. Sabatier and C.M. Weible, Theories of the Policy Process. 3rd Edition. Boulder CO: Westview Press. Chapter 8.

Common Pool Resource Theory Schlager, Edella. 2004. “Common-Pool Resource Theory”. In Robert F. Durant, Daniel J. Fiorino, and Rosemary O’Leary (eds) Environmental Governance Reconsidered: Challenges, Choices, and Opportunities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chapter 4. *Basurto, Xavier. 2005. “How Locally Designed Access and Use Controls Can Prevent the Tragedy of the Commons in a Mexican Small-Scale Fishing Community.” Society and Natural Resources. 18: 643-659. *Heikkila, Tanya, Edella Schlager, and Mark Davis. 2011. “The Role of Cross-Scale Institutional Linkages in Common Pool Resource Management: Assessing Interstate River Compacts.” Policy Studies Journal 39(1): 121-146. Social-Ecological Systems Framework Ostrom, Elinor. 2009. “A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social- Ecological Systems.” Science 325(5939): 419-422.

Related Videos Elinor Ostrom 1: http://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=1223 Elinor Ostrom 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8CXgBSQhcA

Related Website The Vincent and Elinor Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis: http://www.indiana.edu/~workshop/

--DUE Comprehensive Essay Review 2 between Oct 18 – 23--

October 24. Innovation and Diffusion

8 Walker, Jack L. 1969. “The Diffusion and Innovations among the American States.” American Political Science Review 63:880-899. Berry, Frances and Berry William D. 2014 “Innovation and Diffusion Models in Policy Research.” In Sabatier (ed), Theories of the Policy Process.2nd Edition Chapter 8. Shipan, Charles R. and Craig Volden. 2012. “Policy Diffusion: Seven Lessons for Scholars and Practitioners.” Public Administration Review. 72(6): 788-796. *Boushey, Graeme 2016. “Targeted for Diffusion: How the Use and Acceptance of Stereotypes Shape the Diffusion of Criminal Justice Policy Innovations in the American States.” American Political Science Review 110(1): 198-214. Related Video Craig Volden: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMwatEye2zQ October 31. Incrementalism & Punctuated Equilibrium Theory Background readings Lindblom, Charles. 1959. “The Science of Muddling Through.” Public Administration Review 19: 79-88.

Punctuated Equilibrium Theory Baumgartner, Frank R., Bryan D. Jones, and Peter B. Mortensen. 2014. “Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: Explaining Stability and Change in Public Policymaking.” In P.A. Sabatier and C.M. Weible, Theories of the Policy Process. 3rd Edition. Boulder CO: Westview Press. Chapter 3 Baumgartner Frank, R. and Bryan D. Jones. 2015. The Politics of Information. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. *Baumgartner, Frank R., Christian Breunig, Christoffer Green-Pedersen, Bryan D. Jones, Peter B. Mortensen, Michiel Nuytemans, Stefaan Walgrave. 2009. “Punctuated Equilibrium in Comparative Perspective.” American Journal of Political Science 53(3):603-620.

Related Website Policy Agendas Project: http://www.policyagendas.org/

-DUE PROPOSAL OUTLINE OCTOBER 31- November 7. Comparative public policy & ideas and policy paradigms. Comparative Public Policy Horowitz, D.L. 1989. “Is there a Third-World Policy Process? Policy Sciences 22(3- 4):197-212. Mooij, Jos. 2007. “Is There an Indian Policy Process? An Investigation into Two Social Policy Processes.” Social Policy & Administration 41(4); 323-338. Ma Jun and Mahua Lin. 2012. “Policymaking in China: A Review of Chinese Scholarship.” The China Review 12(1): 95-122. *Li, Wanxin. 2012. “Advocacy Environmental Interests in China.” Administration & Society. 44(Supplemental):26S-42S.

Policy Paradigms Hall, Peter. 1993. “Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain.” Comparative Politics 25(3): 275-296.

