Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 27, No. 2, 449–452 (2008)© 2008 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com)DOI: 10.1002/pam.20336

Anand Desai

Moderating the Debate: Rationality and the Promise of American Education, by MichaelJ. Feuer, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2006, 131 pp., $24.95, paperback.

Nearly all the readers of this journal are familiar with Simon’s notions of “satisfic-ing” and bounded rationality and Williamson’s work on transaction costs; fewer per-haps are familiar with Simon’s conjecture on complexity or with recent advances incognitive science and their implications for our understanding of learning and itsassessment; and probably most are unfamiliar with the concept of NP-hard prob-lems and computational feasibility. Fewer still would have thought to insert anexample on preventive maintenance to illustrate and help synthesize these conceptsinto a narrative that would illuminate the path toward pragmatic and potentiallybetter education policy.

Moderating the Debate: Rationality and the Promise of American Education is a“plea for rationality in the organization, production, and utilization of knowledgefor education policy and reform” (p. 97). Feuer argues and demonstrates that, inspite of complexity and bounded rationality, it is possible, by drawing lessons fromcognitive science, behavioral economics, and organization theory, to develop a con-ceptual framework that would yield procedurally rational education policies. Infewer than a 100 pages—97, to be precise—Michael Feuer explains aspects of theabove-mentioned concepts, and a few more, that are relevant to his framework andweaves them together with a few well-chosen examples to propose a “compactaimed at better coexistence among researchers and users of research” (p. 97). Thisbook is a deceptively easy read. Feuer is a gifted synthesizer and is remarkably dis-ciplined at staying close to his main argument. Reading this book is like being on aroller coaster. Feuer picks us up at one place, whips us through various twists andturns, over peaks and valleys, and drops us off at a different location so deftly thatit is easy to miss the nuanced arguments that make up the framework of the under-lying superstructure. For those without the intestinal fortitude, roller coaster rides

Eugene B. McGregor, Jr.,Editor

Book Review

Note to Book Publishers: Please send all books for review directly to the IncomingBook Review Editor, Eugene B. McGregor, Jr., Indiana University, School of Public &Environmental Affairs, 1315 E. 10th Street, Bloomington, IN 47405-1701.

PAM272_16_20336.qxd 2/27/08 4:25 PM Page 449

450 / Book Review

can be unsettling. An attentive perusal of the book can similarly shake up some ofthe foundational beliefs of policy scholars by making them think critically about theconduct and use of policy research.

Feuer appeals for moderation in the policy debate on education and proposeshow that might be achieved. However, the implications of his proposals for howresearchers should conduct public policy research might be perceived to be some-what radical. To illustrate and for want of a better place to start, I’ll consider hisfirst proposal, that researchers should not focus so much on optimal solutions butinstead strive for reasonable outcomes. My interpretation of this proposal is that weneed to reconsider how we conduct and report public policy research. If we are toescape from facile reductionist models that yield elegant optimal solutions andmove toward attempts to fathom the complexities of the context, we will have torethink what we consider good policy research and alter our research designs.To speak knowledgably and authoritatively about education policy, we will have toengage, as do education researchers, in the messiness and ambiguity that teachersand school administrators deal with on a regular basis. Under these rules of engage-ment, the conclusions—say, in my doctoral dissertation about the effectiveness ofremedial programs in an urban school district—would be summarily dismissed forlack of credibility. In spite of having conducted a rigorous and robust analysis ofthousands of student scores, I had no understanding or appreciation of the untidi-ness from which these sanitized data had been obtained, for I had never set foot inan urban classroom and had not thought to pay attention to the complex parent-student-teacher-administrator transactions that made those remedial programswork. If we truly aspire to have our policy recommendations taken seriously bythose who are to implement them, then we will have to move to an approach to con-ducting policy research that purposefully embraces the dynamic complexities thatembody the policy context.

I like this slim volume but wonder about our readiness to seriously considerimplementing his proposals. Feuer is asking of us to have the maturity and confi-dence to develop our own norms for good policy research. For many among us,these norms might not compare favorably with the norms of the high theory-driven,high-status social and behavioral sciences. We are too enamored of complexity-eschewing formalism; when we review articles for potential publication, we insiston tidy conclusions deductively derived from theory; we want authoritative infer-ences from lousy data; we seem to prefer clever arguments with precise claims overtentative recommendations from thoughtful descriptions of messy situations. Andyet, I do not think Feuer goes far enough. Procedural rationality will not get uswhere he wants to lead us. We will have to find ways to incorporate political, sub-stantive, ethical, and legal rationalities in our syntheses if we are to embrace thecomplexity we know is at the heart of the public policy issues we hope to address.

Simply reading Feuer’s main text is like riding the roller coaster with one’s eyesclosed. It would still be thrilling, but one would miss the panoramic views, not seethe adjoining terrain, and not get to vicariously experience some of the other ridesthat one could later explore. As I mentioned earlier, Feuer is good at keeping to hismain argument, but in so doing, he raises many interesting issues without fully delv-ing into them. He hints at paths that are worth exploring but chooses not to mapthem out to help the reader discover where they might lead. However, he is notentirely heartless. He does provide some insight into where these unexplored path-ways might lead by adroitly using endnotes not only to direct the reader to thesource materials but also to provide the main warrants of the underlying arguments.To enjoy the full experience of this book, it is essential to dip into the endnotes.

