Book Review

References

• Berlin, I. (1979). Against the current. New York: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Bevir, M. (2010). Democratic governance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cameron, J.M. (1976). Ideology and policy termination. In J. May and A. Wildavsky (Eds.), The policy cycle (pp. 301-328). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Coser, L. (1977). Masters of sociological thought. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J.S. (1990). Discursive democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J.S., & Torgerson, D. (1993). Editorial: Democracy and the policy sciences. Policy Sciences, 26, 127-137.
   Google Scholar
• Durning, D. (1979). The transition from traditional to postpositivist policy analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18, 389-410.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (2006). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry. Scranton, PA: Chandler.
   Google Scholar
• Kingdon, J.W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. New York: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Lynn, L.E. (1999). A place at the table: Policy analysis, its postpositivist critics, and the future of practice. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18, 411-424.
   Google Scholar
• Meltsner, A.J. (1976). Policy analysts in the bureaucracy. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Merton, R. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mouzelis, N.P. (1971). Organization and bureaucracy. Chicago: Aldine.
   Google Scholar
• Muller, H., & Ventriss, C. (1985). Public health in a retrenchment era. Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Raadschelders, J.C.N. (2011). The future of the study of public administration: Embedding research object and methodology in epistemology and ontology. Public Administration Review, 71, 916-924.
   Google Scholar
• Ramos, A.G. (1981). The new science of organizations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sabatier, P.A. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P.A. Sabatier and H.C. Jenkins-Smith (Eds.), Policy change and learning (pp. 3-17). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Satori, G. (1970). Concept misinformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review, 64, 1039-1055.
   Google Scholar
• Stone, D.A. (2002). Policy paradox. New York: Norton.
   Google Scholar
• Ventriss, C.L. (1987). Two critical issues of American public administration. Administration & Society, 19, 25-47.
   Google Scholar
• Weimer, D.L. (1999). Comment: Q-method and the isms. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18, 426-429.
   Google Scholar
• Wildavsky, A. (1985). The once and future school of public policy. Public Interest, 79, 25-41.
   Google Scholar
• Yanow, D. (1996). How does a policy mean: Interpreting policy and organizational action. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretative policy analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar