Training for policy capacity: A practitioner’s reflection on an in-house intervention for civil servants,students,and post-secondary graduates in Canada

Abstract

A substantial amount of scholarly work focuses on conceptualizing, theorizing and studying the policy capacity of governments. Yet, guidance for practitioners on developing policy capacity training programs is lacking. In this article, I reflect on my experience as a public servant in the provincial government of Prince Edward Island where I designed and implemented the Policy Capacity Development and Mentorship Program for civil servants, recent graduates and students. In this article, I offer a descriptive overview of the framework and logic of the program and discuss how I integrated policy capacity theory. This article may serve other practitioners who seek to implement similar programs in their respective organizations and provides a base for future interventions. The article also offers thoughts on practitioner-led collaboration with academics and recommendations for those who would like to establish similar programs in their organizations.

Keywords

Policy capacity training reflexivity civil servants government

Introduction

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) writes that “today’s civil servants are addressing problems of unprecedented complexity in societies that are more pluralistic and demanding than ever. Civil servants need the right skills to keep pace” (OECD, 2017: 1). Skills for developing public policy are noted by the OECD and researchers (Hartley et al., 2019) as being critical for ensuring that civil servants can address rapidly changing “wicked problems” requiring the provision of new forms evidence, information and solutions. As a result, civil servants need to be able to know how to complete complex problem solving activities (Sandfort and Gerdes, 2017). A key question arising is, what types of training can governments offer civil servants to improve their policy analytical capacity?

Graduate-level public administration and public policy programs aim to prepare students for future public service careers by connecting them with civil servants (see Godwin and Meek, 2016; Straussman, 2019). This practice acts as a mechanism to bridge a theory-practice gap, one which is similar to the long-standing divide in the discipline of public administration itself. During my own Master’s- and Ph.D.-level studies in public policy, I observed professors connecting theory and practice through case studies, presentations from government officials and internship programs (see Johns, 2008, for an overview of the case study method in Canadian public administration). Academic-practitioner collaborations in public administration are not without their challenges (see Straussman, 2019). However, these types of collaborations have nevertheless been pursued for their potential to enrich learning experiences for students.

Less is known about the experience of practitioners in leading, designing and implementing their own interventions to lessen the theory-practice gap and improve the policy capacity of civil servants. This space tends to be dominated by the work of academics and university institutions. In a special issue of Teaching Public Administration on reflexivity (2013: 31, 1) it was argued that we need to go beyond traditional teaching and locate learning in contemporary and relevant contexts (Ahmad et al., 2013: 5). In this article, I reflect on my experience as a practitioner in the provincial Government of Prince Edward Island, Canada where I developed and implemented the Policy Capacity Development and Mentorship Program (PCDMP) (“the intervention”). It is a relatively small intervention, located in one Division in a provincial department. The intervention is a nine-unit learning and work journey that is framed by the concepts of policy capacity, mentorship, applied research, reflexivity and reflection. It uses core readings combined with policy projects to train students, recent graduates and other policy staff in core skills and knowledge for policy analytical capacity (www.princeedwardisland.ca/pcdmp).

I will begin by describing the context of the intervention. I then discuss concepts that are manifested in the PCDMP’s design. This discussion shows how practitioners can lessen the theory-practice divide by intentionally integrating academic knowledge into training programs. Following that, I describe the structure, elements and purpose of the program. This includes observations from participants and the results of a pre- and post-self-assessment questionnaire with a small sample. The article concludes by reflecting on my experience with the PCDMP and what it means for practitioners, mentors and academics. I propose that looking forward, practitioners should occupy a more consequential role in the design and delivery of in-house training programs such as the PCDMP. Policy workers with graduate degrees in public administration and policy can provide benefits to policy developing organizations, not only from their knowledge of research and evidence, but also through leadership in policy capacity development.

Context and the policy capacity development and mentorship program

Prince Edward Island

The setting for the intervention is the Government of Prince Edward Island (PEI). Located on the east coast of Canada, PEI is the smallest province in the country with a population of 156,000 people, a workforce of 79,000, and a total land area of 5,656 km². The provincial civil service employed by the Government of PEI is approximately 3,118 staff (Government of PEI, Department of Finance, 2018). Although the province of PEI and its core civil service are relatively small, the domains that public servants are tasked with addressing are the same as all other Canadian provinces: Education, natural resources and municipalities are some areas which are the responsibility of provincial governments. Other areas, such as agriculture, are shared with the federal government (Government of Canada, 2018b). Twenty-one thousand six hundred (21,600) people work for the public sector in PEI (federal, provincial, and municipal); approximately 27% of the workforce (Statistics Canada, Table 14-10-0288-02). Approximately 4% of the total workforce is employed by the provincial government. As such, there are a substantial number of people who are involved in the development, implementation and/or evaluation of public policies in the province.