9 Hogan, John and Michael Howlett. 2015. “Reflections on Our Understanding of Policy Paradigms and Policy Change.” In John Hogan and Michael Howlett. Policy Paradigms in Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Chapter 1. Cairney, Paul and Christopher M. Weible. 2015. “Comparing and Contrasting Peter Hall’s Paradigms and Ideas with the Advocacy Coalition Framework.” In John Hogan and Michael Howlett. Policy Paradigms in Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Chapter 5. Carstensen, Martin B. 2015. “Bringing Ideational Power into the Paradigm Approach: Critical Perspectives on Policy Paradigms in Theory and Practice.” In John Hogan and Michael Howlett. Policy Paradigms in Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Chapter 14. November 14. Making connections Bushouse, Brenda K. 2016. “Leveraging on Profit and Voluntary Action Research to Inform Public Policy.” Policy Studies Journal. Forthcoming. Sowa, Jessica. 2016. “Policy and Management: Considering Public Management and its Relationship to Policy Studies.” Policy Studies Journal. Forthcoming. Weible, Christopher M. and David P. Carter. 2016. “Leveraging the Nexus: Strategies for Advancing Policy Process Research.” Policy Studies Journal. Forthcoming. Fyall, Rachel. 2016. “The Power of Nonprofits: Mechanisms for Nonprofit Policy Influence.” Public Administration Review. Early View. *Fink, Carla M. 2015. “Rethinking Punctuated Equilibrium Theory: A Public Administration Approach to Budgetary Changes.” Policy Studies Journal. Early View. November 21. Thanksgiving Holiday Week, no class -DUE (via email) PROPOSAL VERSION 1 NOVEMBER 21- November 28. New approaches 1 -Students will be assigned to read one of the following three books McConnell, Allan. 2010. Understanding Policy Success: Rethinking Public Policy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Howlett, Michael. 2011. Designing Public Policies: Principles and Instruments. New York, NY: Routledge. Conlan, Timothy, Paul L. Posner, and David R. Beam. 2014. Pathways of Power: The Dynamics of National Policymaking. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

December 5. New approaches 2 Schlager, Edella and Christopher M. Weible. 2013. “New Theories of the Policy Process.” Policy Studies Journal. 41(3): 389-396. Feiock, Richard, C. 2013. “The Institutional Collective Action Framework.” Policy Studies Journal. 41(3):397-425. Heikkila, Tanya and Andrea K. Gerlak. 2013. “Building a Conceptual Approach to Collective Learning: Lessons for Public Policy Scholars.” Policy Studies Journal. 41(3): 484-512. Lubell, Mark. 2013. “Governing Institutional Complexity: The Ecology of Games Framework.” Policy Studies Journal. 41(3): 514-536. May, Peter J. and Ashley E. Jochim. 2013. “Policy Regime Perspectives: Policies, Politics, and Governing.” Policy Studies Journal. 41(3): 426-452.

10 *Lapira, Timothy M. 2014. “Lobbying after 9/11: Regime Emergence and Interest Group Mobilization.” Policy Studies Journal 42(2): 226-552.

December 12. Summarizing the field & closing the Seminar Cairney, Paul and Tanya Heikkila. 2014. “A Comparison of Theories of the Policy Process.” In P.A. Sabatier and C.M. Weible, Theories of the Policy Process. 3rd Edition. Boulder CO: Westview Press. pp 363-391. Weible, Christopher M. 2014. “Advancing Policy Process Research.” In P.A. Sabatier and C.M. Weible, Theories of the Policy Process. 3rd Edition. Boulder CO: Westview Press. pp 391-408. Weible, Christopher M., Tanya Heikkila, Peter deLeon, and Paul A. Sabatier. 2012. “Understanding and Influencing the Policy Process.” Policy Sciences. 45(1):1-21. Related Website Paul Cairney’s Website: http://paulcairney.wordpress.com/

-DUE PROPOSAL FINAL VERSION DECEMBER 12- --DUE Comprehensive Essay Review 3 between Dec 13 – 19-- ACADEMIC HONESTY AND STUDENT CONDUCT Students must provide proper citations or references to source material for written assignments. Copying or borrowing other people’s words, ideas, or concepts without proper citations or references constitutes plagiarism. Direct quotes must be cited with quotation marks. Paraphrasing the ideas of others also requires referencing and citing the source material. If students are unclear of how to properly cite material, they should consider visiting the UCD Writing Center (http://www.cudenver.edu/writingcenter). All students are responsible for understanding and observing campus policies about academic honesty: http://thunder1.cudenver.edu/studentlife/studentlife/discipline.html. Please maintain respect for your peers in the classroom and treat each other as professionals. Turn off all cell phones during class as well as other distractions that may pop up on computer screens. Students should also adhere to the Code of Conduct: www.ucdenver.edu/conduct

ACCESS, DISABILITY, COMMUNICATION Students with disabilities requiring accommodations, please contact the Office of Disability Resources & Services located in NC#2514 (or call 303-556-3450 TTY 303-556-4766). The staff will assist you in both determining reasonable accommodations as well as coordinating these accommodations.