Policy Advocacy is a graduate course in policy communication, requiring no specialist knowledge or experience of public policy or administration. The course examines strategies and tactics used by policy advocates inside and outside government when marshalling argument and evidence to promote their preferred outcomes. The course is designed to strengthen students' understanding of the nature of advocacy and of place of policy advocacy in the policy process. The course materials draw on many disciplines: rhetoric, philosophy, policy analysis and public administration. Examples include many Australian, as well as international and transnational cases, but the aim is more general: to stimulate learning about the many ways that policy advocacy is pursued and seeks to shape policy choice, especially in political systems with open forms of deliberative democracy.

Innovations include the regular use of video material illustrating classic advocacy practices used by policy makers, prominent public leaders and interest groups. You will also be taught how to conduct your own analysis of advocacy strategies through examining and comparing policy documents. The Brick of required readings draws from the classics such as Aristotle’s rhetoric but also more recent applications and developments in examining and understanding the significance of the art of persuasion, such as through discourse analysis but also experimentalist governance.

Learning Outcomes

Upon successful completion, students will have the knowledge and skills to:

Contribute to practical small-group exercises in policy advocacy

Discuss and debate the value of core readings in policy advocacy

Demonstrate analytical examination of core concepts in the field of policy advocacy

Demonstrate critical analysis of one or more selected case studies in policy advocacy

Reflect on and communicate professional and personal lessons gained in the course

Research-Led Teaching

Aspects of this course touch upon my research into how public agencies and administrators garner legitimacy from their environment, for example to build up their reputation through symbolic claims about their performance and other aspects of their work in the environment. Argumentation and ideas are also prevalent in my research with regard to claims about best practice public management reforms and how to pursue 'soft law' rule-making in multi-level systems.

Required Resources

All compulsory readings from the brick displayed on wattle.

Staff Feedback

Students will be given feedback in the following forms in this course:

• Written comments
• Verbal comments
• Feedback to the whole class, to groups, to individuals, focus groups

Student Feedback

ANU is committed to the demonstration of educational excellence and regularly seeks feedback from students. Students are encouraged to offer feedback directly to their Course Convener or through their College and Course representatives (if applicable). The feedback given in these surveys is anonymous and provides the Colleges, University Education Committee and Academic Board with opportunities to recognise excellent teaching, and opportunities for improvement. The Surveys and Evaluation website provides more information on student surveys at ANU and reports on the feedback provided on ANU courses.