Gaps in policy capacity training

I am the director of a division in the Government of PEI where staff are responsible for policy and program development, strategy, performance monitoring, evaluation, stakeholder engagement, economic modeling and statute research and development. High levels of policy analytical capacity and applied research skills are essential for the work that is completed by the division. For over 5 years, I have been involved in the recruitment, hiring and training of staff for policy-relevant positions.

Currently, there are no public policy or public administration undergraduate or graduate degree programs in the province. For me to complete a Master’s and Ph.D. in public policy, I was required to leave the province and attend studies in Toronto. Since there are also no public policy think tanks or professional policy research centers in the province, there are relatively few opportunities for practitioners to receive policy capacity training tailored to the needs of the local context. Therefore, macro- or system-level factors that are important for policy capacity (Lah, 2017; Wu et al., 2015: 272) are absent in the local setting. For practitioners who cannot leave the province for their education, policy training provided “in-house” or online are essentially the only options available.

Reflecting on these gaps in terms of local policy capacity development programs, around 2014 I began to prototype programs and develop learning frameworks. I reviewed the literature on policy capacity development programs and researched similar programs in other jurisdictions. This review identified lessons from interventions in the Global South, where workshops have been delivered on topics including policy briefs (e.g., International Development Research Centre et al., 2011; Uneke et al., 2015), policy knowledge translation (e.g., Uneke et al., 2018) and policy research methodology (e.g., West Africa Civil Society Institute and Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2012). Reports on policy capacity training programs delivered by development organizations were also useful for identifying lessons learned (e.g., Wachsmuth and Larocque, 2013; Wachsmuth-Huguet, 2011a, 2011b). These interventions showed that “hands-on” learning exercises paired with discussions of theory seemed to be effective for increasing policy capacity.

Federal and provincial programs for policy capacity in Canada were reviewed to identify themes with respect to the length, structure and content of existing programs. This included the Recruitment of Policy Leaders Program (Government of Canada, 2019, 2020c), the Advanced Policy Analyst Program (Government of Canada, 2015, 2020a), the Policy Analyst Recruitment and Development Program (Government of Canada, 2020b) and the Policy and Program Analyst Post-Secondary Recruitment Campaign (Government of Canada, 2018a).

At the provincial level of government, the policy development stream of the Ontario Internship Program allows interns to complete research and analysis, policy development, stakeholder engagement, legislative and regulatory drafting, program design and program evaluation (Government of Ontario, 2019). Saskatchewan’s Masters of Public Administration Executive Internship Program provides students in the Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy at the University of Regina with internships in policy development. The program pairs students with senior public officials who provide mentorship, coaching and general direction (Government of Saskatchewan, n.d.). Finally, Alberta has partnered with the University of Alberta and University of Calgary to offer the Alberta Policy Internship Program. The program provides students from each university with a 6-month internship in a policy-relevant position. The program is said to help improve the retention of students within the province while also providing them with policy-relevant experience (University of Alberta, 2019).

In comparison to federal programs, the final version of the intervention in PEI was relatively small. The federal government has more resources when compared to provincial governments, arguably more policy capacity in some areas (Howlett and Newman, 2017; Howlett and Wellstead, 2017) and a longer history with institutionalizing policy development functions (Brooks, 2007; Prince and Chenier, 1980). It is perhaps for these reasons that federal programs cover multiple departments and are able to hire more interns. Based on available information, federal programs lack an explicit goal of ensuring that participants learn about and apply policy theory and reflexivity. Drawing on policy analytical capacity, mentorship, and reflexivity—concepts that I learned in my own graduate studies—I wanted to design a program in PEI that simultaneously integrated these concepts and was tailored to the needs of the organization. I believed doing so would help to fill the gap of not having access to theory-informed policy capacity development programs, increase opportunities to improve policy analytical capacity and improve the quality of information available for decision-making.

Policy analytical capacity and applied research

Howlett (2009) discusses policy analytical capacity and ties it to the policy appraisal stage of policy development, where policy workers provide information to policymakers on the advantages and disadvantages of policy options. He writes that policy analytical capacity is “the ability of individuals in a policy-relevant organization to produce valuable policy-relevant literature and analysis on topics asked of them or of their own choosing” (p. 174). Individual capabilities for policy analytical capacity include the ability to apply analytical techniques, communication skills, policy analysis and evaluation skills and planning skills (Howlett, 2018: 52; Wu et al., 2018: 6–7).

Applied research adapts conventional techniques from the social sciences to answer research questions, which lead to solutions for practice-based problems (Thorne, 2016: 11). These skills are taught in Master and Doctor of Public Administration and Public Policy programs in the US and Canada alike (see Godwin and Meek, 2016 for the US and Clark and Pal, 2011 for Canada). The underlying normative moral direction of applied research is toward the “rightness” of finding better ways to achieve a particular outcome (Thorne, 2016: 12). Applied policy research is distinguished from purely theoretical research because of the former’s focus on meeting specific information needs and creating actionable recommendations. More specifically, in public administration, applied research furthers a normative agenda to study issues that administrators find useful and that are related to daily work in the public service (O’Sullivan et al., 2017: xiii).

