Critical Public Policy Scholarship and Social Justice
This paper critically reviews assigned readings in public policy scholarship to assess whether their concepts, assumptions, and arguments constitute genuine critical public policy scholarship. It evaluates how those arguments reveal the social justice impacts of public policy on excluded and marginalized groups, with particular attention to mass incarceration of African-American males, the war on drugs, and intersecting axes of race and gender. The paper also examines why minority inclusion programs such as affirmative action have proven ineffective in assisting Black women in male-dominated sectors like oil and gas, concluding that meaningful change requires reframing these issues as moral questions for the American public.
- Introduction: Overview of paper scope and research questions
- Concepts and Arguments as Critical Public Policy Scholarship: Evaluating readings against criteria for critical policy scholarship
- Social Justice Impacts on Excluded and Marginalized Groups: How policies harm marginalized communities and families
- Minority Inclusion Programs and Black Women in Oil and Gas: Why affirmative action fails Black women in male-dominated sectors
- Conclusion: Moral reframing required for equitable policy change
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper integrates multiple scholarly sources across disciplines — law reviews, public health, and policy theory — to build a coherent, evidence-grounded argument rather than relying on a single perspective.
- Direct quotations are used strategically to anchor each analytical point in the primary literature, giving the argument intellectual credibility and traceable evidence.
- The paper moves logically from theory (what constitutes critical public policy scholarship) to applied analysis (social justice impacts, affirmative action outcomes), showing how abstract concepts map onto real-world policy failures.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates source synthesis: rather than summarizing each reading in isolation, the writer draws connections across Roberts (2004), Alexander (2010), Collins (1989), Crenshaw (1991), and Hankivsky & Christoffersen (2008) to show how different lenses — criminal justice, feminist theory, intersectionality, and health policy — converge on a shared diagnosis of systemic marginalization. This cross-source synthesis is the hallmark of graduate-level policy analysis.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a three-part analytical structure framed by an introduction and conclusion. Section 1 evaluates whether the readings qualify as critical public policy scholarship using Smith and Larimer's criteria. Section 2 assesses how those readings expose social justice harms for excluded groups. Section 3 narrows the focus to a specific applied problem — the ineffectiveness of minority inclusion programs for Black women in oil and gas. The conclusion ties all three threads together with a normative argument about moral framing as a precondition for policy change.
Introduction
Despite significant progress in addressing institutionalized racism and other public policies that operate to the disadvantage of oppressed and marginalized groups, the recent upsurge in race-related incidents across the country underscores the fact that much more remains to be done to eliminate these oppressive and inequitable policies from American society. This paper provides a critical review of assigned readings to assess the extent to which the concepts, assumptions, and arguments they present constitute an example of public policy scholarship. It also offers a critical assessment of the extent to which those arguments reveal the social justice impacts of public policy on groups that are excluded and marginalized. Finally, the paper explains how the argument that minority inclusion programs are ineffective in truly assisting Black women in the oil and gas sector follows from the readings, before summarizing key findings in the conclusion.
References
Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York: The New Press.
Cho, S., Crenshaw, K. W., & McCall, L. (2013, Summer). Toward a field of intersectionality. Signs, 38(4), 785–810.
Collins, P. H. (1989, Summer). The social construction of black feminist thought. Signs, 14(4), 745–773.
Crenshaw, K. (1991, July). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299.
Hankivsky, O., & Christoffersen, A. (2008, September). Intersectionality and the determinants of health: A Canadian perspective. Critical Public Health, 18(3), 271–283.
Roberts, D. E. (2004, April). The social and moral cost of mass incarceration in African-American communities. Stanford Law Review, 56, 1271–1305.
Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. University Press of Kansas.
Smith, K. B. (2013). The public policy theory primer. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.