Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Postmodernism and Social Policy: a small step f...
View graph of relations

Postmodernism and Social Policy: a small step forwards?

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Postmodernism and Social Policy: a small step forwards? / Hedley-Penna, Susan; O'Brien, Martin.

In: Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 25, No. 1, 1996, p. 39-61.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Hedley-Penna, S & O'Brien, M 1996, 'Postmodernism and Social Policy: a small step forwards?', Journal of Social Policy, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 39-61. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279400000052

APA

Vancouver

Hedley-Penna S, O'Brien M. Postmodernism and Social Policy: a small step forwards? Journal of Social Policy. 1996;25(1):39-61. doi: 10.1017/S0047279400000052

Author

Hedley-Penna, Susan ; O'Brien, Martin. / Postmodernism and Social Policy: a small step forwards?. In: Journal of Social Policy. 1996 ; Vol. 25, No. 1. pp. 39-61.

Bibtex

@article{00bd89aa29e245bc887765a1cadb5d1d,
title = "Postmodernism and Social Policy: a small step forwards?",
abstract = "The term {\textquoteleft}postmodernism{\textquoteright} has recently entered the study of social policy, prompting debate over its usefulness for social policy analysis. Peter Taylor-Gooby's (1994) appraisal of literatures often described as {\textquoteleft}postmodern{\textquoteright} leads him to reject them as having little to offer the discipline of social policy. This article argues that such a view derives from a confusion about the field of {\textquoteleft}postmodernism{\textquoteright}; in particular, from a conflation of several different theoretical positions and schools of thought. This article provides a clarification of these literatures in order to argue that the issues they raise have important implications for the way in which we might understand the prospects for policy formulation and implementation. The article distinguishes between the political economy strand of the {\textquoteleft}post{\textquoteright} literatures – postindustrialism and postfordism – and the cultural studies strand – poststructuralism and postmodernism – showing that the different issues they highlight, and the ways in which they conceptualise power and control will lead to different theoretical connections between social policy and political action.",
author = "Susan Hedley-Penna and Martin O'Brien",
year = "1996",
doi = "10.1017/S0047279400000052",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "39--61",
journal = "Journal of Social Policy",
issn = "0047-2794",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Postmodernism and Social Policy: a small step forwards?

AU - Hedley-Penna, Susan

AU - O'Brien, Martin

PY - 1996

Y1 - 1996

N2 - The term ‘postmodernism’ has recently entered the study of social policy, prompting debate over its usefulness for social policy analysis. Peter Taylor-Gooby's (1994) appraisal of literatures often described as ‘postmodern’ leads him to reject them as having little to offer the discipline of social policy. This article argues that such a view derives from a confusion about the field of ‘postmodernism’; in particular, from a conflation of several different theoretical positions and schools of thought. This article provides a clarification of these literatures in order to argue that the issues they raise have important implications for the way in which we might understand the prospects for policy formulation and implementation. The article distinguishes between the political economy strand of the ‘post’ literatures – postindustrialism and postfordism – and the cultural studies strand – poststructuralism and postmodernism – showing that the different issues they highlight, and the ways in which they conceptualise power and control will lead to different theoretical connections between social policy and political action.

AB - The term ‘postmodernism’ has recently entered the study of social policy, prompting debate over its usefulness for social policy analysis. Peter Taylor-Gooby's (1994) appraisal of literatures often described as ‘postmodern’ leads him to reject them as having little to offer the discipline of social policy. This article argues that such a view derives from a confusion about the field of ‘postmodernism’; in particular, from a conflation of several different theoretical positions and schools of thought. This article provides a clarification of these literatures in order to argue that the issues they raise have important implications for the way in which we might understand the prospects for policy formulation and implementation. The article distinguishes between the political economy strand of the ‘post’ literatures – postindustrialism and postfordism – and the cultural studies strand – poststructuralism and postmodernism – showing that the different issues they highlight, and the ways in which they conceptualise power and control will lead to different theoretical connections between social policy and political action.

U2 - 10.1017/S0047279400000052

DO - 10.1017/S0047279400000052

M3 - Journal article

VL - 25

SP - 39

EP - 61

JO - Journal of Social Policy

JF - Journal of Social Policy

SN - 0047-2794

IS - 1

ER -