Based on this understanding of both policy analytical capacity and applied research, the PCDMP intentionally integrated readings and activities that aimed to provide participants with the opportunity to learn about, develop and apply skills in these areas.

Mentorship

When I integrated mentorship into the program, I was conscious of empirical research which showed that mentorship can be ineffective when imposed on participants (Henderson, 1985). However, I also recognized that mentorship in public administration can be beneficial when used as a response to the negative effects of modernization that has encouraged depersonalization in service provision (Samier, 2000). As such, I arrived at an understanding of mentorship as “reflective of more humanistic approaches focussed on valuational, political, and cultural analyses, many of which are part of the post-modern critique” (Samier, 2000: 83). In practice, this means that I avoid any sort of strict structure during mentorship and intentionally try to develop a mentorship relationship that is guided by the participant’s interests and learning goals.

Reflexivity and reflection

Finally, after reviewing the literature, I found that reflexivity and reflection were essential for contemporary policy work. Recent shifts in public management responsibilities are argued to have caused policy development processes to become more complex and ambiguous than before. Practitioners need to be comfortable with sense-making, reflecting on their own practice and identifying and challenging their own assumptions (Quinn, 2013). Reflection, looking at a problem and identifying solutions, and reflexivity, the “process in which we reflect on the consequences of our reflections” (Adriansen and Knudsen, 2013: 111), were important for the design and delivery of the PCDMP. By reflecting on context, I identified gaps in local learning opportunities and a need for the PCDMP. The consequences of this reflection introduced a host of complexities, including larger questions regarding the underlying reasons for gaps in local policy capacity development opportunities, the role of government and academia in policy capacity development and the role of employers versus universities in preparing students for policy-relevant careers.

Heeding Adriansen and Knudsen’s (2013) recommendation, I wanted reflexivity to have an impact not only in the design of the program but also in the day-to-day work of the division. The PCDMP, therefore, intentionally integrates weekly mentorship meetings between myself and the participant, where we can engage in challenging conversations regarding policy work in practice. This is in addition to a weekly learning reflection report completed by the participant, and a final unit that focuses on the concept of reflexivity in public administration.

Elements of the program

Initially, I developed the program to orient staff who were new to the division with the theory and practice of policy work. In subsequent years, I refined the program based on feedback from participants, staff and faculty at the University of Prince Edward Island. I eventually launched the program as a 1-year internship program for recent graduates, shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Logic model for the policy capacity development and mentorship program.

At present, each year, one junior policy analyst is hired by the Department to complete a 12-month work term where they move through structured learning modules while completing policy projects.¹ The junior analyst is located in the Department’s policy division. The Program is also sometimes modified and reduced to suit 3-month internships for undergraduate students or co-operative education placements. As shown in the Online Appendix, the first two modules expose participants to the policy domain they are working in and the practice of policy work. Subsequent modules, where the participant needs to complete a project, such as a jurisdictional scan or policy analysis report, often take upwards of 1 month to complete (depending on the complexity of the project and the junior analyst’s ability to complete work). The program is normally open to individuals with 2 years or less work experience. This experience criteria was chosen to increase opportunities for entry-level policy positions in government and to provide youth with opportunities to gain policy skills for future careers in the civil service.

The readings and activities associated with the program can be modified depending on the department or organization where the PCDMP is occurring. Practitioners working in other departments can replace readings with ones that are applicable to their respective policy domains. The first two modules purposefully assign more readings than other modules. Particularly for participants who come from educational programs where they were not exposed to public policy, the additional readings have been useful in filling gaps in knowledge. As such, I included theoretical and empirical articles that introduced general policy capacity theory and the results of policy capacity studies of government. I have received feedback from participants that they felt that additional readings, while more numerous and time-consuming than other modules, provided them with a solid sense of purpose during the first few weeks of employment. The order of the units can be adjusted, depending on the needs of the organization. I always begin with the first two modules in the order shown and then rearrange the subsequent modules depending on the types of projects which are a priority for the organization.

In designing the program, I drew guidance from academics who have studied optimal skills and knowledge for high levels of policy analytical capacity. Having the analyst complete annotated bibliographies supports familiarization with sources (Flaspohler et al., 2007) and the development of skills for critically evaluating research (Rinto, 2013); both of which are important for policy analytical capacity. Reflective writing assignments are useful for showing participants how to learn in different ways, by encouraging them to question imagined boundaries between their work and personal lives (Dean et al., 2012). The use of briefing notes are a relatively underutilized pedagogical tool, yet they provide an opportunity to foster critical thinking, analytical skills and active learning (Chagas-Bastos and Burges, 2018). Having strong skills to brief ministers and other senior officials is also important for the potential to insert evidence into decision-making at the most senior level of government.

