CALL FOR PROPOSALS
Special Issue on Diagnostic Methods in Policy-Making: Abductive Reasoning in Policy Analysis, Practice and Pedagogy
Eds. M. Ramesh and Michael Howlett

Policy analysts routinely work with incomplete information, seeking to diagnosis problems and generate explanations that best account for observed behaviour and outcomes within the limitations imposed by imperfect knowledge. This diagnostic process is often based on abductive reasoning and involves "inference to the best explanation". Differing fundamentally from the deductive logic and inductive generalizations often suggested to constitute policy best-practice, abduction allows plausible hypotheses that can diagnose and explain puzzling phenomena to be generated quickly when knowledge is imperfect and time is short.

Diagnostic reasoning of this type has its philosophical roots in Peirce's pragmatism and has been found to play a crucial role in scientific discovery. Although central to policy practice, it is rarely cited or examined, or even acknowledged in the policy sciences. It nevertheless plays a crucial role enabling analysts to diagnose problems, identify causal pathways from fragmented evidence, and develop coherent narratives linking symptoms to underlying causes and policy action. This special issue addresses this gap by advancing both theoretical understandings and practical application of abductive methods in policy analysis. 

We invite contributions in any of four main areas of research and inquiry:

1. Epistemological Foundations and Implications of Diagnostic Reasoning. How does diagnostic reasoning based on abductive principles shape what counts as valid policy knowledge? Contributions might examine such topics as the standards for evaluating diagnostic inference, the relationships between abduction and other analytical approaches to diagnosis, or implications for how evidence and analytical validity are constructed in policy work.

2. Methods and Techniques for Diagnostic Policy Analysis. What established and emerging methods support systematic diagnostic/abductive reasoning? We welcome papers on established analytical methods (including process tracing, abductive-oriented grounded theory, qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), case-based reasoning and others) and techniques such as contrastive explanation, mechanism identification, hypothesis scaffolding, rival explanations, as well as innovations such as enhanced pattern recognition, AI-enabled hypothesis-testing, and stakeholder integration approaches, among others.

3. Empirical Applications and Experimentation. How does diagnostic reasoning operate in specific policy contexts? We seek empirical studies demonstrating how policymakers reason from incomplete evidence to identify emerging problems, how hypothesis generation and testing occur in crisis response and routine decision processes, how analysts manage political risk and communicate uncertainty through policy experiments, and how organizational structures and political contexts enable or constrain abduction-based diagnostic reasoning.

4. Applied and Pedagogical Dimensions. How can abductive reasoning and diagnostic capabilities be developed and strengthened at all levels of policy-making? We seek contributions on teaching diagnostic reasoning in policy curricula, building organizational capabilities for abductive analysis, developing knowledge management systems for capturing diagnostic insights, professional development approaches for practicing analysts, and developing communities of practice that enhance diagnostic skills.

Interested authors should submit an abstract of up to 500 words that outlines the central question addressed and shows how the paper contributes to better understanding policy diagnosis and abductive reasoning.

Please send proposals to policy-and-society@nus.edu.sg by May 1, 2026. Include "Proposal for P&S Special Issue on Policy Diagnosis" in the email subject line.