Link You Might Find Usefulhttpswwwarcjournalsorgpdfsijpsv4 I1 ✓ Solved

Link you might find useful Textbook Theories Definition Dye, T. R. (2016). Understanding Public Policy. · Group Theory · The group model assumes that public policy is a balance of interest group influence; policies change when particular interest groups gain or lose influence. · Group theory views public policy as the outcome of the struggle among societal groups. · Elite Theory · Elite theory suggests that the people are apathetic and ill-informed about public policy, that elites actually shape mass opinion on policy questions more than masses shape elite opinion. Thus, public policy really turns out to be the preferences of elites. · Society is divided into the few who have power and the many who do not.

Only a small number of persons allocate values for society; the masses do not decide public policy. · Rational Theory · A rational policy is one that achieves “maximum social gainâ€; that is, governments should choose policies resulting in gains to society that exceed costs by the greatest amount, and governments should refrain from policies if costs exceed gains. · The rational model assumes complete agreement on goals, knowledge of alternative policies, and the ability to calculate and select the policies with the greatest benefits and least costs. MOCK IRB Application Instructions: Type your information in the shaded boxes and insert an “X†in the applicable checkboxes. Incomplete forms will delay the IRB review process and may be returned.

SECTION A: Investigators & Research Team A1. Principal Investigator (P.I.) : Name: Degree(s): Title/Position: Program: Contact Numbers: Physical Address: MyCampus Email: SECTION B: Research Information B1: Title B2: Introduction Please provide a brief ( word) summary of your research project, including background and rationale for your study. Be sure to include in your description what kinds of data you are planning to collect as part of your research (e.g., surveys, interviews, observations, etc.). SECTION C: Review Type C1. Does the study involve greater than minimal risk? ( Minimal risk means that the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater in and of themselves than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests.

More than minimal risk will require Full Committee Review .) Place an “X†next to the appropriate response. [__] Low/Minimal Risk [__] Greater Than Minimal Risk C2. Which level of review do you believe best matches your research (Exempt, Expedited, or Full)? For more information, view the categories on the APUS IRB Website . [__] a. Exempt [__] b. Expedited [__] c.

Full Board Review SECTION D: Project Purpose/ Research Question/ Objectives In non-technical language, address the following: 1) Topic and scope of the study. 2) Research questions or hypothesis. 3) How this study will contribute to knowledge in the field. ) SECTION E: Participant Population and Recruitment E1. In non-technical language, address the following: 1) Who will the participants be? How many participants?

What ages will the participants be? 2) What is the inclusion/exclusion criteria for participants? 3) Where and how participants will be recruited? ) E2. This study will involve participants with the following characteristics (place an “X†next to all that appl y): [__] a. Not Applicable (e.g., de-identified datasets) OR [__] Individuals who cannot read/speak English [__] Individuals living outside of the United States [__] Students of PI or Research Team Members [__] Students to be recruited in their educational setting (i.e. in class or at school) [__] Staff, Faculty, or Students [__] Minors/Children [__] Prisoners [__] Individuals with diagnosable psychological disorders [__] Individuals who are institutionalized [__] Individuals who are poor/uninsured [__] Pregnant women [__] Fetuses [__] Nursing home residents recruited in the nursing home [__] Individuals who are cognitively impaired [__] Individuals who are psychiatrically impaired [__] Limited or non-readers [__] Wards of the state (e.g., foster children) [__] Individuals who are terminally ill [__] Others vulnerable to coercion (Specify below): [__] Other (Specify below): SECTION F: Research Design In non-technical language, address the following: 1) State the study activities in chronological order .

Describe both the activities conducted by members of the research team and the activities of research participants. (e.g., screening, survey, taking a test, answering questions in an interview, completing a specific task, tasks on a computer, running on a treadmill, debriefing, etc.) If videotaping, photographs, or audio-taping will take place, explain how and why recording will occur. 2) Explain how the data will be analyzed or studied; that is, indicate the quantitative or qualitative data analysis methods you will use. 3) Explain how the data will be reported in order to maintain the confidentiality or anonymity of participants (i.e. aggregated, anonymously, names used with consent, participants only identified by professional role, etc.). ) SECTION G: Data Collection This study involves the following types of data collection (place an “X†next to all that apply) … [__] Email Questionnaire(s) [__] In-person Interview(s) [__] Phone Interview(s) [__] Video Interview(s) (e.g.