In addition to completing empirical readings, theoretical readings and projects, mentorship occurs throughout the duration of the PCDMP. The junior analyst has weekly meetings with me to discuss what they are learning, challenges they are encountering and future professional development goals. The participant’s experience is documented through weekly learning reflection reports, shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Weekly learning reflection report.

During weekly meetings, the analyst and I discuss the core readings associated with the modules and I help them to make connections between the theory and concepts they are learning and the policy projects they are leading. During meetings, I reference policy capacity theory and challenge the analyst to locate aspects of their activities and learning in the context of policy capacity. I help the analyst to articulate the skills they are learning and how they can describe these skills in future job applications and interviews. By doing this, there is an explicit effort to provide mentorship, fill a theory-practice gap and provide the organization with benefits from the work completed by the junior analyst.

Weekly summary reports and other assignments, where the analyst is required to discuss policy work in theory and practice, also provide an opportunity for the participant to interrogate their personal and professional values against their day-to-day activities (Broussine and Ahmad, 2012), thereby supporting the goal of increasing opportunities for reflexivity in public administration. Furthermore, weekly summaries provide historical knowledge for the participant; they can review the reports over the course of the year to see how their reflections and learning has progressed.

There is indeed an intentional, reflexive thrust to the program. Beginning with mentorship meetings, I encourage the junior analyst to be introspective and critical with the readings and activities they are completing. The final module, “Policy Practice Revisited,” requires that the participant reflects on the learning and activities they completed throughout the program. This module, depending on the educational background of the participant, is often one of the more challenging ones, as the reading on Derrida by Farmer (1997) is particularly complex. The module requires that the participant integrate literature on reflexivity in public administration with the learning and activities they complete during the program. This reflection culminates in a short reflexive paper on the theory and practice of policy work.

Comments provided through the weekly summary reports provide general themes and patterns with respect to how these young professionals adapt to policy-relevant positions. Challenges encountered and subsequently reported by participants typically refer to how “fast-paced” policy work tends to be and the associated challenges of implementing effective time and productivity management systems. Participants also often report on how they have been surprised to learn how broad policy work is, in terms of topics and required skills. At some point during the program, participants tend to realize how important it is for policy analysts to have connections with academia (be it through journals, conferences or meetings with researchers). Finally, without a doubt, all participants that I have mentored through this program have reported that they experienced first-hand the importance of people skills, negotiation and conflict resolution. This final observation provides evidence that, as noted by Gleeson et al. (2011), negotiating tensions is a part of developing organizational policy capacity.

Feedback from participants

Based on a pre- and post-assessment that is completed by participants, feedback indicates that the program is likely having a positive affect on policy analytical capacity to some degree. In 2018, I began to administer a standardized pre- and post-intervention self-assessment questionnaire (up until 2018, only a post-questionnaire was administered). The purpose of administering these questionnaires is to document and understand ways that the PCDMP may have contributed to improving the policy capacity of participants. Table 1 shows the differences in averages for 11 five-point questions in the pre- and post-questionnaire (N = 5). The scale participants use to assess each item is 1 “Strongly Agree,” 2 “Agree,” 3 “Neutral,” 4 “Disagree” and 5 “Strongly Disagree.”

Table 1.

Results from pre- and post-intervention self-assessment questionnaire.

	Pre-Avg.	Post-Avg.	Diff.
I understand Logic Models.	4	1.75	2.25
I can develop a project charter for a policy project.	4	2	2
I understand how to complete a jurisdictional scan for policy research purposes.	3.25	1.5	1.75
I know how to write a briefing note.	3.25	1.5	1.75
I understand Theory of Change.	3.75	2	1.75
I understand how policy decisions are made at the Department.	3.25	1.75	1.5
I understand the function of the Department (e.g., its processes, initiatives, programs, etc.).	3	1.75	1.25
I understand Evaluation Matrices.	3	1.75	1.25
I am familiar with policy practice and essential skills for policy work.	2.75	2	0.75
I understand how to complete a literature review for policy research purposes.	2	1.5	0.5
I know how to complete basic policy analysis.	2.25	2	0.25
The program gave me a realistic experience of the policy career field.	—	1.75	—
I was given adequate training/explanation throughout the program.	—	1.75	—
I had regular meetings with my supervisor.	—	1.75	—
As a result of the program, I have a better understanding of policy concepts, theories, and skills.	—	1.5	—
My supervisor regularly provided constructive, on-going feedback throughout the program.	—	1.5	—
There were ample opportunities for learning during the program.	—	1.25	—
I feel I am better prepared for policy-related careers after this experience.	—	1.25	—

The results of the pre- and post-questionnaire shows that the PCDMP had a positive impact on increasing the policy analytical capacity of participants. Knowledge areas and skills that participants believe were most improved by the intervention included logic models, project charters, jurisdictional research, briefing notes and theory of change. Overall, participants agreed that they were better prepared for policy-careers having completed the PCDMP. These results are contextualized from qualitative feedback provided by participants, shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Feedback from participants.