Class Schedule

Week/Session	Summary of Activities	Assessment
1	Tuesday 28 July, 2020 Setting the scene - advocacy in policy making	In this first introductory session, you will be given some insight into the conceptual claims that underlie a policy advocacy perspective. These claims are inspired from Aristotle and his work on rhetoric. They include the assertion that language plays an active role in shaping people's beliefs about the world and that even apparently bland talk is rhetorical rather then neutral. Furthermore, some more general starting points for the course are set out. Such as: how to define policy advocacy and who can be policy advocates anyway. Finally, an overview of the weeks ahead and also the assignments will be provided. Readings: Bell, S. & Hindmoor, A. (2010). Persuasion as governance. A state centric relational perspective. Public Administration 88(3): 851-870. Summa, H. (1993). The rhetorics of bureaucracy. In P. Ahonen (ed.) Tracing the semiotic boundaries of politics. New York: Mouten de Gruyter, pp.219-232. Kane, J. (2010). The Artless art: Leadership and the limits of democratic rhetoric. Australian Journal of Political Science 45:3:371-389. Vernon Jenson, S. (1987). Teaching East Asian Rhetoric. In Rhetoric Society Quarterly 7(2): 135-149.
2	Tuesday 4 August, 2020 But I'm not an advocate: or am I?	In this lecture we begin to examine both theoretical conceptualizations of how policy advocacy might occur within public administration, as well as some of the tensions associated with this. While it is conventional in Westminster systems to assume a neutral and often invisible public service, we examine at least two theoretical perspectives on public managers and administrators that suggest a more active advocacy role. These perspectives include the 'public value' perspective which has become prominent in academic discussion of public management, as well as the 'public choice' perspective which has had a much longer and cynical presence in scholarly accounts of bureaucracy and bureaucrats. To illustrate this more cynical view we will watch a small snippet from the famous 'Yes Minister'. Readings: Rhodes, R. & Wanna, J. (2007). The limits to public value or rescuing responsible government from the platonic guardians, Australian Journal of Public Administration 66(4): 406-421. Alford, J. (2008). The limits to traditional public administration or rescuing public value from misrepresentation. The Australian Journal of Public Administration 67(3):357-366. Grube, D. ‘A very public search for ‘public value’. Rhetorical secretaries in Westminster jurisdictions. Journal of Public Administration, 2012 early view. Van Dorp, E.J. & t’Hart, P. (2019). Navigating the dichotomy: The Top Public Servant’s Craft. Public Administration, forthcoming – full text online.
3	Tuesday 11 August, 2020 Expertise in policy making as advocacy	Following from last week's lecture, this week's lecture considers a place for policy advocacy within policy analysis. It is again problematizing aspects of the politics-administration dichotomy insofar as to illustrate that the knowledge of policy analysts is also not value free. It occurs in a given context, with an audience and wherein a range of value conflicts must be dealt with. Moreover, in this lecture we consider the nature of expert and scientific knowledge itself and the extent to which it can aid policy decisions. The claim from a rhetorical or advocacy perspective is that facts generally don't speak for themselves and require some appeal to values and emotions. These appeals are often conditioned by specific policy fields and the expertise that characterizes those fields. More generally, we will consider the nature of expert or scientific knowledge itself and the extent to which we can understand it as objective. Readings: Hoppe, R. (1999). Policy analysis, science and politics: from ‘speaking truth to power’ to ‘making sense together’. Science & Public Policy 26(3):201-210. Ransan-Cooper, H.; Farbotko, C.; McNamara, K. & Thornton, F. (2015). 'Being(s) framed: The means and ends of framing environmental migrants', Global Environmental Change 35:106-115. Ceccarelli, C. (2011). 'Manufactured Scientific Controversy: Science, Rhetoric & Public Debate', Rhetoric & Public Affairs 14(2):195-228. Blue, G.; Hulme, M. (2016). Understanding the rhetoric of climate science debates. Wires Clim Change, e452