The materials he relegates to the endnotes are not trivial digressions. Considerfor instance, note 38 at the end of Chapter 3, which directs the reader to a reference

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pamPublished on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management

PAM272_16_20336.qxd 2/27/08 4:25 PM Page 450

Book Review / 451

for “. . . a potentially useful theoretical foundation for the integration for conse-quences in models of validation . . .” (p. 122). This seemingly innocuous statementpertains to the criteria we might use for determining what is a valid measure for thepurposes of policy research. Tracking down this reference and its use in a policydocument leads one to the debate on the use of paper-and-pencil tests of “individ-ual honesty” in making hiring decisions. As a society, we have no problems withtesting people so that we can locate them on the moron-genius continuum. How-ever, we appear to be squeamish about sorting people on the honesty continuum.We have therefore deemed that, except under a set of reasonably restrictive circum-stances, we should not conduct tests to determine an individual’s penchant for dis-honest behavior. The issue here is not the face, construct, concurrent, predictive, orsome other form of validity of the honesty measure. For public policy purposes, wehave added another criterion for judging the validity of a measure. We have intro-duced the concept of consequential validity and seem to be suggesting that if we donot like the consequences of conducting a measurement, then we might deem theensuing measure invalid. That is a nontrivial reconceptualization of validity.

That endnote was not picked at random and it is not unique in the kind of think-ing and revaluation it provokes. In fact, the book has a number of implicit andexplicit invitations to reevaluate basic concepts and research practices that mightbe considered settled and uncontroversial. Feuer would have us conduct thoughtexperiments. For instance, he would want us to explore how our research mightchange if we were to attribute improved practices to evolutionary change ratherthan purposeful choices.

It is here that I will express some dissatisfaction with the book. I wish Feuer hadbeen less efficient in succinctly presenting his arguments and had elaborated uponhis perceptions of the epistemological and ontological basis of education policy and,by extension, public policy research. It is clear that he does not strictly adhere to thepositivist paradigm; he considers values to be legitimate ingredients of policyresearch and his proposals are a plea for a different research praxis. There are manyreasons why I wish Feuer had been more expansive. It would be useful to understandwhy he holds these opinions. I expect some of his opinions have been informed andformed by the rich and diverse discussions at the National Research Council panelson education and education policy. Understanding the why might, by proxy, yieldsome insights into where the leading thinkers in the field stand on issues such as thecontributions of cognitive science to the development of public polices or whether arational approach would be sufficient to lead us to desired outcomes.

I will reframe my dissatisfaction as a hope. Feuer gave the Burton and Inglis Lec-tures, on which this book is based, near the end of his tenure as the director of theCenter for Education in the National Research Council at the National Academies. Heis now executive director of the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Edu-cation in the National Research Council. With this new perch, his horizon is muchfarther and the scope and span of his purview wider and deeper. I hope he keeps goodnotes on the discussions and debates at the expert panels he convenes, and maybetoward the end of his tenure, he will use his considerable narrative and synthesisskills to elaborate on and clarify the then-current thinking on public policy research.

In the meantime, read Moderating the Debate. Although the context of the book iseducation policy, it has broader appeal. One can read it as a quick and engagingromp through a variety of concepts that, taken together, can bring more light andless heat to education policy debates. A thorough reading should provoke anyonewith a stake in public policy research into rethinking some cherished preconcep-tions about the nature of basic and applied research; how sound public policyresearch could be conducted, reported, and used; and whether pragmatism is anappropriate criterion for judging the quality of such research.

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pamPublished on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management

PAM272_16_20336.qxd 2/27/08 4:25 PM Page 451

452 / Book Review

In this book, I have not found much to be critical about, nor have I found anyfatal flaws in the arguments. I do not know of all the responsibilities of a reviewerand do not wish to be seen as a traitor to the reviewer’s creed or, worse, have thisapparent lack of critical discernment be attributed to the fact that I have knownMichael Feuer since we were graduate students together. So, I shall be picky and inthe process perhaps offend many. On page 23, Feuer quotes Simon, “It is onlybecause individual human beings are limited in knowledge, foresight and skill, andtime that organizations are useful instruments for the achievement of human pur-pose.” And, in the following sentence, Feuer writes, “Williamson expanded on thisobservation in the context of transaction costs.” Without detracting in any fashionfrom Williamson’s considerable contributions, I would argue that by focusing oneconomic transactions alone, Williamson did not expand but instead prematurelynarrowed the original conceptualization of transactions offered by Commons in theearly part of the last century. By adopting an approach that embraces complexityand incorporates the broader (Commons) notion of transactions and their costs andbenefits, policy studies could have yielded analyses and eventual syntheses of dif-ferent types of rationalities, in addition to procedural rationality. Following thatroute and not limiting ourselves to economic transactions might have got us fasterto studying the rich complexity of organizational transactions and their interde-pendencies. However, that is history. The new hope is that Feuer’s proposals willlead us to outcomes that are good enough while we remain open to the possibilityof learning and adapting in the future.

ANAND DESAI is Professor in the John Glenn School of Public Affairs at The OhioState University.

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pamPublished on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management

PAM272_16_20336.qxd 2/27/08 4:25 PM Page 452