Notwithstanding that, due to the employer-employee relationship, participants have no choice but to enter into a mentorship arrangement, I have observed that all participants seemed to enjoy meeting regularly to discuss policy development and engage in thoughtful discussions about what they are learning. I also find that each mentorship experience is different. Some participants are mostly interested in receiving career-oriented advice and others more engaged when discussing the general nature and structure of policy development processes.

Conclusion

Practitioner-mentors and academia

Prior to the PCDMP, I believe that like most public administration practitioners, I did not think of my civil service duty in the context of education or learning. Furthermore, when I completed my graduate studies in public policy and entered the workforce, I did not think that government could be a space for experimenting with formal types of educational interventions. Rather, I assumed that learning, in the formal sense, was associated with university classrooms, lectures and with those who held the title of teacher, instructor or professor. While academic-led collaborations with practitioners are important, more thought should be given to practitioner-led collaborations with academia, particularly for the purposes of training development.² Rethinking the academic-practitioner divide as the practitioner-academic divide means that practitioners in leadership roles need to have the skills, knowledge and experience to understand and apply theory and concepts, be familiar with designing basic training interventions that respond to the local context and understand pedagogy and mentorship in public administration. Indeed, entering scholarly spaces and completing a doctoral study can transform the way a civil servant views their workplace (Lloyd-Williams, 2012). Following this line of thinking, analysts with doctorate-level studies in public policy and administration provide benefits for not only the policy development process, but also for new kinds of policy training leadership, approaches and interventions.

Being both a full-time public servant and adjunct faculty with the University of PEI’s Applied Communication, Leadership and Culture Program has been invaluable in further narrowing the gap between theory and practice and in transforming my own practice to include a strong educational and mentorship thrust (see Stapleton, 2018). Not only has my affiliation with a university provided me with access to literature, research and expertise critical for policy development and teaching, but it has also allowed me to connect with students to discuss future careers in public policy. I regularly provide presentations to undergraduate students in the ACLC program where I try to expose students to the theory and practice of policy work and future careers in public policy.

During presentations, I review the PCDMP and encourage students to apply to the Program following graduation. During presentations and discussions with students, I have observed that many are often unaware of how skills developed in Arts programs are directly transferable to public policy careers. Critical thinking, reading, writing, synthesis of information, presentation skills (and so forth) are important for careers in public policy. When I explain to students the type of work that is often completed in policy-relevant careers, they have seemed excited at the prospects of being able to apply what they are learning to future policy work.

Being a practitioner and entering academic spaces is both exciting and sometimes anxiety-provoking. Having completed a PhD, I am aware of the rigor, determination and sheer grit that is required to exist and be successful in academia. While public administration practitioners are familiar with being the foci for various types of scrutiny (e.g., from the tax-paying public, politicians and other), our work is not scrutinized that same way as our academic counterparts. I often find myself spanning the boundary between theory and practice, and occupying the role of scholar-practitioner (Carton and Ungureanu, 2018). This dual position is sometimes uncomfortable, yet often intellectually stimulating, due the need to be constantly reflexive about broader issues such as my own role with methodology and knowledge creation in government. It is not that these issues are entirely unimportant in the context of day-to-day public administration, however, I have observed in practice that the outcomes of public policies are seen by practitioners as being generally more important than process. It is difficult to be both a “good” practitioner and academic simultaneously. Nevertheless, I believe that practitioner-mentors with strong connections to academia are good for public policy. Such connections allow practitioners to enhance their own development and the training and mentorship programs that they are involved with.

While there are benefits in terms of learning outcomes when educational interventions are offered online (see for example Harris and Nikitenko, 2014), I also believe that in-person education can provide the opportunity for more meaningful interactions with peers and a greater sense of connectedness to a program (see also Nollenberger, 2018; Schuhmann and Skopek, 2009). These factors are important for a program such as the PCDMP, where day-to-day interactional mentorship is a primary activity. Therefore, in the future, organizations seeking to increase the policy capacity of staff should consider programs that are in-person, online and blended. Designing a program similar to the PCDMP should be considered by practitioners if their organization has a limited budget and is situated in a jurisdiction without access to professional policy programs. The value of offering these types of programs is that they are tailored to the unique circumstances of the organization and are responsive to local context.

The PCDMP continues to be implemented, reflected on and modified. For all intents and purposes, it is a living document that is welcoming of alternate interpretations, revisions and applications. In the future, I will continue to refine this program and seek out ways to further integrate academic knowledge. I will also seek out connections with other practitioners and academics interested in these types of interventions. In this sense, in the future, the PCDMP will act as a mechanism to facilitate important connections between practitioners, academics mentors and future policy leaders.