Skype, FaceTime, etc.) [__] Paper Survey(s) [__] Online Survey(s) (e.g. Survey Monkey, Kwik Surveys, etc.) [__] Audio-recording [__] Video-recording [__] Photography [__] Existing datasets [__] Focus Groups [__] Internet research, (e.g. collecting data via the internet or researching individuals’ behavior on the internet) [__] Observations [__] Questions that might result in identifying criminal activities [__] Questions that might result in identifying child or elder abuse [__] Review of academic records [__] Review of medical records [__] Exposure to psychological stress [__] Use of physiological sensors (e.g. heart rate, skin conductance, BP) [__] Physical exercise [__] Collection of blood or biological specimens [__] Genetic Material [__] Diagnostic imaging (e.g., MRI, fMRI, X-Rays, etc.) APUS IRB Application for Students Version 1.2 Revised 2/2016

Paper for above instructions

Exploring Public Policy Frameworks: Implications for Social Change
Introduction
Public policy serves as a critical instrument for addressing societal issues. Understanding its formulation, implementation, and consequences is essential for effective governance. This aligns with the framework proposed by Dye (2016), which encapsulates three theories that explain public policy dynamics: group theory, elite theory, and rational theory. These theories diverge in their perspectives on how policies are shaped, which in turn influences their success in eliciting social change. The proposed research aims to analyze these theories in order to determine their relevance and applicability to contemporary public policy formation, particularly focusing on their implications in real-world contexts.
This study will collect data through surveys and semi-structured interviews with policy-makers and stakeholders in various sectors. The intention is to understand how these theoretical approaches manifest in actual policy-making processes and their effectiveness in achieving social equity and justice.
Research Questions and Objectives
1. How do group, elite, and rational theories explain the processes underlying public policy development?
2. What is the impact of these theories on contemporary public policy outcomes?
3. In what ways can these theories inform better practices in policy-making aimed at social change?
This study will contribute to the field by providing insights into the effectiveness of these theoretical frameworks in guiding policymakers. It seeks to illustrate the intersections of theory and practice, ultimately enabling more informed, equitable policy-making.
Participant Population and Recruitment
Participants will include policy-makers at the local, state, and federal levels, social justice advocates, and community leaders involved in policy advocacy. The target will be approximately 30 individuals ranging from 25 to 65 years old, ensuring diverse representation.
Inclusion criteria will encompass individuals with at least two years of experience in policy-making or advocacy. The exclusion criteria will include those who have not engaged with public policy in the last five years. Recruitment will be conducted through professional networks and relevant social media channels, outreach via policy think tanks, and community organizations that focus on social change.
Research Design
Study Activities:
The research will unfold in a series of sequential activities:
1. Screening and assessing potential participants through a brief online questionnaire to confirm eligibility based on inclusion/exclusion criteria.
2. Conducting semi-structured in-depth interviews, documented through audio recording for accuracy in capturing responses.
3. Administering an online survey to gather quantitative data related to perceptions of public policy frameworks.
Data Analysis:
Qualitative data from interviews will be analyzed using thematic analysis, identifying patterns associated with each theory. Quantitative data from surveys will be subjected to statistical analysis using software like SPSS to understand correlations between theoretical application and policy effectiveness.
Confidentiality Measures:
Anonymity will be ensured through the use of participant codes, with all data reported in aggregate form to prevent the identification of individuals. Consent will be obtained for recording interviews, and participants will have the option to withdraw from the study at any time without repercussions.
Data Collection
Data collection will be primarily qualitative, through semi-structured interviews, augmented by quantitative data captured via online surveys. The following approaches will be implemented:
- Semi-structured Interviews: Conducted in-person or virtually to elicit deep insights into the participants' experiences with public policy.
- Online Surveys: Explored through platforms like SurveyMonkey to gather broader perspectives on theoretical frameworks and their perceived impact on policy.
This mixed-methods approach will yield a comprehensive understanding of the subject, facilitating a robust analysis of how public policy theories are enacted in practice.
Ethical Considerations
The study will prioritize ethical standards as defined by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). Participants will be fully informed of the study's objectives, their expected involvement, and any potential risks. A consent form will be provided outlining these aspects, along with assurances of confidentiality and the voluntary nature of participation.
Conclusion
The exploration of public policy through the lens of group, elite, and rational theories is imperative for understanding their implications for societal change. Through a mixed-methods approach, this research will enhance the clarity of these theoretical frameworks, rendering them applicable to real-world challenges. Insights gleaned from the participants will inform policy practitioners and advocates, enabling them to navigate the complex interplay between theory and practice, thus fostering effective and equitable public policies for social change.
References
1. Dye, T. R. (2016). Understanding Public Policy. Pearson.
2. Hill, M., & Hupe, P. (2014). Implementing Public Policy: Governance in Theory and in Practice. Sage.
3. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1999). The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Assessment. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process. Westview Press.
4. Kingdon, J. W. (2013). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Pearson.
5. Birkland, T. A. (2015). Disasters, Lessons Learned, and the Policy Process. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(2), 352-370. doi:10.1002/pam.21835
6. Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. K. (2013). Building a Conceptual Framework for Understanding Public Policy Change. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23, 1-24. doi:10.1093/jopart/mus037
7. Peters, B. G. (2015). Advanced Introduction to Public Policy. Edward Elgar Publishing.
8. Stone, D. (2012). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. W.W. Norton & Company.
9. Haas, P. M. (2014). Knowledge, Power, and International Policy Coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 111-145. doi:10.1017/S0020818300000266
10. Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The Science of "Muddling Through". Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79-88. doi:10.2307/973677.