Goal Setting

A public policy is by definition a means to one or more ends. The first challenge faced by policy analysts is to decide which goals to pursue. This problem is exacerbated by the sense that there is no longer any societal consensus on values. If people disagree on what the goals of public policy should be then it will be nearly impossible to develop policies with broad appeal. Fortunately, our analysis of ethics elsewhere [Differences in Values] suggests that consensus is often possible:

· Over a wide array of issues, people starting from different ethical precepts will nevertheless reach similar conclusions regarding the direction in which they think society should move.

· Even when such consensus does not exist, the policy analyst need not despair of an almost infinite set of competing perspectives, but need worry only about five broad ways of approaching questions of value. The analyst can then strive to identify policies that respect these five different perspectives as much as possible. [See Applying the Five Types of Ethical Analysis] [See also Balance in Public Policy]

· Often common ground can be identified that reflects the key elements of seemingly contradictory perspectives.

Some formal techniques for working toward consensus on goals (and means) are outlined elsewhere. It should be stressed here that the best way to communicate policy ideas to stakeholders and policy-makers is to involve them in a two-way conversation from the start.

The Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research has much to say about goal setting, much of it related to inputs from stakeholders and practitioners as well as academics, but it uses different terminology than goal-setting: interpreting the common good, deliberation, participation, cooperation, agenda-setting, and so on.

The td-net website discusses three types of knowledge: of how the world works, of how it should, and of how it can be transformed from one to the other here.