Supplemental material

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-tpa-10.1177_01447394211019458 - Training for policy capacity: A practitioner’s reflection on an in-house intervention for civil servants, students, and post-secondary graduates in Canada

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-tpa-10.1177_01447394211019458 for Training for policy capacity: A practitioner’s reflection on an in-house intervention for civil servants, students, and post-secondary graduates in Canada by Bobby Thomas Cameron in Teaching Public Administration

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Bobby Thomas Cameron

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Adriansen

Knudsen

(2013) Two ways to support reflexivity: teaching managers to fulfil an undefined role. Teaching Public Administration 31(1): 108–123.

Ahmad

Nielsen

Raine

, et al. (2013) Special issue on developing the reflexive public manager. Teaching Public Administration 31(1): 3–5.

Behn

(1985) Policy analysts, clients, and social scientists. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 4(3): 428–432.

Brooks

(2007) The policy analysis profession in Canada. In: Dobuzinskis

Howlett

Laycock

(eds) Policy Analysis in Canada: The State of the Art. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Inc., pp. 21–47.

Broussine

Ahmad

(2012) The development of public managers’ reflexive capacities. Teaching Public Administration 31(1): 18–28.

Browne

Coffey

Cook

, et al. (2018) A guide to policy analysis as a research method. Health Promotion International 34(5): 1–13.

Canadian Evaluation Society (2012) Program evaluation standards. Available at: https://evaluationcanada.ca/program-evaluation-standards (accessed 10 April 2021).

Carton

Ungureanu

(2018) Bridging the research–practice divide: a study of scholar-practitioners’ multiple role management strategies and knowledge spillovers across roles. Journal of Management Inquiry 27(4): 436–453.

Chagas-Bastos

Burges

(2018) The “briefing note” as a pedagogical tool for teaching politics and international relations. Journal of Political Science Education 15(2): 237–246.

10.

Clark

Pal

(2011) Master’s of public administration and public policy: an analysis of academic programs and professional competencies in Canada. Croatian and Comparative Public Administration 11(4): 947–984.

11.

Cunliffe

Jun

(2005) The need for reflexivity in public administration. Administration & Society 37(2): 225–242.

12.

Dean

Sykes

Agostinho

, et al. (2012) Reflective assessment in work-integrated learning: to structure or not to structure, that was our question. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education 13(2): 103–113.

13.

Doyle

(2013) How to Write a Briefing Note. Writing for Government. Available at: https://web.uvic.ca/∼sdoyle/E302/Notes/WritingBriefingNotes.html (accessed 10 April 2021).

14.

Farmer

(1997) Derrida, deconstruction, and public administration. American Behavioral Scientist 41(1): 12–27.

15.

Flaspohler

Rux

Flaspohler

(2007) The annotated bibliography and citation behavior: enhancing student scholarship in an undergraduate biology course. CBE Life Sciences Education 6(4): 350–360.

16.

Fowke

(1946) Canadian Agriculture Policy: The Historical Pattern. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

17.

Funnell

Rogers

(2011) Purposeful Program Theory: Effective Use of Theories of Change and Logic Models. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

18.

Gleeson

Legge

O’Neill

, et al. (2011) Negotiating tensions in developing organizational policy capacity: comparative lessons to be drawn. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 13(3): 237–263.

19.

Godwin

Meek

(2016) The scholarly practitioner: connections of research and practice in the classroom. Teaching Public Administration 34(1): 54–69.

20.

Government of Canada (2015) Evaluation of the advanced policy analyst program. Department of Finance. Available at: https://www.fin.gc.ca/treas/evaluations/apap-paap-eng.asp (accessed 10 April 2021).

21.

Government of Canada (2018a) Policy and program analyst post-secondary recruitment campaign. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/corporate/news/policy-program-analyst-post-secondary-recruitment-campaign.html (accessed 10 April 2021).

22.

Government of Canada (2018b) The constitutional distribution of legislative powers. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/intergovernmental-affairs/services/federation/distribution-legislative-powers.html (accessed 10 April 2021).

23.

Government of Canada (2019) Evaluation of the recruitment of policy leaders program. Public Service Commission. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/publications/evaluation-recruitment-policy-leaders-program.html (accessed 10 April 2021).

24.

Government of Canada (2020a) Advanced policy analyst program. Available at: https://www.csps-efpc.gc.ca/Catalogue/programs/apap-eng.aspx (accessed 10 April 2021).

25.

Government of Canada (2020b) Policy analyst recruitment and development program. Natural Resources Canada. Available at: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/nrcan/career-opportunities/programs-graduates/policy-analyst-recruitment-and-development-program/85 (accessed 10 April 2021).