4	Tuesday 18 August, 2020 The relevance of rhetoric	In this session we finally come to examine the tradition of rhetoric and more broadly its use in policy studies. The tradition of rhetoric and its features are described. Rhetoric is used in this course to provide a framework for examining policy advocacy occurring in policy fields. To this extent it can be seen as an evaluative framework. Alternatively, the tradition of rhetoric can also be used to for the purposes of persuading - this requires understanding the elements of argumentation. Besides presenting and discussing the readings about rhetoric this week. We will also examine some real life rhetoric - the way in which public officials/policy actors present their knowledge as persuasive - both from politicians, public servants and the users of services. Readings: Herbert Gottweis, ‘Rhetoric in policy making’, ch 17 in Fischer, Miller and Sidney eds, Handbook of Public Policy Analysis, CRC Press 2007, pp237-250. Aristotle, The Rhetoric (trans W R Roberts), book 1, chapters 2-4, in Eugene Garver ed, Aristotle, Poetics and Rhetoric. Barnes and Noble Classics 2005, 105-133. Smullen, A. (2010). Translating agency reform through durable rhetorical styles: comparing official agency talk across consensus and adversarial contexts. Public Administration 88(4): 943-959. Bryan Garsten, ‘Introduction: Persuasion’ and ‘A technical art’, two extracts from Saving Persuasion: a defence of rhetoric and judgment. HarvardUniversity Press 2006, 1-10, 129-135.
5	Tuesday 25 August, 2020 Reputation, turf and audiences of public bodies	** There will be a small quiz, your first assignment, at the beginning of this session. It draws from readings of wks 1-4) In this lecture we consider the advocacy or rather outward oriented strategies of public sector bodies. Invariably public sector bodies must manage a range of audiences and stakeholders in order to do their work, but also maintain their legitimacy and trustworthiness. This task has become far more complicated over time, particularly in light of increasing exposure or demands from the media. The readings provide the theoretical perspective of 'reputation' to describe and theorize how public sector bodies respond and seek to manage their environment through their reputation. Some argue that being able to manage a multi-faceted reputation can aid public sector bodies in expanding their autonomy and impact upon public policy/their realms of expertise. Readings: Carpenter, D. & Krause, G.A. (2012). 'Reputation and Public Administration', Public Administration Review 72(1): 26-32. Busuioc, M. & Rimkute, D. (2020). Meeting expectations in the EU regulatory state? Regulatory communications amid conflicting institutional demands, Journal of European Public Policy, 27(4):547-568. Arras, S. & Braun, C. (2018). Stakeholders wanted! Why and how European Union agencies involve non-state stakeholders, Journal of European Public Policy 25(9):1257-1275.
6	Tuesday 1 September, 2020 Understanding Policy Advocacy through cultural frames	In this class we move towards a cultural framework for analyzing and mapping the different arguments of policy advocates in a given field. More specifically, we examine the contributions of Grid Group Cultural Theory (GGCT), sometimes referred to as cultural theory or ways of life theory. This framework was developed in anthropology by Mary Douglas and has thus far led a very productive career in the study of politics and policy making. It has been described as enabling a ‘cultural audit’ for any given policy field. It can be particularly useful for evaluating the different actors in a policy field and their perspectives, likely policy solutions, problems and vulnerabilities. Like narrative and discourse analysis, GGCT brings with it some conceptual tools for analyzing policy argumentation and how problems and solutions are constructed. However, from the perspective of GGCT there are only four (sometimes five) basic constructions of policy problems and solutions available! Readings: Mamadouh, V. (1999). ‘Grid Group Cultural Theory: An Introduction’, Geojournal, 47:395-409. Lodge, M. & Weigrich, K. (2011). ‘Arguing about financial regulation: Comparing National discourses’, PS: October. Hood, C. (1998). ‘Calamity, conspiracy & chaos in public management’ (Chapter 2), ‘Public Management, Rhetoric, and Culture’ (Chapter 8), in The Art of the State. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lodge, M. (2011). Risk, Regulation and Crisis: Comparing National Responses in Food Safety regulation, Journal of Public Policy 31(1): 25-50.
7	Tuesday 22 September, 2020 From conceptualizing policy advocacy to frameworks for research	There will be a second quiz to be undertaken on the day of the course. The quiz will require you to have read the texts for this weeks 6&7 readings, especially on frameworks for research. The readings for this week are very much focused upon preparing you for your third comparative research assignment. You can deploy any of the frameworks/theoretical lens from the course - whether reputation, GGCT, rhetoric, narrative, ideas in institutions (next week) for your final assignment. However, this weeks readings discusses the comparative methods and different ways in which broadly rhetorical approaches have been incorporated into empirical research. A distinction is made between analytical frameworks which focus upon policy advocacy as a process (something interpretative or description of how that occurs over time) and frameworks which can be used to evaluate or even explain the (temporal) effects of policy advocacy. Stone, D. (2010). 'Symbols' chap. 6 in Policy Paradox. The Art of Political Decision making. pp.137-162. Jones, M. & McBeth, M. (2010). A narrative policy framework: clear enough to be wrong. Policy Studies Journal 38(2):329-353 Moses, J. & Knutsen, T. (2007). The comparative method (chapter5) In Ways of Knowing. Basingtonstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Hajer, M. (2006). 'Doing discourse analysis: coalitions, practices, meaning'. Chap. 4 in Margo van den Brink & Tamara Metz (eds.), Words matter in policy and planning. Utrecht. (pp. 65-74).
8	Tuesday 29 September, 2020 Policy Advocacy as ideas within institutions	This class is concerned with studies that consider policy advocacy as variables: that is as ‘ideas’ with effects. The readings we examine consider the conditions under which discourse/ideas matter, or rather under what conditions do ideas (of policy advocates) effect outcomes? We look at the way in which this is studied from the perspectives of institutional approaches eg. historical & sociological discourse. More specifically, we examine closely Vivien Schmidt’s article and the comparative design she uses to make conclusions about ‘effects’. Readings: Schmidt, V. (2002). 'Does Discourse Matter in the Politics of Welfare State Adjustment?', Comparative Political Studies, 35: 168-193. Beland, D. (2009). 'Ideas, Institutions, and policy change', Journal of European Public Policy, 16:5, pp. 701-718. Nimela, M,. & Saarinen, A. (2012). The role of ideas and institutional change in Finnish public sector reform. Policy & Politics 40(2):171-191. Goetz, G. & Mahoney, J. (2012). ‘Causal mechanisms and process tracing’ In A Tale of Two Cultures. Ch. 8.
9	Tuesday 6 October, 2020 In-class presentations and peer review of research design presentations	In-class presentations and peer review of research design presentations in break-out groups.
10	Tuesday 15 October, 2020 In-class presentations and peer review of research design presentations	In-class presentations and peer review of research design presentations in break-out groups.
11	Tuesday 22 October, 2022 Leadership and advocacy to create public institutions/public value	This class presents research on efforts to create institutions from public agencies, and the role of policy advocacy in this. It draws from literature describing how public organizations can be transformed into public institutions and the various dimensions of this process, including leadership to infuse values internally and externally to public organizations. Some examples of public agencies are presented, together with their leader's efforts to create mission and public purpose. Readings: Boin, A. & Christensen, T. (2008). The development of public institutions. Reconsidering the role of leadership. Administration and Society 40(3):271-297. Goodsell, C. (2011). “US National Park Service” In Mission Mystique: Belief Systems in Public Agencies. New York:CQ Press, ch. 2. Yeung, K. (2009). Presentational management and the pursuit of regulatory legitimacy: A comparative study of competition and consumer agencies in the United Kingdom and Australia. Public Administration 87(2): 274-294
12	Tuesday 29 October, 2020 The role of dialogue and persuasion in promoting coordination?	This class seeks to examine some of the uses of a rhetorical or persuasive perspective for policy coordination and implementation. Indeed, a key element of recent work on governance has been the use of deliberation for policy learning from a range of policy actors. These include citizens but also other governments in a federal system, from private providers and NGOs and also from managers and service providers at the front line. In this session we touch on some of the theoretical and empirical work examining deliberation for policy learning and improvement. Readings: Sabel, C. & Zeitlin, J. (2012). 'Experimentalist governance' In D. Levi-Faur (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Governance (pp.169-183) Oxford, Oxford University Press. Smullen, A. (2014). Conceptualizing Australia's Tradition of Pragmatic Federalism. Australian Journal of Political Science 49(4):677-693. Pollak, J & Slominski, P. (2009). Experimentalist but not Accountable Governance? The role of Frontex managing the EU's External Borders. West European Politics 32(5), 904-924.

