The notion of "policy sciences" may have different connotations. According to Harold Laswell (1971), “policy sciences are concerned with the knowledge of and in the decision processes of the public and civic order.” Knowledge of decision processes points to the empirical and scientific understanding of the how policies are made and executed. Empirical knowledge pertains to those generated through scientific inquiry ad observation as applied to decision processes.
The policy sciences provide an integrated and comprehensive approach for addressing issues and problems at all levels in ways that help to clarify and secure the common interest. Helping people make better decisions is the central objective of the policy sciences, and the fundamental goal is to foster a commonwealth of human dignity for all. Alexander G. Flor, Ph.D., one of the esteemed development communicators in the Philippines and also a full professor at the University of the Philippines Open University, points out that "policy scientists or policy analysts are involved not only in the scientific design, formulation, analysis and evaluation of policies. They are also concerned with the study of the policy making process itself." Flor advocates that "if indeed communication and information are to be efficiently and effectively utilized in the development process, then policies are needed to direct their use for the achievement of the highest social good."
The term “policy sciences” is in plural form to emphasize its interdisciplinary nature. It recognizes the multiplicity of factors affecting certain problems and multi-dimensions of certain phenomenon that is subject to decision processes. As such, the emphasis of policy sciences is on applying scientific or empirical evidences in understanding problems so that more realistic, responsive and effective interventions are identified and implemented. Since a problem is multi-dimensional, various scientific disciplines are needed to form a comprehensive analysis of a certain phenomenon.
Dutch policy science experts Mayers, van Daalen and Bots developed policy analysis styles which can be helpful to communication policy analysts and organizational policy analysts, among others. These styles are as follow:
1) Rational
This style is "shaped to a large degree by assumptions about knowledge and reality, and by a relatively large distance between the object and subject of study."
2) Argumentative
Assumes that "when analyzing policy, it is important to devote attention to aspects related to the language game that takes place around a policy problem or issue."
3) Client advice
"Besides knowledge and insights gained through research, policy analysis is largely a question of politico-strategic insight and skills including client-analyst communication."
4) Participatory
Assumed that "not all sections of the population have ready access to policy systems; researchers, economic elites, institutionalized non-governmental organizations and politicians dominate policy discussions and decisions about major social issues."
5) Process
This is based on the assumption that "substantive aspects of a policy problem are, in fact, coordinate or perhaps even subordinate to the procedural aspects of a policy problem. The analyst or process manager creates ‘loose coupling’ of procedural aspects and substantive aspects of a problem."
6) Interactive
This style assumes that "individuals – experts, analysts, clients, stakeholders and target groups – have or may have differing views of the ‘same’ policy problem. An insight relevant to policy can be obtained by bringing about a confrontation and interaction of different views."
The styles mentioned above are based on underlying values and orientations, which determine in what way a policy analyst or others will
view the quality of the policy analysis study and the criteria that will be applied to examine it. According to Mayer et al. these criteria can be made explicit by addressing the following questions:
• Rational style. What is good knowledge?
• Argumentative style. What is good for the debate?
• Client advice style. What is good for the client/problem owner?
• Participatory style. What is good for democratic society?
• Process style. What is good for the process?
• Interactive style. What is good for mutual understanding?