26.

Government of Canada (2020c) Recruitment of policy leaders program. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/jobs/services/recruitment/graduates/recruitment-policy-leaders.html (accessed 10 April 2021).

27.

Government of Ontario (2019) Policy development. Ontario Internship Program. Available at: https://www.internship.gov.on.ca/mbs/sdb/intern.nsf/LkpWebContent/ePublishedPolicy+Development (accessed 10 April 2021).

28.

Government of Prince Edward Island, Department of Finance (2018) 45th Annual Statistical Review 2018. Table 117. Available at: https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/en/publication/annual-statistical-review (accessed 18 May 2021).

29.

Government of Saskatchewan (n.d.) Executive internships. Available at: https://www.schoolofpublicpolicy.sk.ca/students/learning-through-experience/executive-internships.php (accessed 10 April 2021).

30.

Harris

Nikitenko

(2014) Comparing online with brick and mortar course learning outcomes: an analysis of quantitative methods curriculum in public administration. Teaching Public Administration 32(1): 95–107.

31.

Hartley

Kuecker

Woo

(2019) Practicing public policy in an age of disruption. Policy Design and Practice 2(2): 163–181.

32.

Henderson

(1985) Enlightened mentoring: a characteristic of public management professionalism. Public Administration Review 45(6): 857–863.

33.

Hendrigan

(2020) Literature Reviews in the Applied Sciences. British Columbia: Simon Fraser University Library. Available at: https://www.lib.sfu.ca/about/branches-depts/rc/services/workshops/science-lit-review (accessed 10 April 2021).

34.

Herman

(2013) Tips for Writing Policy Papers. Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, Stanford University. Available at: https://www-cdn.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/White-Papers-Guidelines.pdf (accessed 18 May 2021).

35.

Howlett

(2009) Policy analytical capacity and evidence-based policy-making: lessons from Canada. Canadian Public Administration 52(2): 153–175.

36.

Howlett

(2018) Policy analytical capacity: the supply and demand for policy analysis in government. In: Wu

Howlett

Ramesh

(eds) Policy Capacity and Governance: Assessing Governmental Competences and Capabilities in Theory and Practice. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 49–66.

37.

Howlett

Newman

(2017) Policy analysis and policy work at the provincial and territorial level: demographics and description. In: Howlett

Wellstead

Craft

(eds) Policy Work in Canada: Professional Practices and Analytical Capacities. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 87–99.

38.

Howlett

Wellstead

(2017) Differences in federal and provincial policy analysis. In: Howlett

Wellstead

Craft

(eds) Policy Work in Canada: Professional Practices and Analytical Capacities. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 58–76.

39.

International Development Research Centre, World Health Organization and EVIPNet (2011) Policy brief writing workshop on human resources for health. Available at: https://www.who.int/evidence/capacity_building/workshops/CRDIPBWorkshop.pdf?ua=1 (accessed 18 May 2021).

40.

Johns

(2008) Case studies and the case study method in Canadian public administration. In: Rasmussen

Siegel

(eds) Professionalism & Public Service: Essays in Honour of Kenneth Kernaghan. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 304–327.

41.

Kilian

Nidumolu

Lavis

(2016) Jurisdictional scans in policy making: a critical interpretive synthesis. Presentation at the Emerging Health Policy Research Conference. Australia: Menzies Center for Health Policy. Available at: https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/15695 (accessed 18 May 2021).

42.

Knowlton

Philips

(2013) The Logic Model Guidebook: Better Strategies for Great Results. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

43.

Lah

(2017) Factors of change: the influence of policy environment factors on climate change mitigation strategies in the transport sector. Transportation Research Procedia 25: 3495–3510.

44.

Lloyd-Williams

(2012) Taking it back to the office: a practitioner perspective of the value of a PhD. Teaching Public Administration 30(1): 54–58.

45.

Mackay

Shaxton

(n.d.) Understanding and Applying Basic Public Policy Concepts. Available at: https://www.politicipublice.ro/uploads/understanding_public_policy.pdf (accessed 18 May 2021).

46.

McKeever

(2006) The project charter—blueprint for success. CrossTalk: The Journal of Defense Software Engineering 19(1): 6–9.

47.

McKenna

(2014) Deputy ministers in Prince Edward Island. In: Bourgault

Dunn

(eds) Deputy Ministers in Canada: Comparative and Jurisdictional Perspectives. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 72–99.

48.

Nollenberger

(2018) On-campus versus hybrid courses in a master of public administration program. Journal of Public Affairs Education 23(1): 625–636.

49.

OECD (2017) Skills for a high performing civil service: highlights. OECD Public Governance Reviews. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/gov/skills-for-a-high-performing-civil-service-9789264280724-en.htm (accessed 10 April 2021).

50.