Assessment Summary

Assessment task	Value	Due Date	Return of assessment	Learning Outcomes
In-class quiz (Week 5)	10 %	25/08/2020	30/08/2020	Relates to learning outcomes 1& 2
A longer descriptive quiz and text analysis	30 %	22/09/2020	*	Relates to learning outcomes 1, 2 & 4
Peer review report of a student peer's research design/and presentation	20 %	25/10/2020	*	Relates to learning outcomes 1,2, 3 &4
Final comparative research assignment of public agencies' policy advocacy	40 %	13/11/2020	*	Relates to learning 1, 2, 3 &4

* If the Due Date and Return of Assessment date are blank, see the Assessment Tab for specific Assessment Task details

Policies

ANU has educational policies, procedures and guidelines, which are designed to ensure that staff and students are aware of the University’s academic standards, and implement them. Students are expected to have read the Academic Misconduct Rule before the commencement of their course. Other key policies and guidelines include:

• Student Assessment (Coursework) Policy and Procedure
• Special Assessment Consideration Policy and General Information
• Student Surveys and Evaluations
• Deferred Examinations
• Student Complaint Resolution Policy and Procedure

Assessment Requirements

The ANU is using Turnitin to enhance student citation and referencing techniques, and to assess assignment submissions as a component of the University's approach to managing Academic Integrity. For additional information regarding Turnitin please visit the ANU Online website Students may choose not to submit assessment items through Turnitin. In this instance you will be required to submit, alongside the assessment item itself, hard copies of all references included in the assessment item.

Moderation of Assessment

Marks that are allocated during Semester are to be considered provisional until formalised by the College examiners meeting at the end of each Semester. If appropriate, some moderation of marks might be applied prior to final results being released.

Assessment Task 1

In-class quiz (Week 5)

In the morning of week 5, there will be a 1 hr in-class/online short quiz.

Assessment Task 2

A longer descriptive quiz and text analysis

In the morning of wk 7 there will be a one hour closed book quiz consisting of 4 questions and requiring text analysis using a theory/technique you have learnt in the course. These questions are not designed to trick students or be difficult to answer. If students have read brick material, attended class and participated in discussion, no further preparation is needed.

Assessment Task 3

Peer review report of a student peer's research design/and presentation

This task requires you to prepare a 2 page (500 word) peer review of a fellow student peer's research design. You will be provided a rubric for the final assignment and use this to provide constructive comments on your student peer's research assignment plans. The written paper will be delivered followed two in-class sessions when we discuss research designs in groups in class eg. wks 9 & 10. These sessions are designed to ensure students are prepared for their final assignments.

Assessment Task 4

Final comparative research assignment of public agencies' policy advocacy

This is a comparative research task requiring you to apply theoretical concepts (or approaches) from the Brick readings to practical examples of policy advocacy (real life examples of arts of persuasion!). You need to examine and compare the policy advocacy used by actors (a leader, profession, administrators) within a public sector agency as presented in documents (such as annual report, website documentation, official policy proposal, media or speech) regarding efforts to respond to a particular policy initiative, problem or solution, or to promote the legitimacy of the organization. The research paper is to be comparative through either tracing policy advocacy over time or across different public agencies.

You will apply at least one conceptual framework/or combine frameworks from the readings eg. rhetoric, reputation, narrative, ideas/norms approach, to analyze the advocacy strategies and compare how these evolve over time or their similarities and differences across agency cases.

There are a number of aspects to this task:

You will need to develop a common research question for your cases such as:

How have bureaucratic actors in public agencies described the problem of advertising on tobacco packaging in Australia and Canada and how can similarities & differences in their narratives be explained?

OR how has agency X sought to  describe its work in annual reports over time, and what changes in their reputational strategies can be observed, and with what consequences?

What patterns are there in the public arguments of agency X before and after regulatory failure, and can this be ascribed to a particular organizational or national culture?

You will need to adopt and describe in your paper the conceptual framework that you will use for examining advocacy strategies.

You will need to explain how you will apply (operationalise) your conceptual framework to your data (eg. the documents) and why you have selected your cases.

You will need to present your findings from applying the same policy advocacy framework to the different cases under study.

A draft proposal for this assignment will need to be discussed/presented with/to others in the class and delivered on 1 A4 to peer reviewers and course convenor during wk 9 & 10 of course. Opportunities will be provided to discuss this assignment throughout the course.

