Descriptor
| Debate | 3 |
| Decision Making | 3 |
| Research | 3 |
| Study | 3 |
| Higher Education | 2 |
| Public Policy | 2 |
| Decision Making Skills | 1 |
| Evaluative Thinking | 1 |
| Information Needs | 1 |
| Information Seeking | 1 |
| Policy Formation | 1 |
| More ▼ | |
Source
| Journal of the American… | 3 |
Publication Type
| Journal Articles | 3 |
| Opinion Papers | 3 |
Education Level
Audience
Location
Laws, Policies, & Programs
Assessments and Surveys
What Works Clearinghouse Rating
Peer reviewedHynes, Thomas J., Jr. – Journal of the American Forensic Association, 1985
Challenges the arguments raised in the previous article (CS 706 820). Maintains that in broad issues of public policy--usually the center of attention for competitive debaters--it is difficult to prove that further research will improve or alter the outcome of public policy. (PD)
Descriptors: Debate, Decision Making, Higher Education, Public Policy
Peer reviewedShelton, Michael W. – Journal of the American Forensic Association, 1985
Addresses charges that have been raised against using the study counterplan in academic debate and in real-world decision making. Concludes that accumulating information enhances the basis of decision making, a basis that is utilized and ensured through the counterplan. (PD)
Descriptors: Debate, Decision Making, Higher Education, Information Seeking
Peer reviewedHynes, Thomas J., Jr. – Journal of the American Forensic Association, 1980
Examines the premise that increased research provides important contributions to decision making. The study counterplan assumes that information can be developed in a way manageable to the policymaker, that study can assist in choosing from a variety of competing values, and that thoroughly researched decisions will be procedurally superior. (JMF)
Descriptors: Debate, Decision Making, Decision Making Skills, Evaluative Thinking
