Editorial
Priest and Jester in the policy sciences: Developing the focus of inquiry 'But I will tarry; the fool will stay, And let the wise man fly' King Lear The contrasting images of priest and jester capture a key tension often characteristic of intellectual life. Performing the role of 'guardian" according to Leszek Kolakowski, 'the priest' is one who 'sustains the cult of the final and the obvious' while 'the jester,' in contrast, 'doubts all that appears selfevident "1 The priest follows tradition, the jester is impertinent. The priest prizes unity, form, and closure. The jester, perhaps appearing ludicrous, is a friend of openness, paradox, and diversity.
The tension between priest and jester would appear inescapable in any vital intellectual endeavor, for each possesses virtues necessary in developing the focus of inquiry. Without the priest there can be no coherent focus; without the jester, no lively challenge for development,
In the domain of the policy sciences, the tension between priest and jester is typically resolved in favor of the priest, so that the jester perhaps needs encouragement. In the context of the policy orientation, indeed, one line from Kolakowski gains special significance: 'There are,' he observes, 'more priests than jesters at a king's court... ' (p. 35).
A key editorial issue is whether to promote overall consistency and coherence, or to encourage diversity and its attendant clash and interplay of perspectives. One solution would be to seek a better balance between priest and jester, though even this would perhaps prejudge the issue in favor of the priest; for the role of the jester is always to insist upon a better imbalance.
Diversity has, in any case, been a keynote of Policy Sciences since the inception of the journal. This was what E. S. Quade promised readers in his editorial for the inaugural issue: there would be 'contributions reflecting all aspects of the policy sciences in all forms -thinkpieces, case studies, ideological essays, tirades, and historical surveys ' (1970, p. 2). Some years later the next editor, Garry Brewer (1974), reinforced the emerging pattern in both word and deed. Diversity was to become a tradition of the journal.
Yet this was diversity with a purpose, find the purpose was, as Harold D. Lasswell had conceived it, to promote knowledge 'of' and 'in' the policy process. Encouraging diversity, indeed, was not just a tendency of individual editors and authors, but a propensity arising from the Lasswellian approach to inquiry, which decisively shaped the formation of the journal. This propensity does not come simply from viewing the policy sciences as interdiscipli-