Academic Integrity

Academic integrity is a core part of our culture as a community of scholars. At its heart, academic integrity is about behaving ethically. This means that all members of the community commit to honest and responsible scholarly practice and to upholding these values with respect and fairness. The Australian National University commits to embedding the values of academic integrity in our teaching and learning. We ensure that all members of our community understand how to engage in academic work in ways that are consistent with, and actively support academic integrity. The ANU expects staff and students to uphold high standards of academic integrity and act ethically and honestly, to ensure the quality and value of the qualification that you will graduate with. The University has policies and procedures in place to promote academic integrity and manage academic misconduct. Visit the following Academic honesty & plagiarism website for more information about academic integrity and what the ANU considers academic misconduct. The ANU offers a number of services to assist students with their assignments, examinations, and other learning activities. The Academic Skills and Learning Centre offers a number of workshops and seminars that you may find useful for your studies.

Online Submission

The ANU uses Turnitin to enhance student citation and referencing techniques, and to assess assignment submissions as a component of the University's approach to managing Academic Integrity. While the use of Turnitin is not mandatory, the ANU highly recommends Turnitin is used by both teaching staff and students. For additional information regarding Turnitin please visit the ANU Online website.

Hardcopy Submission

For some forms of assessment (hand written assignments, art works, laboratory notes, etc.) hard copy submission is appropriate when approved by the Associate Dean (Education). Hard copy submissions must utilise the Assignment Cover Sheet. Please keep a copy of tasks completed for your records.

Late Submission

Late submission of assessment tasks without an extension are penalised at the rate of 5% of the possible marks available per working day or part thereof.

Referencing Requirements

Accepted academic practice for referencing sources that you use in presentations can be found via the links on the Wattle site, under the file named “ANU and College Policies, Program Information, Student Support Services and Assessment”. Alternatively, you can seek help through the Students Learning Development website.

Extensions and Penalties

Extensions and late submission of assessment pieces are covered by the Student Assessment (Coursework) Policy and Procedure The Course Convener may grant extensions for assessment pieces that are not examinations or take-home examinations. If you need an extension, you must request an extension in writing on or before the due date. If you have documented and appropriate medical evidence that demonstrates you were not able to request an extension on or before the due date, you may be able to request it after the due date.

Privacy Notice

The ANU has made a number of third party, online, databases available for students to use. Use of each online database is conditional on student end users first agreeing to the database licensor’s terms of service and/or privacy policy. Students should read these carefully. In some cases student end users will be required to register an account with the database licensor and submit personal information, including their: first name; last name; ANU email address; and other information. In cases where student end users are asked to submit ‘content’ to a database, such as an assignment or short answers, the database licensor may only use the student’s ‘content’ in accordance with the terms of service — including any (copyright) licence the student grants to the database licensor. Any personal information or content a student submits may be stored by the licensor, potentially offshore, and will be used to process the database service in accordance with the licensors terms of service and/or privacy policy. If any student chooses not to agree to the database licensor’s terms of service or privacy policy, the student will not be able to access and use the database. In these circumstances students should contact their lecturer to enquire about alternative arrangements that are available.

Distribution of grades policy

Academic Quality Assurance Committee monitors the performance of students, including attrition, further study and employment rates and grade distribution, and College reports on quality assurance processes for assessment activities, including alignment with national and international disciplinary and interdisciplinary standards, as well as qualification type learning outcomes. Since first semester 1994, ANU uses a grading scale for all courses. This grading scale is used by all academic areas of the University.

Support for students

The University offers students support through several different services. You may contact the services listed below directly or seek advice from your Course Convener, Student Administrators, or your College and Course representatives (if applicable).

• ANU Health, safety & wellbeing for medical services, counselling, mental health and spiritual support
• ANU Diversity and inclusion for students with a disability or ongoing or chronic illness
• ANU Dean of Students for confidential, impartial advice and help to resolve problems between students and the academic or administrative areas of the University
• ANU Academic Skills and Learning Centre supports you make your own decisions about how you learn and manage your workload.
• ANU Counselling Centre promotes, supports and enhances mental health and wellbeing within the University student community.
• ANUSA supports and represents undergraduate and ANU College students
• PARSA supports and represents postgraduate and research students