O’Sullivan

Rassel

Berner

, et al. (2017) Research Methods for Public Administrators, 6th edn. New York, NY: Routledge.

51.

Owen

Connor

Linger

, et al. (2017) Developing Government Policy Capability: Policy Work, Project Management and Knowledge Practices. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.

52.

Peters

(2018) Policy capacity in public administration. In: Wu

Howlett

Ramesh

(eds) Policy Capacity and Governance: Assessing Governmental Competences and Capabilities in Theory and Practice. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 29–48.

53.

Prince

Chenier

(1980) The rise and fall of policy planning and research units: organizational perspective. Canadian Public Administration 23(4): 519–541.

54.

Public Sector Writing (n.d.) How to Write Briefing Notes. Available at: https://www.publicsectorwriting.com/?page_id=6 (accessed 10 April 2021).

55.

Quinn

(2013) Reflexivity and education for public managers. Teaching Public Administration 31(1): 6–17.

56.

Rinto

(2013) Developing and applying an information literacy rubric to student annotated bibliographies. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 8(3): 5–18.

57.

Samier

(2000) Public administration mentorship: conceptual and pragmatic considerations. Journal of Educational Administration 38(1): 83–101.

58.

Sandfort

Gerdes

(2017) The design, pedagogy and practice of an integrated public affairs leadership course. Teaching Public Administration 35(1): 50–65.

59.

Schuhmann

Skopek

(2009) Blurring the lines: a blended learning model in a graduate public administration program. Quarterly Review of Distance Education 10(2): 219–232.

60.

Skogstad

(2008) Internationalization and Canadian Agriculture: Policy and Governing Paradigms. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

61.

Stapleton

(2018) UPEI Arts Graduate Giving Back in a Big Way. Charlottetown: University of Prince Edward Island Spotlights. Available at: https://www.upei.ca/communications/spotlight/2018/08/upei-arts-graduate-giving-back-big-way (accessed 18 May 2021).

62.

Straussman

(2019) Reflections on bridging the academic/practitioner divide: “drugs and thugs” as a case study. Teaching Public Administration 37(2): 147–155.

63.

Taylor

(2006) The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting It. Toronto: University of Toronto, Health Sciences Writing Centre. Available at: https://advice.writing.utoronto.ca/types-of-writing/literature-review/ (accessed 10 April 2021).

64.

Thorne

(2016) Interpretive description: Qualitative research for applied practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

65.

Timmer

(1991) The role of the state in agricultural development. In: Timmer

(ed.) Agriculture and the State: Growth, Employment, and Poverty in Developing Countries. London: Cornell University Press, pp. 1–28.

66.

Uneke

Ezeoha

Uro-Chukwu

, et al. (2015) Enhancing the capacity of policy-makers to develop evidence-informed policy brief on infectious diseases of poverty in Nigeria. International Journal of Health Policy and Management 4(9): 599–610.

67.

Uneke

Sombie

Uro-Chukwu

, et al. (2018) Promoting evidence informed policymaking for maternal and child health in Nigeria: lessons from a knowledge translation workshop. Health Promotion Perspectives 8(1): 63–70.

68.

University of Alberta (2019) Alberta policy internship program launched. Available at: https://www.ualberta.ca/arts/faculty-news/2019/november/alberta-policy-internship-program-launched (accessed 10 April 2021).

69.

Wachsmuth

Larocque

(2013) Translating research findings into policy briefs. Available at: https://www.who.int/evidence/ReportAHSIWorkshopTanzania.pdf (accessed 18 May 2021).

70.

Wachsmuth-Huguet

(2011a) Evipnet Policy Brief Workshop on Nutrition. EVIPNet Report. Available at: https://www.who.int/evidence/capacity_building/workshops/NutritionMadagascar.pdf (accessed 18 May 2021).

71.

Wachsmuth-Huguet

(2011b) Pedagogical Skills for Trainers of Policy Makers. EVIPNet Report. Available at: https://www.who.int/evidence/capacity_building/workshops/PedagogicalSkillstrainers.pdf?ua=1 (accessed 18 May 2021).

72.

West Africa Civil Society Institute and Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (2012) Policy Research Methodology Training Workshop for Civil Society Actors in West Africa. Accra, Ghana: WACSI Secretariat. Available at: https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/ghana_workshop_report.pdf (accessed 18 May 2021).

73.

Wholey

(1996) Formative and summative evaluation: related issues in performance management. American Journal of Evaluation 17(2): 145–149.

74.

Ramesh

Howlett

(2015) Policy capacity: a conceptual framework for understanding policy competences and capabilities. Policy and Society 34(3–4): 165–171.

75.

Ramesh

Howlett

(2018) Policy capacity: conceptual framework and essential components. In: Wu

Howlett

Ramesh

(eds) Policy Capacity and Governance: Assessing Governmental Competences and Capabilities in Theory and Practice. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–25.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.17 MB